57 The Satem-Centum Error A humorous poem in German by Andis Kaulins

Dawno, dawno temu, za górami za lasami, czyli ofitzjalne pierdu pierdu…

Wg ofitzjalnego jęsykosnafztfa istniało wiele różnych dźwięków zapisywanych znakami K’, K, Kw, G’, G, Gw,.. i inne np. Gh, G’h, Gwh… Rzekomo kiedyś, gdzieś, jakoś magicznie połączyły się one, ale raz tak, a raz inaczej. No i w końcu kiedyś, gdzieś, jakoś powstały z tego połączenia albo dźwięki tzw. satem S, S’, S”; C, C’, C”, Z, Z’, Z”… i inne, jak Dz, Dz’, Dz”… albo dźwięki tzw. centum / kentum, czyli w sumie K, G,.. a czasem H

Wg niektórych ofitzjalnych jęsykosnaftzóf i większości ludzi, którzy wierzą w te prawdy ofitzjalnie objawione, to jednak postać tzw. centum / kentum była pierwotna,.. bo tak kiedyś, ktoś napisał… To nic, że tzw. rough breathing, nawet ofitzjalna definicja (UWAGA!!! Wiki nie posiada polskojęzycznej strony…)  twierdzi inaczej, patrz:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centum_and_satem_languages

(…) The table below shows the traditional reconstruction of the PIE dorsal consonants, with three series, but according to some more recent theories there may actually have been only two series or three series with different pronunciations from those traditionally ascribed. In centum languages, the palatovelars, which included the initial consonant of the „hundred” root, merged with the plain velars. In satem languages, they remained distinct, and the labiovelars merged with the plain velars.[1]

*kʷ *gʷ *gʷʰ labiovelars Merged in satem languages
Merged in centum languages *k *g *gʰ plain velars
*ḱ *ǵʰ palatovelars Assibilated in satem languages

The centum–satem division forms an isogloss in synchronic descriptions of Indo-European languages. It is not thought that the Proto-Indo-European language split first into centum and satem branches from which all the centum and all the satem languages, respectively, would have derived. Such a division is made particularly unlikely by the discovery that while the satem group lies generally to the east and the centum group to the west, the most eastward of the known IE language branches, Tocharian, is centum.[2] Each of the ten branches of the Indo-European family independently developed its status as a centum or satem language. (…)

Oni wszyscy i tak przecież fietzą swoje, bo…  (Tu zacytuję prafdzifego miszcza):

(…) poza tym nie przedstawia się dowodów na prawdziwość czegoś , co oficjalnie uznawane jest za prawdziwe (…)

 

Prafda, że bardzo głębokie? No to teraz allo-allo robaczki przełknijcie to, co także dawno temu upowszechniłem tu:

http://bialczynski.pl/2014/01/18/moloch-a-sprawa-polska-czyli-jak-z-krowy-zrobiono-w-izraelu-pozeracza-dzieci/#comment-13477


Krótko mówiąc, to gówno prawda, że tzw. centum / kentum było pierwotne lub tak czy srak wcześniejsze niż postać dźwięków tzw. satem… Było dokładnie odwrotnie i też już wielokrotnie o tym pisałem


No to teraz… miłego główkowania turbogoci, czy inni allo-allo mocarze… Podważycie to, co napisałem? Macie jeszcze jakieś jajeczka tam, czy już wszystko wam zanikło, jak kręgosłup, itp?

Ogłaszam „ofitzjalną dyspensę” dla każdego, nawet tych zepchniętych do oT+(c)HL”aNi, tak żeby sprawiedliwie każdy mógł ośmieszyć się tu ponownie z czystym kontem… 🙂

http://lexiline.blogspot.com/2010/02/satem-centum-error-der-satem-kentum.html

Saturday, November 19, 2005

The Satem-Centum Error (Der Satem-Kentum Irrtum) – A Humorous Poem by Andis Kaulins in German with English explanation – LexiLine Journal 368

The Satem-Centum Error
A humorous poem in German by Andis Kaulins

[This is the translation of the German original which is impossible
to translate in rhyme because of the word plays. The English version
is also not humorous as a result. The German original is given below
the English explanation for those of you who can read German.]

