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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 25, 2014, 12:17:19 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family  (Read 32826 times)
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #525 on: October 02, 2012, 12:11:33 PM »

If one accepts the Anatolian model "Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family",  Bouckaert et al ...

If one accepts the Anatolian model, one would probably believe the moon is made of green cheese. The commentary on  Bouckaert et al on this thread should be enough to give one pause.

Nor is the Anatolian model at all necessary to Barry Cunliffe's "Celtic from the West" idea. He and Prof. Koch have presented a neutral front on how IE arrived in Iberia. It is irrelevant to their thesis.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2012, 12:20:28 PM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #526 on: October 02, 2012, 12:18:14 PM »

Although, this is somewhat from a technical perspective, I disagree that L23xL51 subclades are not relevant to the trail of L51

OK Mike - not completely irrelevant I agree. 

Quote
There are a lot of L23xL51 Armenians, who have been IE speaking. Doesn't mean they were of a branch of L23xL51 that was PIE speaking though.

I agree. My suspicion is that a group of PIE-speakers wandered into Thrace and merged with existing L23 carriers there. Of course the story could be even more complicated, as human stories tend to be when you get close up to the detail.   
Logged
Mkk
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 95


« Reply #527 on: October 02, 2012, 12:21:27 PM »

Heber,

Quote
The Cunliffe map clearly show that Celtic developed on the Atlantic facade 3000 BC and spread inland at a later date 2000 BC.
It's one hypothesis about how Celtic developed. Don't take it as the gospel truth.
Logged
Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #528 on: October 02, 2012, 01:44:45 PM »


Just one point about Celtic...there is no scenario I can think of where proto-Celtic or Q-Celtic is spread towards the west as late as the 1st millennium BC. Irish L21 just doesn't allow for it no matter which way you look at it.

So you obviously have aDNA from Ireland to back this up?



I guess you haven't noticed, but every single post from every DNA poster up to this point has been based on deductive reasoning and educated speculation. As my two young sons would say...duh!

That is called puedo science...duh!

If you are not using speculation and are basing your posts on fact, then you must have one hell of a story that you are not sharing with us. Let's here it.

excuse me it ids you that are amking unsubstantiated claims,e'g  there is no scenario I can think of where proto-Celtic or Q-Celtic is spread towards the west as late as the 1st millennium BC. Irish L21 just doesn't allow for it no matter which way you look at it so come on why does L21 not allow for it?

The fact that you ave 151 posts under your belt and don't already know that 99.9% of the posts here are speculative and are in fact pseudo-science leads me to believe that you are being a little bit of a troll, but I'll play along...

I am SPECULATING based on all I've seen that all 1st millenium and later cultures (Urnfield, Hallstatt and La Tene) had too little of a genetic impact on Ireland to be the Celtic language catalyst. If you want an entire list of reasons why, you can pull up Cunliff's latest and greatest.

Making an ad hominem atteck just because I pointed out your pseudoscinece is somewhat childish isn't?
Logged

LDJ
Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #529 on: October 02, 2012, 10:22:06 PM »

Heber,

Quote
The Cunliffe map clearly show that Celtic developed on the Atlantic facade 3000 BC and spread inland at a later date 2000 BC.
It's one hypothesis about how Celtic developed. Don't take it as the gospel truth.

Yes it is one hypothesis and it is supported by the the greatest Experts in Celtic Archealogy and Linguists in Europe and by thought leaders in Population Genetics. As I have stated previously Atlantic Celts are my particular area of interest. I do not propose to show how for example U152 of U106 expanded in Europe or got to the Isles as they are not in my specific defining mutations. I am sure at some stage someone will come up with a hybrid Steppes, Anatolia model that will satisfy everyone.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 12:11:28 AM 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



Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #530 on: October 03, 2012, 03:57:36 AM »

Heber,

Quote
The Cunliffe map clearly show that Celtic developed on the Atlantic facade 3000 BC and spread inland at a later date 2000 BC.
It's one hypothesis about how Celtic developed. Don't take it as the gospel truth.

Yes it is one hypothesis and it is supported by the the greatest Experts in Celtic Archealogy and Linguists in Europe

Barry Cunliffe and John Koch put forward this idea as a hypothesis to be tested. They don't claim to be right. They know that the alternative is feasible. Barry Cunliffe is a great scholar. And one of the things that contributes to that status is his willingness to change his mind in the face of new evidence. He happily does that.

He says in Britain Begins that his vision there represents an interpretation of the evidence he had available while writing and that it will be out of date next year. Since he was writing in 2011, it was actually out of date before the Kindle version was released. He was right about that. On the genetic front, he was still relying on Sykes and Oppenheimer. Though he was told by Prof. Mark Jobling last year that Oppenheimer is not taken seriously by geneticists, it was probably too late to completely reshape the book.

