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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 13, 2014, 06:45:37 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 ... 9 10 [11] 12 Go Down Print
Author Topic: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012  (Read 12464 times)
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #250 on: July 11, 2012, 09:57:33 AM »

I checked out a hardcopy of Desideri's latest study When Beakers Met Bell Beakers 2011.  

Thanks for pointing that out.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #251 on: July 11, 2012, 10:17:35 AM »


... take away the details and the big picture is no different from 25 years ago when I bought Mallory's book.  The basic gist was the kurgan theory works well when dealing with the steppes, the adjacent area of eastern Europe and the spread east and south-east.  For the rest of Europe back then there was a bit of a feeing of hopelessness of the Kurgan model explaining IE in most of Europe and a general idea that somehow Corded Ware and beaker would need to be linked to the Kurgan culture even though the evidence was not clear on that link.  I think the big picture is the same.  

No so. The Yamnaya link to Bell Beaker is now so solid that it cannot be wished away.

I'll be blunt Alan, and hope not to cause offense. You (and some other archaeologists) placed great weight on the uncertainty about the archaeological evidence of the European strand as a means of denying the whole steppe homeland theory, despite the illogicality of that position even in the 1980s. The eastern archaeological evidence was enough to support the case made from linguistics, since we cannot have (linguistically) two different homelands for the European and Asian IE languages. The Asian IE languages include some of the earliest and latest break-aways from the mother language.

All sorts of interesting possibilities remain in terms of genetic input into the steppe or from mixture with adjoining cultures on routes out of the steppe. But PIE as a language sits on the European steppe.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2012, 10:54:57 AM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #252 on: July 11, 2012, 02:25:19 PM »


... take away the details and the big picture is no different from 25 years ago when I bought Mallory's book.  The basic gist was the kurgan theory works well when dealing with the steppes, the adjacent area of eastern Europe and the spread east and south-east.  For the rest of Europe back then there was a bit of a feeing of hopelessness of the Kurgan model explaining IE in most of Europe and a general idea that somehow Corded Ware and beaker would need to be linked to the Kurgan culture even though the evidence was not clear on that link.  I think the big picture is the same.  

No so. The Yamnaya link to Bell Beaker is now so solid that it cannot be wished away.

I'll be blunt Alan, and hope not to cause offense. You (and some other archaeologists) placed great weight on the uncertainty about the archaeological evidence of the European strand as a means of denying the whole steppe homeland theory, despite the illogicality of that position even in the 1980s. The eastern archaeological evidence was enough to support the case made from linguistics, since we cannot have (linguistically) two different homelands for the European and Asian IE languages. The Asian IE languages include some of the earliest and latest break-aways from the mother language.

All sorts of interesting possibilities remain in terms of genetic input into the steppe or from mixture with adjoining cultures on routes out of the steppe. But PIE as a language sits on the European steppe.

Jean.  No worries.  I dont see anything in what you said to take offense in.  Seems reasonable to me.  I am not really talking about the homeland issue to be honest and I am not trying to attack the steppe origin theory.  It has problems when applied to the west but the alternatives also have a lot of problems too and have been pretty undermined by new evidence.  I am just saying that the need for farily complex models to connect the east to beaker and corded ware as a vehicle to explain the IE nature of Europe outside the eastern fringes of Europe is still where we are at albeit the details change.  I am not saying its wrong but the contrast in straight forward migration explanations and fairly strong evidence for the eastern half of the story still stands in contrast to the need for very different complex models for the western half.  I think its fair enough comment that the Yamnaya influence maps in Harrison and Heyd use a level of evidence that if applied to other times and periods would mean you could argue for migration everywhere and at almost all times.  A scatter of selective uptake of influences, borrowings, styles and traits taken up differently all over the placee selectively from the east is very little different from what we see all through the Bronze Age where there is almost a constant multi-directional overlapping and movement of ideas.  I am afraid I just cant agree that it is possible to disitinguise between migration, contact etc in the case of selective and varied uptake of eastern influences.  Now, some of their stuff is more convincing and feels like it may go deeper than influences but other aspects of their map of Yamnaya influences really is nowhere near being clearcut evidence of migration.  I am not arguing against the evidence that the source of influences were what they have detected.  I am simply arguing that only some of what they list are in the category of being strong evidence for movement.  What is really creating evidence that is exposing what is and isnt movement is the white coat work rather than archaeological inference per se.  Only that kind of evidence is teasing out what is and isnt migration.  I think archaeological inference was basically defeated by this issue.   Its all a matter of personal taste but the bar of evidence other than the DNA etc is just too low in the western half of Europe for me to feel that a call can be made.  A lot of good ideas have been put out there but I think that only the DNA evidence will sort out the complex multi directional multi phase models in terms of how much is migration and how much is influence and at what point R1b got involved in the beaker story.  I do however believe this will come clear soon.  I just wouldnt want to make a call at the relationship between beaker, R1b and IE as yet.  I think they are related (cant see any alternative) but exactly how, I wouldnt feel confident yet.  beaker, R1b and the spread of IE into the west have individually been extremely tough nuts to crack and collectively they are an uber-nut.  I think only DNA will reveal the exact mechanism.   
Logged
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #253 on: July 11, 2012, 05:23:34 PM »

