World Families Forums - Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 23, 2014, 05:07:12 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)
| | |-+  Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 24 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family  (Read 34567 times)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #25 on: August 24, 2012, 11:43:25 AM »

The problem with all of these huge questions of prehistory is big names from all the relevant disciplines can be rolled out by both sides of the debate.  To be honest archaeology has done very little to convince me of a major spread from the steppes through Europe (beyond the eastern fringe).  Much more sophisticated models have been suggested but the need for complex non-self evident models and very thin inference for the spread of IE into the western half of Europe still remains, much as was the situation in the late 80s when Mallory and Renfew wrote.  The situation still remains of seeking the missing links between the steppes cultures and the corded ware and beaker cultures in order to explain how an eastern language (and eastern haplogroups) became the main vehicles of spread of IE into much of Europe.  While there is other non-archaeological evidence that may support a kurgan model of some sort (see below), if the best we can come up is faint ripples of the sort Harrison and Heyd list then archaeology is clearly not going to solve this (unless some unexpected discoveries are made).  I wont comment on linguistics as they clearly dont agree among themselves and I am not a linguist.


The only thing that has tipped me towards the Kurgan model again is the DNA evidence i.e. the dating and structure of R1b together with the lack of R1b or R1a in Europe before 3000BC and its sudden appearance in the (admittedly ridiculously small) sample in the first beaker and corded ware samples.  It does look rather like the history of M269 and down is that of a late Neolithic/copper age expansion and that they were peripheral and non-expansive in the early Neolithic (assuming the current ideas on variance are in the right ballpark).  That of course tells us about the spread of R1b and R1a into the main body of Europe not languages.  Probably the most convincing arguement that this is relating to IE is the lack of any real alternatives.  R1a and R1b look like the only possible smoking guns.  Otherwise we would have the odd situation of relatively late lines coming to dominate Europe but totally failing linguistically and IE being imposed by either a substrate or a (non-attested) superstrate.  That seems incredibly counterintuitive.  So, for me, its the DNA that is supporting the Kurgan model while archaeologically relatively complex 'house of cards' models are required that at present have many missing links and are essentially an act of faith. That is not to say that the Kurgan model is wrong.  Its just amazing how fuzzy a picture such a fundemental change in language and y-DNA appears to have produced.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2012, 11:49:38 AM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #26 on: August 24, 2012, 12:14:33 PM »

Linguists are not in battle. Colin Renfrew is an archaeologist. Mallory has PhDs in both linguistics and archaeology.

That may be true, but it doesn't help us sort out who is right.  Taking people's credentials into account is not always foolish, but we all know better than to bet blindly on the PhD. 

For instance , we have no shortage of people with PhDs in genetics who have been 180 degrees off on some very important questions.

While some people are clearly extremely talented (Mallory etc) and on a different plane from most mere humans, my own observations is that who does and doesnt do a PhD has a lot more to do with a (perhaps more bookish and less into mud!) young person determined to go into academia and choosing the extremely long 'dead man's shoes' gamble on getting a university post way down the line when knocking on the door of middle age.  The few posts I see people getting also seem to be white coat very niche aspects rather than traditional archaeological angles.  However, anyone who has done that long hall has really earned any post they get.  The economic boom created an alternative - lots of work for archaeologists and something close to a hands-on career with slowly improving salary and grade with experience and that was very attractive and most of the very experienced traditional archaeologists are in the commercial sector.   
Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #27 on: August 24, 2012, 12:46:40 PM »

Yes, ancient DNA so far fits neatly with the Kurgan hypothesis...but only for Corded Ware, R1a and the famous 2900 BC H&H date. However, there is a huge ancient DNA sampling gap between the German LBK samples (5000 BC) and the Bell Beaker samples (2600 BC). To put that time difference into perspective, that is the time difference between today and the Celtic sacking of Rome before Rome became an Empire! That R1b wasn't in central Europe in 3900 BC (Austrian Copper Age) and 3700 BC (NW Italian Copper Age) really does not make sense to me. And nobody attributes the inception of the Copper Age to Kurgans from the steppe. The copper smelted in Austria used ores from the Rudana Glava mine in the central Balkans. These could very well have been some of the earliest M269 folks as the central Balkans also have the highest remnants of M269(xL23).

Kurgan folks may have introduced the horse into Eastern Europe, but they seem to have left very little of their Y-DNA legacy in Western Europe.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 24, 2012, 01:03:23 PM »

... Kurgan folks may have introduced the horse into Eastern Europe, but they seem to have left very little of their Y-DNA legacy in Western Europe.

