World Families Forums - Bell Beaker link to R1b confirmed by Ancient DNA

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 21, 2014, 09:31:39 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)
| | |-+  Bell Beaker link to R1b confirmed by Ancient DNA
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Bell Beaker link to R1b confirmed by Ancient DNA  (Read 29194 times)
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #375 on: May 25, 2012, 04:09:25 PM »

@ intrestedinhistory

I commend your interest in so many topics, but we really are wandering from the topic of this thread, which is R1b in Bell Beaker.

There is an I and Subclades forum.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 04:10:39 PM by Jean M » Logged
intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #376 on: May 25, 2012, 05:14:11 PM »

@ intrestedinhistory

I commend your interest in so many topics, but we really are wandering from the topic of this thread, which is R1b in Bell Beaker.

There is an I and Subclades forum.

Ok. My apologies.  Back on to the topic of R1b where do you define that refuge? Azerbaijan or Iran. The diversity of North Iranian R1b seems high. And when do you think that R1b occurred? Since South Asia lacks R1b this must have occurred after the South Asian Neolithic with a movement from the Caspian to the west Via Anatolia to Europe. Alternatively R1b could have arrived in Bell Beaker from Anatolia where it originated. This model would not have the question of no R1b in South Asia because it would assume Iran and Europe received R1b waves after the Neolithic from Anatolia.

Also saying R1 is from the Volga-Urals would imply  that the first R1 man was Northern European automatically right? What about R and R2?
Logged
Arch Y.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


« Reply #377 on: May 25, 2012, 05:52:39 PM »



Ok. My apologies.  Back on to the topic of R1b where do you define that refuge? Azerbaijan or Iran. The diversity of North Iranian R1b seems high. And when do you think that R1b occurred? Since South Asia lacks R1b this must have occurred after the South Asian Neolithic with a movement from the Caspian to the west Via Anatolia to Europe. Alternatively R1b could have arrived in Bell Beaker from Anatolia where it originated. This model would not have the question of no R1b in South Asia because it would assume Iran and Europe received R1b waves after the Neolithic from Anatolia.

Also saying R1 is from the Volga-Urals would imply  that the first R1 man was Northern European automatically right? What about R and R2?
[/quote]

I guess that's a good point about the first R1 being European (maybe not North European, more like Eurasian) if he is from the Volga R. However, I think that the Volga R. connection would be leaning towards the first R1a man. In regards to R1b, it's anybody's guess but I have my favorite pet theory of origins for R1b is in the Syunik region of Armenia. It's close to enough to Iran, close enough to the Caspian Sea, close enough to the Anatolian Peninsula where R1b diversity appears to be the highest. Origins of R1b is in Southwest Asia.

Arch

« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 05:53:49 PM by Arch Y. » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #378 on: May 25, 2012, 06:15:07 PM »

Jean M - I would appreciate your opinion on my suggestion that, in an R1a=steppes hunters and R1b=some sort of middle Neolithic 2nd wave farming input sort of model, the separation time between the two R1 groups (perhaps in the Younger Dyas) to their re-contacting in the Neolithic was perhaps only 4000 years which is not the sort of time depth that the two groups should have been from radically different language family groups.  

As I said if you consider that the earliest continental Celtic inscriptions to a modern Gaelic speaker is nearly 3000 years or that Irish and Welsh maybe had their common route about 3000 years ago or Italic and Celtic had a common route maybe 5000 years ago then 4000 years separation between the R1 groups just does not seem the sort of time depth that should lead us to envisaging them in totally different family groups.  To give another example the Ogham stones in Ireland in primitive Irish of c. 500AD were perhaps 3000 years separated in time from Celto-Italic.  Or for yet another Celtic example, Gaelic is still recognisably Celtic and has not morphed into a separate group perhaps 4000 years after Celtic evolved.  

So, I suspect that the indigenous R1b language may well have still been very much distantly related dialects or branches of the same language family as the indigenous R1a group in the early Neolithic shortly before they came back into contact.   IF R1b spoke a radically different language from a different language family from R1a in the early Neolithic then it must have been one adopted from other non-R1 elements in the area.