The "Celtic from the West" idea generated a lot of useful debate and paved the way for the more complex analysis that I think gets us closer to the truth. Without the big guns making a lot of noise about Celtic in Iberia, new ideas such as I present might not get a hearing. :)   
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 04:04:58 AM by Jean M » Logged
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #531 on: October 03, 2012, 05:57:41 AM »

“Only one uncertain Early Proto-Indo-European loanword has been proposed so far (U *pata '(ceramic) pot'; Kallio 2006: 5–6); all the other Archaic Indo-European loanwords represent the level of Late Proto-Indo-European, and may thus be also later but not earlier”.

You can speak of links between Indo-Iranian languages and Uralic ones, then of their  presence in the Russian plane but not of the Proto-Indo-European, which can be born elsewhere, also in Central or Western Europe.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #532 on: October 03, 2012, 06:58:09 AM »

You can speak of links between Indo-Iranian languages and Uralic ones, then of their  presence in the Russian plane but not of the Proto-Indo-European, which can be born elsewhere, also in Central or Western Europe.

No. Jaska is talking about loans from PIE into Proto-Uralic. There are in addition loans from Proto-Indo-Iranian into Proto-Uralic.
Logged
Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #533 on: October 03, 2012, 07:07:32 AM »

You can speak of links between Indo-Iranian languages and Uralic ones, then of their  presence in the Russian plane but not of the Proto-Indo-European, which can be born elsewhere, also in Central or Western Europe.

No. Jaska is talking about loans from PIE into Proto-Uralic. There are in addition loans from Proto-Indo-Iranian into Proto-Uralic.

Isn't there an influence of Iranian on Celtic?
« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 08:54:12 AM by Bren123 » Logged

LDJ
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #534 on: October 03, 2012, 08:06:29 AM »

@ Bren123

That's right. There are two different things involved. I'm guessing that the shared feature of syncretism of plain-voiced and “voice aspirated” stops came from the Cimmerian contact with Hallstatt. Isaac outlined the linguistic evidence in Celtic from the West (2010), but did not connect it with the Cimmerians. So he was thinking that the contact must have been further east. That does not compute. This feature is not shared with Proto-Indo-Iranian or Proto-Italo-Celtic.

The other oddity is the special word for ‘saddle horse’ in both Celtic and Germanic, not attested in other Indo-European languages. From a root reconstructed as mark-os we get for example the English word 'mare' and Old Irish marc (horse). Similar words appear in Welsh, Breton and Gaulish. This word has parallels in Altaic languages such as Mongolian. So it has been suggested that the word travelled into Central Europe with Scythians, but perhaps it could have been with the Cimmerians, considering the trading contacts all along the steppe.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 08:16:08 AM by Jean M » Logged
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #535 on: October 03, 2012, 12:18:55 PM »

You can speak of links between Indo-Iranian languages and Uralic ones, then of their  presence in the Russian plane but not of the Proto-Indo-European, which can be born elsewhere, also in Central or Western Europe.

No. Jaska is talking about loans from PIE into Proto-Uralic. There are in addition loans from Proto-Indo-Iranian into Proto-Uralic.

Jean, I printed and read the paper of Häkkinen and I remember not having found PIE words in the Uralic languages, but only Indo-Iranian ones, or, more recently, also Germanic or Slav, we did know from previous papers. I’ll search for it and read it again, but I’d be happy that Jaska (is he Häkkinen?) replied to me, so I’ll be able to discuss about some true datum.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #536 on: October 03, 2012, 12:31:34 PM »

No. Jaska is talking about loans from PIE into Proto-Uralic. There are in addition loans from Proto-Indo-Iranian into Proto-Uralic.
I ask you how is it possible that PIE and Proto-Indo Iranian entered the Proto-Uralic at the same time? They are separated from thousands of years and PIE is "centum" and Proto-Indo-Iranian is "satem".
What you are saying is simply absurd. Let that a linguist says it.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Jaska
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #537 on: October 03, 2012, 12:32:46 PM »

Quote from: Heber
Yes it is one hypothesis and it is supported by the the greatest Experts in Celtic Archealogy and Linguists in Europe and by thought leaders in Population Genetics. As I have stated previously Atlantic Celts are my particular area of interest. I do not propose to show how for example U152 of U106 expanded in Europe or got to the Isles as they are not in my specific defining mutations. I am sure at some stage someone will come up with a hybrid Steppes, Anatolia model that will satisfy everyone.
You must remember that you and they are talking about the genetic and cultural roots of Celts – that is a different level than language, and the root of language is often in different direction than the main cultural root.

Quote from: Maliclavelli
You can speak of links between Indo-Iranian languages and Uralic ones, then of their  presence in the Russian plane but not of the Proto-Indo-European, which can be born elsewhere, also in Central or Western Europe.
In theory yes. But Central and Western Europe are excluded as possible homelands because of the vocabulary related to the secondary products, animal traction, wheeled vehicle, metals etc. All these spread there from the steppes after 4000 BC, as argued by Darden:
http://slavic.uchicago.edu/archived/papers/darden-anatolia.pdf

Every Indo-European homeland solution should be able to explain the presence of two archaic but different dialects (Northwest Indo-European and Aryan) in the Middle Volga area at the 3rd millennium BC. The further in time and place we go, the more difficult it becomes. Pontic steppes are the closest possible homeland, and the only one which reflects right the lack of common innovations in Aryan and Northwest Indo-European: only from the Pontic Steppes they would have spread to the different directions, while from Balkan, Anatolia or Central Asia they would have spread to the same direction.