In Germany one still says „Summe” [Sum]
And Bread is placed in a „Kumme” [archaic, Bowl]
Sometimes one is „Schumme” [dialect, confused]
But does one know a „Humme”? [non-existent word]

[Explanation of the above verse: If the satem-centum shift had
actually occurred, then Kumme would be the original word which had
degraded to Summe and Humme, as also Schumme. This of course is
absurd – and did not happen. Summe [SUM] is the original S-Form. It
did not derive from a K-Form.]

Everyone counts numbers together [samt]
All added and together [sämtlich, summernd, gesamt]
To this comes a „tenth” [Zehnt]
Which longs for a hundred? [for 10 also has the root word base of 100]

[Explanation of the above verse: Many so-called „count” words have
retained their initial S-form. SUM as also the English word TEN
(German ZEHN, which is older) are examples.]

Now an English Count [word play on count] makes known [kund -a sound-
related term]
Together with his dog [Hund] on the sound [Sund, i.e. on the beach of
a bay]
That he is truly healthy [geSund]
And that is no lie! [Schund, literally, scound-relling]

[Explanation of the above verse: Latvian, i.e. proto-European SUNS,
SUNIS viz. dim. SUNITis („dog”), became German HUND and English
HOUND. So how did Germanic HUNDred come to have the same beginning
four letters as their word for dog HUND. This is because, as we see
in verses below, the old Gothic term for thousand was thuSUND and
thus SUND then also must have meant 100 at some ancient time,
degrading to HUND, viz. hundred. Based on the German ZEHN „ten”, this
too was related, i.e. ZEHNTE = „tenth”. SUND and thuSUND would thus
logicaly have been variant number forms of the same root, meaning, as
we shall see below „collection, heap”. Nothing indicates that
original forms were satem forms such as KUND or HUND. Rather, these
are later degradations of the original S-based roots.]

Ten [Zehn] the fingers on the hand [Hand]
And ten the toes for the Sand [German ZEHEN „toes” is almost
identical to ZEHN „ten”,SAND is also related, as we shall see]
He lived together in chambers [Kammen]
With wife and child together [Zu-Sammen]

[Kammen „chambers” did not give rise to „zu-Sammen” [together] but
rather the other way around. The K-Form is an application of the
concept contained in the initial S-Form word. According to the satem-
centum shift theory, KAND should have become SAND or HAND, which of
course, it did not. The origin for English HAND here is Latvian
SANITE „side” diminutive form, which became KANTE as in German „edge,
side”, and that became HAND. The linguists have no clue for the
origin of English SAND but likely is a relationship to Latvian SANEST
which means „collect” and is applied to „drifts” of sand or snow.
This idea of „collected” then of course shows that such apparently
unrelated words as SUND, SAND, SIMT, SUM are all related to an
original concept of „collected, collection, heap, sum”.]

Of course, we could see that.
So what had historically happened?

Far in the East one found the Latvians
Who place their bets at a hundred with the word SIMTS [i.e. an older
SUM word variant of SUND]
Russian STO [this is a degraded form of an original word for 100] +
German WASSER [water]
Gave the Germans Hundertwasser [„HundredWater” – a well-known artist
in Germany whose original name was Stowasser, but who Germanized his
name to Hundertwasser, which helped to make him quite famous]

But the Goths counted
So that ThuSUND were a Thousand
Which we have retained in English
as „ThouSAND” for many years.

[Explanation: The retention of THOUSAND from the older THUSUND shows
that the S-Form is original and in the word thuSUND, i.e. THOUSAND
has not changed the SUND.]

Now thought Jacob Grimm
That’s all not so bad
Just because SUND became HUND
Why should ThouSAND also?

