# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  Proto Indo European, Semits and Central Asian

## spongetaro

I've found this text shows the linguitsic relationships between proto IE and semitic languages and the historical links between Kurgan cultures and West Asian/ Central Asian neolithic cultures.

http://www.archaeologyonline.net/art...imat-elst.html




> Semitic (and by implication also the Chadic, Kushitic and Hamitic branches of the Afro-Asiatic family, assumed to be the result of a pre-4th-millennium immigration of early agriculturists from West Asia into North Africa) is suspected to spring from a common ancestor with IE, even by scholars skeptical of Nostratic adventures. The commonality of some elementary lexical items is striking, and includes the numerals 6 and 7 (Hebrew _ shisha, shiva_, Arabic _sitta, sab'a_, conceivably borrowed at the time when counting was extended beyond the fingers of a single hand for the first time), arguably even all the first seven numerals. 
> Contact with Akkadian (the Semitic language of Mesopotamia in the third millennium BC) and even Proto-Semitic is attested by a good handful of words, esp. some terms for utensils and animals. This includes two terms for "axe": PIE _ *peleku_, Greek _pelekus_, Ossetic _faeraet_, Sanskrit _ parashu_, "axe", related (one way or the other) to Akkadian _pilaqqu_, "axe", cfr. Arabic _falaqa_, "to split apart"; and PIE _*sekwr_, Latin _securis_, "axe", _secula_, "hatchet", Old Slavic _ sekyra_, "hatchet", related to a Semitic root yielding Akkadian _ shukurru_, "javelin", Hebrew _segor_, "axe". Some terms are in common only with the Western IE languages, e.g. Semitic _gedi_, still recognizable in English _goat_. This testimony is too slender, though, for concluding that the Western Indo-Europeans had come from the East and encountered the Semites on their way to the West. Even more remarkable are the common fundamental grammatical traits, which indicate a common genetic origin rather than an influence from the one language family on the other. Semitic, like IE, has grammatically functional vowel changes, grammatical gender, declension, conjugational categories including participles and medial and passive modes, and a range of phonemes which in Proto-Semitic was almost entirely in common with PIE, even more so if we assume PIE laryngeals to match Semitic _aleph_, _ he_ and _'ayn_. Many of these grammatical elements are shared only by Semitic (or Afro-Asiatic) and IE, setting them off as a pair against all other language families. If any language family has a chance of being the sister of the IE family, it is Semitic. One way to imagine how Semitic and IE went their separate ways has been offered by Bernard Sergent, who is strongly convinced of the two families' common origin. He combines the linguistic evidence with archaeological and anthropological indications that* the (supposedly PIE-speaking) Kurgan people in the North-Caspian area of ca. 4000 BC came from the southeast, a finding which might otherwise be cited in support of their Indian origin. Thus, the Kurgan people's typical grain was millet, not the rye and wheat cultivated by the Old Europeans, and in ca. 5000 BC, millet had been cultivated in what is now Turkmenistan (it apparently originates in China), particularly in the mesolithic culture of Jebel*. From there on, the archaeological traces become really tenuous, but Sergent claims to discern a link with the Zarzian culture of Kurdistan 10,000 to 8500 BC. Short, he suggests that the Kurgan people had come along the eastern coast of the Caspian Sea, not from the southeast (India) but the southwest, in or near Mesopotamia, where PIE may have had a common homeland with Semitic.24 
> However, those who interpret the archaeological data concerning the genesis of agriculture in the Indus site of Mehrgarh as being the effect of a diffusion from West Asia, may well interpret an eventual kinship of IE with Semitic as proving their own point: along with its material culture, Mehrgarh's language may have been an offshoot of a metropolitan model, viz. a Proto-Semitic-speaking culture in West Asia. This would mean that the Indus area was indeed the homeland of the original PIE, but that in the preceding millennia, PIE had been created by the interaction of Proto-Semitic-speaking colonists from West Asia with locals. On the other hand, now that the case for an independent genesis of the Neolithic revolution (i.e. the development of agriculture) in Mehrgarh is getting stronger, we may have to reconsider the direction of such a process.


