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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 22, 2014, 09:51:11 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] 5 6 ... 24 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family  (Read 38518 times)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #75 on: August 25, 2012, 12:35:05 PM »

My understanding is that the first Neolithic expansion out of Anatolia was to Crete and eventually led to the Mycean and Minoan cultures. I don't know which language they spoke. However we do know of their veneration of the bull. Have a look at the Mycean bull figurines and notice the similarity of later Iberian and Gaelic Celtic depictions of the same, For example in the Tain Bo Cuailnge.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Herakles/bull.html

I don't think we should speaking of both the Mycenean and Minoan cultures as being of the first Neolithic expansion.

The Mycenean culture was much later. It was a Bronze Age culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenaean_Greece

My understanding is that the Myceneans were IE speakers and this is where classical Greek comes from. I don't think the Minoans spoke an IE language, did they?

I don't think Linear A, the writing of the Minoans, has ever yet been deciphered, but some scholars have theorized that it was some form of Semitic. Linear B, which followed it, was Mycenaean Greek.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 12:35:38 PM by rms2 » Logged

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #76 on: August 25, 2012, 12:42:09 PM »


I don't think we should speaking of both the Mycenean and Minoan cultures as being of the first Neolithic expansion.

I agree. From all I can gather, the ancestors of both arrived  around 3000 BC. Newcomers from Anatolia had been settling the Cyclades and some moved on to Crete. Meanwhile it seems that the future Greek-speakers were trickling into Greece from Thrace. The region that they entered was pretty well empty it seems, after some farming failure. We can only really be sure what was going on linguistically when they start to write things down, much later on, with Linear A and Linear B.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #77 on: August 25, 2012, 12:44:48 PM »

I don't think Linear A, the writing of the Minoans, has ever yet been deciphered,

Correct.

Quote
some scholars have theorized that it was some form of Semitic.

I doubt that. Some pre-IE language of Anatolia I dare say.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 12:45:15 PM by Jean M » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #78 on: August 25, 2012, 12:47:08 PM »

Maybe. I wasn't saying I think Linear A was Semitic, just that some scholars have proposed that it was.
Logged

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #79 on: August 25, 2012, 12:48:36 PM »

I don't think Linear A, the writing of the Minoans, has ever yet been deciphered, but some scholars have theorized that it was some form of Semitic. Linear B, which followed it, was Mycenaean Greek.
There is another theory: that some semitic words were a religious language like Sumer for Akkadians or Latin in Middle Ages, but the language and the people hadn't anything to do with Semites, but were Asianic ones. Someone links it to the Sea Peoples, and I remember to you all (also here against almost all) that some of them were Italians: Etruscans, Sicels, Sardinians. Read the last news about the ship with ossidian found at Capri: at least 5000 YBP!
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #80 on: August 25, 2012, 01:06:10 PM »

My understanding is that the first Neolithic expansion out of Anatolia was to Crete and eventually led to the Mycean and Minoan cultures. I don't know which language they spoke. However we do know of their veneration of the bull. Have a look at the Mycean bull figurines and notice the similarity of later Iberian and Gaelic Celtic depictions of the same, For example in the Tain Bo Cuailnge.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Herakles/bull.html

I don't think we should speaking of both the Mycenean and Minoan cultures as being of the first Neolithic expansion.

The Mycenean culture was much later. It was a Bronze Age culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenaean_Greece

My understanding is that the Myceneans were IE speakers and this is where classical Greek comes from. I don't think the Minoans spoke an IE language, did they?

Mike,

I did not say that the Myceans were the first Neolithic expansion out of Anatolia.
I believe the first Neolithic expansion out of Anatolia was to Crete and Myres would appear to support this.
The Myceans and Minoans were probably decendants of these early Neolithic settlers.
The bull culture was a key feature of Neolithic expansion as bulls and cattle were a symbol of Wealth.
Bull veneration was central to Mycean and Minoen culture and founding myths and later to Iberian and Gaelic Celtic culture.