Quote from: Maliclavelli
Jean, I printed and read the paper of Häkkinen and I remember not having found PIE words in the Uralic languages, but only Indo-Iranian ones, or, more recently, also Germanic or Slav, we did know from previous papers. I’ll search for it and read it again, but I’d be happy that Jaska (is he Häkkinen?) replied to me, so I’ll be able to discuss about some true datum.
Yes, I'm the guy.
The Proto-Indo-Europeanness of the earliest loanwords in Uralic is now uncertain. The Early Proto-Aryan *x-layer in Uralic can be dated around the early 3rd millennium BC, so the Archaic Indo-European *x-layer is not necessarily any older than that. But it may still be somewhat older, dating to the late 4th millennium BC, in which case they could be considered Late Proto-Indo-European. But their identity as Proto-Indo-European loanwords is no more as certain as it was during the recent decades.


Logged

Y-DNA: N1c1 Savonian
mtDNA: H5a1e
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #538 on: October 03, 2012, 02:07:50 PM »

You must remember that you and they are talking about the genetic and cultural roots of Celts – that is a different level than language, and the root of language is often in different direction than the main cultural root.

I cannot speak for Heber, but profs. Cunliffe and Koch define the Celts as persons speaking Celtic. They are indeed arguing for the homeland of the Proto-Celtic language in Iberia. See Celtic from the West: Alternative Perspectives from Archaeology, Genetics, Language and Literature (2010)

Quote
This book is an exploration of the new idea that the Celtic languages originated in the Atlantic Zone during the Bronze Age, approached from various perspectives pro and con, archaeology, genetics, and philology. This Celtic Atlantic Bronze Age theory represents a major departure from the long-established, but increasingly problematical scenario in which the story of the Ancient Celtic languages and that of peoples called Keltoí Celts are closely bound up with the archaeology of the Hallstatt and La Tène cultures of Iron Age west-central Europe. The Celtic from the West proposal was first presented in Barry Cunliffe's Facing the Ocean (2001) and has subsequently found resonance amongst geneticists. It provoked controversy on the part of some linguists, though is significantly in accord with John Koch's findings in Tartessian (2009). The present collection is intended to pursue the question further in order to determine whether this earlier and more westerly starting point might now be developed as a more robust foundation for Celtic studies. As well as having this specific aim, a more general purpose of Celtic from the West is to bring to an English-language readership some of the rapidly unfolding and too often neglected evidence of the pre-Roman peoples and languages of the western Iberian Peninsula. Celtic from the West is an outgrowth of a multidisciplinary conference held at the National Library of Wales in Aberystwyth in December 2008. As well as the 11 chapters, the book includes 45 distribution maps and a further 80 illustrations. The conference and collaborative volume mark the launch of a multi-year research initiative undertaken by the University of Wales Centre for Advanced Welsh and Celtic Studies [CAWCS]: Ancient Britain and the Atlantic Zone [ABrAZo].

I do not think they are right. But the debate has thrown up some interesting material.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 02:11:26 PM by Jean M » Logged
Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #539 on: October 03, 2012, 02:42:06 PM »

Quote from: Heber
Yes it is one hypothesis and it is supported by the the greatest Experts in Celtic Archealogy and Linguists in Europe and by thought leaders in Population Genetics. As I have stated previously Atlantic Celts are my particular area of interest. I do not propose to show how for example U152 of U106 expanded in Europe or got to the Isles as they are not in my specific defining mutations. I am sure at some stage someone will come up with a hybrid Steppes, Anatolia model that will satisfy everyone.
You must remember that you and they are talking about the genetic and cultural roots of Celts – that is a different level than language, and the root of language is often in different direction than the main cultural root.

Half of the conference! "Celtic from the West", and subsequent book were taken up by the origin of the Celtic Language in the West, i.e. Iberia. Many of these points are reinforced and updated in Cunfiffe's latest book "Britain Begins". I understand he will update his paper shortly in a lecture "Celtic in the West".

Here is my model of the migration of Celtic people and the Celtic language.

http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763708372/

Here are a few examples of the Atlantic Facade network.

http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763837986/
http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763837988/
http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763850315/
http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763837998/
http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763179592/
http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763837994/
http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763850284/
http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763850296/
http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763850936/
http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763850430/
http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763838007/
http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763838001/

Here are my notes from the book, "Celtic from the West".