I checked out a hardcopy of Desideri's latest study When Beakers Met Bell Beakers 2011.  

Thanks for pointing that out.
No problem.  Looking over it again, I noticed on Figure 90a on p.145 the Hungarian Bell Beaker is connected to the Valaisian early Bronze Age in Switzerland.  This would of course be after the shift at Sion.  Also on page 152 Figure 95a, it's showing the Villedubert France Beaker population with an upstream connection to Beaker from Hungary and Central Bohemia.  I think both examples support Heyd's interpretation of Sion (and Fig. 103), i.e. eastern Beaker movement intruding upon the west ~2500-2400 BC.   It seems to line up with a north and west spread of R1b and the R1b at Kromsdorf.  

In regard to the stelae in Iberia, is there a solid date on those?  The studies seem to attribute them to the Bronze age, which would be well after early Beaker ~2900.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2012, 05:24:59 PM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #254 on: July 11, 2012, 05:36:37 PM »

I checked out a hardcopy of Desideri's latest study When Beakers Met Bell Beakers 2011.  

Thanks for pointing that out.
No problem.  Looking over it again, I noticed on Figure 90a on p.145 the Hungarian Bell Beaker is connected to the Valaisian early Bronze Age in Switzerland.  This would of course be after the shift at Sion.  Also on page 152 Figure 95a, it's showing the Villedubert France Beaker population with an upstream connection to Beaker from Hungary and Central Bohemia.  I think both examples support Heyd's interpretation of Sion (and Fig. 103), i.e. eastern Beaker movement intruding upon the west ~2500-2400 BC.   It seems to line up with a north and west spread of R1b and the R1b at Kromsdorf.  


So, would you see the initial phase of the spread of beaker from Iberia to S. France/ Italy/Switzerland as a non-R1b thing and R1b as being brought from the east by the secondary east-west movement from central Europe?   
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #255 on: July 11, 2012, 08:11:49 PM »


No problem.  Looking over it again, I noticed on Figure 90a on p.145 the Hungarian Bell Beaker is connected to the Valaisian early Bronze Age in Switzerland.  This would of course be after the shift at Sion.  Also on page 152 Figure 95a, it's showing the Villedubert France Beaker population with an upstream connection to Beaker from Hungary and Central Bohemia.  I think both examples support Heyd's interpretation of Sion (and Fig. 103), i.e. eastern Beaker movement intruding upon the west ~2500-2400 BC.   It seems to line up with a north and west spread of R1b and the R1b at Kromsdorf.  

I haven't seen the book itself. I just went looking online and found that I could download an abstract.  

Quote
In regard to the stelae in Iberia, is there a solid date on those?  The studies seem to attribute them to the Bronze age, which would be well after early Beaker ~2900.

Which are these? Sanjuán 2010 & Perez 2006 on the warrior stelae of Tartessos? They are different. I have now obtained a copy of Perez 2006 with images, which makes matters clearer. The anthropomorphic stelae are found in a different region of Iberia.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2012, 06:15:25 AM by Jean M » Logged
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #256 on: July 11, 2012, 08:15:28 PM »

I checked out a hardcopy of Desideri's latest study When Beakers Met Bell Beakers 2011.  