"The initial arrival of farmers from Southwest Asia to the present-day Greece occurred ca 9000 years BP.38 Outside of Southeast Europe, two episodes of early farming are attested archeologically.39 The first involved a maritime colonization of Crete ca 9000 years BP and Southern Italy ca 8000 years BP and subsequently spread to coastal Mediterranean France and Spain, as exemplified by impressed/cardial pottery. The second involved a migration to Central Europe, from Hungary to France, characterized by LBK (ca 7500 years BP). Within a 3k-year period, the agricultural economy spread across Europe, terminating in Britain and Scandinavia ~6000 years BP.39"

Myres et Al.

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n1/full/ejhg2010146a.html


« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 01:23:05 PM by Heber » Logged

Heber


 
R1b1a2a1a1b4  L459+ L21+ DF21+ DF13+ U198- U106- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L48- L44- L4- L226- L2- L196- L195- L193- L192.1- L176.2- L165- L159.2- L148- L144- L130- L1-
Paternal L21* DF21


Maternal H1C1



Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #81 on: August 25, 2012, 01:12:31 PM »

Rich (Stevens), speak about what you know and not about what you don’t know. Hittite is an archaic form of IE because, amongst many other characteristics, maintains a trace of the laryngeals, theorized firstly by the great Swiss linguist Ferdinand De Saussure (Mémoire sur les voyelles), written at 20 years old. Another IE language which gets a trace of them is Albanian, spoken in the Balkans and not in Anatolia. To be an archaic form of IE doesn’t mean to be Anatolian.

As you know, the Bosphorus is probably the great dividing line between M269(xL23) and L23(xL51). Whether the original PIE area (for R1b) is slightly to the east (Anatolia) or slightly to the west (Albania), the point is that they are both are a long way from the Steppe.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 01:13:30 PM by Richard Rocca » Logged

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

Posts: 448


« Reply #82 on: August 25, 2012, 01:45:52 PM »

Rich (Stevens), speak about what you know and not about what you don’t know. Hittite is an archaic form of IE because, amongst many other characteristics, maintains a trace of the laryngeals, theorized firstly by the great Swiss linguist Ferdinand De Saussure (Mémoire sur les voyelles), written at 20 years old. Another IE language which gets a trace of them is Albanian, spoken in the Balkans and not in Anatolia. To be an archaic form of IE doesn’t mean to be Anatolian.

As you know, the Bosphorus is probably the great dividing line between M269(xL23) and L23(xL51). Whether the original PIE area (for R1b) is slightly to the east (Anatolia) or slightly to the west (Albania), the point is that they are both are a long way from the Steppe.

It is logical, and supported by DNA (including aDNA) studies, that the initial Neolithic expansions from Anatolia, hopped across the Agean to Crete and Cyprus, across the Bosphouras to The Balkens and also to the adjoining territory of Armenia.

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v20/n3/full/ejhg2011192a.html?WT.ec_id=EJHG-201203

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/24/9788.long



« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 02:02:31 PM by Heber » Logged

Heber


 
R1b1a2a1a1b4  L459+ L21+ DF21+ DF13+ U198- U106- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L48- L44- L4- L226- L2- L196- L195- L193- L192.1- L176.2- L165- L159.2- L148- L144- L130- L1-
Paternal L21* DF21


Maternal H1C1



Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #83 on: August 25, 2012, 02:05:36 PM »

As you know, the Bosphorus is probably the great dividing line between M269(xL23) and L23(xL51). Whether the original PIE area (for R1b) is slightly to the east (Anatolia) or slightly to the west (Albania), the point is that they are both are a long way from the Steppe.

