Post 3
^ Previous 2 posts on the topic: "SINTASHTA CARTS expressly NOT CHARIOTS: Littauer & Crouwel 1996 disproved Anthony 1995 fraud. No new evidence. How chariotless Sintashta=Indo-Iranian?"
This post is NOT for Indian IEists, especially not the steppist subset. They may re-read Anthony and the like and be content.
------------------------
(1) Some other relevant stuffs that naturally bypassed IIEists (Anthony type books are at their level - it's called confirmation bias). But the next are on a matter that all heathens of the subcontinent (i.e. HindOOs) should read up on and should pursue as points for further enquiry to better understand the viability for steppism in particular, but also IEism in general.
Margalit Finkelberg's works on Anatolian and Greek (I surmised that her field includes the history of the Aegean, as well as Ancient Greek, and the "Anatolian branch of IE languages")
She argues that the pre-Greeks were Indo-Europeans: IIRC, that Minoans were Indo-European and spoke Anatolian. This has very real genetic implications and doesn't bode well for steppism based on the data we have (Harvard itself and its eager parrots have assured us that Minoans were practically absent of steppe), though I'm sure that steppists will try something or other to twist it all into deriving from the steppe some day, and that the usual forgers will fudge the existing data somehow, or failing that - a more usual recourse - to suppress in toto such works as Finkelberg's where possible and dismiss where needed, with arguments like "we know that India has lots of steppe input, therefore AIT, which means therefore steppe IE, which means therefore Minoan is not IE and therefore Finkelberg's research disqualified" circular reasoning. Except steppe IE let alone PIE does not actually logically follow in that sequence, but they'll repeatedly state this illogical sequence in the hope that it will stick and become perceived truth.
- M. Finkelberg paper, "The Language of Linear A: Greek, Semitic, or Anatolian?", 2001 or 2000
Just scroll down to read: academia.edu/24273902/The_Language_of_Linear_A_Greek_Semitic_or_Anatolian
Short yet decisive paper, like the best of them. Wherein Finkelberg quite conclusively demonstrates that Minoan (written in Linear A) is.... [b]an Anatolian language, i.e. Indo-European.[/b]
Hindoos must not allow others to talk past or over or around this: Let the author's arguments be disproven before anyone continues to claim otherwise or attempts to move past the point.
- Book Margalit Finkelberg, "Greeks and Pre-Greeks: Aegean Prehistory and Greek Heroic Tradition" (2005), Cambridge University Press
Download as PDF (2006): dinitrandu.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Greeks-and-Pre-greeks.pdf
Info: cambridge.org/core/books/greeks-and-pregreeks/095AFB854C7EE4C0A6F32C06EBCA8F03
- M. Finkelberg, "Anatolian Languages and Indo-European Migrations to Greece" (1997), The Classical World
academia.edu/21280539/Anatolian_Languages_and_Indo_European_Migrations_to_Greece
Steppists just ignore Finkelberg's arguments and people will then assume that this means Finkelberg's disproven. But types like Anthony and his Sanskrit translator Doniger and Witzels are not at the same level, let's face it. First, Finkelberg is an actual researcher and academic, not a fraud and forger like Anthony and Doniger (Mair and countless other repeat offenders of steppist fame).
Also, Finkelberg has come up with how to solve Linear A identification, not merely exercising linguistics like Witzels nor doing Witzel's airy-fairy stuff like the hocus-pocus of reconstructing the religions or cultures or whatever of Laurasia and Gondwana (IIRC Elst reviewed Witzel's foray into that new-ageism).
The following explains why Finkelberg's findings on Minoan being a clearly Anatolian language based on the evidence are very relevant to the steppist theory (i.e. the steppe PIE homeland theory) and actually even the steppe-origin AIT:
adnaera.com/2019/01/10/minoan-horses-and-other-bullshit-open-thread/
(2) Again: To Hindoos, i.e. Hindu heathens, read the above and ignore IIEists prancing about promoting the low-brow works by Anthony and such.
On another matter, but relevant to steppe AIT, here follows a pre-print from as recently as November 2020 arguing that the steppes were the source of Finno-Ugric (FU) and that IE was not originally native to the steppes.
The authors even use the earlier aDNA results from the Damgaard paper to rule out the steppes' relevance to (IE in) India, and consequently to PIE, and that is actually part of their argument for why the steppes may then have been the origins of FU rather than IE instead.
[Note that this pre-print came out months after the July 2020 pre-print that found the usual Z93/subbranches in Fatyanovo that were already known to be common in steppe kulturs. Non-steppist IIEists, who hold to IE migrating into India from Caucasus/Iran/BMAC, still point out that the L657 subbranch of Z93 - a common R1a Hg in India - remains to be found on the steppes. I ceased to be convinced of the relevance of Z93 and R1a in general some years back when I thought through possible repercussions of Sintashta > Scythian > Proto-Turkic > Turkic, besides realising that it wasn't answering actual questions and only led to bad cases of circular reasoning.]
biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.02.364521v1
The authors above are kind enough to somehow come up with a convoluted theory that allows a non-IE steppe to be adopted into IE, the steppes thus becoming IEised earlier than whatever date or literary tradition for which is there evidence for any actual "IE" language in NE/NW Europe. But since they think the aDNA results from the Indian subcontinent are a significant argument to ruling out steppe as IE homeland, it is because they think steppe AIT isn't supported based on the subcontinent's aDNA results (and Anatolia).
That means even if they're arguing for a Near Eastern PIE homeland again, it is closer to Renfrew's first model (who argued that IE entered directly from some Near Eastern origin - specifically an Anatolian origin in Renfrew's argument - to India; not his second model of IE from Anatolia to steppe and from steppe to India.) Indians have little enough BMAC, such that that didn't help many people's theories about the BMAC as a source or stepping stone for IE into India. And Indians don't have much Anatolian, so some other Near Eastern source may now be meant than the Anatolia of Colin Renfrew's model. Perhaps their preferred urheimat has moved to Sarianidi's model, but the claimed paucity or even lack of BMAC ancestry in Indians is still an impediment to that too.
