World Families Forums - An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 31, 2014, 06:15:39 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 12 Go Down Print
Author Topic: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012  (Read 12714 times)
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #75 on: April 06, 2012, 10:00:15 AM »


The inherent problem here is connecting graves in Krasnoyarsk, Siberia with PIE, when it is clear that R1a is connected with spreading Iranian languages.

No problem. Proto-Indo-Iranian is a descendant of PIE.


This is what I mean. Proto-Indo-Iranian is not PIE, but rather taken east by tribes who utilize the sound innovations also seen in other Satem languages. It is no surprise they uniformly belong to R1a.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 10:00:38 AM by NealtheRed » Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


« Reply #76 on: April 06, 2012, 10:09:14 AM »

The most interesting thing at that url may be the photo tour of the Mainz aDNA extraction facility.

Makes one almost understand why it's so costly.  But with all that equipment and high-end sanitary engineering, they still seem to be doing a study of mtDNA from, you know, the Pontic-Caspian Steppes or wherever.  They aren't going to resolve our YDNA migration questions with it.

Also, the state of the art ancient bone-cutting room features a Dremel tool.  I have one of those, it made me feel right at home.  But I covet my neighbor's version of a Shop-Vac.
Logged

R1b Z196*
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #77 on: April 06, 2012, 10:26:36 AM »

Not good enough, Jean.

That just means you don't have a good answer. Whittaker could be wrong, but his work deserves better than that.

Patience. I have now uploaded copies of Whittaker 2008 and a critique of same (Vanséveren 2008) to a new sub-folder under Language > Indo-European in the Mini-Library. Don't say I don't do anything for you. :) If you give me a moment or two, I will summarise Vanséveren.
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #78 on: April 06, 2012, 10:35:13 AM »


If we could establish one thing related to this discussion it would  be beneficial to identify the PIE home land. As long as that is not understood, alternatives for the spread of IE languages will be quite varied.

I'll go back and re-read the PIE homeland stuff that I have, but I am not aware of anything that defeats the basic concept --- The Germanic, Italic, Celtic, Balto-Slavic IE languages, etc., all have a common set of words that can be reconstructed.  They don't all appear in Anatolian.   If so, it matters little what Anatolian was, whatever it was.... The IE languages of Europe that we are speaking of all descended from full PIE and full PIE could only have originated from essentially the steppes.
"[F]ull PIE could only have originated from essentially the steppes"? Why is that?

Folks like David Anthony have used a combination of facts about the geographies and cultures involved to corner in a territory where PIE would have to been within. I will re-read some of that logic as I can't repeat the details.

Why couldn't it be true that early Indo-European, call it Indo-Hittite or Pre-Proto-Indo-European, moved into the Balkans from Anatolia, where contact with people with a horse riding culture contributed that vocabulary at a very early stage?

Sure. Defining PIE's homeland does not require that all pre-PIE predecessor languages came from the same place.

And of course, R1b may have come with one or more of those pre-PIE predecessors from some place.

We do know that the Anatolian branch is older and did not contain some of the features of PIE.

I don't think we know that the Anatolian branch is older than PIE. We just know that it's predecessors (pre-Anatolian) must have been an early branch off from pre-PIE.

There may have been pre-PIE in Anatolia or PIE like in the Near East but they are not the "most recent common ancestor" of the IE languages as we know them as long as a later version has a fuller common denominator word set.... and that seems to be from the steppes.
If we are searching for "the most recent common ancestor" of the modern Indo-European languages, then it is PIE.

Agreed and then it follows that the IE languages of Europe descend from PIE, not pre-PIE or some branch descended from pre-PIE like Anatolian.

If, on the other hand, we are looking for the original homeland of the Indo-Europeans, then the Anatolian branch must be considered, since it is apparently older than PIE.

Agreed also. Anatolia may be the origin of R1b, or maybe the Caucasus or just south or east of the Caspian Sea.

However, that does not negate the point that IE languages appear to have sprung from PIE and PIE's homeland is apparently the Steppes.  It very well could be that  R1b was with some predecessor cultures that blended or originated PIE.

Where that happened I don't know, but it just looks like full PIE was home in the steppes and R1b either was there during the PIE timeframe or picked up PIE on the western edges of the steppes (eastern edges of Old Europe) as PIE moved westward into its Western dialects that ended up being pre-Germanic, pre-Celtic, pre-Italic, etc.

