The Time Machine

The Baltic, German and Slavic origins

2007-06-20T09:09:00.000+03:00

THE BALTIC, GERMAN AND SLAVIC ORIGINS
The Baltic language group is the most closest to Slavic, so the question about the Baltic and Slavic origin can not be solved separately. During the last age there was a great discussion among the schollars on this problem. The main list of opinions on homeland localisation and chronology of key events using archaeological and linguistic data is presented in literature chapter below. There exist different opinions about localisation of Baltic and of Slavic homeland and the moment when they separated from indoeuropean community. Some scientists suppose this time to be about the end of the III millenium BC (O.N.Trubachev), about the end of the II millenium (T.Ler-Slavinsky, K.Jaczdczewsky, J.Kostszewsky etc), the middle of the II millenium BC (Polish scientist F.Slavski), the IV age BC (M.Fasmer, L.Niederle. S.B.Bernstein, P.I.Shafarik) .

The new theory about the origin of the Baltic people using archaeological data of the evolutional changes of the eastern Baltic sea coast mesolithic cultures was published recently by Algirdas Girininkas The Narva Culture and the origin of the Baltic culture, The Indo-Europeanization of Northern Europe, Washington, 1996, p.42–47.
Developing this theory some new facts must be considered. During the last decade there was made the significant step revealing the first human migrations.
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html
There was found. that the first homo sapiens entered the Europe belonged to the sixth genetical group, which traveled from the Eastern Mediteranium - Levant. This group was the predecessors of arabic jews population and semito chamitic language group and their genetical traces are still detected in the Europe. The main part of European settlers belongs to the IX genetical group carying the M173 mutation. They appeared in the Europe aproximately about 25-20 millenium BC and suffered here the glacial period - 20-13 millenium BC .
The NRY data also disclose an expansion from the Levant into the Mediterranean basin around 25+20000 years ago (Fig. 3e). This expansion would have been of a population carrying Group VI lineages from which M170 arose in situ in Europe, a descendant of the early M89}M213 population in the area. This event, which apparently also brought to Europe the mtDNA haplogroup H (Torroni et al. 1998), does not have an archaeological signature. The distribution of the chromosome 21 MX1 haplotype 8 in Europe Y chromosome binary haplotypes and origins of modern human populations 55 and W. Asia, but not E. Asia (Jin et al. 1999), appears to coincide with Group VI lineages, especially if we assume its distribution in Oceania and America is a consequence of recent gene ow. Levantine populations at the time manufactured Upper Palaeolithic tools similar to those in Europe (probably introduced by the expansion of earlier Group VI M52}M69 (now at low percentages) and Group IX populations in the area), and neither their tools, nor their particular Group IX lineages, would be distinguishable from those in Europe at the time. These expansion events were followed by a period of signiRcant population contraction associated with the LGM 18+16000 years ago (Fig. 3f ). These contractions are well represented in the archaeological record (Sofer & Gamble, 1990), and in Europe led to the formation of discrete refugia. Equally, the European archaeological record shows the extent of the subsequent demographic expansions from these discrete refugia as conditions ameliorated (Housely et al. 1999). We suggest that these Mesolithic expansion events are reected in the relative frequencies of the two main sub-groups of Group IX lineages in Europe today (Semino et al. 2000).Ann. Hum. Genet. (2001), 65, 43+62 Printed in Great Britain The phylogeography of Y chromosome binary haplotypes and the origins of modern human populations P. A. UNDERHILL"*, G. PASSARINO",&, A. A. LIN", P. SHEN#, M. MIRAZO!N LAHR$,%, R. A. FOLEY$, P. J. OEFNER# and L. L. CAVALLI-SFORZA" ññûëêà There was discovered, that neolitic settlers - farmers covered the most only the fourth part af all European humans. This is the reason why we must suppose the European languages to be formed on the basis mesholitic hunter's and fishmen languages influenced by the wide spreaded agriculture simmilarities, which defined indoeuropean community. The nostratic studies give one more argument for such European languages formation model. It was found, that nostratic simmilarities spreaded much more wide, than agriculture wave and this is could be the trace of preglacial period or even of the first human migrations.
