On 7/10/2017 at 8:47 PM, Nungali said:O.K. I replied to this with a previous link in this thread.
No , you said Aryan meant noble ( from Arya - sanskrit ) but later ...that it was not PIE word but African .
So , are Africans Aryans now ? Or where Aryans an African incursion into India that drove the Australoids out ?
I'll repeat that link (look it up in the thread) and investigate its implications.
First of all we have this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Semitic_languages
the relevant units of comparison instead appear to be Eurasiatic and Afroasiatic, the immediate precursors of Indo-European (controversially) and Semitic (uncontroversially).
So I have established now that Minoan culture was from the original white Neolithic farmers - white skin from malnutrition - that then spread into Europe - starting in Minoan from the Near East Levant - and then later from Anatolia - but all before any "indo-european Yamnaya" invasion.
In fact - as far as Minoan could be related to Indo-European it would be Proto-Indo-European and that it now appears that Southern European "Indo-European languages" are from not the same source as the Yamnaya Indo-European languages.
So now we have established an older "advanced civilization" of pre-Aryan - not even "proto-Aryan" - would could possible say "proto-Indo-European" but more likely we should say Afroasiatic or Eurasiatic language. https://www.quora.com/Is-Minoan-Linear-A-a-Proto-European-language-or-does-it-come-from-Asia-Africa-or-a-mixture-of-all-three
I'm with Cyrus Gordon, Linear A probably does encode a language in the Afro-Asiatic family.
Right. And so the debate gets intense about Minoan language - since Minoans were early immigrants of the first monocultural malnutrition wheat (white skinned) farmers: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04/minoans-in-ancient-canaan.html
agriculture did not originate in eastern Anatolia (look e.g. at Fig. 1 of the Gignoux et al. paper you just posted). Thus, with due respect, in my opinion, the languages I listed above from the Levant and western Anatolian/Caucasus/Euphrates-Tigris and beyond are more pertinent to the discussion than some hypothetical, undocumented early PIE in western Anatolia. ... early Anatolian languages most likely originated from the LGM refugia that most profited from early serial foraging and domestication. I see that origin in the east and south - not in west Anatolia.
So - we are talking after 20,000 years ago....
Tyrrhenian is a much more likely a candidate for being related to Linear A/ Minoan/ Eteo-Cretan. ... The core lexicon of Linear A/ Minoan/ Eteo-Cretan is purely non-IE. The structure of the words...morphologically, typologically, syntactically...it is at its core non-IE. The connections to Tyrrhenian are far stronger than those to Indo-European. ... Hattic is the first known language of Anatolia that we have record of and it is CLEARLY NOT Indo-European. ... Western Anatolia was also home to Etrusco-Lemnian (Tyrrhenian)...NOT AN Indo-European Language family.
So then the proto-Indo-Iranian (Aryan) is from the steppes chariot culture that is later.
So then the Proto-Indo-European is an older farming language that developed into a chariot language as well:1 of the flaws of the pontic steppes theory is that the old toponyms of the pontic steppes region are indo-iranian and not proto indo-european
Aratta was located near the Caspian Sea, in the vicinity of Lake
Urmia. This is approximately the area we propose as the Proto-Indo-European homeland"
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-origins-of-proto-indo-european.htmlthere were languages and cultures present in Anatolia before IE showed up and that the invaders...in this case...the Anatolian IE's picked up traces of culture and language from the non-Indo-Europeans that preceded them.
To me, the Anatolian IE's seem to migrate in from the north either via the Caucasus or the Balkans. I doubt it is from the west...as there are few if any Aegean loan words present in the substrates of the best attested Anatolia IE language, Hittite.
Evidence will be presented to demonstrate that Proto-Indo-European is the result of the imposition of a Eurasiatic language — to use Greenberg’s term — on a population speaking one or more primordial Northwest Caucasian languages.
Right so we have Eurasiatic as the older origin of Proto-Indo-European and Afroasiatic as the older origin of Minoan.
So the Eurasiatics are "Eastern Hunter Gatherers" originally - again just after 20,000 years ago.
the "Eurasiatic" Pre-Proto-Indo-Europeans are EHG from the steppe, not farmers from Afghanistan. ... PPIE came from Central Asia, and then PIE developed in Eastern Europe near the North Caucasus.
Hattic is thought to have been related to Northwest Caucasian languages, no?
If Indo European is the result of an EHG language intruding onto a Northwest Caucasian language, could Hittite and the Anatolian branch of IE be the result of a separate but equivalent mixing?
It would reconcile the evidence for the Anatolian hypothesis into the Steppe hypothesis rather elegantly. Hittite would be the most diverged Indo European language because it would actually be the result of an EHG language on to a separate but related branch of NW Caucasian languages.
EHGs indeed have (North) Central Asian ancestors but they brought ANE to far eastern Europe without carrying any ENF and this migration happened more than 10000 years ago. EHGs represent the paternal ancestry of PIEs and certainly spoke Proto-PIE so if we go enough back in time the very distant ancestor of PIE was spoken in Central Asia/Siberia for sure.
Right so after 20,000 years ago but more then 10,000 years ago.
And hence the overlap between Afro-Asiatic and Indo-European language:The point here is that a linguistics paper identifies two main groups that made up the Proto-Indo-Europeans in Eastern Europe: a North Eurasian group and a North Caucasian group.
This gels very nicely with the ancient DNA results we've seen to date.... The North Eurasian Eurasiatics identified by Bomhard are obviously EHG foragers carrying R1. These are the people who imposed themselves on a North Caucasian substrate population somewhere near the North Caucasus to create the Proto-Indo-Europeans.
for instance the number seven with this he also demonstrates that there is a rich comparative material showing that all seven first numbers are common between Indo-European and Semitic!
The creation of Indo-European languages came later:
The mixing process between the Georgian or Armenian-like population and EHG started around 5,000 BCE, during the Khvalynsk period or before.
That means the relevant migrations had to have happened earlier, because different human groups don't just start mixing when they meet.
So where in any of the data are you seeing a migration here from Central Asia 5,000 BCE or later?
There's nothing like that in any of the data. All I'm seeing is mixing between Eurasiatic EHG and Northwest Caucasians.
I think the Northwest Caucasian speakers were women from the Caucasus and surrounds who brought those Near Eastern mtDNA lineages to the steppe (via female exogamy).
Again hence the semitic and Indo-European linguistic connections.
R1a is an EHG marker.
in comparison to Eurasiatic - we have AFroasiatic:
Today we have DNA analyses that have exposed the great migrations of people. In the past of this time frame little or no East-African DNA travelled to Southwest Asia. Some was found in Egypt and Yemen but in both cases, it is clear that this DNA travelled recently, mainly in the last three thousand years. The reverse however is true. South-West Asian DNA came to East and Central Africa spread quickly to West Africa.