I am kind of surprised this has not been discussed before.  The only way I can envisage huge language group separation between R1a and R1b is if they were separated in very deep time, far deeper than the younger dryas.  I think that is unlikely and so I am suggesting they still both spoke dialects of the R1 language.

    
Logged
Humanist
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 121


« Reply #379 on: May 25, 2012, 06:19:47 PM »

[W]hile R1b appeared among those descendants who favoured the southern homeland, and became involved in agriculture earlier. So far this can only be speculative, in the absence of ancient DNA.

If Euskara were originally the language of hunter-gatherers of South-West Europe, one would expect it to have borrowed words relating to agriculture and metallurgy. A common pattern, where a people adopt a new technology from those speaking another language, is for the foreign words for that technology to be borrowed at the same time.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of West Asian skeletons gathering dust.  :)  Let us hope for some successful aDNA extraction attempts in the near future.  Including remains from Mesopotamia and the Levant.

Cambridge Prof. Geoffrey Khan. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar.  2008

Quote
As already shown by Krotkoff (1985: 124–126), a number of lexical items in the NENA [Northeastern Neo-Aramaic] dialects, especially those relating to agriculture, can be traced back beyond Classical Aramaic to Akkadian or even Sumerian.

Krotkoff, Georg, 1985, ‘Studies in Neo-Aramaic Lexicology’, in A. Kort and S. Morschauser, Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry, Winona Lake, pp.123-134.

Quote
The extraordinary tenacity of agricultural terminology is illustrated by the two terms mara 'spade, hoe' and rusta 'shovel, spade.' The former has a well documented history: Sumerian mar, Akkadian marru...

Some features belong to immediately preceding periods of the history of the language, while others are of great antiquity. This is very obvious in the vocabulary, but applies also to structural elements. As a case in point, the infinite pattern of Akkadian (palaxu) has experienced a renaissance in NA (plaxa), bypassing the intermediate stages of Aramaic.
Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #380 on: May 25, 2012, 06:45:47 PM »

@ intrestedinhistory

I commend your interest in so many topics, but we really are wandering from the topic of this thread, which is R1b in Bell Beaker.

There is an I and Subclades forum.

Ok. My apologies.  Back on to the topic of R1b where do you define that refuge? Azerbaijan or Iran. The diversity of North Iranian R1b seems high. And when do you think that R1b occurred? Since South Asia lacks R1b this must have occurred after the South Asian Neolithic with a movement from the Caspian to the west Via Anatolia to Europe. Alternatively R1b could have arrived in Bell Beaker from Anatolia where it originated. This model would not have the question of no R1b in South Asia because it would assume Iran and Europe received R1b waves after the Neolithic from Anatolia.

Also saying R1 is from the Volga-Urals would imply  that the first R1 man was Northern European automatically right? What about R and R2?

Well the evidence to date does not make it likely R1b was in position in the areas where the first farmers left from.  R1b is absent in all the early Neolithic yDNA samples in Europe and although the sample is still small its looking unlikely it was around.  Even if it was forms of R1b old enough to be Early Neolithic in Europe are scarse to absent.  Finally, only Romania seems to have highish variance of L23* in the Neolithic farming zone of Europe and even that seems uncertain and is not as old as the early Neolithic.  I understand from Mike that other than the Romanian blob L23* is much younger in what was farming Europe than it to the east and south-east.  The only reason I can see for R1b being absent in Europe is that they were not on the pathways into Europe in the earliest periods and/or they were, like R1a, late hunter-gatherers somewhere.  It could be either or both. Again the L23* variance map based on Myres shows a zone of higher variance running from Mesopotamia and adjacent through eastern Turkey and east of the Black Sea into the Crimea sort of area and around the Black Sea into Romania.  L23* has a low variance around the Aegean in both Anatolia, the Levant etc.  That all ties into it being peripheral to farming and/or located on the north and eastern edges of the early farming world.  I would tend to agree with Jean that the R1b refugia (for want of a better word) was probably not a huge distance from the R1a one albeit slightly to the south.  I would tend to put R1b as a third category between the main forces of Neolithication to the south and south-west who spread into Europe and the R1a peoples to the north in the steppes.  I think it is quite wrong and against all the varous types of new DNA evidence to throw R1b in with G, J and E.  If anything they would have been geographically and linguistically, cousins if you like.