So, he announced, that CENTUM were the Western languages
and SATEM the Eastern languages [of the Indo-European pantheon]
Concluding [erroneously]
That language came from the West!

[Explanation. In Grimm’s days, the oldest known written cultures were
Rome and Greece and of course, people then thought that language must
have originated there, rather than the East. Grimm, with more
knowledge, could just as easily have pronounced that the process of
change went from East to West and not vice versa, which would conform
to the migration patterns that modern-day scientists have worked out.
But Grimm did not have this knowledge in his day and the clueless
linguists have blindly followed him. We can excuse Grimm, as he lived
in a different age, but we can scarcely excuse the Classical Scholars
and linguists of today, many of whom have their heads in the sand
linguistically and simply ignore modern evidence that languages such
as Latvian – long unwritten – are far more archaic than ancient
written Latin or Greek.]

This pleased the Latin scholars
And Rome is a much finer place linguistically since then
Only that which was a written language can be proven
And thus is to be seen as the original source of language [for those
languages not written. This is a foolish assumption. Whether a
language becomes written or not at some point in its history has
nothing to do with its actual antiquity.]

In Athens there were feasts
Ancient Greek was celebrated
Nothing older in writing was known at that time
So, spoke Zeus, „we knew it all along”.

But of course it is undisputed
That the Grimm Brothers wrote many a myth
So one is entitled to ask
Was the previous name of the SUN actually KUN (KONNE instead of
SONNE). [Of course not.]

[Rather the fact is: The sun anciently was called:]
Latvian SAULE, Roman SOL
Greek HELIOS
So is it not curious
That no one calls the Sun KELIOS.

Still, this matter undecided
Would have remain unresolved
If we did not have Asterix
And the wild boar hunter Obelix.

Because, of all of these animals
That we domesticate today
Ever since 10 thousand years ago
Pigs have been the primary ones.

Let us take our ancient Sumerians
Thousands of years before the Romans [and thousands of years before
Latin]
The Sumerians knew the SOW as SIGGA
And also under the terms SHEG or SCHECH.

These long lost words of a dead language
Still live today because Latvian CUKA („pig”), pronounced TSUKA with
a long u) is nearly the same as Sumerian
And from this, our English word HOG has derived with the S going to H.

Thus the matter is clear.
The Satem-Centum division of the languages of Europe is a fairy tale.

[In fact, the current hypothetical Indo-European root
for „hog”, „swine” and „sow” is *sû- and it is clear that the S-Form
is the original form. See http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE507.html]

Here now is the original German poetic rhymed version. It is much
better than the English explanation above, but it can not be
duplicated in English.

„Der Satem-Kentum Irrtum”
von Andis Kaulins

Noch in Deutschland sagt man Summe
Und das Brot kommt in der Kumme
Manchmal wird man etwas Schumme
Aber kennt man eine Humme?

Jeder zählt die Zahlen samt
Sämtlich summend und gesamt
Dazu kommt noch einen Zehnt
Der wohl nach der Hundred sehnt?

Nun ein englisch „Count” tat kund
Mit dem Hund am Sund gefund’
Er sei wahrlich kern Gesund
Und dass sei doch keinen Schund!

Zehn die Finger an der Hand
Und zehn Zehen für die Sand
Lebte er in grossen Kammen
Mit der Frau und Kind zusammen.

Freilich, konnten wir dass sehen.
Was war historisch denn geschehen?

Weit im Osten fand man Letten
Die mit „simts” die Hundred wetten
Und ein russisch „sto” mit „wasser”
Gab den deutschen Hundertwasser.

Dabei zählten doch die Gothen
Dass die Thusund Tausend waren
Was in englisch dann bewahrten
Als die „thousand”, so seit Jahren.

Nun, so meinte es der Grimm
Dies sei alles halb so schlimm
Denn die Sund kam auf dem Hund
Für die Thusund, keine Grund.

Wahrlich, Kentum sei die Wessies
Und als Satem nur die Ossies
Dabei stand doch eines Fest
Dass die Sprache kam vom West!

