The Persian words for "eat" is "Khvar" and "Food" is "Khvarak" but "Ash" = "Liquid Food/Soup" and "Asham" = "Drink"!

Thanks, that's what I wanted.

Interesting. Arda/Arta means Earth in Persian and was a common prefix on names like Ardashir, Artaxerxes.

Perhaps the PIE diffusion was much longer ago than is accepted today and that different derivatives were drawn from these root words over time and that is how we have similar but completely different languages today.

I am starting to believe that the IE spread is more ancient than the civilizations the supposed PIE's usurped.

okay, I think that I am getting your point.  this is kind of new to  be because, frankly, your counter to IE is the first real thought I have given to this subject for some time.  So, you are saying that ie theory is taking words out of context and just cherrypicking the words that fit the mold.  but this ignores the fact that the words themselves are compound words that make sense in the native language itself, i.e. it is a self contained system that does not need an external source.

but what of the sheer number of like sounding words like pater, mater etc.?  is all dismissable by coincidence?

also what of the grave evidence?  the similarity of ie burial customs?  genetics, although I don't know how mature that is?  I mean there is more to this then just language.

Originally posted by Phallanx They've introduced a theory of an allegedly homogenous We could continue with alleged roots like, ' su'= 'to be born' that they connected to 'uios'= son 'n' = 'not (from one letter!!!) connected to 'agnwstos' = unknown

Okay, that "n" thing just made me laugh.

Originally posted by Anonym Originally posted by Phallanx They've introduced a theory of an allegedly homogenous We could continue with alleged roots like, ' su'= 'to be born' that they connected to 'uios'= son 'n' = 'not (from one letter!!!) connected to 'agnwstos' = unknown Okay, that "n" thing just made me laugh.

But actually all IE languages I know of (but Greek) have a monosyllabe no/not/non/ne/njet for NO, and simmilar words for NOR. It's obvious there's a connection and it's better represented by *n, being the vowel and the final -t more variable. We can't know wether the original word was no, ne, na or ni or nu... but there was one and it's common denominator is *n.

That's why it's just a reconstructed hypothetical proto-languange and not a true known historical root-language, which is lost.

http://www.zompist.com/euro.htm#ie - Here you can find a list of numerals in the different IE tongues, all very clearly connected this way.

I think that you are missing the point.  what has been pointed out here is that there are clearly some compelling IE word groups that appear to support the theory BUT, if you dismissed the IE theory you can find, at least within Greek, a self-contained system that supports an autonomous, non-IE, history.  The same puzzle-pieces lead to a different picture. 

It reminds me of this fellow, whose name escapes me now, who had this theory that that animal colorations were environmental and meant to provide camoflouge.  It was a popularly embraced theory and this acceptance encouraged him so much that he began to force fit this narrow theory into a global solution and proposed that flamingos were pink in order to hide in the setting/rising sun!  He even produced paintings to demonstrate how it was so.  That is an example of a succesful theory taken too far.

Taking it back to our discussion the point being brought up is the lack of IE consistancy one is confronted with once you pass a couple of easy examples like "one".  Also, how one needs to dismiss archeological evidence of human habitation that predates any supposed IE invasion.

Look, I am no subject matter expert on IE, but it appears to me that the IE theory is accepted a little too glibly and people discount any facts that do no fit the mold.  Any theory that requires cutting out facts or declarig them exceptions and where the exceptions begin to outnumber the "rule", well, then, I become suspect.

Some critisism I may find acceptable is that the non-IE theory is an effort at nationalist history, to declare a non-invasion history to suit a chauvanism.  But the same can be said of IE itself, a theory to suit a national narrative that became very popular in Germany and India and may not have been adequately challanged because it suits northern European, N. American and Asian sensibilities. 

The other critisism I may have of IE challenges posted here is that they are too hellino-centric and like exceptions should be demonstrated in other "IE" languages.  But that too is a weak critisism.  Perhaps it is too narrow a survey but if IE is truly the global theory it declares itself to be than it should be able to comfortably address the questions put forward here, even if it centers only on the Greek language. 

In a nutshell, I would like those of you that know more about IE than me form a coherent defense, which would include explaining why the alternate solution would not work not just repeating the dogma and glossing over the points made.