I think there are multiple decision points that are all floating to some extent. We are trying to align them with DNA. I absolutely agree that it is not clear how R1b-M269 became the dominant player in Western Europe in an apparently short time. It's not clearly what languages M269 people were speaking early on. I guess it is possible that some R-M269 folks were among original Kurgan building, PIE speaking Steppes folks, but they could very well have been Trypolye or some other SE European or Anatolian group that picked up IE speaking back there, or they could have been pre-PIE Anatolian that then picked up full PIE along with the horses and what have you from the Steppes folks.

However, that is a different decision point than the PIE homeland assessment. That is the Mallory/Renfrew argument. I just don't see Renfrew's side of it, after reading and listening to him. It's like he is putting together circumstantial evidence for an agricultural Anatolian expansion. If he can tie in enough grains/cereals and diminish the significance of wheels/horses he wins.  That kind of argument lacks the full logic of applying the linguistic and cultural practice evaluation.  I never thought of it like that, but seems to be why I find Mallory and Anthony more convincing, they tie it together better.

Richard, I certainly don't know that haplogroups the Steppes folks where 5-6K years ago. I also don't know, and rather doubt, they were monolithic in their Y DNA or even in their culture. Anthony suggests it is better to think of Yamnaya as an horizon of cultures rather than as a single culture. The Steppes are large area that touch on vastly different geographies depending on what side you are on. Given they are plains and the people were nomadic, there could have been a lot of movement and exchange.

Why do you say the Steppes folks apparently left little Y DNA legacy in Western Europe? I don't know how we know one way or another without ancient DNA from those Kurgans.  What's the oldest Y DNA we have from the Steppes regions?
« Last Edit: August 24, 2012, 01:13:12 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #29 on: August 24, 2012, 01:08:46 PM »

Yes, ancient DNA so far fits neatly with the Kurgan hypothesis...but only for Corded Ware, R1a and the famous 2900 BC H&H date. However, there is a huge ancient DNA sampling gap between the German LBK samples (5000 BC) and the Bell Beaker samples (2600 BC). To put that time difference into perspective, that is the time difference between today and the Celtic sacking of Rome before Rome became an Empire! That R1b wasn't in central Europe in 3900 BC (Austrian Copper Age) and 3700 BC (NW Italian Copper Age) really does not make sense to me. And nobody attributes the inception of the Copper Age to Kurgans from the steppe. The copper smelted in Austria used ores from the Rudana Glava mine in the central Balkans. These could very well have been some of the earliest M269 folks as the central Balkans also have the highest remnants of M269(xL23).

Kurgan folks may have introduced the horse into Eastern Europe, but they seem to have left very little of their Y-DNA legacy in Western Europe.

This a good point about the date gap.  The possibility that R1b could have spread from Anatolia a little earlier in the mid Neolithic with cattle pastoralism through central Europe c. 5000-4000BC cannot yet be eliminated unless we 100% are sure about the variance calculations.  Its not exactly represented by a self evident single cultural wave like LBK or Cardial but that period saw both a transformation of older LBK cultures and the settling of new areas that LBK never reached (the isles, the northern European plain, uplands etc) and cattle pastoralism could have been a big factor in the settling of these new areas.  Not a self evident wave but then again neither is Kurgan once you are past eastern Europe.  There was clearly a major demographic effect both in terms of internal colonisation of new ecologies and also the movement of the entire farming frontier north.  

thats c. 7000-6000 years against c. 6000-5000 years ago.  Not absolutely convinced we can say for sure as yet.  Wherever R1b was it could have split around the M269* and L23* period and headed in different directions.  
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #30 on: August 24, 2012, 01:13:53 PM »

... Kurgan folks may have introduced the horse into Eastern Europe, but they seem to have left very little of their Y-DNA legacy in Western Europe.

I think there are multiple decision points that are all floating to some extent. We are trying to align them with DNA. I absolutely agree that it is not clear how R1b-M269 became the dominant player in Western Europe in an apparently short time. It's not clearly what languages M269 people were speaking early on. I guess it is possible that some R-M269 folks were among original Kurgan building, PIE speaking Steppes folks, but they could very well have been Trypolye or some other SE European or Anatolian group that picked up IE speaking back there, or they could have been pre-PIE Anatolian that then picked up full PIE along with the horses and what have you from the Steppes folks.

