Why Civilization Is Older Than We Thought:
The Calusa of southwestern Florida might provide a natural experiment for thinking about our Turkish neolithic site: a complex hierarchical society that built mounds, towers, and wide canals, yet engaged in no agriculture. A grand temple—if that is what Göbekli Tepe was—wouldn’t have been beyond their abilities. Instead of the granaries posited by conventional accounts of the origin of civilization, they built “watercourts” to store the rich catches of fish they harvested from the waters of the Florida Keys. The Calusa were a relatively advanced society built on aquaculture instead of agriculture.
Well worth a read (it’s long). It’s not crazy anymore to suggest such things.
The Pacific Northwest was also noted as having enough fish to support a sedentary population with enough disposable wealth for the practice of potlach.
Neolithic big game hunters didn’t have to be nomadic, they often exploited the same natural terrain traps like points of steep-walled plateaus year after year. In the Arctic, people used sticks to kill molting geese and stored them in permafrost pits, on the same lakes or bays year after year. Kets of the Yenisei lived off fishing by the same river rapids for millennia. Excessive amounts of game and fish must have been common in the hinting and fishing tribes, probably implying that they had other obstacles to their population growth and social complexity. Not the relative abundance of calories in comparison with the agriculturalists.
But aquaculture could not be considered a particular kind of “agriculture”? The principles are the same – you sow a piece of land, wait some time, and then harvest, with all this imply (sedentarization, fixed wealth, economic surplus, impossibility to leave if you think the proto-government is to much oppressive…)
“Why Civilization Is Older Than We Thought?”
Because we started with ideological, Euro/German centric premises that everything starts with Yamnaya – the western predecessors, who spoke sc. ‘Indo-European’ language btw Hungary and Mongolia and spread this language and their culture(!) around the Europe, that CW was Yamnaya culture, that all Euro, Sanskrit and Indic languages originated from Yamnaya. For the same reason the sc. ‘ancient Greek’ history was stretched back in time and appropriated by the West.
And, what is the story? Sc. ‘Indo-Germanishe’ changed to equally meaningless ‘Indo-European’ when the balance of power shifted from Germans to Anglo-Frenches who asked for their piece of action, we not only established that nomads came with very low culture, that their language was missing the entire civilizational disciplines’ vocabulary, that CW was not their heritage, we found that they were monsters and rapists. Yes, there was something called ‘Old Europe’ (Vinca, Iron Gates, Danube) in which micro-climate (with a lot of fishing) more than 90% of people spent the Ice Age and who spoke the language for a longer period of time than it is our distance from Yamnaya. And we will keep repeating this question until we decide to break all taboos and stop searching and publishing ancient evidence which only support our modern daily agendas.
Everyone who is even slightly familiar with the history has heard of Gobekli Tepe. I wonder who could build this world’s oldest megalithic temple? Mesolithic Anatolians, Mesolithic Iranians, Natufians?
‘I2’ has built Stonehenge and thousands of other megaliths.
“I wonder who could build this world’s oldest megalithic temple? Mesolithic Anatolians, Mesolithic Iranians, Natufians?”
Obviously, Mesolithic Anatolians. It is in Anatolia, so the people who lived in its vicinity and built it were, by definition Anatolians of the Mesolithic era.
There is no doubt that prior to the domestication of plants and animals, that communities with fishing based food production, in part, because it could be sedentary were the most “civilized”. You could add the earliest investors of pottery, the Jomon of Japan and the fishing villages of coastal China, to the list of relatively “advanced” fishing based civilizations.
While fishing based economies explain many of the particular advanced outliers, however, it doesn’t explain Gobekli Tepe. There is rather convincing suggestive evidence that Gobekli Tepe was prompted to memorialize an extraterrestrial impact event that gave rise to the Younger Dryas climate event.
Also, I do think that the scale of terrestrial hunter-gather communities is usually underestimated, because pre-Neolithic terrestrial hunter-gather communities would have thrived and dominated the very most prime territory.
