who is gena rowlands dating - R lipp dating

the Indo-Hittite hypothesis is not widely accepted, and there is little to suggest that it is possible to reconstruct a proto-Indo-Hittite stage that differs substantially from what is already reconstructed for PIE.

Using a mathematical analysis borrowed from evolutionary biology, Don Ringe and Tandy Warnow propose the following tree of Indo-European branches: a mainstream consensus had emerged among Indo-Europeanists in favour of the "Kurgan hypothesis" (the Kurgan hypothesis, after the kurgans, burial mounds, of the Eurasian steppes) placing the Indo-European homeland in the Pontic–Caspian steppe of the Chalcolithic.

Today, genetics via DNA samples is increasingly used in the study of ancient population movements.

Through comparative linguistics it is possible to reconstruct the vocabulary found in the proto-language, and in this way achieve knowledge of the cultural, technological and ecological context that the speakers inhabited.

Such a context can then be compared with archeological evidence.

This vocabulary includes, in the case of PIE: Proto-Uralic and PIE share a core vocabulary, such as words for "name" and "water", and similar-looking pronouns.

The Anatolian languages are the first Indo-European language family to have split off from the main group.

Due to the archaic elements preserved in the Anatolian languages, they may be a "cousin" of Proto-Indo-European, instead of a "daughter", but Anatolian is generally regarded as an early offshoot of the Indo-European language group.The majority of Indo-European specialists support the Kurgan hypothesis, and the homeland of Proto-Indo-European proper in the Balkans around 5000 BC.Although it has attracted substantive attention and discussions, the datings it proposes are at odds with the linguistic timeframe for Proto-Indo-European also known as the Armenian hypothesis.As Gimbutas' beliefs evolved, she put increasing emphasis on the patriarchal, patrilineal nature of the invading culture, sharply contrasting it with the supposedly egalitarian, if not matrilineal culture of the invaded, to the point of formulating essentially a feminist archaeology. 4000 BC, and putting less insistence on their violent or quasi-military nature, essentially modified Gimbutas' theory making it compatible with a less gender-political narrative.Her interpretation of Indo-European culture found genetic support in remains from the Neolithic culture of Scandinavia, where DNA from bone remains in Neolithic graves indicated that the megalith culture was either matrilocal or matrilineal, as the people buried in the same grave were related through the women. David Anthony, focusing mostly on the evidence for the domestication of horses and the presence of wheeled vehicles, came to regard specifically the Yamna culture, which replaced the Sredny Stog culture around 3500 BC, as the most likely candidate for the Proto-Indo-European speech community.It was proposed by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, postulating connections between Indo-European and Caucasian languages based on the disputed glottalic theory and connected to archaeological findings by Grogoriev.

Comments are closed.