Dies gefiel den Alt-Lateinern
Rom ist seitdem sprachlich feiner
Nur was schriftlich lies beweisen
War als Quelle zu verspeisen.

In Athen gab man sich feste
Denn Alt-Griechisch war des Beste
Älter gab es nichts bekanntes
Also, sprach der Zeus, wir ahnt es.

Dabei ist es unbestritten
Schrieb der Grimm so manche Mythen
So man gönnend fragen könne
War die Sonne früher Konne?

Lettisch Saule, Römisch Sol
Bei den Griechen Helios.
Dabei ist es kuriös,
Niemand nennt es Kelios.

Diese Sache unentschieden
Wäre lange so geblieben
Hätten wir nicht Asterix
Und der Wildschweinjäger Obelix.

Denn von allen unseren Tieren
Die wir heute domestizieren
Waren seit zehntausend Jahren
Schweine wahrlich die primaren.

Nehmen wir die Alt-Sumerer
Jahre tausend vor den Römer
Die die SAU als SIGGA kannten
und als SHEG or SCHECH noch nannten.

Diese Wörter längst verstorben
Leben weiter noch bis morgen
Lettisch CUKA (TSUKA) Sumer nähernd
Dabei Englisch „HOG” gebärend.

Somit ist die Sache klar.
Satem-Kentum ist ein Mahr.

– Andis Kaulins

Reklamy

6 thoughts on “57 The Satem-Centum Error A humorous poem in German by Andis Kaulins

  1. Lepiej poczytajcie o tym::

    http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/08/genetic-and-archaeological-continuity.html

    Saturday, August 19, 2017

    Genetic and archaeological continuity from Khvalynsk to Yamnaya

    Over a year ago, using the D-stats/nMonte method of mixture modeling (see here), I noticed that Yamnaya did not appear to be simply a two-way mixture between Eastern European and Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers (EHG and CHG, respectively), but the result of a much more complex process:

    Using the most plausible reference samples currently available – almost all of them older than Yamnaya, and thus unlikely to skew the results with Yamnaya admixture – reveals the following models for the two Yamnaya sets from Kalmykia and Samara, respectively.

    Yamnaya_Kalmykia
    Khvalynsk 57.7
    Kotias 28.3
    Hungary_EN 12.9
    Ulchi 1.1
    AfontovaGora3 0
    Anatolia_Neolithic 0
    Karelia_HG 0
    Loschbour 0
    MA1 0
    Motala_HG 0

    distance%=1.9125 / distance=0.019125

    Yamnaya_Samara
    Khvalynsk 56.75
    Kotias 26.4
    Hungary_EN 10.85
    Karelia_HG 4.4
    Loschbour 1.6
    AfontovaGora3 0
    Anatolia_Neolithic 0
    MA1 0
    Motala_HG 0
    Ulchi 0

    distance%=2.1354 / distance=0.021354

    Very interesting but hardly surprising. Essentially what we’re seeing there is potentially very strong genetic continuity from the Eneolithic to the Early Bronze Age on the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. In other words, from Khvalynsk to Yamnaya.

    However, at some point between the Eneolithic and the Early Bronze Age, the steppes saw a major influx of extra CHG, represented by the ~27% of Kotias-related admixture. Considering the relevant uniparental data, with lots of Y-HG R1b and no Y-HG J among Yamnaya males, I’d say this CHG came with women.

    Also, the relatively high admixture related to early Hungarian Plain farmers (Hungary EN) is a fairly curious detail that has not been reported before. If real, it probably represents gene flow from the Neolithic and/or Chalcolithic Balkans to the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. Again, in all likelihood it mostly came with women, perhaps from Tripolye-Cucuteni and/or Varna communities.

    The reason I mention this now is because I can reproduce basically the same model using the updated qpAdm methodology described recently in Lazaridis et al. 2017, which relies on a relatively large number (≥16) of ancient genomes/populations as outgroups (see here), and, in my experience, causes many formerly successful models to fail miserably (P-value dives from >0.05 to <0.05). Note that in my dataset Khvalynsk is now labeled Samara_Eneolithic, Kotias as CHG, and Hungary_EN as Hungary_N.