"Celtization from the West, the contribution of architecture. Barry Cunliffe.
Fig 1.1 Relative density of ancient ‘Celtic looking’ place names. Hot spots on the atlantic Façade.
Fig 1.2 Distribution of mature La Tene culture. Includes the Isles and France, Germany, Switzerland.
Fig 1.3 Greek knowledge of the Celts in the age of Hecataeus and Herodotus. Largely confined to the Mediterranean and Black Sea.
Fig 1.4 A cognitive geography of the Atlantic Zone as it might have been viewed by an Atlantic mariner.
Fig 1.5 Enclave colonization. Europe in the period c 5500 - 4100 showing the two principal routes by which the Neolithic way of life spread through Europe from the southern Balkens, the overland spread via the Danube and North European Plain and the Meditterranean route by sea ultimately to the Atlantic coast of Iberia.
Fig 1.6 The distribution of megalithic tombs shows them to be essentially an Atlantic phenomenon. The earlist tombs  - passage graves dating c 4,500 - 3,500 BC - have a maritime distribution, suggesting that the beliefs and the technologies behind the construction was along the Atlantic seaways.
Fig 1.7 The distribution of jadeite axes from their source in the Western Alps across Europe. The distribution vividly displays the exchange networks then in operation.
Fig 1.8 The distribution of Maritime Bell Beaker in Atlantic Europe during the 3rd Millenium, the crucial nodes in this network were the Tagus estuary and the Morbihan, while major hinterland routes followed the navigable rivers. The map indicates the initial movements were maritime. Trade routes with Ireland and Southern Britain for copper and tin.
Fig 1.9 The extent of the Bell Beaker complex 2700-2200 BC. Major corridors of communication by sea and river. Meditteranean, Atlantic, Danube, Rhine,
Fig 1.10 The interaction of the Corded Ware and Bell Beaker Complexes c2500 BC. North European Plain.
The Celts from everywhere and nowhere. Raiumund Karl.
Different origins of Celtic cultural features with Linguistic Celtic origin along the Atlantic Façade, Archealogical ‘La Tene’ origin in central Europe and Historic ‘Druidic’ origin in the Isles.

Newly discovered inscriptions from the south-west of the Iberian peninsula. Tartessian. Amilcar Guerra.
An analysis of about 50 newly discovered stela fromTartessian. Several photographs and sketches.
Part 2: Genetics.
Western Celts? A genetic impression of Britain in Atlantic Europe. Ellen C. Royrvik.
Analysis of MC1R ‘red hair’ frequencies.
Map of Genetic variation in Europe.
Fig. 4.6 shows a Gaulish expansion leading to Iberia, Western France and the Isles.
Fig 4.7 shows a rough Highland and Lowland divide of the Isles with the south east more La Tene Gaulish and the West including Ireland representing a more pan Celtic profile.
Irish Genetics and the Celts. Brian McEvoy and Daniel Bradley.
Fig 5.1 Genetic contour map of Europe showing contours from Anatolia (SE) to the Isles (NW).
Fig 5.2 Genetic map of the Isles calculated from 300,000 SNPs spread across the autosomal genomeshowing Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England.
Fig 5.3 Contour map showing the geographic frequency distribution of the Irish Modal Haplogroup (IMH) and closely related Y-chromosones showing the NW Ireland hot spots.
Fig 5.4 Illustrative Genealogy of the Ui Neill dynasty (and derived surnames) from the 5th C to the present day.  Future testing will provide further insights as well as generating fresh debate on the Irish past.
A reanalysis of multiple prehistoric immigrations to Britain and Ireland aimed at identifying the Celtic contributions. Stephen Oppenheimer.
Fig 6.1 Map of Europe with frequency of ancient place names which were Celtic with hotspots in NW France, Iberia and the Isles.
Fig 6.2 Frequency distribution of genetic Haplogroup R1b. The densest gene flow follows the Atlantic façade, thus favouring Ireland which was then part of the continent.
Fig 6.3 Frequency distribution of genetic haplogroups Irb2 (M26) and Irb* (P37.2). The hotspots and possible homeland of Irb in the Balkens with Irb2 further to the West.
Fig 6.4 Frequency distribution of genetic haplogroup J2 (M12) in Europe showing expansion from the Balkens and hot spots in SE and NW Iberia. (Cruciani)
Fig 6.5 Frequency distribution of gnetic haplogroup E3b1a2 in Europe with expansion from the Balkens. Cruciani.
Fig 6.6 Principal Componants Ananysis of Y Chromosones in Western Europe using R1b and R1a1 and I1b2 and I1a showing a gradiant from Ireland via the Isles, Continent to Scandanavia.
Part 3 Language and Lituraturerigins of the Celtic Languages. G.R. Isaac.
An analysis of the Indo European languages.
Tracking the course of the savage tounge. David N. Parsons.
Fig 8.1 British River names.
Fig 8.2-8.5 Various maps of ancient Europe showing occurance of ‘~briga’, ‘~duno’, ‘~duro’,’~mag’ names.
Paradigm Shift? Interpreting Tartessian as Celtic. John T. Koch.
Fig 9.1 The Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the south-western Iberian Peninsula: ‘warrior’ stelae, Phoenician colonies, and Tartessian inscriptions. Shows Keltoi Tartessos region.
Fig 9.1 Celtic Expansion from Halstatt/La Tele central Europe.
Fig 9.3 The Ancient Celtic Languages. Shows Halstatt, Early La Tene, Urnfiels and Atlantic Bronze Age with sharp division of Goidelic, Brittonic and

