From what I've seen of the development of the IE issues, I would agree with your comment that the Mallory book presents many problems. Don't most of them stem from the research which was available at the time. Since then, considerable field research has opened a lot of new avenues for exploration. Let's face it, not the least of these is the question of whether the Black Sea changed from a fresh water lake to a saline sea within the time frame of the development of the IE languages, perhaps even contributing to the dispersal of the IE speakers.

One issue which offers some contrast for the spread and diversification of Slavic languages as compared to the diversification of Romance languages from Latin is the heavy cross fertilization which occurred in Western Europe within period when alphabets and writing were accepted by languages. Western Europe had an underlying layer of Celtic languages, over which Latin was imposed, only to be then further influenced by various Germanic languages. The Slavic languages managed to avoid that sort of mixing, except in the Balkans with the imposition of the Ottoman Empire.

BTW, where did all of those common words in the Germanic languages which don't have cognates in the other western IE languages come from?

the same kind of mixing and influences. There are countless words in Russian (which I speak) that come from proto-Mongolian and proto-Turkish languages, not to mention the word for God comes from an old Ossetic word (which is an Iranian tongue). You forget that the Slavs were pushed south and west but they were also overrun in the East but managed to survive.

Without doubt Russian was influenced by Mongolian and Turkish languages. Since Russia was under Mongolian suzerainity for several centuries at the start of the second millenium, I would have been surprised to find that that was not the case. What is significant is that those influences were exerted on Russian after writing was adopted by the language. That was not necessarily the case with the Germanic tribes which pushed into Western Europe first and then adopted the settled ways of the territories they had occupied.

Re the Russian adoption of the Ossetic word for "god" the migration of that word would certainly be marker for the transmission of memes. Of course, Russian and Ossete are both IE languages and pretty closely related IE languages at that.

that Mallory, although his book is 'somewhat' dated. IE issues are horribly difficult to follow, even if you have JSTOR. To know where and what is happening in the field, for someone like me who is far from being an expert, just doing some research on it for my own book on Central Asia, then you have to read all of the recent scholarly literature. I just don't have the time for that, and a professor I trust pointed me to Mallory and Renfrew as a place to start. I personally find it very hard to believe that the first Indo-European languages that intruded into Anatolia came from the West. I don't buy it.

You probably should go read the Renfrew to see how that compares with your opinion. He takes a very different view on the diffusion of language over long periods of time.

Other geological research also potentially helps to buttress Renfrew's opinion, which is that IE expansion began in Anatolia. The geological research says that IE developed in the Black Sea basin and then got forced out due to climate change. It helps to support the thesis that IE existed in place in Anatolia before any migration from the northern shore of the Black Sea might have occurred and the reasons for the IE migration into modern day Iran, Afghanistan and ultimately Pakistan and India. What is also fascinating have been the discovery of apparently Tocharian speaking archeological finds which possess fabrics that could be confused with Scottish tartans in central Asia.

Good to remember that Renfrew and Mallory are both archaeologists, and not linguists. I'm an archaeologist myself, but I think that one might look to linguists to study the evolution of IE langauges, and only bring the archaeologists in when looking at the context of a prehistoric world that IE was being spoken in.

cool. I'll be sure to write on the topic (and my Central Asia historical research too) more often.

Basque and Saami do have some interesting genetic similarities (mostly in particular mtDNA motifs, IIRC), but it's not the case that Basques are closest genetically to Saami. In autosomal characteristics and mtDNA, Saami look quite European, although in general terms Basque look most like their neighbours and Saami like Scandinavians. In Y-chromosomal (NRY) terms, Saami look more like northern Asian populations, possibly because of assymmetric mating involving local women and immigrant men.

It is known that some Europeans moved during the ice age to North America. Has it been tested if some American Indians moved to Europe? :-)

Samis have smaller body than Finns or Scandinavians. And smaller teeth, say those people who dig old graves (archeologists).

The Ice Age ended when the temperature rose, possibly 7 degrees Celsius in a few decades. It seems that immediately after that some people following the glacier at the cost of Norway moved up to Lapland. They might have been the bearers of Basque genes. Or, I express it in another way, the other migrations are more improbable alternatives.

The first known immigrants to Finland were almost able to see the glacier in west, residing over Sweden. Scandinavia was like Greenland nowadays, maybe warmer. What makes me assume that the first immigrants moved around like Eskimos in kayaks/umiaks, like the people who moved from Europe to America following the glacier over Atlantic Ocean.

