World Families Forums - Where did Germanic languages expand from? How about U106?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 17, 2014, 02:50:00 PM
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)
| | |-+  Where did Germanic languages expand from? How about U106?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Where did Germanic languages expand from? How about U106?  (Read 7613 times)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #25 on: April 10, 2012, 10:30:40 PM »

Very few people would derive R1b from the P-C steppe. Mike may be one; Maciamo Hay of Eupedia might be another, but that is about it.
Have you taken a poll?  How do you know?

Have you seen DMXX's maps of R1b in West Asia, east of the Caspian?  If R1b can be east of the Caspian, it can be north or in the Caucasus.

Oh, yes, I almost for forgot....  where is all that R1b-L23*.  Yes, that's right. It's in the Caucasus.  Just south of the steppes in cultures known to be in contact with steppes cultures.

Let's be cautious about assumptions.

I'm not betting that R1b was in the Pontic Steppes with PIE, but I'm not betting against it.  This is more parsimonious that believing R1b "learned" IE from R1a, as Klyosovo would say, in multiple places and times in the edges of Old Europe.

It is also not hard to believe given R1b's ancestry. Where do you think R1 originated?  Wells would put it in what he calls the Central Asia "heartland." Maybe his timing is wrong, but if R1 is from Central Asia why does R1b have to be from Central Europe or Anatolia?
« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 08:38:04 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #26 on: April 10, 2012, 10:33:34 PM »


Why did NOT more of these fine sea voyagers from Scandinavia make it to the British Isles (at least the U106 portion of them) during the Nordic Bronze Age?
How do we know that they didn't?  As I recall a study of the teeth of Bronze Age remains in England (originally mentioned by Jean if my memory is correct) showed they likely came from Scandinavia.
I agree that some U106 could be very early (pre-Anglo-Saxon and even pre-Roman) in the Isles, but it does not appear to be much, at the most.

The bulk of U106 in Scandinavia must NOT have been early in Scandinavia or we'd see more where Hiberno-Vikings and Scots-Vikings appearing as U106. I think we are seeing some strains of P312* and L165 as Hiberno/Scot-Vikings, not so much the U106... not that there is no U106 early to the Isles.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2012, 10:59:45 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #27 on: April 11, 2012, 03:24:56 AM »

Jean, even you have said that R1b learned its PIE at the hands of R1a peoples.

Not all over Europe. That's crazy in my view. I have consistently argued that R1b logically must have arrived in the PIE homeland before the development of PIE or during its development, in order for it to be so strongly correlated with IE languages in Europe. I see it as the other half of the IE story, just as you did years ago. The fact that we don't find R1b on the Pontic-Caspian steppe today has never bothered me in the slightest, because the steppe has been a highway with one population change after another since 3000 BC.  It is obvious that in some cases R1b and R1a travelled together. The idea that these were completely separate populations c. 3-4000 BC does not make sense.

Quote
Very few people would derive R1b from the P-C steppe.

I'm not deriving it from the steppe. The M343 mutation occurred many millennia before these events. We don't know where. I've taken a guess that R1 people moved seasonally between the South Caspian and the steppe in the Mesolithic and it just so happened that an R1b man eventually settled on the south side of that route and an R1a man on the north. I could be wrong. But that would explain what we see archaeologically and genetically. R1b could then be caught up in the farming revolution prior to R1a, but make its way to the steppe with dairy farmers c. 5000 BC.  
« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 03:52:00 AM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #28 on: April 11, 2012, 03:32:51 AM »

How do we know that they didn't?  As I recall a study of the teeth of Bronze Age remains in England (originally mentioned by Jean if my memory is correct) showed they likely came from Scandinavia.

Selective memory at work there! I blogged about the study of a group of burials on the Isle of Thanet. The team used isotopic analysis to find out where these people came from. Of the 22 skeletons tested, eight were local, seven were from Scandinavia, probably southern Sweden or Norway, five were from South-West Iberia and the origins of the remaining two could not be identified. Interestingly the earliest phase (Late Bronze) was the most mixed: local, Norse and Iberian. In the Early Iron Age the mixture was local and Iberian. The Middle Iron Age mixed local and Norse. 