Thanks for pointing that out.
No problem.  Looking over it again, I noticed on Figure 90a on p.145 the Hungarian Bell Beaker is connected to the Valaisian early Bronze Age in Switzerland.  This would of course be after the shift at Sion.  Also on page 152 Figure 95a, it's showing the Villedubert France Beaker population with an upstream connection to Beaker from Hungary and Central Bohemia.  I think both examples support Heyd's interpretation of Sion (and Fig. 103), i.e. eastern Beaker movement intruding upon the west ~2500-2400 BC.   It seems to line up with a north and west spread of R1b and the R1b at Kromsdorf.  


So, would you see the initial phase of the spread of beaker from Iberia to S. France/ Italy/Switzerland as a non-R1b thing and R1b as being brought from the east by the secondary east-west movement from central Europe?   

Yes, early Iberian Beaker, at least from cranial and dental studies, suggest population continuity from the late neolithic.  I don't think that necessarily excludes some R1b arriving, building stelae, etc., but I'm guessing most of the ydna was E, G2, and I-M26.  I do think the L11-P312 sequence is part of this slightly later eastern expansion.  It obviously ended up in Iberia too, though not as much with the initial Beaker package.  This is not to say when Beaker expands out of Iberia, it didn't absorb some R1b in France on the way to Switzerland.
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #257 on: July 11, 2012, 08:18:30 PM »

Which are these? Sanjuán 2010 & Perez 2006 on the warrior stelae of Tartessos? They are different. I have now obtained a copy of Perez 2006 with images, which makes matters clearer. The anthropomorphic stelae are found in a different region of Iberia.

I was skimming the 5 or 6 stelae studies in your library.  I was looking for dates, but might have overlooked them.  One says European stelae from 3500, but I'm thinking this might be the Pontic ones.
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #258 on: July 11, 2012, 08:40:10 PM »

I was skimming the 5 or 6 stelae studies in your library.  I was looking for dates, but might have overlooked them.  One says European stelae from 3500, but I'm thinking this might be the Pontic ones.

I used Diaz-Guardamino 2010 for Iberia. It is in Spanish. Although the title refers to the Bronze Age, he mentions earlier types. Cardoso 2011 is in English.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2012, 08:41:25 PM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #259 on: July 12, 2012, 11:03:14 AM »

I checked out a hardcopy of Desideri's latest study When Beakers Met Bell Beakers 2011.  

Thanks for pointing that out.
No problem.  Looking over it again, I noticed on Figure 90a on p.145 the Hungarian Bell Beaker is connected to the Valaisian early Bronze Age in Switzerland.  This would of course be after the shift at Sion.  Also on page 152 Figure 95a, it's showing the Villedubert France Beaker population with an upstream connection to Beaker from Hungary and Central Bohemia.  I think both examples support Heyd's interpretation of Sion (and Fig. 103), i.e. eastern Beaker movement intruding upon the west ~2500-2400 BC.   It seems to line up with a north and west spread of R1b and the R1b at Kromsdorf.  


So, would you see the initial phase of the spread of beaker from Iberia to S. France/ Italy/Switzerland as a non-R1b thing and R1b as being brought from the east by the secondary east-west movement from central Europe?  

Yes, early Iberian Beaker, at least from cranial and dental studies, suggest population continuity from the late neolithic.  I don't think that necessarily excludes some R1b arriving, building stelae, etc., but I'm guessing most of the ydna was E, G2, and I-M26.  I do think the L11-P312 sequence is part of this slightly later eastern expansion.  It obviously ended up in Iberia too, though not as much with the initial Beaker package.  This is not to say when Beaker expands out of Iberia, it didn't absorb some R1b in France on the way to Switzerland.

I basically agree.  It might be possible to suggest trials of the complex of phases something like

L23*=immedaite pre-beaker trail of R1b.  It has a strong east-west variance cline along the south and the Alpine fringe.  Seems the best correlation with Jean's stelae people or something similar to that.  However, it is also a route taken many times later so its problematic to assume a link like this.

L51*=well I think it might be a proxy parallel clade that travelled with L11* and maybe early P312*.  It has an extremely strong similarity to the beaker network c. 2600BC. However direction cant be inferred from distribution.  It seems strong is southern France and N. Italy but also known in lesser numbers in known beaker nodes Atlantic Iberia, further north in France and into west-central Europe.  I think its date may be implied by the fact it is almost unknown in areas where beaker didnt arrive until c. 2500 or later.  