In contrast, the post-Neolithic Holocene era is a long secular trend of terrestrial hunter-gatherers being evicted by farmers and herders from more desirable territory to places that are of no use to farmers and marginal even for herders, like the Kalahari desert, the depths of the Congo and Amazon jungles, and the Arctic and sub-Arctic tundra and northern coasts. Marginal environments can only support smaller, more marginal communities of people, since hunting and gathering generates fewer calories were acre/hectare of land, and since crossing a desert or tundra by foot takes about the same amount of time as crossing a verdant meadow or game rich river basins by foot. Travel by foot set a boundary on how far away from each other people in the same community in a meaningful sense could be from each other that was the same for all terrestrial hunter-gatherers. But, the more fruitful the land, the more people that more or less fixed size geographic region could be. And, even places that were not truly primarily fish based food production communities, in that way that the Pacific Northwest or the Jomon or the Calusa of Southwest Florida were, may have supplemented their diets with some coastal shellfish gathering or a minor but significant contribution from riverine fish and freshwater animals (like eels, frogs, turtles and crayfish) that provided an additional food source that again increased the carrying capacity of already prime territory. There is also evidence in Natufian archaeology of proto-farming, where desirable wild types of plants in a particular place where they were already present were encouraged to grow.
So, while modern hunter-gather communities may live in bands of dozens or hundreds of people, pre-Neolithic hunter-gatherer communities might very well have included thousands or tens of thousands people in the most prime territories. These communities would have had been far less concentrated in any one place than even the most primitive Neolithic farming communities, but it doesn’t seem at all implausible that there could have been seasonal hot spots on some sort of regular circuit in the community’s territory as multiple bands of people flocked to wild berry groves when they were in season, to fish runs in rivers at spawning times, to water holes in dry seasons, to migration routes of particular animals at the appropriate times. So, even if a large community of say 10,000 people who were a walkable distance from each other was broken up into 100 primary bands of 100 people each, there might be groups of several thousand in the hottest spots several times a year in places where food was especially abundant.
Another strongly suggestive bit of evidence that communities had significant and meaningful organization above the level of the nomadic band of terrestrial hunter-gatherers is that the FST measurement of the genetic distinctiveness of Levantine hunter-gatherers (Naturfians) from Caucasian/Iranian hunter-gatherers, was as great as that between Europeans and East Asians in modern times, despite the fact that they had geographically adjacent territories. You can’t get that kind of genetic population structure between geographically adjacent populations without either truly insurmountable geographic barriers (and there were mountains and arid areas to serve as barriers that helped divide the communities, but not that insurmountable) or strong socially enforced endogamy norms and linguistic and political identity differences. The lowland Levantine Natufians and the West Asian highland CHG were clearly not friends, probably didn’t have much occasion to even engage in trade with each other, and genetics indicate, didn’t engage in bride exchange with each other. In political science terms, these genetic signs tell us that “nations” of co-ethnics with a shared identity far preceded governmental organizations called “states”.
Gobekli Tepe is still a puzzle, however. There is just nothing else, anywhere in the world, including in communities with fishing based food production, in the pre-Neolithic world, of this scale and sophistication. There was stone working, mostly for tools, and there was cave art and there were decorative personal effects, but it really was something new under the Sun, never before seen in human history.
Why then, about 13000 BP? Why there, right at the epicenter of the Fertile Crescent Neolithic Revolution’s emergence three thousand years later? This wasn’t a community based upon food production by fishing. Analysis of the trash left behind shows that a big share of their food consumption at the time it was built was wild terrestrial game.
It may have been in the most prime territory in the world at the time, a true Eden. But there are other places in the world that would have been also very nice.
One hypothesis could explain its uniqueness is that this was a site of mixed proto-farming and terrestrial hunter-gatherer food production pre-Younger Dryas, on the cusp of being the first community in the world to start a first neolithic revolution. This prospect fizzled, however, and other potential independent neolithic revolutions failed to launch as they would three thousand years later, because of the Younger Dryas event set that development in human progress back several thousand years due to climate conditions it created that were unfavorable to domestication of plants and animals.