About the expansion of the agriculturalists from Italy to Iberia and to France from 7500 YBP I have a few doubts. I have always asked whether they were from Balkans and Anatolia (demic theory) or Italians (cultural theory). That they diffused the Ceramica Impressa from which was born Bell Beaker and all the rest from Iberia to Central  Europe also a few doubts. Of course I have always asked for aDNA, which will be the “proof”.
A few doubts also about my R-L23/L150+ haplotype like the “ancestor” of all the European subclades.:

H1614 Antonio del Badia (1449-?) Castelfiorentino (Firenze) Italy R1b1a2
12 24 15 10 11-14 12 12 12 13 12 29 16 9-10 11 11 24 15 19 29 14-14-16-17 10 11 19-23 16 15 19 17 36-37 12 12 11 9 15-16 8 10 10 8 10 11 12 23-24 16 10 12 12 16 8 12 22 21 13 12 11 13 11 11 12 12 32 15 9 16 11 25 26 19 12 11 13 12 10 9 12 11 10 11 11 30 12 14 24 14 10 9 20 15 19 14 23 18 12 15 24 12 23 18 10 14 18 9 11 11
 
If you consider my “relative” Giorgio Tognarelli and his most diffused haplotype (12 24 14 11 11-14 12 12 13 13 13 29) the link is also more evident.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

princenuadha
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #84 on: August 25, 2012, 02:46:27 PM »

Apparently, the follow is an important published critique of the study. But you do need access.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6097/902
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #85 on: August 25, 2012, 03:34:51 PM »

Science is one online journal to which I don't have access. That's why R.R. had to send me the paper.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #86 on: August 25, 2012, 04:12:43 PM »

Apparently, the follow is an important published critique of the study. But you do need access.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6097/902

I would like to see that too. I have read over the paper.  I am in no position to critique it though being a mathematical model.  I do think though it is a very interesting paper and I kind of like the way they allow for elements of both the leading theories to be correct.  I find it quite appealing.  From an archaeological point of view its hard to say if and how it fits.  Archaeology has been in a state of flux with a huge amount of new papers on the early Neolithic which are not all driving in the same direction (it was ever thus!).  

The idea that the Neolithic was a longer flow of movement and interaction between SW Asia and Anatolia and SE Europe rather than an event seems to be growing in strength. The author of the paper I posted states that there was sustained strong interaction in the 7th and 6th millenium across that whole area.  He doesnt dabble in linguistic implications but I wouldnt be surprised if there was a shared language family (whatever it was) across that area.  The possibility of long term consistant interaction across these areas for a very long period could also have the interesting potential to mean that any break up into divergent languages could have been long delayed.  That would disarm one plank (although clearly not all) of the critique of an Anatolian/early farmers origin as it potentially reduces the degree of seperation of Anatolia and SE Europe considerably.  

I have always been very doubtful of how sure we can be of the distribution of Uralic 6000 years ago too.  If the steppes hunters were not originally speaking some sort of IE ancestral root languages then they must have been speaking something.  Could it not have been Uralic?  There dont seem to be other candidates.  In other areas of Europe the Mesolithic languages have left no trace and cannot be inferred any more.  The problem is probably multiplied in an area like the steppes where mobility and major population changes continued into history. I just dont understand the overconfidence regarding where Uralic originally extended to when in western Europe its generally accepted that pre-farming languages and their distributions are beyond our knowledge.  Lets just say for instance Uralic originally 7000 years ago (and indefinately back before that) had a border that once ran to the western edge of the steppes.  That would disarm the Uralic contact arguement. 
« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 04:54:32 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #87 on: August 25, 2012, 04:22:06 PM »

I believe the first Neolithic expansion out of Anatolia was to Crete

Not so. The earliest Neolithic settlers to arrive anywhere in Europe left from the Levant   on island-hopping and coastal routes. The earliest move was to Cyprus (9000 BC). The land route through Anatolia to Europe did not enter the picture until later. We know this from the spread of domesticated crop species.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #88 on: August 25, 2012, 04:45:11 PM »

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.