    Yamnaya_Kalmykia
    CHG 0.334±0.044
    Hungary_N 0.115±0.031
    Samara_Eneolithic 0.550±0.032
    P-value 0.419775785
    chisq 13.368
    Full output

    Yamnaya_Samara
    CHG 0.267±0.040
    Hungary_N 0.130±0.027
    Samara_Eneolithic 0.603±0.030
    P-value 0.300777879
    chisq 15.106
    Full output

    Here’s a formerly successful model in which Steppe_EMBA (a grouping which includes Afanasievo, Poltavka, Russia_EBA and Yamnaya) is posited as a mixture between EHG and Chalcolithic farmers from the Zagros Mountains in what is now Iran. It clearly fails when I use CHG as one of the outgroups.

    Steppe_EMBA
    EHG 0.544±0.020
    Iran_ChL 0.456±0.020
    P-value 0.00279643007
    chisq 31.553
    Full output

    vs.

    Steppe_EMBA
    CHG 0.310±0.034
    Hungary_N 0.121±0.023
    Samara_Eneolithic 0.568±0.025
    P-value 0.50194795
    chisq 12.316
    Full output

    Now, tight statistical fits are great, but they don’t always reflect reality, especially when fine scale genetic structure is being tested. So does my model have any support from archeology? In other words, does archaeological data show continuity between Khvalynsk and Yamnaya (Pit-Grave culture)? According to Morgunova and Turetskij 2016 it does. Emphasis is mine:

    Abstract: The aim of the paper is to provide the research results concerning the Pit-Grave culture sites of the south Ural region, which is a part of the Volga-Ural interfluve. The Pit-Grave culture developed mostly out of the Khvalynsk Eneolithic culture at the turn of the 5th–4th millennium cal BC. People of the Sredny Stog and forest-steppe Eneolithic cultures from the Middle Volga region also influenced the Pit-Grave culture. The paper considers the radiocarbon data (more than 120 dates), specifies the periodization of the Pit-Grave culture of the Volga-Ural interfluve, singles out the three stages of its development. The chronology of the culture is determined 3900–2300 cal BC. The authors provide new information about the Pit-Grave economy. Paleopedology, palynology, anthropology, metallography, ceramic technical, and technological analyses were used together with archaeological methods to make a more detailed description of the culture.

    A number of steppe Eneolithic features remained at the Repin stage. The cultural continuity between the Pit-Grave, Khvalynsk, and Sredny Stog Eneolithic cultures was proved by the following features: skeletons in crouched supine position with bent legs to the left or to the right, heads at the eastern sector of burials, ochre coverage with high or low density, multiple burials, egg-shaped ceramics with neck and crushed shell impurity. Technical and technological analysis of pottery was another evidence demonstrating the pottery continuity between the Khvalynsk and Repin traditions (Vasilyeva 2002; Salugina 2005). Big soil burial grounds were substituted by individual burials under the barrow. The spread of local production copper articles was a distinctive feature of the Pit-Grave culture. This was the phenomenon, which archaeologists consider to be the beginning of the Early Bronze Age in steppe of Eastern Europe.

    Morgunova N. and Turetskij M., Archaeological and natural scientific studies of Pit-Grave culture barrows in the Volga-Ural interfluveEstonian Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 20, Issue 2, doi: 10.3176/arch.2016.2.02

    Polubienie

    • Będzie z tego cały nowy wpis, a tymczasem tu uwalany jest rzekomy pra-kartwelski podkład w tzw. PIE!!! Bomhard i jego pra-kartwelskie pomysły to może być tak jak twierdziłem już od dawna TYLKO KOLEJNE ZAPOŻYCZENIA OD-PRA-SŁOWIAŃSKIE!!!