One other thing we should never forget is a ridiculous amount of the y DNA pattern is down to a couple of guys living in the copper age.  That only really tells us who two guys were at that period.  It does not tell us if those lucky guys were typical of the population or much about the population at all prior to their lives.  Only ancient DNA can tell us that. 
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #381 on: May 25, 2012, 07:43:13 PM »

Jean M - I would appreciate your opinion on my suggestion that, in an R1a=steppes hunters and R1b=some sort of middle Neolithic 2nd wave farming input sort of model, the separation time between the two R1 groups .. to their re-contacting in the Neolithic was perhaps only 4000 years which is not the sort of time depth that the two groups should have been from radically different language family groups.  

I saw that you mentioned that. The fly in the ointment is that R1b-V88 is connected with the Afro-Asiatic family, most particularly (in Africa) with Chadic. It's a puzzle. At one point I commented in my text to the effect that R1a and R1b were no longer speaking the same language, which they should have been doing originally, but then decided not to delve deeper into murky waters. It would be building speculation upon speculation.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #382 on: May 25, 2012, 07:58:07 PM »

Changing the subject somewhat, I believe it was on this thread that Alan expressed some interest in Beaker skulls. I came across an interesting comment on Dienekes' blog by a person with the screen name Derek. Here it is.

Quote from: Derek
I've found all these references to the Beaker Folk's distinct skull type extremely interesting and am trying to educate myself on the subject. A lot of the relevant academic papers seem to cite a 1953 book by Kurt Gerhardt (Die Glockenbecherleute in Mittel-und Westdeutschland) in which the author made a detailed study of 130 BB skulls. I haven't been able to find the book, but found an old review of it on JSTOR:

"The Bell-Beaker pottery and a type of skull called by Gerhardt Plano-Occipital Steilkopf appear together in late Neolithic times in Central Europe; and Gerhardt gives us a study of 130 skulls, with sketches of 73 of them, where possible three sketches of each being shown. The Plano-Occipital Steilkopf with the back of the head almost a vertical plane is the chief, the most numerous and the most marked type among the skulls showing strong brows and jaws and other features with a considerable range of variation. ........

Gerhardt emphasizes the anatomical relation of the chief type of Beaker Men to an Anatolian-Armenian breed in a proportion of the men in which one finds that steep rise of the hinder plane of the skull, but admits that there is as yet too little evidence from Armenia of the Beaker period. His view is that the type spread west in the Mediterranean."

Here's the link if you have access to JSTOR:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2795139


http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/05/bell-beakers-from-germany-y-haplogroup.html

Steilkopf literally means "steep head".

The possible connection to Anatolia/Armenia is interesting, to say the least.


The term he uses meaning flat back of the head is a far better description than broad or round headed.  The beskrt heads were not really round or broad as such but simply had marked rear flattening.  You could say they were essentially dolichomorphic but had flattening of the rear of the head.  This is  something that I think is a very very poor racial indicator given that it is often a result of cradling traditions and practices.  In the short term it does mean something as new traditions probably mean gene flow but over a long span of time I think it is meaningless as skulls are so plastic and susceptable to change.  However more complex study of the skulls and teeth probably do tell us something.  i just think the long vs broad head focus based on head width vs back to front length ratio is an old obsession from old books with some dangerous ideas.  It aguable the very worst dimesnion to base a racial typology because it is so plastic. Apparently due to reommendations to stop infant cot death syndrome that involve a baby sleeping on its back there is a modern wave of flattening of the Occiput or brachycephaly in western societies and the shape of the western head is changing as a result.  There are medical articles on the web about this.   Anyway that is why non-metrical studies of the skull are so much better than the simple cranial index idea.  The use of cranial index to imply population history was rightly highly questioned and generally rejected for about 50 years.