Perhaps construction of Gobekli Tepe had begun prior to the Younger Dryas as what would have been the world’s first Neolithic megalithic structure (something that early Neolithic communities worldwide seem to independently create for astronomy purposes). But, when the Younger Dryas hit, it ended up being something that was pushed to completion anyway as a memorial to what might have been until changing climate conditions crushed the incipient neolithic breakthrough. Lots of powerful people in their community would have still had fresh visions of what was about to emerge with a Neolithic revolution that they were about to usher in, and they were literally praying that this kind of monument could recapture the civilized greatness that was slipping away from them inexorably due to the Younger Dryas.
This is just speculation, of course, but it is a reasonable inference from what we know that could explain all of the available facts. Most other explanations about early Mesolithic civilization either fail to explain why there wasn’t something comparable to Gobekli Tepe anywhere else in the world in the pre-Neolithic era, or why Gobekli Tepe didn’t emerge in a fishing based community. If other explanations were right, we would have expected to see many such structures in the world, and we don’t. But, a first Neolithic Revolution in the world (whose timing is explained by the fact that climate was first the LGM ice age, and then extremely variable on very short time scales until not long before the Younger Dryas) that was aborted suddenly by an ET impact causing the Younger Dryas that is arguably depicted in its engravings, does explain why it is unique (with a location for a first in the same place where the actual first Neolithic occurred), and also explains why it happened in this one place and was then not repeated for another three thousand years.
@ohwilleke, on the topic of HG population size and where it boomed and where it did not, obvious adna angle is methods to recover population size from looking at sRoH distribution relative to lRoH and to nucleotide diversity and heterozygosity (stuff like Ringbauer and collaborators and other researchers).
This may disentangle for us the phenomena of large population size and simply being less nomadic, when it comes to developing larger scale structures and tools (pots for’ex) that aren’t very portable.
I think there will be at least few interesting datasets to test this soon. One is “Wang Xiaoran. Multiple isotopic and aDNA analyses of Nevali Cori shed light on a socio-section of ancient southeast Anatolia” (https://isba9.sciencesconf.org/data/pages/ISBA9_ConferenceProgramme_FINAL.pdf) – Wiki – “Nevalı Çori (Turkish: Nevali Çori) was an early Neolithic settlement on the middle Euphrates, in Şanlıurfa Province, Southeastern Anatolia, Turkey. The site is known for having some of the world’s oldest known temples and monumental sculpture. Together with the earlier site of Göbekli Tepe, it has revolutionised scientific understanding of the Eurasian Neolithic period. The oldest domesticated Einkorn wheat was found there.”.
Another I’ll talk about at more length is is Hofmanova’s Lepenski Vir samples – https://d-nb.info/113609640X/34 – from her thesis which apparently got a couple of a couple of decent coverage shotgun samples from different points in time from this culture and some more low coverage capture samples. Includes two 100% HG samples, 1 during early Mesolithic (Lepe51) and another during Mesolithic->Neolithic transition (Lepe45). I don’t think these samples were ever covered in a published paper in such detail and coverage, but the thesis is there, and they’ve worked . Think Iain Mathieson got 4 different samples from Lepenski Vir (unless they’re republished under different IDs!) which they labelled IronGates_N… with a similar mix of 2 completely EEF samples, one admixed sample – I5232, and one wholly HG sample I5407 (https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/nature25778_Mathieson_0_0.pdf).
Lepenski Vir had apparently this relatively complex semi-sedentary society, so if they have evidence of a higher population size than the autosomally pretty similar people at Iron Gates in the Mesolithic, that could suggest some things. Interestingly, a lot of the Mesolithic Iron Gates samples have been re-shotgun sampled to very high coverage under the Harvard AGDP (https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/ancient-genome-diversity-project), including the admixed person.