      George Okromchedlishvili said…
      Yo guys, you do realize that Kartvelian is not a very ancient language family? At least in the Caucasus. It probably dates to something like 4000-45000 years there – hardly more. And have a look at its homogeneity – there are only four languages with only one of them being really super-divergent (Svan). lazy and Mingrelian are like Russian and Ukranian while Georgian and the former two – like German and English. MEANWHILE East Caucasus has NEC family that features tons of languages that are on Italic-Slavic level of difference. Srsly the common ancestor for those is estimated to have been spoken not earlier than like 6 thousand years ago

      August 21, 2017 at 11:44 PM

      Ebizur said…
      I think most people are aware of the fairly low internal diversity of the extant Kartvelian languages. However, the fact that an extant group of languages or dialects has low internal diversity is not evidence that that language has been introduced recently from a territory external to its present range; one dialect may have simply expanded over the whole of the present territory of the language while assimilating or replacing more divergent but related dialects that are now not clearly recognizable as containing some deeply divergent elements (in the case of assimilation) or extinct (in the case of replacement). Dravidian, Japonic (Japanese-Ryukyuan), and Basque languages are other examples that could be listed alongside Kartvelian. The Eskimo languages may have a similar history (recent expansion of one dialect mainly at the expense of divergent but related dialects that are now extinct), but in their case there was also the Aleut language isolated in the Aleutian Islands to hint at a presence of the ancestor of the Eskimo languages in the general region prior to the recent expansion of the Inuit languages/dialects.

      The fact is that a recent common ancestor of any extant linguistic group only provides a possibility of a recent introduction from a faraway land; it does not provide proof of such.

      August 22, 2017 at 12:12 AM

      Polubienie

      • Tu kolejny dowód, że tzw. j. gruziński, czyli jeden z tzw. j. kartwelskich NIE MA ODMIAN, więc… NIE MUSIAŁ WPŁYNĄĆ NA JĘZYK PRA-SŁOWIAŃSKI… i RÓWNIE PRAWDOPODOBNIE MOGŁO BYĆ TAK, ŻE TO JĘZYK PRA-SŁOWIAŃSKI WPŁYNĄŁ NA JĘZYK PRA-KARTWELSKI!!!

        Język polski oczami Gruzinek

        Gruziński po polsku
        Opublikowany 9 wrz 2017

        Filmik o tym, jak się uczyłyśmy polskiego, co nam sprawiło trudność, a co zaskoczyło. Miłego oglądania 🙂

        Polubienie

        • Co to za język ten gruziński?!

          Gruziński po polsku
          Opublikowany 22 lip 2017
          Adminki waszego ulubionego fanpejdźa, ktorego i tak nie polubicie, mówią o ich języku ojczystym, czyli o gruzińskim. 🙂

          Animal Instync
          2 months ago (edited)
          Różnica w j. Polskim między Ch a h. Ż a rz kiedyś istniała. Te wasze harkanie to właśnie H. Gardłowe Ch. Rz kiedyś wypowiadane było jak w tureckim iyiaksamlar na końcu zdania. Na przestrzeni wieku te dźwięki umarły. Ale zachowały się w zapisie. Sporo Polaków też tego nie rozróżnia a piszą poprawnie bo słownik w Firefox czy smartfonie poprawia 

          Inez Klara
          2 months ago
          iyiaksamlar, odsluchałam z ciekawości w internetach jak to się wymawia po turecku.czyli to „rz” było kiedyś wymawiane jak takie delikatne,prawie nieme „r”? :)

          Polubienie

  2. Inna ciekawostka:

    http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/08/so-far-so-good-for-kurgan-hypothesis.html

    Friday, August 18, 2017

    So far so good for the Kurgan hypothesis

    This is basically what I’m seeing in the ancient DNA published to date. Thus, the Kurgan hypothesis or steppe theory, which, of course, posits that the Proto-Indo-European homeland was on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, is looking really good at this stage. Indeed, unless there are some ancient DNA shocks on the way from, say, Anatolia or the Caucasus, that might buck the trend, then this one’s in the bag.