U152-Tempting to link it with the central European beaker division seen intruding at Sion.

L21 -Its distribution would fit well with a seaborne extension of beaker into the northern Atlantic zone in an arc from the the Basque Country to Norway c. 2500-2400BC.  That extension would clearly have needed beaker people with maritime skills.   I think the relatively late maritime extension is the key to L21 distribution.  

The other main branch DF27 is harder to nail down.  We really need distribution maps for it, its subclades.  

We also could do with a map of true P312* as it is those lines that are closest to L21.


« Last Edit: July 12, 2012, 12:04:53 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #260 on: July 12, 2012, 11:40:22 AM »

Also, when Beaker emerges out of Iberia, there is a trail of new projectile point types called Palmela points.  They're not found much in the eastern range.  These seem to extend up the Atlantic coast towards Brittany.  It is interesting that the Rhine Beakers are associated with the west group.  The Kromsdorf R1b's I think would be part of the south German/Czech/Hungarian branch.  However, Kromsdorf is north of this range.  Britain probably received R1b from a convergence of these two groups at the lower Rhine.

Starting 2800-2700 there is speculatively, a large movement of R1b
in two phases.  First east to west, which includes the destruction event at Sion.  This is also perhaps when the 'roundheads' begin showing up in Iberia in greater frequency after Beaker has already been established among the late neolithics.  The second R1b phase shifts from south to north with the Beaker spread to the British Isles and Scandinavia.  L21 and its subclades might begin towards the end of phase one.  I can imagine U106 born in the eastern group and maybe is more associated with the late Beaker/Unetice people until it expands with later Celts and Germanics.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2012, 11:40:48 AM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


« Reply #261 on: July 12, 2012, 12:04:13 PM »

The other main branch L?? (sorry have forgotten this one) is harder to nail down.  e really need distribution maps for it, its subclades. 

We also could do with a map of true P312* as it is those lines that are closest to L21.

I suspect you mean DF27.  Often referred to as R-P312* in the literature before it was discovered... which is to say, all of the literature.
Logged

R1b Z196*
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #262 on: July 12, 2012, 12:08:05 PM »

The other main branch L?? (sorry have forgotten this one) is harder to nail down.  e really need distribution maps for it, its subclades. 

We also could do with a map of true P312* as it is those lines that are closest to L21.

I suspect you mean DF27.  Often referred to as R-P312* in the literature before it was discovered... which is to say, all of the literature.

It looks like DF27 is going to eliminate most P-312* as potential ancestors of L21 and U152,  Its the small rump of P312XDF27 where the ancestors of L21 and/or U152 lie.  That is what makes them a particularly interesting group to me.   
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #263 on: July 12, 2012, 12:31:21 PM »

Also, when Beaker emerges out of Iberia, there is a trail of new projectile point types called Palmela points.  They're not found much in the eastern range.  These seem to extend up the Atlantic coast towards Brittany.  It is interesting that the Rhine Beakers are associated with the west group.  The Kromsdorf R1b's I think would be part of the south German/Czech/Hungarian branch.  However, Kromsdorf is north of this range.  Britain probably received R1b from a convergence of these two groups at the lower Rhine.

Starting 2800-2700 there is speculatively, a large movement of R1b
in two phases.  First east to west, which includes the destruction event at Sion.  This is also perhaps when the 'roundheads' begin showing up in Iberia in greater frequency after Beaker has already been established among the late neolithics.  The second R1b phase shifts from south to north with the Beaker spread to the British Isles and Scandinavia.  L21 and its subclades might begin towards the end of phase one.  I can imagine U106 born in the eastern group and maybe is more associated with the late Beaker/Unetice people until it expands with later Celts and Germanics.