(This site is particularly interesting in genomic terms because it seems to show the immigration and incorporation of EEF into a HG community – “Whereas Danubian hunter-gatherer individualsfrom Vlasac site (∼7,400-6,200 cal BC) showed absence of gene flow with the contemporaneousfarmers inhabiting the Aegean, the so far genetically unobserved incorporation of early farmers intoa hunter-gatherer context occurred in Lepenski Vir during the Transition (∼6,200-6,000/5,950 calBC) and more so during the Neolithic period (∼6,000/5,950-5,500 cal BC). Individual ancestries atthis large and culturally unique site are diverse, with individuals with a local (WHG-like) ancestry,individuals of a fully Aegean origin and individuals that could trace their ancestry partly locally andpartly to the Aegean. “. Some samples presumed to be local HG on basis of burial were actually EEF, genetically.)
So in principle that might some robusticity to comparisons between them and the Lepenski Vir HG. I would be very unsurprised if this was in the pipeline as someone’s project.
Another might be Jomon HG samples, if more keep coming out (but I haven’t looked there in detail).
So in principle some of the questions about whether population sizes of extant HG underestimate ancient pre-farming HG, or disentangling the correlated factors of population size or sedentism as a cause for earliest architecture and art (such as these and perhaps even the Chauvet and Indonesian Caves)… Well, those might be more answerable. We won’t have to conjecture about these things and will just get answers.
One wrinkle though might be that we’ll be dealing with Last Glacial Maximum in many places – certainly in Europe and Japan and northmost China – and we’ll be dealing with hot climates with unfavourable preservation in other places during much of the immediately pre-Neolithic period. That might make it tougher to work out some things, but I’m hopeful.
Lepenski Vir (Whirlpool) is the beginning of the oldest and the highest civilisation in Europe which culminated later with Vinca civilisation. It is about 12000 years old and one estimate is that more than 90% people lived there at the height of Ice Age. This could give a very new picture of Euroasian human development. Lepenski Vir is dubbed “the first city in Europe” and there is, surprisingly, a pretty good wiki reference.
However, probably due to political reasons, Vinca civilisation is still under virtual embargo in terms of its research and publishing results. Though, Reich’s lab started recently some research, probably by realising that this is a missing link in human development. In the ‘Indo-European’ serial we can see that Yamnaya people came to Europe, found some people having advanced civilisation achievements, but there is not even a speculation about the previous history of these people and the language spoken by them. Vinca civilisation occupied the space roughly between Trypillia, Alps and Crete with Vinca as its capital.
The Intro-text mentioned, Varna, with its significant gold processing but it does not say that it was a part of Vinca civilisation, too. It would be an absurd to have such scale of gold and jewellery production, isolated and in the middle of nowhere. A different story (later) is the name of the place with the same root with a Hindu god Varuna, so as Karlovy Vary, Warsaw, Timisoara (Temisvar), Bjelovar, or with old name for Babylon – Vardun. What is the VAR and where it came from?
The key point here is the language spoken by Lepenski Vir and Vinca people for more than 7000 years before arrival of Yamnaya with their sc. ‘Indo-European’ language. Having conducted the genocide, Yamnaya people fairly quickly left the Vinca region and, it seems, went to the north, some even back to steppes. Some Vinca people, who escaped the genocide, returned back to old homeland. It is proven that there is a continuity of people since Lepenski Vir and modern inhabitants of Serbia and former Yugoslavia (I2 haplogroup in Serbia is 40% and in a rugged Dinaric region up to 71%). These people did not have much contact with Yamnaya, they already had much more developed own language and it is preposterous that they adopted the very poor nomadic language which was missing the entire civilizational vocabulary. It is highly probable the opposite, that ‘Old European’, Vinca language was (on the north) adopted by Yamnaya people and transferred to their children by abducted Vinca women and mothers of the children.
The linguist Mario Alinei, the author of the Palaeolithic Continuity Theory, stated that sc. ‘Indo-European’ languages originated in Europe during the Upper Palaeolithic. It means that Vinca language is the language from which almost all European languages evolved, so as Sanskrit carried by Aryans, all Slavic and many Indic languages. This is the only sustainable theory supported by strong evidence without showstoppers, after the Anatolian theory was archived and the Kurgan theory, which linguistic portion is destined for the same, because it is simply against the common sense. In this context can be seen the mini research assignment from other thread to explain the adoption of the word MED (honey) by other 50ish languages.