Some feel R1b was on the eastern edges of Old Europe and picked up PIE. To me, that is a little hard to accept given the extremely high frequency of R1b in Celtic lands so I think R1b was there in PIE's homeland speaking PIE before the movements west into Europe.  This does not mean R1b was relegated to only being PIE speaking though.

The Kurgan Theory makes sense for most of the eastern expansion of Indo-European. It really looks good when one looks at the level of R1a in India, for example.

But it breaks down in a big way to the west, where R1a fizzles despite repeated eastern input, e.g., the Cimmerians, the Huns, and the Slavs, and where R1b predominates.

The Kurgan Theory really becomes attenuated for the spread of IE to the west. It depends on a kind of "domino effect" of one culture and people after another adopting IE and passing it on, all the way from the Pontic-Caspian steppe to the Atlantic. Mostly missing in action are the R1a "elites" who somehow managed to change the speech of almost all of western Europe despite their rather primitive level of civilization.
I agree that a pure alignment of R1a=PIE and R1b=non-PIE prior to a push west does not make sense compared to the R1b frequencies across Europe and lack of R1a frequency in many areas.

However, that does not mean the Kurgan Theory is wrong. It does not require any group of people to be all R1a or of any single or mix of haplogroups.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 02:23:49 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #79 on: April 06, 2012, 10:45:20 AM »

This is what I mean. Proto-Indo-Iranian is not PIE, but rather taken east by tribes who utilize the sound innovations also seen in other Satem languages.

We seem to be going over yet again arguments which have been doing the rounds for years. Once upon a time it was thought that IE was divided along geographical lines : Satem east, and Centum west. Then Tocharian was discovered. It is centum and it is east. So that idea was abandoned. The division is not geographical but temporal.

The centum > satem isogloss occurred late in the development of PIE, by which time it seems the people carrying the centum dialect ancestral to a bunch of western European languages (and Tocharian) had left the PIE language community. The rump formed a dialect continuum from (it seems) Andronovo in the east to the Middle Dnieper in the west. We can picture this giving rise to Proto-Indo-Iranian in the east to Proto-Balto-Slavic in the west.

R1a1a certainly seems to have spread with both, but R1a1a is also found among Germanic-speakers (centum) and those that we can deduce were Tocharian-speakers (centum). (And of course there are other haplogroups among Germanic and Slavic speakers.)
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 10:46:18 AM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #80 on: April 06, 2012, 10:53:45 AM »

OK - The Euphratic dream-world, as dissected by an unromantic scholar:

Quote
The actual existence of Euphratic remains highly implausible. ... What is Euphratic but a linguistic projection? As I have suggested Euphratic has no reality but seems to be either PIE itself, or a reflex of Sumerian. Judging from the few examples examined in this paper, the bases of the theory are weak, and the alleged Euphratic has no substance. To sum up, the construction of Euphratic is no more than a fragile chateux de cartes .
 

« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 11:05:21 AM by Jean M » Logged
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #81 on: April 06, 2012, 11:10:56 AM »

This is what I mean. Proto-Indo-Iranian is not PIE, but rather taken east by tribes who utilize the sound innovations also seen in other Satem languages.

We seem to be going over yet again arguments which have been doing the rounds for years. Once upon a time it was thought that IE was divided along geographical lines : Satem east, and Centum west. Then Tocharian was discovered. It is centum and it is east. So that idea was abandoned. The division is not geographical but temporal.

The centum > satem isogloss occurred late in the development of PIE, by which time it seems the people carrying the centum dialect ancestral to a bunch of western European languages (and Tocharian) had left the PIE language community. The rump formed a dialect continuum from (it seems) Andronovo in the east to the Middle Dnieper in the west. We can picture this giving rise to Proto-Indo-Iranian in the east to Proto-Balto-Slavic in the west.

R1a1a certainly seems to have spread with both, but R1a1a is also found among Germanic-speakers (centum) and those that we can deduce were Tocharian-speakers (centum). (And of course there are other haplogroups among Germanic and Slavic speakers.)

Other than the Scandinavian presence of R1a and the purported (indeed, a stretch of the imagination) theory that the Tarim Basin mummies are Tocharians, the Centum/Satem split still holds.