Having such understanding about the languages formation of the European inhabitans someone could rise the question - where did lived the Baltic and Slavic predecessors and what kind of language they used. The level of their technologies proofs that they really could comunicate using some speach. The relicts of the first fishing nets found in the layers of 20 thousand and more years old and some bone art carvings belonging to glacial time confirms this idea. So, scientific models presented in the literature have "stealed" at least 22 thousand years of Baltic and Slavic history - the fog period, i.e. the period from the first IX group inhabitants reached the Europe till agriculture spreading. including German, Celtic, Italico-Greece ethnic predeccesors too.
The map presents Europe at the moment of maximal glaciation. According to the nature situation presented in this map it is reasonable to suppose, that at the iceland bottom near the Karpat forest there lived preBaltic people, and by the Danube river pre-Slavic and preGreek people, becouse the Finno-Ugric people homeland is supposed to be Asia or Ural mountain area. Probably, the reason of preBaltic and preSlavic separation from the preGermanic and preCeltic people was the narrowness of the usefull tundra stepe land among the Scandinavian and Alpic. So, the comunication and changes among the people was mainly the vertical, not horizontal and this caused the lots of simmilarities among the the Baltic and Slavic language groups.
The Slavic language uses the name for the hard oak tree DUB (ÄÓÁ in russ.) - different from Lithuanian, but the Baltic has the name for the bear - LOKIS (in lith.) different from the slavic. These facts alow to predict, that differences among both language group existed at the mesolithic time of hunters and fishmen, but Lithuanian name of the oak - Àþuolas it is possible to derive from the oakcorn Russian name -æåëóäü, and Lithuanian word for the bear - LOKIS possibly was derived using the Lithuanian name of the bow - LANKAS which is simmilar to the russian bow - LUK. This fits to the hypothesis about Baltic homeland existance more to the north and Slavic - more to the southern oak spreading zone confirming close relations among preBaltic and preSlavic speaking people. The word TINKLAS for the fishing net was used in Lithuanian language and this is related to the russian TENNETO - the net for the birds, but the fish in Lithuanian is ÞUVIS and in Russian - RYBA. So, at the moment of mesolithic spreading of preBaltic people to the coast of the Baltic sea, those two language were separated enough, stressing ethnic differencies.
The reality of such a model could be confirmed using the analysis of the pine tree name, too. The Karpatian pine in the Lithuanian is called PUÐIS, that is closely conected to the old German and the Greek names for the pine tree but not so close to the Slavic one. The Lithuanian word - the name of the oak derived from the Slavic one, consists the idea of oak forest artificial planting and growing learned at the southern neighbours, when the idea of the Slavic one possibly gives characteristics to the hardness of the oak. This leads to the idea about Slavic homeland full of natural growing oak trees before or the time of maximal glaciation of the Europe. The Armenian language supports the idea about possible simmilarity of the oak and oak corn names too. The distinct Baltic southern tribe language - Prussian gives some more facts about neighbouring Baltic and Slavic people from the premesolithic forestification time. Their language when living in the Poland and Kaliningrad area used the names of gut and hair close to the Slavic oak and pine, so prePrussian homeland was very close to the Slavic one at the moment of maximal glaciation.

SOME USEFULL SCIENTIFIC FACTS AND IDEASA large ice sheet (white) covers Scandinavea, and most of northern and central Europe is covered by steppe-tundra vegetation (reddish colour), a sparse vegetation existing under dry, cold climates (erratum; northern France should be coloured as steppe-tundra, not steppe). In southern Europe, slightly warmer conditions give a dry, almost semi-desert steppe (yellow). The few surviving areas of rather open wooded cover are shown in green.ññûëêà Initial warming after 18 thousand years before presentReconstructed climate, soils, etc. Warming from initial mean annual temperatures of about -1oC. Melting of the discontinuous permafrost. Continental climate. Bare, calcareous substratum, high erosion rate. Reconstructed regional vegetation Sparse herbaceous pioneer vegetation with grasses, Cyperaceae, Chenopodiaceae, dwarf shrubs (Salix, Betula nana, Alnus viridis), Artemisia, Thalictrum, Helianthemum. Possible pine refugia. Lake basin development Thermokarst (pingo) collapse is giving the lake its form. Pioneer aquatic vegetation dominated by Charophyta. Low lake productivity, minerogenic accumulation. Ethymological FASMER's vocabulary about the origin of the words "oak, pine tree, oakcorn".
http://www.russiansifiction.com/vasmer/p218.htm

