World Families Forums - Wow! R-L21+'s twelve founders (sons) - Anatole's view

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 23, 2014, 08:52:07 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)
| | |-+  Wow! R-L21+'s twelve founders (sons) - Anatole's view
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Wow! R-L21+'s twelve founders (sons) - Anatole's view  (Read 5927 times)
vineviz
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 191


« Reply #25 on: October 19, 2009, 07:11:06 PM »

Have you an opinion on where P310 and P312 happened.

I don't have a theory that I'd offer publicly in this environment.

VV
Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #26 on: October 19, 2009, 09:09:41 PM »

I doubt if you can find a more sympathetic environment than this forum. Most of the usual crackpots don't post on this forum.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2009, 09:10:15 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
vineviz
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 191


« Reply #27 on: October 19, 2009, 11:40:03 PM »

I doubt if you can find a more sympathetic environment than this forum. Most of the usual crackpots don't post on this forum.

It only takes one.

But in honesty, I worded my earlier comment more harshly than I intended to.  I should have emphasized the "no comment", and emphasized that I hold most members of this forum in high regard.

VV
« Last Edit: October 19, 2009, 11:40:29 PM by vineviz » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #28 on: October 20, 2009, 07:03:38 AM »

I doubt if you can find a more sympathetic environment than this forum. Most of the usual crackpots don't post on this forum.

It only takes one.

But in honesty, I worded my earlier comment more harshly than I intended to.  I should have emphasized the "no comment", and emphasized that I hold most members of this forum in high regard.

VV

I'd say we all hold you in high regard, too, which is why I immediately thought of consulting you on this subject.

I know I would really like to hear your opinion.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #29 on: October 20, 2009, 09:06:04 AM »

I doubt if you can find a more sympathetic environment than this forum. Most of the usual crackpots don't post on this forum.
It only takes one.
But in honesty, I worded my earlier comment more harshly than I intended to.  I should have emphasized the "no comment", and emphasized that I hold most members of this forum in high regard.  ...
I'd say we all hold you in high regard, too, which is why I immediately thought of consulting you on this subject.  ...
This is true.  I don't know anyone who isn't slightly unusual who doesn't hold VV in the highest regard.  Even a speculation from VV will change my thinking.  Who else can you trust with understanding of R-M269 like this?   I love to quote him, but I promise not to on this topic since it is "off the record". 
« Last Edit: October 20, 2009, 09:08:01 AM by Mike » Logged

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

Posts: 400


« Reply #30 on: October 20, 2009, 11:26:22 PM »

I doubt if you can find a more sympathetic environment than this forum. Most of the usual crackpots don't post on this forum.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to identify the "usual crackpots" and specify what they have posted that would warrant being called that. Specific instances, please.

Please also give us your opinion as to why these "usual crackpots" don't post on this forum.

Thank you, Miles Kehoe
Logged

Y-DNA: R1b DF23
mtDNA: T2g
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #31 on: October 21, 2009, 12:25:32 AM »

Relax, Miles. No one is referring to you.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



vtilroe
Project Coordinator
Old Hand
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 150


« Reply #32 on: October 21, 2009, 12:49:03 AM »

Since no one holds my opinion in high regard,  I'd speculate that L51 > P310 developed somewhere between the Black Sea and lower Danube.  I don't have an opinion if it was to the north towards the Crimean or to the south towards the Balkans.  (Need more east/central-European data!)

I do think that both U106 and P312 popped into existence somewhere along the Danube corridor, and both U152 and L21 somewhere near the Rhine and Danube headwaters.  If Vince V's TMRCA estimates are still valid (800-1000 years between M269 & L21/U152).

Vince Tilroe (quasi-crackpot)
Logged

YSearch & MitoSearch: 2GXWW


yDNA: R-U106*


mtDNA: U5a1a1 (Genbank# GQ368895)


R-P312-WTY Project Admin http://tinyurl.com/daertg

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #33 on: October 21, 2009, 09:21:46 AM »

It is possible there was a two-pronged entry, however, with some R1b1b2 coming via the Mediterranean and Iberia and the rest coming in SE to NW via the Balkans and Eastern Europe, probably mostly up the Danube Valley.

That is my thinking. I argue that the Mediterranean route was marked by anthropomorphic stelae of the type that first appeared in the Crimea and adjacent parts of the steppe. I include a proposed map of that route in the most recent version of Peopling of Europe - see Beaker Folk to Celts and Italics.