Notwithstanding Italo-Celtic, Germanic, and Greek, there is also the lack of R1a among Armenian and ancient Anatolian speakers.

There is also the problem of explaining the large numbers of R1a (all Z93+, I believe) in India and Central Asia. How can IE migrations explain this saturation of a haplogroup further east - without being autochthonous to the region - while barely denting Europe?
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 11:14:37 AM by NealtheRed » Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #82 on: April 06, 2012, 11:24:58 AM »

the purported (indeed, a stretch of the imagination) theory that the Tarim Basin mummies are Tocharians

(sigh) I knew that would get argued as well. I don't want to be disobliging but this has been argued to absolute death. I have covered the evidence over and over, but if you don't like it you will ignore it again, so why bother?  
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 11:25:09 AM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #83 on: April 06, 2012, 11:36:21 AM »

Notwithstanding Italo-Celtic, Germanic, and Greek, there is also the lack of R1a among Armenian and ancient Anatolian speakers.

Why would we expect R1a1 in Armenian speakers? There is no evidence that their ancestors left the IE homeland from the Volga-Ural end. On the contrary the evidence is that they left from the Danube end. The pattern of distribution of R1a1a and R1b seems to reflect pretty consistently the point of departure from the IE homeland.

As for ancient Anatolian speakers - we don't know. I would guess at R1b mainly, but R1a1a among the Mitanni aristocracy.  

Quote
There is also the problem of explaining the large numbers of R1a (all Z93+, I believe) in India and Central Asia. How can IE migrations explain this saturation of a haplogroup further east - without being autochthonous to the region - while barely denting Europe?

As above. IE languages appear to have spread by mass migration. The haplogroup composition of their carriers appears to reflect that of the part of the IE homeland from which they left (as well as any other cultures that they absorbed en route). Andronovo is seen as the homeland of Proto-Indo-Iranian, not just Iranian. The BMAC appears to be the culture that was taken over by a group from a branch of Andronovo, which developed (in the ruins of the BMAC) the ancestor of the Indian group of IE languages. We would expect R1a1a to have travelled into India together with Neolithic haplogroups found in the BMAC.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 04:15:33 PM by Jean M » Logged
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #84 on: April 06, 2012, 11:40:43 AM »

the purported (indeed, a stretch of the imagination) theory that the Tarim Basin mummies are Tocharians

(sigh) I knew that would get argued as well. I don't want to be disobliging but this has been argued to absolute death. I have covered the evidence over and over, but if you don't like it you will ignore it again, so why bother?  

I let the evidence speak for itself, and as it stands, one cannot prove that these mummies spoke Tocharian at the time of their death. Likewise, it is equally probable that R1a is not the initial impetus for spreading PIE.

It has nothing to do with "not liking it", but rather looking at the evidence from all sides. I, for one, do not have preconceived feelings about it.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #85 on: April 06, 2012, 11:52:56 AM »

I let the evidence speak for itself, and as it stands, one cannot prove that these mummies spoke Tocharian at the time of their death.

If you mean that there were no documents in Tocharian pinned to the chests of these mummies at burial, of course it cannot be proved. It is nevertheless a logical deduction from the evidence that they spoke an ancestor of Tocharian. There is no logical alternative. These mummies cannot be Iranian speakers. That has already been thrashed out at great length on the defunct DNA forums at least three times. Forgive me if I am reluctant to waste my time going over it all again.  
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 11:56:12 AM by Jean M » Logged
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #86 on: April 06, 2012, 11:59:16 AM »

I let the evidence speak for itself, and as it stands, one cannot prove that these mummies spoke Tocharian at the time of their death.

If you mean that there were no documents in Tocharian pinned to the chests of these mummies at burial, of course it cannot be proved. It is nevertheless a logical deduction from the evidence that they spoke an ancestor of Tocharian. There is no logical alternative. These mummies cannot be Iranian speakers. That has already been thrashed out at great length on the defunct DNA forums at least three times. Forgive me if I am reluctant to waste my time going over it all again.  

There is no need to waste your time. I defer to both Renfrew and Mallory who have spoken on the subject.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #87 on: April 06, 2012, 12:12:06 PM »

I defer to both Renfrew and Mallory who have spoken on the subject.

