World Families Forums

General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse. => R1b General => Topic started by: Jean M on April 03, 2012, 10:25:05 AM



Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 03, 2012, 10:25:05 AM
If Basque represents that sole surviving vestige of the language spoken by the predominantly R1b population of most of western Europe, then how and why did the massive switch to Indo-European languages take place, and who was responsible for it?

I suggest that the Basque language derived from that of the Copper Age Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/copperage.shtml), which collapsed in large part c. 4000 BC due to climate change. Refugees from this culture could have sought  literally greener pastures. I don't imagine that they settled the whole of western Europe, but that some travelled via Sardinia and the Garonne to what became Aquitaine, and others northward up the Danube to feed into the TRB.

Meanwhile the remains of the Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture was absorbed by Yamnaya. Picture a lot of intermarriage with patrilocality, so we could have Yamnaya-born mothers teaching R1b sons to speak PIE. Then we have further waves of departures westward and up the Danube 3,100 and 2,800 BC, this time by people genetically closely related on the male line from the ones who left before, but speaking a different language.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 03, 2012, 10:29:01 AM
The Basque Country had similar prosperity, especially due to the natural port of Bilbao.
On place-name evidence, there were no Basques in Bilbao and most of the rest of the Spanish Basque Country in the pre-Roman period. They seem to have moved west from France or from Navarre in the upheaval following the collapse of the Western Empire. See Basques (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/basques.shtml).


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 03, 2012, 04:56:29 PM
...I don't think genetic drift can be dismissed as "an argument when you don't have an argument".
It seems to be the preferred explanation by someone when the data doesn't fit their hypothesis.... but it is a an argument without evidence and is therefore meaningless. It doesn't mean drift doesn't or can't happen but I'm not sure how we know it was drift versus some unknown bottleneck or founder effect.

Besides, it seems to me those early papers explained away young haplogroup ages not so much by genetic drift as by the convenient "genetic bottleneck".
Every time I look at Basque R1b I always think to myself that it looks really young so a few months ago I went back to look at earlier studies to see how they handled that.
 
I don't know if this paper is from a credible researcher but it based on a compilation of earlier works.

"The Basques in the Genetic Landscape of Europe" by Young, 2009.
Quote from: Young
In reference to the Basques, based on the archaeological evidence, the entire Iberian Peninsula was little affected by the Neolithic  transition, lending credence to the idea that the Basques are a remnant population, although one which has experienced some admixture since the end of the Last Glacial Maximum...

Analysis of the molecular systems does not support a recent common ancestor between the Basques and populations either from the Caucasus or North Africa. While analysis of classical markers reveals the effects of genetic drift
on the Basque population as a whole...
I counted that Young used the word "drift" 24 times in the paper.

Below is the more well known paper.

"The Genetic Legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in Extant Europeans: A Y Chromosome Perspective" by Semino et al - 2000.
Quote from: Semino
However, the origin of Paleolithic European groups and their contribution to the present gene pool have been debated. Assuming no selection, local differentiation occurred in isolated and small Paleolithic groups by drift...

The smaller effective population size of the NRY enhances the consequences of drift and founder effect relative to the autosomes, making NRY variation a potentially sensitive index of population composition...

The previously categorized Sardinians, Basques, and Saami outliers share basically the same Y binary components of the other Europeans. Their peculiar position with respect to frequency is probably a consequence of genetic drift and isolation."

I see that the "drift" argument is used in conjunction with smaller population sizes (i.e. the Mesolith) and "isolation."  My point is that "drift" as a argument is not positive evidence, it's just an explanation of how low diversity could've been achieved if you don't have supportive data.

I guess the part Semino failed to recognize is that the "drift" that occurred in Sardinia, Aquitania and the Isles all resulted in AMH (Atlantic Modal Haplotype) in their "isolated" areas.  

What a coincidence?

The same problem occurs for those who argue R1b looks falsely young in Europe because of bottlenecks. By great luck,  the isolated bottleneck survivors and new dominant lineages were all AMH.

Ultimately this is the crux of the problem for those who argue R1b is indigeneous or pre-Neolithic to Europe -  it's "strikingly similar" and all about the same age, relatively young when compared to other haplogroups, and its spread across a large area.

I think Jean has a point.
...My unashamed theme is migration ...


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 03, 2012, 08:08:13 PM
I'm not sure I get your point. Drift never occurs, it's just a lame excuse when one has no evidence? The Basques always have been mostly R1b and did not experience drift because there is no such thing?

I think drift is a reasonable hypothesis, since it is certainly easy to understand how it could happen. It would take other types of corroborating evidence to prove that it did occur in a particular instance.

Bottlenecks are the same sort of thing. One can theorize that a bottleneck occurred, but some real hard evidence would be required to actually prove it.

I think drift very well could have occurred among the Basques and could be responsible for the fact that they are predominantly R1b today. They may have been predominantly something else in the distant past.

If that is not true, if the Basques have always been mostly R1b, then it doesn't seem likely that R1b brought PIE to western Europe but was Indo-Europeanized over the course of time.

I also don't see how migrationism and drift are in conflict - just the opposite. Newcomers, even though small in numbers at first, could replace or at least eventually outnumber the natives by means of genetic drift, i.e., the luck of the draw when it comes to having male offspring who survive to reproduce. Of course, "luck" is shorthand for any number of advantages it would be tedious to list.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 03, 2012, 08:41:34 PM
If Basque represents that sole surviving vestige of the language spoken by the predominantly R1b population of most of western Europe, then how and why did the massive switch to Indo-European languages take place, and who was responsible for it?

I suggest that the Basque language derived from that of the Copper Age Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/copperage.shtml), which collapsed in large part c. 4000 BC due to climate change. Refugees from this culture could have sought  literally greener pastures. I don't imagine that they settled the whole of western Europe, but that some travelled via Sardinia and the Garonne to what became Aquitaine, and others northward up the Danube to feed into the TRB.

Meanwhile the remains of the Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture was absorbed by Yamnaya. Picture a lot of intermarriage with patrilocality, so we could have Yamnaya-born mothers teaching R1b sons to speak PIE. Then we have further waves of departures westward and up the Danube 3,100 and 2,800 BC, this time by people genetically closely related on the male line from the ones who left before, but speaking a different language.



So, basically you have embraced the idea that R1a is the PIE y haplogroup. R1b learned it and took it west.

I guess something like that would have to happen for the Kurgan Theory to be correct, since obviously not much R1a made it very far west. It's pretty plain the old idea of horse-riding conquerors from the steppe imposing their language and culture throughout Europe is not correct. So, the current form of the Kurgan Theory modifies that a bit. It's kind of a combo of limited conquering followed by cultural diffusion.

I just don't find it compelling or very believable (if those two things are different).

On the other hand, I am about ready to surrender the whole Indo-European thing to whomever wants it. The same goes for "deep ancestry" as a whole. Call me a "Basque". If I am lucky, maybe I'll get to retire in the Pyrenees.

Perhaps good ol' genealogy is a better and more productive pursuit.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 03, 2012, 09:18:36 PM
I'm not sure I get your point. Drift never occurs, it's just a lame excuse when one has no evidence? The Basques always have been mostly R1b and did not experience drift because there is no such thing?

I think drift is a reasonable hypothesis, since it is certainly easy to understand how it could happen. It would take other types of corroborating evidence to prove that it did occur in a particular instance.

Bottlenecks are the same sort of thing. One can theorize that a bottleneck occurred, but some real hard evidence would be required to actually prove it.

I think drift very well could have occurred among the Basques and could be responsible for the fact that they are predominantly R1b today. They may have been predominantly something else in the distant past.

If that is not true, if the Basques have always been mostly R1b, then it doesn't seem likely that R1b brought PIE to western Europe but was Indo-Europeanized over the course of time.

I also don't see how migrationism and drift are in conflict - just the opposite. Newcomers, even though small in numbers at first, could replace or at least eventually outnumber the natives by means of genetic drift, i.e., the luck of the draw when it comes to having male offspring who survive to reproduce. Of course, "luck" is shorthand for any number of advantages it would be tedious to list.
Of course drift can occur, as I've noted.

Migrationist theories and drift theories are not necessarily in conflict.

However, the anti-migrationalists, at least the "R1b is Paleothic" folks (or at least Semino and Young),  use the drift argument to explain the apparent youth of R1b among Basques.

They really don't have evidence to say that. That is just an escape option for them to avoid the genetic data indicating the apparent youth of R1b vis-a-vie other haplogroups in Europe.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 03, 2012, 09:30:50 PM
I guess if they really believe what they apparently believe, i.e., that R1b is the Paleolithic western European y haplogroup, then drift and bottlenecks seem like reasonable hypotheses to them. They could be right, after all. (I don't think they are, but they could be.)

I think they could be right about drift in the case of the Basques, but not for the same reasons. Again, I am positing an hypothesis to explain why the Basques are mostly R1b and yet speak a non-IE language. I'm not arguing that I know or can prove that is what happened.

If I am wrong, and if most of predominantly R1b western Europe once spoke a Vasconic language, then I would just as soon the "Paleolithic R1b" crowd were ultimately proven right. At least there is some glamor in being the descendant of a Cro-Magnon!



Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 03, 2012, 09:49:00 PM
If Basque represents that sole surviving vestige of the language spoken by the predominantly R1b population of most of western Europe, then how and why did the massive switch to Indo-European languages take place, and who was responsible for it?

I suggest that the Basque language derived from that of the Copper Age Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/copperage.shtml), which collapsed in large part c. 4000 BC due to climate change. Refugees from this culture could have sought  literally greener pastures. I don't imagine that they settled the whole of western Europe, but that some travelled via Sardinia and the Garonne to what became Aquitaine, and others northward up the Danube to feed into the TRB.

Meanwhile the remains of the Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture was absorbed by Yamnaya. Picture a lot of intermarriage with patrilocality, so we could have Yamnaya-born mothers teaching R1b sons to speak PIE. Then we have further waves of departures westward and up the Danube 3,100 and 2,800 BC, this time by people genetically closely related on the male line from the ones who left before, but speaking a different language.



So, basically you have embraced the idea that R1a is the PIE y haplogroup. R1b learned it and took it west.

I guess something like that would have to happen for the Kurgan Theory to be correct, since obviously not much R1a made it very far west. It's pretty plain the old idea of horse-riding conquerors from the steppe imposing their language and culture throughout Europe is not correct. So, the current form of the Kurgan Theory modifies that a bit. It's kind of a combo of limited conquering followed by cultural diffusion.

I just don't find it compelling or very believable (if those two things are different). ...
I don't find it compelling. It is possible, but I'm quite skeptical. R1b's conversion to IE had to have been comprehensive with very limited R1b leaking away (the Basques I guess)  before the wholesale conversion by the rest back home. It would seem like the Western Europe R1b block would have more R1a among it.

I can see how the whole idea has support or perhaps inspiration from David Anthony. I posted this elsewhere today.

I found the following highlights related to the Cucuteni-Tripolye from “The Horse The Wheel and Language” by David Anthony. These qotes are from from pp. 227-238 in the chapter “The End of Old Europe.” Anthony says the Tripolye B1 period was about 4300-4000 BC and the B2 period was from around 4000-3700 BC.
Quote from: Anthony
…extremely cold years happened first in 4120 and 4040 BCE. They were harbingers of the 140-yeard-long, bitterly cold period lasting from 3960 to 3821 BCE… Quickly these and perhaps other stresses accumulated to create an enormous crisis....
in the lower Danube valley and the Balkans… The cultures that appeared after about 3800 BCE did not regularly use female figurines in domestic rituals, no longer wore copper spiral bracelets… made relatively plain pottery.. did not live on tells, and depended more on stockbreeding.

’We are faced with a complete replacement of the culture,’ E.N. Chenykh said. It was ‘a catastrophe of colossal scope’… according to ... H. Todorova.

The Old European traditions of the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture also survived and, in fact, seemed curiously reinvigorated. After 4000 BCE, in its Tripolye B2 phase, the Tripolye culture expanded eastwards towards the Dnieper valley....

In a database of 2,017 Cucuteni/Tripolye settlements compiled by the Moldovan archaeologist V. Dergachev, half of all fortified Cucuteni/Tripolye sites are dates just to the Tripolye B1 period. About 60% of all flint projectile points from all the Cucuteni/Tripolye culture also belonged just to the Tripolye B1 period. There was no corresponding increase in hunting. Probably it was associated with increased warfare…. Compared to its past and its future, the Tripolye B1 period was a time of sharply increased conflict in the Eastern Carpathians. Simultaneously with the increase in fortifications and weapons, Tripolye B1 towns showed widespread evidence of contact with steppe cultures...

Many Cucuteni C pots look like they were made by Sredni Stog potters. This suggests familiarity with steppe cultures..

During Tripolye B2, around 4000-3700 BC, there was a significant migration out of the Prut-Seret forest-steppe uplands, the most densely settled part of the Tripolye B1 landscape, eastward into the South Bug and Dnieper valleys….

The number of fortified settlements decreased sharply. These signs of demographic expansion and reduced conflict appeared after the tell settlements of the Danube valley were burned and abandoned. It appears than any external threat from the steppes, if there was one, turned away from Cucuteni-Tripolye towns. Why?

A mutualist interpretation of steppe/farming-zone relations is one alternative. Conflict is not denied, but it is downplayed, and mutually beneficial trade and exchange are emphasized. Mutualism might well explain the relationship between the Cucuteni-Tripolye and Srdeni Stog cultures during the Tripolye period.

It is possible, no doubt, that R1b converted during the transformation at Cucutnei-Tripolye. I'm still not buying that is most likely though.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 03, 2012, 09:56:33 PM
Some ancient y-dna from Cucuteni-Tripolye would come in handy. That area today is not exactly overflowing with R1b, though it's not totally absent either. But, personally, I wouldn't expect aDNA from Cucuteni-Tripolye to be R1b. I would expect it to be I2a, G2a, and maybe E1b1b.

Of course, I could be wrong.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 03, 2012, 10:44:47 PM
... Meanwhile the remains of the Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture was absorbed by Yamnaya. Picture a lot of intermarriage with patrilocality, so we could have Yamnaya-born mothers teaching R1b sons to speak PIE. Then we have further waves of departures westward and up the Danube 3,100 and 2,800 BC, this time by people genetically closely related on the male line from the ones who left before, but speaking a different language.

Jean, you say "remains of the Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture were absorbed by the Yamnaya."  I think that you are leaning towards, and David Anthony seems to lean towards the concept that the Yamnaya got the upper hand, at least in terms of the military conflicts.

It also looks like Anthony's opinion is the pottery came from the Yamnaya which I think you'd say was passed along from the maternal side of things.

Quote from: David Anthony
Many Cucuteni C pots look like they were made by Sredni Stog potters. This suggests familiarity with steppe cultures..

However, the specifics of this patrilocal inter-marriage situation are still a bit confusing to me. If the women from Sredni Stog brought along their pottery and language and to non-IE R1b men and their sons.....

What happened to all of the women from the Cucuteni-Tripolye? Their population was numerous.  Eventually the Cucuteni-Tripolye expanded east to the steppes. These Cucuteni-Tripolye women came from an old maternal emphasis culture so why wouldn't their pottery become dominant?

I admit that I've lost the trail on this so please bear with me. The specifics of the picture I'm getting is the Yamnaya R1a men fought the Cucuteni-Tripolye women, killed most of them, then the Cucuteni-Tripolye R1b men made peace with the Yamnaya women who taught their sons IE languages.  

... or perhaps it was somehow that the Yamnaya R1a men were pretty much destroyed, leaving their women unattended. The victorious Cucuteni-Tripolye R1b moved into to marry with the Yamnaya women and left the women raise the kids as they please.

... or perhaps the complexities of mutalism are escaping me and the Yamnaya R1a men won the battle with the Cucuteni-Trypolye R1b men but did not destroy them and the R1b men preceded to "win the peace" eventually taking over. Maybe the Yamnaya women didn't like the Yamnaya men and helped overthrow the elite with poisonings or what have you.

Help, I just can't make the cultures mesh with R1b lineages from non-IE tribes over taking R1a lineages from IE tribes but the offspring are all IE speaking and pottery based.  To me, that implies the R1b Cucuteni-Tripolye got the upper hand militarily.

It would make more sense to me if there were some R1b among the Yamnaya or some of the people in SE Europe had been speaking IE or at least pre-IE (? Anatolian) all along.

Probably I'm too focused on the Cucuteni-Trypolae. They just seem like a key group early on that would have been a place where non-IE people could have learned IE but had enough substance and population to survive and eventually thrive again.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: NealtheRed on April 03, 2012, 10:56:58 PM

Help, I just can't make the cultures mesh with R1b lineages from non-IE tribes over taking R1a lineages from IE tribes but the offspring are all IE speaking and pottery based. .

It is because this scenario you mention is not very likely, at least in my opinion. It is much easier to suppose that R1a tribes learned IE from R1b, and took the Indo-Aryan languages east. How much sense does it make that a population travels thousands of miles east, carrying Indo-European languages with it, but does not bother to go west?

I will use the argument posited by some I have seen on other forums - "They weren't interested in going west". And where is this phantom R1a among Armenians or other peoples of the Caucasus? Maybe India had more sun?


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 03, 2012, 11:17:14 PM

Help, I just can't make the cultures mesh with R1b lineages from non-IE tribes over taking R1a lineages from IE tribes but the offspring are all IE speaking and pottery based. .

It is because this scenario you mention is not very likely, at least in my opinion. ...
That scenario is the one I am skeptical about which is why I'm asking for help in understanding.

The Cucuteni-Trypolae is the culture that may have been a basis for the pre-Germanic and Balto-Slavic movements north and northwest.

From http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/indoeuropeans.shtml
Quote from: JeanM
Usatovo culture (pre-Proto-Germanic?)
The transformation spread along multiple routes. The next movement visible in the archaeology flowed to the western end of the steppes, integrating the lowland steppe and upland farming communities in the Usatovo culture around the mouth of the Dniester River. This culture may represent the first link in a long chain of migration that led to the Pre-Germanic dialect splitting away. [Later there was migration up the Dniester through Late Cucuteni-Tripolye territory into the widespread north European Corded Ware Culture[/i]...

Middle Dnieper (Pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic)
Steppe groups penetrated Late Cucteni-Tripolye towns on the Middle Dnieper, together with elements of Globular Amphora and Corded Ware, creating a hybrid that gradually became its own distinct culture. This seems to represent the dialect which became Proto-Balto-Slavic.

Meanwhile, Jean describes the Italo-Celtic lineages with this kind of European "launch."
Quote from: JeanM
Up the Danube (Pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic and Illyric?)

A more archaeologically visible flow westward between about 3,100 and 2,800 BC suggests the Pre-Italic and Pre-Celtic dialects splitting away. The two language families are closely related, so this might be better classed as pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic, or even just North-Western at this stage. Yamnaya herders moved through and past the Usatovo culture into the Danube valley ending up in what is now eastern Hungary. The evidence lies in their kurgan cemeteries. This was a true folk movement leaving thousands of burials. The earliest of the eastern Bell Beakers were found near Budapest in Hungary, and radiocarbon dated about 2,800-2,600BC. From there Bell Beaker ware spread into what is now Austria and South Germany, where we can imagine Yamnaya dialects eventually developing into Proto-Celtic.

Another part of the Proto-Italic-Celtic trail is more complex and is pursued in the Bell Beaker section. For the moment we note that a branch of the same movement of Yamnaya herders up the Danube introduced the Bronze Age into what is now Albania and Bosnia. Their characteristic tumulus burials mark their arrival. The abrupt incursion of the new culture is particularly clear at Maliq, Albania. The Vucedol Culture in Croatia begins at the right time to be Indo-European - c. 3,000 BC. Its people appear different from the preceding farmers of the region. Vucedol is followed by the Cetina Culture, where the elite were buried with archers' wrist guards, as in the Bell Beaker Culture.

Here is where the R1b, R1a and I haplogroup mixes don't make sense to me if R1b "learned IE" from R1a East/SE Europe on the edge of Old Europe.

David Anthony describes the Yamna herders heading up the Danube as a "true folk movement" whereas he describes the transformation of Crucuteni-Trypolae as an integration.

Where is R1b purest, of highest frequencies?   In the places where Celtic reached.

The Germanic and Balto-Slavic lineages are a mix of U106, some P312, Hg I and R1a1 to varying degrees.  The Celtic world ended up being very strongly P312.  This makes sense that the move up the Danube of the pre-Italo-Celtic dialect people was a "true folk movement" of P312 folks.

I may be looking at it to simplistically but I don't see how Celtic got such a heavy frequency of P312 unless the P312 people (or at least those associated with the Italo-Celts) were IE speaking for a long time, excluding other paternal lineages in their tribes. This does not mean that some P312 people couldn't have learned other languages back closer to the steppes or in Aquitania.

Where are the R1a1 Celts?


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 04, 2012, 03:47:11 AM
So, basically you have embraced the idea that R1a is the PIE y haplogroup. R1b learned it and took it west.

Embraced it? I suspect that we are at cross-purposes here. Looks like you are under the impression that I have fallen in with "R1a1a cheer-leaders" with weird ideas of Aryan = Slavic and "true" IE = R1a1a. I have been fighting said weird ideas. They make no sense at all. To say that I am not in that camp is putting it mildly.

I have always believed that R1a and R1b carriers would have had to be in close contact for a long time for PIE to have spread with both. Yet the pattern of distribution suggested that R1a1a predominated in the tribes at the eastern end of the P-C steppe, with R1b more towards the centre and west. Long puzzling over this and the pattern of other branches of R1b suggested that R1b had entered the steppe with dairy farmers. This does not mean that R1b is not a "true" PIE haplogroup. For heaven's sake! If people have been  speaking a language for a thousand years, that's their language.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: IALEM on April 04, 2012, 04:02:14 AM
I think they spoke a pre Indoeuropean language at some time, that could or could not be related to the group of languages in which were Aquitanian and Iberian and of which Basque is the last remnant. I think that IE reached Western Europe from Eastern Europe but it was a cultural trait expanded through Elite dominance and cultural assimilation.
We will never know for sure since non written languages don´t leave behind archaeological remains. If R1b is found to be post-neolithic I will reconsider my position though, as there will be a clear sign of a massive replacement of populatioin. Still, even if that is the case, there is still the problem with Iberians and Aquitanians, do you think they were flooded with R1b IE speaking populations but still kept their non IE languages? And what about the Celts of Weswtern Iberia? they  were the carriers of an IE language but those regions had a lower percentage of R1b in  present day.

