Secular Hypothesis on Origin of the Indo-European Languages

[Michael]

From my brief studies, I have found that there exists three main hypothesis held in secular academia that deal with the question of the origin of the group of languages that is known as the Indo-European language (Or the Paleo-Indo-European root language). To arrive at these three main hypothesis two main methods of analysis were employed. Firstly, the comparative (which is understandable how this would be employed, and is shown partly in other posts in this subject on this forum), and secondly, the internal reconstruction method (a method of recovering information about a language's past from the characteristics of the language at a later date).

The first hypothesis, called the Kurgan Hypothesis, places the origins of Indo-European languages in the 5th millennium BC in the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

The second hypothesis, called the Anatolian Hypothesis, places the origins of Indo-European languages in the 7th millennium BC in Anatolia (modern Turkey).

The third hypothesis, called the Paleolithic Continuity Theory, places the origins of Indo-European languages before the 10th millennium BC in what was to be known as Mesopotamia. Although this last hypothesis has a flawed basis in that it assumes that the Europeans evolved and moved out of the African continent into the area to be known as Mesopotamia, it does however identify a wider group of languages than previously thought that share similarities, so as to arrive at an earlier origin. The Late Paleolithic period of course ending in approximately the 10th millennium BC. Notwithstanding that they rely upon evolution to explain the appearance of Indo-European peoples in Mesopotamia at the end of the Paleolithic period, the conclusion from their study is that a convergence of language origins occurs earlier than previous studies have shown.

All of these hypothesis continue to be analysed, and in particular, this last hypothesis is still under active analysis by a group of academics from Italy. Their web site is here: http://www.continuitas.org/index.html


Some conclusions that can be drawn from these hypothesis for the purposes of our inquiry are:

1. European languages are proven to have, in all probabilities, an origin in Mesopotamia, not in East Asia, or Africa, or in Europe itself.

2. The people of Europe are linked to Mesopotamia via a very important cultural indicator; language. Thus, showing probable Mesopotamian origins of European peoples.

4. The time period of the original use of the language points to the same period in history that we in CI believe Adamic man was created.

5. The time period and place of original use of the Indo-European language are the same as that of the time and place of, among other developments of civilization, the domestication of the main agricultural animals of sheep, cattle, and goats.


One important disadvantage with any conclusions taken from the study of the origins of languages is that any such study is the study of chance passing of the language itself from group to group, society to society, etc. There are no concrete facts to rely upon, such as skeletal remains, or dear I say it, genetic evidence. For example, a conclusion about the origin of a language could be affected by the movement of a one off part of a soceity that travelled to other areas for trade purposes for many centuries, or of course facts such as the imposition of a language on a people through war and conquest. However, in my opinion, the study is an important tool to add weight to any conclusions arrived at concerning the origins of a people.

The reason that I above belittle mainstream genetic evidence of origins of Europeans, is that that sphere of study is obviously caputured by interested parties, that are not at all interested in supporting any conclusion other than that ALL peoples on the earth share one common ancestor; some bipod in Africa X million years ago. Unlike the genetic study of other species, which seems to be without corruption, the Adversary never wanted science to undermine Darwin's evolution of "man".

[wmfinck]

In my paper Classical Records and German Origins, Part Four I quoted a Russian anthropologist (I think that is his field, anyway, it has been awhile). His name is S.A. Grigoryev. Of all of the Indo-European theorists I have seen, I believe that he is the most reasonably close to what we in CI consider to be truth concerning the origins and spread of our race.

Here is the short paper of Grigoryev's which I cited: The Sintasha Culture and Some Questions of Indo-European Origins. No, I do not agree with it all. It's only real import is that he agrees that Indo-European roots are in Mesopotamia, or what is now known as Kurdistan, which is close enough, and that the Scythians also originated there and migrated away in a time frame agreeable to that which I would maintain.

We are always going to hit a wall with mainstream anthropologists because they all profess evolution theory. Or at least, I have not seen one yet who hasn't.

Although I have also based some material in certain programs on the findings published by geneticists, they are problematical for many reasons.

For instance, we can look at the letters representing haplogroups, such as R1a, R1b, I1, I2, etc. But can we actually look at what differences those letters represent in the genes themselves? We have to rely on geneticists for that, and we cannot trust that their opinions are not biased by their worldviews.

And even if we can see the real differences, can we know for certain how and why those differences came to exist? Those questions cannot be answered with any certainty. Genetic scientists cannot answer how haplogroups types diverged or what caused those divergences.

We would agree that not all haplogroups even had a common origin, but some must have had a common origin, or the historical narrative is terribly misleading. Of course, Evolution demands that all haplogroups must have had a common origin.

Therefore genetic studies are of limited value, and cannot ever be used to refute or replace the historic record, which is a much more valuable tool in understanding the origin of peoples, when there is such a record.