However, that is a different decision point than the PIE homeland assessment. That is the Mallory/Renfrew argument. I just don't see Renfrew's side of it, after reading and listening to him. It's like he is putting together circumstantial evidence for an agricultural Anatolian expansion. If he can tie in enough grains/cereals and diminish the significance of wheels/horses he wins.  That kind of argument lacks the full logic of applying the linguistic and cultural practice evaluation.  I never thought of it like that, but seems to be why I find Mallory and Anthony more convincing, they tie it together better.

Weidly though there was also a big paper that argued the opposite and stated that there are too many shared IE words for a sophisticated agriculture that doesnt match steppe pastoralism.  Some may be absent in eastern IE languages but he suggested that was because they passed through a long period in environments where sophisticated settled agriculture was not possible.  I am not saying he was correct but it was a well know paper.  I once posted it but it escapes me now who wrote it.   I will have a google and see if I can find it again.  I dont really feel qualified to critique either the papers or the people who critiqued it.


EDIT-it was K.Krell
« Last Edit: August 24, 2012, 01:18:17 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #31 on: August 24, 2012, 01:21:49 PM »

I am not taking a side, so don't get me wrong, but I think some of you are underplaying the strength of Renfrew's position. What makes it attractive - whether right or wrong - is that it is based on something big that actually happened in Europe all the way to the Atlantic: the Neolithic Revolution. We know that farming and animal husbandry spread through Europe and changed things mightily. We also know that somehow Europe became overwhelmingly Indo-European speaking. When you go through the archaeological record looking for something that had a big enough impact to change almost the entire linguistic landscape of Europe, it's hard not to think the Neolithic Revolution might have had something to do with it.

That's not to say that Renfrew is right. I am just pointing out the appeal of his position. I also don't think it is as way out there and ridiculous as some of you are making it out to be.

The impact of steppe peoples, unlike the Neolithic Revolution, is hard to track beyond the eastern Hungarian Plain. The idea that they were responsible for the spread of Indo-European languages requires a rather extensive chain of argument: a kind of linguistic domino theory. It lacks the simple, rather clear cut appeal of the Neolithic Revolution.

I don't know which is the right answer. I really don't. I know that aDNA work is being done right now in the western steppe. If they find some ancient R1b in some of those kurgans, I'll be convinced. If it's all R1a, forget it; I'm not buying it.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2012, 01:23:01 PM by rms2 » Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #32 on: August 24, 2012, 01:34:43 PM »

I am a lot less convinced that M269* and L23* was in the farming zone of SW Asia now.  it doesnt really take off until L23 with a rather long straight line behind it.  That IMO is hard to correlate with it being in Anatolia although I suppose everything depends on what its real date is.  Some corners of Anatolia were later than others in taking up farming. 
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #33 on: August 24, 2012, 01:40:24 PM »

I just want to throw this out there for consumption and consideration: a number of scholars over the years have claimed to notice a resemblance between the "Dinaric" Beaker physical type and something similar in the highlands of eastern Anatolia and Armenia.

True? Untrue? Mean anything? If so, what?
Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #34 on: August 24, 2012, 01:43:06 PM »

I am not taking a side, so don't get me wrong, but I think some of you are underplaying the strength of Renfrew's position. What makes it attractive - whether right or wrong - is that it is based on something big that actually happened in Europe all the way to the Atlantic: the Neolithic Revolution. We know that farming and animal husbandry spread through Europe and changed things mightily. We also know that somehow Europe became overwhelmingly Indo-European speaking. When you go through the archaeological record looking for something that had a big enough impact to change almost the entire linguistic landscape of Europe, it's hard not to think the Neolithic Revolution might have had something to do with it.

That's not to say that Renfrew is right. I am just pointing out the appeal of his position. I also don't think it is as way out there and ridiculous as some of you are making it out to be.

The impact of steppe peoples, unlike the Neolithic Revolution, is hard to track beyond the eastern Hungarian Plain. The idea that they were responsible for the spread of Indo-European languages requires a rather extensive chain of argument: a kind of linguistic domino theory. It lacks the simple, rather clear cut appeal of the Neolithic Revolution.

I don't know which is the right answer. I really don't. I know that aDNA work is being done right now in the western steppe. If they find some ancient R1b in some of those kurgans, I'll be convinced. If it's all R1a, forget it; I'm not buying it.