What's most relevant to Hindoos in this pre-print reviewing the extant aDNA data as at Nov 2020, is that the authors are predicating their argument significantly on finding that the steppe is not the source of IE in the Indian subcontinent. Read between the lines: the authors don't find the aDNA results thus far convincing for the case of steppe AIT for India. Meaning: Hindoos should not roll over to/be intimidated by IIEists who project steppe AIT as convincing and practically settled. It ain't. I still think Littauer in combination Finkelberg as the more convincing in having overturned the steppe's relevance to IE in general (which very probably didn't speak IE until possibly the Scythians, IMO):
[color="#0000FF"]- Finkelberg has shown[/color] from Linear-A analysis that the very non-steppe Minoans spoke Anatolian IE, and that Greek overlays an IE pre-Greek substratum. The Mycenaeans, despite their relatively minor bit of steppe (setting off the steppists' jubilation), were largely genetically similar to Minoans otherwise. So the large similarity of non-steppe ancestry between the two can rather be argued as a genetic IE similarity, or at any rate rules out the steppe's relevance to Greek and Anatolian. Minoan genetics itself as non-steppe was made into a closed case/argued as settled by none other than hardcore steppists: they can't open the book they slammed shut. So again: since Minoans spoke IE after all, as did Mycenaeans, and since it is the steppe that is minor in Mycenaeans and non-existent in Anatolian speaking Minoans, then it follows that their non-steppe shared genetic heritage (a.o.t. Mycenaeans' differentiating steppe acquisition) ought to become relevant for identifying authentically IE genetic ancestry.
[color="#0000FF"]- Next, from the chariot experts Littauer & Crouwel (1996), we know[/color] the evidence of the two wheeled imprints from Sintashta is sufficient to be most positive and insistent that Sintashta never had chariots. All evidence of actual chariots on the steppe are from much later, and well after other populations (non-steppe) long had the true chariot. For years steppists had parroted that the key if not clinching evidence for steppe AIT was the since falsified "Vedic dadhyanch muni horse-head burial in the steppe", which was exposed by other archaeologists and fell through. Steppists then shifted to arguing that Sintashta was homeland of the true chariot, and it was steppists who then argued that the true chariot was intimately tied to Indo-Iranian (I-Ir). But turns out Sintashta had no chariots of any kind - in fact Sintashtans were so incompetent they only managed to create 2 wheelers that would pathetically shatter on impact. By their own idiocy in predicating true chariots to I-Ir ethnogenesis/homeland, steppists' choice of Sintashta turned into a miserable failure and ruled itself out. More fool them. What this means is that the moment Sintashta became incapable of chariots, wherever the R1a/Z93 in India may be from became actually and utterly irrelevant for Vedic religion, Samskritam and therefore the topic of IEism in India, whether it invaded in droves at the right time and place for steppe AIT or trickled in at the wrong times and only made a splash as late as the Shakas to notably the Turkics (dark age Ghazis invaders who ended buried in the NW of the subcontinent carried Z93 > Z94 and lots of Sintashta derived steppe, and notably had large Identical-By-Descent segments in common with Khans of Afganistan and Pakistan, as shown by Pathans who did the analysis. So this explains some chunk - at minimum - of their steppe ancestry already.) So wherever steppe (and any R1a derived from there) in India came from - whether it's dollops or trickles doesn't matter - this got divorced from the question of whether Vedic religio and lingo is indigenous. But whatever the case, they certainly ain't from Sintashta as per steppists' own bad gamble on Anthony's terrible skills in forging evidence for steppism (since Sintashta's two-wheelers were specifically not chariots, the last underpinning for I-Ir culture). Sintashtans did not know of what steppists themselves insisted was the mainstay of I-Ir kultur: they didn't invent chariots, they didn't even possess it.
And so Littauer & Crouwel killed Sintashta and its derivatives as I-Ir homeland. No one before this kultur on the steppes, let alone their genetic ancestors in Europe, had the chariot (we know this, as Sintashta was proclaimed the first to have chariots, though it turned out they never had it). So since no part of early steppe kulturs had chariots, none of them were the I-Ir homeland. Again, by steppists' own logic.
To be able to reliably bank on aDNA results, need samples from early cultures *known* to be IE speaking. This aint't the steppes or even early NW/NE Europe (let's be honest, no one knows what they/their Corded Ware Culture derived forbears spoke, language there was documented much later; and the high steppe derived non-IE Basques preclude the steppist assumptions). aDNA from the steppes only leads to bad circular reasoning and was a red herring - besides a mine of dishonesty and forgeries to wade through.
Again, you need aDNA from Greeks, Romans, Hindus (all sadly cremating groups, Mittani too I think; but great store is set by the gold masked burials said to be Greek elites). Hittite results are argued this way and that as suits the steppist or other IIEist theories; so too are most ancient Anatolian results. They can argue away Iranians in the same way, but at least they exposed bodies of the dead. On the other hand, the volatile islamic Middle-East blows evidence up, so that may not prove helpful. "Indian" Buddhists bury, but more readily admixed since early times with foreigners especially from steppe-affected C Asia. Even steppist Europeans who insisted that Buddhist burials in Swat would be the flaming gun of "oryan steppe" AIT evidence, became quiet when the results remained ambiguous (or even not really in their favour).
The Minoans, however, whom Finkelberg showed to be IE Anatolian speakers, ended up unmistakable as far as the steppe question is concerned: unmistakably non-steppe. Steppists mistook this absence of steppe in Minoans to be in their favour, since Minoans and the language of Linear A was popularised as being non-IE and steppists banked on this being a truism, but only by suppressing wide reading of Finkelberg and the like can this facade be maintained. (Q: wonder if, to make steppism stick, Harvard will reinvent Minoans as having had steppe ancestry "after all" were they ever to read and understand the implications in Finkelberg? Because Harvard was never a paragon of honesty: it's not just picked Anthony - of all steppist choices - as the main 'archeologist' guiding their aDNA analyses and conclusions, but Harvard has had many of its own agenda driven IEist cheats throughout, not just Witzel, so it's not just a case of 'bad taste in good faith' in appointing Anthony. I rather think that it's better for Harvard aDNA studies to continue to pretend that Finkelberg etc don't exist. Like all IEist steppists, Harvard too should continue sticking to low-brow Anthony & ilk.)