Tartessian Inscriptions: There follows over 70 detailed photographs and transcriptions of stelae many of them with depictions of warriors and their their epitaphs.
“Where the evidence of Tartessos and Tartessian changes the picture is in showing that one of the most dynamic regions influencing Ireland and Britain during the period c 1300 – c900 BC was probably itself Celtic speaking and also in contact with and receiving influences from non Indo European partners in the eastern Meditteranean and north Africa.
Tartessian Linguistic Elements: A detailed alphabet and index of names and analysis of the grammar follows.

Ancient References to Tartessos. A very interesting compendium of classical references to Tartessos from Greeks, Romans, Assyrians and Hebrews, ranging from Aristotal,Cicero, Hecataeus, Herodotus, Livy, Ovid, Pliny the Elder, Seneca, Strabo, Theopompus and biblical references from Genesis, Kings, Chronicles, Psalm, Jeremiah, Jonah."
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 02:56:30 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



Jaska
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #540 on: October 03, 2012, 03:22:56 PM »

Quote from: Jean M
I cannot speak for Heber, but profs. Cunliffe and Koch define the Celts as persons speaking Celtic. They are indeed arguing for the homeland of the Proto-Celtic language in Iberia. See Celtic from the West: Alternative Perspectives from Archaeology, Genetics, Language and Literature (2010)

Koch is a linguist, but he also derives evidence from other disciplines. There is a serious risk of playing the "continuity card", which has been shown to be so common and yet so invalid method. Scholars tend to follow archaeological continuity locally, pleading that this continuity could prove the linguistic continuity. Still such a method leads to contradicting results, because continuity can be followed everywhere, and still the Indo-European language cannot have been spoken everywhere always. The wider the distribution of a language family, the stronger the archaeological continuity corresponds with the linguistic discontinuity.
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Uralic.html
Logged

Y-DNA: N1c1 Savonian
mtDNA: H5a1e
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #541 on: October 03, 2012, 03:31:35 PM »

Do you have similar black line for pre-Germanic speakers?

Not exactly. I mention David Anthony's theory that the pre-Germanic speakers moved north up the Dniester from Usatovo. Usatovo is on one of his illustrations that I reuse. (Yamnaya migrations 3100-2600 BC, mapped by David Anthony.)

Yes, I see the Dniester starts up on the east side of the Carpathians, very near the border with Poland. The Globular Amphora culture might just be an extension for a movement of people SE to NW along this line.

It appears to be a coincidence of data that Myres shows U106 with highest diversity in Poland and the Baltic states.

My related question is from what direction did U106 come into Germany or did it start there as far as major expansions go?

I don't trust limited STRs nor handfuls of haplotypes so I looked again for long haplotypes in all of the continental and Scandinavian projects. This time also looked for R1b1a2 predicted 492=13 (not 14 and not 12, just 13) since 96% of all U106 are 492=13 and it is very rare in P312.  I did this to solely to beef up the number of haplotypes.

Using Germany as the base here is what I get for 36 STRs (out of 67) that Marko Heinilla feels have linear duration of at least 7,000 years and are non-multicopy, non-null markers. Essentially, these are the slower mutators.

Germany _____________ 1.00 __ n=131
North(Fenno-Scand) __ 1.01 __ n=107
Low Countries(Benel)_ 1.03 __ n=69
England _____________ 0.96 __ n=404
East(Poland et al) __ 1.15 __ n=81
South(Switz et al) __ 0.94 __ n=32


Many of the haplotypes to the east are from Poland MDKAs but there Czech Rep, Slovakia, Lithuania, Belarus, Russia, Hungary are also included.

I don't think this is a bad set of data. I wouldn't make too much of a percent or two difference, but I think the 15% greater variance to the east is still noteworthy.

I keep looking for greater variance to the south in Switzerland, Austria and Italy but I just can't find it.

As I've said, before, I'm still perplexed that to the north in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norway I can't find greater variance than Germany. This is what makes me question either than U106 was not pre-Germanic IE speaking (may have some other IE lineage though) or the primary pre-Germanic lineages came from the east, not from Scandinavia.

I recognize it is accepted that Jastorf formed when Nordic cultures moved south into northern Germany and merged with cultures in the area. How do we know the pre-Germanic IE came from the Nordic cultures?
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 03:43:41 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #542 on: October 03, 2012, 03:53:46 PM »

Do you have similar black line for pre-Germanic speakers?

Not exactly. I mention David Anthony's theory that the pre-Germanic speakers moved north up the Dniester from Usatovo. Usatovo is on one of his illustrations that I reuse. (Yamnaya migrations 3100-2600 BC, mapped by David Anthony.)