    See also…

    A Bronze Age dominion from the Atlantic to the Altai

    A homeland, but not the homeland #2

    The Out-of-India Theory (OIT) challenge: can we hear a viable argument for once?

    Late PIE ground zero now obvious; location of PIE homeland still uncertain, but…

    Posted by Davidski 51 comments: 

    Blogger EastPole said…
    @ Davidski
    J-civilisation was also expansive and influenced many areas in Europe, Asia and Africa, see black arrows:

    If your model of two civilizations correlating with hg. J (black) and R1 (red) is true then this will put into question many linguistic and religious reconstructions.

    Linguistic or religious elements reconstructed as common for example to Italy, Greece, Anatolia, Iran and India but absent among Slavs may belong to the heritage of J-civilization and not R1- civilization and thus may not be Indo-European.

    Under the circumstances we cannot be sure what kind of religion Dumezil reconstructed, i.e. what in his reconstruction comes from R1-civilization and is IE, and what from J-civilization and is not-IE.

    Even if some theonyms, like for example Dionysus and Soma, have Slavic etymology only those element of the Dionysus/Soma cult which are common to Vedic Arians, Hellenes and Slavs can be securely assigned as IE and those which are not common and can be found in Africa and among Dravidians are not IE

    August 19, 2017 at 3:31 AM

    Blogger Jijnasu said…
    @eastpole
    While there the bronze age was characterised by movements of people from the steppe, largely carrying R1 lineages into territories occupied by farmer groups, many of who carried lineage J it isn’t meaningful to identify them as ‚two civillizations or cultural entities’. Most of the farmer groups were highly divergent, having separated several millenia before prior to the neolithic. The creation of a ‚proto-indo-european’ cultural group likewise involved influences from the farming groups of the caucasus and those in eastern europe. Also the proto-indo-europeans likely already had some degree of cultural and linguistic variations within their geographical range. Indo-Iranians for example share some cultural/linguistic commonalities with the greeks who likely occupied the SE part of the homeland and some with the Slavs who occupied the North. Some commonalities were created through later interactions. Some Indic features shared by greek might actually have involved a complex chain of transmission via hurrians and anatolian speakers.

    August 19, 2017 at 4:06 AM

    Blogger EastPole said…
    @Jijnasu
    “Indo-Iranians for example share some cultural/linguistic commonalities with the greeks who likely occupied the SE part of the homeland and some with the Slavs who occupied the North.”

    What I am saying is that we cannot be sure about it anymore.

    I am using the term ‘civilization’ in a very general and speculative sense, meaning something common based on religion and culture like we can speak about influences of Christian civilization or Islamic civilization.

    Because Mycenaeans look like indoeuropeized Minoans and Minoans look like Anatolians, surely their language, religion and culture is a mix of influences of ‘J-civilization’ and ‘R1-civilization’.

    I suspect that the same will be discovered in India where Vedic Aryans will look like indoeropeized locals who had strong links with ‘J-civilisation’ (If Davidski’s model is true).

    Under such circumstances everything is possible and generally accepted linguistic and religious reconstructions may not be entirely true, i.e. complexity of interactions and influences may be much greater than it has been assumed.

    August 19, 2017 at 4:51 AM

    Jijnasu said…
    The evolution of mythology/religion/ethnic identity etc. is far too complex to be explained on the basis of population genetics. While language is usually transmitted to a toddler through his parents, the same can hardly be said about religion. While the slavic males may predominantly be r1a, they owe close to half their ancestry to Neolithic Farmers too. There’s nothing to prevent their mythology having been influenced by such groups too. While ‚christian civillization’ or ‚islamic civillisation’ are the products of literate societies that were born around a millennium and a half a go, any hypothesized ‚J civillisation’ would mean implying some sort of cultural continuity over 1000s of miles in a pre-literate era oweing to common ancestry over 10,000 years before.