LITERATURE
ABOUT THE BALTIC ORIGIN
http://www.vaidilute.com/books/gimbutas/gimbutas-introduction.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balts
http://images.katalogas.lt/maleidykla/act43/A-08.pdf
ABOUT THE GERMAN ORIGIN
http://www.stadtgeschichte-ffm.de/service/chronik/chronik_1_e.html
http://www.caen.iufm.fr/colloque_iartem/pdf/senecheau.pdf
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/citd/holtorf/1.2.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4713323.stm
http://www.newnation.org/NNN-prehistory.html
ABOUT THE SLAVIC ORIGIN
V.V. Sedov Ethnogenesis of early slavian people. Vestnik Rosijskoj Akademi nauk, vol. 73, N 7, p. 594-605 (2003) (in russian) ññûëêà
B.V.Ovchinikov. The origin of western slavs. Ural governmental technical university. Ekaterinburg , 1995 ññûëêà
À. Å. Suprun The old slavs and their homeland - Minsk, 1989. - p. 135-155)
ññûëêà V.V.Sedov. Oldrussian tribe Dulebi ññûëêà O. N. Trubachev the old slavs according to the data of ethymology and onomastic (I) (Voprosy jazykoznanija. - Ì., 1982, N 4. - p. 10-26) ññûëêà About homeland problem ññûëêà D.Gavrilov. The myth about Riurik in the light of western slavic origin ññûëêà
Classification of slavic languages ññûëêà S.E.Rassadin. The venets among the Alps and the Ocean: venets- the other german, Beloruskij governmental university, Minsk ññûëêà
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/agbdesign/slavic/
The early European tribes http://www.angelfire.com/realm/bodhisattva/euro-tribes.html

the last update 2007 06 15
copyright

turboscience@gmail.com

About the first selfidentification

2007-06-17T08:16:00.000+03:00

I suppose, 'the man, to think, to stay in a place, what' are from the same semantical nest and it is possible to add to this list 'I', and 'mine'. These words has their strong backbone MN. How this could originate and how the meaning was changed and transformed?The first one in the very beginning of languages possibly there was like 'mother' having backbone MM supported by the corespondance of the mouth movement when baby eating. The next one was transformation MM to MN - to sign the male who was real hunting man MN. When language developed, selfidentification I - MN appeared (possibly they used the MAN think, when they wanted to express I think) and the first speaking population started to use arguing it's mine - to express the Man - I is the owner. When they observed some other people to stay somewhere the MN obtained the next meaning and possibly when they needed to separate hunting the huMAN from the animal there appeared simmilar Who and what.These meanings still exist worldwide ending by indian, whose predecessors traveled from Asia, languages but this is the great puzzle why indoeuropean lost the old direct selfidentification saying now I, ya, aš, ich..., but Finno-Ugric haven't.

On the description and representation of the languages development

2007-06-17T07:44:00.000+03:00

The problem is - how to simply represent all the beuty of world languages development. Such languge family tree models are too simple to represent reality.Ever such simplification looses important information but there arethe other possibilities.My idea is - a sequence of maps havingvertical - time dimension and horizontal - geographical plus lots oftied to locations on maps files containing information about languages startingfrom the beginning. Physically, it is possible to buy hundreds of the maps, to draw different regions and to tie some paper or books full of information, but the problem is - to find empty sport hall to create the model of the world languages development (joke). Really, such approach is possible to realise in the virtual space and this will be created during next thirty years, I hope. Someone clicks on the time scale and on the map for location and obtains necessary all known information including not only language specifity but genetical typeand hystorical development too and the main languagesdevelopment features and trends. The new model of indoeuropean similarities I've presented consistsof basic strata - the VIth genetical group language 35 000 BC, and the main stream - the IXth genetical group language used somewherein Asia and transported into Europe.The next multistrata - European languages, when european population wascompressed at the LGM (Last glacial maximum)time. The nextmultistrata represents neolithical influencies and inovations knownas indoeuropean. And every language and language step of course mustbe connected according to the model of development.Tremendous contstruction, but reality is much more complex than anymodel. The problem is how to choose enough adequate abstract model not loosing important information.