I would guess that the Isle of Thanet was a trading post.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 04:31:56 AM by Jean M » Logged
Arwunbee
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


« Reply #29 on: April 11, 2012, 03:43:11 AM »

The bulk of U106 in Scandinavia must NOT have been early in Scandinavia or we'd see more where Hiberno-Vikings and Scots-Vikings appearing as U106. I think we are seeing some strains of P312* and L165 as Hiberno/Scot-Vikings, not so much the U106... not that there is no U106 early to the Isles.
Ahhhhh, the old "Bulk of U106 must NOT have been early in Scandinavia or we'd see more U106 Hiberno-Vikings" rule of thumb.






Logged

Map of L44 subclade (of U106): http://g.co/maps/9xswy
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #30 on: April 11, 2012, 07:46:01 AM »

Very few people would derive R1b from the P-C steppe. Mike may be one; Maciamo Hay of Eupedia might be another, but that is about it.
Have you taken a poll?  How do you know?

I assume you read my entire post. I didn't say "I know" or that I had taken a poll. Here's what I wrote. Please note the part about "my experience".

Quote from: rms2

I was mixing serious stuff with humor, but it has been my experience that by far most of those who are involved in genetic genealogy and who accept the idea that PIE originated on the Pontic-Caspian steppe believe that R1a is the paramount and original PIE y haplogroup. (It is so much easier just to refer to the Pontic-Caspian thing as the "Kurgan Theory".)

Jean, even you have said that R1b learned its PIE at the hands of R1a peoples.

Very few people would derive R1b from the P-C steppe. Mike may be one; Maciamo Hay of Eupedia might be another, but that is about it.

Have you seen DMXX's maps of R1b in West Asia, east of the Caspian?  If R1b can be east of the Caspian, it can be north or in the Caucasus.

Oh, yes, I almost for forgot....  where is all that R1b-L23*.  Yes, that's right. It's in the Caucasus.  Just south of the steppes in cultures known to be in contact with steppes cultures.

Geez. I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was responding to Jean's post.

Besides, just south of the Caucasus is where Anatolia is, not that it matters.

It has been my experience (no polls) that most of those who advocate the Pontic-Caspian Urheimat also believe R1a was the paramount and original PIE y haplogroup. Heck, that is even what Jean believes, at least judging by what she said about intermarriage and Yamnaya mothers teaching their R1b sons to speak PIE. You and Maciamo are the only ones I know of who might derive R1b from the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

At one point I would have done the same, and in the past I have done that. Now I am not so sure, because I haven't seen any sign that R1b came from the steppe. I am not arguing against it; I just don't know.

I now tend to think that R1b and Pre-Proto-Indo-European ("Indo-Hittite") came up into SE Europe from Anatolia and that the steppe peoples acquired their Indo-European from that source.

Let's be cautious about assumptions.

I wasn't aware I was making any. I was speaking of my experience in arguing with people about Indo-European for several years on various dna chat venues.

By far, most of those I have encountered who like the Pontic-Caspian steppe PIE Urheimat make R1a the paramount and original PIE y haplogroup, the Ur-haplogroup, if you will.

That is why I quit posting at Eupedia. It was getting sickening.

I'm not betting that R1b was in the Pontic Steppes with PIE, but I'm not betting against it.  This is more parsimonious that believing R1b "learned" IE from R1a, as Klyosovo would say, in multiple places and times in the edges of Old Europe.

It is also not hard to believe given R1b's ancestry. Where do you think R1 originated?  Wells would put it in what he calls the Central Asia "heartland."  Maybe his timing is wrong, but if R1 is from Central Asia why does R1b have to be from Central Europe or Anatolia?

I agree that R1 probably originated in Central Asia.

I don't know that R1b originated in Anatolia, and I am caring less and less as each day and each redundant PIE thread passes.

I already said on that other IE thread why I think an early form of IE ("Indo-Hittite") came out of Anatolia into SE Europe with R1b. No need to repeat that here.

But I don't know that it did, and I don't even think I know or that I am even close to knowing.

One thing I will admit that troubles me is the Basque language and the chance that something like it was spoken over a wide area of western Europe by a predominantly R1b population in the distant past, before Indo-European arrived. If that is the case, it would seem to militate against R1b as the original vector of the Indo-European languages.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing for that. I'm just being honest and openly stating my misgivings.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 08:13:24 AM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #31 on: April 11, 2012, 08:04:30 AM »

Jean, even you have said that R1b learned its PIE at the hands of R1a peoples.