PS: I’ve just realised that many readers are not aware of the assigned mini-research exercise mentioned in my previous comment so, I will copy it here.
Earlier, I said that Sanskrit can be a crucial guidance (some sort of sc. ‘Indo-European’ pit-stop), considering that it is very close to Yamnaya but still not very far from us today. I asked about the meaning of ‘rg’ and ‘veda’ which can be a linguistic dna of their origins. Pre-Yamnaya toponyms and hydronyms on British Isles, at Stonehenge times (btw, what is the meaning of ‘druids’?), can be also used for this research.
I may suggest a low cost, no-frill and no time-consuming research which every reader can conduct (only Google translate is needed). A Serbian word MED (=honey) is adopted in about 50 languages. In ancient times, MED is used for the preparation of the ancient alcoholic drink ‘MEDovina’ (still present in many countries under similar or different names) but it is also a root word for – medicine, medication, etc. Is MED ‘Indo-European’ or non-IE word?
Palaeolithic Continuity Theory is an extreme minority position in linguistics whose following has only declined as more data is developed. It is just not a good fit to the linguistic data, or to the genetic, historical, and archaeological data that give context to linguistic theories.
Basically, it is almost certainly wrong.
@ oh
Can you give me one example why could not exist the language continuity since Ice Age up to today? There is a genetic continuity of (only European) ‘I’ (i.e. I1 & I2) haplogroup in last 30000 years, what implies the language continuity, too, unless if something happened that caused a discontinuity. What that could be? Kurgan theory says that it was the arrival of Yamnaya to Europe. While in previous case we can see the sufficient time period for the development of Proto-language phase in the Yamnaya case we cannot see when and where this phase happened. The burden of proving is on those who claim discontinuity not on those who plead continuity. So?
Anthony said that we don’t know about Yamnaya before 3100BC and couple hundreds of years later they started migration to Europe with their sc. ‘Indo-European’ language. Where this language came from? We already established that this nomadic language was missing all civilizational attributes faced with 2000 years older civilisation. KK said that the diffusion of this language was through abducted women who came to male dominated families. What was the language spoken by the first generation of Yamnaya children in Europe? Which language they learnt when they were baby-toddlers? What was their MOTHER tongue?
On the other side, the surviving remnants of I2 in Vinca region almost did not have linguistic contacts with Yamnaya who quickly left the region. They simply did not have a theoretical chance to learn Yamnaya language and, why would be, if their language was thousands of years older and much more sophisticated. It means that their language continuity, so as genetic, was preserved up to today. The Sanskrit is a check point that can confirm this, so as thousands of linguistic examples (I provided some at BP, I may do here as well). It was already proven that this language influenced proto-Germanic. We even don’t know which modern language is the direct successor of Yamnaya language and which one is similar to ‘Indo-European’ Sanskrit.
I may provide couple basic premises of language continuity theory for readers to form their own opinion. One thing which DA avoided to answer is the number of Yamnaya migrants. Some texts talk about ‘massive’ migration. I don’t know but I would not expect more than 25000. A separate story would be the organisation of migration of dispersed nomadic families on large space without tv and internet. The population of Europe was much bigger, and we can imagine how this Yamnaya (linguistic) wave covered the whole Europe and British Isles and enforced their poor vocabulary language even if they all were language teachers.
If we had to summarize the ‘IE’ podcasts so far in one line, it would be:
Indigenous Europeans were non-Indo-Europeans!
I hope that in his concluding remarks at the end of the IE serial, Razib will take the leadership (we will support him) and propose the abandoning of the misleading term ‘Indo-European’ and using the term ‘Yamnaya language’ instead. After that, pretty quickly, the things will find their right places.
Re: Basques
Razib wrote:
“There were exceptions to the pattern of assimilation and expansion. Over 80% of the Y chromosomes of the non-Indo-European Basque are R1b, a lineage associated with Yamnaya. The reason is simple: the Roman-era historian Strabo mentions that the Basques of Iberia were matrilineal. Yamnaya men integrated into the proto-Basques, and their sons spoke the language of their mothers. The Basques (and their distinct genetics!) are then the exception that proves the rule.”