Really? Renfrew is no linguist and no expert on the archaeology of Central Asia. In the lecture you saw, he was simply interested in trying to score debating points. As for Mallory, he was cheekily laying out the evidence against his own position. (Subliminal message : my position is so strong I can afford to help out my weak opponent.) In fact what this actually amounts to is gaps in the evidence. Oh look! We don't actually have a link between X and Y. Can I have some money to go and find one?

To accept an argument based on speculation unsupported by a shred of evidence, while demanding from an opponent a level of proof more often found in physics than archaeology or linguistics, does not seem like objectivity to me.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 12:36:47 PM by Jean M » Logged
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #88 on: April 06, 2012, 12:42:38 PM »

I defer to both Renfrew and Mallory who have spoken on the subject.

Really? Renfrew is no linguist and no expert on the archaeology of Central Asia. In the lecture you saw, he was simply interested in trying to score debating points. As for Mallory, he was cheekily laying out the evidence against his own position. (Subliminal message : my position is so strong I can afford to help out my weak opponent.) In fact what this actually amounts to is gaps in the evidence. Oh look! We don't actually have a link between X and Y. Can I have some money to go and find one?

To accept an argument based on speculation, while demanding from an opponent a level of proof more often found in physics than archaeology or linguistics, does not seem like objectivity to me.

That does not sound like an objective rebuttal to what both Renfrew and Mallory put forth in their lectures. You are attacking Renfrew and/or Mallory on the conclusions they reached, rather than their arguments why.

Why don't we let their lectures speak for themselves? I will take their word for it.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #89 on: April 06, 2012, 01:32:57 PM »

I dont really see a huge problem with a revised Renfrew type model of pre-PIE arising south of the Black Sea and then sending an offshoot into the farming area just west of the Black Sea and PIE slowly arising there. That places it adjacent to the steppes but actually among the farming groups there.  There are cultures that do appear to potentially be offshoots of Antaolian ones on the west of the Black Sea in the 5th millenium.  The exact same route and same period saw the movement of dairying also from Anatolia to the west shore of the Black Sea.  If PIE arose from an Anatolian offshoot into the west Black Sea area (Bulgaria/east Romania/fringes of the Ukraine) and evolved there from say 5000BC to 4000BC and beyond then I think much falls into place.  Clearly this would make R1b the likely original IE speakers with (perhaps) R1a steppe hunters being the recieivers rather than the doners of IE along with all the other aspects like dairying, farming etc.  It has never seemed likely to me that steppes hunters morphing into nomadic pastoralists could ever exert anything other than a peripheral impact on Europe.  In later times steppes peoples seem to rarely get past the steppe-like fringes of eastern Europe.

Indeed, I am not even convinced that R1a was a steppe haplogroup.  It has higher diversity in the Balkans and perhaps it was simply in the farming mix in SE Europe along with R1b and penetrated into the steppes.  I see the Yamnaya thrust as a limited reflux caused by climatic deterioration than badly weakened the C-Trypole culture and forced them into the fringes of the farming zone.


I agree with that, and it makes sense of the archaic nature of the Anatolian branch of the Indo-European languages, a thing that cannot be adequately explained by the Kurgan Theory.

It also might make sense of Euphratic, if in fact it did exist and was an early Indo-European language.

And, finally, it also makes sense of the spread of IE to the west, a thing pretty clearly not accomplished by predominantly R1a peoples or even peoples with a kurganized culture.
If we could establish one thing related to this discussion it would  be beneficial to identify the PIE home land. As long as that is not understood, alternatives for the spread of IE languages will be quite varied.

I'll go back and re-read the PIE homeland stuff that I have, but I am not aware of anything that defeats the basic concept ---   The Germanic, Italic, Celtic, Balto-Slavic IE languages, etc., all have a common set of words that can be reconstructed.  They don't all appear in Anatolian.   If so, it matters little what Anatolian was, whatever it was.... The IE languages of Europe that we are speaking of all descended from full PIE and full PIE could only have originated from essentially the steppes.  

There may have been pre-PIE in Anatolia or PIE like in the Near East but they are not the "most recent common ancestor" of the IE languages as we know them as long as a later version has a fuller common denominator word set.... and that seems to be from the steppes.

I'll re-read the PIE homeland stuff for defects.