Paleolithic Continuity Theory

2007-06-15T11:11:00.000+03:00

This text is from wikipedia

The Paleolithic Continuity Theory (PCT) suggests that the Indo-European languages originated in or nearby Europe and have existed there since the Paleolithic. It argues that the appearance of Indo-Europeans coincides with the first regional settlement of Homo Sapiens in the Middle/Upper Paleolithic age.
Its main proponents are the Italian linguists Mario Alinei, Gabriele Costa and Cicero Poghirc as well as the German and Belgian prehistorians Alexander Hausler and Marcel Otte.

Continuity Theory
The Continuity Theory proposes that Indo-European speakers arrived in Europe tens of millennia ago, and that by the end of the Ice Age, had already differentiated into Celtic/Italic/Germanic/etc. speakers occupying territories within or close to their traditional homelands. It also suggests that the glaciers and pre-glacial basins that compartmentalised Europe during the Ice Age may actually have been the mechanisms for this process of differentiation of Indo-European into its component families.
The Continuity Theory also draws radically different conclusions about the rate of linguistic change from those of the traditional theories of Colin Renfrew and Gimbutas. Clearly, if a homogeneous proto-Indo-European people appeared in Europe 6,000 years ago, then firstly, all subsequent language evolution will necessarily be compressed into the 6,000 years between then and the present, and secondly, the projection of this rapid rate of linguistic change back into the Palaeolithic will lead to the evident conclusion that no useful inferences can be drawn about languages spoken at that time, since it will impossible to distinguish genuine cognates in extant languages from chance similarities.
It is based on a synthesis of linguistic studies, the archaeogenetical studies of Brian Sykes indicating that some 80% of the genetic stock of Europeans goes back to the Paleolithic, as well as on archaeological data indicating European cultural continuity.
Proponents point to a lack of archaeological evidence for an Indo-European invasion in the Bronze Age; to the lack of substantial genetic change since the Paleolithic; and to analogy with a theory of a Paleolithic origin of Uralic peoples and languages in Eurasia. Moreover, the continuity theory is much more parsimonious in comparison with classical approaches to the IE developments.

Criticism
The mainstream position of historical linguistics is that genetic continuity does not imply linguistic continuity and that theories of a literal "military conquest" have fallen into disfavour with most supporters of the theory of a Chalcolithic origin of Indo-European.

Proponents
Jonathan Morris reviewed Alinei's favourably in Mother Tongue, a journal dedicated to the reconstruction of Paleolithic language, judging Alinei's theory as being
"both simpler than its rivals and more powerful in terms of the insights it provides into language in the Meso- and Palaeolithic. While his book contains some flaws I believe that it deserves to be regarded as one of the seminal texts on linguistic archaeology, although given its lamentable lack of citation in English-language circles, it appears that recognition will have to wait until a translation of the original Italian appears."[1]

The model of indoeuropean similarities

2007-06-12T17:56:00.003+03:00

There are possible two approaches when solwing indoeuropean puzzle:

classic - postulating indoeuropean homeland and protolanguage, from where spreaded and splited indoeuropean people and rised nations

the new one - cultural model, denying 200 years old classic indoeuropean model and using paleogenetical information simply explaining how and when there appeared and spreaded indoeuropean similarities.

