Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Criticism/review by P. Priyadarshi. 1. Indo-European 2. Uralic 3. Altaic 4. Dravidian 5. Kartvelian (Georgian; South Caucasian) 6. Chukchee-Kamchatkan.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Criticism/review by P. Priyadarshi. 1. Indo-European 2. Uralic 3. Altaic 4. Dravidian 5. Kartvelian (Georgian; South Caucasian) 6. Chukchee-Kamchatkan."— Presentation transcript:

1 Criticism/review by P. Priyadarshi

2

3 1. Indo-European 2. Uralic 3. Altaic 4. Dravidian 5. Kartvelian (Georgian; South Caucasian) 6. Chukchee-Kamchatkan (Easternmost part of Siberia) 7. Inuit-Yupic (Westernmost corner of Alaska)

4 All of the Southeast Asian language families. Austro-Asiatic of India and Southeast Asia Sino-Tibetan language family. Basque of South Europe Afro-Asiatic (Semitic) As if these people were not Eurasian.

5 Greenberg, Joseph H Indo-European and its closest relatives: The Eurasiatic language family, vol. 1: Grammar (Stanford UP).

6 A more honest approach would have been the study of Proto-Eurasian, the first language of the Eurasian people, after they had established themselves in India and expanded in this country about 60,000 to 50,000 BP, and its relationship with the modern languages of the non-African regions.

7 Even the conclusions were manipulated in such a way as to give support to the Indo- Uralic theory, which implies that the Indo- European and the Uralic both originated at one place, namely Russian Ural region.

8

9

10 In Europe only a few refugia sheltered humans. These were located in Spain and Balkans (Southeast Europe) and northern part of the Caucasus region. No one lived in the steppe, which was then a cold desert/ tundra climate region.

11

12

13 Out of these, Uralic, Chukchee- Kamchatkan and Inuit-Yupic have been found to be related and have been classed as Uralo-Siberian Language Family. (Michael Fortesque, 1998)

14 The Uralic speakers entered the northern regions, as soon as the ice melted, and before anyone else could arrive there just after the glacial peak at 21,000 BP (Niskanen:144). And they are there till today. However the southern Uralic territories have been replaced by other languages arriving later.

15 --before the onset of the LGM, say before 23,000 BP the Uralic language was spread widely over north Europe (Niskanen:145). --When Glacial Peak started Uralic populations shrank to the refugia located south.

16 However we know that the first north/ east Europeans had reached there from India between 40,000 BP and 30,000 BP. Clearly they spoke a forerunner of Uralic.

17 The Uralics preferred to chase the receding margin of the ice- sheets after LGM. They were used to living in tundra/coldest climates during LGM. After the glacial period too, they adopted/ migrated to similar cold regions to the north. Thus it suited their hunter/fisher mode of living. They are there since 15,000 BP. (Niskanens article and the references thereof).

18

19 THE STUDY FINDS URALIC AND IE BEING THE CLOSEST. HOWEVER GENERALLY THE LINGUISTIC STUDIES BEFORE THIS HAVE SUPPORTED URALIC AND ALTAIC AS THE CLOSEST TO EACH OTHER.

20 S i n o r, D. 1988, The Problem of the Ural-Altaic Relationship, The Uralic Languages, Description, History and Foreign Influences. Handbook of Uralic Studies I, LeidenNew York, Bomhard, Allan R. (2008). Reconstructing Proto- Nostratic: Comparative Phonology, Morphology, and Vocabulary, 2 volumes.

21 Bomhard (2008) was most near the truth of all linguists who found that the Uralic, Altaic and Indo-European were sisters on equal footing implying a simultaneous trifercation of the three. This fits well with the genetic model with split of the three in India, from a common ancestor of the three, before the LGM, much before 23,000 BP.

22

23 The Altaic languages are distributed to the south and to the east of the Uralic speaking areas. Thus if Uralic represents the Upper Palaeolithic language of Europe, Altaic represents the Upper Palaeolithic language of Central Asia reaching up to Japan in the East.

24 It may be noted that Japanese and Korean are too often quite logically included in Altaic, although Pagel et al have not done so. Thus we find that Uralic, Altaic, Chukchee- Kamchatkan and Inuit-Yupic should be considered from the same layer of linguistic substratum, the same super-family and should be considered to have evolved from a common ancestor.

25

26

27

28

29

30

31 R1A1A MIGRATION (UNDERHILL 2010) J2B MIGRATION (J2 PROJECT)

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39 OPPENHEIMERS MAP OF DNA MIGRATION DRAWING SHOWING HUMAN POPULATION ON THE BASIS OF DNA MAP

40

41

42

43

44

45 DRAWING REICH ET AL

46

47 THE FIRST EURASIANS A FEW THOUSAND YEARS FOLLOWING EXIT OUT FROM AFRICA: ANI-ASI COASTAL MIGRATION

48

49 Pagels study did not consider the South-East Asian, Australian and Sino-Tibetan languages, which too should have been considered.

50 Pagel et al calculated that the Eurasiatic language existed at 15,000 BP, from which the seven important language families of Eurasia originated after 15,000 BP. These language families cover most of Europe and Asia, except the white areas in the map below:

51

52

53

54

55 30,000 BP15,000-8,000 BP

56

57 DRAWING BY STEPHEN OPPENHEIMER. THIS COULD GIVE RISE TO A LINGUISTIC DISTRIBUTION LIKE THIS:

58

59

60

61 I hope I have been able to explain the evolution of the Eurasiatic language tree.


Download ppt "Criticism/review by P. Priyadarshi. 1. Indo-European 2. Uralic 3. Altaic 4. Dravidian 5. Kartvelian (Georgian; South Caucasian) 6. Chukchee-Kamchatkan."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google