HindOOs don't need to prove the status quo, just retain it until proven otherwise. But never assume the counter-position. By definition of heathen and religio being tradition, assume the received position/status quo (i.e. indigeneity of our heathen identity). You can then go the route of least effort: investigate the countless hydra heads of AIT/IEist theories to poke holes into them. By a process of elimination, you'll be left with the truth, which so far is still the status quo BTW (or at least this hasn't been disproven, so you're not dislodged from holding to indigeneity, contrary to IIEists' blaring.)
And contrary to antagonists' claims: Hindoos don't need to invent their own theory for PIEism (urheimat etc). It's not our homework to prove PIEism - any aspect of it. Proving that/urheimat is *IEists'* homework. If you can successfully keep maintaining the status quo of the indigeneity of Vedic religio hence lingo (i.e. ancestry of identity, not your genetic ancestry, as we also have "recent" E Asian etc), you can eventually declare that you don't know how "IE" languages appeared elsewhere, notably in regions like NW/NE Europe that don't have evidence of early presence of IE (also tell them it's not your homework to make their case - of IE being equally indigenous to them - for them). For all you know "IE" languages spread like the flu or covid-19: the populations who speak "IE" today or even in the bronze age or before or between may have caught onto it due to various circumstances and reasons, not necessarily genetic. (Maybe due to temporary common tongue formations that were IE.) Then say all you know is there's still been no evidence against indigeneity of Hindoo (Vedic) identity in Bharatam. And that is ALL you need to prove.
Then keep poking holes for the fun of it, or out of spite, or because there are so many holes that it is unavoidable.
There's a lot more holes to poke into steppism, but never lay out all your cards. Just lay out the public ones first and then place the others as and when needed. Again the rule of minimum effort: do the minimum that it takes to pull the rug from under the opposition's position (or break the key pillar upholding their edifice). Make other Hindoos understand just that. And if they are the kind that can and will think for themselves (compared to the countless blind followers among IIEists - what an embarrassment of posturing wannabes they are), teach such independent-thinking Hindoo heathens the same minimum-effort method of researching the feet upholding the opposition's theories and seeing whether they actually hold or not, and if not, to knock them down.
In common with missionary religions, AIT is a replacement for heathenism, it is not compatible with heathenism, no matter any claims otherwise. It will destroy heathenism. So don't do nothing. Don't expect others to do something. Do it yourself. (At least do it for yourself, even if you have given up trying to correct others or "fix" the unending yet multiplying problems plaguing India.) It ain't hard. There are more lethal holes in steppism, for instance, than you can count. Don't know yet about the Near Eastern IE theories, as steppism is the immediate obstruction in popular understanding and I only do the minimum at each stage. Also neolithic level Near Eastern theories appear less prone to supremacism, so besides not being an immediate threat they're apparently also less of a dangerous subversion. There is nothing less heathen than a supremacist. Always remember: the best men (I say men, but you know I mean women and all life forms) don't even know they're the best, the thought certainly never crosses their mind. (Possibly a key ingredient.) They just are what they are. But you don't need to be the best. This ain't a competition. You won't live to win it anyway. Your job (besides sticking to your principles so you can die with them intact) is to pass on heathenism untainted and unsubverted to the next generation and make them insubvertible. If you fail in that, you shouldn't have had children and have actually disadvantaged heathenism/heathens instead by adding to the armies of unheathens. Don't just tick of "get married, have kids" on your life list like all too many Indians do. If you choose to have kids, put in the effort to raise them heathen and immunise them against all subversions and replacements. You can't protect them from all forms of violence (chrislamania/communitwits), but if you can teach yourself to arm your mind against all subversions (i.e. to remain a heathen), you can perhaps pass the insight on how to do the same to your kids.
This post was on:
* Finkelberg proved conclusively (still uncontested/incontestible IIRC) that the language of the script of the Minoans, Linear A, was an Anatolian (i.e. Indo-European) language
* Minoans have no steppe. Meaning IE and PIE urheimat was not steppe originally
* Mycenaeans were largely Minoan genetically, with some very minor and varied steppe admixture. Minoans speaking "IE" + Mycenaeans speaking Greek ("IE") implies - by the same logic and logic level that steppists have used throughout, but with greater force - that IE was not steppe and that steppe possibly irrelevant for IE (i.e. possibly even for Greek; Greeks could just have derived from an IE population that chanced upon otherwise irrelevant steppe ancestry).
* Greeks and Pre-Greeks: Finkelberg shows IE nature of substratum. Overlaid on Anatolians
* Plus a Nov 2020 pre-print (appeared after the Z94 rich Fatyanovo paper from Jul 2020, though that apparently still hasn't even found L657 subbranch in the steppes after so many samples): Nov 2020 pre-print by Mediterranean sounding authors reviews aDNA data so far, arguing that Indian (and Anatolian) aDNA results have actually ruled out steppe kulturs' relevance to IE or at least to the PIE or late-PIE urheimat (but note: also ruled out AIT, as per the reference to Indian aDNA results in drawing this very conclusion). They argue that steppe was possibly Finno-Ugric instead, allowing the possibility that steppes may perhaps have been IE-ised eventually (though even then, the implication in the pre-print remains that the data were not found to support AIT/does not explain "IE" lingo in India)
-------------------------
This post is NOT for Indian steppists or actually any Indian IEists (IIEists).
^ Previous 2 posts on the topic: "SINTASHTA CARTS expressly NOT CHARIOTS: Littauer & Crouwel 1996 disproved Anthony 1995 fraud. No new evidence. How chariotless Sintashta=Indo-Iranian?"
This post is NOT for Indian IEists, especially not the steppist subset. They may re-read Anthony and the like and be content.