We can't look at these things in a vacuum. The top 15 areas of L11+ on the entire planet are all in the British Isles where all pre-Roman languages were IE. The areas of L11 in Ireland blow the doors off of Basque country L11 frequency, reaching more than 90%+ in some areas and over 73% in all areas. Besides, the level of L11 in Aquitanian/Iberian lands is not drastically different than in the NW or western Iberia.
Let´s see your alternative, if I understand correctly
IE R1b arrive to Western Europe in late Neolithic-Bronze age. They largely replace the previous population all over the place and their language, except for a region extending from the SE coast of Spain to the SW coast of France, where they replace people but not language. And for the following 2k years until Roman expansion things doesn´t change, do I understand this correctly?

No, I think the emigration to the Basque country was very gradual. Kind of like what we've seen in California, New Mexico and Texas over the past 50 years. Waves of immigrants from Mexico have brought back Native American Y-DNA to these areas. They've come seeking prosperity. The children of those immigrants speak English and their grandchildren no longer speak Spanish. Y-DNA replacement without language replacement.

The Basque Country had similar prosperity, especially due to the natural port of Bilbao. I have first hand knowledge as one of my great-grandparents was born in NE Burgos but lived in the Bilbao suburb of Barakaldo. He would grow his wheat in his Burgos farms and sell them for export in Basque country.
But that is a recent thing, since the late 19th century the Basque Country has been floodded with inmigrants from other regions of Spain, so that in  present day probably not even 1/4 of the population has Basque roots. However that is why researchers usually select their samples of Basque population including only people with well attested Basque roots.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 04, 2012, 04:16:35 AM
I suppose it is understandable for men who carry a particular haplogroup to want to believe that their direct ancestor had primacy in everything, but I'm getting a bit tired of R1a1a carriers fighting for the idea that 13910T lactase persistence arose in an R1a1a man, and R1b carriers fighting for the idea that PIE was first spoken by an R1b man. It doesn't matter. Not in the story of IE spread anyway. Both PIE and lactase persistence appear to have spread together east and west. For that to happen where carriers were predominantly R1a1a in the east and R1b in the west, then there cannot have been some rigid genetic and linguistic divide between R1a and R1b carriers.  
  
As like as not 13910T first occurred in a milkmaid. :) As for PIE - it developed in contact with Proto-Uralic around the southern Urals. I suggest that R1 had long moved between the steppe in summer and the south Caspian in winter, and that R1b cropped up among those who eventually settled at the southern end of the seasonal cycle while R1a distinguished those who settled at the northern end. Presumably they spoke the same language back in the Mesolithic - an ancestor of PIE. But those R1b V88 people (initially just just one man maybe) who moved south into the farming belt seem to have adopted Proto-Afro-Asiatic from other farmers before some of them moved to north Africa. There were probably many other languages among the farmers, only some of which survived. I'm suggesting that the ancestor of the language spoken in the Cucuteni Culture was one such.  

Yamnaya is seen not as a single culture, but as an "horizon" that spread west across the steppe, with a particular cultural package and (it seems) language. The package included much that had been acquired from adjacent cultures originally, including dairy farming, but not the concept of pottery-making, which had arrived earlier from the east.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 04, 2012, 06:06:05 AM
Jean .. I think that you are leaning towards, and David Anthony seems to lean towards the concept that the Yamnaya got the upper hand, at least in terms of the military conflicts.

It is hard to say to what degree (if any) dominance was imposed by military means. Anthony sees the collapse of the tell cultures of Old Europe around 4,000 BC and largely climate-driven, which makes sense to me. Pastoralists would have an advantage, since they were more mobile and could move long distances to find pasture. Of course when times are hard, you do get conflict over scarce resources.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 04, 2012, 06:34:26 AM
The Germanic and Balto-Slavic lineages are a mix of U106, some P312, Hg I and R1a1 to varying degrees.  The Celtic world ended up being very strongly P312.  This makes sense that the move up the Danube of the pre-Italo-Celtic dialect people was a "true folk movement" of P312 folks.

That is how I have it on my HIGHLY SPECULATIVE map of proposed movements of R1b. Why is this a problem? This movement came 1000 years after the collapse of Cucuteni and the absorbing of its remnants by the adjacent peoples. That composite culture seems to have invented wheeled transport, which gave birth to the more mobile Yamnaya Culture 3,300 BC which could actually live on the steppe.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 04, 2012, 04:27:44 PM
So, basically you have embraced the idea that R1a is the PIE y haplogroup. R1b learned it and took it west.

Embraced it? I suspect that we are at cross-purposes here. Looks like you are under the impression that I have fallen in with "R1a1a cheer-leaders" with weird ideas of Aryan = Slavic and "true" IE = R1a1a. I have been fighting said weird ideas. They make no sense at all. To say that I am not in that camp is putting it mildly.

I have always believed that R1a and R1b carriers would have had to be in close contact for a long time for PIE to have spread with both. Yet the pattern of distribution suggested that R1a1a predominated in the tribes at the eastern end of the P-C steppe, with R1b more towards the centre and west. Long puzzling over this and the pattern of other branches of R1b suggested that R1b had entered the steppe with dairy farmers. This does not mean that R1b is not a "true" PIE haplogroup. For heaven's sake! If people have been  speaking a language for a thousand years, that's their language.


What I meant was, I thought, pretty plain. In what you posted earlier, about Yamnaya mothers teaching R1b sons IE, you seemed to be saying that PIE originated among peoples who were predominantly R1a.

Did I misunderstand you?

By now a lot of us have been speaking Indo-European languages for quite some time. What I thought we were discussing was who the original IE folk were. If R1b peoples learned it, however early on, from R1a peoples, then R1a is the PIE y haplogroup.

The R1a partisans would have no trouble acknowledging that. It's part of their argument.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 04, 2012, 05:12:50 PM
I suppose it is understandable for men who carry a particular haplogroup to want to believe that their direct ancestor had primacy in everything, but I'm getting a bit tired of R1a1a carriers fighting for the idea that 13910T lactase persistence arose in an R1a1a man, and R1b carriers fighting for the idea that PIE was first spoken by an R1b man. It doesn't matter . . .

It isn't in the same league with having enough air to breathe or food and drink and shelter, but it does matter. Otherwise, there would be far fewer sales of y-dna tests and far far fewer posts here at World Families and elsewhere.

Maybe R1a was the original PIE y haplogroup. I don't know. I tend to think there wasn't much R1b, if any, in Cucuteni-Tripolye and that what was there will turn out to have been I2a, G2a, and E1b1b. So, if IE was transmitted rather than carried west, then perhaps R1b men learned it from I2a, G2a, and E1b1b middlemen, and not so much from the R1a originators themselves. Maybe R1b hasn't yet been found at Neolithic sites because our ancestors were the European aborigines, still at the hunter-gatherer stage, and thus rather scarce in farming communities.



Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 04, 2012, 05:20:31 PM
... Help, I just can't make the cultures mesh with R1b lineages from non-IE tribes over taking R1a lineages from IE tribes but the offspring are all IE speaking and pottery based. .
.....
Where is R1b purest, of highest frequencies?   In the places where Celtic reached.

The Germanic and Balto-Slavic lineages are a mix of U106, some P312, Hg I and R1a1 to varying degrees.  The Celtic world ended up being very strongly P312.  This makes sense that the move up the Danube of the pre-Italo-Celtic dialect people was a "true folk movement" of P312 folks.

I may be looking at it to simplistically but I don't see how Celtic got such a heavy frequency of P312 unless the P312 people (or at least those associated with the Italo-Celts) were IE speaking for a long time, excluding other paternal lineages in their tribes. This does not mean that some P312 people couldn't have learned other languages back closer to the steppes or in Aquitania.

Where are the R1a1 Celts?

Here are the highlights I could find from David Anthony on the beginnings of the pre-Italic and pre-Celtic speakers from the "The Horse The Wheel The Language:

Quote from: David Anthony
“WESTERN INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES - THE YAMNAYA MIGRATION UP THE DANUBE VALLEY”
[p.361]
About 3100 BCE, during the initial rapid spread of the Yamnaya horizon across the Pontic-Caspian steppes, and while the Usatovo culture was still in its early phase, Yamnaya herders began to move through the steppes past Usatovo and into the lower Danube valley. The initial groups followed by a regular stream of people that continued for perhaps three hundred years, between 3100 and 2800 BCE. The passage through the Usatovo chiefdoms probably was managed through guest-host relationships. The migrants did not claim any Usatovo territory – at least they did not create their own cemeteries there. Instead, they kept going into the Danube valley, a minimum distance of 6000-800 km from where they began in the steppes east of Usatovo – in the South Bug valley and farther east.  The largest number of Yamnaya migrants ended up in eastern Hungary, an amazing distance (800-13,300 km depending on the route taken.)  This was a major, sustained population movement, and, like all such movements, it must have been preceded by scouts who collected information while on some other kind of business, possibly horse trading. The scouts knew just a few areas, and these became the targets of the migrants.
[p.367]
The many thousands of Yamnaya kurgans in eastern Hungary suggest a more continuous occupation of the landscape by a larger population through numerical weight. This regional group could have spawned the both pre-Italic and pre-Celtic. Bell Beaker sites of the Csepel type around Budapest, west of the Yamnaya settlement region, are dated about 2800-2600 BCE. They could have been a bridge between Yamnaya on their east and Austria/Southern Germany to their west, through which Yamnaya dialects spread from Hungary into Austria and Bavaria, where they later developed into Proto-Celtic. Pre-Italic could have developed among the dialects that remained in Hungary, ultimately spreading into Italy through the Urnfield and Villanovan cultures.

Anthony never looked at DNA and does not estimate the percentages of populations replaced versus integrated with but he uses the strongest wording about "true folk movements" in relation to the pre-Italic and pre-Celtic groups. Maybe it is just a coincidence, but P312 is of amazingly high frequency in some of the old Celtic and Italic lands.

These Yamnaya are people from the South Bug River valley and to the east. They were people that moved very quickly up the Danube valley. It doesn't sound like a type of movement that could spend much time integrating with existing cultures.

http://www.europeshoppe.com.au/images/maps/ukraine_map.jpg


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 04, 2012, 05:47:48 PM

Help, I just can't make the cultures mesh with R1b lineages from non-IE tribes over taking R1a lineages from IE tribes but the offspring are all IE speaking and pottery based. .

It is because this scenario you mention is not very likely, at least in my opinion. ...
That scenario is the one I am skeptical about which is why I'm asking for help in understanding.

The Cucuteni-Trypolae is the culture that may have been a basis for the pre-Germanic and Balto-Slavic movements north and northwest.

From http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/indoeuropeans.shtml
Quote from: JeanM
Usatovo culture (pre-Proto-Germanic?)
The transformation spread along multiple routes. The next movement visible in the archaeology flowed to the western end of the steppes, integrating the lowland steppe and upland farming communities in the Usatovo culture around the mouth of the Dniester River. This culture may represent the first link in a long chain of migration that led to the Pre-Germanic dialect splitting away. [Later there was migration up the Dniester through Late Cucuteni-Tripolye territory into the widespread north European Corded Ware Culture[/i]...

Middle Dnieper (Pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic)
Steppe groups penetrated Late Cucteni-Tripolye towns on the Middle Dnieper, together with elements of Globular Amphora and Corded Ware, creating a hybrid that gradually became its own distinct culture. This seems to represent the dialect which became Proto-Balto-Slavic.

Meanwhile, Jean describes the Italo-Celtic lineages with this kind of European "launch."
Quote from: JeanM
Up the Danube (Pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic and Illyric?)

A more archaeologically visible flow westward between about 3,100 and 2,800 BC suggests the Pre-Italic and Pre-Celtic dialects splitting away. The two language families are closely related, so this might be better classed as pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic, or even just North-Western at this stage. Yamnaya herders moved through and past the Usatovo culture into the Danube valley ending up in what is now eastern Hungary. The evidence lies in their kurgan cemeteries. This was a true folk movement leaving thousands of burials. The earliest of the eastern Bell Beakers were found near Budapest in Hungary, and radiocarbon dated about 2,800-2,600BC. From there Bell Beaker ware spread into what is now Austria and South Germany, where we can imagine Yamnaya dialects eventually developing into Proto-Celtic.

Another part of the Proto-Italic-Celtic trail is more complex and is pursued in the Bell Beaker section. For the moment we note that a branch of the same movement of Yamnaya herders up the Danube introduced the Bronze Age into what is now Albania and Bosnia. Their characteristic tumulus burials mark their arrival. The abrupt incursion of the new culture is particularly clear at Maliq, Albania. The Vucedol Culture in Croatia begins at the right time to be Indo-European - c. 3,000 BC. Its people appear different from the preceding farmers of the region. Vucedol is followed by the Cetina Culture, where the elite were buried with archers' wrist guards, as in the Bell Beaker Culture.

Here is where the R1b, R1a and I haplogroup mixes don't make sense to me if R1b "learned IE" from R1a East/SE Europe on the edge of Old Europe.

David Anthony describes the Yamna herders heading up the Danube as a "true folk movement" whereas he describes the transformation of Crucuteni-Trypolae as an integration.

Where is R1b purest, of highest frequencies?   In the places where Celtic reached.

The Germanic and Balto-Slavic lineages are a mix of U106, some P312, Hg I and R1a1 to varying degrees.  The Celtic world ended up being very strongly P312.  This makes sense that the move up the Danube of the pre-Italo-Celtic dialect people was a "true folk movement" of P312 folks.

I may be looking at it to simplistically but I don't see how Celtic got such a heavy frequency of P312 unless the P312 people (or at least those associated with the Italo-Celts) were IE speaking for a long time, excluding other paternal lineages in their tribes. This does not mean that some P312 people couldn't have learned other languages back closer to the steppes or in Aquitania.

Where are the R1a1 Celts?


I take a similar Occam's razor view on this.  The David Anthony model just feels wrong.  its like a lot of sound and fury but ultimately it just is not believable as a model for Indo-Europeanisation of most of Europe.  I have never doubted that the steppe cultures and R1a are part of the IE story but I cant help feeling that a side show that only nibbled Europes eastern edges is being served as the main event.  I dont have the answers but I just intuitively feel that the Anthony model is like a sign with the words 'special pleading' balanced on a large house of cards with Occam's Razor lying blunted and tossed asunder on the floor.  Personally I think that the Indo-Europeanisation went the other way and was acquired by steppes groups (along with much else) from Neolithic farmers just to the west around Bulgaria, east Romania, Ukraine etc.  


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 04, 2012, 05:50:42 PM
The Germanic and Balto-Slavic lineages are a mix of U106, some P312, Hg I and R1a1 to varying degrees.  The Celtic world ended up being very strongly P312.  This makes sense that the move up the Danube of the pre-Italo-Celtic dialect people was a "true folk movement" of P312 folks.
That is how I have it on my HIGHLY SPECULATIVE map of proposed movements of R1b. Why is this a problem? This movement came 1000 years after the collapse of Cucuteni and the absorbing of its remnants by the adjacent peoples. That composite culture seems to have invented wheeled transport, which gave birth to the more mobile Yamnaya Culture 3,300 BC which could actually live on the steppe.

The problem, or rather the logic I don't understand of your hypothesis is:
... Meanwhile the remains of the Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture was absorbed by Yamnaya. Picture a lot of intermarriage with patrilocality, so we could have Yamnaya-born mothers teaching R1b sons to speak PIE. Then we have further waves of departures westward and up the Danube 3,100 and 2,800 BC, this time by people genetically closely related on the male line from the ones who left before, but speaking a different language.

This seems plausible for the pre-Germanic group which does show a mix of haplogroups. The intense "integration" (what Anthony calls it) of the Cucuteni-Tripolye upland farmers and the Yamnaya Usatovo herders seems to fit.

On the other hand, the pre-Italic/pre-Celtic groups were NOT Usatovo, but a different kind of Yamnaya that were from further east and did NOT have contact with the Cucuteni-Trypolye. These pre-Italic/pre-Celtic Yamnaya from east of the Bug River were a "true folk movement" that involved "major, sustained population movement". He also says they "passed through" Usatovo lands. They were already speaking PIE so they didn't need to have picked it up from the Usatovo at that time.

How to or to who did they pass the IE language on if their major haplogroup group was not P312 or a pre-P312 R1b type?  Somehow, by the time they emanated out of Hungary they were P312 or pre-P312 R1b laden.

If we follow Anthony's model, it seems hard to understand how separate lineages of R1b in Old European cultures all learned IE from different migrations (pre-Germanic, pre-Italic, pre-Celtic and maybe pre-Balto/Slavic) of Yamnaya herders, unless of course they were among the Yamnaya herders in the first place.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 04, 2012, 05:56:04 PM
I suppose it is understandable for men who carry a particular haplogroup to want to believe that their direct ancestor had primacy in everything, but I'm getting a bit tired of R1a1a carriers fighting for the idea that 13910T lactase persistence arose in an R1a1a man, and R1b carriers fighting for the idea that PIE was first spoken by an R1b man. It doesn't matter . . .

It isn't in the same league with having enough air to breathe or food and drink and shelter, but it does matter. Otherwise, there would be far fewer sales of y-dna tests and far far fewer posts here at World Families and elsewhere.

Maybe R1a was the original PIE y haplogroup. I don't know. I tend to think there wasn't much R1b, if any, in Cucuteni-Tripolye and that what was there will turn out to have been I2a, G2a, and E1b1b. So, if IE was transmitted rather than carried west, then perhaps R1b men learned it from I2a, G2a, and E1b1b middlemen, and not so much from the R1a originators themselves. Maybe R1b hasn't yet been found at Neolithic sites because our ancestors were the European aborigines, still at the hunter-gatherer stage, and thus rather scarce in farming communities.



That seems incredibly unlikely.  All the advantages would be with cultures who were used to farming products.  Lets put it this way, the mt DNA representative of the hunters (mainly U) did not prosper with the coming of farming.  U shrunk in size dramatically.  Its more likely by far that R1b hasnt been found simply because no yDNA from west European late Neolithic sites have been published as yet (other than one Corded Ware R1a family burial).  It may well be that it is associated with beakers and their post-beaker descendants in the same areas.   


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: MHammers on April 04, 2012, 05:59:52 PM
These Yamnaya are people from the South Bug River valley and to the east. They were people that moved very quickly up the Danube valley. It doesn't sound like a type of movement that could spend much time integrating with existing cultures.

They also didn't leave any traces of settlement in Hungary, if you exclude the kurgans.  It seems as if they were absorbed into other cultures in the region, bell beaker just being one of them.  From what little I've read about the Yamnaya in Hungary, there was little or no integration with the contemporary Baden and Vucedol people. 

I've found statistics for 6 ochre-grave or Yamnaya skeletons from there.  Only 1 or 2 showed the common steppe physical type.  The rest were much like the high-vaulted, gracile neolithics.  So, the idea of Cucuteni-Tripolye or other SE Europe people getting swept up in the Danube migration seems probable.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 04, 2012, 06:12:14 PM
... Personally I think that the Indo-Europeanisation went the other way and was acquired by steppes groups (along with much else) from Neolithic farmers just to the west around Bulgaria, east Romania, Ukraine etc.  
Anthony's description of the Cucuteni-Tripolye upland farmer and Usatovo herder integration could fit what you are saying as ultimately the resulting culture moved eastward and made incursions into the steppes.   However, as you said, Anthony has the language going east to west instead of west to east early on.

Did Central European lands east of the steppes have the all of the elements needed for PIE?  I mean the honey bees, and so forth.   Still, these Old European cultures were matriarchal, weren't they?  While PIE has patriarchal concepts in it, right?   I remain convinced by Anthony that PIE did not come out of the Old Europe cultures.   Are you saying that PIE slipped into eastern Old Europe farming cultures via Anatolia?   I suppose this puts us back on the dairy herding thing.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 04, 2012, 06:12:51 PM
I suppose it is understandable for men who carry a particular haplogroup to want to believe that their direct ancestor had primacy in everything, but I'm getting a bit tired of R1a1a carriers fighting for the idea that 13910T lactase persistence arose in an R1a1a man, and R1b carriers fighting for the idea that PIE was first spoken by an R1b man. It doesn't matter . . .

It isn't in the same league with having enough air to breathe or food and drink and shelter, but it does matter. Otherwise, there would be far fewer sales of y-dna tests and far far fewer posts here at World Families and elsewhere.

Maybe R1a was the original PIE y haplogroup. I don't know. I tend to think there wasn't much R1b, if any, in Cucuteni-Tripolye and that what was there will turn out to have been I2a, G2a, and E1b1b. So, if IE was transmitted rather than carried west, then perhaps R1b men learned it from I2a, G2a, and E1b1b middlemen, and not so much from the R1a originators themselves. Maybe R1b hasn't yet been found at Neolithic sites because our ancestors were the European aborigines, still at the hunter-gatherer stage, and thus rather scarce in farming communities.



That seems incredibly unlikely.  All the advantages would be with cultures who were used to farming products.  Lets put it this way, the mt DNA representative of the hunters (mainly U) did not prosper with the coming of farming.  U shrunk in size dramatically.  Its more likely by far that R1b hasnt been found simply because no yDNA from west European late Neolithic sites have been published as yet (other than one Corded Ware R1a family burial).  It may well be that it is associated with beakers and their post-beaker descendants in the same areas.   

I know, Alan. I wasn't giving my own opinion, just kind of continuing the line of "maybes" that began with "Maybe R1a was the original PIE y haplogroup".

I don't think R1b was in western Europe during the Paleolithic or even the Mesolithic Period.

I was giving my opinion about Cucuteni-Tripolye, though. I don't think any ancient R1b will be found there.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: MHammers on April 04, 2012, 06:17:33 PM
On the other hand, the pre-Italic/pre-Celtic groups were NOT Usatovo, but a different kind of Yamnaya that were from further east and did NOT have contact with the Cucuteni-Trypolye. These pre-Italic/pre-Celtic Yamnaya from east of the Bug River were a "true folk movement" that involved "major, sustained population movement". He also says they "passed through" Usatovo lands. They were already speaking PIE so they didn't need to have picked it up from the Usatovo at that time.