Back to the "n" thing, it does seem to be a bit of a force-fit to go from "n" to agnosto.  Not even Grimm's laws would cover that.

• Greek is separated from the Western IE subfamily and placed apart with Armenian
• Celtic is placed much more closer to the Italo-Germanic group, actually creating a Celto-Italo-Germanic group
• Albanian is placed inside the Eastern IE subfamily
  

• Baalberge culture in Eastern Germany (later extended to other areas)
• Cernavoda I culture in the lower Danube, with isolated kurgans in other areas of the Eastern Balcans. Probably these later found refuge in the mountains forming the Cotofeni culture (since c. 3000 BCE).
  

Hope this helps to understand my viewpoint.

Hmmm, I think you have old data.  The latest archaeological data I've gathered goes like this:

c. 6500-5000 BC - Dniester-Bug Culture begun by local hunter and fisher groups already inhabiting the region since Mesolithic times.  Beginning of experimental agriculture and cattle and pigs were domesticated, but principle mode of economy was still hunting and fishing.  Later gained contacts with Starcevo (Cris) and LBK agriculturalists.  To the east of the Dniester-Bug culture was the Sursko-Dnieper of similiar hunter-fisher origin.

c. 5500-4500 BC -  The full Neolithic Dnieper-Donets Culture superceded the Sursko-Dnieper Culture.  To the east of the Dnieper-Donets was the Neolithic Seroglasovo Culture of the region of the Volga, based on hunting-fishing and stockbreeding.  Seroglasovo was eventually succeeded by both Samara (displaying Dnieper-Donets characteristics)and Pre-Caspian Cultures

c. 4800-3500 BC - The Neolithic Cucuteni  (Tripolye) Culture formed from Moldavian Boian and LBK agrcultural elements reached the region of the former Dniester-Bug Culture by about 4500 BC.

c. 4500-3500 BC - The Eneolithic Sredny Stog Culture superceded the Dnieper-Donets Culture and becomes the eastern neighbor of Cucuteni-Tripolye.  It was based on stock-breeding, agriculture, hunting and fishing.  Eastern cultures with similar cultural traits included the Novodanilovka,and the Lower Mikhaylovka Culture.  Still further east the Khvalynsk Culture succeeded the Samara and Pre-Caspian Cultures and which displayed characteristics of stock-breeding, agriculture, hunting and fishing like the Ukrainian cultures.  Earliest evidence of domesticated horse, c. 4500 BC (horse-riding).  Compared to the west, the transition from Dnieper-Donets influenced cultures to the Khvalynsk Culture was a more gradual one, which may indicate cultural priority compared to the very similar Sredny Stog Culture in the west whose economy was almost radically different from that of preceding Balkan-origin economies. 

c. 4400-4300 BC Kurgan Wave I originated from Sredny Stog Culture.  The region of the northern Balkan Cucuteni Culture experienced dislocations but survived the onslought but now Kurgan peoples remained present with the cultural region of Cucuteni without amalgamation.  The Karanovo-Gumelita culture was destroyed.  Its population moved further west.  The Salcuta Culture was nearly destroyed.  Pockets of its population survived on in caves and islands for another four or five hundred years.  The region of the Vinca Culture witnessed dislocations of populations which moved further west.  End of Vinca Culture, c. 4300 BC.  Same situation with the Lengyel Culture.  Within the LBK Culture, a hybrid culture emerged known as Rossen.

c. 4000 BC  The Varna Culture of the Black Sea coast was replaced by the Kurganish Cernavoda Culture. 

c. 3900 BC  The Kurganish Baalberge Group emerged in the region of the Elbe and Saale.

c. 3600-2200 BC The Eneolithic Yamnaya Complex superceded the Sredny Stog-Khvalynsk Horizon, extending from the Danube Delta to beyond east of the middle Ural River, divided up into some nine cultural variants.  Both stock-breeding and agriculture were practiced.  First evidence of wheeled cart. 

c. 3500-3400 BC Kurgan Wave II.  Cucuteni which survived the First Wave was hybridized.  The result was the Usatovo Complex.  Further north elements of the Cucuteni, TRB, and Pontic cultures became the Globular Amphora Culture.  New hybrid cultures emerged in the Balkans such as the Baden-Vucedol and Ezero groups.  Ezero penetrated into western Anatolia.  Cotofeni, in the northcentral Balkans retained much of the Old European cultural tradition.