Not all over Europe. That's crazy in my view. I have consistently argued that R1b logically must have arrived in the PIE homeland before the development of PIE or during its development, in order for it to be so strongly correlated with IE languages in Europe. I see it as the other half of the IE story, just as you did years ago. The fact that we don't find R1b on the Pontic-Caspian steppe today has never bothered me in the slightest, because the steppe has been a highway with one population change after another since 3000 BC.  It is obvious that in some cases R1b and R1a travelled together. The idea that these were completely separate populations c. 3-4000 BC does not make sense.

The point is not that you involve R1b in PIE very early on but that part of your adherence to the Pontic-Caspian Urheimat involves making R1a the Ur-haplogroup, so to speak.

If you think the original speakers of PIE could have been R1b, then please say so and clear that up for me. You did mention R1b sons learning PIE from Yamnaya mothers. Would the maternal grandfathers of those R1b sons likely have been R1a?

Quote
Very few people would derive R1b from the P-C steppe.

I'm not deriving it from the steppe. The M343 mutation occurred many millennia before these events. We don't know where. I've taken a guess that R1 people moved seasonally between the South Caspian and the steppe in the Mesolithic and it just so happened that an R1b man eventually settled on the south side of that route and an R1a man on the north. I could be wrong. But that would explain what we see archaeologically and genetically. R1b could then be caught up in the farming revolution prior to R1a, but make its way to the steppe with dairy farmers c. 5000 BC.  

Sigh . . .

I and many others here use "R1b" as shorthand for whatever form its descendants had taken by the time under consideration. I am not so grossly stupid as to have intended "R1b" in this case literally as M343. It's just a lot easier to write "R1b" than to go through all the other possible long descriptors, descriptors that are constantly being updated and changed. Besides, if one writes "R-L23", he invites lengthy side arguments about whether it was R-L23 at that time or already R-L11 or maybe just plain R-M269.
 
The same goes for my use of "R1a".

By deriving R1b from the steppe, I meant the R1b immediately (or nearly immediately) ancestral to most of the stuff currently being carried around by a majority of the males in western Europe or of western European ancestry. I did not mean that you or Mike or anyone else believes R1b (literally, M343) was actually born on the steppe.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 08:19:18 AM by rms2 » Logged

authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #32 on: April 11, 2012, 08:31:47 AM »

As I recall, Mallory's book, In Search of the Indo-Europeans, associates the Jastorf and Harpstedt cultures with the beginnings of the Germanic languages. I believe Jastorf was part of the Nordic Bronze Age thing and began in the southern neck of the Jutland Peninsula, later spreading south into North Germany and, later, west into East Friesland.

Whilst the Jastorf Culture remains a possibility, Harpstedt-Nienburg is now seen as one represented by a number of highly mobile groups showing some aspects of both the celtic and germanic worlds, probably through contact. These groups tend to create settlements which last one to two generations after which they are dismantled and the group moves further to the west. We don't know what their language was.

Belonging to this group is the Schnippenburg, http://www.schnippenburg.de/index.php?id=72. The distinctive type of house is known to migrate from east to west, http://eisenzeithaus.de/wb/pages/de/infos.php?lang=DE.
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #33 on: April 11, 2012, 08:59:16 AM »

The bulk of U106 in Scandinavia must NOT have been early in Scandinavia or we'd see more where Hiberno-Vikings and Scots-Vikings appearing as U106. I think we are seeing some strains of P312* and L165 as Hiberno/Scot-Vikings, not so much the U106... not that there is no U106 early to the Isles.
Ahhhhh, the old "Bulk of U106 must NOT have been early in Scandinavia or we'd see more U106 Hiberno-Vikings" rule of thumb.
I don't why you would call that statement a "rule of thumb."

All I'm saying is that if you add the data together, I don't think U106 was the first R1b in the Isles. It appears that a likely time is with the Jastorf expansions up until the time of the Anglo-Saxon Era.

The data points are:
1. STR variance is higher for other forms of R1b in the Scandinavia than for U106.
2. Other forms of R1b in the Isles, i.e. P312's L165, are connected with Norse Vikings and in appear in Scandinavia too. I don't know of any U106 in the Isles that hits the northern coasts and isles where Vikings were known frequent and Anglo-Saxons were not.
3. Other forms of R1b in the Isles become the more predominant type as you go north and west.
4. STR variance for U106 in Scandinavia is about the same as in the Isles, inferring their arrival times in those two locations should be about the same.