The part about the mesolithic culture of Jebel could explains the prsence of Gedrosia admixture among proto IE people.

----------


## Goga

Gedrosia peaks in Balochistan. Balochistan in Pashto language is known as Godar which was hellenized by the Greeks into Gedrosia.

Balochi language is classified as *Northwestern* Iranian language, like Kurdish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balochi_language

----------


## ElHorsto

> I've found this text shows the linguitsic relationships between proto IE and semitic languages and the historical links between Kurgan cultures and West Asian/ Central Asian neolithic cultures.
> 
> http://www.archaeologyonline.net/art...imat-elst.html
> 
> 
> 
> The part about the mesolithic culture of Jebel could explains the prsence of Gedrosia admixture among proto IE people.


I think the semitic language influence would actually better explain the Caucasian admixture, not so the Gedrosian alone. Gedrosian could be already more distant from semitic, as being possibly more proto-turkic influenced for instance, eventually becoming centum/tocharian. That's more in the area of Tajiks and Uyghurs.

----------


## Goga

> I think the Semitic language influence would actually better explain the Caucasian admixture


What do you mean? That Semitic language influenced Caucasian aDNA? Actually the migration was from North to South. Caucasian Neolithic haplogroups (like J1*) migrated downwards to the South: Arabia, the Levant and Africa. I believe that they mixed with the local 'E' haplogroups originally from Africa in the area between West Africa and the Levant. And from that point of time Afro-Asiatic (Semitic) language was born.

As far as I know it's proven that the original hg. J1* is from North.

Also Indo-European (and Caucasian) loanwords in Semitic language can be from much more recent times. It's possible that Indo-Europeans influenced the Semites in Southwest Asia.

----------


## ElHorsto

> What do you mean? 
> ...
> *Caucasian Neolithic* haplogroups (like J1*) migrated downwards to the South: Arabia, the Levant and Africa. I believe that they *mixed* with the local 'E' haplogroups originally from Africa in the area between West Africa and the Levant. And from that point of time Afro-Asiatic *(Semitic) language was born*.


That's what I meant. Caucasian admixture is strongly present in today semitic speaking countries, but much less in IE countries. I would not take "Caucasian" too literally, since it is a computed cluster that stretches quite far away from the Caucasus. It is most likely related to neolithic agriculture, but not only.

----------


## Taranis

Regarding a connection between the Indo-European and Semitic languages: there is ample evidence of some form of contact between the Semitic languages and Proto-Indo-European, but there is a large obstacle in regard for a genetic relationship ("genetic" is supposed to mean here "common origin", and has nothing to do with genetics): the Semitic language family is obviously a branch of the Afroasiatic (or Afrasian) languages, and the general agreement is that there's no such correspondences of vocabulary between Indo-European and Afroasiatic. So, the most likely explanation is that these are either Proto-Indo-European borrowings into Proto-Semitic, Proto-Semitic borrowings into Proto-Indo-European, or perhaps a common borrowing from an unknown third source.

Apart from the Semitic languages and the Uralic languages which are mentioned in the article, there's also the Kartvelic languages which are though to have had an early contact with the Indo-Europeans.

----------


## Kardu

> Apart from the Semitic languages and the Uralic languages which are mentioned in the article, there's also the Kartvelic languages which are though to have had an early contact with the Indo-Europeans.


Indeed, in Thomas V. _Gamkrelidze_ and V. V. _Ivanov' Indo-European language and Indo-Europeans_  I've seen lists of possible loan words between proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European.

----------


## Goga

> Caucasian admixture is strongly present in today semitic speaking countries, but much less in IE countries.


Actually that's not that strange if proto-Indo-Europeans were from West Asia/Southeast Caucasus/Northwest Iran. There was much more interactions in the Mesopotamia and the Fertile Crescent between the Semites from the South and Hurrians (+ Indo-Europeans) from the North, than between West Asia and Europe.

Caucasian admixture is the highest in the Caucasus Mountains but also among Indo-European speakers in West and Central Asia, like Iranic speaking peoples: Kurds, Ossetians, Persians and Armenians. But also among the Indo-European speaking European Greeks.