I certainly agree that the Kurgan theory does require all sorts of mental gymnastics to extend into much of Europe.  That is not to say it is wrong but its clearly not self evident.  Behavoural changes swept Europe in the copper age but there is no simply trail to show the human aspect at it.  H&H map of Kurgan influences falls massively short of anything convincing in the western half of Europe. I tend to be suspicious of anything that diverges so far from Occam's Razor and virtually all copper age explanations for the extension of IE languages into the western half of Europe do suffer from that IMO.  I say suspicious but I am not dismissing it.  Some things just are complex.  
« Last Edit: August 24, 2012, 11:16:30 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 406


« Reply #35 on: August 24, 2012, 01:50:56 PM »

Sometime this debate will get back to post-apocalyptic speculation; it's happened before (mainly with ice and floods).  I hope that "the world's on fire" type of apocalypse will get considered, now that we know about that 3123 BC asteroid.  About as many cultures have that sort of myth (Sodom and Gomorrah, Loki, or whatever) as have the Great Flood.  Some of the more northern ones mention that the flames were to the south, etc.

Just saying, if a lot of M269 folks (or just the guys) needed to move, and found Europe somewhat depopulated by the same disaster (brimstone and all) by which the cupboard was left bare back in Anatolia (or the Pontic steppe, or elsewhere), they might have had an incentive to move and a breeding advantage when they got to Europe.
Logged

R1b Z196*
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #36 on: August 24, 2012, 03:30:24 PM »

I just want to throw this out there for consumption and consideration: a number of scholars over the years have claimed to notice a resemblance between the "Dinaric" Beaker physical type and something similar in the highlands of eastern Anatolia and Armenia.

True? Untrue? Mean anything? If so, what?

The Dinaric type could have arrived from Europe or just be a similiar type native to the region, but it is an interesting observation. 

With that being said, I found a new paper on the steppe Bronze age from a Russian academic which I don't have with me right now.  I'll provide the title later.  Anyway it describes the Yamnaya people around the north Caspian and Manych depression areas as being brachycephalic.  This is counter to what I've posted on the subject in the past. 
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #37 on: August 24, 2012, 03:33:44 PM »

I just want to throw this out there for consumption and consideration: a number of scholars over the years have claimed to notice a resemblance between the "Dinaric" Beaker physical type and something similar in the highlands of eastern Anatolia and Armenia.

True? Untrue? Mean anything? If so, what?

Ic. 2500BC give or take is the time when beaker suddenly expanded out of its SW European early zone.  The variance dating of the  sudden expansion below L11 is also c. 2500BC  It is very tempting to see them as closely connected.  If so, the L11 beaker folk would have been an extended family of  than a people c. 2500-2400BC when beakers reached their maximum extent.   There must have been a period around 2400BC or so when beaker people across large swathes of Europe were basically an extended family of cousins only a handful of generations from a common ancestor. They may have had family traits that kept reemerging.  I also think there are clear implications of linking the initial expansion of L11 derived clades to the big beaker expansion period - the numbers must have been fairly low in there initial period of maximum extent.  Its hard to imagine how L11/beaker lineages could have been more than a tiny minority everywhere if L11 really had a standing start c. 2500BC and yet beaker underwent a huge expansion in only 100 years or so.  That is why I think any idea that there was some sort of L11/beaker military conquest is well wide of the mark and why I believe initially they were welcomed.  As an extended family or clan it is possibly that the physical types we see are really a family with family resemblances rather than anything wider than that.  
Logged
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #38 on: August 24, 2012, 04:27:41 PM »

Here it is..
Reconstruction of the Bronze Age of the Caspian Steppes(Natalia Shishlina 2008)

On the Yamnaya population..
"In general, the Yamnaya population is characterized by brachycephalic skulls with a low and orthognathic face, low eye-sockets, a protuberant nose." (Khokhlov 2000)

"...there are several craniological types of skulls in Yamnaya groups."

Paraphrasing here:
Forest-steppe Yamnaya were large and mesocephalic (intermediate).
Skulls from the steppe and the Urals were smaller and dolichocephalic.

At the very least, people of the Yamnaya horizon seemed to be composed of indigenous and new arrivals.  