This model of Europe inhabitance consists of two main migrations:the first one - carriers of the VI genetical group (mutation M89) aproximately 35 000 years BC appeared alongside the northern mediterrainian coast neighbouring neanderthals and leaving some relicts in the Basque language aproximately 25 000 years BC the IX genetical group (mutation M173) entered Europe and spreaded from the Central Asia inhabiting lands free from Neanderthal for hunting and fishing. Later these populations where pressed into the sounthern direction by the iceland. The new lexical similarities appeared when technologies of agriculture, ceramic, farming, town building, metal crafting, trading rised and spreaded, starting some military activities. There is not necessary homeland and protolanguage postulating and definition for such the Cultural model of indoeuropean similarities

Reference

Ann. Hum. Genet. (2001), 65, 43±62

Printed in Great BritainThe phylogeography of Y chromosome binary haplotypes and the origins ofmodern human populations

P. A. UNDERHILL, G. PASSARINO, A. A. LIN, P. SHEN, M. MIRAZO!N LAHR,R. A. FOLEY, P. J. OEFNER and L. L. CAVALLI-SFORZA

The M89/M213 Group VI and M9 related GroupsVII±X
The third large sub-cluster of M168 lineagesis characterized by the M89/M213 mutationsat the root of Groups VI±X. As discussed above, this sub-cluster is suggested to have evolvedin East Africa, from where it dispersed to Eurasia through the Levantine corridor around 45000 years ago. We suggest that a population carrying the M89/M213 mutations dispersed from Africa to the Middle East, from where it originally expanded west, north and east around 40000 years ago

A probable western expansion of M89/M213 Levantine populations would have taken GroupVI ht 69 lineages to Europe as the earliest UpperPalaeolithic occupation of the area. However itsappearance in Europe is very low (0.2 %),indicating that few of these lineages have survived to the present, possibly having been replaced in Europe by related M170 lineages

Five major demographic events characterizethe subsequent Y chromosome genetic history of Eurasian populations. Chronologically, the rest of these relates to the expansion and differentiationof the northern Asian M89/M213/M9/M45/M74 lineages. Part of this population, characterized by the M173/M207 mutations(Group IX), expands westwards around 30000 years ago, reaching Europe, the Caucasus, the Middle East, Central Asia and northern India-Pakistan. This population expansion around 30000 years ago gives rise to the Upper Palaeolithic Aurignacian, or Gravettian, or both (Semino et al. 2000).

References to the model of the indoeuropean similarities

2007-06-12T17:56:00.002+03:00

Ann. Hum. Genet. (2001), 65, 43±62Printed in Great Britain

The phylogeography of Y chromosome binary haplotypes and the origins ofmodern human populations

P. A. UNDERHILL, G. PASSARINO",&, A. A. LIN", P. SHEN, M. MIRAZO!N LAHR
,R. A. FOLEY$, P. J. OEFNER and L. L. CAVALLI-SFORZA

The M89/M213 Group VI and M9 related GroupsVII±XThe third large sub-cluster of M168 lineagesis characterized by the M89/M213 mutationsat the root of Groups VI±X. As discussed above,this sub-cluster is suggested to have evolvedin East Africa, from where it dispersed to Eurasia through the Levantine corridor around 45000 years ago.

We suggest that a population carrying theM89/M213 mutations dispersed from Africa tothe Middle East, from where it originallyexpanded west, north and east around 40000years ago

A probable western expansion of M89/M213Levantine populations would have taken GroupVI ht 69 lineages to Europe as the earliest UpperPalaeolithic occupation of the area. However itsappearance in Europe is very low (0.2 %),indicating that few of these lineages have survived to the present, possibly having been replaced in Europe by related M170 lineages
Five major demographic events characterizethe subsequent Y chromosome genetic history ofEurasian populations. Chronologically, the (r)rstof these relates to the expansion and differentiationof the northern Asian M89}M213}M9}M45}M74 lineages. Part of this population,characterized by the M173}M207 mutations(Group IX), expands westwards around 30000years ago (Fig. 3e), reaching Europe, theCaucasus, the Middle East, Central Asia andnorthern India-Pakistan. This population expansionaround 30000 years ago gives rise to theUpper Palaeolithic Aurignacian, or Gravettian,or both (Semino et al. 2000).

