Newsgroups: sci.lang,sci.archaeology,soc.culture.kurdish
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!news.mathworks.com!gatech!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!sarima
From: sarima@netcom.com (Stanley Friesen)
Subject: Re: New gene study
Message-ID: <sarimaDBn0M0.GHE@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <hubey.805060504@pegasus.montclair.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 04:32:23 GMT
Lines: 48
Sender: sarima@netcom16.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.lang:41251 sci.archaeology:26875

In article <hubey.805060504@pegasus.montclair.edu>,
H. M. Hubey <hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu> wrote:
>
>
>New gene study enters the Indo-European fray, Science News, June 24, 1995
>
>Analysis of DNA from modern humans supports other indications that a
>northern migration of farmers from ancient Turkey and the Middle East,
>beginning around 9,000 years, shaped Europe's genetic geography. ...
>data also bolster a controversial theory that links this agricultural
>expansion to the spread of Indo-European languages, contend Albert
>Piazza, a geneticist at the University of Torino, Italy and his
>colleagues.

The problem with this is that it assumes that linguistic replacement
is coincident with genetic replacement.  I think this is unwarrented.

I also find it interesting that the *earliest* attested languages from
much of the area of the above mentioned migrations are Hurrian-Urartean,
or Hattic, both of which appear to have been Caucasian languages. It
is also worthy of note that another European relict language, Basque,
shows a great many similarities to the Caucasian languages.

This suggest to me that the old migration at the base of the neolithic
(the agricultural revolution) correspond to the spread of either Caucasian
or Macro-Caucasian.

>However, genetic finds may also lend weight to a contrary proposal, the
>researchers add: than nomads from the central Eurasian Yamna culture
>spread Indo-European languages shortly after they invented wheeled
>vehicles approximately 5,500 years ago.
>
Given the way the language of *economically* dominant groups tends to be
adapted by genetically urelated groups, I find the presence of *any*
genetic evidence for the Kurgan hypothesis to be *major* evidence in
its favor.  [Look at the genetic variety of the people now speaking
languages derived from English - from Jamaican Creole to numerous Pacific
Creoles, not to mention the Aztec and the like who now speak American
English - and similarly for Spanish and Portugese and French].

The genetic evidence from most islands where English creoles are spoken
would show more similarity to other polynesian or micronesian populations
than to the germanic peoples that brought the language to them.
-- 
NAMES: sarima@netcom.com swf@ElSegundoCA.attgis.com

May the peace of God be with you.