I must admit I am a little uneasy about the idea that R1b largely entered beaker only in central Europe in a secondary phase.  However, I am also not convinced by the pre-beaker spread idea either.  Doesnt mean that either is wrong but I am not easily convinced on things in general and the Harrison and Heyd stuff gets pretty lightweight by the time Atlantic Iberia is reached. One or the other has to be right.  I would tend to go more for the idea that R1b entered the R1b network somewhere around west-central Europe.  Lets face it all of western Europe appears to have been heavily R1b-ised from a zero start in the 3rd millenium so we should feel no more amazement of that happening in Iberia than anywhere else.  Another thing that might support the idea that R1b entered Iberia from the east in the developed beaker stage is that it is stronger in the east of Iberia, not in the west of Iberia (where the earliest beakers were).  I dont know enough about the distribution of DF27 outside Iberia to suggest a route how it got there.  I would tend to guess from southern France but I am not sure.  With Iberia being a terminus its always easier to suggest France as its its only near neighbour!  The L21 in the Pyrenees looks like the boundary zone of the main L21 distribution and frequency suggests it was seaborne and arrived from Atlantic France.
Logged
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #264 on: July 12, 2012, 01:05:02 PM »

I agree, aDNA, if we can get it from multiple copper/bronze age sites will tell us the big picture.  The next best thing is the upcoming results from Continental DF13 and DF63 testing.  For now, I think the large expansion of R1b is Beaker-related.  We have neolithic Y aDNA and its current frequency is much lower in relation to R1b.  However, R1b's presence in the pre-Beaker west would not be surprising, unless it is pre-late neolithic.
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #265 on: July 12, 2012, 04:26:38 PM »

I used Diaz-Guardamino 2010 for Iberia. It is in Spanish. Although the title refers to the Bronze Age, he mentions earlier types. Cardoso 2011 is in English.

The stelae in the Cardoso paper are identified with the Iberian Bronze age.  This is long after early Beaker.  They don't really get into cultures or origins.  The first stelae were more of a female motif with diadems or headdresses carved on them.  The 'warrior' stelae that would be associated with Beakers or Indo-Europeans are actually later in the bronze age.  These feature the daggers, bows, and halberds.  I don't see any carbon dates or other mention in the context of an early Beaker/stelae people intrusion from the 1st half of the 3rd millenium.  Certainly, there were earlier stelae, but I'm hesitant to associate them with an intrusion in that time-frame.
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #266 on: July 15, 2012, 05:25:01 PM »


No so. The Yamnaya link to Bell Beaker is now so solid that it cannot be wished away.


What is the evidence for this?
Logged

LDJ
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #267 on: July 15, 2012, 06:20:58 PM »

The stelae in the Cardoso paper are identified with the Iberian Bronze age.  This is long after early Beaker.  They don't really get into cultures or origins.

Yes I know the focus is very much on the later stelae, but I can't find a paper that concentrates specifically and exclusively on those dated to the Copper Age. You can see some of the necklace type  online in the Portuguese National Museum of Archaeology. They are not particularly impressive, but they fit into the wider pattern.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 10:23:40 AM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #268 on: July 15, 2012, 06:25:47 PM »


No so. The Yamnaya link to Bell Beaker is now so solid that it cannot be wished away.


What is the evidence for this?

Harrison and Heyd 2007. Though as a matter of fact I answered that question on this forum back in 2009 before I had got around to reading their paper. My review of it appears further down that thread after I lashed out and purchased.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 06:30:50 PM by Jean M » Logged
princenuadha
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #269 on: July 16, 2012, 07:47:36 PM »

I don't agree with everything Dienekes says, but when he makes sense, he makes sense.

I was referring to Dienekes' post that I quoted earlier in this thread. If mtDNA C had much of a presence on the ancient P-C steppe (a big if), then chances are there was an East Eurasian autosomal component in ancient P-C steppe people. That component didn't make much headway in Europe. That fact would seem to indicate that P-C steppe people didn't have much impact on the genetic make-up of Europe.

That's all speculative, but it's something to consider.

Drift, when it is used as the answer to everything, starts to sound like special pleading, kind of like the good old "genetic bottleneck".

Now dienekes is arguing that Northern Europeans have a little East Asian admixture, over south europeans... The lack of which he recently used to argue against steppe migrations, lol. Actually, according to his thought process the stepps had to be involved!

Anyways, whatever the special affinity between n Europeans and e asians, I'm not convinced that mtdna c is a signal of Mongoliod admixture.

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #270 on: July 16, 2012, 08:23:10 PM »

I don't agree with everything Dienekes says, but when he makes sense, he makes sense.