Indoeuropean myth

2007-06-05T00:29:00.000+03:00

History of the idea of Indo-European

The first proposal of the possibility of common origin for some of these languages came from the Dutch linguist and scholar Marcus Zuerius van Boxhorn in 1647. He discovered the similarity among Indo-European languages, and supposed the existence of a primitive common language which he called "Scythian". He included in his hypothesis Dutch, Greek, Latin, Persian, and German, later adding Slavic, Celtic and Baltic languages. However, the suggestions of van Boxhorn did not become widely known and did not stimulate further research.
The hypothesis re-appeared in 1786 when Sir William Jones first lectured on similarities between four of the oldest languages known in his time: Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, and Persian. Systematic comparison of these and other old languages conducted by Franz Bopp supported this theory, and Bopp's Comparative Grammar, appearing between 1833 and 1852 counts as the starting-point of Indo-European studies as an academic discipline.

Proto-Indo-European

Location hypotheses
Scholars have dubbed the common ancestral (reconstructed) language Proto-Indo-European (PIE). They disagree as to the original geographic location (the so-called "Urheimat" or "original homeland") from where it originated. Mainstream opinion locates PIE in the Pontic-Caspian steppe in the Chalcolithic (from ca. 4000 BC; see Kurgan hypothesis). The main competitor of this is the Anatolian hypothesis advanced by Colin Renfrew, dating PIE to several millennia earlier, associating the spread of Indo-European languages with the Neolithic spread of farming (see Indo-Hittite). A rapid divergence of the Romance, Celtic and Balto-Slavic languages around 6,500 years ago[5] makes the two hypotheses compatible.[6]
It should be noted that theories of the origin of Indo-European languages are not based on purely linguistic concepts. These theories are highly dependent on extra-linguistic factors, particularly interpretations of archaeological findings and the unattested meaning of words dating back as much as 3500 years or more before writing. The reference above to "mainstream" opinion concerning origins in the Pontic-Caspian steppes relies on such extra-linguistic conclusions. Since there is no direct way of knowing what language was spoken by a particular archaeological culture or how the meaning of words changed over thousands of years, theories about the location of the origin of Indo-European languages remain largely conjectural.

Kurgan hypothesis
The Kurgan hypothesis was introduced by Marija Gimbutas in 1956 in order to combine archaeology with linguistics in locating the origins of the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) speaking peoples. She tentatively named the set of cultures in question "Kurgan" after the Russian term for their distinctive burial mounds and traced their diffusion into Europe.
This hypothesis has had a significant impact on Indo-European research. Those scholars who follow Gimbutas identify a Kurgan or Pit Grave culture as reflecting an early Proto-Indo-European ethnicity which existed in the Pontic steppe and southeastern Europe from the fifth to third millennia BC.
While Gimbutas pointed primarily at the kurgan-ridden Pit Grave- or Yamna culture to be at the origin of all Indo-European migrations and Indo-Europeanization, recently there exists a tendency to push the date of origin further back in time. In a revised Kurgan hypothesis rather the kurgan-less Sredny Stog culture has been proposed to be ancestral to all Indo-European languages instead, and the subsequently evolving Yamna culture to be related to the later satemization process[7].