------------------------
(1) Some other relevant stuffs that naturally bypassed IIEists (Anthony type books are at their level - it's called confirmation bias). But the next are on a matter that all heathens of the subcontinent (i.e. HindOOs) should read up on and should pursue as points for further enquiry to better understand the viability for steppism in particular, but also IEism in general.
Margalit Finkelberg's works on Anatolian and Greek (I surmised that her field includes the history of the Aegean, as well as Ancient Greek, and the "Anatolian branch of IE languages")
She argues that the pre-Greeks were Indo-Europeans: IIRC, that Minoans were Indo-European and spoke Anatolian. This has very real genetic implications and doesn't bode well for steppism based on the data we have (Harvard itself and its eager parrots have assured us that Minoans were practically absent of steppe), though I'm sure that steppists will try something or other to twist it all into deriving from the steppe some day, and that the usual forgers will fudge the existing data somehow, or failing that - a more usual recourse - to suppress in toto such works as Finkelberg's where possible and dismiss where needed, with arguments like "we know that India has lots of steppe input, therefore AIT, which means therefore steppe IE, which means therefore Minoan is not IE and therefore Finkelberg's research disqualified" circular reasoning. Except steppe IE let alone PIE does not actually logically follow in that sequence, but they'll repeatedly state this illogical sequence in the hope that it will stick and become perceived truth.
- M. Finkelberg paper, "The Language of Linear A: Greek, Semitic, or Anatolian?", 2001 or 2000
Just scroll down to read: academia.edu/24273902/The_Language_of_Linear_A_Greek_Semitic_or_Anatolian
Short yet decisive paper, like the best of them. Wherein Finkelberg quite conclusively demonstrates that Minoan (written in Linear A) is.... [b]an Anatolian language, i.e. Indo-European.[/b]
Hindoos must not allow others to talk past or over or around this: Let the author's arguments be disproven before anyone continues to claim otherwise or attempts to move past the point.
- Book Margalit Finkelberg, "Greeks and Pre-Greeks: Aegean Prehistory and Greek Heroic Tradition" (2005), Cambridge University Press
Download as PDF (2006): dinitrandu.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Greeks-and-Pre-greeks.pdf
Info: cambridge.org/core/books/greeks-and-pregreeks/095AFB854C7EE4C0A6F32C06EBCA8F03
- M. Finkelberg, "Anatolian Languages and Indo-European Migrations to Greece" (1997), The Classical World
academia.edu/21280539/Anatolian_Languages_and_Indo_European_Migrations_to_Greece
Steppists just ignore Finkelberg's arguments and people will then assume that this means Finkelberg's disproven. But types like Anthony and his Sanskrit translator Doniger and Witzels are not at the same level, let's face it. First, Finkelberg is an actual researcher and academic, not a fraud and forger like Anthony and Doniger (Mair and countless other repeat offenders of steppist fame).
Also, Finkelberg has come up with how to solve Linear A identification, not merely exercising linguistics like Witzels nor doing Witzel's airy-fairy stuff like the hocus-pocus of reconstructing the religions or cultures or whatever of Laurasia and Gondwana (IIRC Elst reviewed Witzel's foray into that new-ageism).
The following explains why Finkelberg's findings on Minoan being a clearly Anatolian language based on the evidence are very relevant to the steppist theory (i.e. the steppe PIE homeland theory) and actually even the steppe-origin AIT:
adnaera.com/2019/01/10/minoan-horses-and-other-bullshit-open-thread/
Quote: ak2014b says:
12th January 2019 at 17:14
...the informative Jonathan Sherman Morris paper ââ¬ÅWheels, Languages and Bullshit (Or How Not To Do Linguistic Archaeology)ââ¬Â (2018) ingentaconnect.com/content/plg/phil/2018/00000019/00000001/art00003# that Alberto helpfully pointed out. Iââ¬â¢ve quickly skimmed the first third of that paper and several points immediately stood out, one of which was the following paragraph on p. 73,
ââ¬ÅGeorgiev nevertheless describes an Anatolian substrate in Greek toponyms detectable in the -ss- and -nd- suffixes South of Mount Pindos, but not North of it (Georgiev, 1960, pp. 285ââ¬â297). If the Anatolians really did migrate down the Balkans from North to South, the last thing one would expect to find is an east-west linguistic frontier of this kind.
This migration ostensibly makes the Anatolians latecomers to Anatolia, who fell under the influence of indigenous Hattic and Hurrian speak-ers, but the same JIES 2001 volume contains an illuminating contribution by Margalit Finkelberg (2001), who makes a persuasive case that Linear A, attested in Crete and Mycenae, is an Anatolian language. In other words, the case for a long-standing presence of Anatolian in Western Anatolia and the Aegean (where there is no evidence for Hattic or Hurrian) looks like a strong one. Her paper is not mentioned either by Anthony or by Lewis and Pereltsvaig, even though it is hard to imagine that they were unaware of it, since it is in the same volume as the Darden paper.
[Like I said, steppists - even the professional full-time steppists, not just the bloggers - are notorious for ignoring, suppressing else dismissing off-hand any arguments inconvenient to steppism. Anthony went with the first - i.e. ignoring - as he and his Harvard connections now repeatedly do with Littauer & Crouwel's expose of Anthony's non-chariots in Sintashta.]
In other words, there is good evidence for a long-standing presence of Anatolian in Western Anatolia and an expansion to the West, but none for a migration from the Pontic Steppes down the Balkans.ââ¬Å
[color="#800080"][Note the entire block italicised above is an excerpt from Sherman's "Wheels, Language and Bullshit", which despite the title is actually a scholarly sendup of that unscholarly fraud Anthony, whose work "Horse, wheel (spiel)" deserves no better review/critique title. Personally, rather than "Bullshit", I think Sherman should go with "Horse Manure", but first he may have wanted actual proof that the horses ancestral to modern horses are actually endemic and exclusively so to the steppes, something that's been repeatedly claimed but not actually shown, and not merely introduced there, say. After all, so many other steppist "truths" claimed for the steppe have turned out to be hot air and essentially forgeries. Maybe Sherman is like me and now disbelieves any claims that promote steppe PIE until verified, rather than assuming they're true until disproven.][/color]
Thereââ¬â¢s actually two or three points of interest in this very extract, but I refer particularly to how Linear A is concluded to have been an Anatolian language by Finkelberg.