Pity they did not use the datable event of the invention of the wheel. :)

The basic problem with glottochronology and all similar methods is that they are based on the idea of a lexical clock i.e. a steady rate of linguistic change. The trouble is that languages do not change at a steady rate. Atkinson actually knows this. He was the lead author of a paper "Languages evolve in punctuational bursts" (2008) [to which you have access]. But the idea of being able to date a language by some computational method is just hugely attractive.

There was another paper out not long ago using another lexical method. They calibrated with loads and loads of dates. They found that their results were out by about 29% on average. It's quite interesting. Holman 2011. It's in the Glottochronology and similar folder.
Logged
Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #89 on: August 25, 2012, 04:47:20 PM »

I believe the first Neolithic expansion out of Anatolia was to Crete

Not so. The earliest Neolithic settlers to arrive anywhere in Europe left from the Levant  on island-hopping and coastal routes. The earliest move was to Cyprus (9000 BC). The land route through Anatolia to Europe did not enter the picture until later. We know this from the spread of domesticated crop species.


Thanks Jean. I meant the first Neolithic expansion out of Anatolia.
It is not clear to me if the original settlers in Cyprus were Neolithic farmers or hunter gatherers.

Early Villages
Shillourokambos

"Traveling in primitive boats, the first settlers on Cyprus came from the Anatolian coast to the north, and from the Syrian shore to the east. They brought with them a wide variety of mainland plants and animals, including goats, pigs, deer, wheat, and barley. These early settlers reflect the Neolithic shift from hunting and gathering to farming and village life."

http://www.mnh.si.edu/exhibits/cyprus/neolithic.html
« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 04:50:05 PM by Heber » Logged

Heber


 
R1b1a2a1a1b4  L459+ L21+ DF21+ DF13+ U198- U106- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L48- L44- L4- L226- L2- L196- L195- L193- L192.1- L176.2- L165- L159.2- L148- L144- L130- L1-
Paternal L21* DF21


Maternal H1C1



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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #90 on: August 25, 2012, 04:47:31 PM »

By the way, I already knew about de Saussure and his work.

Frankly, I get rather tired of the vitriolic and ignorant nature of the posts that generally characterize threads about the nearly mythical and largely unknowable original Indo-Europeans.

Is there any worse topic?

Perhaps the "Caveman R1b" issue rivals it, but even the old "Wannabe Viking" threads don't compare with the heat (and little light) generated by threads on the original Indo-Europeans.



 

I know what you mean.  I feel its one of the worst subjects for people to become so partizan to one model.  Should be a rule that you are only allowed to enter IE threads when you have had at least 2 beers, chilled out and are in a mellow mood (unless of course beer has the opposite effect  :0).  
« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 05:21:46 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #91 on: August 25, 2012, 04:50:59 PM »

I don't want to distract Jean M from her work,

I'm flattered that you want me around Mike. Actually I finally finished the bibliography, which was a giant task. But now I have problems with my internet access. I have it on one computer, but not the one I usually use, so it is a bit laborious to join in here. I'm twirling from one computer to another and can't cut-and-paste names and such. So really I'm not a lot of use.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #92 on: August 25, 2012, 04:56:57 PM »

Thanks Jean. I meant the first Neolithic expansion out of Anatolia.
It is not clear to me if the original settlers in Cyprus were Neolithic farmers or hunter gatherers.

We now have evidence that hunter-gatherers were making trips to Cyprus before farmers settled there. But the hunter-gatherers were not settlers. They were not an island people. Hunter-gatherers need large territories to roam. None of the Mediterranean islands was settled before the Neolithic, but several show signs of Mesolithic visitors, e.g. collecting obsidian from Melos.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 04:59:51 PM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #93 on: August 25, 2012, 05:12:20 PM »

I would think that the very early move into Europe along the east Med. (possibly from the Levant) could be ruled out as IE.  However, the paper I posted does show later phases in the 7th and 6th of flow/contact that linked Anatolia (and adjacent areas of SW Asia) and the SE Europe.  On top of that pottery evidence there is of course other factors including the spread of cattle dairying which has been discussed on these forums a fair bit.  So, I dont think we any longer need to see this in the two extremes of first farmers vs Kurgan.  There is a period in between that is of considerable interest to the history of languages. 
Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #94 on: August 25, 2012, 05:36:13 PM »

Thanks Jean. I meant the first Neolithic expansion out of Anatolia.
It is not clear to me if the original settlers in Cyprus were Neolithic farmers or hunter gatherers.