    August 19, 2017 at 6:42 AM

    Blogger Singh said…
    @EastPole

    „I suspect that the same will be discovered in India where Vedic Aryans will look like indoeropeized locals who had strong links with ‘J-civilisation’.”

    That is very unlikely. Here is why.

    We can clearly see a cline in South Asians : steppe-rich Kalash, Brahmin, GujaratiA form a cline on one side. While Iran_Neolithic rich- groups Baloch and Brahui form a distinct cline, very West-Asian shifted.

    Above chart is Razib Khans analysis. Vedic people more of less, will be similar to steppe-rich Indo-Aryan groups. While Iran_Neolithic-rich could be pop’ who introduced wheat farming to South Asia.

    When it comes to Y-DNA J in South Asia, (most of it is Y-DNA J2*). It is more common in Dravidian speakers than in Indo-European speakers. That itself says a lot.

    August 19, 2017 at 9:37 AM

    Blogger Singh said…
    Simply based on farming pattern, I believe IVC will turn out to be Iran_Neo + ASI. Iran_Neo-rich groups introducing wheat farming and ASI-rich groups introducing rice farming = forming Proto-IVC people.

    Recent study about farming pattern in IVC, J.Bates et al (2016)

    „Indus populations were the earliest people to use complex multi-cropping strategies across both seasons, growing foods during summer crops : rice, millet, urad and horsegram and winter crops : wheat, barley and pulses, which required different watering regimes. The findings suggest a network of regional farmers supplied assorted produce to the markets of the civilisation’s ancient cities.

    We found evidence for an entirely separate domestication process in ancient South Asia, likely based around the wild species Oryza nivara. This led to the local development of a mix of ‚wetland’ and ‚dryland’ agriculture of local Oryza sativa indica rice agriculture before the truly ‚wetland’ Chinese rice, Oryza sativa japonica, arrived around 2000 BC,”

    Most contemporary civilisations initially utilised either winter crops, such as the Mesopotamian reliance on wheat and barley, or the summer crops of rice and millet in China – producing surplus with the aim of stockpiling

    However, the area inhabited by the Indus is at a meteorological crossroads, and we found evidence of year-long farming that predates its appearance in the other ancient river valley civilisations.”

    Below is Razib Khan’s analysis of Iran_Neolithic ratio in South Asians.

    Apart from Makrani and Baloch, We can see Dravidian groups like Mala, Vishwabrahmin, Brauhai make it to the top with higher ratio of Iran_Neo ancestry. But, steppe-rich Indo-Aryans Kalash, Brahmin, GujratiA have less Iran_Neo and are at the bottom.

    August 19, 2017 at 10:14 AM

    Blogger Rami said…
    @ Singh the Kalash have the most Iran_N ancestry , after Baloch/Brahui , and they have the most Steppe Ancestry in region. I would infer the same for other upper castes living in the Northern Indus-Gangetic delta (Jats, Arains, Khatris, Brahmins) , and based of the models I have seen others do, they do come out with mainly Iran_N. Razib is right on his hunch on Steppe ancestry being overestimated . As well as his other assessments .

    As for Vedic Indo Aryans, I doubt they would be like those on Proto Indo Aryans/ Indo Aryans in Central Asia, my guess is they would be like more Steppe shifted versions of Kalash , or even Kalash like, . Vedic reflects a fusion with the locals in the way same way the Yaz culture was formed with Oxus people and Sintashta people.So EastPole is right in that regard.

    August 20, 2017 at 3:34 PM

    Polubienie

Skomentuj

Wprowadź swoje dane lub kliknij jedną z tych ikon, aby się zalogować:

Logo WordPress.com

Komentujesz korzystając z konta WordPress.com. Wyloguj / Zmień )

Zdjęcie z Twittera

Komentujesz korzystając z konta Twitter. Wyloguj / Zmień )

Zdjęcie na Facebooku

Komentujesz korzystając z konta Facebook. Wyloguj / Zmień )

Zdjęcie na Google+

Komentujesz korzystając z konta Google+. Wyloguj / Zmień )

Connecting to %s