c. 3200-2300 BC Corded Ware Culture developed in northern Europe.  Its immediate antecedent was the Globular Amphora Culture of which it shared many characteristics but also showed characteristics similar to Yamnaya, including stock-breeding.  Like Yamnaya, it was expansive.  Its eastern variants are known as Battle-Axe cultures. 

c. 3000-2900 BC Kurgan Wave III.  The whole of the eastern Danube region disrupted and taken over by Yamnaya.  Vucedol migrated to the northwest and south into Dalmatia, western Bosnia, and Albania.  Vucedol succeeded by Vinkovci--Samogyvar Culture.  Evidence of Yamnaya penetration into Greece in Early Helladic II and III (c. 2900-2250 BC). 

Well, if and when we find pictures we'll present them.  The descriptions of the cultures by the various authors indicate a pattern which they saw was not ignorable.  They go on to list as many patterns as they were able to see.  For them, there are no inconsistency.  The cultural traits of the newer cultures cannot have come from the local cultures but from somewhere else, and that somewhere else ends on the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

But of course there was common agricultural, and domesticated animal terms.  As the archaeology of the Pontic-Caspian region has revealed, there was in fact, agriculturalism.  Perhaps not in the same degree as that of the Balkans, but nevertheless it was there, along with stockbreeding.  The reality was that true pastoralism was of later date. 

What do you mean?  The way I'm understanding your question, is that the reason why there is no reference to the finds in the Balkan area and specifically Hellas before the above mentioned dates is because they weren't there yet.  They were, before, only in the Pontic-Caspian region.

My sources are nineties as well, including Gimbutas.

Yes, even Pontic-Caspian theorists have variant theories.  In the 70's it was the fashion to describe the Kurgan expansion as one wave occuring between 2300 and 2200 BC, and to describe subsequent Kurgan cultures, especially those of the Balkans and central Europe as subsequent.  My sources are primarily archaeological with the latest in archaeological carbon-14 calibrated dating for all sights involved.

You may be referring to the stratification of the Sredny Stog site.  As you say, Sredny Stog I may be Dnieper-Don, but the Sredny Stog Culture itself is Sredny Stog II, and dates from about 4500 to 3500 BC.  In Russian literature the Sredny Stog and Maikop stages are referred to as Early Yamna, while the Yamnaya Horizon itself (c. 3600-2200 BC) is called Late Yamna.  It may simply be a matter of terminology.

My datings are based on the latest in calibrated carbon-14 dates. 

The floruit of Karanovo-Gumelnita was from c. 5500-4200 BC with survivals at Sitagroi to about 3800 BC.

Varna was part of the Hamangia Culture (c. 5500-4700 BC), whose pottery was similar to Starcevo-Cris.  Hamangia was succeeded by the short-lived Varna Culture (c. 4700-4000 BC) which was genetically related to the latter and thus was still distinct from Karanovo-Gumelnita.

Oops.  Yes, "Cernavoda" should have been "Cernavoda I".  I stand corrected at least on that. 

Rossen was originally within the LBK Culture, c. 5600-4300 BC (originally known as Danubian I), and mainly derived from Starcevo-Koros.  It was succeeded by Rossen (c. 4300-3900 BC) and then by Epi-Rossen in that particular region.  The literature was actually vague in describing Rossen, but you are correct in that it was a Danubian culture ("an LBK culture 'with oriental elements'"), but is also called a "mixed culture".   The accompaning carbon-dating tables describe Rossen "with Kurgan I elements".  What these "oriental elements" were, are not otherwise explained.

Rossen is older than Baalberge.  Baalberge emerges in about 3900 BC.

Actually Rossen is contemporary to the latest phase of Lengyel.  While it is true that Lengyel developed in an LBK (Danubian) region, its cultural tradition was not LBK, but rather from Starcevo.  It flourished from c. 5000 to about 3700 BC divided into five phases. 

I recommend to you from your library Civlization of the Goddess, by Marija Gimbutas.  It will provide a wealth of cultural information and a huge resource on chronology.