The problem is that Anthony and others use these linguistic arguements to attack the Old Renfrew idea that the IE languages spread with the very first phase of the spread of farming.  They are essentially attacking an idea that Renfrew himself no longer holds.  Renfrew modified his theory to one whereby a very early pre-proto IE language or languages existed south of the Black Sea but that Proto-IE then arose among the offshoots sent from Antatolia to SE Europe.  This is compatible with the spread of certain Antatolian cultures as well as cattle dairying into the area on the west shores of the Black Sea perhaps c. 5000BC.  Once there they had a long period to evolve from pre-PIE to PIE and that locates them in the area pretty close to the steppes and in a geography where most of the linguistic arguments no longer successfully rebutt a non-Kurgan origin of IE.  That area too was extremely advanced and populous and presumably incredibly prestigious.  They sent the knowledge of farming, dairying etc into the steppes.  What I would potentially credit the steppes peoples on their eastern edge and shortly afterwards intermingling with them is some social changes and influences and a minor genetic input (perhaps really a reflux) at the period when the old farming cultures hit problems and steppes peoples and influences intruded at a time when the main factor provoking this seems to have been a bad climatic downturn (aridity c. 3200BC). 

Again too I question why people see the spread of R1a as originating from the steppes.  yes it clearly did arrive there and it clearly was important in the spread east but what evidence there is places it earlier elsewhere.  It seems to me to be dogma that R1a=steppes peoples=IE originals.  I understand that R1a is older in the Balkans and also of course in India.  It is also clearly present in the Corded Ware culture as far west as central Germany c. 2700BC.  Now archaeologists believe that Corded Ware arose in Poland from TRB (Funnel Beaker) roots which in turn is derived from Polish late Lengyel farmers who in turn tend to be derived by archaeologists from a mix of late LBK and perhaps other elements.  Why do people go against evidence and suggest R1a moved from Russia to Germany when what little evidence there is would place R1a earlier in Germany/Poland and the Balkans (variance).  Its worth noting that Corded Ware did stretch in its developed stage back to the NW of the Black Sea and may have been in the mix with the late farmers of the area. In fact (I think from memory) that Corded Ware arrived in the Ukraine in an eastward thrust about the same time as it was arriving in its western fringes.  So Corded Ware may well have moved R1a both east and west from its Polish origin point.  It also may have been in the early farming mix anyway in SE Europe.  Again I think that so much is dogma and baggage and the story of R1a is being written on that basis and not in line with the small amount of evidence there is.   
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #90 on: April 06, 2012, 01:44:41 PM »

Why don't we let their lectures speak for themselves? I will take their word for it.

That would be rather tricky. Mallory was the joint author of the big study of the mummies: J.P.Mallory and V.H. Mair, The Tarim Mummies: The Mystery of the First Europeans in China (2000), which concluded after an exhaustive survey of the evidence that said mummies were in all probability the ancestors of Tocharian speakers. Prof. Mallory is a scholar. His approach is always measured and cautious. He will lay out all the pros and cons. But somewhere in there he will drop the odd hint of his own view. :)


Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #91 on: April 06, 2012, 01:58:15 PM »

I understand that R1a is older in the Balkans and also of course in India.  

There is no evidence that R1a is older in the Balkans. (Older than where?)  Klyosov claimed it was at one point. Ken Nordtvedt checked his data and rebutted the date.

Nor do I know of any solid evidence that R1a is oldest in India. It wouldn't surprise me if people find some pretty old R1a1 in India eventually. Hunters could have moved into the Indian subcontinent as it opened up in the Holocene. But so far testing is showing the Indian R1a1 as falling within the Z93 subclade deduced to reflect those moving east from 3500 BC onwards. See R1a1a and Subclades Y-DNA Project (scroll down for graphic.)
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 01:59:08 PM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #92 on: April 06, 2012, 02:17:42 PM »

The problem is that Anthony and others use these linguistic arguments to attack the Old Renfrew idea that the IE languages spread with the very first phase of the spread of farming.  They are essentially attacking an idea that Renfrew himself no longer holds.  

Not so. Renfrew dodges around. In a lecture I went to in 2010, he argued that three theories of IE spread should be considered:
1) Steppe
2) Anatolian/Neolithic
3) Palaeolithic - (and thought that genetics supports this one!)