While I know that autosomal dna is a constantly changing crap shoot, and thus so is skull form, I think perhaps you are assuming too much if you think you have found the answer in deformation occurring as a result of cradling, etc. You might be wrong.

Have you run across any anthropologists who have interpreted Beaker brachycephaly as the result of nurture rather than nature? I haven't.

I know the old timers put far too much stock in skull shape, but it may not be wise to totally disregard it either.

The fact that Gerhardt found some Anatolian/Armenian skulls that fit the Beaker Steilkopf pattern might be coincidental, but it might be more than that, too.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 07:59:21 PM by rms2 » Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #383 on: May 25, 2012, 08:00:12 PM »

Jean M - I would appreciate your opinion on my suggestion that, in an R1a=steppes hunters and R1b=some sort of middle Neolithic 2nd wave farming input sort of model, the separation time between the two R1 groups .. to their re-contacting in the Neolithic was perhaps only 4000 years which is not the sort of time depth that the two groups should have been from radically different language family groups.  

I saw that you mentioned that. The fly in the ointment is that R1b-V88 is connected with the Afro-Asiatic family, most particularly (in Africa) with Chadic. It's a puzzle. At one point I commented in my text to the effect that R1a and R1b were no longer speaking the same language, which they should have been doing originally, but then decided not to delve deeper into murky waters. It would be building speculation upon speculation.

My guess is (that's all it is) that R1b and/or its R1 lineage was on the high contact/exchange side of the R1 family territories. The R1b lineages were probably hunter-gatherers that apparently had early contact with the farmers and "civilization". As nomads, they just tried to find opportunities while avoiding termination by the more advanced cultures.

I think they splintered and transformed (integrated where beneficial) which is why you have R1b spread through the Near East and into N. Africa fairly early.  Apparently, their opportunistic nature and fast feet kept them out of the path of the early farmers into Europe. By the time of the Bell Beaker folks, there were already probably a variety of R1b lineages in various cultures.

It is R1b-L11 or at least the MRCA for U106 and P312 that came in more recently and apparently had the aggressive or at least fruitful expansion.

What is the aging of R1b-L11 versus R1b-V88?  Were the TMRCA's contemporaries?
« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 08:05:30 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #384 on: May 25, 2012, 08:13:21 PM »


Euskara includes indigenous Basque words relating to agriculture, wheeled vehicles and metallurgy, such as shepherd (artzain), millet (artatxiki - formerly arto), wine (ardo), cart (gurdi), wheel (gurpil from *gurdi-bil, meaning cart-round), smith ([h]arotz), iron (burdina), lead (berun), gold (urre), and silver (zillar or urre-zuri - literally white gold).  If Euskara were originally the language of hunter-gatherers of South-West Europe, one would expect it to have borrowed words relating to agriculture and metallurgy. A common pattern, where a people adopt a new technology from those speaking another language, is for the foreign words for that technology to be borrowed at the same time. Oddly the most common Basque words for tin (eztainu), copper (kobre) and bronze (brontze) are all borrowed from Romance. However Euskara originally had its own words for these metals. The fact that one word for silver was derived from the word for gold suggests a region where gold was discovered first. That points to the eastern Balkans, and cultures such as Cucuteni-Tripolye.
 

Well that not really a strong argument, we don’t know if they really did borrow those words from an extinct pre-Indoeuropean language. Plus, one could equally argue that Basque language is pre-Bronze age based on the fact that the Basque words for knife and axe all have the prefix "aitz” meaning stone.  

Moreover there is this:

Quote from:  Peñalver&Santamarta
Metalworking first emerged during the Palaeolithic, when copper pieces were manufactured which included flat axes, daggers, punches and ornaments, On rare occasions the latter were made of gold. During the Bronze Age, bronze became the basic metal used to make a wide variety of pieces and it was to hold its own until the emergence of iron-working, well into the first millennium BCE.