It's possible that Gedrosia admixture is from West Asian slightly mixed with local Central Asian haplogroups. Balochi language is from West Asia.

----------


## Goga

Also Persians and other Iranic folks imported Caucasian admixture in the Semitic countries. So Caucasian admixture in the Semites is not only from the Neolithic era.

----------


## ElHorsto

> It's possible that Gedrosia admixture is from West Asian slightly mixed with local Central Asian haplogroups. Balochi language is from West Asia.


The important question is why have 
- Balochi much Gedrosian admixture (64%), but almost no Caucasian admixture (5%),
- the Brahui 69% vs 0.5% (Makrani, Sindhi, Jatt, Pathan, Burusho, Brahmins etc. have similar figures)
- the Scots, Irish, Basque, Orcadians, Cornwall 10% vs. 0%
- the Altaians 6% vs 0%

But those IE-speakers who are still in West Asia have much "Caucasian" admixture:
- Kurds, Iranians: only 28% Gedrosian, but 40% Caucasian

That means a major part of IE-speaking peoples had not much contact with "semitic" peoples, and another part has strong admixture. The difference is big, some have 70:0, others 20:40. Therefore, the semitic related part is no useful explanation for the Gedrosian presence in Europe, because in Europe it directly anti-correlates with the "Caucasian" (West Asian/Semitic) admixture.

So either those "Gedrosian admixture" peoples in Europe came from that branch that had not yet mixed with semitic peoples, or they came to Europe before semitic peoples and languages have formed in West Asia. Admixture analysis clearly shows that where Semitic-IE mixing happened, also Caucasian-Gedrosian mixture happened, and it is impossible to "unmix" afterwards during the migrations to Europe, Balochistan or Altai.

One theory could be that parts of semitic inhabited land was initially inhabited by Gedrosian-like peoples, and semitic-speakers came later, such that proto-IE language contributed to semitic languages, not vice versa.

----------


## Goga

What you're saying might be true, but Caucasian admixture peaks in the Caucasus mountains. In the Caucasus there's almost no Mediterranean and Southwest Asian admixture.

If Caucasian admixture is somehow related to the Semitic speaking folks, then natives in the Caucasus mountains (Georgians, Adygei) are Semites. But in my eyes that doesn't make any sense at all to me.

According to me only Southwest Asian admixture can be related to the Semitic speaking population. 

According to you Caucasian admixture came out of Gedrosia admixture. But don't think it was the case because if you follow the haplogroup migrations you will find out that much more West Asian haplogroups (J2a & G2) migrated into Gedrosia than vice versa. Also according to the Balochis they are from West Asia (Medes).

----------


## Goga

What have Ossetians to do with the Semites? Ossetians (North Iranic people) are for about 57% Caucasian and only for about 17% Gedrosian.

----------


## ElHorsto

> What you're saying might be true, but Caucasian admixture peaks in the Caucasus mountains. In the Caucasus there's almost no Mediterranean and Southwest Asian admixture.


I don't agree. Caucasians actually did mix alot with Southwest Asians outside of the Caucasus mountains: 
Lebanon, Syrians, Jordanians, Palestinians, Jews, Druze have SW-Asian/Caucasian = approx. 20/40. 
Arabs, Yemenites, Bedouines still have about 40/25.




> If Caucasian admixture is somehow related to the Semitic speaking folks, then natives in the Caucasus mountains (Georgians, Adygei) are Semites. But in my eyes that doesn't make any sense at all to me.


That is a wrong conclusion, see above.




> According to me only Southwest Asian admixture can be related to the Semitic speaking population.


According to me Semitic = Soutwest_Asian + Caucasian.

The historic finds of the semitic languages supports this view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages

"A recent Bayesian analysis of alternative Semitic histories supports the latter possibility and identifies an origin of Semitic languages in the *Levant* around 3,750 BC with a single introduction from southern Arabia into Africa around 800 BC."

The Levant is between Caucasus and Arabia.




> According to you Caucasian admixture came out of Gedrosia admixture.


Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.