No.  The issue of the Danubian Neolithic was never even addressed.  What I've only related was how the Danubian Neolithic was affected by the Kurgans.  As I've mentioned before, the expansive LBK culture was the earliest Danubian Neolithic culture.  It was much later when it differentiated into various cultures including Rossen and Stroked Pottery.

I hope I clarified Rossen for you.

Please refer to Gimbutas's book.  In the back of the book she exhaustively lists the results of carbon-14 dating on various sites grouped by culture.  This is a resource you don't want to overlook.

Sadly I have none.  Try the book.

• Rössen in most of Germany and other western regions
• Lengyel in the mid-Danube
• Stroked Pottery in Bohemia, Poland and parts of Eastern Germany too
• Pre-Cucuteni in Moldavia and Western Ukraine
• Boian-Maritza in Vallachia and Bulgaria

Yes the general outlines of what you describe match what I know regarding the pre-Kurgan Balkans and central Europe, with some obvious exceptions.  Its with the chronology with the Kurgan expansion that seems to be different.

This is the Starcevo Complex (c. 6300-5000 BC) derived from more southerly Sesklo (c. 6500-5500 BC)

This is the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) Culture (c. 5500-3500 BC).

Perhaps a later development of terminology?  When the term Danubian was first coined, it applied to all of LBK.   The literature I have does not distinguish a Western and Eastern variant.  In the east, LBK merges with Dniester-Bug and contributed to the formation of Cucuteni. 

The Boian Culture, beginning about 5000 BC was the result of the migration of LBK farmers into Moldova, Muntenia, and Transylvania which merged with the local Early Vinca people of those regions for form this hybrid culture.   Boian absorbed Hamangia Culture in c. 4700 BC

Lengyel (c. 5000-3600 BC) was derived from a Starcevo core in Slavonia, Syrmia, and Pannonia and it was related to Butmir and Danilo Cultures, both also derived from Starcevo.   It was displaced by Kurgan Wave I, c. 4200 BC but had survivals until about 3600 BC. 

The carbon-14 data on this group range from 4787 to 4469 BC (calibrated dates)

The term Pre-Cucuteni is now defunct.  It is now Early Cucuteni.  The Cucuteni Culture (c. 4800-3500 BC) developed from a merger of  eastern LBK settlers with Boian colonists.  It was a hybrid culture.

See above.

Karanovo-Gumelnita dates from between about 5500 and about 4200 BC.  It did not survive Kurgan Wave I.   I don't have specific dates for Michelsburg, except for a very general dating in the 4th millennium.  A beginning date of about 4000 BC would not be out of the question.

Baalberge Culture dates from between 4000 and 3400 BC and was the result of circumstances beginning with Kurgan Wave I (Sredny Stog).  Cernavoda I began about the same time as Baalberge, and also was created after the effects of Kurgan Wave I.

My source says that the earliest kurgans were from the Khvalynsk Culture of the the Middle Volga, which were earlier than 4500 BC, the conventional date for the start of Sredny-Stog Culture.

I would at least agree that the Sredny Stog Culture displays a variety of economic forms depending on specific regions within the boundaries of the culture.

Sredny Stog supercedes Dnieper-Donets, c. 4500 BC and then becomes Yamnaya, c. 3500 BC which then becomes Catacomb-Grave, c. 2200 BC on the Ukrainian steppe. 

My research makes a western variant of Yamnaya into Catacomb-Grave (proto-Cimmerians?) a central variant into Timber-Grave (proto-Scythians?) and an eastern variant into Andronovo (other proto-Iranians)

The Globular Amphora Culture dates from c. 3500 to c. 2800 BC, inspired by Kurgan Wave II.  The Corded Ware Complex dates from c. 3200 to c. 2300 BC.  Catacomb-Grave Culture was an offshoot of Yamnaya and dates from c. 2200 BC - too late for the inspiration of Globular Amphora.

That "main difference" may not even be that different.  True, my sources say that the impetus of kurganization of the west was from the Sredny Stog Culture, but even Sredny Stog must have come from somewhere else, and the most likely candidate for that would be Khvalynsk Culture of the middle Volga region, which seems to be of slightly more ancient date than Sredny Stog. 