I think it would have been impossible to travel upward the Norwegian coast without kayaks.

The oldest habitations after the Ice Age found in Finland have been by water. Obviously fishermen and seal hunters. But researchers somehow seem to assume that the first habitants arrived by foot :-)

-- Happy fishing in ocean of noise!

would generate this many comments. Next time I'll make sure to write a book on it. ;-)

Finnish-Ugrish populations moved from much farther east and the language is part of the Ural-Altaic language groups. The language is definitely not one of the original European languages, like Euskara or even Etruscan. A recent study into chromosomal mappings showed that all or virtually all of the original male populations in Finland and Lapland were killed about a millenia ago to be replaced by the invanding Finnish speakers, who then took the surviving female population for mates. The chromosamal drift was used to fix the date for the invasion.

VizierVic, do you have any pointers for that chromosomal mapping study? Sounds quite interesting but a millenia seems too recent not to have any records of this.

A recent study into chromosomal mappings showed that all or virtually all of the original male populations in Finland and Lapland were killed about a millenia ago to be replaced by the invanding Finnish speakers,

Well, that's counter factual. I would have bought 3 000 years ago. Sami's look and feel slightly different than Scandinavians.

How about this:
Samis were nomads speaking a language related to Euskara and followed the glacier. They obviously have switched their language to Finnish-Ugrish from something else.

Next in south were the speakers of Finnish-Ugrish languages, who were hunters (very little to do genetically with the contemporary speakers of Finnish-Ugrish). They moved to Ural from west. Finnish somehow resembles Turkish, thus I suspect Asian origin.

Indo-European languages were introduced last with agriculture from east to west and from south to north. By the way, from where did the agriculture spread to Europe.

-- Happy fishing in ocean of noise!

I fail to see how Finnish-Ugrish populations were able to intrude anywhere except north. Were they known for their arms, horses or what?

Genetically Finns are nowadays mostly related to Flams, Latvians and Germans. The current genetics has very little to do with language history.

Assuming that maybe Finnish-Ugrish speakers (some of them still known as hunters and nomads) were not great warriors, the other explanation for this picture

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5e/Finno_Ugric_Languages.png />

is that Finnish-Ugrish speakers came from the area of Black Sea following the melting glacier, but were later walked over by Indo-European speakers expect in north and Hungary.

You see too that the area habited by Samis is still disturbingly large compared to the contact it has with Finnish speakers to explain recent genetic changes.

-- Happy fishing in ocean of noise!

Let me sound off about this subject I know nothing about. Seems to me that these are awful large conclusions from very little data. I guess there is only one salient data point, that the most recent common matrilineal ancestor of the Finns and Lapps is European rather than North-Asian. To interpret this one needs a believable model of human population dynamics, and that is probably not possible. For instance, that one data point could be the result of one single European girl captured as a slave in a raid. No model can capture random individual events like that.

My understanding is that Samis and Finns were not genetically very related originally. Most researchers believe that Samis adopted proto-Finnish 3000 years ago because it was the language of trade in the area. 3000 years ago is believed to be the last possible date to introduce proto-Finnish to Finland. I think that there is confusion because Samis and Finns speak related languages.

The first ancestors of Samis arrived to Lapland about 10 500 years ago. Red points marks a habitation. They are all by water, fishermen and seal hunters, I say.

Note the nice glacier :-)

7500 years ago the population in North peaked (it was a separate culture) and collapsed afterwards.

Earlier it was thought that Finnish-Ugrish languages spread from East, but because Finnish is not a descendant of the related languages in east, nowadays is suspected that Finnish-Ugrish languages were spoken in a larger area and the remaining languages are remnants. It is completely possible that Finnish-Ugrish languages are original East European languages and Indo-European languages in Europe are intruders introduced by agriculture :-)

If you want to add something to your puzzle, languages spoken in Caucasus remind in their grammar Euskara :-)

1000 years ago Vikings were looting the south coast which was left inhabited.

Genetics says that about 20 000 years ago Finn-Ugrish nations were Europeans. Since then there has been a mix with Siberians and even a small track of Chinese Mongols. During the last 7 000 years there has been a continuous inflow of genes from Baltics, contemporary Poland and Germany via trade routes.

The early inhabitants left some graffiti after them:

-- Happy fishing in ocean of noise!