> But don't think it was the case because if you follow the haplogroup migrations you will find out that much more West Asian haplogroups (J2a & G2) migrated into Gedrosia than vice versa. Also according to the Balochis they are from West Asia (Medes).


Yes, why not. As I said in my previous post, Gedrosian-admixture-like peoples might originally have lived in today semitic speaking regions or close to the Levant. The semitic peoples then inherited genes and words from the previous "gedrosian" IE speakers. Maybe part of them left that region to Balochistan and elsewhere, before semitic formed (e.g. Caucasians+West Asians merged). But that's my personal theory only, and I'm not an expert. Can be wrong of course.

----------


## ElHorsto

> What have Ossetians to do with the Semites? Ossetians (North Iranic people) are for about 57% Caucasian and only for about 17% Gedrosian.


Sure, Ossetians have 0% South-West-Asian, but the point is that South-West asians have 40% Caucasian.

I currently think that the children of the original Iranic people are the Gedrosians in Balochistan, while the Kurds and Ossetians are remnants of the original gedrosian population, which has meanwhile considerably mixed with Caucasians.

----------


## Goga

> According to me Semitic = Soutwest_Asian + Caucasian.


Yes, it is possible since Saudis (purest Semites in my eyes) have 68% Southwest Asian and 20.5% Caucasus component.




> Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.


I mean that West Asians contributed for the greatest part in Gedrosian component. Caucasus is the western part of West Asians while related Gedrosian component is the eastern slice of West Asians.




> As I said in my previous post, Gedrosian-admixture-like peoples might originally have lived in today semitic speaking regions or close to the Levant. The semitic peoples then inherited genes and words from the previous "gedrosian" IE speakers. Maybe part of them left that region to Balochistan and elsewhere, before semitic formed (e.g. Caucasians+West Asians merged). But that's my personal theory only, and I'm not an expert. Can be wrong of course.


Very interesting view of point.

There's 10.5% of Southwest Asian component in Balochi people but only 5.5% Caucasus component. While they're for about 65% Gedrosian. The only explanation according to me is that the Caucasus (West Asian) component transformed into Gedrosia component in somewhere between Northwest Iran and Southeast Iran (Balochistan).

If you have a better idea, please share it with us.

----------


## ElHorsto

> I think the semitic language influence would actually better explain the Caucasian admixture, not so the Gedrosian alone. Gedrosian could be already more distant from semitic, as being possibly more proto-turkic influenced for instance, eventually becoming centum/tocharian. That's more in the area of Tajiks and Uyghurs.


@spongetaro, sorry if I did not get your point right initially, I think now I get it. Proto-IE could have existed before the semitic languages in the same location (Mesopotamia, Levant), it can be that yet "pure" Gedrosian proto-IE population isolated before Caucasians and South-West-Asians migrated to the Levant to form semitic languages (babylon, akkadian). This population could have been the source for the European Gedrosian component, because no "Caucasus" admixture was present at this time yet.

BTW, sumerian is considered an isolated mysterious language. There were serious attempts to relate it to many languages, for example Basque. Many similar words have already been identified, but nothing definite was officially accepted. I'm not familiar with linguistics, but it would be exciting to investigate more Basque-Sumerian similarities.

----------


## ElHorsto

> There's 10.5% of Southwest Asian component in Balochi people but only 5.5% Caucasus component. While they're for about 65% Gedrosian. The only explanation according to me is that the Caucasus (West Asian) component transformed into Gedrosia component in somewhere between Northwest Iran and Southeast Iran (Balochistan).
> 
> If you have a better idea, please share it with us.


My simplistic idea is that before neolithic, the caucasians just lived in caucasus and gedrosians lived somewhere south of the caucasus. Why do you think gedrosians are transformed caucasians?

----------


## Goga

> My simplistic idea is that before neolithic, the caucasians just lived in caucasus and gedrosians lived somewhere south of the caucasus. Why do you think gedrosians are transformed caucasians?


I thought that Caucasia component is older (and more unaffected) than Gedrosia component, because I saw some links between Gedrosia aDNA and early proto-Iranians. I thought that Gedrosia aDNA had something to do with the Iranian Plateau.

But you view of point can also be right.

----------