How to or to who did they pass the IE language on if their major haplogroup group was not P312 or a pre-P312 R1b type?  Somehow, by the time they emanated out of Hungary they were P312 or pre-P312 R1b laden.

If we follow Anthony's model, it seems hard to understand how separate lineages of R1b in Old European cultures all learned IE from different migrations (pre-Germanic, pre-Italic, pre-Celtic and maybe pre-Balto/Slavic) of Yamnaya herders, unless of course they were among the Yamnaya herders in the first place.

Cucuteni-Tripolye lived within the Yamnaya horizon for 800 years (3600-2800).  Compare it to German immigrants to the US in 18th and 19th centuries.  They learned English after a while and eventually became apart of the American "horizon".  It was probably an easier transition for the Cucuteni because they had been interacting with steppe populations since 5500.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 04, 2012, 06:20:17 PM
On the other hand, the pre-Italic/pre-Celtic groups were NOT Usatovo, but a different kind of Yamnaya that were from further east and did NOT have contact with the Cucuteni-Trypolye. These pre-Italic/pre-Celtic Yamnaya from east of the Bug River were a "true folk movement" that involved "major, sustained population movement". He also says they "passed through" Usatovo lands. They were already speaking PIE so they didn't need to have picked it up from the Usatovo at that time.

How to or to who did they pass the IE language on if their major haplogroup group was not P312 or a pre-P312 R1b type?  Somehow, by the time they emanated out of Hungary they were P312 or pre-P312 R1b laden.

If we follow Anthony's model, it seems hard to understand how separate lineages of R1b in Old European cultures all learned IE from different migrations (pre-Germanic, pre-Italic, pre-Celtic and maybe pre-Balto/Slavic) of Yamnaya herders, unless of course they were among the Yamnaya herders in the first place.

Cucuteni-Tripolye lived within the Yamnaya horizon for 800 years (3600-2800).  Compare it to German immigrants to the US in 18th and 19th centuries.  They learned English after a while and eventually became apart of the American "horizon".  It was probably an easier transition for the Cucuteni because they had been interacting with steppe populations since 5500.

But then something similar happened to the next culture over - and the next and the next - all the way to the Atlantic?

Kind of strains credulity, doesn't it?


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 04, 2012, 06:21:05 PM
These Yamnaya are people from the South Bug River valley and to the east. They were people that moved very quickly up the Danube valley. It doesn't sound like a type of movement that could spend much time integrating with existing cultures.

They also didn't leave any traces of settlement in Hungary, if you exclude the kurgans.  It seems as if they were absorbed into other cultures in the region, bell beaker just being one of them.  From what little I've read about the Yamnaya in Hungary, there was little or no integration with the contemporary Baden and Vucedol people. 

I've found statistics for 6 ochre-grave or Yamnaya skeletons from there.  Only 1 or 2 showed the common steppe physical type.  The rest were much like the high-vaulted, gracile neolithics.  So, the idea of Cucuteni-Tripolye or other SE Europe people getting swept up in the Danube migration seems probable.

I think in a few years the whole revival of the Kurgan model as a way to explain more than just the Indo-Europeanisation of eastern Europe and SW/central  Asia will look misguided.  I am surprised just how much credence it is getting but I would be amazed if this lasts.  The only thing good to come out of the Kurgan v Renfrew (first farmers) model is the feeling that both are wrong.  However, I do think Renfrew's modified version where he places pre-PIE in Asia Minor and adjacent and has PIE rise in SE Europe as an offshoot does resemble the spread of dairying from Anatolia into the Bulgaria/west Black Sea area in the 5th millenium BC. That area then became a contact zone transferring aspects of farming to the steppes hunters.  Once converted to farming and perhaps Indo-Europeanised there was a modest reflux movement by the Kurgan peoples back into the eastern fringes of the farming world but that is about it. That is the way I see the evidence and much of the rest seems like waffle and pie in the sky models to me.    


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: NealtheRed on April 04, 2012, 06:25:44 PM

Cucuteni-Tripolye lived within the Yamnaya horizon for 800 years (3600-2800).  Compare it to German immigrants to the US in 18th and 19th centuries.  They learned English after a while and eventually became apart of the American "horizon".  It was probably an easier transition for the Cucuteni because they had been interacting with steppe populations since 5500.

The reason we cannot use the Germans as a proxy is that they do not come to represent a large proportion of the American Y-DNA landscape, at least not in the same way R1b does for Western Europe.

The Germans came and learned English, but there is still plenty of British-American Y-DNA represented in the gene pool. This theory supposes that R1a would be present in significant frequencies among those Indo-Europeans who went west. This is not the case, however.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 04, 2012, 06:46:35 PM
I suppose it is understandable for men who carry a particular haplogroup to want to believe that their direct ancestor had primacy in everything, but I'm getting a bit tired of R1a1a carriers fighting for the idea that 13910T lactase persistence arose in an R1a1a man, and R1b carriers fighting for the idea that PIE was first spoken by an R1b man. It doesn't matter . . .

It isn't in the same league with having enough air to breathe or food and drink and shelter, but it does matter. Otherwise, there would be far fewer sales of y-dna tests and far far fewer posts here at World Families and elsewhere.

Maybe R1a was the original PIE y haplogroup. I don't know. I tend to think there wasn't much R1b, if any, in Cucuteni-Tripolye and that what was there will turn out to have been I2a, G2a, and E1b1b. So, if IE was transmitted rather than carried west, then perhaps R1b men learned it from I2a, G2a, and E1b1b middlemen, and not so much from the R1a originators themselves. Maybe R1b hasn't yet been found at Neolithic sites because our ancestors were the European aborigines, still at the hunter-gatherer stage, and thus rather scarce in farming communities.



That seems incredibly unlikely.  All the advantages would be with cultures who were used to farming products.  Lets put it this way, the mt DNA representative of the hunters (mainly U) did not prosper with the coming of farming.  U shrunk in size dramatically.  Its more likely by far that R1b hasnt been found simply because no yDNA from west European late Neolithic sites have been published as yet (other than one Corded Ware R1a family burial).  It may well be that it is associated with beakers and their post-beaker descendants in the same areas.   

I know, Alan. I wasn't giving my own opinion, just kind of continuing the line of "maybes" that began with "Maybe R1a was the original PIE y haplogroup".

I don't think R1b was in western Europe during the Paleolithic or even the Mesolithic Period.

I was giving my opinion about Cucuteni-Tripolye, though. I don't think any ancient R1b will be found there.

I wouldnt be surprised if the original area of PIE speaking was in the Bulgaria/Romania area that lies between the big R1a an R1b blocks on either side.  It was the first area of the spread of cattle dairying into Europe and there developed advanced and very populous cultures in that area.  I find it very hard to believe that some steppes hunters (later nomads) would have  imposed their language on Europe.  I think the whole Kurgan theory (in so much as it is seen as the actual source of IE and the origin of IE languages across most of Europe) will one day be seen as a textbook example of counter-intuitive arguing to support an inherited bit of baggage from the earlier days of the study of antiquity.  I have no doubt that at some stage R1a populations learned IE and were responsible for the spread of the language in some directions to the east and south but I dont think they were the original source.  I suspect that IE arose closer to the near east and spread into Anatolia in a pre-PIE form before spreading to the west side of the Black Sea with dairying.  From there it may have exercised an influence both east into the steppes and west into the rest of Europe.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 04, 2012, 06:52:49 PM
On the other hand, the pre-Italic/pre-Celtic groups were NOT Usatovo, but a different kind of Yamnaya that were from further east and did NOT have contact with the Cucuteni-Trypolye. These pre-Italic/pre-Celtic Yamnaya from east of the Bug River were a "true folk movement" that involved "major, sustained population movement". He also says they "passed through" Usatovo lands. They were already speaking PIE so they didn't need to have picked it up from the Usatovo at that time.

How to or to who did they pass the IE language on if their major haplogroup group was not P312 or a pre-P312 R1b type?  Somehow, by the time they emanated out of Hungary they were P312 or pre-P312 R1b laden.

If we follow Anthony's model, it seems hard to understand how separate lineages of R1b in Old European cultures all learned IE from different migrations (pre-Germanic, pre-Italic, pre-Celtic and maybe pre-Balto/Slavic) of Yamnaya herders, unless of course they were among the Yamnaya herders in the first place.

Cucuteni-Tripolye lived within the Yamnaya horizon for 800 years (3600-2800).  Compare it to German immigrants to the US in 18th and 19th centuries.  They learned English after a while and eventually became apart of the American "horizon".  It was probably an easier transition for the Cucuteni because they had been interacting with steppe populations since 5500.

But then something similar happened to the next culture over - and the next and the next - all the way to the Atlantic?

Kind of strains credulity, doesn't it?

The Kurgan theory has always been a complete house of cards and essentially fantasy when it comes to most of Europe.  Forget Antony, read the organ grinder instead (Mallory).  His book basically admits the Kurgan theory does not work for almost all of Europe.  Anthony tries to weave around this but its the usual waffle and house of cards when it comes to applying the Kurgan theory to most of Europe.  It just my opinion (people have been trying to crack this nut for generations) but I think treating Anthony's book like some sort of bible on the subject is a waste of time.  What he says on the Indo-Europeanisation of Europe outside its eastern fringe is like a short aside that could have been written on the back of a few envelopes. 


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 04, 2012, 07:11:00 PM
What kind of baffles me is the treatment of Anatolian in Anthony's book. He calls it "The Oldest and Strangest Daughter (Or Cousin?)" [of IE] and mentions that the oldest documentary evidence of any Indo-European language, in this case in the form of inscriptions, is for Hittite, dated to about 1900 BC. Then he mentions the archaic traits of Anatolian that make it a special case and separate from PIE.

Quote from: Anthony, pp. 47-48
The Anatolian branch either lost or never possessed other features that were present in all other Indo-European languages . . .

Alexander Lehrman identified ten such traits that probably were innovations in Proto-Indo-European after Pre-Anatolian split away.

For some Indo-Europeanists these traits suggest that the Anatolian branch did not develop from Proto-Indo-European at all but rather evolved from an older Pre-Proto-Indo-European ancestor. This ancestral language was called Indo-Hittite by William Sturtevant. According to the Indo-Hittite hypothesis, Anatolian is an Indo-European language only in the broadest sense, as it did not develop from Proto-Indo-European. But it did preserve, uniquely, features of an earlier language community from which they both evolved. I cannot solve the debate over the categorization of Anatolian here, although it is obviously true that Proto-Indo-European must have evolved from an earlier language community, and we can use Indo-Hittite to refer to that hypothetical earlier stage.

So, there you have it. The most archaic of the Indo-European languages is found in Anatolia, where the oldest written evidence of Indo-European is also found. Be that as it may, Anthony and the other Kurganists derive Anatolian from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, usually by way of the Balkan peninsula. Yes, Anatolian, the oldest known branch of Indo-European, although found in Anatolia (hence the name), must have come from the Pontic-Caspian steppe! It just split off very early.

Am I the only one who finds that more than a little odd?


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 04, 2012, 07:27:01 PM
What kind of baffles me is the treatment of Anatolian in Anthony's book. He calls it "The Oldest and Strangest Daughter (Or Cousin?)" [of IE] and mentions that the oldest documentary evidence of any Indo-European language, in this case in the form of inscriptions, is for Hittite, dated to about 1900 BC. Then he mentions the archaic traits of Anatolian that make it a special case and separate from PIE.

Quote from: Anthony, pp. 47-48
The Anatolian branch either lost or never possessed other features that were present in all other Indo-European languages . . .

Alexander Lehrman identified ten such traits that probably were innovations in Proto-Indo-European after Pre-Anatolian split away.

For some Indo-Europeanists these traits suggest that the Anatolian branch did not develop from Proto-Indo-European at all but rather evolved from an older Pre-Proto-Indo-European ancestor. This ancestral language was called Indo-Hittite by William Sturtevant. According to the Indo-Hittite hypothesis, Anatolian is an Indo-European language only in the broadest sense, as it did not develop from Proto-Indo-European. But it did preserve, uniquely, features of an earlier language community from which they both evolved. I cannot solve the debate over the categorization of Anatolian here, although it is obviously true that Proto-Indo-European must have evolved from an earlier language community, and we can use Indo-Hittite to refer to that hypothetical earlier stage.

So, there you have it. The most archaic of the Indo-European languages is found in Anatolia, where the oldest written evidence of Indo-European is also found. Be that as it may, Anthony and the other Kurganists derive Anatolian from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, usually by way of the Balkan peninsula. Yes, Anatolian, the oldest known branch of Indo-European, although found in Anatolia (hence the name), must have come from the Pontic-Caspian steppe! It just split off very early.

Am I the only one who finds that more than a little odd?

Just one of a lot of special pleading in the Kurgan school.  As I said before, at least Mallory admits that the Kurgan model is of little use beyond Europe's eastern fringes.  Personally I  think Anthony gave the game away by his waffly attempts to use the Kurgan model to explain IE in much of Europe.  All he presented was waffle and something of a dressed up throwback to the Corded Ware - Kurgan links of Gordon Childe's day. 


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 04, 2012, 07:33:59 PM
Remember also our recent discussion of The Case for Euphratic (http://www.science.org.ge/2-3/Gordon%20Whitteker.pdf).

That's an odd piece, as well, if Indo-European first evolved on the Pontic-Caspian steppe. It makes better sense, however, if Indo-European originated in Anatolia.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 04, 2012, 08:17:02 PM
At the risk of really stirring up the hornets' nest, since consensus was mentioned as favoring the Kurgan Theory on either this or another thread, I thought I would once again post this quote from Barry Cunliffe.

Quote from: Cunliffe, Barry
While it is only fair to say that large areas remain unresolved, there is a growing consensus, at least among a significant group of archaeologists, that the most appropriate context for the introduction of the Indo-European languages into Europe is the spread of the Neolithic way of life. In other words, the language originated among the early food producers of south-west Asia and thereafter spread through Europe, one branch following the route through the Balkans to the Great Hungarian Plain and then westwards through the deciduous forest zone of Middle Europe, the other spreading westwards through the Mediterranean to the Atlantic shores of Iberia. In both these zones Indo-European was swept quickly forwards in the fifth millennium as the language of the colonizing farmers. Europe Between the Oceans, p. 138

Anthony's own comments about Anatolian tend to support Cunliffe's contention.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: MHammers on April 04, 2012, 08:52:27 PM
But then something similar happened to the next culture over - and the next and the next - all the way to the Atlantic?

Kind of strains credulity, doesn't it?

Not really.  I was thinking in terms of the Bell Beaker horizon rather than a series of continuous cultures each adopting a package.  Basically, these previous cultures which were more localized than a horizon were outcompeted, overrun, etc. over a course of several hundred years.  We see this happening to the Treilles people in SE France in the 4th millenium.  Why did all of these areas suddenly adopt uniform horizon from Norway to the Mediterranean by the 3rd millenium?


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 04, 2012, 09:15:27 PM
But then something similar happened to the next culture over - and the next and the next - all the way to the Atlantic?

Kind of strains credulity, doesn't it?

Not really.  I was thinking in terms of the Bell Beaker horizon rather than a series of continuous cultures each adopting a package.  Basically, these previous cultures which were more localized than a horizon were outcompeted, overrun, etc. over a course of several hundred years.  We see this happening to the Treilles people in SE France in the 4th millenium.  Why did all of these areas suddenly adopt uniform horizon from Norway to the Mediterranean by the 3rd millenium?

Well, it certainly strains my willingness to believe it.

So, you think Bell Beaker represents an amalgam of different peoples who adopted an IE language and a sort of evolved variant of the kurgan model, probably in the vicinity of the Hungarian Plain, and then spread that west, ultimately all the way to the Atlantic and northward to Scandinavia and the Orkneys (even though the oldest radiocarbon 14 dated beaker stuff comes from the Tagus Valley in Portugal)?

Your use of "uniform horizon" makes things sound more monolithic than they really were.



Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: MHammers on April 04, 2012, 11:15:11 PM
But then something similar happened to the next culture over - and the next and the next - all the way to the Atlantic?

Kind of strains credulity, doesn't it?

Not really.  I was thinking in terms of the Bell Beaker horizon rather than a series of continuous cultures each adopting a package.  Basically, these previous cultures which were more localized than a horizon were outcompeted, overrun, etc. over a course of several hundred years.  We see this happening to the Treilles people in SE France in the 4th millenium.  Why did all of these areas suddenly adopt uniform horizon from Norway to the Mediterranean by the 3rd millenium?

Well, it certainly strains my willingness to believe it.

So, you think Bell Beaker represents an amalgam of different peoples who adopted an IE language and a sort of evolved variant of the kurgan model, probably in the vicinity of the Hungarian Plain, and then spread that west, ultimately all the way to the Atlantic and northward to Scandinavia and the Orkneys (even though the oldest radiocarbon 14 dated beaker stuff comes from the Tagus Valley in Portugal)?

Your use of "uniform horizon" makes things sound more monolithic than they really were.

To your first question, generally yes.  IE would have to be acquired long before then, probably somewhere in E or SE Europe.  The oldest date for Beaker in Portugal is not critical to a large expansion of R1b coming from the east around the same time.  The late neolithic people could have recieved it through trade.  The all over corded style was just one of several in use by Beakers.  So, of course it's not monolithic.  The influence of most ceramics used by Beakers also comes from the east.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: MHammers on April 04, 2012, 11:33:37 PM
I wouldnt be surprised if the original area of PIE speaking was in the Bulgaria/Romania area that lies between the big R1a an R1b blocks on either side.  It was the first area of the spread of cattle dairying into Europe and there developed advanced and very populous cultures in that area.  I find it very hard to believe that some steppes hunters (later nomads) would have  imposed their language on Europe.  I think the whole Kurgan theory (in so much as it is seen as the actual source of IE and the origin of IE languages across most of Europe) will one day be seen as a textbook example of counter-intuitive arguing to support an inherited bit of baggage from the earlier days of the study of antiquity.  I have no doubt that at some stage R1a populations learned IE and were responsible for the spread of the language in some directions to the east and south but I dont think they were the original source.  I suspect that IE arose closer to the near east and spread into Anatolia in a pre-PIE form before spreading to the west side of the Black Sea with dairying.  From there it may have exercised an influence both east into the steppes and west into the rest of Europe.

This is reasonable compared to the Renfrew version given the time frame when dairy farming came about.  There may have not been a single, relatively small homeland which many have tried to narrow down. 

How would there be a Proto-Uralic connection in this model?  It seems that the area where PIE was spoken would have to extend from Bulgaria to the Urals.  In Anthony's book, the Cucuteni only reach the Dnieper river, but had no settlements beyond.  I suppose it is possible that the steppe people to the east would have acquired it and not long after proto-Tocharian branches off.



Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 05, 2012, 12:10:14 AM
On the other hand, the pre-Italic/pre-Celtic groups were NOT Usatovo, but a different kind of Yamnaya that were from further east and did NOT have contact with the Cucuteni-Trypolye. These pre-Italic/pre-Celtic Yamnaya from east of the Bug River were a "true folk movement" that involved "major, sustained population movement". He also says they "passed through" Usatovo lands. They were already speaking PIE so they didn't need to have picked it up from the Usatovo at that time.

How to or to who did they pass the IE language on if their major haplogroup group was not P312 or a pre-P312 R1b type?  Somehow, by the time they emanated out of Hungary they were P312 or pre-P312 R1b laden.

If we follow Anthony's model, it seems hard to understand how separate lineages of R1b in Old European cultures all learned IE from different migrations (pre-Germanic, pre-Italic, pre-Celtic and maybe pre-Balto/Slavic) of Yamnaya herders, unless of course they were among the Yamnaya herders in the first place.

Cucuteni-Tripolye lived within the Yamnaya horizon for 800 years (3600-2800).  Compare it to German immigrants to the US in 18th and 19th centuries.  They learned English after a while and eventually became apart of the American "horizon".  It was probably an easier transition for the Cucuteni because they had been interacting with steppe populations since 5500.

I don't think the German-American example is comparable. Language changes don't generally come because of the desire of the target for change. Usually the target would prefer to have everyone else change.

In the German-American example, there is a huge benefit (and perhaps a huge problem if you don't) to learning the new language to enhance employment, business and other opportunities. The governing institutions also encouraged it, but probably more important was the huge weight of the majority of pre-existing Americans already speaking English.

Usually, from what I see, necessity drives language change. Have you ever taken a Berlitz language class? Most people don't learn conversational skills in a foreign language without being forced into it because speaking in your native language doesn't work in the "foreign" environment.

The Cucuteni-Tripolye folks were comparatively populous vis-a-vie the Usatovo folks they had contact with. Were they forced by the militant Yamnaya herders?     Perhaps so..... but then if that was the case you'd expect the dominant paternal lineages to be Yamnaya and according to Jean M and Anatole that would mean they are probably R1a1.

This is why I ask "where are the R1a1 Celts?"  This is why I can't align the significant Yamnaya folk migration from east of the Bug River to Hungary and what Anthony thinks is the pre-Italic/pre-Celtic speakers ---  to the R-P312 dominance in what ended up being the Celtic territories of Western Europe.

Unless, of course, those Yamnaya had some R1b in them too from way back in the steppes.

Another problem for the argument that R1b was of the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture and learned IE from the Usatovo (Yamnaya) is this ---  Other Old Europe cultures must also have independently learned IE from the Yamnaya, not just the Cucuteni-Tripolye.  The Yamnaya who went up the Danube to Hungary that may have been pre-Italic and pre-Celtic weren't thought to have had the same amount of "integration" with Old Europe.  

I guess the counter-argument is that R1b was pervasive in Old Europe (farming) beyond the Cucuteni-Trypolye so they would always be the receivers from the R1a Yamnaya herders.

Still, I don't get why more R1a1 didn't leak through to the heavily Celtic dominated lands..


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 05, 2012, 12:34:35 AM
At the risk of really stirring up the hornets' nest, since consensus was mentioned as favoring the Kurgan Theory on either this or another thread, I thought I would once again post this quote from Barry Cunliffe.