The Wikipedia entry for Linear A, ââ¬ÅLinear A was the primary script used in palace and religious writings of the Minoan civilization.ââ¬Â
Anthrogenica and the rest of the genetics blogosphere have recently been insistent that Linear A is absolutely not Indo-European (and by consequence, neither the Minoans), but if Linear A turns out to have been of an Anatolian language and therefore Indo-European, then does it not have far reaching implications?
I have now been able to read the cited Margalit Finkelberg paper, The Language of Linear A: Greek, Semitic, or Anatolian? R. Drews (ed.), Greater Anatolia and Indo-European Language Family. Papers presented at a Colloquium Hosted by the University of Richmond, March 18-19, 2000. Journal of Indo-European Studies. Monograph Series 38 (Washington 2001).
academia.edu/24273902/The_Language_of_Linear_A_Greek_Semitic_or_Anatolian
Finkelbergââ¬â¢s arguments are indeed very effective and convincing.
The author has made this excellent paper available for reading. I will therefore just go over her conclusions from her findings.
For Linear A, she systematically rules out not only Greek, Semitic and Hurrian, but also Hattic and Sumerian. She then proceeds to make positive identification with Anatolian languages in specific, to be able to conclude,
ââ¬ÅIt can therefore be inferred with a considerable degree of certainty that the language of Linear A is an Anatolian language.ââ¬Â (page 95)
And after Finkelberg narrows it down even further, she is even able to reasonably surmise
ââ¬ÅThere is thus a high degree of correspondence between the phonological and morphological system of Minoan and that of Lycian. In view of this, there seems reason to conclude that the language of Linear A is either the direct ancestor of Lycian or a closely related idiom.ââ¬Â (page 98)
My request is for Finkelbergââ¬â¢s findings to be discussed by Kristiina, with her linguistic expertise, and by Frank, Rob and of course Alberto with their knowledge in archaeology and/or from their study.
If Minoan civilisation spoke a language of the Anatolian language family, and was therefore Indo-European, it opens up interesting questions related to aDNA too, which I hope will be addressed. For instance, how does Linear A as Anatolian/IE inform the results from the still limited number of Bronze Age samples from Greece? I think the Lazaridis et al 2017 paper found that Mycenaeans and Minoans significantly shared one component, and this had been argued away in the genetics blogosphere as being the non Indo-European portion of their heritage, whereas much was made of the relatively minor steppe portion that was to be exclusive to the Mycenaeans.
However, if the Minoansââ¬â¢ Linear A script points to an Anatolian language (and not any of the many non Indo-European languages and language families that were in the vicinity), then does that not rather make that part of the genetic heritage that is shared by both Minoans and Mycenaeans actually gain in relevance where Indo-European is concerned?
ak2014b says:
13th January 2019 at 18:04
A popular assumption current is that only aDNA from Anatolia that shows steppe would be truly representative of Indo-European ancestry. And with it the argument has been that it is an absolute given that Minoansââ¬â¢ Linear A is not IE and therefore Minoans are not IE, that therefore any Anatolian heritage shared with Minoans dismisses such Anatolian heritage from IE. This is why I was surprised with Finkelberg 2001, and how we donââ¬â¢t in fact know that Minoans/Linear A are not IE, and that they may in fact be IE, Anatolian in specific.
...
[color="#800080"][Actually, Finkelberg shows rather conclusively that Linear A and therefore Minoans are IE, specifically Anatolian.][/color]
Marko says:
14th January 2019 at 23:49
Regarding Mehmetââ¬â¢s comments, this is an interesting quote from Finkelbergââ¬â¢s Greeks and Pre-Greeks:
ââ¬ÅMoreover, as Onofrio Carruba has shown in a recent article, Luwian is the
only substratum language that can be traced west of a line drawn from the
Bosporus in the north to the Gulf of Alexandretta in the south, that is,
over the entire territory of Asia Minor.12 In view of these facts, it is hard
to avoid the conclusion that the orthodoxy of the non-Indo-European
pre-Hellenic substratum has lost its raison dââ¬â¢eÃâ tre.ââ¬Â
(Bear in mind that Luwian is an Anatolian language, i.e. an IE language. Meaning the pre-Hellenic substratum in Greek is noticeably or significantly or largely IE.
So say experts on Ancient Greek and Anatolian language/culture/history. (In contrast, Anthony's expertise is to defer to *Doniger* of all people for "Sanskrit" translations. And even Witzel made fun of Doniger's "expertise" in this.)
Yet arguments by actual experts like Finkelberg only get ignored by steppists, in the hopes that then they won't get heard by the populace.
So heathen Hindoos, make sure you hear it. And then when the IIEists blather - as they do - that you should read Anthony, you know exactly how "well-read" they are, and how much they can actually think for themselves, or find and look up serious published works.)
With the ancient DNA from Asia Minor accumulating, another author worth looking at might be Petra Goedegebuure. She actually bothered to learn Hattian, and her findings seem to upend long-held notions about indigenous Hattians in Anatolia: according to her there is a Luwian-like substrate in Hattian, suggesting that before the Hittites usurped Hattian power the latter subdued an Indo-European Anatolian people. This leads me to question whether it is possible that the increase in the CHG component observed in Chalcolithic Anatolia might be the signal of Hattian invaders rather than that of the Indo-Europeans as Reich and colleagues seem to believe.
(2) Again: To Hindoos, i.e. Hindu heathens, read the above and ignore IIEists prancing about promoting the low-brow works by Anthony and such.
On another matter, but relevant to steppe AIT, here follows a pre-print from as recently as November 2020 arguing that the steppes were the source of Finno-Ugric (FU) and that IE was not originally native to the steppes.