Is it possible a very early form of PIE develops in Anatolia and arrives on the steppe via the Caucasus where the PIE vocabulary expands with the Anthony/Mallory model?  The only difference is proto-Anatolian splits off in Anatolia, before the rest of the proto-form is developed on the steppe.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2012, 04:28:17 PM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #39 on: August 24, 2012, 07:22:41 PM »

Dienekes hints at multiple waves entering Europe from the SE in the Neolithic.  This paper here indicates several very wide successive pottery horizons and suggests they either indicate movement or a large and sustained contact network that linked large areas of Asian Minor, SW Asia and SE Europe.  Either possibility is interesting in terms of languages.

http://ege.academia.edu/%C3%87iler%C3%87ilingiro%C4%9Flu/Papers/1003842/Neolithic_red_slipped_and_burnished_wares_Recognizing_their_widespread_distribution
Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #40 on: August 24, 2012, 07:42:15 PM »

This is what Menk says about Yamnaya and Bell Beaker skulls...

http://www.u152.org/images/stories/Beaker_Yamnaya.png
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #41 on: August 24, 2012, 07:53:29 PM »

Have you all listened to Atkinson's podcast? It's brief but interesting.
Logged

MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #42 on: August 24, 2012, 08:35:43 PM »

This is what Menk says about Yamnaya and Bell Beaker skulls...

http://www.u152.org/images/stories/Beaker_Yamnaya.png

I read that before and also don't think there is a solid connection on physical anthropology grounds, despite brachycephaly now known to be present in some Yamnaya groups.  If R1b does show up in Yamnaya aDNA, I think it would likely be from absorbed farmers rather than steppe mesolithic ancestry.

I'm not so sure the Beaker or Dinaric type is intrusive to Europe as a physical type.  It seems to be a hybrid of mediterranean farmer (short head length, narrow face) and hunter-gatherer (larger stature, broad heads, prominent brow-ridges).  Consider the ancient mtDNA record.  Hg U is prominent in the mesolithic, reduced presence in the neolithic, but re-emerges in the post neolithic to become an important hg.  The re-emergence of U could coincide with Bell Beaker expansion after a long period of 'inter-marriage' with neolithic men.
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

acekon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 152


« Reply #43 on: August 24, 2012, 08:38:21 PM »

Similarities and differences,Indo-European Language Family;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pa7SPns8fQ


East to West

1]Cherchen man, sloping forehead, aquiline nose,Tocharian,
http://echostains.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/cherchen-man-with-tattoos1.jpg

2]Skilurus, Crimean relief  of Scythian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Skiluros.jpg

3]Hittite-Anatolia
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51DDCTXqo%2BL._SL500_SS500_.jpg

4]Tollund Man-Denmark
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/assets/img/posters/tolland-man-in.jpg

5]Isolated Aran Islands. figure 4-5-6
http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/troeplate29.htm
« Last Edit: August 24, 2012, 08:45:06 PM by acekon » Logged

YDNA: R-Z2105* Śląsk-Polska
MtDNA: U5b2a2*Königsberg-Ostpreussen
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #44 on: August 24, 2012, 11:18:29 PM »

Here it is..
Reconstruction of the Bronze Age of the Caspian Steppes(Natalia Shishlina 2008)

On the Yamnaya population..
"In general, the Yamnaya population is characterized by brachycephalic skulls with a low and orthognathic face, low eye-sockets, a protuberant nose." (Khokhlov 2000)

"...there are several craniological types of skulls in Yamnaya groups."

.

I have to say that brachycephalic and protuberant nose anyway does sound rather beaker-like. 
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #45 on: August 25, 2012, 12:06:25 AM »

... Kurgan folks may have introduced the horse into Eastern Europe, but they seem to have left very little of their Y-DNA legacy in Western Europe.

I think there are multiple decision points that are all floating to some extent. We are trying to align them with DNA. I absolutely agree that it is not clear how R1b-M269 became the dominant player in Western Europe in an apparently short time. It's not clearly what languages M269 people were speaking early on. I guess it is possible that some R-M269 folks were among original Kurgan building, PIE speaking Steppes folks, but they could very well have been Trypolye or some other SE European or Anatolian group that picked up IE speaking back there, or they could have been pre-PIE Anatolian that then picked up full PIE along with the horses and what have you from the Steppes folks.

However, that is a different decision point than the PIE homeland assessment. That is the Mallory/Renfrew argument. I just don't see Renfrew's side of it, after reading and listening to him. It's like he is putting together circumstantial evidence for an agricultural Anatolian expansion. If he can tie in enough grains/cereals and diminish the significance of wheels/horses he wins.  That kind of argument lacks the full logic of applying the linguistic and cultural practice evaluation.  I never thought of it like that, but seems to be why I find Mallory and Anthony more convincing, they tie it together better.