Quote from: Cunliffe, Barry
While it is only fair to say that large areas remain unresolved, there is a growing consensus, at least among a significant group of archaeologists, that the most appropriate context for the introduction of the Indo-European languages into Europe is the spread of the Neolithic way of life. In other words, the language originated among the early food producers of south-west Asia and thereafter spread through Europe, one branch following the route through the Balkans to the Great Hungarian Plain and then westwards through the deciduous forest zone of Middle Europe, the other spreading westwards through the Mediterranean to the Atlantic shores of Iberia. In both these zones Indo-European was swept quickly forwards in the fifth millennium as the language of the colonizing farmers. Europe Between the Oceans, p. 138

Anthony's own comments about Anatolian tend to support Cunliffe's contention.
I've never seen where Cunliffe gets into the details of PIE and what it really is and how therefore we can try to locate its homeland.

I guess I'm saying Cunliffe is an archaeologist, not a linguist and unless he can give more detail than that in his rationale I'm not convinced. I've read two of his books. I think Cunliffe is swayed by the big picture and broad strokes of the gigantic Neolithic advances.  There is nothing wrong with that, however, the Neolithic advances really don't line up with IE expansion nor R1b expansion nor R1a expansion.

Anthony does go into detail on PIE and explains why he thinks the PIE homeland has to be in the steppes.  He may be wrong, but I think the counter-arguments all have to relate to figuring out Anatolian.   Anthony would consider it "pre-PIE" in effect.  It is missing some key words.  However, I don't know the linguistics issues to argue whether the missing words must be "basic" words in PIE or could have been loan words into PIE.   Maybe it doesn't matter.

The case for PIE in steppes relies on the concept that all descending IE languages have the basic PIE root words and therefore who cares where pre-PIE was?  It is only full PIE that counts since Germanic, Italic, Celtic, Baltic, Slavic, Greek, Sanskrit, etc. all sprung from full PIE.

I apologize that I'm taking a bit of hard edge of some of these topics, but there are some things I've never understood and I've decided it is time to argue and either be left standing or be knocked down.  Either way is okay, but I'm seeking a greater resolution than the tentative ones we have now.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: IALEM on April 05, 2012, 02:13:30 AM
The Anatolian/Balkanic origin of IE have to battle two important obstacles.
1) Chronology,  Neolithic is considered too early for PIE to be in existence.
2) The foreign origin of Hittites. That is something so well established that Renfrew can only indicate some doubts on the subject without really putting forward an alternative. Hittites arrived to Anatolia at some point c.2000 BC and replaced the original Hattic (non IE) speakers.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 05, 2012, 05:23:39 AM
In what you posted earlier, about Yamnaya mothers teaching R1b sons IE, you seemed to be saying that PIE originated among peoples who were predominantly R1a. .. What I thought we were discussing was who the original IE folk were. If R1b peoples learned it, however early on, from R1a peoples, then R1a is the PIE y haplogroup.

I'm very sorry that you feel that way. It just feeds what you rightly call haplogroup cheerleading. I think it a big mistake to assume that any ethnic group was ever composed of a single haplogroup, except possibly very early in its development, if it began as a single family group.

Yes it is pretty plain that PIE developed from a hunter-gatherer language, which came in contact with farming/stock-keeping. Yes it is pretty plain that it developed around the south Urals. Yes it is pretty plain that those who developed an early form of it were strong in R1a1a, though it is is unlikely that R1a1a was the only Y-DNA haplogroup among them. We can tell this from the predominance of R1a1a in those IE speakers who went east, including the ancestors of the Tocharian-speakers. Those ancestors left c. 3,500 BC and created the copper-working Afanasievo Culture, which  is an offshoot of the culture of the Volga-Ural region.

However the input of the dairy farmers and copper workers of Cucuteni into the composite culture (and therefore PIE as a language of that culture) cannot be denied. The language spread because of the strength and mobility of that culture. By the time that IE-speaking people moved up the Danube c. 3000 BC, evidently R1b was very strong among them. Lactase persistence, which most probably cropped up first among dairy farmers around the Sea of Marmara or Danube delta, travelled east with people strong in R1a1a (and travelled also with Uralic-speakers). That means that R1b and R1a1a people had been inter-mixing. There cannot have been a genetic/cultural/language barrier between them. The barriers had dissolved.  



Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 05, 2012, 05:48:45 AM
I've never seen where Cunliffe gets into the details of PIE and what it really is and how therefore we can try to locate its homeland. ..I guess I'm saying Cunliffe is an archaeologist, not a linguist... I think Cunliffe is swayed by the big picture and broad strokes of the gigantic Neolithic advances.

That's exactly right. I can't criticise because I leaned the same way before I got into the linguistics. However Prof. Cunliffe seemed to be hedging his bets in the last book (Europe Between the Oceans), and subsequently has been working with a linguist, Prof. John Koch. They invited both Mallory and Renfrew to lecture at the launch of their volume Celtic from the West. You can find summaries of those lectures in my notes on that meeting.



Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 05, 2012, 07:48:40 AM
At the risk of really stirring up the hornets' nest, since consensus was mentioned as favoring the Kurgan Theory on either this or another thread, I thought I would once again post this quote from Barry Cunliffe.

Quote from: Cunliffe, Barry
While it is only fair to say that large areas remain unresolved, there is a growing consensus, at least among a significant group of archaeologists, that the most appropriate context for the introduction of the Indo-European languages into Europe is the spread of the Neolithic way of life. In other words, the language originated among the early food producers of south-west Asia and thereafter spread through Europe, one branch following the route through the Balkans to the Great Hungarian Plain and then westwards through the deciduous forest zone of Middle Europe, the other spreading westwards through the Mediterranean to the Atlantic shores of Iberia. In both these zones Indo-European was swept quickly forwards in the fifth millennium as the language of the colonizing farmers. Europe Between the Oceans, p. 138

Anthony's own comments about Anatolian tend to support Cunliffe's contention.
I've never seen where Cunliffe gets into the details of PIE and what it really is and how therefore we can try to locate its homeland.

I guess I'm saying Cunliffe is an archaeologist, not a linguist and unless he can give more detail than that in his rationale I'm not convinced. I've read two of his books. I think Cunliffe is swayed by the big picture and broad strokes of the gigantic Neolithic advances.  There is nothing wrong with that, however, the Neolithic advances really don't line up with IE expansion nor R1b expansion nor R1a expansion.

Anthony does go into detail on PIE and explains why he thinks the PIE homeland has to be in the steppes.  He may be wrong, but I think the counter-arguments all have to relate to figuring out Anatolian.   Anthony would consider it "pre-PIE" in effect.  It is missing some key words.  However, I don't know the linguistics issues to argue whether the missing words must be "basic" words in PIE or could have been loan words into PIE.   Maybe it doesn't matter.

The case for PIE in steppes relies on the concept that all descending IE languages have the basic PIE root words and therefore who cares where pre-PIE was?  It is only full PIE that counts since Germanic, Italic, Celtic, Baltic, Slavic, Greek, Sanskrit, etc. all sprung from full PIE.

I apologize that I'm taking a bit of hard edge of some of these topics, but there are some things I've never understood and I've decided it is time to argue and either be left standing or be knocked down.  Either way is okay, but I'm seeking a greater resolution than the tentative ones we have now.

Here's the thing about Anatolian and Indo-European that I think is important, and you know I am no more of an expert than you are.

We don't know what kind of language was spoken on the Pontic-Caspian steppe in the 5th or 4th millennium BC. I'm not arguing that it wasn't some kind of IE, but we don't really know, and we have no hard evidence for what it was.

For Anatolia, however, we know from inscriptions that at least one IE language, Hittite, was being spoken there by 1900 BC. That is hard evidence. For the rest, we know that the Anatolian branch of IE is the most archaic of the IE languages, so much so that some linguists have posited the existence of Indo-Hittite as a precursor of PIE itself.

It seems reasonable to me that the Urheimat of Indo-European might very well be the place where 1) the oldest hard evidence of IE is found and 2) the home of the very precursor or parent language of Indo-European itself is found.

In addition, if Euphratic actually existed and was a very early IE language, does it make more sense to derive it from relatively nearby Anatolia or from the distant Pontic-Caspian steppe?

Where you find grandpa could be where the old folks live. Why make grandpa the one who moved because you find some of his descendants someplace else?

The point Cunliffe was making about the Neolithic as the vehicle for IE is that it was a momentous epoch that affected all of Europe, from one end to the other - precisely the sort of thing that might leave another big change, like the switch to Indo-European, in its wake. The kurgan horizon or package or whatever is small potatoes by comparison and did not sweep across Europe in any recognizable form.

As for the Neolithic being too old, well, it didn't come all at once, and that is the argument of those who think they have glottochronology and the timing of language change down pat. I don't have that much confidence in the precision of linguistic arguments, not for things like the passage of time, which are not themselves questions of language.

As for "full PIE", why couldn't an early form of IE have come north out of Anatolia and in SE Europe subsequently picked up the changes evident in PIE and spread them from there?





Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 05, 2012, 07:57:36 AM
I wouldnt be surprised if the original area of PIE speaking was in the Bulgaria/Romania area that lies between the big R1a an R1b blocks on either side.  It was the first area of the spread of cattle dairying into Europe and there developed advanced and very populous cultures in that area.  I find it very hard to believe that some steppes hunters (later nomads) would have  imposed their language on Europe.  I think the whole Kurgan theory (in so much as it is seen as the actual source of IE and the origin of IE languages across most of Europe) will one day be seen as a textbook example of counter-intuitive arguing to support an inherited bit of baggage from the earlier days of the study of antiquity.  I have no doubt that at some stage R1a populations learned IE and were responsible for the spread of the language in some directions to the east and south but I dont think they were the original source.  I suspect that IE arose closer to the near east and spread into Anatolia in a pre-PIE form before spreading to the west side of the Black Sea with dairying.  From there it may have exercised an influence both east into the steppes and west into the rest of Europe.

This is reasonable compared to the Renfrew version given the time frame when dairy farming came about.  There may have not been a single, relatively small homeland which many have tried to narrow down. 

How would there be a Proto-Uralic connection in this model?  It seems that the area where PIE was spoken would have to extend from Bulgaria to the Urals.  In Anthony's book, the Cucuteni only reach the Dnieper river, but had no settlements beyond.  I suppose it is possible that the steppe people to the east would have acquired it and not long after proto-Tocharian branches off.

The Proto-Uralic connection is somewhat controversial and not a slam-dunk. Anthony himself mentions the possibility that the influence of Proto-Uralic is relatively late and primarily affected Indo-Iranian. Of course, he produces arguments to show that the Proto-Uralic influence was earlier, but mostly, as I recall, by showing that IE influenced Uralic and not the other way around.

Early IE also had Caucasian influences, but Anthony characterizes those as "controversial" (the Proto-Uralic influences are just as controversial).

 


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: MHammers on April 05, 2012, 10:42:17 AM
The Cucuteni-Tripolye folks were comparatively populous vis-a-vie the Usatovo folks they had contact with. Were they forced by the militant Yamnaya herders?     Perhaps so..... but then if that was the case you'd expect the dominant paternal lineages to be Yamnaya and according to Jean M and Anatole that would mean they are probably R1a1.

This is why I ask "where are the R1a1 Celts?"  This is why I can't align the significant Yamnaya folk migration from east of the Bug River to Hungary and what Anthony thinks is the pre-Italic/pre-Celtic speakers ---  to the R-P312 dominance in what ended up being the Celtic territories of Western Europe.

Unless, of course, those Yamnaya had some R1b in them too from way back in the steppes.

Another problem for the argument that R1b was of the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture and learned IE from the Usatovo (Yamnaya) is this ---  Other Old Europe cultures must also have independently learned IE from the Yamnaya, not just the Cucuteni-Tripolye.  The Yamnaya who went up the Danube to Hungary that may have been pre-Italic and pre-Celtic weren't thought to have had the same amount of "integration" with Old Europe.  

I guess the counter-argument is that R1b was pervasive in Old Europe (farming) beyond the Cucuteni-Trypolye so they would always be the receivers from the R1a Yamnaya herders.

Still, I don't get why more R1a1 didn't leak through to the heavily Celtic dominated lands..

Fair points.  I think the reason R1a didn't make it into Celtic Europe in later times is because they weren't a large part of the Yamnaya migration into Hungary.  The Bug river is not too far away from the Cucuteni-Tripolye either.  I think the people involved in that were many Hg's possibly, but also R1b who were either IE-ized Tripolye people or others living along the Danube.

The other old Europe cultures were not as independent at the time of the Yamnaya migrations.  Already established was the Cernavoda-Ezero complex or horizon in SE Europe which possibly was dominated by a steppe elite at first.  Then, there was the Cotofeni culture in Romania, another kind of hybrid steppe/old Europe group like Usatavo.  This is why I don't think each old Europe community had to adapt in an independent way.  They were likely "encouraged" to by the new management as a means of survival.  By the time Cucuteni-Tripolye ends in 2800, SE Europe is already speaking some form of IE.  In the above, I'm mainly speaking about the old tell regions of the lower Danube.

It is also possible that Anthony is wrong about the Yamnaya people bringing proto-Italo-Celtic west.  It could just as easily spun off from somewhere in the Cernavoda-Ezero horizon before them.  The reason for this is the Baden and Vucedol people were not integrating with the steppe people in the Hungarian plain. 


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 05, 2012, 11:06:40 AM
We don't know what kind of language was spoken on the Pontic-Caspian steppe in the 5th or 4th millennium BC. ... For Anatolia, however, we know from inscriptions that at least one IE language, Hittite, was being spoken there by 1900 BC.

The places where we find the earliest records of languages are simply the places with literate societies. PIE was not the language of a literate society of the Near East or Anatolia. We know this first because it wasn't written down, and second because it doesn't have vocabulary for complex urban life. I tried to explain this on the other thread, but possibly I was too oblique. 


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 05, 2012, 12:14:48 PM
It is also possible that Anthony is wrong about the Yamnaya people bringing proto-Italo-Celtic west.  It could just as easily spun off from somewhere in the Cernavoda-Ezero horizon before them.

I doubt it. There is a very clear cultural trail from the steppe up the Danube and into what became Celtic/Italic areas. See my Stelae people map: http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/images/StelaePeople.jpg

In my efforts to make things succinct and easily understood, I may have conveyed the impression of a very simple story of R1b living only and always in the Balkans and R1a living only and always around the Volga-Urals. This is very obviously not the case.  The reality must have been much more complex. Some R1b ended up in places on the steppe. Some R1a filtered up the rivers into the remnants of Cucuteni villages. Ra1a and R1b could travel together. They very clearly interacted.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Richard Rocca on April 05, 2012, 02:54:12 PM
The places where we find the earliest records of languages are simply the places with literate societies. PIE was not the language of a literate society of the Near East or Anatolia. We know this first because it wasn't written down, and second because it doesn't have vocabulary for complex urban life. I tried to explain this on the other thread, but possibly I was too oblique. 

Jean, I use that argument all the time. The earliest (uncontested) written proof of the Celtic language is in the form of the Lepontic language of northern Italy (~600 BC). And yet, nobody can deny that Celtic was being spoken loooong before 600 BC in places like the British Isles.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 05, 2012, 03:03:06 PM
Another example is that the first written form of Slavic was 9th-century AD translations of the Bible etc by Byzantine Greek missionaries from Macedonia. :)


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 05, 2012, 05:41:36 PM
I dont really see a huge problem with a revised Renfrew type model of pre-PIE arising south of the Black Sea and then sending an offshoot into the farming area just west of the Black Sea and PIE slowly arising there.  That places it adjacent to the steppes but actually among the farming groups there.  There are cultures that do appear to potentially be offshoots of Antaolian ones on the west of the Black Sea in the 5th millenium.  The exact same route and same period saw the movement of dairying also from Anatolia to the west shore of the Black Sea.  If PIE arose from an Anatolian offshoot into the west Black Sea area (Bulgaria/east Romania/fringes of the Ukraine) and evolved there from say 5000BC to 4000BC and beyond then I think much falls into place.  Clearly this would make R1b the likely original IE speakers with (perhaps) R1a steppe hunters being the recieivers rather than the doners of IE along with all the other aspects like dairying, farming etc.  It has never seemed likely to me that steppes hunters morphing into nomadic pastoralists could ever exert anything other than a peripheral impact on Europe.  In later times steppes peoples seem to rarely get past the steppe-like fringes of eastern Europe.

Indeed, I am not even convinced that R1a was a steppe haplogroup.  It has higher diversity in the Balkans and perhaps it was simply in the farming mix in SE Europe along with R1b and penetrated into the steppes.  I see the Yamnaya thrust as a limited reflux caused by climatic deterioration than badly weakened the C-Trypole culture and forced them into the fringes of the farming zone.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 05, 2012, 06:45:12 PM
We don't know what kind of language was spoken on the Pontic-Caspian steppe in the 5th or 4th millennium BC. ... For Anatolia, however, we know from inscriptions that at least one IE language, Hittite, was being spoken there by 1900 BC.

The places where we find the earliest records of languages are simply the places with literate societies. PIE was not the language of a literate society of the Near East or Anatolia. We know this first because it wasn't written down, and second because it doesn't have vocabulary for complex urban life. I tried to explain this on the other thread, but possibly I was too oblique.  


You missed the point, although I'm pretty sure I mentioned it. I don't think I was unclear about that, but subsequent posts by both you and Rich Rocca make it clear neither of you got it. I wasn't trying to assert that IE arose in Anatolia circa 1900 BC because there are inscriptions there dated to that period. I mentioned the fact that the oldest written evidence for IE occurs in Anatolia because it is hard evidence for the fact that IE was actually spoken in Anatolia, and hard evidence is what we do NOT have for whatever language was spoken on the Pontic-Caspian steppe during the 5th and 4th millenniums BC.

What of the archaic nature of Anatolian and the opinion of some linguists that it indicates the descent of IE from Indo-Hittite, regarded as the precursor of Anatolian and of PIE? Anthony himself acknowledges that.

The oldest known form of Indo-European came from Anatolia. To maintain the Kurgan Theory, one must argue it originally came from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, probably by way of the Balkan peninsula. It had to have come to Anatolia very early, leaving the P-C Urheimat before PIE itself had time to develop.

That strikes me as a very strained argument - special pleading, as Alan characterized it.

It makes more sense to me to think that the oldest form of Indo-European is found in the place where the earliest Indo-Europeans themselves probably lived, and that some of them moved north, into the Balkan peninsula, where they encountered non-IE peoples and the language developed further, into PIE.





Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 05, 2012, 07:22:53 PM
The places where we find the earliest records of languages are simply the places with literate societies. PIE was not the language of a literate society of the Near East or Anatolia. We know this first because it wasn't written down, and second because it doesn't have vocabulary for complex urban life. I tried to explain this on the other thread, but possibly I was too oblique.  

Jean, I use that argument all the time. The earliest (uncontested) written proof of the Celtic language is in the form of the Lepontic language of northern Italy (~600 BC). And yet, nobody can deny that Celtic was being spoken loooong before 600 BC in places like the British Isles.

We have other kinds of actual evidence - place names, names of topographical features, etc. - for Celtic.

Do we have that sort of thing to connect the Pontic-Caspian steppe with Proto-Indo-European?

Not that I know of.

All the place names and topographical features there now have Slavic names. I don't know; some of those may even have roots in non-IE languages spoken by the various peoples who have resided in or moved through that region.

The idea that PIE originated on the Pontic-Caspian steppe is the product of deductive reasoning. It is a hypothesis ultimately based on the fact that the Pontic-Caspian steppe is roughly halfway between the eastern and western limits of the primary zone in which IE languages are spoken. Once that spot was selected, its advocates began to assemble evidence to support it. That's fine, but let's recognize it for what it is.

There is no hard evidence that PIE was actually spoken by anyone on the Pontic-Caspian steppe during the 5th and 4th millenniums BC. There are arguments from linguistics, yes, but they are somewhat attenuated.

The oldest form of Indo-European was found in Anatolia.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 05, 2012, 07:41:12 PM
I dont really see a huge problem with a revised Renfrew type model of pre-PIE arising south of the Black Sea and then sending an offshoot into the farming area just west of the Black Sea and PIE slowly arising there. That places it adjacent to the steppes but actually among the farming groups there.  There are cultures that do appear to potentially be offshoots of Antaolian ones on the west of the Black Sea in the 5th millenium.  The exact same route and same period saw the movement of dairying also from Anatolia to the west shore of the Black Sea.  If PIE arose from an Anatolian offshoot into the west Black Sea area (Bulgaria/east Romania/fringes of the Ukraine) and evolved there from say 5000BC to 4000BC and beyond then I think much falls into place.  Clearly this would make R1b the likely original IE speakers with (perhaps) R1a steppe hunters being the recieivers rather than the doners of IE along with all the other aspects like dairying, farming etc.  It has never seemed likely to me that steppes hunters morphing into nomadic pastoralists could ever exert anything other than a peripheral impact on Europe.  In later times steppes peoples seem to rarely get past the steppe-like fringes of eastern Europe.

Indeed, I am not even convinced that R1a was a steppe haplogroup.  It has higher diversity in the Balkans and perhaps it was simply in the farming mix in SE Europe along with R1b and penetrated into the steppes.  I see the Yamnaya thrust as a limited reflux caused by climatic deterioration than badly weakened the C-Trypole culture and forced them into the fringes of the farming zone.


I agree with that, and it makes sense of the archaic nature of the Anatolian branch of the Indo-European languages, a thing that cannot be adequately explained by the Kurgan Theory.

It also might make sense of Euphratic, if in fact it did exist and was an early Indo-European language.

And, finally, it also makes sense of the spread of IE to the west, a thing pretty clearly not accomplished by predominantly R1a peoples or even peoples with a kurganized culture.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: NealtheRed on April 05, 2012, 08:02:34 PM
I dont really see a huge problem with a revised Renfrew type model of pre-PIE arising south of the Black Sea and then sending an offshoot into the farming area just west of the Black Sea and PIE slowly arising there. That places it adjacent to the steppes but actually among the farming groups there.  There are cultures that do appear to potentially be offshoots of Antaolian ones on the west of the Black Sea in the 5th millenium.  The exact same route and same period saw the movement of dairying also from Anatolia to the west shore of the Black Sea.  If PIE arose from an Anatolian offshoot into the west Black Sea area (Bulgaria/east Romania/fringes of the Ukraine) and evolved there from say 5000BC to 4000BC and beyond then I think much falls into place.  Clearly this would make R1b the likely original IE speakers with (perhaps) R1a steppe hunters being the recieivers rather than the doners of IE along with all the other aspects like dairying, farming etc.  It has never seemed likely to me that steppes hunters morphing into nomadic pastoralists could ever exert anything other than a peripheral impact on Europe.  In later times steppes peoples seem to rarely get past the steppe-like fringes of eastern Europe.