Source: “Iron Age settlements of Guipuzcoa”
Authors: Xabier Peñalver Iribarren / Sonia San Jose Santamarta
Year of publication: 2003
ISBN: 84-7907-422-1

So the question that stands is:

If gold was already being used in ritual burials during pre-Neolithic times, why would then Basques not have a word for it?
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #385 on: May 25, 2012, 08:15:39 PM »

Back to Beaker brachycephaly.

Dienekes, in his initial blog post announcing the Lee, et al, Kromsdorf discoveries, quotes Carleton Coon with regard to Beaker physiognomy:

Quote from: Carleton Coon
The Dinaric type, with which the Rhenish Bell beakers are associated, is one which entered the western Mediterranean by sea from the east, and eventually moved, by some route yet to be determined in an accurate manner, to the north, and eventually to central Europe.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/05/bell-beakers-from-germany-y-haplogroup.html

I am not trying to make too much of that; but I do think it is interesting, given Gerhardt's work with Beaker skulls from central and western Germany.
Logged

intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #386 on: May 25, 2012, 08:32:04 PM »



Ok. My apologies.  Back on to the topic of R1b where do you define that refuge? Azerbaijan or Iran. The diversity of North Iranian R1b seems high. And when do you think that R1b occurred? Since South Asia lacks R1b this must have occurred after the South Asian Neolithic with a movement from the Caspian to the west Via Anatolia to Europe. Alternatively R1b could have arrived in Bell Beaker from Anatolia where it originated. This model would not have the question of no R1b in South Asia because it would assume Iran and Europe received R1b waves after the Neolithic from Anatolia.

Also saying R1 is from the Volga-Urals would imply  that the first R1 man was Northern European automatically right? What about R and R2?

I guess that's a good point about the first R1 being European (maybe not North European, more like Eurasian) if he is from the Volga R. However, I think that the Volga R. connection would be leaning towards the first R1a man. In regards to R1b, it's anybody's guess but I have my favorite pet theory of origins for R1b is in the Syunik region of Armenia. It's close to enough to Iran, close enough to the Caspian Sea, close enough to the Anatolian Peninsula where R1b diversity appears to be the highest. Origins of R1b is in Southwest Asia.

Arch


[/quote]

Just because he was from the Volga doesn't mean he was European. I was asking if autosomal components such as Northern European, West Asian even existed by then or was he just some  West Eurasian?

Why specifically that region? When Anatolia and Iran are better fits? I personally think narrowing down ydnas to such a small region is ridiculous. How do you know?

I am curious on what Jean M defines the Hyrcanian refuge R1b comes from as.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 08:37:19 PM by intrestedinhistory » Logged
intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #387 on: May 25, 2012, 09:03:59 PM »

Link to the map?

My apologies. My website is down currently, as you found out earlier today.

It is back up.

http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/images/SpecR1bsm.jpg

I can't tell where exactly the homeland of R1 is. Seems like Western Kazakhstan from that map?
« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 09:07:40 PM by intrestedinhistory » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #388 on: May 26, 2012, 04:15:20 AM »

It is back up.

http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/images/SpecR1bsm.jpg

I can't tell where exactly the homeland of R1 is. Seems like Western Kazakhstan from that map?

The map is not intended to show precise positions within modern political boundaries where mutations occurred. We can't know that. All I am saying is that one possibility (not yet supported by ancient DNA) is that R1 men may be found in the Yangelskaya Culture which penetrated the  Southern Ural region from the southern Caspian basin about 9000 BC, which was followed by continued contact between those regions, which may reflect seasonal movement. I could be completely wrong! :)

[Added after perusal of several maps] The Yangelskaya sites mainly seem to fall on the Russian side of the border with  Kazakhstan. My purple arrow should point a bit further north. But of course these boundaries which mean so much to us meant nothing at all to Mesolithic hunters roaming at will.  They would hunt the herds on the steppe and then return to camps along the Ural River or other local watercourses, as they needed a source of water. It is those camp sites that archaeologists are most likely to spot from artifacts left there. Most of the known sites are along the River Ural.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2012, 06:29:52 AM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #389 on: May 26, 2012, 04:50:28 AM »

we don’t know if they really did borrow those words from an extinct pre-Indoeuropean language.