Speculation at this stage on the "origins" of R1b seems like trying to run before we can walk. We are likely to get there eventually by working backwards, once conclusions on the routes into Europe have been firmed up (or blown apart!) by ancient DNA.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2009, 09:22:49 AM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #34 on: October 21, 2009, 02:13:04 PM »

Ancient DNA is a big hope.  If y-DNA can be extracted from Corded Ware culture burials as it recently was, then there should be no problem getting it from Beaker burials which were similar and partly overlapped with Corded Ware in both date and distribution.  Much of the Beaker world inhumed rather than cremated (Ireland however being one of the exceptions) and there is a great series of Beaker period single burials and similar burials from the succeeding post-beaker Early Bronze Age (Ireland does have plenty of the latter) over much of western Europe.  That is a large  collection of bones.  I would say that at least one new inhumation burial of these periods must turn up every year in the isles. That gives the possibility of excavating being carried out in a fashion to avoid contamination with modern DNA.  That I understand is the problem with the 100s of skeletons in museums around the world - generations of man handling.  So its likely that DNA will especially focus on new discoveries rather than bones in museum collections.   
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #35 on: October 21, 2009, 02:13:31 PM »

Since no one holds my opinion in high regard,  I'd speculate that L51 > P310 developed somewhere between the Black Sea and lower Danube.  I don't have an opinion if it was to the north towards the Crimean or to the south towards the Balkans.  (Need more east/central-European data!)

I do think that both U106 and P312 popped into existence somewhere along the Danube corridor, and both U152 and L21 somewhere near the Rhine and Danube headwaters.  If Vince V's TMRCA estimates are still valid (800-1000 years between M269 & L21/U152).

Vince Tilroe (quasi-crackpot)

That makes sense to me - the part about the clades, not about you being a quasi-crackpot! ;-)
Logged

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #36 on: October 21, 2009, 03:03:45 PM »

Ancient DNA is a big hope.  If y-DNA can be extracted from Corded Ware culture burials as it recently was, then there should be no problem getting it from Beaker burials which were similar and partly overlapped with Corded Ware in both date and distribution.

Work is already going on. I have listed (and linked to) current academic projects likely to shed light on aspects of prehistoric migration on my page: Migration: Principles, problems and projects (scroll down). I feel sure that I have not picked up every current project involving DNA and/or isotope studies in Europe, let alone the wider territory that relates to it, but there are quite a few on there.  

Kinship and Residence Patterns in the Late Copper Age in Southern Germany was written up in April 08, according to the project log, so we should see a publication or two out of that. They have looked at a number of Bell Beaker cemeteries.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2009, 03:04:00 PM by Jean M » Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #37 on: October 21, 2009, 08:20:55 PM »

Since no one holds my opinion in high regard,  I'd speculate that L51 > P310 developed somewhere between the Black Sea and lower Danube.  I don't have an opinion if it was to the north towards the Crimean or to the south towards the Balkans.  (Need more east/central-European data!)

I do think that both U106 and P312 popped into existence somewhere along the Danube corridor, and both U152 and L21 somewhere near the Rhine and Danube headwaters.  If Vince V's TMRCA estimates are still valid (800-1000 years between M269 & L21/U152).

Vince Tilroe (quasi-crackpot)
For a quasi-crackpot, you make a great deal of sense. I can't find much to disagree with in your scenario, though I do think it is at least possible that both P312 and U106 came into existence before the migration up the Danube began.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #38 on: October 24, 2009, 07:07:50 PM »

Looking at the MRCA spreadsheet it does strike me how that if taken at face value that would indicate a shared single ancester in the Iron Age across most L21 (admittedly its nearly all isles names).  That is regardless if the name/line is of Irish, Welsh, Norman, Norse, German, French or indeed any European origin.   I think this is very unlikely. 

It is true that most of the L21 area was touched by the La Tene Celtic material culture and that is the only widespread enough culture that covers in some form most of the L21 world.  Indeed, if the MRCA dates for L21 in the spreadsheet are correct then its the only candidate and the smoking gun is clear.  The MRCA dates provide the lower limit for much of L21s phase of spreading while the Roman empire provides an upper date for the unchallenged hegemony of L21 lineages in most of Europe.  That is a narrow window with only one possible candidate culture but it is fair to say that no archaeologists have remotely seen that as a population defining period for generations now as the remains just do not present the sort of sudden change and foreign input that you would expect from a population defining event. 