We now have evidence that hunter-gatherers were making trips to Cyprus before farmers settled there. But the hunter-gatherers were not settlers. They were not an island people. Hunter-gatherers need large territories to roam. None of the Mediterranean islands was settled before the Neolithic, but several show signs of Mesolithic visitors, e.g. collecting obsidian from Melos.

I'm not sure what you meant by "settled", but in Sicily AMH have been around since at least the Upper Paleolithic.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #95 on: August 25, 2012, 05:38:24 PM »

My understanding is that the first Neolithic expansion out of Anatolia was to Crete and eventually led to the Mycean and Minoan cultures. I don't know which language they spoke. However we do know of their veneration of the bull. Have a look at the Mycean bull figurines and notice the similarity of later Iberian and Gaelic Celtic depictions of the same, For example in the Tain Bo Cuailnge.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Herakles/bull.html

I don't think we should speaking of both the Mycenean and Minoan cultures as being of the first Neolithic expansion.

The Mycenean culture was much later. It was a Bronze Age culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenaean_Greece

My understanding is that the Myceneans were IE speakers and this is where classical Greek comes from. I don't think the Minoans spoke an IE language, did they?

I don't think Linear A, the writing of the Minoans, has ever yet been deciphered, but some scholars have theorized that it was some form of Semitic. Linear B, which followed it, was Mycenaean Greek.

If I was a betting man, based on all I have read about Linear A, I have a feeling it will turn out to be IE.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #96 on: August 25, 2012, 05:52:47 PM »

I'm not sure what you meant by "settled", but in Sicily AMH have been around since at least the Upper Paleolithic.

Sicily was connected to the mainland by a land bridge in the LGM, but I don't know the full story there i.e. when it became an island. "Settled" = more or less continuous occupation. It is difficult to tell with hunter-gatherers, admittedly. They are so mobile.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #97 on: August 25, 2012, 06:06:04 PM »

If I was a betting man, based on all I have read about Linear A, I have a feeling it will turn out to be IE.

Not sure. I think if it was anything obvious, they would have cracked it. Are you thinking that it will be the same as the mysterious language with the place-names ending in -ossos? There is a school of thought in favour of Luwian for that. 
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #98 on: August 25, 2012, 06:12:25 PM »

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...

Isn't this what linguists have been doing for 100 years, taking similarities/differences in languages, picking which they think are significant/insignificant and then drawing conclusions? If nothing else, a mathematical model takes away human bias. Of course, the model could have issues, but that is something different altogether.

My point was that a mathematical model does not take away human bias as some have suggested. Also a mathematical model is no more inherently correct. Each mathematical model has to be evaluated for it's design, assumptions, and interpretations.

Princen, I have to agree with you on this. Mathematical models do not take away human bias. The underlying design and particularly the assumptions are critical. These are subject to human biases. 

Figures don't lie, but liars do figure. It's true. I see it in my business all the time. That doesn't mean there was ill intent, but a wrong assumptions can throw a whole model out of whack.
Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #99 on: August 25, 2012, 06:15:42 PM »

I'm not sure what you meant by "settled", but in Sicily AMH have been around since at least the Upper Paleolithic.

What do you mean by AMH?  Atlantic Modal Haplotype?  Are you talking about R1b-P312 in Sicily?
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 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 0.107 seconds with 19 queries.