The authors even use the earlier aDNA results from the Damgaard paper to rule out the steppes' relevance to (IE in) India, and consequently to PIE, and that is actually part of their argument for why the steppes may then have been the origins of FU rather than IE instead.
[Note that this pre-print came out months after the July 2020 pre-print that found the usual Z93/subbranches in Fatyanovo that were already known to be common in steppe kulturs. Non-steppist IIEists, who hold to IE migrating into India from Caucasus/Iran/BMAC, still point out that the L657 subbranch of Z93 - a common R1a Hg in India - remains to be found on the steppes. I ceased to be convinced of the relevance of Z93 and R1a in general some years back when I thought through possible repercussions of Sintashta > Scythian > Proto-Turkic > Turkic, besides realising that it wasn't answering actual questions and only led to bad cases of circular reasoning.]
biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.02.364521v1
Quote:More rule than exception: Parallel evidence of ancient migrations in grammars and genomes of Finno-Ugric speakers
PatrÃÂcia Santos, Gloria Gonzalez-Fortes, Emiliano Trucchi, Andrea Ceolin, Guido Cordoni, Cristina Guardiano, Giuseppe Longobardi, Guido Barbujani
doi: https: // doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.02.364521
This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?].
AbstractFull TextInfo/HistoryMetrics
Preview PDF
Abstract
To reconstruct aspects of human demographic history, linguistics and genetics complement each other, reciprocally suggesting testable hypotheses on population relationships and interactions. Relying on a linguistic comparative method exclusively based on syntactic data, here we focus on the complex relation of genes and languages among Finno-Ugric (FU) speakers, in comparison to their Indo-European (IE) and Altaic (AL) neighbors. Syntactic analysis supports three distinct clusters corresponding to these three Eurasian families; yet, the outliers of the FU group show linguistic convergence with their geographical neighbors. By analyzing genome-wide data in both ancient and contemporary populations, we uncovered remarkably matching patterns, with north-western FU speakers linguistically and genetically closer in parallel degrees to their IE-speaking neighbors, and eastern FU speakers to AL-speakers. Therefore, our study indicates plausible secondary convergence in the syntax of languages of different families, providing evidence that such interference effects were accompanied, and possibly caused, by recognizable processes at the population level. In particular, based on the comparison of modern and ancient genomes, our analysis identified the Pontic-Caspian steppes as the possible origin of the demographic processes that led to the expansion of the FU into Europe.
...
As for Indo-European, despite a long tradition of studies, it is still debated whether early IE languages came into Europe from the Pontic-Caspian steppes (and spread west in the Bronze Age [24,25]) or from Anatolia (and spread with the dispersal of early Neolithic farmers [14,26]). Thus, we compared the syntax and the genomes of several AL-FU- and IE-speaking populations with the available genome-wide data, both contemporary and ancient, in the area of interest [27]. Of particular interest was one Bronze-Age population from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, the Yamnaya, the likely source of the Bronze-Age migration leading to a Westwards diffusion of DNA of Central Asian origin and, according to some authors, of IE languages in Europe [28ââ¬â30]. By contrast, a recent analysis of Asian genomes suggested that the spread of IE languages in South Asia and Anatolia may have little, if anything, to do, with migration from the Pontic-Caspian steppes [31]. An analogous uncertainty surrounds the homeland of early Uralic-speakers, whether in the river Volga basin [25] or further East, in Siberia [32].
...
The genomic similarity between the Yamnaya and the first FU speakers of Europe may be difficult to reconcile with the view that the Yamnaya were also the first who introduced IE languages in Europe, as suggested by studies of genomic, not linguistic, data [28,29]. One possibility, supported by a study of Iberia [61], is that the arrival in Europe of the Steppe genomic component did not necessarily entail the same linguistic changes in all areas. In the absence of adequate data to formally test this hypothesis, we still may speculate that the small, but non-negligible, ancestry component associated with the Anatolian Neolithic [31] among the Yamnaya may reflect previous Northward gene flow from the Near East into the Pontic steppes. If so, it would be possible to reconcile genetic evidence for the Neolithic demic diffusion from the Near East, linguistic evidence on a Near East centre of IE diffusion [14,26,31,58,62], and data suggesting a role of Yamnaya people in spreading both IE [28,29,63], and FU (this study) languages, by imagining the existence of some linguistic diversity within the Yamnaya-like populations and concluding that IE languages have entered Europe in two moments and by two routes. The first one would correspond to the main Neolithic expansion, Northwest into Southern and then Central Europe, but also North, towards the Pontic Steppes. The linguistic impact of this migration would have not been the same for all people in the Pontic steppes; some would retain their original FU languages, some would acquire an IE language. The former would then mostly move towards the Baltic and Finnish area, whereas the latter would correspond to the IE-speaking populations dispersing in Europe in the Bronze Age [29,64], giving rise to the Bell Beaker and Corded Ware cultures.
...
31. de Barros Damgaard, P., Martiniano, R., Kamm, J., Moreno-Mayar, J.V., Kroonen, G., Peyrot, M., Barjamovic, G., Rasmussen, S., Zacho, C., Baimukhanov, N., et al. The first horse herders and the impact of early Bronze Age steppe expansions into Asia. Science 2018, 360, doi:10.1126/science.aar7711.
The authors above are kind enough to somehow come up with a convoluted theory that allows a non-IE steppe to be adopted into IE, the steppes thus becoming IEised earlier than whatever date or literary tradition for which is there evidence for any actual "IE" language in NE/NW Europe. But since they think the aDNA results from the Indian subcontinent are a significant argument to ruling out steppe as IE homeland, it is because they think steppe AIT isn't supported based on the subcontinent's aDNA results (and Anatolia).