I am not saying that the Basque language borrowed words from an IE language. I am saying that they did not. They had their own words with clear Basque roots for things to do with agriculture and metallurgy. It is the fact that they did not borrow them that indicates that the language is of the age of metal.

In fact some IE languages of the Germanic, Baltic and Slavic branches  borrowed one of the Basque words for silver - zilar. That is one of the clues that the ancestor of Basque was spoken close to the PIE homeland.  The other is the -ko suffix in both Basque and PIE.

Quote
Plus, one could equally argue that Basque language is pre-Bronze age based on the fact that the Basque words for knife and axe all have the prefix "aitz” meaning stone.  

No - that just shows that once upon a time their ancestors lived in the Stone Age, which is true of us all. It does not show the final stage of the culture before vocabulary began to be extensively borrowed.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2012, 05:15:48 AM by Jean M » Logged
intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #390 on: May 26, 2012, 08:49:27 AM »

It is back up.

http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/images/SpecR1bsm.jpg

I can't tell where exactly the homeland of R1 is. Seems like Western Kazakhstan from that map?

The map is not intended to show precise positions within modern political boundaries where mutations occurred. We can't know that. All I am saying is that one possibility (not yet supported by ancient DNA) is that R1 men may be found in the Yangelskaya Culture which penetrated the  Southern Ural region from the southern Caspian basin about 9000 BC, which was followed by continued contact between those regions, which may reflect seasonal movement. I could be completely wrong! :)

[Added after perusal of several maps] The Yangelskaya sites mainly seem to fall on the Russian side of the border with  Kazakhstan. My purple arrow should point a bit further north. But of course these boundaries which mean so much to us meant nothing at all to Mesolithic hunters roaming at will.  They would hunt the herds on the steppe and then return to camps along the Ural River or other local watercourses, as they needed a source of water. It is those camp sites that archaeologists are most likely to spot from artifacts left there. Most of the known sites are along the River Ural.

So the movement was from the Southern Caspian Basin (where it originated?) into the areas among the Ural? Does this match North Iranian/Azerbaijani R1b diversity?

That sounds pretty groundbreaking if true.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #391 on: May 26, 2012, 09:07:18 AM »

We shall have to wait and see. Bear in mind that these would be a handful of hunters - not a large population - and they are long gone. The people of 9000 BC are not living among modern populations in the same spot.  Their descendants are scattered. The area where I suggest these hunters hunted has been overrun many, many times. New people entered the Caucasus from the Near East in the Neolithic. The steppe has been criss-crossed by nomads. In short I'm not looking for evidence in modern DNA.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2012, 09:11:42 AM by Jean M » Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #392 on: May 26, 2012, 12:13:20 PM »


I am not saying that the Basque language borrowed words from an IE language. I am saying that they did not. They had their own words with clear Basque roots for things to do with agriculture and metallurgy. It is the fact that they did not borrow them that indicates that the language is of the age of metal.

In fact some IE languages of the Germanic, Baltic and Slavic branches  borrowed one of the Basque words for silver - zilar. That is one of the clues that the ancestor of Basque was spoken close to the PIE homeland.  The other is the -ko suffix in both Basque and PIE.