He predictably pushed farming as the one major episode of change, and quoted the [widely-discredited ] paper by Gray and Atkinson which so delighted him by coming up with a date for IE which fitted his thesis of IE spread from Anatolia. He did point out that linguists disagree with their result.

I noted no sign in this lecture of the two-phase approach that he mooted at one time to placate the linguists. Maybe he dropped it when he found that it didn't stop the criticism. Linguists do not accept the Anatolian branch as reflecting an early pre-PIE homeland in Anatolia. I already linked to one paper by a linguist discrediting this. There are others around. Mallory and Anthony are both aware of the two-phase approach and point to problems with it.

It is not simply that the Neolithic date is wrong for PIE. Anatolia is the wrong place for pre-PIE. The thing just cannot be made to fit.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 02:22:22 PM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #93 on: April 06, 2012, 02:23:11 PM »

I have got to day the Kurgan theory and its precursors does remind me a bit of the old Urnfield-Hallstatt-La Tene Celtic theory.  It clearly is part of the story but it only explains part of the geography.  In all probability there was an older common denominator for Celtic that spread wider than the classic trinity of central European Late Bronze Age and Iron Age cultures.  The whole problem with both kurgans and R1a trying to explain the whole story of IE or at least to take the leading role/origin claim is very similar IMO.  

As an aside, I have been following this with interest for about 25 years and I have seen a few moments in time when one theory or the other claims total victory.  IMO we are nowhere near that point and its a shame the competing sides tend to present it that way.

Here is a thought.  If R1b was essentially unknown in western Europe pre 3000BC then the same may be true of R1a in Russia.  The present R1a distribution in Europe may be radically different from that of the past.  If you take just the ancient DNA evidence, phylogeny of R1b and R1a and the variance then all we can suggest in R1b in Europe was most likely in the SE area of Europe and R1a may have only been in the Balkans.  Both in a similar area if Europe.  We suspect from variance and ancient DNA that both R1a and R1b spread west post-3000BC and perhaps that is also true of the spread east.  I think we need to be a lot more humble about what is actually known and recognise that the archaeology-linguistic-haplogroup correlations are very much on flimsy ground, especially when an attempt to combine all three are made.  Combining just two is hard enough.  What is wrong with the possibility of a mixed R1a/R1b population in the Balkans/west Black Sea area spreading the language in 2 directions?  That is what would appear on the face of it to have happened.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #94 on: April 06, 2012, 02:37:10 PM »

Here is a thought.  If R1b was essentially unknown in western Europe pre 3000BC then the same may be true of R1a in Russia.  The present R1a distribution in Europe may be radically different from that of the past.

Of course. Had you not realised that before? I've said so often enough! The current R1a1a in Russia is mainly Slavic i.e. spread in the early Middle Ages, but swallowing up some Baltic-speakers as it spread. Vikings probably injected some R1a1a later. Then Germanic speakers were invited to settle by Catherine II in 1763.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 02:39:46 PM by Jean M » Logged
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #95 on: April 06, 2012, 02:38:15 PM »

The R1a1a project is a good source for tracking the latest developments.  The oldest R1a by SNP last time I looked, is an R1a1*(M17-) Russian.  The Indian and most other Asian R1a is Z93+, younger than what is in Europe. 

The Balkan R1a mentioned was even before the discovery of M458 and hasn't not been tested for any of these newer SNP's.  However, there are some samples from various older studies like Underhills (2010) showing SRY10831.2- R1a's or R1a* which does suggest an Anatolia to SE Europe movement.  Based on this, it does look like R1a entered through Balkans with other neolithics, but I don't think we have enough to calculate variance from these small haplotypes.

What doesn't make sense is R1a ended up being distributed completely different than the other neolithic y dna.
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #96 on: April 06, 2012, 02:47:17 PM »

The problem is that Anthony and others use these linguistic arguments to attack the Old Renfrew idea that the IE languages spread with the very first phase of the spread of farming.  They are essentially attacking an idea that Renfrew himself no longer holds.  

Not so. Renfrew dodges around. In a lecture I went to in 2010, he argued that three theories of IE spread should be considered:
1) Steppe
2) Anatolian/Neolithic
3) Palaeolithic - (and thought that genetics supports this one!)