Indeed, I am not even convinced that R1a was a steppe haplogroup.  It has higher diversity in the Balkans and perhaps it was simply in the farming mix in SE Europe along with R1b and penetrated into the steppes.  I see the Yamnaya thrust as a limited reflux caused by climatic deterioration than badly weakened the C-Trypole culture and forced them into the fringes of the farming zone.


I agree with that, and it makes sense of the archaic nature of the Anatolian branch of the Indo-European languages, a thing that cannot be adequately explained by the Kurgan Theory.

It also might make sense of Euphratic, if in fact it did exist and was an early Indo-European language.

And, finally, it also makes sense of the spread of IE to the west, a thing pretty clearly not accomplished by predominantly R1a peoples or even peoples with a kurganized culture.

I don't see why the two theories cannot complement one another, say an ancestral PIE homeland in Anatolia or in the vicinity of the Armenian Highlands, and a secondary urheimat just west of the Black Sea.

If R1a tribes are in the Balkans during the Mesolithic period, this would enable them to pick up PIE and carry the innovations east across the steppe. R1a was clearly not associated with carrying IE languages west, possibly correlated with a pastoralist/hunter-gatherer split that underscored their suitability to the steppe lifestyle.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 05, 2012, 08:12:10 PM
Has anyone here read Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and a Proto-Culture (http://www.amazon.com/Indo-European-Indo-Europeans-Reconstruction-Proto-Language-Proto-Culture/dp/3110147289/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1333670597&sr=1-1), by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov?

Gamkrelidze and Ivanov are Russian linguists who famously place the IE Urheimat in eastern Anatolia.

Here is Amazon's description of the book:

Quote

The authors propse [sic] a revision of views on a number of central issues of Indo-European studies. Based on findings of typology, they suggest an analysis of the phonological system of Proto-Indo-European (the "glottalic" theory); they offer novel assumptions about the relative chronology of changes in PIE vowels and laryngeals. Their conclusions are compared with data from Paroto-Kartvelian [I think "Proto-Kartvelian" is meant]. In the second part of the book, a semantically organized presentation of material from the lexicon is combined with analyses of the use of forms and formulae in a broadly defined cultural context. Again similarities with properties of primarily Kartvelian and Semitic are described, and extended close contacts with these language families are postulated. This necessarily leads to a proposal to place the hypothetical Urheimat of the Indo-Europeans in the region south of the Caucasus. Volume I and II of the original Russian edition have been combined in the English version as Part I; the bibliography and indexes are published as Part II.

The book is a little too pricey for me. Otherwise, I would order it.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: NealtheRed on April 05, 2012, 08:40:17 PM
Has anyone here read Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and a Proto-Culture (http://www.amazon.com/Indo-European-Indo-Europeans-Reconstruction-Proto-Language-Proto-Culture/dp/3110147289/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1333670597&sr=1-1), by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov?

Gamkrelidze and Ivanov are Russian linguists who famously place the IE Urheimat in eastern Anatolia.

Here is Amazon's description of the book:

Quote

The authors propse [sic] a revision of views on a number of central issues of Indo-European studies. Based on findings of typology, they suggest an analysis of the phonological system of Proto-Indo-European (the "glottalic" theory); they offer novel assumptions about the relative chronology of changes in PIE vowels and laryngeals. Their conclusions are compared with data from Paroto-Kartvelian [I think "Proto-Kartvelian" is meant]. In the second part of the book, a semantically organized presentation of material from the lexicon is combined with analyses of the use of forms and formulae in a broadly defined cultural context. Again similarities with properties of primarily Kartvelian and Semitic are described, and extended close contacts with these language families are postulated. This necessarily leads to a proposal to place the hypothetical Urheimat of the Indo-Europeans in the region south of the Caucasus. Volume I and II of the original Russian edition have been combined in the English version as Part I; the bibliography and indexes are published as Part II.

The book is a little too pricey for me. Otherwise, I would order it.

Yeah, I remember reading an article about Ivanov and Gamkrelidze's theory; it was not the book though. It talks about the area south of the Caucasus, more specifically around Lake Urmia.

This would help explain why no R1a leaked through the Caucasus either. On the other hand, maybe they weren't interested in going there?


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Arwunbee on April 06, 2012, 01:00:54 AM
How long ago are we talking here?  The Black Sea was half its size in 5000 BC.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 06, 2012, 02:27:49 AM
Has anyone here read Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and a Proto-Culture (http://www.amazon.com/Indo-European-Indo-Europeans-Reconstruction-Proto-Language-Proto-Culture/dp/3110147289/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1333670597&sr=1-1), by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov?

Gamkrelidze and Ivanov are Russian linguists who famously place the IE Urheimat in eastern Anatolia.

Here is Amazon's description of the book:
Quote
Again similarities with properties of primarily Kartvelian and Semitic are described, and extended close contacts with these language families are postulated. This necessarily leads to a proposal to place the hypothetical Urheimat of the Indo-Europeans in the region south of the Caucasus.... 
The book is a little too pricey for me. Otherwise, I would order it.
I've never heard of these similarities with Kartvelian and Semitic. What are they?


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 06, 2012, 02:38:52 AM
I dont really see a huge problem with a revised Renfrew type model of pre-PIE arising south of the Black Sea and then sending an offshoot into the farming area just west of the Black Sea and PIE slowly arising there. That places it adjacent to the steppes but actually among the farming groups there.  There are cultures that do appear to potentially be offshoots of Antaolian ones on the west of the Black Sea in the 5th millenium.  The exact same route and same period saw the movement of dairying also from Anatolia to the west shore of the Black Sea.  If PIE arose from an Anatolian offshoot into the west Black Sea area (Bulgaria/east Romania/fringes of the Ukraine) and evolved there from say 5000BC to 4000BC and beyond then I think much falls into place.  Clearly this would make R1b the likely original IE speakers with (perhaps) R1a steppe hunters being the recieivers rather than the doners of IE along with all the other aspects like dairying, farming etc.  It has never seemed likely to me that steppes hunters morphing into nomadic pastoralists could ever exert anything other than a peripheral impact on Europe.  In later times steppes peoples seem to rarely get past the steppe-like fringes of eastern Europe.

Indeed, I am not even convinced that R1a was a steppe haplogroup.  It has higher diversity in the Balkans and perhaps it was simply in the farming mix in SE Europe along with R1b and penetrated into the steppes.  I see the Yamnaya thrust as a limited reflux caused by climatic deterioration than badly weakened the C-Trypole culture and forced them into the fringes of the farming zone.


I agree with that, and it makes sense of the archaic nature of the Anatolian branch of the Indo-European languages, a thing that cannot be adequately explained by the Kurgan Theory.

It also might make sense of Euphratic, if in fact it did exist and was an early Indo-European language.

And, finally, it also makes sense of the spread of IE to the west, a thing pretty clearly not accomplished by predominantly R1a peoples or even peoples with a kurganized culture.
If we could establish one thing related to this discussion it would  be beneficial to identify the PIE home land. As long as that is not understood, alternatives for the spread of IE languages will be quite varied.

I'll go back and re-read the PIE homeland stuff that I have, but I am not aware of anything that defeats the basic concept ---   The Germanic, Italic, Celtic, Balto-Slavic IE languages, etc., all have a common set of words that can be reconstructed.  They don't all appear in Anatolian.   If so, it matters little what Anatolian was, whatever it was.... The IE languages of Europe that we are speaking of all descended from full PIE and full PIE could only have originated from essentially the steppes.  

There may have been pre-PIE in Anatolia or PIE like in the Near East but they are not the "most recent common ancestor" of the IE languages as we know them as long as a later version has a fuller common denominator word set.... and that seems to be from the steppes.

I'll re-read the PIE homeland stuff for defects.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 06, 2012, 02:48:02 AM
I agree with that, and it makes sense of the archaic nature of the Anatolian branch of the Indo-European languages, a thing that cannot be adequately explained by the Kurgan Theory....
Why?
There is no need for the Kurgan Theory of the expansion of IE languages into Europe to have to explain Anatolian.....  at least not if Anatolian was pre-PIE or not full PIE (as David Anthony says.)  Having a predecessor or a sister language doesn't diminish the concept of the IE expansion from full PIE in the steppes.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 06, 2012, 04:58:54 AM
Quote from: Mikewww link=topic=10436.msg128523#msg128523

I've never heard of these similarities with Kartvelian and Semitic. What are they?

Word borrowings, not common origin. Anthony covers the various linguistic contacts with PIE on pages 93-98 of The Horse, The Wheel and Language. See particularly page 98, where he summarises Johanna Nichols, who has shown from the phonology of the loans that the contact between PIE and Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Semitic was indirect (via another language). Proto-Kartvelian is later than PIE. So the loan words passed through a pre-Kartvelian language that had intermediary languages between PIE on the one hand and Proto-Semitic on the other.

The exact number of these borrowed words is disputed, as usual with linguistics. One borrowing from Semitic that is accepted by all is the word for "ox". As Anthony says, that could have been borrowed from the Cris Culture along with cattle.

The links between Proto-Uralic and PIE go deeper. They share some basic vocabulary that probably goes back to an ancient  common ancestor among hunter-gatherers roaming between the Carpathians and the Urals in the early Holocene.





Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 06, 2012, 05:20:35 AM
I ... it makes sense of the archaic nature of the Anatolian branch of the Indo-European languages, a thing that cannot be adequately explained by the Kurgan Theory....

The consensus view of the PIE homeland has no problem with the archaic nature of the Anatolian branch, any more than it has problems with the archaic nature of Tocharian. (In both cases "archaic" = retaining some evidence of an early split from the developing mother-tongue, rather than "closest to PIE". These languages had developed independently after that split for millennia before they were recorded.)

The place(s) that the most archaic version of a language is recorded might be its origin point, but might equally well be early offshoots from the speech community, which travelled so far from it that they were no longer in communication and therefore did not participate in the subsequent development of the mother-tongue. Where archaic forms crop up thousands of miles apart, the latter looks more likely.

This problem has been raised again and again within Indo-European studies. For example the archaic nature of Lithuanian and Latvian led to arguments that the PIE homeland was on the Baltic shore. In fact they are part of the Baltic branch of Proto-Balto-Slavic, but it is quite possible that there were earlier waves of IE wanderers in that direction, elements of whose dialect was absorbed into Proto-Baltic.

Currently Prof. John Koch is pressing the idea that the most archaic written forms of Celtic are in Iberia and therefore Celtic spread from the West. But as a good linguist, he recognises the alternative that they were archaic because they were early departures from the Proto-Celtic or Proto-Italo-Celtic mother community.




Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 06, 2012, 05:40:35 AM
Bill J. Darden (http://www.billdarden.com/), On the question of the Anatolian origin of Indo-Hittite (http://slavic.uchicago.edu/archived/papers/darden-anatolia.pdf),  in Robert Drews (ed.), Greater Anatolia and the Indo-Hittite Language Family (2001) provides an excellent, thorough, detailed discussion of the issue of the relationship between the Anatolian branch and the rest of IE and how Proto-Anatolian reached Anatolia.

He discusses the views of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, as well as those of Mallory.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 06, 2012, 08:11:38 AM

If we could establish one thing related to this discussion it would  be beneficial to identify the PIE home land. As long as that is not understood, alternatives for the spread of IE languages will be quite varied.

I'll go back and re-read the PIE homeland stuff that I have, but I am not aware of anything that defeats the basic concept ---   The Germanic, Italic, Celtic, Balto-Slavic IE languages, etc., all have a common set of words that can be reconstructed.  They don't all appear in Anatolian.   If so, it matters little what Anatolian was, whatever it was.... The IE languages of Europe that we are speaking of all descended from full PIE and full PIE could only have originated from essentially the steppes.

"[F]ull PIE could only have originated from essentially the steppes"? Why is that?

Why couldn't it be true that early Indo-European, call it Indo-Hittite or Pre-Proto-Indo-European, moved into the Balkans from Anatolia, where contact with people with a horse riding culture contributed that vocabulary at a very early stage?

It can't be argued that the horse riding vocabulary shows no signs of having come from foreign, non-IE input. We don't know what it was the steppe folk were speaking at that point, and that vocabulary entered PIE at the onset of what we can deduce PIE to have been, based on the descendant Indo-European languages we do know about.

We do know that the Anatolian branch is older and did not contain some of the features of PIE.

There may have been pre-PIE in Anatolia or PIE like in the Near East but they are not the "most recent common ancestor" of the IE languages as we know them as long as a later version has a fuller common denominator word set.... and that seems to be from the steppes.

I'll re-read the PIE homeland stuff for defects.

If we are searching for "the most recent common ancestor" of the modern Indo-European languages, then it is PIE.

If, on the other hand, we are looking for the original homeland of the Indo-Europeans, then the Anatolian branch must be considered, since it is apparently older than PIE.

Sure, Jean and the other kurganists could be right. Anatolian may be archaic because it split from the mother tongue early and traveled far from the Urheimat, where it preserved those archaic features. Which seems more likely, though? That Anatolian is archaic because it split early and traveled far, or it is archaic because it is closer to the original and stayed close to home? Consider also that the "traveled far" scenario only becomes necessary if one needs to justify a homeland other than Anatolia, e.g., the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

Remember too that Euphratic (http://www.science.org.ge/2-3/Gordon%20Whitteker.pdf) is supposed to have been an Indo-European language. If Whittaker is right about it, it is the oldest for which there is documentary evidence, with texts containing evidence of Euphratic dating to the 4th millennium BC. Is it likely that an IE language appearing in Mesopotamia in the 4th millennium BC was derived from the Pontic-Caspian steppe?

Quote from: Gordon Whittaker
Traces of this language can be found preserved primarily
in the technical and elite vocabulary of Sumerian
and, to a lesser extent, Akkadian, and attest to a prolonged
period of intensive contact. It is worth noting that
two of the three leading theories on the location of the
Indo-European ‘homeland,’ those of Gamkrelidze and
Ivanov (1995 [1984]) and of Renfrew (1987), envision
Indo-Europeans in a zone flanking the northern and western
reaches of Northern Mesopotamia, namely Transcaucasia
and Eastern Anatolia respectively.


The Kurgan Theory makes sense for most of the eastern expansion of Indo-European. It really looks good when one looks at the level of R1a in India, for example.

But it breaks down in a big way to the west, where R1a fizzles despite repeated eastern input, e.g., the Cimmerians, the Huns, and the Slavs, and where R1b predominates.

The Kurgan Theory really becomes attenuated for the spread of IE to the west. It depends on a kind of "domino effect" of one culture and people after another adopting IE and passing it on, all the way from the Pontic-Caspian steppe to the Atlantic. Mostly missing in action are the R1a "elites" who somehow managed to change the speech of almost all of western Europe despite their rather primitive level of civilization.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 06, 2012, 08:24:33 AM
Mostly missing in action are the R1a "elites" who somehow managed to change the speech of almost all of western Europe despite their rather primitive level of civilization.

Who is suggesting that R1a1a elites changed the speech of all western Europe? What idiot would buy into that? This sounds like some garbled mish-mash of the old elite transfer of language concept and the aDNA evidence of continuity of R1a1a from Andronovo to Scythian (Iranian-speaking) graves. If IE languages spread east by mass migration, why try to hang onto the old idea that they spread by elite transfer, but only in the west. You yourself came up with the brilliant deduction years ago that R1b was the other half of the IE story. It was mass migration east and west.

What has changed since then, apart from you getting driven up the wall by Rah-Rah-R1a1a silliness?



Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 06, 2012, 08:36:23 AM
Mostly missing in action are the R1a "elites" who somehow managed to change the speech of almost all of western Europe despite their rather primitive level of civilization.

Who is suggesting that R1a1a elites changed the speech of all western Europe? What idiot would buy into that? This sounds like some garbled mish-mash of the old elite transfer of language concept and the aDNA evidence of continuity of R1a1a from Andronovo to Scythian (Iranian-speaking) graves. If IE languages spread east by mass migration, why try to hang onto the old idea that they spread by elite transfer, but only in the west. You yourself came up with the brilliant deduction years ago that R1b was the other half of the IE story. It was mass migration east and west.

What has changed since then, apart from you getting driven up the wall by Rah-Rah-R1a1a silliness?  

I still think R1b is the IE story to the west, but I don't think the R1bs were first "kurganized" by R1a language donors from the steppe. I think it was the other way around, with R1a steppe folk acquiring their Indo-European from R1b folk who probably arrived in the Balkans from Anatolia.

Aside from that, believe me, there are plenty of idiots (your word) out there who believe Indo-European was propagated in every direction  by R1a elites. Witness Klyosov's recent Rootsweb declarations about R1a "Celts", for example. The main reason I quit posting at the Eupedia y-dna forum was that very sort of thing. I don't mind arguing - I enjoy it, actually - but I don't like being the Lone Ranger.

I realize I am an R1b partisan. I admit it, without shame. But I really don't find the Kurgan Theory as compelling as you apparently do, and I see some gaping holes in it, at least from my perspective.

I don't want to re-post what I wrote in my last post above. What of it? Is Euphratic just Whittaker's silliness, or is it real? If so, would you derive it from the Pontic-Caspian steppe or from nearby eastern Anatolia? He says the textual evidence for it dates from the 4th millennium BC. That's pretty early.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 06, 2012, 08:39:02 AM
Aside from that, believe me, there are plenty of idiots (your word) out there who believe Indo-European was propagated in every direction  by R1a elites. Witness Klyosov's recent Rootsweb declarations about R1a "Celts", for example.

You can afford to rise above this biased amateurish nonsense.

The IE homeland issue is completely separate from the issue of whether IE spread chiefly by mass migration or by elite transfer or traders or whatever else anti-migrationists can dream up. Mallory and Anthony did not argue the case for mass migration (except up the Danube) because of the dominance of anti-migrationism in archaeology and the political sensitivities involved. The genetic evidence has gradually been changing perceptions. We don't have to go along with ideas of elites or traders or linga franca or anything else unless that is actually suggested by the DNA and/or linguistic evidence.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 06, 2012, 09:06:56 AM
You're still not dealing with the questions I raised in my last couple of posts.

What of Euphratic? Real? Or Whittaker's folly?

He says it can be found in cuneiform texts dating from the 4th millennium BC in Mesopotamia. That makes it, if real, the oldest known form of Indo-European for which there is hard, textual evidence.

Mesopotamia is a long way from the Pontic-Caspian steppe but a neighbor to Anatolia. R1b is found in a pretty big way among the Armenians and, to a lesser extent, modern Assyrians.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: NealtheRed on April 06, 2012, 09:23:29 AM
Mostly missing in action are the R1a "elites" who somehow managed to change the speech of almost all of western Europe despite their rather primitive level of civilization.

Who is suggesting that R1a1a elites changed the speech of all western Europe? What idiot would buy into that? This sounds like some garbled mish-mash of the old elite transfer of language concept and the aDNA evidence of continuity of R1a1a from Andronovo to Scythian (Iranian-speaking) graves.

What has changed since then, apart from you getting driven up the wall by Rah-Rah-R1a1a silliness?



The inherent problem here is connecting graves in Krasnoyarsk, Siberia with PIE, when it is clear that R1a is connected with spreading Iranian languages. I believe Haplogroup C is also found at the grave site.

Nothing is particularly offensive or bothersome about early R1a tribes spreading PIE, but the problem is finding some way to explain the lack of this haplogroup among western/Centum IE speakers. It is much simpler to assume that R1a tribes receive IE from an R1b-rich population, and carry later innovations east.



Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 06, 2012, 09:25:09 AM
Euphratic (sigh). Seems like a load of wishful thinking to me.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 06, 2012, 09:37:12 AM

The inherent problem here is connecting graves in Krasnoyarsk, Siberia with PIE, when it is clear that R1a is connected with spreading Iranian languages.

No problem. Proto-Indo-Iranian is a descendant of PIE. Andronovo is a descendent (via intermediary cultures) of Yamnaya. It represents a movement east of the Urals by people previously west of the Urals. However for greater clarity on the issue, studies are under way which will try to get DNA from sites west of the Urals.  
http://www.uni-mainz.de/FB/Biologie/Anthropologie/MolA/English/Research/CentralAsia.html


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 06, 2012, 09:46:24 AM
Euphratic (sigh). Seems like a load of wishful thinking to me.

Not good enough, Jean.

That just means you don't have a good answer. Whittaker could be wrong, but his work deserves better than that.

Let's see: Anatolian actually came from the steppe, despite its archaic nature and the fact that it is, well, Anatolian, and Euphratic, found in cuneiform tablets in Mesopotamia that date from the 4th millennium BC, can be dismissed with a wave of the hand as "wishful thinking".

Got it.



Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: NealtheRed on April 06, 2012, 10:00:15 AM

The inherent problem here is connecting graves in Krasnoyarsk, Siberia with PIE, when it is clear that R1a is connected with spreading Iranian languages.

No problem. Proto-Indo-Iranian is a descendant of PIE.


This is what I mean. Proto-Indo-Iranian is not PIE, but rather taken east by tribes who utilize the sound innovations also seen in other Satem languages. It is no surprise they uniformly belong to R1a.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: razyn on April 06, 2012, 10:09:14 AM
The most interesting thing at that url may be the photo tour of the Mainz aDNA extraction facility.

Makes one almost understand why it's so costly.  But with all that equipment and high-end sanitary engineering, they still seem to be doing a study of mtDNA from, you know, the Pontic-Caspian Steppes or wherever.  They aren't going to resolve our YDNA migration questions with it.

Also, the state of the art ancient bone-cutting room features a Dremel tool.  I have one of those, it made me feel right at home.  But I covet my neighbor's version of a Shop-Vac.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 06, 2012, 10:26:36 AM
Not good enough, Jean.

That just means you don't have a good answer. Whittaker could be wrong, but his work deserves better than that.