Anatolian hypothesis

Colin Renfrew in 1987 suggested [8] an association between the spread of Indo-European and the Neolithic revolution, spreading peacefully into Europe from Asia Minor (Anatolia) from around 7000 BC with the advance of farming (wave of advance). Accordingly, all the inhabitants of Neolithic Europe would have spoken Indo-European tongues, and the Kurgan migrations would at best have replaced Indo-European dialects with other Indo-European dialects.
According to Renfrew [9], the spread of Indo-European proceeded from "Pre-Proto-Indo-European" in 6500 to Archaic PIE in 5000 BC, with the historical Indo-European families developing from 3000 BC from "Balkan PIE".
The main strength of the farming hypothesis lies in its linking of the spread of Indo-European languages with an archeologically known event that likely involved major population shifts: the spread of farming (though the validity of basing a linguistics theory on archeological evidence remains disputed).
While the Anatolian theory enjoyed brief support when first proposed, the linguistic community in general now rejects it. While the spread of farming undisputedly constituted an important event, most see no case to connect it with Indo-Europeans in particular, since terms for animal husbandry tend to have much better reconstructions than terms related to agriculture.
On the other hand, in most of Europe, agriculture spread with domesticated animals and plants together, so the differentiation would seem spurious. The term for what spread into Europe and elsewhere at this time is "food production" (animal husbandry and dirt-farming made possible by the domestication of plants and animals) and this implies no distinction between animal husbandry and agriculture.
Most objections to connecting domestication and agriculture (both animal and plant) to the spread of Indo-European languages would also seem to apply to other less coherent archaeological entities, such as the "Kurgan" culture(s).
The timeframe of the Anatolian hypothesis has received support from a 2003 computer analysis in glottochronology [10] The rate of change calculated in the analysis results in an original Indo-Hittite division at 6700 BCE, and a Graeco-Aryan division at 5300 BCE, about two millennia too early for a Kurgan timeframe.
A modified view on this farms spreading from Turkey towards Europe attributes to the people involved a family of non Indo European languages, traces of which are assumed to have been preserved in reminiscent lexical and typological features in Indo European languages, like the complex verb in attested Celtic languages north of the Alps. Such features are tentatively linked with the archeological Linear Pottery culture and linguistically to other languages known for having complex verbs, like Northwest Caucasian languages, Minoan [11] and the Hattic language.[12] Amongst this tentative family of languages, Northwest Caucasian was already named for possibly having excerted areal or substratum influence on the development of (otherwise not related) Indo European in its earliest stages.[7]

Other hypotheses
The Armenian hypothesis of Tamaz Gamq'relidze and Vyacheslav V. Ivanov in 1984 placed the Indo-European homeland on Lake Urmia [13], suggesting that Armenian stayed in the Indo-European cradle while other Indo-European languages left the homeland and migrated on a route that led them along the eastern coast of the Caspian Sea to the steppe north of the Black Sea. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov also originated the Glottalic theory.
An Out of India theory is sometimes advanced, mostly by Indian authors, who see the Indus Valley Civilization as the location of either Proto-Indo-European or of Proto-Indo-Iranian.
Various nationalistic European groups in the 19th and early 20th centuries espoused other theories, typically locating Proto-Indo-European in the respective authors' own countries. For example, a suggested location of the proto-language in Northern Europe became involved in justifying the view of the German people as "Aryan". For a modern version of the hypothesis of European origin of PIE see the Paleolithic Continuity Theory (proposed by Italian theorists) that derives Indo-European from the European Paleolithic cultures.
Some people have pointed to the Black Sea deluge theory, dating the genesis of the Sea of Azov to ca. 5600 BC, as a direct cause of Indo-European expansion.[14] This event occurred in still clearly Neolithic times and happened rather too early to fit with Kurgan archaeology. One can still imagine it as an event in the remote past of the Sredny Stog culture, with the people living on the land now beneath the Sea of Azov as possible pre-Proto-Indo-Europeans. (From Wikipedia)

It is possible to ask now - Did realy exist protoindoeuropean language and homeland?
If not - How there appeared similarities of indoeuropean languages and what is the meaning of protoindoeuropean language model reconstructed by scholars?

The model of the most European and not only European languages I propose is based on some recent ideas.
It was prooved recently by genetical research, that at the farming spreading time in the Europe the new population appeared was not extremly large - aproximately 20-25 percent. So, Renfrew's theory about indoeuropeans =agriculture wave from Anatolia collapsed and needed to be modified. Indoeuropean simmilarities appeared with the new farming technologies spreading adding the new linguistic and archaeological layer to the hunters and fismen style of life and languages.
This model does not need protolanguage and homeland - some words and style of speaking came from Anatolia. Some from the other places. The problems are How? From where? When?

Some more questions -
a) Do so called Ruhlen's and Greenberg proto-world langauge carries some information about first people migrations and language first travellers used?

b) What kind of genetical groups community used words definied by NOSTRATIC theory? When this happend? According to Vl.Illich-Svitych it was aproximately 5 thousand years BC. According to Aaron Dolgopolsky his nostratic reconstruction was used 15 000 BC by hunters.

c) Is there possibility to trace some roads of spreading of some words starting from beginning of Homo sapiens?

The problem briefly is - Chronologisation and localisation of indeoropean, nostratic and proto-world similarities.

http://kestutisturbo.sitesled.com/