I was referring to Dienekes' post that I quoted earlier in this thread. If mtDNA C had much of a presence on the ancient P-C steppe (a big if), then chances are there was an East Eurasian autosomal component in ancient P-C steppe people. That component didn't make much headway in Europe. That fact would seem to indicate that P-C steppe people didn't have much impact on the genetic make-up of Europe.

That's all speculative, but it's something to consider.

Drift, when it is used as the answer to everything, starts to sound like special pleading, kind of like the good old "genetic bottleneck".

Now dienekes is arguing that Northern Europeans have a little East Asian admixture, over south europeans... The lack of which he recently used to argue against steppe migrations, lol. Actually, according to his thought process the stepps had to be involved!

Anyways, whatever the special affinity between n Europeans and e asians, I'm not convinced that mtdna c is a signal of Mongoliod admixture.



yeah I think he is arguing himself into a hole and beginning to look stubborn.  I have a lot of respect for him but I dont like the way he has a preconcieved model that all the evidence is then explained (or explained away) to fit that model.  Its just not a wise approach to back yourself into a corner like that.  When you look at the L23 map and its diversity, there is definately a strong chance it could be explained by a two-directional ourpouring from the north down both the east and west side the Black Sea. 

That said I think its not impossible he might have something in terms of R1b originating on the mountain fringe fringing the steppes, between the true steppes and the old farming area to the south.  If it was holed up there and then spread both west and south it could fit the distribution of L23* and the much older links with non-M269 R1b in the eastern steppes.  If he has some sort of middle way theory of a group between the steppes and the old farming area to the south then I would definately have an open mind on it and I would like to see him develop the idea with some more detail.  I would not be at all surprise to find R1b in that area or on the north shore of the Black Sea.  I think there could be surprises when that earlier steppes groups are looked at and I wouldnt be at all surprised if R1b is found in the earlier steppes burials.  I get the impression that R1a may have at some stage pushed R1b from there in two directions.  The high variance of R1b in both the Caucuses area and Romania could fit that.  I think much of Anatolia can be ruled out as the origin of R1b,  R1b does not display the kind of branching in the pre-Copper Age period (not to mention its non-appearance in Neolithic Europe) that you would expect if it was located in the heartland of farming which eastern Anatolia was part of.  It is not impossible that Dienekes could be on to something with the highland fringe idea but you could also argue that it is a rearguard arguement in the face of new evidence that is only stopping just short of a steppe model.  I dont think something like a Maekop link would be too radically different from that idea of a culture intermediate between the steppe and the faming zone but maybe too much is being read into the lack of R1b in the steppes today, a place where radical sweeps of populations has happened again and again. 
Logged
princenuadha
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #271 on: July 17, 2012, 02:08:31 AM »

Quote from: alan trowel hands.
Its just not a wise approach to back yourself into a corner like that.

He does and he doesn't. His original purpose was to show that Europeans were largely admixed with recent middle eastern admixture as part of his "womb of nations theory". Now, he seems to have mostly resigned himself to arguing the origin of PIE.

I haven't really seen anyone call him on this and I wouldn't be surprised if he does some scrambling later on.

But ya, he still is in a corner and I think he'll be found wrong on both accounts.

Quote from: alan trowel hands.
When you look at the L23 map and its diversity, there is definately a strong chance it could be explained by a two-directional ourpouring from the north down both the east and west side the Black Sea.

Could I see the map you are referring to?




 


« Last Edit: July 17, 2012, 12:57:32 PM by princenuadha » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #272 on: July 17, 2012, 06:29:37 AM »

Quote from: rms
Its just not a wise approach to back yourself into a corner like that.

He does and he doesn't. His original purpose was to show that Europeans were largely admixed with recent middle eastern admixture as part of his "womb of nations theory". Now, he seems to have mostly resigned himself to arguing the origin of PIE.

I haven't really seen anyone call him on this and I wouldn't be surprised if he does some scrambling later on.

But ya, he still is in a corner and I think he'll be found wrong on both accounts.

Quote from: rms
When you look at the L23 map and its diversity, there is definately a strong chance it could be explained by a two-directional ourpouring from the north down both the east and west side the Black Sea.

Could I see the map you are referring to?

You are quoting alan trowel hands but attributing the quotation to me (or at least to the first three letters of my screen name).