No it doesn’t indicate anything, once more, what about the very real probability that the words were borrowed from an extinct non-indoeuropean language that carried the technology to Basque lands. With respect to metallurgy, well they borrowed the words from Romance languages.  In fact, due to the fact that you are doing an Ad Hoc approach, you seem to omit something, either conveniently or by accident. It’s fine, we all do Ad Hoc approaches one time or another, after all we are only human. But the secondary Basque word for Copper is “Burni Gorri” literally meaning “Red Iron”, so copper is actually a compounded name made from Iron, which in the Basque Country arrived much later than Copper. Moreover Bronze in its secondary form in Basque is known as “Burni-orri” or “Yellow Iron”. So it is any wonder that they refer to silver as “urre-zuri” or “White Gold”, well, in fact that says nothing about Basque homeland being close to where gold was first discovered, it says that Basques borrowed words from Latin for metals, and that they had compounded words for most other metals. In fact they also have such thing as “urre-gorri” or “Red Gold”. Building theories based on a single line of evidence is often a dangerous thing, because as you see, the contradictions are often greater than one makes them seem in an Ad Hoc approach.


No - that just shows that once upon a time their ancestors lived in the Stone Age, which is true of us all. It does not show the final stage of the culture before vocabulary began to be extensively borrowed.

Ok, so I’m guessing the people who discovered metals forgot to create a new word for knife, even though knives were now made out of metal. 
« Last Edit: May 26, 2012, 12:16:03 PM by JeanL » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #393 on: May 26, 2012, 12:16:17 PM »

I wonder if the lack of a big splash or branching upsteam of L23* implies that R1b was in the hunter-gatherer zone really quite late.  OK  I think we can all agree that it was off the beaten track to SE Europe c. 7000-600BC or later) and perhaps somewhat to the east of Anatolia.  The ancient DNA and variancei in modern populatons make that the Occams Razor interpretaton today.  However where does that leave R1b in saay 5000-7000BC?  There are two man choices IMO.  

1. Farmers on the north-eastern edge of middle eastern early agriculture
2. late hunter-gatherers

I feel that the lack of branch of R1b up to M269 would fit best with them being outside the demographic bonanza of early farming, perhaps as late as 5000BC.  That would make them rather more like R1a in background as late hunters coming late to farming.  I am aware that a brach must have got encapsulated into the farming world to explain the African group but clearly the other line didnt.  
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #394 on: May 26, 2012, 12:20:53 PM »

Can anyone remind me of the views on the dating of that African R1b branch.  I noticed that some people bit it very early and other quite late.  So who is right?
Logged
intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #395 on: May 26, 2012, 12:27:47 PM »

I wonder if the lack of a big splash or branching upsteam of L23* implies that R1b was in the hunter-gatherer zone really quite late.  OK  I think we can all agree that it was off the beaten track to SE Europe c. 7000-600BC or later) and perhaps somewhat to the east of Anatolia.  The ancient DNA and variancei in modern populatons make that the Occams Razor interpretaton today.  However where does that leave R1b in saay 5000-7000BC?  There are two man choices IMO.  

1. Farmers on the north-eastern edge of middle eastern early agriculture
2. late hunter-gatherers

I feel that the lack of branch of R1b up to M269 would fit best with them being outside the demographic bonanza of early farming, perhaps as late as 5000BC.  That would make them rather more like R1a in background as late hunters coming late to farming.  I am aware that a brach must have got encapsulated into the farming world to explain the African group but clearly the other line didnt.  

Wouldn't R1b have been in Northern West Asia and migrate a bit later at this point?
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #396 on: May 26, 2012, 02:18:46 PM »

Jean M - I would appreciate your opinion on my suggestion that, in an R1a=steppes hunters and R1b=some sort of middle Neolithic 2nd wave farming input sort of model, the separation time between the two R1 groups .. to their re-contacting in the Neolithic was perhaps only 4000 years which is not the sort of time depth that the two groups should have been from radically different language family groups.  

I saw that you mentioned that. The fly in the ointment is that R1b-V88 is connected with the Afro-Asiatic family, most particularly (in Africa) with Chadic. It's a puzzle. At one point I commented in my text to the effect that R1a and R1b were no longer speaking the same language, which they should have been doing originally, but then decided not to delve deeper into murky waters. It would be building speculation upon speculation.