Patience. I have now uploaded copies of Whittaker 2008 and a critique of same (Vanséveren 2008) to a new sub-folder under Language > Indo-European in the Mini-Library. Don't say I don't do anything for you. :) If you give me a moment or two, I will summarise Vanséveren.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 06, 2012, 10:35:13 AM

If we could establish one thing related to this discussion it would  be beneficial to identify the PIE home land. As long as that is not understood, alternatives for the spread of IE languages will be quite varied.

I'll go back and re-read the PIE homeland stuff that I have, but I am not aware of anything that defeats the basic concept --- The Germanic, Italic, Celtic, Balto-Slavic IE languages, etc., all have a common set of words that can be reconstructed.  They don't all appear in Anatolian.   If so, it matters little what Anatolian was, whatever it was.... The IE languages of Europe that we are speaking of all descended from full PIE and full PIE could only have originated from essentially the steppes.
"[F]ull PIE could only have originated from essentially the steppes"? Why is that?

Folks like David Anthony have used a combination of facts about the geographies and cultures involved to corner in a territory where PIE would have to been within. I will re-read some of that logic as I can't repeat the details.

Why couldn't it be true that early Indo-European, call it Indo-Hittite or Pre-Proto-Indo-European, moved into the Balkans from Anatolia, where contact with people with a horse riding culture contributed that vocabulary at a very early stage?

Sure. Defining PIE's homeland does not require that all pre-PIE predecessor languages came from the same place.

And of course, R1b may have come with one or more of those pre-PIE predecessors from some place.

We do know that the Anatolian branch is older and did not contain some of the features of PIE.

I don't think we know that the Anatolian branch is older than PIE. We just know that it's predecessors (pre-Anatolian) must have been an early branch off from pre-PIE.

There may have been pre-PIE in Anatolia or PIE like in the Near East but they are not the "most recent common ancestor" of the IE languages as we know them as long as a later version has a fuller common denominator word set.... and that seems to be from the steppes.
If we are searching for "the most recent common ancestor" of the modern Indo-European languages, then it is PIE.

Agreed and then it follows that the IE languages of Europe descend from PIE, not pre-PIE or some branch descended from pre-PIE like Anatolian.

If, on the other hand, we are looking for the original homeland of the Indo-Europeans, then the Anatolian branch must be considered, since it is apparently older than PIE.

Agreed also. Anatolia may be the origin of R1b, or maybe the Caucasus or just south or east of the Caspian Sea.

However, that does not negate the point that IE languages appear to have sprung from PIE and PIE's homeland is apparently the Steppes.  It very well could be that  R1b was with some predecessor cultures that blended or originated PIE.

Where that happened I don't know, but it just looks like full PIE was home in the steppes and R1b either was there during the PIE timeframe or picked up PIE on the western edges of the steppes (eastern edges of Old Europe) as PIE moved westward into its Western dialects that ended up being pre-Germanic, pre-Celtic, pre-Italic, etc.

Some feel R1b was on the eastern edges of Old Europe and picked up PIE. To me, that is a little hard to accept given the extremely high frequency of R1b in Celtic lands so I think R1b was there in PIE's homeland speaking PIE before the movements west into Europe.  This does not mean R1b was relegated to only being PIE speaking though.

The Kurgan Theory makes sense for most of the eastern expansion of Indo-European. It really looks good when one looks at the level of R1a in India, for example.

But it breaks down in a big way to the west, where R1a fizzles despite repeated eastern input, e.g., the Cimmerians, the Huns, and the Slavs, and where R1b predominates.

The Kurgan Theory really becomes attenuated for the spread of IE to the west. It depends on a kind of "domino effect" of one culture and people after another adopting IE and passing it on, all the way from the Pontic-Caspian steppe to the Atlantic. Mostly missing in action are the R1a "elites" who somehow managed to change the speech of almost all of western Europe despite their rather primitive level of civilization.
I agree that a pure alignment of R1a=PIE and R1b=non-PIE prior to a push west does not make sense compared to the R1b frequencies across Europe and lack of R1a frequency in many areas.

However, that does not mean the Kurgan Theory is wrong. It does not require any group of people to be all R1a or of any single or mix of haplogroups.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 06, 2012, 10:45:20 AM
This is what I mean. Proto-Indo-Iranian is not PIE, but rather taken east by tribes who utilize the sound innovations also seen in other Satem languages.

We seem to be going over yet again arguments which have been doing the rounds for years. Once upon a time it was thought that IE was divided along geographical lines : Satem east, and Centum west. Then Tocharian was discovered. It is centum and it is east. So that idea was abandoned. The division is not geographical but temporal.

The centum > satem isogloss occurred late in the development of PIE, by which time it seems the people carrying the centum dialect ancestral to a bunch of western European languages (and Tocharian) had left the PIE language community. The rump formed a dialect continuum from (it seems) Andronovo in the east to the Middle Dnieper in the west. We can picture this giving rise to Proto-Indo-Iranian in the east to Proto-Balto-Slavic in the west.

R1a1a certainly seems to have spread with both, but R1a1a is also found among Germanic-speakers (centum) and those that we can deduce were Tocharian-speakers (centum). (And of course there are other haplogroups among Germanic and Slavic speakers.)


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 06, 2012, 10:53:45 AM
OK - The Euphratic dream-world, as dissected by an unromantic scholar:

Quote
The actual existence of Euphratic remains highly implausible. ... What is Euphratic but a linguistic projection? As I have suggested Euphratic has no reality but seems to be either PIE itself, or a reflex of Sumerian. Judging from the few examples examined in this paper, the bases of the theory are weak, and the alleged Euphratic has no substance. To sum up, the construction of Euphratic is no more than a fragile chateux de cartes .
 



Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: NealtheRed on April 06, 2012, 11:10:56 AM
This is what I mean. Proto-Indo-Iranian is not PIE, but rather taken east by tribes who utilize the sound innovations also seen in other Satem languages.

We seem to be going over yet again arguments which have been doing the rounds for years. Once upon a time it was thought that IE was divided along geographical lines : Satem east, and Centum west. Then Tocharian was discovered. It is centum and it is east. So that idea was abandoned. The division is not geographical but temporal.

The centum > satem isogloss occurred late in the development of PIE, by which time it seems the people carrying the centum dialect ancestral to a bunch of western European languages (and Tocharian) had left the PIE language community. The rump formed a dialect continuum from (it seems) Andronovo in the east to the Middle Dnieper in the west. We can picture this giving rise to Proto-Indo-Iranian in the east to Proto-Balto-Slavic in the west.

R1a1a certainly seems to have spread with both, but R1a1a is also found among Germanic-speakers (centum) and those that we can deduce were Tocharian-speakers (centum). (And of course there are other haplogroups among Germanic and Slavic speakers.)

Other than the Scandinavian presence of R1a and the purported (indeed, a stretch of the imagination) theory that the Tarim Basin mummies are Tocharians, the Centum/Satem split still holds.

Notwithstanding Italo-Celtic, Germanic, and Greek, there is also the lack of R1a among Armenian and ancient Anatolian speakers.

There is also the problem of explaining the large numbers of R1a (all Z93+, I believe) in India and Central Asia. How can IE migrations explain this saturation of a haplogroup further east - without being autochthonous to the region - while barely denting Europe?


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 06, 2012, 11:24:58 AM
the purported (indeed, a stretch of the imagination) theory that the Tarim Basin mummies are Tocharians

(sigh) I knew that would get argued as well. I don't want to be disobliging but this has been argued to absolute death. I have covered the evidence over and over, but if you don't like it you will ignore it again, so why bother?  


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 06, 2012, 11:36:21 AM
Notwithstanding Italo-Celtic, Germanic, and Greek, there is also the lack of R1a among Armenian and ancient Anatolian speakers.

Why would we expect R1a1 in Armenian speakers? There is no evidence that their ancestors left the IE homeland from the Volga-Ural end. On the contrary the evidence is that they left from the Danube end. The pattern of distribution of R1a1a and R1b seems to reflect pretty consistently the point of departure from the IE homeland.

As for ancient Anatolian speakers - we don't know. I would guess at R1b mainly, but R1a1a among the Mitanni aristocracy.  

Quote
There is also the problem of explaining the large numbers of R1a (all Z93+, I believe) in India and Central Asia. How can IE migrations explain this saturation of a haplogroup further east - without being autochthonous to the region - while barely denting Europe?

As above. IE languages appear to have spread by mass migration. The haplogroup composition of their carriers appears to reflect that of the part of the IE homeland from which they left (as well as any other cultures that they absorbed en route). Andronovo is seen as the homeland of Proto-Indo-Iranian, not just Iranian. The BMAC appears to be the culture that was taken over by a group from a branch of Andronovo, which developed (in the ruins of the BMAC) the ancestor of the Indian group of IE languages. We would expect R1a1a to have travelled into India together with Neolithic haplogroups found in the BMAC.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: NealtheRed on April 06, 2012, 11:40:43 AM
the purported (indeed, a stretch of the imagination) theory that the Tarim Basin mummies are Tocharians

(sigh) I knew that would get argued as well. I don't want to be disobliging but this has been argued to absolute death. I have covered the evidence over and over, but if you don't like it you will ignore it again, so why bother?  

I let the evidence speak for itself, and as it stands, one cannot prove that these mummies spoke Tocharian at the time of their death. Likewise, it is equally probable that R1a is not the initial impetus for spreading PIE.

It has nothing to do with "not liking it", but rather looking at the evidence from all sides. I, for one, do not have preconceived feelings about it.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 06, 2012, 11:52:56 AM
I let the evidence speak for itself, and as it stands, one cannot prove that these mummies spoke Tocharian at the time of their death.

If you mean that there were no documents in Tocharian pinned to the chests of these mummies at burial, of course it cannot be proved. It is nevertheless a logical deduction from the evidence that they spoke an ancestor of Tocharian. There is no logical alternative. These mummies cannot be Iranian speakers. That has already been thrashed out at great length on the defunct DNA forums at least three times. Forgive me if I am reluctant to waste my time going over it all again.  


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: NealtheRed on April 06, 2012, 11:59:16 AM
I let the evidence speak for itself, and as it stands, one cannot prove that these mummies spoke Tocharian at the time of their death.

If you mean that there were no documents in Tocharian pinned to the chests of these mummies at burial, of course it cannot be proved. It is nevertheless a logical deduction from the evidence that they spoke an ancestor of Tocharian. There is no logical alternative. These mummies cannot be Iranian speakers. That has already been thrashed out at great length on the defunct DNA forums at least three times. Forgive me if I am reluctant to waste my time going over it all again.  

There is no need to waste your time. I defer to both Renfrew and Mallory who have spoken on the subject.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 06, 2012, 12:12:06 PM
I defer to both Renfrew and Mallory who have spoken on the subject.

Really? Renfrew is no linguist and no expert on the archaeology of Central Asia. In the lecture you saw, he was simply interested in trying to score debating points. As for Mallory, he was cheekily laying out the evidence against his own position. (Subliminal message : my position is so strong I can afford to help out my weak opponent.) In fact what this actually amounts to is gaps in the evidence. Oh look! We don't actually have a link between X and Y. Can I have some money to go and find one?

To accept an argument based on speculation unsupported by a shred of evidence, while demanding from an opponent a level of proof more often found in physics than archaeology or linguistics, does not seem like objectivity to me.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: NealtheRed on April 06, 2012, 12:42:38 PM
I defer to both Renfrew and Mallory who have spoken on the subject.

Really? Renfrew is no linguist and no expert on the archaeology of Central Asia. In the lecture you saw, he was simply interested in trying to score debating points. As for Mallory, he was cheekily laying out the evidence against his own position. (Subliminal message : my position is so strong I can afford to help out my weak opponent.) In fact what this actually amounts to is gaps in the evidence. Oh look! We don't actually have a link between X and Y. Can I have some money to go and find one?

To accept an argument based on speculation, while demanding from an opponent a level of proof more often found in physics than archaeology or linguistics, does not seem like objectivity to me.

That does not sound like an objective rebuttal to what both Renfrew and Mallory put forth in their lectures. You are attacking Renfrew and/or Mallory on the conclusions they reached, rather than their arguments why.

Why don't we let their lectures speak for themselves? I will take their word for it.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 06, 2012, 01:32:57 PM
I dont really see a huge problem with a revised Renfrew type model of pre-PIE arising south of the Black Sea and then sending an offshoot into the farming area just west of the Black Sea and PIE slowly arising there. That places it adjacent to the steppes but actually among the farming groups there.  There are cultures that do appear to potentially be offshoots of Antaolian ones on the west of the Black Sea in the 5th millenium.  The exact same route and same period saw the movement of dairying also from Anatolia to the west shore of the Black Sea.  If PIE arose from an Anatolian offshoot into the west Black Sea area (Bulgaria/east Romania/fringes of the Ukraine) and evolved there from say 5000BC to 4000BC and beyond then I think much falls into place.  Clearly this would make R1b the likely original IE speakers with (perhaps) R1a steppe hunters being the recieivers rather than the doners of IE along with all the other aspects like dairying, farming etc.  It has never seemed likely to me that steppes hunters morphing into nomadic pastoralists could ever exert anything other than a peripheral impact on Europe.  In later times steppes peoples seem to rarely get past the steppe-like fringes of eastern Europe.

Indeed, I am not even convinced that R1a was a steppe haplogroup.  It has higher diversity in the Balkans and perhaps it was simply in the farming mix in SE Europe along with R1b and penetrated into the steppes.  I see the Yamnaya thrust as a limited reflux caused by climatic deterioration than badly weakened the C-Trypole culture and forced them into the fringes of the farming zone.


I agree with that, and it makes sense of the archaic nature of the Anatolian branch of the Indo-European languages, a thing that cannot be adequately explained by the Kurgan Theory.

It also might make sense of Euphratic, if in fact it did exist and was an early Indo-European language.

And, finally, it also makes sense of the spread of IE to the west, a thing pretty clearly not accomplished by predominantly R1a peoples or even peoples with a kurganized culture.
If we could establish one thing related to this discussion it would  be beneficial to identify the PIE home land. As long as that is not understood, alternatives for the spread of IE languages will be quite varied.

I'll go back and re-read the PIE homeland stuff that I have, but I am not aware of anything that defeats the basic concept ---   The Germanic, Italic, Celtic, Balto-Slavic IE languages, etc., all have a common set of words that can be reconstructed.  They don't all appear in Anatolian.   If so, it matters little what Anatolian was, whatever it was.... The IE languages of Europe that we are speaking of all descended from full PIE and full PIE could only have originated from essentially the steppes.  

There may have been pre-PIE in Anatolia or PIE like in the Near East but they are not the "most recent common ancestor" of the IE languages as we know them as long as a later version has a fuller common denominator word set.... and that seems to be from the steppes.

I'll re-read the PIE homeland stuff for defects.

The problem is that Anthony and others use these linguistic arguements to attack the Old Renfrew idea that the IE languages spread with the very first phase of the spread of farming.  They are essentially attacking an idea that Renfrew himself no longer holds.  Renfrew modified his theory to one whereby a very early pre-proto IE language or languages existed south of the Black Sea but that Proto-IE then arose among the offshoots sent from Antatolia to SE Europe.  This is compatible with the spread of certain Antatolian cultures as well as cattle dairying into the area on the west shores of the Black Sea perhaps c. 5000BC.  Once there they had a long period to evolve from pre-PIE to PIE and that locates them in the area pretty close to the steppes and in a geography where most of the linguistic arguments no longer successfully rebutt a non-Kurgan origin of IE.  That area too was extremely advanced and populous and presumably incredibly prestigious.  They sent the knowledge of farming, dairying etc into the steppes.  What I would potentially credit the steppes peoples on their eastern edge and shortly afterwards intermingling with them is some social changes and influences and a minor genetic input (perhaps really a reflux) at the period when the old farming cultures hit problems and steppes peoples and influences intruded at a time when the main factor provoking this seems to have been a bad climatic downturn (aridity c. 3200BC). 

Again too I question why people see the spread of R1a as originating from the steppes.  yes it clearly did arrive there and it clearly was important in the spread east but what evidence there is places it earlier elsewhere.  It seems to me to be dogma that R1a=steppes peoples=IE originals.  I understand that R1a is older in the Balkans and also of course in India.  It is also clearly present in the Corded Ware culture as far west as central Germany c. 2700BC.  Now archaeologists believe that Corded Ware arose in Poland from TRB (Funnel Beaker) roots which in turn is derived from Polish late Lengyel farmers who in turn tend to be derived by archaeologists from a mix of late LBK and perhaps other elements.  Why do people go against evidence and suggest R1a moved from Russia to Germany when what little evidence there is would place R1a earlier in Germany/Poland and the Balkans (variance).  Its worth noting that Corded Ware did stretch in its developed stage back to the NW of the Black Sea and may have been in the mix with the late farmers of the area. In fact (I think from memory) that Corded Ware arrived in the Ukraine in an eastward thrust about the same time as it was arriving in its western fringes.  So Corded Ware may well have moved R1a both east and west from its Polish origin point.  It also may have been in the early farming mix anyway in SE Europe.  Again I think that so much is dogma and baggage and the story of R1a is being written on that basis and not in line with the small amount of evidence there is.   


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 06, 2012, 01:44:41 PM
Why don't we let their lectures speak for themselves? I will take their word for it.

That would be rather tricky. Mallory was the joint author of the big study of the mummies: J.P.Mallory and V.H. Mair, The Tarim Mummies: The Mystery of the First Europeans in China (2000), which concluded after an exhaustive survey of the evidence that said mummies were in all probability the ancestors of Tocharian speakers. Prof. Mallory is a scholar. His approach is always measured and cautious. He will lay out all the pros and cons. But somewhere in there he will drop the odd hint of his own view. :)




Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 06, 2012, 01:58:15 PM
I understand that R1a is older in the Balkans and also of course in India.  

There is no evidence that R1a is older in the Balkans. (Older than where?)  Klyosov claimed it was at one point. Ken Nordtvedt checked his data and rebutted the date.

Nor do I know of any solid evidence that R1a is oldest in India. It wouldn't surprise me if people find some pretty old R1a1 in India eventually. Hunters could have moved into the Indian subcontinent as it opened up in the Holocene. But so far testing is showing the Indian R1a1 as falling within the Z93 subclade deduced to reflect those moving east from 3500 BC onwards. See R1a1a and Subclades Y-DNA Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1a/default.aspx) (scroll down for graphic.)


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 06, 2012, 02:17:42 PM
The problem is that Anthony and others use these linguistic arguments to attack the Old Renfrew idea that the IE languages spread with the very first phase of the spread of farming.  They are essentially attacking an idea that Renfrew himself no longer holds.  

Not so. Renfrew dodges around. In a lecture I went to in 2010, he argued that three theories of IE spread should be considered:
1) Steppe
2) Anatolian/Neolithic
3) Palaeolithic - (and thought that genetics supports this one!)

He predictably pushed farming as the one major episode of change, and quoted the [widely-discredited ] paper by Gray and Atkinson which so delighted him by coming up with a date for IE which fitted his thesis of IE spread from Anatolia. He did point out that linguists disagree with their result.

I noted no sign in this lecture of the two-phase approach that he mooted at one time to placate the linguists. Maybe he dropped it when he found that it didn't stop the criticism. Linguists do not accept the Anatolian branch as reflecting an early pre-PIE homeland in Anatolia. I already linked to one paper by a linguist discrediting this. There are others around. Mallory and Anthony are both aware of the two-phase approach and point to problems with it.

It is not simply that the Neolithic date is wrong for PIE. Anatolia is the wrong place for pre-PIE. The thing just cannot be made to fit.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 06, 2012, 02:23:11 PM
I have got to day the Kurgan theory and its precursors does remind me a bit of the old Urnfield-Hallstatt-La Tene Celtic theory.  It clearly is part of the story but it only explains part of the geography.  In all probability there was an older common denominator for Celtic that spread wider than the classic trinity of central European Late Bronze Age and Iron Age cultures.  The whole problem with both kurgans and R1a trying to explain the whole story of IE or at least to take the leading role/origin claim is very similar IMO.  

As an aside, I have been following this with interest for about 25 years and I have seen a few moments in time when one theory or the other claims total victory.  IMO we are nowhere near that point and its a shame the competing sides tend to present it that way.

Here is a thought.  If R1b was essentially unknown in western Europe pre 3000BC then the same may be true of R1a in Russia.  The present R1a distribution in Europe may be radically different from that of the past.  If you take just the ancient DNA evidence, phylogeny of R1b and R1a and the variance then all we can suggest in R1b in Europe was most likely in the SE area of Europe and R1a may have only been in the Balkans.  Both in a similar area if Europe.  We suspect from variance and ancient DNA that both R1a and R1b spread west post-3000BC and perhaps that is also true of the spread east.  I think we need to be a lot more humble about what is actually known and recognise that the archaeology-linguistic-haplogroup correlations are very much on flimsy ground, especially when an attempt to combine all three are made.  Combining just two is hard enough.  What is wrong with the possibility of a mixed R1a/R1b population in the Balkans/west Black Sea area spreading the language in 2 directions?  That is what would appear on the face of it to have happened.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 06, 2012, 02:37:10 PM
Here is a thought.  If R1b was essentially unknown in western Europe pre 3000BC then the same may be true of R1a in Russia.  The present R1a distribution in Europe may be radically different from that of the past.

Of course. Had you not realised that before? I've said so often enough! The current R1a1a in Russia is mainly Slavic i.e. spread in the early Middle Ages, but swallowing up some Baltic-speakers as it spread. Vikings probably injected some R1a1a later. Then Germanic speakers were invited to settle by Catherine II in 1763.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: MHammers on April 06, 2012, 02:38:15 PM
The R1a1a project is a good source for tracking the latest developments.  The oldest R1a by SNP last time I looked, is an R1a1*(M17-) Russian.  The Indian and most other Asian R1a is Z93+, younger than what is in Europe. 

The Balkan R1a mentioned was even before the discovery of M458 and hasn't not been tested for any of these newer SNP's.  However, there are some samples from various older studies like Underhills (2010) showing SRY10831.2- R1a's or R1a* which does suggest an Anatolia to SE Europe movement.  Based on this, it does look like R1a entered through Balkans with other neolithics, but I don't think we have enough to calculate variance from these small haplotypes.