In the last rootsweb debate on variance dating between Ken Knordvedt  and Tim Jansen it became very clear that there is no agreement over selection of fast and slow markers and what choices you make could make a huge difference.  Seemed that L21 dating could vary from 3000 years to 6000 years or more  depending on what markers were selected.  Unfortunately, that debate dried up just when it was getting interesting.  I am not at all mathematical but the variables these calculations are based on are far from agreed and watching the debate seemed to suggest that they could be potentially too young. 
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #39 on: October 25, 2009, 09:08:02 AM »

Looking at the MRCA spreadsheet it does strike me how that if taken at face value that would indicate a shared single ancester in the Iron Age across most L21 (admittedly its nearly all isles names).  That is regardless if the name/line is of Irish, Welsh, Norman, Norse, German, French or indeed any European origin.   I think this is very unlikely. 

It is true that most of the L21 area was touched by the La Tene Celtic material culture and that is the only widespread enough culture that covers in some form most of the L21 world.  Indeed, if the MRCA dates for L21 in the spreadsheet are correct then its the only candidate and the smoking gun is clear.  The MRCA dates provide the lower limit for much of L21s phase of spreading while the Roman empire provides an upper date for the unchallenged hegemony of L21 lineages in most of Europe.  That is a narrow window with only one possible candidate culture but it is fair to say that no archaeologists have remotely seen that as a population defining period for generations now as the remains just do not present the sort of sudden change and foreign input that you would expect from a population defining event. 

In the last rootsweb debate on variance dating between Ken Knordvedt  and Tim Jansen it became very clear that there is no agreement over selection of fast and slow markers and what choices you make could make a huge difference.  Seemed that L21 dating could vary from 3000 years to 6000 years or more  depending on what markers were selected.  Unfortunately, that debate dried up just when it was getting interesting.  I am not at all mathematical but the variables these calculations are based on are far from agreed and watching the debate seemed to suggest that they could be potentially too young. 


I know you lean toward the LBK as the source of L21, and you could be right (and that would be fine with me). Personally, and I am no expert, I still think the Beaker Folk are good candidates. They show up in Britain and in SW Norway, as well as on the Continent, and some scholars think they spoke an early form of Celtic.

Maybe that's all just too tidy, but I wouldn't say the Beaker Folk account for the entire panorama, just the early spread of L21, especially into Britain and Norway. There was plenty of later movement back and forth and round and round.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #40 on: October 25, 2009, 11:09:25 AM »

Looking at the MRCA spreadsheet it does strike me how that if taken at face value that would indicate a shared single ancester in the Iron Age across most L21 .....

It is true that most of the L21 area was touched by the La Tene Celtic material culture and that is the only widespread enough culture that covers in some form most of the L21 world.  Indeed, if the MRCA dates for L21 in the spreadsheet are correct then its the only candidate and the smoking gun is clear.  The MRCA dates provide the lower limit for much of L21s phase of spreading while the Roman empire provides an upper date for the unchallenged hegemony of L21 lineages in most of Europe.  .....
Is the La Tene a cultural expansion that carried folks with it?  or was it primarily just the cultural evolution of Hallstatt to the next phase?

I thought that La Tene didn't really reach Scandinavia, but I don't know.  It appears there will be a lot of L21+ in Norway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Tene_culture
Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #41 on: October 25, 2009, 11:53:45 AM »

Looking at the MRCA spreadsheet .....
In the last rootsweb debate on variance dating between Ken Knordvedt  and Tim Jansen it became very clear that there is no agreement over selection of fast and slow markers and what choices you make could make a huge difference.  Seemed that L21 dating could vary from 3000 years to 6000 years or more  depending on what markers were selected. ....
I believe we should look at the range more so than the mid-point or best estimate as it relates to TMRCA calculations.  I think this way because there is such uncertainty related to these calculations.

3000 to 6000 ybp relates to the time 4000 BC to 1000 BC so the oldest the TMRCA for L21+ is turns out to be 4000 BC.  The LBK Culture (Linear Pottery) expanded most notably from 5500 BC to 4500 BC.  I would think the founding TMRCA progenitor would have to be present at the start of a great expansion for that expansion to carry it to its breadth of territory.  Is my logic okay on this last point?  If my logic holds, LBK is a good 1500 years or more too old for the upper range of L21's TMCRA.  Therefore the only way the LBK is the carrier was if it it was a secondary phase of growth out of the LBK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_Pottery_culture

However, right about the time of this secondary phase, the farming culture of Old Europe was in decline.

Heirs to the First Farmers: 4900 BC–4300 BC
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q381155383601730/
"But around 4900 BC the rate of change saw a distinct acceleration. In the north-eastern part of the region the change even had the characteristics of a crisis."
"Farming communities disappeared temporarily from the Dutch Graetheide area and most of the Belgian Hesbaye. In the German Rhineland the population went into decline."