Apparently deep time linguistics expert Starostin believed 10000 years is the limit of recognisable linguistic similarity.  I cant comment on that but it is clear to me that there was at least 3000 years between Ogham Irish Gaelic and its common root with Italic and they remained linguistically very close and of course PIE is at least 5000 years old and the connection is still clear.  So I really cannot see how different branche sof R1 only separated for a few thousand years could have ended up anything other than speaking cousin languages/distant dialects of the same branch (unless one of them adopted that of another group).  So I would feel the whole AA Chadic V88 thing is misleading.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #397 on: May 26, 2012, 03:04:47 PM »

... what about the very real probability that the words were borrowed from an extinct non-indoeuropean language that carried the technology to Basque lands.

These are not words borrowed from any other language, let alone an IE language. Linguists can tell the difference between words which spring naturally from within a language and words which look foreign. I am not using an ad-hoc approach. I am in part drawing on a paper by linguist John Bengston: J. D. Bengtson, The Basque language: history and origin, International Journal of Modern Anthropology, vol. 4 (2011), pp. 43-59. It is online. He points out the agricultural vocabulary in Basque.

I disagree with his conclusion linking Basque with North Caucasian languages, but at least he has got a grip on the fact that Basque contains agricultural vocabulary of its own, something which you can see for yourself in any etymological dictionary of Euskara. These are not borrowed words.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2012, 03:13:44 PM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #398 on: May 26, 2012, 03:23:03 PM »

So I really cannot see how different branches of R1 only separated for a few thousand years could have ended up anything other than speaking cousin languages/distant dialects of the same branch (unless one of them adopted that of another group).  

Precisely. Picture just one R1b man (who happened to have the V88 mutation) deciding to settle down in a village and join the agricultural revolution. He has to learn the language of the rest of the village or play dumb the rest of his life. Their language is Proto-Afro-Asiatic. His descendants make quite a tribe of their own within a few generations and they are all speaking the adopted language of the Chap who Moved to the Village. Some of them decide to take off for North Africa when the drought comes. They are among other A-A speakers going that way, so it is just clannishness that creates the picture we have now, whereby V88 is associated with Chadic, but not the related Berber.    
« Last Edit: May 26, 2012, 03:24:01 PM by Jean M » Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #399 on: May 26, 2012, 03:40:14 PM »


These are not words borrowed from any other language, let alone an IE language. Linguists can tell the difference between words which spring naturally from within a language and words which look foreign. I am not using an ad-hoc approach. I am in part drawing on a paper by linguist John Bengston: J. D. Bengtson, The Basque language: history and origin, International Journal of Modern Anthropology, vol. 4 (2011), pp. 43-59. It is online. He points out the agricultural vocabulary in Basque.

Ok, I clearly said that the is a very real probability that Basque could have borrowed the words from an extinct pre-Indo European language, why are you bringing in IE into the question. We know nothing about the language spoken in Central Europe prior to the arrival of IndoEuropean, for all we know they borrowed the words for agriculture from those fellows. Nonetheless, I already said that a single line of evidence is dubious, why: Take for example the presence of Mozarabic architecture in the Basque Country, does it mean that Basques were ever under Muslim influence, no, it just means that there was a diffusion of ideas from Muslim Iberian to nonMuslim Basques.

You are using an Ad Hoc approach when you neglected to mention that the secondary Basque words for copper("Burni-gorri") is a compounded word meaning Red-Iron, or that the secondary Basque word for Bronze("Burni-urri") is a compounded word meaning Yellow-Iron, so the fact that they use White-gold for silver is in line with the usage of compounded words for other metals, and says nothing about them originating in the place where gold was first discovered. So you neglected those words, because they pose a contradiction for those who argue the metal age origin of the Basque language, why would Basques a compounded word for Copper using iron as a base, when they were using copper earlier than Iron.   

I disagree with his conclusion linking Basque with North Caucasian languages, but at least he has got a grip on the fact that Basque contains agricultural vocabulary of its own, something which you can see for yourself in any etymological dictionary of Euskara. These are not borrowed words.

Like I said, I did read up a bit on it, and found out some interesting stuff, even in the linguistic field everything just seems to add up to the same mystery that on the genetic field.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 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.