I've touched on this in my previous post, but to reiterate, Sredny Stog Culture does not evolve from Dnieper-Donets.  It seemed to have evolved from Khvalynsk Culture which itself evolved from cultures derived from Dnieper-Donets. 

According to J.P. Mallory in In Search of the Indo-Europeans, the range of the formation of IE (or PIE) was between 4500 and 2500 BC.  The earliest evidence of dispersal at least archaeologically was about 4300 BC, followed by subsequent dispersals.

There was a culture which originated in the Pontic-Caspian named the Afanasievo Culture (c. 3200-2000 BC) which made its home in the region of the Minusinsk Basin and the Altai.  Not only are the cultural origins well known but also the physical type of the Europids can be traced to the Pontic-Caspian region.  When the Okunevo people (of eastern origin) superceded Afanasievo, the evidence shows migration southwards into the Tarim Basin, where the earliest mummies of the region (and where Tocharian was spoken), appear by 2000 BC. 

I haven't heard about that.  The only thing I can relate is that PIE displays loan-words from Uralic, testifying to further evidence of the original home of PIE on the Pontic-Caspian, obviously near speakers of Uralic languages.

Commenting on Danilo Culture, my source says it didn't derive from the local Impresso pottery culture (your Cardium pottery) describing the Danilo pottery as of a different tradition.  My source theorized that it must have come from further south on the coast, perhaps from Albania, where the archaeology of the region is virtually a blank for this time period.

I have never read about the Dimini (c. 5300-4000 BC) and Vinca (c. 5400-4300 BC) Cultures described as a complex.  Very interesting.  I've examined the descriptions of the two cultures and one of the common denominators was the use of black-burnished wares in both cultures, although these seemed to have originated in Karanovo regions.  None of the literature I've come across describes "invasion" (or any similiar language), but rather "adoption"  or diffusion of this style of pottery. 

There are some interesting articles in Wikipedia which seem to be derived from the Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, by J. P. Mallory (Editor), and D. Q. Adams (editors) (1997).  They seem to support the higher chronology.   Have you read In Search of the Indo-Europeans, by JP Mallory.  He uses the highter chronology.

check this out about indo-eurios

though high speculative

http://indoeuro.bizland.com/index8.html - http://indoeuro.bizland.com/index8.html

The pig is actually traceable to two PIE terms:

from the root *su- we get English, swine, Latin, sus, Indic, su-.  The term may have been used in the generic sense.  In Indo-Iranian languages the term is used for the wild pig, but is used for the domesticated variety in Europe. 

from the root *porko- we get European terms for the domesticated pig but this root still exists as a reflex in Indo-Iranian, but not as a whole word. 

Going back to the question of a lack of IE terms for agriculture, the archaeology of the late Neolithic Balkans does show a pattern of agricultural societies being succeeded by pastoral cultures.  In a pastoral economy, expecially one on the move, words for agriculture were not important.  They may retain a memory of such terms:  We do find PIE terms for cattle-raising including among other things, cow, ox, steer, butter, cheese, meat, marrow, herd, yoke, sheep, wool, weaving, goat (in some degree), horse (of course), and dog.  Terms relating specifically to agriculture included a term for an unspecified grain, terms for "to sow", a term for a grinding instrument, plough, and sickle.  Other agricultural terms from an PIE root are restricted to European languages, such as ploughshare, seed, grain, mill, furrow, barley and millet. 

Therefore agriculture was not entirely alien to the early Indo-Europeans, it just was not culturally emphasised.  In the archaeological sense, this makes sense for a people on the border of true agricultural society which indeed reached the Pontic Steppe.  The very region where we can trace the first waves of invasion into the Balkans was a region of some limited agriculture.   The societies which appeared after those invasions, were decidedly pastoral.   

The theory of Indo-European origins in Southeast Europe from an earlier Anatolian source has received additional confirmation recently. Using a methodology similar to that used in evolutionary biology, Gray and Atkinson [�Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin,� Nature 426, 435-439] compared 95 present and past languages of the Indo-European family based on a list of 200 basic terms for each.