Do you have evidence that U106 was in Scandinavia before the Jastorf?
« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 09:20:10 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #34 on: April 11, 2012, 09:15:24 AM »

As I recall, Mallory's book, In Search of the Indo-Europeans, associates the Jastorf and Harpstedt cultures with the beginnings of the Germanic languages. I believe Jastorf was part of the Nordic Bronze Age thing and began in the southern neck of the Jutland Peninsula, later spreading south into North Germany and, later, west into East Friesland.

Whilst the Jastorf Culture remains a possibility, Harpstedt-Nienburg is now seen as one represented by a number of highly mobile groups showing some aspects of both the celtic and germanic worlds, probably through contact. These groups tend to create settlements which last one to two generations after which they are dismantled and the group moves further to the west. We don't know what their language was.

Belonging to this group is the Schnippenburg, http://www.schnippenburg.de/index.php?id=72. The distinctive type of house is known to migrate from east to west, http://eisenzeithaus.de/wb/pages/de/infos.php?lang=DE.

What about the Pomeranian Culture? Do we have any information on what languages they spoke? or any impact they might have had on the formation of the proto-Germanic speakers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomeranian_culture

The reason I ask is U106's variance in Poland is higher than in Germany, England or Scandinavia. For that matter, variance is higher in Poland than points south of Germany/Poland (Austria, Italy, Slovenia, Slovakia, Czech Rep, Switzerland).

I don't think the STR variance is conclusive, but if this reflects age then U106's movement into Northern Europe may align more with David Anthony's hypothesis of pre-Germanic IE moving north and west along the east side of the Carpathians towards Germany.  In Anthony's model this was a result of the Usatovo merger with the Cucuteni-Tripolye.  

The implication is some forms Hg I and R1a may have come with the U106, which actually makes some sense too. They might have met up with some forms of P312 and I1 as they hit the area that would become Jastorf and the Jutland.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 09:18:25 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #35 on: April 11, 2012, 09:28:28 AM »

....One thing I will admit that troubles me is the Basque language and the chance that something like it was spoken over a wide area of western Europe by a predominantly R1b population in the distant past, before Indo-European arrived. If that is the case, it would seem to militate against R1b as the original vector of the Indo-European languages.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing for that. I'm just being honest and openly stating my misgivings.
I wouldn't say that the Euskara language, a non-IE language, spoken by the P312 heavily laden Basque folks is troubling to me, but it clearly allows for a feasible alternative where P312 spoke non-IE languages during its original expansion into Western Europe.

However, there are too many P312 people (as the dominant hg) speaking IE languages spread all over Europe that Euskara speakers should "outweigh" the rest in the arguments.

My guess is that by the time PIE was forming, R1b was multi-lingual in the Near East, perhaps North Africa, Anatolia and the Caucasus.  Some of these R1b people must have mixed in with the groups as or before PIE was fully formed.  This is where the R1b-L11 family must have been... right in that action, but that doesn't mean R1b-L11 wasn't multi-lingual. We know the Caucasus has a variety of languages.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 09:30:25 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #36 on: April 11, 2012, 09:51:10 AM »

The point is not that you involve R1b in PIE very early on but that part of your adherence to the Pontic-Caspian Urheimat involves making R1a the Ur-haplogroup, so to speak. .. If you think the original speakers of PIE could have been R1b, then please say so and clear that up for me.

There are a number of scenarios that might explain the fact that both R1a1a and R1b-M269 are correlated with IE languages and lactase persistence.
 