>>> My opinion is very opposite. Why would Basques be the only exceptions to prove the rule? Theoretically, there could be many candidate places in Europe to be such exception. Almost every text about Basques talk about their exceptional, ‘mysterious’ language in the ‘Indo-European’ sea. I already wrote in my previous comment (I think that someone mentioned similar) about kids learning the language from their mothers. Here, it is asserted as an exception to the rule. The exception here is, on my modest opinion, that fathers’ component was coincidentally stronger and these kids preserved some elements of the language of their Yamnaya fathers.
So, on the record, the conclusion is that the ‘mysterious’ Basque language, although heavily ‘Vincanized’, preserved many elements of Yamnaya language or simply, Basque language is a surviving island of Yamnaya language, i.e. Basques spoke the language of their fathers, no their mothers as the rest of Europe.
Someone, DT for e.g, could you put this on my tab, pls?
I will provide a summary of the continuity paradigm but, for now, only one of its concluding remarks:
“(e) The totally absurd thesis of the so called ‘late arrival’ of the Slavs in Europe must be replaced by the scenario of Slavic continuity from Paleolithic, and the demographic growth and geographic expansion of the Slavs can be explained, much more realistically, by the extraordinary success, continuity and stability of the Neolithic cultures of South-Eastern Europe (the only ones in Europe that caused the formation of tells) (Alinei 2000a, 2003b).
Future research will enhance and confirm these conclusions, as well as open new vistas on our past.”
To see some different view on Kurgan theory, presented in podcasts by DA, KK and TO, let’s read the Alinei’s perspective:
“1.1 The traditional model: the Indo-European Calcholithic Invasion
As is known, until recently the received doctrine for the origins of Indo-Europeans (IE) in Europe was centered upon the idea – now called the ‘myth’ (Häusler 2003) – of an Indo-European Invasion in the Copper Age (4th millennium B.C.), by horse-riding warrior pastoralists. The last and most authoritative version of this theory was the so called kurgan theory, elaborated by Marija Gimbutas, according to which the Proto-IE were the warrior pastoralists who built kurgan, i.e. burial mounds, in the steppe area of Ukraine (e.g. Gimbutas 1970, 1973, 1977, 1980). From the steppe area, the Proto-IE kurgan conquerors would have then first invaded Southern Eastern Europe, then, in the 3rd millennium, after having evolved into the so called Battle Axe people, would have somehow erased most pre-existing languages, and brought IE languages all over Europe.
By placing the arrival of the IEs in the 4th millennium, and the process of transformation from Proto-IE to separate language groups in the 3rd, the subsequent process, by which the separate language groups would evolve into the major attested languages, will inevitably take place in the II and I millennium that is in the Bronze and Iron Age. Although most IE specialists are still reluctant to admit it, this chronology, as well as the scenario behind it, can now be considered as altogether obsolete. The evidence collected by archaeology in the last thirty years, in fact, overwhelmingly prove the absence of any large scale invasion in Europe, and the uninterrupted continuity of most Copper and Bronze Age cultures of Europe from Neolithic, and of most Neolithic cultures from Mesolithic and final Paleolithic.
Archaeologists usually do not address linguistic issues. This is probably why, although firm conclusions about absence of invasions and cultural continuity already began to appear in the archaeological literature of the Seventies, historical linguists have continued to assume the traditional theory as an undisputed truth.”
@M. Todorovic
You have the worst case of “we wuz da real kangz” that I have ever seen.
@ if
Can you explain and be more specific? Which point I presented is incorrect, unclear or problematic? Or you are just provoking? Or it is just a congenital animosity towards indigenous people in general?
This
a congenital animosity towards (self-avowed) indigenous people in general?