That means even if they're arguing for a Near Eastern PIE homeland again, it is closer to Renfrew's first model (who argued that IE entered directly from some Near Eastern origin - specifically an Anatolian origin in Renfrew's argument - to India; not his second model of IE from Anatolia to steppe and from steppe to India.) Indians have little enough BMAC, such that that didn't help many people's theories about the BMAC as a source or stepping stone for IE into India. And Indians don't have much Anatolian, so some other Near Eastern source may now be meant than the Anatolia of Colin Renfrew's model. Perhaps their preferred urheimat has moved to Sarianidi's model, but the claimed paucity or even lack of BMAC ancestry in Indians is still an impediment to that too.
What's most relevant to Hindoos in this pre-print reviewing the extant aDNA data as at Nov 2020, is that the authors are predicating their argument significantly on finding that the steppe is not the source of IE in the Indian subcontinent. Read between the lines: the authors don't find the aDNA results thus far convincing for the case of steppe AIT for India. Meaning: Hindoos should not roll over to/be intimidated by IIEists who project steppe AIT as convincing and practically settled. It ain't. I still think Littauer in combination Finkelberg as the more convincing in having overturned the steppe's relevance to IE in general (which very probably didn't speak IE until possibly the Scythians, IMO):
[color="#0000FF"]- Finkelberg has shown[/color] from Linear-A analysis that the very non-steppe Minoans spoke Anatolian IE, and that Greek overlays an IE pre-Greek substratum. The Mycenaeans, despite their relatively minor bit of steppe (setting off the steppists' jubilation), were largely genetically similar to Minoans otherwise. So the large similarity of non-steppe ancestry between the two can rather be argued as a genetic IE similarity, or at any rate rules out the steppe's relevance to Greek and Anatolian. Minoan genetics itself as non-steppe was made into a closed case/argued as settled by none other than hardcore steppists: they can't open the book they slammed shut. So again: since Minoans spoke IE after all, as did Mycenaeans, and since it is the steppe that is minor in Mycenaeans and non-existent in Anatolian speaking Minoans, then it follows that their non-steppe shared genetic heritage (a.o.t. Mycenaeans' differentiating steppe acquisition) ought to become relevant for identifying authentically IE genetic ancestry.
[color="#0000FF"]- Next, from the chariot experts Littauer & Crouwel (1996), we know[/color] the evidence of the two wheeled imprints from Sintashta is sufficient to be most positive and insistent that Sintashta never had chariots. All evidence of actual chariots on the steppe are from much later, and well after other populations (non-steppe) long had the true chariot. For years steppists had parroted that the key if not clinching evidence for steppe AIT was the since falsified "Vedic dadhyanch muni horse-head burial in the steppe", which was exposed by other archaeologists and fell through. Steppists then shifted to arguing that Sintashta was homeland of the true chariot, and it was steppists who then argued that the true chariot was intimately tied to Indo-Iranian (I-Ir). But turns out Sintashta had no chariots of any kind - in fact Sintashtans were so incompetent they only managed to create 2 wheelers that would pathetically shatter on impact. By their own idiocy in predicating true chariots to I-Ir ethnogenesis/homeland, steppists' choice of Sintashta turned into a miserable failure and ruled itself out. More fool them. What this means is that the moment Sintashta became incapable of chariots, wherever the R1a/Z93 in India may be from became actually and utterly irrelevant for Vedic religion, Samskritam and therefore the topic of IEism in India, whether it invaded in droves at the right time and place for steppe AIT or trickled in at the wrong times and only made a splash as late as the Shakas to notably the Turkics (dark age Ghazis invaders who ended buried in the NW of the subcontinent carried Z93 > Z94 and lots of Sintashta derived steppe, and notably had large Identical-By-Descent segments in common with Khans of Afganistan and Pakistan, as shown by Pathans who did the analysis. So this explains some chunk - at minimum - of their steppe ancestry already.) So wherever steppe (and any R1a derived from there) in India came from - whether it's dollops or trickles doesn't matter - this got divorced from the question of whether Vedic religio and lingo is indigenous. But whatever the case, they certainly ain't from Sintashta as per steppists' own bad gamble on Anthony's terrible skills in forging evidence for steppism (since Sintashta's two-wheelers were specifically not chariots, the last underpinning for I-Ir culture). Sintashtans did not know of what steppists themselves insisted was the mainstay of I-Ir kultur: they didn't invent chariots, they didn't even possess it.
And so Littauer & Crouwel killed Sintashta and its derivatives as I-Ir homeland. No one before this kultur on the steppes, let alone their genetic ancestors in Europe, had the chariot (we know this, as Sintashta was proclaimed the first to have chariots, though it turned out they never had it). So since no part of early steppe kulturs had chariots, none of them were the I-Ir homeland. Again, by steppists' own logic.
To be able to reliably bank on aDNA results, need samples from early cultures *known* to be IE speaking. This aint't the steppes or even early NW/NE Europe (let's be honest, no one knows what they/their Corded Ware Culture derived forbears spoke, language there was documented much later; and the high steppe derived non-IE Basques preclude the steppist assumptions). aDNA from the steppes only leads to bad circular reasoning and was a red herring - besides a mine of dishonesty and forgeries to wade through.
Again, you need aDNA from Greeks, Romans, Hindus (all sadly cremating groups, Mittani too I think; but great store is set by the gold masked burials said to be Greek elites). Hittite results are argued this way and that as suits the steppist or other IIEist theories; so too are most ancient Anatolian results. They can argue away Iranians in the same way, but at least they exposed bodies of the dead. On the other hand, the volatile islamic Middle-East blows evidence up, so that may not prove helpful. "Indian" Buddhists bury, but more readily admixed since early times with foreigners especially from steppe-affected C Asia. Even steppist Europeans who insisted that Buddhist burials in Swat would be the flaming gun of "oryan steppe" AIT evidence, became quiet when the results remained ambiguous (or even not really in their favour).