What doesn't make sense is R1a ended up being distributed completely different than the other neolithic y dna.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 06, 2012, 02:47:17 PM
The problem is that Anthony and others use these linguistic arguments to attack the Old Renfrew idea that the IE languages spread with the very first phase of the spread of farming.  They are essentially attacking an idea that Renfrew himself no longer holds.  

Not so. Renfrew dodges around. In a lecture I went to in 2010, he argued that three theories of IE spread should be considered:
1) Steppe
2) Anatolian/Neolithic
3) Palaeolithic - (and thought that genetics supports this one!)

He predictably pushed farming as the one major episode of change, and quoted the [widely-discredited ] paper by Gray and Atkinson which so delighted him by coming up with a date for IE which fitted his thesis of IE spread from Anatolia. He did point out that linguists disagree with their result.

I noted no sign in this lecture of the two-phase approach that he mooted at one time to placate the linguists. Maybe he dropped it when he found that it didn't stop the criticism. Linguists do not accept the Anatolian branch as reflecting an early pre-PIE homeland in Anatolia. I already linked to one paper by a linguist discrediting this. There are others around. Mallory and Anthony are both aware of the two-phase approach and point to problems with it.

It is not simply that the Neolithic date is wrong for PIE. Anatolia is the wrong place for pre-PIE. The thing just cannot be made to fit.

Maybe I am giving Renfre too much credit but I think though that a modification of the modified Renfrew idea could work.  There is evidence of Anatolian links both in terms of culture and dairying with the east end of the Danube c. 5000BC.  That puts an Anatolian linked group close to the whole eastern expansion of farming under the Cuc-Tryp culture who in turn were close to the steppe frontier and also the most likely donor of many important things to the steppe peoples.  This grouping and related descendants were in that sort of position around the west side and north-west of the Black Sea for a long period.  IF (and it is a big if) some sort of pre-proto-IE dialect did exist south of the Black Sea c. 5000BC then it could well have transferred with the Antatolian contacts that effected the area of Europe on the west side of the Black Sea.  Perhaps actual proto-IE could have evolved there in a vastly more advanced culture which nevertheless was in a position to absorb any useful steppe innovations and indeed had steppe elements interspersed among them afterwards after the climatic downturn.

In general I think that neither the Kurgan model or the Renfrew original model work.  The Kurgan model to me reminds me of the Urnfield-Hallstatt-La Tene model for the Celts in that it appears to be a model that explains a subset of the story and has not identified the common denominator of the whole story.  



Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 06, 2012, 02:48:14 PM
The Balkan R1a mentioned was even before the discovery of M458 and hasn't not been tested for any of these newer SNP's.  However, there are some samples from various older studies like Underhills (2010) showing SRY10831.2- R1a's or R1a* which does suggest an Anatolia to SE Europe movement.

Bear in mind that people move around. A long list of IE peoples  have entered Anatolia at various times in history (and there may have been some in prehistory). This includes the Cimmerians, who may well have carried some of the oldest R1a.

I don't think anyone would buy R1a1 as spread by the Neolithic, somehow.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 06, 2012, 02:54:29 PM
 There is evidence of Anatolian links both in terms of culture and dairying with the east end of the Danube c. 5000BC.

Yes I know and I have that in my text. But the people who brought dairying into Europe were not speaking PIE. PIE had to borrow the word ox from another language.  PIE sprang from a language of hunter-gatherers with some basic vocabulary in common with Proto-Uralic. Of course PIE ended up with dairying vocabulary.



Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 06, 2012, 03:02:49 PM
Here is a thought.  If R1b was essentially unknown in western Europe pre 3000BC then the same may be true of R1a in Russia.  The present R1a distribution in Europe may be radically different from that of the past.

Of course. Had you not realised that before? I've said so often enough! The current R1a1a in Russia is mainly Slavic i.e. spread in the early Middle Ages, but swallowing up some Baltic-speakers as it spread. Vikings probably injected some R1a1a later. Then Germanic speakers were invited to settle by Catherine II in 1763.

Naturally I have thought of it for years and its been especially true since out understanding of variance, phylogeny and ancient DNA has improved.  I only raise it because I think the idea that R1a is very eastern (in European terms) and R1b is very western gets back projected in time.  It is entirely possible that despite the very different distributions they were located together at the time of PIE.  It may seem odd now but as a parallel look at P312 and U106.  They have come to have very different distributions despite having a common L11 ancestor who lived only a short time before these clade defining SNPs.  We dont know in any clear way where R1b and R1a were c. 3000BC in European terms.  It seems that R1b in the form of L23 and L51 were probably in south-east Europe first.  I cant really vouch for Anatole's work but is there any evidence that R1a was in the steppes in (say) 5000BC. Is there any evidence at all that it was there pre-3000BC? If not why is it assumed it is?


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 06, 2012, 03:05:37 PM
 There is evidence of Anatolian links both in terms of culture and dairying with the east end of the Danube c. 5000BC.

Yes I know and I have that in my text. But the people who brought dairying into Europe were not speaking PIE. PIE had to borrow the word ox from another language.  PIE sprang from a language of hunter-gatherers with some basic vocabulary in common with Proto-Uralic. Of course PIE ended up with dairying vocabulary.
I think this shoots the idea that PIE went with dairy herding from Anatolia.  I'm not saying anyone was claiming that but it would have been nice to tie R1b to the dairying as PIE speakers.

How far had dairy herding reach into Europe before the Yamnaya incursions started into the Cucuteni-Tripolye? What were the cultures of the early dairy herding of SE Europe?


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 06, 2012, 03:06:06 PM
The R1a1a project is a good source for tracking the latest developments.  The oldest R1a by SNP last time I looked, is an R1a1*(M17-) Russian.  The Indian and most other Asian R1a is Z93+, younger than what is in Europe. 

The Balkan R1a mentioned was even before the discovery of M458 and hasn't not been tested for any of these newer SNP's.  However, there are some samples from various older studies like Underhills (2010) showing SRY10831.2- R1a's or R1a* which does suggest an Anatolia to SE Europe movement.  Based on this, it does look like R1a entered through Balkans with other neolithics, but I don't think we have enough to calculate variance from these small haplotypes.

What doesn't make sense is R1a ended up being distributed completely different than the other neolithic y dna.


Thanks.  That is interesting.  I dont think we should be too surprised by very strong geographical patterns dividing haplogroups.  After all U106 and p312 have a very immediate common root but very different distributions.  Things like that can happen very easily it appears even if we dont really understand how.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 06, 2012, 03:10:50 PM
 There is evidence of Anatolian links both in terms of culture and dairying with the east end of the Danube c. 5000BC.

Yes I know and I have that in my text. But the people who brought dairying into Europe were not speaking PIE. PIE had to borrow the word ox from another language.  PIE sprang from a language of hunter-gatherers with some basic vocabulary in common with Proto-Uralic. Of course PIE ended up with dairying vocabulary.



I have heard a paper (cant recall who) who did an analysis and showed that the root PIE vocab shows too advanced an agricultural society for it to be compatible with hunter gatherers morphing into dairy pastoralists. That is the problem.  Different experts are coming to completely opposite conclusions.   


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 06, 2012, 03:14:42 PM
.. is there any evidence that R1a was in the steppes in (say) 5000BC. Is there any evidence at all that it was there pre-3000BC? If not why is it assumed it is?

We don't have any ancient Y-DNA at all from the European steppe i.e west of the Urals. That may change. But at the moment we are dependent on deduction from archaeology,  linguistics and correlation with IE spread. The aDNA trail starts in Andronovo. I wouldn't pay much attention to current R1a1a on the Russian and Ukrainian steppe. The steppe was a highway. The Scythians pushed out the Cimmerians in prehistory. The latter would have been our best bet for a reflection of Yamnaya peoples.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 06, 2012, 03:16:14 PM
How far had dairy herding reach into Europe before the Yamnaya incursions started into the Cucuteni-Tripolye? What were the cultures of the early dairy herding of SE Europe?

See Dairy Farming (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/secondary.shtml#dairy).


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 06, 2012, 03:20:56 PM
Different experts are coming to completely opposite conclusions.  

All too horribly true. But I have not read anything like that. To the contrary, there has been a lot of discussion among Indo-European specialists of the limitations of the agricultural vocabulary in the reconstructed PIE lexicon, in particular among the Indo-Iranian branch, which acquired a lot of vocabulary related to agriculture (particularly irrigation agriculture) and urban life from an unknown language thought to be that of the BMAC.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: razyn on April 06, 2012, 05:18:52 PM
Isn't the BMAC younger than the phylogenetic events these theories are attempting to relate to PIE?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bactria%E2%80%93Margiana_Archaeological_Complex


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 06, 2012, 06:43:47 PM
@ razyn

The BMAC is certainly too young to be the genesis of PIE or to feed vocabulary into PIE. No-one has suggested that. The idea is that PIE speakers moved east of the Urals c. 2100 BC to metal-working sites like Sintashta and later to Andronovo sites further east. The demand for metal probably came from the BMAC.  See Indo-Iranians (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/steppepeoples.shtml#Indo-Iranians).


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: MHammers on April 06, 2012, 07:51:46 PM
The Balkan R1a mentioned was even before the discovery of M458 and hasn't not been tested for any of these newer SNP's.  However, there are some samples from various older studies like Underhills (2010) showing SRY10831.2- R1a's or R1a* which does suggest an Anatolia to SE Europe movement.

Bear in mind that people move around. A long list of IE peoples  have entered Anatolia at various times in history (and there may have been some in prehistory). This includes the Cimmerians, who may well have carried some of the oldest R1a.

I don't think anyone would buy R1a1 as spread by the Neolithic, somehow.

I've considered that, but using the same logic it is also possible to say R1a= kurganized neolithic farmers and R1b=first steppe pastoralists who cris-crossed each other to form the current distribution.  There is R1b L23 in the Urals and Caucasus, in addition to M73 in Central Asia, all near the proposed PIE homeland.

Here is a page showing the upper tree of R1a, called Old R1a.  It is the first map, the blue line is mainly what I'm talking about.  It doesn't discredit a steppe homeland for PIE, but we may have to reconsider how R1a became involved.

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a/default.aspx?section=results

@Moderators, It looks like we need an ongoing IE discussion thread or subsection.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 06, 2012, 09:34:49 PM
OK - The Euphratic dream-world, as dissected by an unromantic scholar:

Quote
The actual existence of Euphratic remains highly implausible. ... What is Euphratic but a linguistic projection? As I have suggested Euphratic has no reality but seems to be either PIE itself, or a reflex of Sumerian. Judging from the few examples examined in this paper, the bases of the theory are weak, and the alleged Euphratic has no substance. To sum up, the construction of Euphratic is no more than a fragile chateux de cartes .
 



What is Proto-Indo-European but a linguistic projection?

It strikes me that you went cherry picking for a comment that suits your position, and you found one.

I think Euphratic is still a big problem for the Kurgan Theory, as is Anatolian.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 06, 2012, 09:51:52 PM
. . .

I don't think we know that the Anatolian branch is older than PIE. We just know that it's predecessors (pre-Anatolian) must have been an early branch off from pre-PIE.

. . .


It is older in the sense of more archaic. If it is an early branch off of Pre-PIE ("Indo-Hittite") and lacks some of the features of PIE, which apparently developed later, then it is older in the sense of lacking newer features, i.e., the innovations found in PIE.

Recall Anthony's mention, on page 47, of the work of the Swiss linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure, in postulating a lost Indo-European consonant not preserved in any of the Indo-European languages. It wasn't until Hittite was discovered (in inscriptions, btw) forty years later that de Saussure's work was confirmed. The archaic lost consonant could only be found in an Anatolian language and no place else.


Title: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 06, 2012, 09:56:21 PM
. . .

@Moderators, It looks like we need an ongoing IE discussion thread or subsection.

I thought about splitting the IE stuff out of this thread to create a new thread, and maybe I will, but I would have to go back and find the first IE-related post.

I'll look into it now.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 06, 2012, 10:06:57 PM
. . .

@Moderators, It looks like we need an ongoing IE discussion thread or subsection.

I thought about splitting the IE stuff out of this thread to create a new thread, and maybe I will, but I would have to go back and find the first IE-related post.

I'll look into it now.

Okay, I made a new thread out of this one. The start is a little awkward and unnatural, but that's how it happened.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 07, 2012, 07:10:25 AM
It strikes me that you went cherry picking for a comment that suits your position, and you found one.

No - I was quoting her summing up, as  you can easily find if you read the whole paper, which I made available to you. Linguistic papers are naturally full of detailed linguistic comparisons. The only way to judge the evidence is to go through these. Non-linguists will have a hard time assessing the merits or otherwise of such argument, but there is no snappy short-cut in this case.  

The lack of enthusiasm for Whittaker's ideas among the linguistic community speaks for itself. The genuine discovery of a previously unknown IE language is a big event, which will generate a lot of discussion and excitement, whether or not it fits previous ideas.

The clue to me that Whittaker's Euphratic was a bag of moonshine, wishful thinking run mad, was the desire to have IE speakers in a lost civilization which actually invented writing before the Sumerians. Glory! Glory at last for our ancestors! This is the sort of thing that brings out the instant sceptic in me. I'm not looking for glory for my ancestors. I'm looking for the truth.

The truth is that there was no civilization in Sumer before the Sumerian. Writing was not invented by IE speakers. There is no problem with the possibility that speakers of an ancestor to Sumerian might have come in contact with speakers of an ancestor to PIE - in the South Caspian area perhaps. It's an intriguing idea.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 07, 2012, 07:37:07 AM
We're non-linguists and so unsuited to judge such questions. Apparently Gamkrelidze thought Whittaker's work suitably worthy, or he would not have presented it, as he did.

I don't think the controversy regarding the IE Urheimat is over and the argument as settled as you seem to think.

I like Anthony's book, too. I found it extremely entertaining and very well written, a rarity among treatments of this subject. But I don't think it is the last word or that it represents an overwhelming consensus or that it should be read uncritically.

Mike seems to think - and he can correct me if I am wrong - that Anthony is mostly right but R1b could have been present on the Pontic-Caspian steppe for the beginnings of PIE. Apparently it just mostly got up and moved on, taking centum IE with it to the west.

If he's right (and if I am right in putting words in his mouth), then some very ancient Pontic-Caspian steppe y-dna should set the record straight.

I, on the other hand, think something more momentous than the Yamnaya horizon or kurgan package had to be behind the utter and  nearly complete triumph of Indo-European languages all the way to the shores of the Atlantic.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 07, 2012, 07:54:57 AM
I haven't had time to really think about this, but I was taking a quick look back over Mallory's book, In Search of the Indo-Europeans. In the section on the Anatolian languages, he mentions that kurgan burials are "generally absent" in Anatolia (p. 30).

Anyway, that is interesting. It indicates that either the ancestors of those who spoke the Anatolian branch of the IE languages left the Pontic-Caspian steppe before "kurganism" (for lack of a better term) developed, or, if Anatolia is actually the IE Urheimat, kurganism was not present there and only developed after contact was made with steppe peoples. Either way, it seems the kurgan package represents an innovation, one that developed behind or in front of the IE Anatolians.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 07, 2012, 08:06:32 AM
We're non-linguists and so unsuited to judge such questions. Apparently Gamkrelidze thought Whittaker's work suitably worthy, or he would not have presented it, as he did.

I don't think the controversy regarding the IE Urheimat is over and the argument as settled as you seem to think.

I like Anthony's book, too. I found it extremely entertaining and very well written, a rarity among treatments of this subject. But I don't think it is the last word or that it represents an overwhelming consensus or that it should be read uncritically.

Mike seems to think - and he can correct me if I am wrong - that Anthony is mostly right but R1b could have been present on the Pontic-Caspian steppe for the beginnings of PIE. Apparently it just mostly got up and moved on, taking centum IE with it to the west.

If he's right (and if I am right in putting words in his mouth), then some very ancient Pontic-Caspian steppe y-dna should set the record straight.

I, on the other hand, think something more momentous than the Yamnaya horizon or kurgan package had to be behind the utter and  nearly complete triumph of Indo-European languages all the way to the shores of the Atlantic.

Well there are strong suggestions in the L23* and L51* distributions that R1b was in the right general area in SE Europe.  I know its intraclade date for European L23* is not much older than L11 but I dont think too much can be read into an intraclade regional date and L23* overall is old (cant remember details but was it 7000 years old or the like?).   If L23* is perhaps 7000 years old overall then it could have easily been on the scene on the west shores of the Black Sea and in contact with those hunters beyond.   


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 07, 2012, 08:14:05 AM
In the section on the Anatolian languages, he mentions that kurgan burials are "generally absent" in Anatolia (p. 30).

Curiously enough kurgan burial seems to be earliest in the Maikop Culture (c. 3,700-3,100 BC) of the north Caucasus and adopted from there by steppe people. On the other hand anthropomorphic stelae are earliest in the Kemi Oba Culture on and near the Crimea and one such stele was found in the earliest layer at Troy, which is now thought to have been founded by Luwian (IE Anatolian branch) speakers.    


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 07, 2012, 08:18:55 AM
Apparently Gamkrelidze thought Whittaker's work suitably worthy, or he would not have presented it, as he did.

Yes the journal of publication for Whittaker 2008 is a big give-away. Only the Georgians would give it house-room. :)


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 07, 2012, 08:35:20 AM
Apparently Gamkrelidze thought Whittaker's work suitably worthy, or he would not have presented it, as he did.

Yes the journal of publication for Whittaker 2008 is a big give-away. Only the Georgians would give it house-room. :)

Perhaps only kurganists would dismiss it out of hand as too inconvenient for serious consideration.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 07, 2012, 09:17:08 AM
Perhaps only kurganists would dismiss it out of hand as too inconvenient for serious consideration.

It is not even particularly inconvenient. You probably posted as I was tinkering with my text earlier. I'll repeat it here.

Quote
The clue to me that Whittaker's Euphratic was a bag of moonshine, wishful thinking run mad, was the desire to have IE speakers in a lost civilization which actually invented writing before the Sumerians. Glory! Glory at last for our ancestors! This is the sort of thing that brings out the instant sceptic in me. I'm not looking for glory for my ancestors. I'm looking for the truth.

The truth is that there was no civilization in Sumer before the Sumerian. Writing was not invented by IE speakers. There is no problem with the possibility that speakers of an ancestor to Sumerian might have come in contact with speakers of an ancestor to PIE - in the South Caspian area perhaps. It's an intriguing idea.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Arwunbee on April 07, 2012, 10:45:40 AM
Why would farmers dump their language and start using the language of nomadic pastoralists?


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 07, 2012, 11:54:55 AM
Why would farmers dump their language and start using the language of nomadic pastoralists?

They wouldn't without a very strong reason. In fact people in general don't dump their language for that of any foreign group without very strong reasons to do so. That is why I have always been extremely sceptical of the idea that the IE languages were spread by small, elite bands. The incomers may have initially arrived in many places as small, exploratory bands, but for their language to eventually prevail, the likelihood is that those explorers paved the way for mass migration and/or were able eventually to out-breed the original inhabitants.

The fact that we are getting mainly Y-DNA haplogroup G from Neolithic remains in Europe suggests that I'm thinking along the right lines. Of course we need much more ancient DNA. And the process was not necessarily uniform across Europe.  


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: razyn on April 07, 2012, 02:54:44 PM
@ razyn

The BMAC is certainly too young to be the genesis of PIE or to feed vocabulary into PIE. No-one has suggested that. The idea is that PIE speakers moved east of the Urals c. 2100 BC to metal-working sites like Sintashta and later to Andronovo sites further east. The demand for metal probably came from the BMAC.  See Indo-Iranians.

I still have trouble with the chronology.  The demand for metal came from a 2300 BC culture; so R1b people rode their steppe chariots or wagons west to Iberia, and parts adjacent, inter alia to search for copper and tin -- with the Bell Beakers, who were in Portugal in 2900 BC?  Something like that.  Some of these concepts need to be separated more clearly; and while you may do so in your head, or even on the Peopling of Europe site, it all gets tossed into the same stew here.  Then we argue about kurgans, and consonant shifts within PIE, and whatnot -- as if they had anything inherently to do with R1b, as such.

There has also been a lot of verbiage about physical events (refugia, floods, Doggerland, etc.) that greatly antedate any of these anthropological ones (linguistic, archaeological or phylogenetic).  Some of it -- not all -- is based on previous TMRCA dating that seems to most of us (who are keeping up with more recent SNP discoveries) to have been wildly exaggerated.  And some of it, that may have somewhat better dating, is only mitochondrial.  The more nationalistic authors seem to be assuming that the farmers' daughters' male descendants had other farmers as their daddies.  Whereas, in several cases (notably including Basques, and eastern North American Indians), in modern populations the mtDNA is mostly from the farmers' daughters -- but the YDNA, mostly from traveling salesmen.

I still want to see art historians compare and contrast the Göbekli Tepe megaliths with those of the Stelae People.  And I want to see more ancient western European boat finds.  And, will the price of ancient YDNA extraction ever come down, or is that the Lipitor Patent of genetic anthropology?  It's beginning to look as if sequencing will be more and more affordable, but uncontaminated samples more and more expensive.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 07, 2012, 03:16:03 PM
Perhaps only kurganists would dismiss it out of hand as too inconvenient for serious consideration.

It is not even particularly inconvenient. You probably posted as I was tinkering with my text earlier. I'll repeat it here.

Quote
The clue to me that Whittaker's Euphratic was a bag of moonshine, wishful thinking run mad, was the desire to have IE speakers in a lost civilization which actually invented writing before the Sumerians. Glory! Glory at last for our ancestors! This is the sort of thing that brings out the instant sceptic in me. I'm not looking for glory for my ancestors. I'm looking for the truth.

The truth is that there was no civilization in Sumer before the Sumerian. Writing was not invented by IE speakers. There is no problem with the possibility that speakers of an ancestor to Sumerian might have come in contact with speakers of an ancestor to PIE - in the South Caspian area perhaps. It's an intriguing idea.

That's not it at all. Whittaker wasn't claiming IE-speakers invented writing but that Euphratic is preserved in texts written by the Sumerians and Akkadians, and in some place names from Mesopotamia. He wasn't claiming there was any "lost civilization", only that there were people who spoke Indo-European there who had some impact on Sumerian and, to a lesser extent, Akkadian. You are mischaracterizing Whittaker's position in order to make a mockery of it.

