Davidski at Eurogenes is more than a little appalled, and rightly so, that the seemingly reputable Max-Planck-Institut für Menschheitsgeschichte linguistics research center in Germany, is still circulating in a flashy animated presentation, the claim that the Indo-European languages made their way to South Asia, Western Europe and Eastern Europe as separate spokes from a common Armenian hub, around 8000 years ago.
This claim, as Davidski correctly points out with solid, published research support, is contrary to overwhelming evidence from modern and ancient DNA and historical accounts to place that this DNA evidence in a linguistic context.
At this point, it should be really hard for any legitimate peer reviewed publication to take a paper proposing that hypothesis since it really doesn't hold water. There are certainly some respects in which the orthodox paradigm in the field of Indo-European linguistic origins could be wrong. I even support some of those hypotheses myself. But, this is not one of them.
Honestly, it is a little hard to figure out why an institution like that could support a position that rings of a Trump-like belief in "alternative facts". But, inertia is a powerful thing and old scholars can be very slow to acknowledge that their old hypotheses have been obviously disproven.
6 comments:
"This claim, as Davidski correctly points out with solid, published research support, is contrary to overwhelming evidence from modern and ancient DNA and historical accounts to place that this DNA evidence in a linguistic context."
how valuable is DNA evidence in linguistics?
Koreans descended from chinese and japanese are obviously decended from koreans
but the languages are completely dissimilar.
Korean and Japanese are not completely dissimilar. Some would put them both in the Altaic family, and more would at least put Korean and Japonic in a family of their own rather than as two language isolates.
DNA doesn't tell the whole story. The Japanese people are about 40%-45% Jomon in ancestry, roughly similar to the Ainu, but Japanese has almost no Ainu related words or grammatical features. But, the evidence that Davidski cites is very powerful.
i mention those as examples DNA isn't all that helpful.
think of all the people who now speak english. i don't see how DNA can help in linguistics except perhaps in special cases of isolated remote tribes.
Usually, pots are people, and usually a people are a language. There are exception, but they aren't common and were very likely less common in the ancient world when mobility was much lower.
in fact its not Mpi-Shh still taunting the same tune.
It's actually all of them changing tune as does Harvard lab in the words of David Reich and now even the Danes like K. Kristansen make the Transcaucasia the source of PIE.
It is not at all correct your description of events. Not long ago Haak (Mpi) and Lazaridis (Harvard) announced hand in hand to the world the steppe as the Urheimat of PIE and the universe.
“- Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe. Wolfgang Haak; , Iosif Lazaridis; , Nick Patterson….”
So, a couple easy notes:
a. If they all , all, in 2018 changed their minds it does not take a genius to figure out that in the thousands of samples still unpublished they do have data to support their current claims. If anything, they can be called dishonest for not coming clean on what they found and instead are publishing papers with selected data. Milking the cow. Fake news I would say.
b. Its not even hard to figure out what are the blacklisted areas/timeframes. we have no papers coming out from Neolithic Transcaucasia and 4000bc-3000bc South Balkans. There is no shortage of samples for those areas, and actually the video that is triggering your post is clear. It all started 8000 years ago in Armenia? --- who lived in Armenia from 8000 years ago? And there is no data published from that area/period. How do they know?
To cut this short, let me make it clear as water. It’s all about my Shulaverian Hypothesis (Shulaveri Shomu) being proved correct. Its not the Armenian hypothesis. That is same geographical space but different archaeological frame. What Gray is saying (as in fact Reich) is that the Shulaveri Shomu are he Urheimat of PIE ( and l23 for that matter)
... And to anyone seeing the video in question, remember that my Shulaverian hypothesis starts, in chapter one, with
"8,000 years ago, there were a people."
Telling, really telling. lol.
shulaveri2bellbeaker.blogs.sapo.pt - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yKBU084p0jpoUKeKu8D83h3VBwZ8uugp/view
Post a Comment