Is this reported decline commonly accepted?  Note the German Rhineland decline. This vicinity could be the home base for P312's expansions.

If so, right about the time the TMRCA L21+ progenitor arrived on the scene for this his great exansion, along with U152+ and P312*, the LBK heirs were in decline.

This is why I don't see the LBK (Linear Pottery) culture as the carrier for P312+ (including L21 and U152) and his clans.   I am not set on this logic, but it seems to make sense.  If I have a major fallacy in my thinking, please say so.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2009, 11:54:38 AM by Mike » Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #42 on: October 25, 2009, 12:14:58 PM »

Looking at the MRCA spreadsheet ..... In the last rootsweb debate on variance dating between Ken Knordvedt  and Tim .... .  Seemed that L21 dating could vary from 3000 years to 6000 years or more  depending ...
.... 3000 to 6000 ybp relates to the time 4000 BC to 1000 BC so the oldest the TMRCA for L21+ is turns out to be 4000 BC.  The LBK Culture (Linear Pottery) expanded most notably from 5500 BC to 4500 BC.  I would think the founding TMRCA progenitor would have to be present at the start of a great expansion for that expansion to carry it to its breadth of territory.  Is my logic okay on this last point?  If my logic holds, LBK is a good 1500 years or more too old for the upper range of L21's TMCRA.  Therefore the only way the LBK is the carrier was if it it was a secondary phase of growth out of the LBK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_Pottery_culture
However, right about the time of this secondary phase, the farming culture of Old Europe was in decline.
Heirs to the First Farmers: 4900 BC–4300 BC
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q381155383601730/
"But around 4900 BC the rate of change saw a distinct acceleration. In the north-eastern part of the region the change even had the characteristics of a crisis."
"Farming communities disappeared temporarily from the Dutch Graetheide area and most of the Belgian Hesbaye. In the German Rhineland the population went into decline."  .....
Another dimension to look at is how all this matches up with the spread of Indo-European languages across Europe.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language

Since English and other Germanic languages, French/Spanish and other Latin based languages, Slavic and Celtic are all Proto-Indo-European (PIE) based, how did they get to Europe?        Everything I read seems to point back to Central or SW Asia as the origin of PIE.  That could fit with an LBK expansion, but once again the timing seems off.   I think most today would say PIE was still ONLY in Central/SW Asia as of 4000 BC... too late for LBK or even an LBK secondary growth phase.  

I realize that language dating is subject to criticism, just like clade/TMRCA dating, but those two disciplines seem to line up for some great expansion across Europe 3500 to 1500 BC.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2009, 12:39:45 PM by Mike » Logged

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

Posts: 1253


« Reply #43 on: October 25, 2009, 01:01:52 PM »

Mike I agree with your main thrust, but I don't know of anyone who places PIE in Central Asia. The favoured homeland for decades has been the Pontic-Caspian steppe, north of the Black Sea and west of the Ural Mountains i.e. just inside SE Europe.

By the way - since my post above, I have added another academic project to my list:  Ancient Britain and the Atlantic Zone: examining the evidence from linguistics, archaeology and genetics for British Celtic origins in the Atlantic Bronze Age rather than the central European Iron Age. I feel this probably not on quite the right tack, but it will be interesting to see what they come up with. The first publication is due next year.
  
« Last Edit: October 25, 2009, 01:05:01 PM by Jean M » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #44 on: October 25, 2009, 01:12:06 PM »


. . .

By the way - since my post above, I have added another academic project to my list:  Ancient Britain and the Atlantic Zone: examining the evidence from linguistics, archaeology and genetics for British Celtic origins in the Atlantic Bronze Age rather than the central European Iron Age. I feel this probably not on quite the right tack, but it will be interesting to see what they come up with. The first publication is due next year.
  

How are they doing that, I wonder. Will they use up-to-date genetic data and capabilities, or will they go with what was current a couple of years ago, when Oppenheimer's infamous book was considered cutting edge and scholars from Trinity College in Dublin were making remarks about "Spanish fishermen"?

The title sounds to me like they have already made a fundamental mistake and are not going with the latest SNP findings.

If you have an email address for those behind this study, I would like to contact them.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2009, 01:13:46 PM by rms2 » Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #45 on: October 25, 2009, 03:03:26 PM »

Actually my point is a lot simpler.  If the MRCAs dates on the spreadsheet are correct, that implies most L21 people on the sheet share a common ancestor in the Iron Age or all L21s share a common ancestor not much before 1000BC.  That is regardless of the type of origin the surnane suggests.  If it really plausible that most L21 stem from one guy as late as the Iron Age?  That seems absolutely ridiculous given that we know that Europe was divided into many distinct independent tribes in that period.  There was noone with the authority or opportunity to spread his genes across dozens maybe 100s of seperate tribes. 
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #46 on: October 25, 2009, 03:11:39 PM »

Mike I agree with your main thrust, but I don't know of anyone who places PIE in Central Asia. The favoured homeland for decades has been the Pontic-Caspian steppe, north of the Black Sea and west of the Ural Mountains i.e. just inside SE Europe.

