Unmasking AIT

[Husky]

Pure Spam.



The only half-interesting bit, if even that, is that David Anthony's spin on/injection of new (and more respectable) life to the Kurgan theory via his 2007 book on the subject not only seems to be a favourite of current IE research/directions but also a favourite of the lay IE-following in the west.

All I can think is: "Really?"





1. About the following blue bit from 452:

[quote name='Husky' date='23 May 2015 - 01:28 PM' timestamp='1432367434' post='117754']Really intriguing that less than a quarter -or possibly just no more than a 1/6th- of the Greeks' (piechart) can be explained by the 3 Bronze Age paternal lineages that are thought to emanate from the steppes. Considering that Greeks more than even the Romans are Da Definition of ancient "IE" civilisation in Europe. If they can't be significantly derived from the steppes - via the 3 Bronze Age paternal lineages identified - then, ... not really sure what it means. But then, am not sure either what these charts mean in terms of the implied "replacement" of the neolithic that was mentioned by the news item on the study and indicated in the study too. I mean, Brits show a sliver of I2 (dark green) present in far greater amounts in the Greeks sampled, and I2 is supposed to be "originated some time around 13,000-15,000 BCE", which for European dates is well into the Paleolithic.

[/quote]

My question above was how they concluded 2/3 replacement of Europe's neolithic by the 3 Bronze age paternal lines, when neolithic and even paleolithic haplogroups were detected.

I stupidly concluded each chart showed the average person from his region, say Italy, and hence wondered where the replacement was if the averaged person (in Italy) showed both Bronze age to Paleolithic haplogroups.



Can reconcile the news statement about replacement by Bronze Age lineages, if each 1/20 slice of each piechart shows the haplogroup of a single invidual sampled in the region for that pie-chart.

=> 340 individuals sampled in the study (6 or 8 were left out of the results) and 17 places in Europe and Levant means about 20 individuals per place. So each piechart slice unit of 1/20 would be representing the haplogroup of a single individual sampled in that place (?)

Because:

The piecharts shows "frequencies of Y-haplogroups", as per nature.com/ncomms/2015/150519/ncomms8152/fig_tab/ncomms8152_F1.html

Frequencies as in counts.



But if true, that makes the Greek pie-chart (and the question of any Slavic or even Albanians present among the Greeks sampled) all the more interesting. 2/3 being I2 and J2.





2. Archiving a link from 2012 which is interesting for several reasons.



librarything.com/topic/141380

"New" Indo-European Homeland Theory



(Basically, 2012 attempt at reviving Renfrew's Anatolian urheimat hypothesis)



Renfrew's Anatolian Urheimat theory - eschewing oryan invasions on Europe - nevertheless needed an oryan invasion on India and Iran to explain anything, see below. Also intriguing is how crucial the work by David W Anthony - who revised the Kurgan Urheimat to make it more acceptable to "the thinking PIE-ist" (containing slightly fewer excesses of a B fantasy movie on Oryanism) - has become to the 21st century generations of the west: everyone interested in IE-ism is swearing by the Kurgan hypothesis via Anthony's spin on it, even as they lampoon Renfrew.

Repeat: Anthony's book on the subject is exactly the one that stated that Indra (and Soma and some other features too) is not IE and hence not of PIE but is a borrowing from the locality.

9BarkingMatt

Edited: Aug 25, 2012, 4:11pm Top

> 3: Renfrew is more subtle than that. He did think dispersal of language would have something to do with migration of humans (but very gradual), and thought the best option for that was population increase because of the introduction of crop farming (neolithic evolution if you will) - and essentially that's why he starts his reconstruction in Anatolia: early agriculture plus early usage of an Indo-European language. His idea was that raising crops would have given some groups such an advantage that they would have gradually displaced earlier hunter/gatherer groups. In itself not a bad theory.



He runs into awful problems when he tries to explain the movement of Indo-European languages into the Persia and India though. Then, suddenly, he relies on conquering hordes.

(I.e. the major urheimat theories require/depend on oryan invasions into India and Iran.)



In short: I would advise you to read this book, just to take notice of an alternative theory going about. But I agree Horse, wheel, and language (=book by Anthony) makes much more sense to me too.

Anthony and his school of thought seems heavily influential and involved in the genetic studies on Steppe Oryans -> Europe. Doubtless they will likewise be of paramount importance in arguing Steppe Oryans -> Skt and Avestan in India (giving rise to Vedas) and Iran.

Any minute now.



Strange how all these lay IE-ism followers was swearing by Anthony. Here's one person's reasoning:

16Feicht

Aug 26, 2012, 7:18pm Top

Yeah, I'd love for the whole question to be wrapped up in a nice package of the languages expanding with Neolithic farming culture, but in my mind anyway, the linguistic aspect (which, in this instance, is the important one) just doesn't really allow for it. Once again, I say that Anthony is the new authority on this subject.



Of course, it's not that the Renfrew-esque "Out of Anatolia" model is irrational or anything. That distinction (IMO) lies with Alinei's "Paleolithic Continuity Model", which as I understand it relies more on genetic evidence than linguistic. But here again is the strength of Anthony's theory. It allows for the fact that there was no widespread genetic whitewashing by Indo-European interlopers, positing a gradual influx of only a relatively few individuals who didn't (generally speaking) come in search of conquest in the traditional sense. Alinei's theory sees the same genetic result, but assumes that it MUST mean that the languages of the aboriginal inhabitants were Indo-European, jumping through a variety of hoops in order to do so. To me, it's an example of trying to make the data fit the hypothesis instead of the other way around, which is flawed reasoning.

But but but but:



a. "no widespread genetic whitewashing by Indo-European interlopers, positing a gradual influx of only a relatively few individuals" <-> "Massive Migration from the steppes (into Europe)" paper. Which specifically referred to Anthony's book for the IE part of the story (and which study is affiliated with Anthony)



b. "no widespread genetic whitewashing by Indo-European interlopers, positing a gradual influx of only a relatively few individuals" <-> the study showing that ~2/3rds of paternal lineages of modern Europeans are from Bronze Age era, which was tied to the Massive Migration study to infer that maybe the lineages were from the steppes



c. "a gradual influx of only a relatively few individuals who didn't (generally speaking) come in search of conquest in the traditional sense." <-> Uh, Replacement again. Of ~2/3rds of European paternal lines.



If the results were speaking about India and not Europe, you know everyone would have been yelling invasion, nah?



As per Feicht it was Anthony's theory that claimed all the LHS of the above, and which LHS appealed to Feicht's reason (as he saw this as the "strength of Anthony's theory). Yet the 2 recent studies - RHS - don't seem to quite support Anthony's theory/the conclusions on the LHS.





Pure Spam.