Weidly though there was also a big paper that argued the opposite and stated that there are too many shared IE words for a sophisticated agriculture that doesnt match steppe pastoralism.  Some may be absent in eastern IE languages but he suggested that was because they passed through a long period in environments where sophisticated settled agriculture was not possible.  I am not saying he was correct but it was a well know paper.  I once posted it but it escapes me now who wrote it.   I will have a google and see if I can find it again.  I dont really feel qualified to critique either the papers or the people who critiqued it.


EDIT-it was K.Krell

What is Krell stating? I don't want to distract Jean M from her work, but I respect her interpretation and my reading of Anthony and watching lectures of Renfrew, Mallory and Anthony lead me to conclude that PIE is hunter-gather based.

If that is wrong, I'd like to understand. Renfrew does not address this directly. He seems to like to use an "out-weigh" approach by piling up evidence on his side, but frankly, it does not all link together. He is just trying to using volumes to overcome logic.

If I'm wrong, so be it, but I'd like to hear someone truly logically link Renfrew's hypothesis and explain the early Uralic influence and the hunter-gatherer base for IE languages. I don't care one way or another.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 12:07:29 AM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #46 on: August 25, 2012, 12:15:15 AM »

... . We know that farming and animal husbandry spread through Europe and changed things mightily. We also know that somehow Europe became overwhelmingly Indo-European speaking. When you go through the archaeological record looking for something that had a big enough impact to change almost the entire linguistic landscape of Europe, it's hard not to think the Neolithic Revolution might have had something to do with it.

That's not to say that Renfrew is right. I am just pointing out the appeal of his position. .....

I agree, this is the appeal to Renfrew's position. There is a mighty weight to attaching something, be it IE languages or be it R1b expansion, to a big thing like the agricultural based Neolithic expansion into Europe.

However, weight doesn't always equate to correctness.

Sometimes factors that don't seem right, turn out to be correct in retrospect. I think we need to conceptually separate paternal lineages, as marked by Y chromosome mutations, from the populations in general.  We know Y DNA and mt DNA don't line up well so this should not be a difficult concept.

LOL. This is just the Irish contrariannism rising up from me.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 12:16:48 AM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 115


« Reply #47 on: August 25, 2012, 12:30:24 AM »

I imagine Gioiello is right and they did something like what Gray and Atkinson did..

Yes it is Gray and Atkinson again, plus a few more non-linguists who can't resist playing with numbers.

Exactly! I don't like this plead to numbers as if it were somehow inherently better, or more appropriate, than plain old analytic thinking.

Quantitative models are sometimes irrelevant but always dependent on a persons' design, input, and interpretation so...

In this case, the authors are trying to mathematically model where IE came from even though the model doesn't know the array of ancient languages or their relative mobilities and prosperity. I have yet to read it but I have the suspicion the model is pretty ridiculous.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 12:32:48 AM by princenuadha » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #48 on: August 25, 2012, 12:43:29 AM »

The difference here, from what I can tell from listening to Atkinson's podcast, is they used 14 different known, datable linguistic events to calibrate their work. Atkinson mentions one of them specifically: the development of Romance languages.

Don't jump all over me. I'm just pointing this out. Frankly, I'm kind of tired of the PIE thing, especially since even daring to mention possible alternatives tends to bring out the obnoxious worst in some of the kurgatrons.
Logged

princenuadha
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #49 on: August 25, 2012, 12:44:05 AM »

Interesting analysis on the NYTimes.

"Biologists using tools developed for drawing evolutionary family trees say that they have solved a longstanding problem in archaeology: the origin of the Indo-European family of languages...

The result, they announced in Thursday’s issue of the journal Science, is that “we found decisive support for an Anatolian origin over a steppe origin.” Both the timing and the root of the tree of Indo-European languages “fit with an agricultural expansion from Anatolia beginning 8,000 to 9,500 years ago,” they report."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/science/indo-european-languages-originated-in-anatolia-analysis-suggests.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hpw
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/08/24/science/0824-origins.html?ref=science

This supports the model of M269 - DF21 as shown below:

http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763591605/
http://pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/celtic-migrations-dna/





I wonder if these models will be biased against the steppe due to the mobility in the steppe.

@rms2 np. I appreciate it.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 12:46:58 AM by princenuadha » Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 24 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 0.091 seconds with 19 queries.