By the way - since my post above, I have added another academic project to my list:  Ancient Britain and the Atlantic Zone: examining the evidence from linguistics, archaeology and genetics for British Celtic origins in the Atlantic Bronze Age rather than the central European Iron Age. I feel this probably not on quite the right tack, but it will be interesting to see what they come up with. The first publication is due next year.
  

There is one simple thing that spoils all that: L21. How will they square linking the two most different areas in the world in terms of S116 clades: Ireland and Iberia.  NO doubt they will not let that bother them and they were probably too deep in before L21 swept this myth away.  With L21 there is not even any need to get involved in compex discussion involving archaeology.  It open-shut seperates Ireland (and probably western and northern Britain too) from Iberia and links them instead with France and SW Germany.  That by the way is  in line with the Iron Age archaeology.  Not sure about the Late Bronze Age.,  I dont think anyone really fully understands it.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2009, 03:14:35 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #47 on: October 25, 2009, 03:49:30 PM »

Mike, regarding your logic outlined above, it is perfectly sound if you have faith that variance data is near the mark. While I am convinced that seriously deep time ice age scenarios of the sort we once all believed can be ruled out, I feel from watching recent discussions that there are so many still debated variables involving assumptions in the calculations that I just do not think the MRCA dates are solid data.  

I only tend to believe the ages in relative terms e.g if there is say 5 times as much variance in I as there is in R1b1b2 (I think that is roughly correct).  That may not sound like a lot of use but as we know fully modern humams were in Europe c. 40000 years ago that does mean that that is as old as I can be and that if R1b1b2 is only a 5th of it then it can only be 8000 years old.  That simple logic sets a maximum possible age for R1b1b2 in the Early Neolithic if my simple logic is correct.  Of course I think Ken's dates for I were not as old as that, something more like 20-odd thousand years, but it would hardly be surprising if the MRCA for I is considerably more recent than the SNP when you consider the tiny populations of ice age hunters and gatherers we are talking about.

As for the linguistic dating, there has been over the last 20 years or so a growing school of thought to link it with the early Neolithic spread and there are some linguistic studies which agree with this.  To be honest I am not convinced either way and am happy to sit on the fence.   I can sae oadvantages to both the Neolithic and the beaker options although if you asked 100 archaeologists what the most important population changing event of those two was 100 would say the Neolithic.. I know of the study showing discontinuity in some areas but I am not convinced this was more than a local Lower Rhine thing.   We are not talking about the arrival of a vastly technologically or militarily superior people.  Indeed in some ways there was a decline in sophistication and centralisation at this time.    
« Last Edit: October 25, 2009, 03:52:10 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #48 on: October 25, 2009, 04:09:26 PM »

How are they doing that, I wonder. Will they use up-to-date genetic data and capabilities, or will they go with what was current a couple of years ago, when Oppenheimer's infamous book was considered cutting edge and scholars from Trinity College in Dublin were making remarks about "Spanish fishermen"?

The title sounds to me like they have already made a fundamental mistake and are not going with the latest SNP findings.

If you have an email address for those behind this study, I would like to contact them.

PM on its way.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #49 on: October 25, 2009, 04:46:19 PM »

although if you asked 100 archaeologists what the most important population changing event of those two was 100 would say the Neolithic..

Of course they would, but that's got more to do with psychology than archaeology, I think. ;)

One British archaeologist has been pushing determinedly against the tide of anti-migrationism in the field - Colin Renfrew. And he has attempted to cobble together the Neolithic and Indo-European languages into one package. They don't fit. But picture the people who have been talking continuity for years finally having to face up to the possibility of mass migration. They will go for just one migration, as early as possible, and the way has been prepared by Colin Renfrew. They might have disagreed with him, but at least his theory is familiar.

Meanwhile your former teacher has been talking in much less dramatic terms about the degree of movement in spreading IE languages in the Copper/Bronze Ages. Neither he nor David Anthony have used genetic data. Neither has tried to fight the anti-migrationist tide, though as far as I can see, there is actually as much evidence of migration in that period as in the Neolithic.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 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 0.108 seconds with 19 queries.