The main idea of this innovative work is that languages that diverge from a common source initially tend to have similar vocabularies, but as time progresses, new terms replace older ones, and thus the intersection between the vocabularies of the languages is reduced. This principle can be used to determine the �branching pattern� of the language family, as well as to time the various splits in the tree. The authors were able to vary many parameters of the input automatically, thus taking into account the many uncertainties of this difficult problem in a systematic manner.

The results of all analyses, irrespective of the initial assumptions were very robust:

We test two theories of Indo-European origin: the 'Kurgan expansion' and the 'Anatolian farming' hypotheses. The Kurgan theory centres on possible archaeological evidence for an expansion into Europe and the Near East by Kurgan horsemen beginning in the sixth millennium BP^{7, 8}. In contrast, the Anatolian theory claims that Indo-European languages expanded with the spread of agriculture from Anatolia around 8,000�9,500 years BP⁹. In striking agreement with the Anatolian hypothesis, our analysis of a matrix of 87 languages with 2,449 lexical items produced an estimated age range for the initial Indo-European divergence of between 7,800 and 9,800 years BP. These results were robust to changes in coding procedures, calibration points, rooting of the trees and priors in the bayesian analysis.

The branching pattern is also in agreement with an independent linguistic analysis of Indo-European languages [Rexova, K., Frynta, D. & Zrzavy, J. �Cladistic analysis of languages: Indo-European classification based on lexicostatistical data.� Cladistics 19, 120�127 (2003)].

The estimated times strikingly confirm the Neolithic dispersal theory, showing a divergence of Indo-European languages from Anatolian ones, with an independent branching of the mysterious Tocharian language which spread eastwards, and the descent of all other languages from what is almost certain to be a Balkan homeland:

Consensus tree and divergence-time estimates. a, Majority-rule consensus tree based on the MCMC sample of 1,000 trees; b, initial assumption set using all cognate information and most stringent constraints; c, conservative cognate coding with doubtful cognates excluded; d, all cognate sets with minimum topological constraints; e, missing data coding with minimum topological constraints and all cognate sets. Shaded bars represent the implied age ranges under the two competing theories of Indo-European origin: blue, Kurgan hypothesis; green, Anatolian farming hypothesis. The relationship between the main language groups in the consensus tree for each analysis is also shown, along with posterior probability values. [Click on the Picture for a larger version.]

(1873) The Albanian language is the oldest Indo-European idiom according to WEBSTERS NEW TWENTIETH CENTURY DICTIONARY, Unabridged Second Edition, De Luxe Color, William Collins and World ,Publishing Co.,Inc., ISBN: 0-539-048523-3

http://home.online.no/~bmatos/artimages/ACFPCAr4ayDW.jpg">

The link: http://www.krysstal.com/langfams_indoeuro.html - http://www.krysstal.com/langfams_indoeuro.html

Great Thread. What is everyone's opinion about the Indo-Uralic hypothesis for the origin of PIE?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Uralic_languages - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Uralic_languages

"Indo-Uralic is a hypothetical language family consisting of Indo-European and Uralic (and maybe further related languages). The most common argument in favour of such a relationship is based on seemingly common elements of morphology, such as the pronominal roots *m- (first person) and *t- (second person), or the accusative case ending in *-m. There are other, less obvious correspondences being suggested, such as the Indo-European plural marker *-s and its Uralic counterpart *-t. Most linguists, however, consider the evidence insufficient. Nevertheless, Indo-European and Uralic languages look remarkably similar for neighbouring languages traditionally considered unrelated. One problem in the research is that often it is assumed that similar words in Uralic and Indo-European languages are loans from IE to Uralic, even if this is not chronologically possible.

Frederik Kortlandt supports a model of Indo-Uralic in which the original Indo-Uralic speakers lived north of the Caspian Sea, and the Proto-Indo-European speakers began as a group that branched off westward from there to come into geographic proximity with the Northwest Caucasian languages, absorbing a Northwest Caucasian lexical blending before moving farther westward to a region north of the Black Sea where their language settled into canonical Proto-Indo-European."

It is a possibility that Indo-Europeans created the first known civilization in the Western Mediteranean Sea and around the Black Sea known by some as Atlantis. The melting of the Ice Age started the mass migration and exodus, and making the root languages around the world to be similar.