The Minoans, however, whom Finkelberg showed to be IE Anatolian speakers, ended up unmistakable as far as the steppe question is concerned: unmistakably non-steppe. Steppists mistook this absence of steppe in Minoans to be in their favour, since Minoans and the language of Linear A was popularised as being non-IE and steppists banked on this being a truism, but only by suppressing wide reading of Finkelberg and the like can this facade be maintained. (Q: wonder if, to make steppism stick, Harvard will reinvent Minoans as having had steppe ancestry "after all" were they ever to read and understand the implications in Finkelberg? Because Harvard was never a paragon of honesty: it's not just picked Anthony - of all steppist choices - as the main 'archeologist' guiding their aDNA analyses and conclusions, but Harvard has had many of its own agenda driven IEist cheats throughout, not just Witzel, so it's not just a case of 'bad taste in good faith' in appointing Anthony. I rather think that it's better for Harvard aDNA studies to continue to pretend that Finkelberg etc don't exist. Like all IEist steppists, Harvard too should continue sticking to low-brow Anthony & ilk.)
HindOOs don't need to prove the status quo, just retain it until proven otherwise. But never assume the counter-position. By definition of heathen and religio being tradition, assume the received position/status quo (i.e. indigeneity of our heathen identity). You can then go the route of least effort: investigate the countless hydra heads of AIT/IEist theories to poke holes into them. By a process of elimination, you'll be left with the truth, which so far is still the status quo BTW (or at least this hasn't been disproven, so you're not dislodged from holding to indigeneity, contrary to IIEists' blaring.)
And contrary to antagonists' claims: Hindoos don't need to invent their own theory for PIEism (urheimat etc). It's not our homework to prove PIEism - any aspect of it. Proving that/urheimat is *IEists'* homework. If you can successfully keep maintaining the status quo of the indigeneity of Vedic religio hence lingo (i.e. ancestry of identity, not your genetic ancestry, as we also have "recent" E Asian etc), you can eventually declare that you don't know how "IE" languages appeared elsewhere, notably in regions like NW/NE Europe that don't have evidence of early presence of IE (also tell them it's not your homework to make their case - of IE being equally indigenous to them - for them). For all you know "IE" languages spread like the flu or covid-19: the populations who speak "IE" today or even in the bronze age or before or between may have caught onto it due to various circumstances and reasons, not necessarily genetic. (Maybe due to temporary common tongue formations that were IE.) Then say all you know is there's still been no evidence against indigeneity of Hindoo (Vedic) identity in Bharatam. And that is ALL you need to prove.
Then keep poking holes for the fun of it, or out of spite, or because there are so many holes that it is unavoidable.
There's a lot more holes to poke into steppism, but never lay out all your cards. Just lay out the public ones first and then place the others as and when needed. Again the rule of minimum effort: do the minimum that it takes to pull the rug from under the opposition's position (or break the key pillar upholding their edifice). Make other Hindoos understand just that. And if they are the kind that can and will think for themselves (compared to the countless blind followers among IIEists - what an embarrassment of posturing wannabes they are), teach such independent-thinking Hindoo heathens the same minimum-effort method of researching the feet upholding the opposition's theories and seeing whether they actually hold or not, and if not, to knock them down.
In common with missionary religions, AIT is a replacement for heathenism, it is not compatible with heathenism, no matter any claims otherwise. It will destroy heathenism. So don't do nothing. Don't expect others to do something. Do it yourself. (At least do it for yourself, even if you have given up trying to correct others or "fix" the unending yet multiplying problems plaguing India.) It ain't hard. There are more lethal holes in steppism, for instance, than you can count. Don't know yet about the Near Eastern IE theories, as steppism is the immediate obstruction in popular understanding and I only do the minimum at each stage. Also neolithic level Near Eastern theories appear less prone to supremacism, so besides not being an immediate threat they're apparently also less of a dangerous subversion. There is nothing less heathen than a supremacist. Always remember: the best men (I say men, but you know I mean women and all life forms) don't even know they're the best, the thought certainly never crosses their mind. (Possibly a key ingredient.) They just are what they are. But you don't need to be the best. This ain't a competition. You won't live to win it anyway. Your job (besides sticking to your principles so you can die with them intact) is to pass on heathenism untainted and unsubverted to the next generation and make them insubvertible. If you fail in that, you shouldn't have had children and have actually disadvantaged heathenism/heathens instead by adding to the armies of unheathens. Don't just tick of "get married, have kids" on your life list like all too many Indians do. If you choose to have kids, put in the effort to raise them heathen and immunise them against all subversions and replacements. You can't protect them from all forms of violence (chrislamania/communitwits), but if you can teach yourself to arm your mind against all subversions (i.e. to remain a heathen), you can perhaps pass the insight on how to do the same to your kids.
This post was on:
* Finkelberg proved conclusively (still uncontested/incontestible IIRC) that the language of the script of the Minoans, Linear A, was an Anatolian (i.e. Indo-European) language
* Minoans have no steppe. Meaning IE and PIE urheimat was not steppe originally
* Mycenaeans were largely Minoan genetically, with some very minor and varied steppe admixture. Minoans speaking "IE" + Mycenaeans speaking Greek ("IE") implies - by the same logic and logic level that steppists have used throughout, but with greater force - that IE was not steppe and that steppe possibly irrelevant for IE (i.e. possibly even for Greek; Greeks could just have derived from an IE population that chanced upon otherwise irrelevant steppe ancestry).
* Greeks and Pre-Greeks: Finkelberg shows IE nature of substratum. Overlaid on Anatolians
* Plus a Nov 2020 pre-print (appeared after the Z94 rich Fatyanovo paper from Jul 2020, though that apparently still hasn't even found L657 subbranch in the steppes after so many samples): Nov 2020 pre-print by Mediterranean sounding authors reviews aDNA data so far, arguing that Indian (and Anatolian) aDNA results have actually ruled out steppe kulturs' relevance to IE or at least to the PIE or late-PIE urheimat (but note: also ruled out AIT, as per the reference to Indian aDNA results in drawing this very conclusion). They argue that steppe was possibly Finno-Ugric instead, allowing the possibility that steppes may perhaps have been IE-ised eventually (though even then, the implication in the pre-print remains that the data were not found to support AIT/does not explain "IE" lingo in India)
-------------------------
This post is NOT for Indian steppists or actually any Indian IEists (IIEists).