He predictably pushed farming as the one major episode of change, and quoted the [widely-discredited ] paper by Gray and Atkinson which so delighted him by coming up with a date for IE which fitted his thesis of IE spread from Anatolia. He did point out that linguists disagree with their result.

I noted no sign in this lecture of the two-phase approach that he mooted at one time to placate the linguists. Maybe he dropped it when he found that it didn't stop the criticism. Linguists do not accept the Anatolian branch as reflecting an early pre-PIE homeland in Anatolia. I already linked to one paper by a linguist discrediting this. There are others around. Mallory and Anthony are both aware of the two-phase approach and point to problems with it.

It is not simply that the Neolithic date is wrong for PIE. Anatolia is the wrong place for pre-PIE. The thing just cannot be made to fit.

Maybe I am giving Renfre too much credit but I think though that a modification of the modified Renfrew idea could work.  There is evidence of Anatolian links both in terms of culture and dairying with the east end of the Danube c. 5000BC.  That puts an Anatolian linked group close to the whole eastern expansion of farming under the Cuc-Tryp culture who in turn were close to the steppe frontier and also the most likely donor of many important things to the steppe peoples.  This grouping and related descendants were in that sort of position around the west side and north-west of the Black Sea for a long period.  IF (and it is a big if) some sort of pre-proto-IE dialect did exist south of the Black Sea c. 5000BC then it could well have transferred with the Antatolian contacts that effected the area of Europe on the west side of the Black Sea.  Perhaps actual proto-IE could have evolved there in a vastly more advanced culture which nevertheless was in a position to absorb any useful steppe innovations and indeed had steppe elements interspersed among them afterwards after the climatic downturn.

In general I think that neither the Kurgan model or the Renfrew original model work.  The Kurgan model to me reminds me of the Urnfield-Hallstatt-La Tene model for the Celts in that it appears to be a model that explains a subset of the story and has not identified the common denominator of the whole story.  

Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #97 on: April 06, 2012, 02:48:14 PM »

The Balkan R1a mentioned was even before the discovery of M458 and hasn't not been tested for any of these newer SNP's.  However, there are some samples from various older studies like Underhills (2010) showing SRY10831.2- R1a's or R1a* which does suggest an Anatolia to SE Europe movement.

Bear in mind that people move around. A long list of IE peoples  have entered Anatolia at various times in history (and there may have been some in prehistory). This includes the Cimmerians, who may well have carried some of the oldest R1a.

I don't think anyone would buy R1a1 as spread by the Neolithic, somehow.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 04:20:23 PM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #98 on: April 06, 2012, 02:54:29 PM »

 There is evidence of Anatolian links both in terms of culture and dairying with the east end of the Danube c. 5000BC.

Yes I know and I have that in my text. But the people who brought dairying into Europe were not speaking PIE. PIE had to borrow the word ox from another language.  PIE sprang from a language of hunter-gatherers with some basic vocabulary in common with Proto-Uralic. Of course PIE ended up with dairying vocabulary.

Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #99 on: April 06, 2012, 03:02:49 PM »

Here is a thought.  If R1b was essentially unknown in western Europe pre 3000BC then the same may be true of R1a in Russia.  The present R1a distribution in Europe may be radically different from that of the past.

Of course. Had you not realised that before? I've said so often enough! The current R1a1a in Russia is mainly Slavic i.e. spread in the early Middle Ages, but swallowing up some Baltic-speakers as it spread. Vikings probably injected some R1a1a later. Then Germanic speakers were invited to settle by Catherine II in 1763.

Naturally I have thought of it for years and its been especially true since out understanding of variance, phylogeny and ancient DNA has improved.  I only raise it because I think the idea that R1a is very eastern (in European terms) and R1b is very western gets back projected in time.  It is entirely possible that despite the very different distributions they were located together at the time of PIE.  It may seem odd now but as a parallel look at P312 and U106.  They have come to have very different distributions despite having a common L11 ancestor who lived only a short time before these clade defining SNPs.  We dont know in any clear way where R1b and R1a were c. 3000BC in European terms.  It seems that R1b in the form of L23 and L51 were probably in south-east Europe first.  I cant really vouch for Anatole's work but is there any evidence that R1a was in the steppes in (say) 5000BC. Is there any evidence at all that it was there pre-3000BC? If not why is it assumed it is?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 12 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.115 seconds with 17 queries.