Yes, I see the Dniester starts up on the east side of the Carpathians, very near the border with Poland. The Globular Amphora culture might just be an extension for a movement of people SE to NW along this line.

It appears to be a coincidence of data that Myres shows U106 with highest diversity in Poland and the Baltic states.

My related question is from what direction did U106 come into Germany or did it start there as far as major expansions go?

I don't trust limited STRs nor handfuls of haplotypes so I looked again for long haplotypes in all of the continental and Scandinavian projects. This time also looked for R1b1a2 predicted 492=13 (not 14 and not 12, just 13) since 96% of all U106 are 492=13 and it is very rare in P312.  I did this to solely to beef up the number of haplotypes.

Using Germany as the base here is what I get for 36 STRs (out of 67) that Marko Heinilla feels have linear duration of at least 7,000 years and are non-multicopy, non-null markers. Essentially, these are the slower mutators.

Germany _____________ 1.00 __ n=131
North(Fenno-Scand) __ 1.01 __ n=107
Low Countries(Benel)_ 1.03 __ n=69
England _____________ 0.96 __ n=404
East(Poland et al) __ 1.15 __ n=81
South(Switz et al) __ 0.94 __ n=32


Many of the haplotypes to the east are from Poland MDKAs but there Czech Rep, Slovakia, Lithuania, Belarus, Russia, Hungary are also included.

I don't think this is a bad set of data. I wouldn't make too much of a percent or two difference, but I think the 15% greater variance to the east is still noteworthy.

I keep looking for greater variance to the south in Switzerland, Austria and Italy but I just can't find it.

As I've said, before, I'm still perplexed that to the north in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norway I can't find greater variance than Germany. This is what makes me question either than U106 was not pre-Germanic IE speaking (may have some other IE lineage though) or the primary pre-Germanic lineages came from the east, not from Scandinavia.

In fairness to the argument, comparing a country-by-country variance versus  "everything to the east" variance is probably not a fair assessment. What does everything west of the Rhine look like versus everything to the east? How about the Elbe?

The other thing to keep in mind is subclades. As we've seen in the Italy project, U106 is overwhelmingly L48- whereas in other countries L48 is the dominant subclade. This means that at least one major migration into Italy never happened and therefore we would expect the variance to be less. Without knowing these types of breakdowns, it's like taking a variance reading of P312 without regard for L21, U152, and DF27.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 03:54:22 PM by Richard Rocca » Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #543 on: October 03, 2012, 04:02:08 PM »

Do you have similar black line for pre-Germanic speakers?

Not exactly. I mention David Anthony's theory that the pre-Germanic speakers moved north up the Dniester from Usatovo. Usatovo is on one of his illustrations that I reuse. (Yamnaya migrations 3100-2600 BC, mapped by David Anthony.)

Yes, I see the Dniester starts up on the east side of the Carpathians, very near the border with Poland. The Globular Amphora culture might just be an extension for a movement of people SE to NW along this line.

It appears to be a coincidence of data that Myres shows U106 with highest diversity in Poland and the Baltic states.

My related question is from what direction did U106 come into Germany or did it start there as far as major expansions go?

I don't trust limited STRs nor handfuls of haplotypes so I looked again for long haplotypes in all of the continental and Scandinavian projects. This time also looked for R1b1a2 predicted 492=13 (not 14 and not 12, just 13) since 96% of all U106 are 492=13 and it is very rare in P312.  I did this to solely to beef up the number of haplotypes.

Using Germany as the base here is what I get for 36 STRs (out of 67) that Marko Heinilla feels have linear duration of at least 7,000 years and are non-multicopy, non-null markers. Essentially, these are the slower mutators.

Germany _____________ 1.00 __ n=131
North(Fenno-Scand) __ 1.01 __ n=107
Low Countries(Benel)_ 1.03 __ n=69
England _____________ 0.96 __ n=404
East(Poland et al) __ 1.15 __ n=81
South(Switz et al) __ 0.94 __ n=32


Many of the haplotypes to the east are from Poland MDKAs but there Czech Rep, Slovakia, Lithuania, Belarus, Russia, Hungary are also included.

I don't think this is a bad set of data. I wouldn't make too much of a percent or two difference, but I think the 15% greater variance to the east is still noteworthy.

I keep looking for greater variance to the south in Switzerland, Austria and Italy but I just can't find it.

As I've said, before, I'm still perplexed that to the north in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norway I can't find greater variance than Germany. This is what makes me question either than U106 was not pre-Germanic IE speaking (may have some other IE lineage though) or the primary pre-Germanic lineages came from the east, not from Scandinavia.

I recognize it is accepted that Jastorf formed when Nordic cultures moved south into northern Germany and merged with cultures in the area. How do we know the pre-Germanic IE came from the Nordic cultures?

Mike- I am pretty sure the idea that Germanic spread from Scandinavia is no longer that popular anyway.  So there is no need to be perplexed.  