  • R1b and R1a were on the steppe from the Mesolithic. The geographic split may have been between R1b1a settling on the steppe and R1b1c going south from the Caspian into the heartland of the Neolithic. In that case the east-west pattern could simply have been  formed by the coincidence of where two men decided to camp.
  • R1b-M269 entered the steppe from the Maikop Culture. Certainly we have evidence that some Maikop people were absorbed into Yamnaya when Maikop collapsed. Among the new Bell Beaker papers is one by Kristiansen suggesting that PIE was brought to the steppe by the Maikop. I don't buy that for chronological and linguistic reasons. PIE bears all the signs of birth around the Urals, and the ancestor of Tocharian left before the remnants of Maikop took refuge in Yamnaya.
  • R1b-M269 entered the steppe from the west with dairy farming via the Cucuteni Culture (c. 5500 BC +). This would explain the importation of lactase persistence, which also seems to have flowed up the Danube into the TRB and so probably had its origin in the dairy farmers around the lower Danube. We have plenty of archaeological evidence of the crash of the Cucuteni Culture c. 4000 BC and melding of its remnants with the steppe cultures to create Yamnaya c. 3,300 BC. The logical problem of the Basques - high in R1b and lactase persistence and speaking a Copper Age language - would be resolved if they were descendants of some of the refugees from Cucuteni, moving west c. 4000 BC.      

Scenarios that can be ruled out: anything that requires having carriers of these haplogroups set off on their IE-spreading journeys from totally different points at different times, having never met and mixed. That simply won't work. They had to mix to spread lactase persistence.  They had to mix to share a language. They travelled together along many routes. Their homeland was certainly one and the same by the time of the fully-fledged Yamnaya Culture, but the east end of that homeland was strong in R1a1a and the west end strong in R1b-M269+, to judge by end results. We know that R1a1a was in steppe kurgans in a chronological sequence of related cultures from Andronovo to Iranian-speaking Scythians. So that fits the IE steppe homeland.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 05:14:28 PM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #37 on: April 11, 2012, 10:14:35 AM »

Whilst the Jastorf Culture remains a possibility, Harpstedt-Nienburg is now seen as one represented by a number of highly mobile groups showing some aspects of both the celtic and germanic worlds, probably through contact.

Lovely reconstruction. Thanks for that. I would assume that this group is part of the story of Germani moving west.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #38 on: April 11, 2012, 10:19:40 AM »


What about the Pomeranian Culture? Do we have any information on what languages they spoke?

The Pomerarian Face-Urn Culture is derived from Urnfield, but shows Etruscan influences. See Iron Age Cimmerians and Celts. We don't know what language they spoke  - most likely some form of IE that is long gone, submerged under later IE linguistic waves. 
Logged
authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #39 on: April 11, 2012, 10:32:47 AM »

What about the Pomeranian Culture? Do we have any information on what languages they spoke? or any impact they might have had on the formation of the proto-Germanic speakers?

Nothing firm. Andre Martinet thinks they spoke a venetic language, http://tinyurl.com/4ymcgp

Wiki also has a page about the Vistula Veneti, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula_Veneti
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #40 on: April 11, 2012, 10:56:54 AM »

Only problem there is that there is no such thing as a Venetic language. The Vistula Veneti appear to have been Balts. Certainly Gimbutas thought that the Pomerarian Face-Urn Culture represented the Western Balts. Polish authors have argued that it was (surprise, surprise) Slavic, while German authors have (surprise, surprise) ... well you can guess.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 11:12:06 AM by Jean M » Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #41 on: April 11, 2012, 12:41:59 PM »

Only problem there is that there is no such thing as a Venetic language. The Vistula Veneti appear to have been Balts. Certainly Gimbutas thought that the Pomerarian Face-Urn Culture represented the Western Balts. Polish authors have argued that it was (surprise, surprise) Slavic, while German authors have (surprise, surprise) ... well you can guess.

Since I know you know that Venetic (close links to Latin) was spoken by the Veneti in Veneto, you mean there was no such language in the Baltic?
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #42 on: April 11, 2012, 12:45:33 PM »

... there is no such thing as a Venetic language The Vistula Veneti appear to have been Balts.

There are about 300 inscriptions Jean.

If you believe that we know all the indo european languages that existed and that the ten documented branches of the indo european tree explain all we know today, you can say that there was no such thing as venetic. However if we include the other languages known from inscriptions but otherwise not classified, eg. venetic, macedonian, phrygian, thracian, messapic, paeonian etc. we end up with more data, even if we cannot be sure of where it will take us. Before you dismiss a language like venetic as non existent, you should be aware of the tenuous nature of the evidence for its classification as an italic language.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #43 on: April 11, 2012, 12:58:46 PM »

Since I know you know that Venetic (close links to Latin) was spoken by the Veneti in Veneto, you mean there was no such language in the Baltic?