I didn't write those things, so you'll have to ask Alan about them.
Logged

princenuadha
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #273 on: July 17, 2012, 12:59:20 PM »

Quote from: rms
Its just not a wise approach to back yourself into a corner like that.

He does and he doesn't. His original purpose was to show that Europeans were largely admixed with recent middle eastern admixture as part of his "womb of nations theory". Now, he seems to have mostly resigned himself to arguing the origin of PIE.

I haven't really seen anyone call him on this and I wouldn't be surprised if he does some scrambling later on.

But ya, he still is in a corner and I think he'll be found wrong on both accounts.

Quote from: rms
When you look at the L23 map and its diversity, there is definately a strong chance it could be explained by a two-directional ourpouring from the north down both the east and west side the Black Sea.

Could I see the map you are referring to?

You are quoting alan trowel hands but attributing the quotation to me (or at least to the first three letters of my screen name).

I didn't write those things, so you'll have to ask Alan about them.

Thanks, I don't know what I was thinking.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #274 on: July 17, 2012, 01:16:37 PM »

Quote from: rms
Its just not a wise approach to back yourself into a corner like that.

He does and he doesn't. His original purpose was to show that Europeans were largely admixed with recent middle eastern admixture as part of his "womb of nations theory". Now, he seems to have mostly resigned himself to arguing the origin of PIE.

I haven't really seen anyone call him on this and I wouldn't be surprised if he does some scrambling later on.

But ya, he still is in a corner and I think he'll be found wrong on both accounts.

Quote from: rms
When you look at the L23 map and its diversity, there is definately a strong chance it could be explained by a two-directional ourpouring from the north down both the east and west side the Black Sea.

Could I see the map you are referring to?

You are quoting alan trowel hands but attributing the quotation to me (or at least to the first three letters of my screen name).

I didn't write those things, so you'll have to ask Alan about them.

That quoting problem does sometimes happen,  Not sure why.  

I do find it interesting though that Dienekes seems to be slowly morphing his Asia idea from the first farmers in Anatolia to the fringes of it slightly to the north and also to a point later in time.  I quite like that idea (and several people have offered ideas not too different from it in the past).  There were copper age cultures intermediate between the steppes and Mesopotamia.  The most famous is Maykop but there could be others.  The mountain fringe area to the east of the Caucuses is pretty obscure to me.  

However, I would tend to think, due to the two-direction movement of L23* into the farming zones to the south (Anatolia etc) and west (Balkans) that it is less likely to have come fom either an eastern or western extreme on the steppes.  I think its probably more likely that it was somewhere like on the very shore of the north Black Sea or the Caucuses.  We know R1a had a trajectory that took it into south-east Germany in the Corded Ware period and we know its distribution today tends to be from there eastwards.  We also know L23* tends to be older to the south of it.  So, I am tempted to see a pattern of R1b either being bypassed slightly by R1a passing to the north or maybe exiting in two directions (to the Balkans and through the Caucuses) from its path.  Yamanaya as far as I know is thought to have pulsed out from further east so perhaps L23* was located around the Caucuses or nearby on the Black Sea shore itself and was bypassed slightly to the north or pushed west and south.  One hint at a shore position for L23 is the apparent maritime aspect of L23* and its later descendants.  

I really could do with knowing more about the shores of the Black Sea.  I know about Kemi Oba which pre-Yamnaya roots in the Lower Michaeylovka culture and there were links with Maykop.  Maykop really facinates me the way it was the link between the steppes and Mesopotamia through the Caucuses and developed its own mountain agriculture.  I think somewhere in there might be where Dienekes is edging towards.  

The dates of Maykop of c. 3700BC would not seem out of place for L23* nor would its higher variance area.  It would also place R1b in a situation where it was more agricultural than steppe nomads like Yamnaya and that could have influenced its choice of directions to expand into, maybe preferring locations other than steppe land. That could partly explain the distibition of R1b.  Agriculturist groups (even if they had steppe roots) would not have been as attracted by steppe environments as groups who were well adapted to that environment and thrusting deep into the steppes may have not been an option to them compared to R1a Yamanaya and related groups.  

Disclaimer- i am dabbling in an area that I have limited knowledge on.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2012, 01:25:12 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 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 0.116 seconds with 19 queries.