As for the new variance calculations they certainly shorten the gap between the east and west and that would have implications forr interpretation.  One question I have is this though - how big an effect could a few P312 people (presumably more likely in the west and north than  the east) being included have?  Would they significantly affect the calculations?  
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 04:04:19 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #544 on: October 03, 2012, 04:11:36 PM »

@ Jaska

I am not arguing that Koch is right. I am simply trying to get across what his argument is. It is linguistic. Koch is putting forward the case that Tartessian is Celtic. Tartessos thrived from the 8th century BC, so that would mean a Celtic language in Iberia prior to the La Tène movements.

That by itself might simply suggest that the Celts arrived in Iberia a few centuries before La Tène, but Celtiberian is the most archaic form of Celtic. Not only that, but there is linguistic evidence of an even earlier language, closer to Proto-Italo-Celtic. Put that together with the fact that Celtic most likely spread with Bell Beaker and the earliest dates for Bell Beaker come from Portugal, and you can see the thinking. [My own thinking is more complex. I will send you something on it.]

There is no suggestion by Koch (or myself) that PIE was spoken over the whole of Europe, except in the sense that groups splitting from PIE would of course be speaking something very close to PIE at the time they left the homeland and it would take time for dialects to develop into separate languages.  
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 04:46:24 PM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #545 on: October 03, 2012, 04:18:49 PM »

I recognize it is accepted that Jastorf formed when Nordic cultures moved south into northern Germany and merged with cultures in the area. How do we know the pre-Germanic IE came from the Nordic cultures?

Jaska has been giving the answer to that in terms of language contact. What may be a problem for you is that the reason people moved south, creating Jastorf, is that climate change made farming next door to impossible in Scandinavia. The population crash in this period is such that Scandinavian archaeologists have trouble finding any evidence of human activity other than hunter-gatherer. If people had left they would take their haplogroups with them. The precious evidence of diversity you seek would all be sitting in Jastorf. Then some groups moved north again into Scandinavia when the climate warmed again. Some. Not all.    

The big problem with using diversity to trace origins is that people move about. They don't just sit in one spot having babies generation  after generation for thousands of years to make life easy for the likes of us.  :)
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 04:22:18 PM by Jean M » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #546 on: October 03, 2012, 04:52:10 PM »

I recognize it is accepted that Jastorf formed when Nordic cultures moved south into northern Germany and merged with cultures in the area. How do we know the pre-Germanic IE came from the Nordic cultures?

Jaska has been giving the answer to that in terms of language contact. What may be a problem for you is that the reason people moved south, creating Jastorf, is that climate change made farming next door to impossible in Scandinavia. The population crash in this period is such that Scandinavian archaeologists have trouble finding any evidence of human activity other than hunter-gatherer. If people had left they would take their haplogroups with them. The precious evidence of diversity you seek would all be sitting in Jastorf. Then some groups moved north again into Scandinavia when the climate warmed again. Some. Not all.    ...

This would not have been an ordinary population crash but devastation, in order to have not left some diversity behind.  Was it that bad?  I'll accept that. I just ask the question.

A good checkpoint against that would be I1 and R1a1 diversity in Scandinavia. It should have disappeared to then. I'll see if Ken Nordtvedt has something on that... or you may already know.

Would it make sense that U106 traveled along a path per David Anthony's pre-Germanic lineage? and got to Scandinavia in time to establish as integral to the culture before the climatic devastation occurred?

The big problem with using diversity to trace origins is that people move about. They don't just sit in one spot having babies generation  after generation for thousands of years to make life easy for the likes of us.  :)

I can see the population devastation in Scandinavia moving people into Germany literally breaking the diversity back in Scandinavia, but that doesn't explain lower diversity in Germany than points to the east.

Also, if U106 didn't get to England until the Anglo-Saxon era (BTW I don't think that is a hard core given) then shouldn't Scandinavia still have higher diversity than England? There is a 1000 years or more from Jastorf to the Anglo-Saxon Era.  

Maybe this is all just evidence that U106 did leak into the Isles with greater frequency than we thought pre-Anglo-Saxon, although its a bit odd that U106 could cross west into England but couldn't cross west/sw beyond Calais. That would mean the Celts and Romans in N.France had better defenses than over in England (again, all pre-Anglo-Saxon).  ... or maybe the Romans did import significant Germans to England but not to Gaul.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 05:03:48 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #547 on: October 03, 2012, 05:02:58 PM »

@ Mikewww

There is a lot of evidence of farming disappearing in Scandinavia and people turning up in Jastorf bringing the Nordic Bronze Age culture with them. It's about as clear a case of mass migration as we could have without TV cameras rolling to record the scene.

According to Ken, I1 diversity centres on somewhere in Jutland. Underhill 2007 put it in Denmark. Last I heard I think Ken had it just over the border into northern Germany. (Though it would not surprise me to learn that some I1 stayed in the north with hunter-gatherers.)

The story of Germanic is linguistically complex. It does not behave like it is a simple story of a move along a path from X to Y. It reveals such a surprising mixture of linguistic contacts that it does not easily fit onto the IE tree.