Yep. People have made too much of the coincidence of name. There are three widely separated areas of Europe in which tribes named Veneti were noted in the Roman period: Gaul, NE Italy and the Vistula. There is no link between them, except the rather strained idea that the Etruscan goods traded into the Pomeranian Face-Urn Culture indicate a link with the Italian Veneti.

Then we have the confusion that Jordanes says the Slavs issued from the Veneti. I ended up concluding that both Slavs and Balts could have been called Veneti at one point. Both were certainly termed Wends later.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 01:11:11 PM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #44 on: April 11, 2012, 01:01:45 PM »

... there is no such thing as a Venetic language The Vistula Veneti appear to have been Balts.

There are about 300 inscriptions Jean.

Sorry. Should have been clearer. There certainly are Venetic inscriptions, but not in the Pomeranian Face-Urn Culture or in the area where we can place the Vistula Veneti at a later date.

[Added] Though come to think of it, an origin in the Urnfield Culture would incline towards some Celtic or Italic language. Do we have any place-name evidence?  
« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 01:23:23 PM by Jean M » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #45 on: April 11, 2012, 02:59:57 PM »

Since I know you know that Venetic (close links to Latin) was spoken by the Veneti in Veneto, you mean there was no such language in the Baltic?

Yep. People have made too much of the coincidence of name. There are three widely separated areas of Europe in which tribes named Veneti were noted in the Roman period: Gaul, NE Italy and the Vistula. There is no link between them, except the rather strained idea that the Etruscan goods traded into the Pomeranian Face-Urn Culture indicate a link with the Italian Veneti.

Then we have the confusion that Jordanes says the Slavs issued from the Veneti. I ended up concluding that both Slavs and Balts could have been called Veneti at one point. Both were certainly termed Wends later.

Anyone else think that U106 could have been in the Pomeranian culture which ultimately led to its entrance into the Proto-Germanic group? A corallery could be that the dialects of IE that U106 spoke influenced the formation of Germanic languages.

The predecessor to the Pomeranian culture is the Lusatian culture. Lusatian is stretches (or perhaps originates) to the east, almost into Cucuteni-Trypolae territory.

Bright green on the map>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KulturaLuzycka_1.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusatian_culture

On this map> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CuTryOutline.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuteni-Trypillian_culture

The Corded Ware based Trziniec Culture preceded Lusatian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trzciniec_culture

This would fit David Anthony's proposals in "The Horse The Wheel and Language" on p.360
Quote from: David Anthony
I would say that this was how the Proto-Indo-European dialects that would ultimately form the root of the Pre-Germanic first became established in central Europe: they spread up the Dniester from the Usatovo culture through a nested series of patrons and clients, and eventually were spoken in some of the late TRB communities between the Dniester and Vistula. These late TRB communities later evolved into early Corded Ware communities, and it was the Corded Ware horizon that provided the medium through which the Pre-Germanic dialects spread over a wider area.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 03:05:43 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #46 on: April 11, 2012, 03:33:32 PM »

The predecessor to the Pomeranian culture is the Lusatian culture. Lusatian is stretches (or perhaps originates) to the east, almost into Cucuteni-Trypolae territory.

Lusatian is a form of Urnfield (c. 1300 BC – 750 BC). (We are heading into hugely controversial territory here. It was claimed by Polish archaeologists of the Post-War period to be something separate and distinct from Urnfield and the origin of the Slavs. Today's Polish archaeologists don't think so. )

This is a long time after the initial movements of people up the Danube which led to the TRB (4000 BC). Antony is trying to work within the convention that the TRB developed locally into Corded Ware. But the TRB looks like a flight from the Balkans. Anthropologically the TRB people are closest to Balkan Neolithic types and were importing Balkan copper. The Corded Ware Culture seems to be more a result of people moving up other rivers from the steppe. But it is all pretty complex and unresolved.  
« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 03:46:04 PM by Jean M » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #47 on: April 11, 2012, 04:08:39 PM »

The predecessor to the Pomeranian culture is the Lusatian culture. Lusatian is stretches (or perhaps originates) to the east, almost into Cucuteni-Trypolae territory.