I could expect that this is the reason and not only in your case. Flying squad before you so as prince Eugen as well. That is actually the pattern, if we scale up you would bomb me, if we scale back in time you would use a stone mace from a neighbouring story. This ‘self-avowed’ is the cornerstone of the world history falsifications which claim, without one supporting evidence, that some sc. ‘Slavs’ fell down from Mars on Balkan in the 7thc.AC. Or, maybe you can produce one or borrow from Gene-wiki-reader? If I2 haplogroup originated in Europe 30000 years ago, if Azilian Suisse I2 man is 13500 years old, If British I2 ‘cheddar man’ (ancestor of Elvis Presley, Bill Gates and Chuck Norris) lived 9000 years ago, if I2 lived in Lepenski Vir (Iron Gates) 10000+ years ago, if the percentage of I2 in Serbia is 40% (going up to 71%), if…would all this be enough to call these people Euro-aborigines?
Btw, how are you progressing with researching the MED (=honey, a root for ‘medicine’)?
Or, if you do not have Google translate, there is something easier for you – English word ‘land’ (or ‘heart’ or ‘ghost’ or the most comical loss in translation – ‘father’). Stay cool and take it easy.
Btw, how are you progressing with researching the MED (=honey, a root for ‘medicine’)?
I’m not a trained linguist and do not have the time nor inclination to become one. Instead, I rely upon those linguists considered scholarly and trustworthy.
That said, I know what language Brazilians speak and I know what language Mexicans speak. And from just a little reading, I know that there is no consensus on time, place or people of PIE, and even if a consensus forms it could be overturned by scholarship if the facts supported that overturning. I know that Slavic is considered an Indo-European language by experts in the field.
If Slavs are Neanderthals or Denisovans I suppose you would be justified in claiming indigenous status.
I suppose I could be persuaded of some of your “arguments” if you could produce some books from your library circa 10,000 BC. Or did the dingoes eat your library?
@MilanTodoravic
“The totally absurd thesis of the so called ‘late arrival’ of the Slavs in Europe must be replaced by the scenario of Slavic continuity from Paleolithic,”
This supposedly “absurd thesis” is historically attested. People saw it happen and wrote about it in documents that persist to this day.
@ if
It seems you are very modest guy/girl what per definition would deserve my sympathies, unless (unfortunate your case) if the knowledge is in question. For consolation, at least you do not pretend that you are a smart guy.
First, there is no such thing as ‘Slavic language’ (neither Romance nor Scandinavian). There is for 000 of years the Serbian language since Vinca which fairly recently diversified (from Russian in the 8th c.AC up to Bosnian Muslim’s 🙂 20 years ago).
You put my arguments under quotations what means that you do not believe that things I mentioned are truthful or maybe truthful but not sufficient enough because they were chronologically after Neanderthals (I wander if Cro-Magnons and homo sapience are acceptable?).
Well, the facts – the 30000 years age of I2, Azilian and ‘cheddar man’ (apart from his descendants: the King, ‘Covid’ Bill and Big Chuck I could add the US president Munro and Razib’s Tehjas’ compatriot Davy Crockett), I2@Lepenski Vir, I2 Europeans who were subjected to Yamnaya genocide (you may not have access to Razib’s podcasts) up to the I2 today are the public knowledge which can be found even in the wiki (unless dingo took your laptop?).
It is a shame that you are not interested in linguistics, you could research ‘land’, ‘ghost’, pir (or pyre, e.g. vampire) and many other Serbian words in English language (if this is your first language), which would also testify the age of these words.
@ oh
“This supposedly “absurd thesis” is historically attested. People saw it happen and wrote about it in documents that persist to this day.”
>>> This absurd thesis was NOT historically attested. This is a key falsification of the world history. No one saw this migration (although the calculated length of this procession should be 1500 km!) there is no single primary account, document or a sighting of this migration by historians, writers, poets, philosophers, government officials, army, border patrol, customs, clochards, coincidental bystanders. Only one obvious falsification from 1611 AC is cited, 1000 years after the alleged migration, backdated to 900 AC, what, even if it was the original would be 300 years after this migration (and probably transferred orally from grandpa’s to grandchildren in this period).
Well, if you produce only ONE evidence (you may also consult Gene-Wiki-Vandal) that would be a global contribution, bigger than uncovering the identity of Aryans (btw, how are you going with ‘med’, ‘rg’ and ‘veda’?). Is honey in your mother tongue language is also ‘med’?