So we should not be too surprised if the genetic and archaeological picture is also not at all straightforward. I think the idea of people moving up the Dniester to Corded Ware is OK as far as it goes. But Corded Ware is a big area to which other routes from the steppe contributed. From Corded Ware we can picture some people from different parts of CW deciding to move north into Jutland and Finland and meeting in Fenno-Scandia. Then some of this mixture retreats south into Jastorf. Then some of them move back into Scandinavia. See what I mean? The Germani were a mixture. U106 was just one of the haplogroups they carried.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 05:19:01 PM by Jean M » Logged
Jaska
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #548 on: October 03, 2012, 05:17:23 PM »

Quote from: Mikewww
As I've said, before, I'm still perplexed that to the north in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norway I can't find greater variance than Germany. This is what makes me question either than U106 was not pre-Germanic IE speaking (may have some other IE lineage though) or the primary pre-Germanic lineages came from the east, not from Scandinavia.

I recognize it is accepted that Jastorf formed when Nordic cultures moved south into northern Germany and merged with cultures in the area. How do we know the pre-Germanic IE came from the Nordic cultures?

Here it is again important to distinguish between language and genes. The continuous contacts between Finnic, Saami and Germanic require the early presence of Germanic in Scandinavia. At the genetic level it is enough if we see some lineage coming from Scandinavia at the right time. There must be many lineages in Germany which have deeper diversity than that recent newcomer lineage from Scandinavia.

Quote from: Alan trowel hands
Mike- I am pretty sure the idea that Germanic spread from Scandinavia is no longer that popular anyway.  So there is no need to be perplexed.

Now it only starts to be popular, when the recent results of the loanword studies between Finnic, Saami and Germanic spread to the knowledge of international linguistic community:
http://books.google.fi/books?id=RqkBXIJkkuEC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fi#v=onepage&q&f=false
Chapter 67: Koivulehto

Quote from: Jean M
I am not arguing that Koch is right. I am simply trying to get across what his argument is. It is linguistic. Koch is putting forward the case that Tartessian is Celtic. Tartessos thrived from the 8th century BC, so that would mean a Celtic language in Iberia prior to the La Tène movements.

That by itself might simply suggest that the Celts arrived in Iberia a few centuries before La Tène, but Celtiberian is the most archaic form of Celtic. Not only that, but there is linguistic evidence of an even earlier language, closer to Proto-Italo-Celtic. Put that together with the fact that Celtic most likely spread with Bell Beaker and the earliest dates for Bell Beaker come from Portugal, and you can see the thinking. [My own thinking is more complex. I will send you something on it.]

I wait for your book with great interest – it is good that new views and arguments are presented. :)

Still, the linguistic evidence only shows that there was some early Italo-Celtic dialect in the Southwestern Europe – it can well be a result of subsequent expansions from Central Europe. It is common to claim that "there is no other equally strong archaeologically visible wave" (than, e.g. Bell Beaker Culture), but there are cases when linguistic evidence disagrees, and when the language is the topic, the linguistic evidence overrules the archaeological claims.

The Celtic-Germanic contacts are in the key role here. If there are old Germanic loanwords in Celtic (including Celtiberian and Tartessian), it means that the Celtic innovation center was in Central Europe; but if there are only Celtic loanwords in Germanic, then we cannot exclude the possibility that the Celtic homeland was in Southwestern Europe.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 05:20:16 PM by Jaska » Logged

Y-DNA: N1c1 Savonian
mtDNA: H5a1e
IALEM
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #549 on: October 03, 2012, 05:18:31 PM »

@ Jaska

I am not arguing that Koch is right. I am simply trying to get across what his argument is. It is linguistic. Koch is putting forward the case that Tartessian is Celtic. Tartessos thrived from the 8th century BC, so that would mean a Celtic language in Iberia prior to the La Tène movements.

That by itself might simply suggest that the Celts arrived in Iberia a few centuries before La Tène, but Celtiberian is the most archaic form of Celtic. Not only that, but there is linguistic evidence of an even earlier language, closer to Proto-Italo-Celtic. Put that together with the fact that Celtic most likely spread with Bell Beaker and the earliest dates for Bell Beaker come from Portugal, and you can see the thinking. [My own thinking is more complex. I will send you something on it.]

There is no suggestion by Koch (or myself) that PIE was spoken over the whole of Europe, except in the sense that groups splitting from PIE would of course be speaking something very close to PIE at the time they left the homeland and it would take time for dialects to develop into separate languages.  
The argument by Koch is not that Celtic was earlier than La Tène in Iberia, we already knew that because there are Celtic anthroponims in the Tartessian inscriptions dating at least from the 7th century BC. It is that since Tartessian (according to him) is Celtic then the Tartessian cultural sequence, dating back to the 13th BC is also Celtic.
Logged

Y-DNA L21+


MDKA Lope de Arriçabalaga, born c. 1390 in Azcoitia, Basque Country

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 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 0.118 seconds with 18 queries.