Lusatian is a form of Urnfield (c. 1300 BC – 750 BC). (We are heading into hugely controversial territory here. It was claimed by Polish archaeologists of the Post-War period to be something separate and distinct from Urnfield and the origin of the Slavs. Today's Polish archaeologists don't think so. )

This is a long time after the initial movements of people up the Danube which led to the TRB (4000 BC). Antony is trying to work within the convention that the TRB developed locally into Corded Ware. But the TRB looks like a flight from the Balkans. Anthropologically the TRB people are closest to Balkan Neolithic types and were importing Balkan copper. The Corded Ware Culture seems to be more a result of people moving up other rivers from the steppe. But it is all pretty complex and unresolved.  

Can linguists tell if Germanic languages have more in common, base-wise (not word borrowing), with Celtic languages versus Balto-Slavic languages?
I know Germanic is supposed to be Centum and so is Celtic but that doesn't necessarily mean they have a close relationship, right?   Whereas Slavic and Baltic languages both have Satem innovations, and therefore are more recently related right?

I have the similar question as far as the relationship of Euskara to Germanic languages. Does the substrate of Proto-Germanic show any influence from Euskara? I fear we can not tell much about Euskara.

Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #48 on: April 11, 2012, 04:26:36 PM »

The predecessor to the Pomeranian culture is the Lusatian culture. Lusatian is stretches (or perhaps originates) to the east, almost into Cucuteni-Trypolae territory.

Lusatian is a form of Urnfield (c. 1300 BC – 750 BC). (We are heading into hugely controversial territory here. It was claimed by Polish archaeologists of the Post-War period to be something separate and distinct from Urnfield and the origin of the Slavs. Today's Polish archaeologists don't think so. )

This is a long time after the initial movements of people up the Danube which led to the TRB (4000 BC). Antony is trying to work within the convention that the TRB developed locally into Corded Ware. But the TRB looks like a flight from the Balkans. Anthropologically the TRB people are closest to Balkan Neolithic types and were importing Balkan copper. The Corded Ware Culture seems to be more a result of people moving up other rivers from the steppe. But it is all pretty complex and unresolved.  

Can linguists tell if Germanic languages have more in common, base-wise (not word borrowing), with Celtic languages versus Balto-Slavic languages?
I know Germanic is supposed to be Centum and so is Celtic but that doesn't necessarily mean they have a close relationship, right?   Whereas Slavic and Baltic languages both have Satem innovations, and therefore are more recently related right?

I have the similar question as far as the relationship of Euskara to Germanic languages. Does the substrate of Proto-Germanic show any influence from Euskara? I fear we can not tell much about Euskara.



There is a wiki page on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_substrate_hypothesis

There is a school of thought that Germanic has Finno-Ugric substrate but I think the guy Wiik who proposed this is a bit out on a limb
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #49 on: April 11, 2012, 05:04:06 PM »


Can linguists tell if Germanic languages have more in common, base-wise (not word borrowing), with Celtic languages versus Balto-Slavic languages? I know Germanic is supposed to be Centum and so is Celtic but that doesn't necessarily mean they have a close relationship, right?

Centum means that the ancestors of the speakers of Celtic and Germanic left the PIE core before the Centum > Satem isogloss took place. In fact they probably spoke much the same kind of IE for a long time. Bear in mind that Germanic is relatively recent. I pointed you to the opinion of Don Ringe et al that the link with Balto-Slavic could have arisen from staying a bit longer in the PIE rump than the ancestors of the Celtic speakers. However Anthony p. 100 shows Germanic breaking away c. 3300 (before Italo-Celtic c. 2800 BC) and having later contacts with Slavic and Celtic.

Quote
Whereas Slavic and Baltic languages both have Satem innovations, and therefore are more recently related right?

They share the Satem isogloss and much more than that. They are recognised to have a common ancestor in Proto-Balto-Slavic.
 
Quote
I have the similar question as far as the relationship of Euskara to Germanic languages. Does the substrate of Proto-Germanic show any influence from Euskara?

This is opening the door to a mass of fringe theories. People have tried to prove links between Euskara and a great array of other languages and/or that a Basque-type of language was spoken all over Europe in the Mesolithic. None of this has been accepted by mainstream linguists such as the late Larry Trask, expert in Euskara. He did admit that there was a legitimate case for a link with PIE (Antonio Tovar argued that the suffix -ko in Basque is so similar in its behaviour to the same suffix reconstructed for PIE that they must have a common origin), but he could make no sense of that, because he assumed that Euskara was a language born in western Europe.  
« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 05:07:58 PM by Jean M » Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 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 0.135 seconds with 19 queries.