Really, you have not dealt with the possibility of Euphratic at all. All you have done is mock and call names, in a rather smug and condescending fashion, impugning the motives of Whittaker and of Gamkrelidze.

It would be easy to engage in the same sort of thing with the kurganists, who could easily be accused of being too fond of heroic, golden-haired, long-skulled, Nordic, "Aryan" horsemen thundering across the steppe.

The Kurgan Theory is weak weak weak where it comes to the spread of IE to the west. It offers no good explanation for it. It offers no real good explanation for the archaic nature of the Anatolian branch of IE nor of the lack of kurgan burials there. And it must dismiss even the possibility of the existence of Euphratic because apparently its advocates realize that would be the very kiss of death to it.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 07, 2012, 03:16:20 PM
@ razyn

People do get easily muddled, and who can blame them? We are talking about a complex series of events ranging all over Europe, Anatolia, Iran, India and Central Asia.

The demand for metal from Sintashta and adjacent sites probably came from the BMAC. This was not the only source of demand for copper in the whole of Western Eurasia. The initial heavy demand came from Mesopotamia - which had no copper itself but lay between major sources of supply.

Chariots were invented in Sintashta. Chariots did not enter Europe with the first waves of IE-speakers, who had left the steppe long before. Chariots spread into most of Europe millennia later. The idea of Indo-Europeans charging down on the farmers of Europe in chariots needs to go into the bin. See http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/images/spreadchariot.jpg  
 
 


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 07, 2012, 03:27:51 PM
That's not it at all. Whittaker wasn't claiming IE-speakers invented writing

He cites Oppenheim

"It is quite likely that the Sumerians had adapted for their own use an already existing system and technique of writing. This seems to have been the creation of a lost and earlier, either native or alien, civilization, ... "

and then argues that said civilization was
1) IE
2) based in Sumer

The survival of non-Sumerian elements in Sumerian texts has been argued by other linguists. It wouldn't be particularly surprising. Writing however first appears in complex societies run from urban conglomerations - civilizations in other words, specifically Sumer in the Near East. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing#Invention_of_writing

If writing had actually been invented by IE-speakers, rather than Sumerian-speakers, that would be Big News. It would be making headlines. The lack of any disturbance in academia over this suggestion rather speaks for itself.



Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 07, 2012, 04:12:55 PM
That doesn't matter, Jean. If Euphratic existed, it doesn't matter whether those who spoke it had a form of writing or some rudimentary civilization or not. What is important is its existence, its nature, and where it was found.

Kurganism remains unconvincing as the vehicle for language change from the Hungarian Plain all the way to the shores of the Atlantic. It just makes no sense.



Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 07, 2012, 04:35:52 PM
@ rms2

You insisted on getting my personal opinion of Whittaker's Euphratic. Now you are complaining because you've got it. The linguistic arguments I leave to linguists, and supplied you with a paper from one of same, dismissing it as a house of cards. This is generating more heat than light.

It is such a waste of time arguing over the archaeological and linguistic evidence for the spread of IE. That is an argument that was won decades ago. Periodically someone comes up with a fresh idea. You couldn't stop them with ready money. It is too tempting a target. Then someone else will do another survey of the evidence and conclude that the European steppe IE homeland still makes the best sense. That's the pursuit of knowledge in action. If a new idea survives the process of criticism and actually better explains the evidence than the old theory, then the new one will be adopted. There is no conspiracy of silence going on. Quite the reverse. :)


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 07, 2012, 05:41:00 PM
Fine, Jean.

We disagree. The argument has been won by the kurganists in your mind but not in mine.

I think there are good reasons to doubt it. I've already explained some of them.

You are right about this being a waste of time. Better to focus on one's own personal genealogy.



Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 07, 2012, 06:55:20 PM
The argument has been won by the kurganists in your mind...

In the field of Indo-European studies the consensus view came down in favour of the European steppe decades ago. It is the leading theory. Any introduction to the topic will tell you so.  I was describing the way that views develop and change in academia, not my personal voyage of discovery.

I personally didn't get stuck into the writings of Mallory and Anthony until a few years ago. I had never read the work of a linguist. My first attempt to work out the period in which the Celtic languages arrived in the British Isles (the question that drew me into this whole thing) ended up leaning to the Neolithic. Seemed logical that this would be the Big Event in terms of migration. I began to read more widely from 2008/9 and changed my mind.  

You of course will plough your own furrow. There is no compulsion to follow the consensus, thank goodness. And certainly no requirement to agree with me.  


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: NealtheRed on April 07, 2012, 07:21:37 PM
The argument has been won by the kurganists in your mind...

In the field of Indo-European studies the consensus view came down in favour of the European steppe decades ago. It is the leading theory. Any introduction to the topic will tell you so.  I was describing the way that views develop and change in academia, not my personal voyage of discovery.

I personally didn't get stuck into the writings of Mallory and Anthony until a few years ago. I had never read the work of a linguist. My first attempt to work out the period in which the Celtic languages arrived in the British Isles (the question that drew me into this whole thing) ended up leaning to the Neolithic. Seemed logical that this would be the Big Event in terms of migration. I began to read more widely from 2008/9 and changed my mind.  

You of course will plough your own furrow. There is no compulsion to follow the consensus, thank goodness. And certainly no requirement to agree with me.  

From what I have read, especially in regards to criticisms of Anthony and other Kurganist paradigms, using the word consensus to describe current thinking about the IE homeland is a misnomer. This is not true, except among circles of those who adhere to a parochial interpretation of the Kurgan Theory.

I look forward to interdisciplinary studies that continue to unravel the mysteries of the past, especially in regards to genetics. That was why the initial thrust of this thread discussed the dismissal of the R1a1a=PIE theory. I do not casually disregard a theory because it does not fit preconceived views to the contrary.

By the way, could you direct me to some peer reviewed articles in which you have commented on this subject? I have access to academic journals at the university.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 07, 2012, 08:17:22 PM
@ NealtheRed

If you don't like the word "consensus", you can read "leading theory among scholars of Indo-European languages", "theory most likely to be adopted or cited by encyclopedias", "theory given most weight in academic primers on Indo-European languages aimed at English-speaking university students" or any selection of same. You can check the veracity of this very easily by actually looking at one of the latter, instead of railing at me.

I personally had nothing to do with creating this state of affairs, which began to be established when I was a child. It does not depend on me for its support. Not remotely! :)  

This is a separate issue from "theories preferred by British archaeologists", which you may possibly have in mind. I really can't tell.

"parochial interpretation of the Kurgan Theory" ??? The "Kurgan Theory" is what the original idea of Marija Gimbutas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marija_Gimbutas) was called, back in the 1950s. Her work is now considered outdated. Anthony prefers not to use the term "Kurgan Theory" for his approach, because it comes with a lot of baggage from Gimbutas with which he does not necessarily agree. I have followed the same principle in my text. So we can say the "Kurgan Theory" is dead if you like.

My online text is visible to all.  It was converted at the end of last year into pdf to facilitate commentary by academics, which I have sought from the start. Naturally the process of exchange with academics has been invisible to people who have seen me just soliciting comment from DNA Forums users. I understand your concern that I'm not giving myself the opportunity to be savaged by my peers. Not to worry. I am in good hands - professors of archaeology mainly.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: NealtheRed on April 07, 2012, 10:44:37 PM
@ NealtheRed

If you don't like the word "consensus", you can read "leading theory among scholars of Indo-European languages", "theory most likely to be adopted or cited by encyclopedias", "theory given most weight in academic primers on Indo-European languages aimed at English-speaking university students" or any selection of same. You can check the veracity of this very easily by actually looking at one of the latter, instead of railing at me.

I personally had nothing to do with creating this state of affairs, which began to be established when I was a child. It does not depend on me for its support. Not remotely! :)  

This is a separate issue from "theories preferred by British archaeologists", which you may possibly have in mind. I really can't tell.

"parochial interpretation of the Kurgan Theory" ??? The "Kurgan Theory" is what the original idea of Marija Gimbutas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marija_Gimbutas) was called, back in the 1950s. Her work is now considered outdated. Anthony prefers not to use the term "Kurgan Theory" for his approach, because it comes with a lot of baggage from Gimbutas with which he does not necessarily agree. I have followed the same principle in my text. So we can say the "Kurgan Theory" is dead if you like.

My online text is visible to all.  It was converted at the end of last year into pdf to facilitate commentary by academics, which I have sought from the start. Naturally the process of exchange with academics has been invisible to people who have seen me just soliciting comment from DNA Forums users. I understand your concern that I'm not giving myself the opportunity to be savaged by my peers. Not to worry. I am in good hands - professors of archaeology mainly.


I apologize for the remarks, and thoroughly enjoy your site.

Nevertheless, growing evidence that questions R1a's affinities with PIE will not be censored and will continue to be posted here, much to your chagrin, and to the dismay of many others who may or may not be R1a.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 07, 2012, 11:26:15 PM
Nevertheless, growing evidence that questions R1a's affinities with PIE will not be censored and will continue to be posted here, much to your chagrin, and to the dismay of many others who may or may not be R1a.

I just want to be clear that although I think R1a was involved in the spread of some IE languages, I don't think that all of the PIE speakers (back at the time before the pre-Germanic, Italic, Celtic, etc. branching) were R1a. I don't know what happened, but it is definitely worth investigating the interaction of R1b and R1a in relation to the spread of IE languages.

On the other hand, R1a's position related to PIE (Proto-IndoEuropean language) does not any way negate the hypotheses based on PIE being a real langage and PIE's homeland being the Pontic Steppes.   By the way, what is a "Kurganist?"  I don't think of myself as one and I don't see the usefulness of pinning labels on people who take a particular position. Labels can sometimes cloud or divert attention from the actual discussion of evidence and logic.

Anyway, I have no prior background (or prejudices) in any of these things but my readings led me to conclude the concept of a PIE is quite likely to be true and that if I had to pick a homeland for PIE, I'd pick the Pontic-Steppes.   Those are just two pieces to a puzzle.  

I don't know how IE languages made it all the way to the Atlantic but there are migrations that could support this.  Just because we can't concretely link those migrations to all Western European languages, Italic, Germanic, Celtic and integrate Euskara into the outcome doesn't mean PIE wasn't real or that PIE didn't originate in the steppes. David Anthony does make an attempt to link PIE to archeologically documented expansions/migrations that link Western IE languages. He admits he is speculating but even if he is wrong on some of these linkages they do not negate, IMO, the high degree of likelihood that PIE was real and PIE's homeland was in the steppes.  I don't know if that is the general consensus, but if it is as Jean says it is, it's just the natural outcome of evidence and logic that are effective.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Humanist on April 08, 2012, 01:51:48 AM

As for ancient Anatolian speakers - we don't know. I would guess at R1b mainly, but R1a1a among the Mitanni aristocracy.

You may, in the end, be correct regarding Mitanni.  I would like to provide some additional information, regarding a possible link with Mitanni.  R1a1 is observed at extremely low frequencies among all of the religious minorities of the Middle East.  Including those, such as my own group.

From a post of mine, at another forum.  Not all are relevant, but, posting in case any one has an interest:
 

Quote
Wikipedia: "Maryannu is an ancient word for the caste of chariot-mounted hereditary warrior nobility which dominated many of the societies of the Middle East during the Bronze Age. The term is attested in the Amarna letters written by Haapi. Robert Drews writes that the name 'maryannu' although plural takes the singular 'marya', which in Sanskrit means young warrior, and attaches a Hurrian suffix. He suggests that at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age most would have spoken either Hurrian or Aryan but by the end of the 14th century most of the Levant maryannu had Semitic names. Maryannu was also an alternate Egyptian name for Mitanni, where the word undoubtedly originated."

Akkadian (Old/Standard Babylonian)
maqqadu : [Legal] : right of pasture

martianni [Army → Military]: (Nuzi [Hurrian-Akkadian] dialect) : men , warriors , braves , fighters

mār damqi , mār banî , rubû , bir kabti ° (?) (feminine : mar'at damqi *): a nobleman , an aristocrat , a high official in the kingdom , a titled person

marru : spade , shovel

rā'i immeri : a shepherd

Arabic

Emir (pronounced [eˈmiːr], Arabic: أمير‎ ʾAmīr (Feminine: Emira, أميرة ʾAmīrah), meaning "commander", "general", or "prince"; also transliterated as Amir, Aamir or Ameer) is a title of high office, used throughout the Muslim world. 

Sureth (Assyrian-Aramaic vernacular)
mâṛiya: pasture place

mâṛiyana: grazer, pasturer

maṛa: metal spade

mara (pl. marâwata, marwata) : master, owner

marta: mistress, lady

Mar: The title received by Assyrian men consecrated as Bishops of the different Assyrian churches in Mesopotamia, for the better part of the last two millennia.

Sumerian
an: n., sky, heaven; the god An; grain ear/date cluster ('water' + 'high') v., to be high. adj., high. prep., in front.

en: n., dignitary; lord; high priest; ancestor (statue); diviner [EN archaic frequency: 1232; concatenates 3 sign variants] .v., to rule. adj., noble

maš; máš: interest (of a loan); rent; profit; produce, yield (of a field) (ma4, 'to leave, depart, go out', + šè, 'portion') [MAŠ archaic frequency: 133].

nun: n., prince, noble, master (ní, 'fear; respect',+ un, 'people' ?) v., to rise up (n, 'to be high',+ u5, 'to mount; be on top of; raised high'). adj., great, noble, fine, deep.

(giš/urudu) mar, gar: n., wagon; winnowing shovel; spoon (ma(3); ñá,'to go', + flowing motion; Akk. marru "shovel; spade"; Orel & Stolbova #1738 *mar- 'hoe') v., to sow, scatter; to coat, apply; to don; to immerse; to enclose, lock up.

Phoenician
jbr: warrior. Pronounced "jabbur."

Sureth
gabbara: hero; Orion.

Wikipedia: “Orion, sometimes subtitled The Hunter, is a prominent constellation located on the celestial equator and visible throughout the world. Its name refers to Orion, a hunter in Greek mythology.”

ptx ( patəx, ptixle, ptaxa) : to open; to release

Sumerian
kabar, kapar[PA.DAG.KISIM×GAG]: shepherd boy (ká, 'gate', + bar, 'to open').

gába-ra: shepherd boy/girl (Akk. loanword from kaparrum).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And, this:

Quote
Sumerian
sisi (ANŠE.KUR.RA): horse (reduplicated si, 'to stand upright').

Akkadian (Old/Standard Babylonian)
sīsû : horse
sūsānu : [Professions] horse-trainer , chariotman , groom

Sureth (Assyrian-Aramaic vernacular)
susa (pl. susǎwata, suse): horse

Wikipedia:

"Kikkuli, "master horse trainer (assussanni, virtually Sanskrit aśva-sana-) of the land Mitanni" was the author of a chariot horse training text written in the Hittite language, dating to the Hittite New Kingdom (around 1400 BC). The text is notable both for the information it provides about the development of Indo-European languages and for its content." 

From: The Kikkuli Text. Hittite Training Instructions for Chariot Horses in the Second Half of the 2nd Millennium B.C. and Their Interdisciplinary Context. By Peter RAULWING

"Kikkuli “from the land of Mittani” has provided a program for the Hittites to build endurance and stamina reaching the limits of the physical capacity of the horses, as he demands up to 150 km daily (and this on several successive days), if we equate the measurement of 1 DANNA** used in the Kikkuli Text with the Sumerian equivalent of 10,7km." 

From, “The University of Chicago. Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language." Volume 1. 2008.

"[A]ll the Luvian words where the etymological /tsu-/ is to be postulated (e.g. *zuwana/i- ëdogí, *azu(wa)- ëhorseí, and *zurni ëhornsí) are written with the sign L 448, conventionally transliterated as sǔ (Melchert 1987: 201-02)."

From, Fournet and Bomhard's "Indo-European Elements in Hurrian."

"The word aššuššanne‘horse-trainer’ combines the Hurrian suffix -anne with an Indo-Aryan-sounding root aššušš (cf. Sanskrit áśva-* ‘horse’). Indeed, it was probably the Hurrians who introduced “the light horsedrawn chariot with spoked wheels, the training of horses to draw it, its use as a platform for firing the composite bow, and the development of scale-armour for men and horses to counter it” (cf. Sherratt 1980:125)." 

**
Sumerian
danna, dana: road-length measure, double hour (twelfth part of a full day) = the time it takes to march a length of 1 danna (Akkadian etymology from 'place of strength or safety') [DANNA archaic frequency: 2].

Akkadian (Old/Standard Babylonian)
dannu: strong, powerful ; stable

Sureth (Assyrian-Aramaic vernacular)
dana: time; point in time; period of time

And finally, this:

Wikipedia:
"Egyptian sources call Mitanni "nhrn", which is usually pronounced as Naharin/Naharina [6] from the Assyro-Akkadian word for "river"..."

The land itself, was also called Naharina, by the Egyptians.  Not only the people.   

Sureth
Beth Nahrain (ܒܝܬ ܢܗܪ̈ܝܢ) : home country


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 08, 2012, 03:32:55 AM

..  questions R1a's affinities with PIE will not be censored and will continue to be posted here, much to your chagrin, and to the dismay

Chagrin? Dismay? You've really got the wrong end of the stick. I just can't be bothered to keep arguing the archaeology/linguistics of the IE homeland every time Indo-European gets mentioned. It is such a complete waste of valuable time which I want to spend more profitably i.e. in reading new papers and following discussion here and elsewhere on new SNPs etc. That is the reason I told rms initially (on the other thread) that he could count me out of such discussion. That seemed to go down so badly that I allowed myself to play the role once again of Aunt Sally for haters of the standard position (favoured theory, whatever) to launch themselves at. You've had your fun. Just don't expect me to play along next time.

You of course are free to post whatever you like, wherever you like. I can't see any of the bosses here censoring you or anyone else.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 08, 2012, 07:40:12 AM
The argument has been won by the kurganists in your mind...

In the field of Indo-European studies the consensus view came down in favour of the European steppe decades ago. It is the leading theory. Any introduction to the topic will tell you so.  I was describing the way that views develop and change in academia, not my personal voyage of discovery.

I personally didn't get stuck into the writings of Mallory and Anthony until a few years ago. I had never read the work of a linguist. My first attempt to work out the period in which the Celtic languages arrived in the British Isles (the question that drew me into this whole thing) ended up leaning to the Neolithic. Seemed logical that this would be the Big Event in terms of migration. I began to read more widely from 2008/9 and changed my mind.  

You of course will plough your own furrow. There is no compulsion to follow the consensus, thank goodness. And certainly no requirement to agree with me.  

Weirdly I was the opposite.  I was a mega Kurganist for years and absolutely hated Renfrew's take on it but the more I read about it and thought about it the more it seemed so far from the normal Occam's Razor rule I just didnt believe it any more.  I accept that the Kurgan/steppes/R1a aspect is an important part of the story in eastern Europe, central Asia, India etc but it takes horrible amounts of convoluted multi step missing link infested stack of cultures for the Kurgan model to work in much or Europe.  As long as that is the case I will remain a major skeptic on the Kurgan aspect being more than a subset of the story.  As I posted before, this is very reminicent of the Celtic issue and the best solution to the problem of Celtic is to step back in time and look for a common denominator between the central European and Atlantic complexes.  I suspect that the PIE homeland was on the west shore of the Black Sea rather than the steppes and the Anatolian derived cultures from c. 5000BC there came to exert some influence and send settlers both east and west. I think they may be the common denominator.  They had some points of prestige such as the cattle dairying and other exotica and were not too far from areas where early metallurgy was known.  The general area came to be very advanced and populous and must have seemed extremely prestigious and practically space age to steppes hunters.  I just find it very very hard to imagine the language change flowing in the opposite direction.  You would have thought these hunters morphing into nomadic pastoralists would have been in complete awe of Cucutene-Trypole culture for instance.  They were just light years ahead of the steppes peoples in so many ways.     


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 08, 2012, 07:53:07 AM
Oh Alan! I was hoping to take a rest from this. I have a book to read, remember. :)

Quote
You would have thought these hunters morphing into nomadic pastoralists would have been in complete awe of Cucutene-Trypole culture for instance.  They were just light years ahead of the steppes peoples in so many ways.  
 

Yes indeed. Same goes for later cases where IE speakers came up against literate societies. They learned and eventually overtook/absorbed. I discuss this pattern in The Indo-European family: Herders to Hellenes (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/indoeuropeans.shtml#hellenes).

I remember saying on the DNA Forums long ago that IE people would insist on taking over - a bit like the Borg.

There are plenty of parallels with non-IE people though, like the Mongol dynasty in China.  


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 08, 2012, 08:22:58 AM
Nevertheless, growing evidence that questions R1a's affinities with PIE will not be censored and will continue to be posted here, much to your chagrin, and to the dismay of many others who may or may not be R1a.

I just want to be clear that although I think R1a was involved in the spread of some IE languages, I don't think that all of the PIE speakers (back at the time before the pre-Germanic, Italic, Celtic, etc. branching) were R1a. I don't know what happened, but it is definitely worth investigating the interaction of R1b and R1a in relation to the spread of IE languages.

On the other hand, R1a's position related to PIE (Proto-IndoEuropean language) does not any way negate the hypotheses based on PIE being a real langage and PIE's homeland being the Pontic Steppes.   By the way, what is a "Kurganist?"  I don't think of myself as one and I don't see the usefulness of pinning labels on people who take a particular position. Labels can sometimes cloud or divert attention from the actual discussion of evidence and logic.

Anyway, I have no prior background (or prejudices) in any of these things but my readings led me to conclude the concept of a PIE is quite likely to be true and that if I had to pick a homeland for PIE, I'd pick the Pontic-Steppes.   Those are just two pieces to a puzzle.  

I don't know how IE languages made it all the way to the Atlantic but there are migrations that could support this.  Just because we can't concretely link those migrations to all Western European languages, Italic, Germanic, Celtic and integrate Euskara into the outcome doesn't mean PIE wasn't real or that PIE didn't originate in the steppes. David Anthony does make an attempt to link PIE to archeologically documented expansions/migrations that link Western IE languages. He admits he is speculating but even if he is wrong on some of these linkages they do not negate, IMO, the high degree of likelihood that PIE was real and PIE's homeland was in the steppes.  I don't know if that is the general consensus, but if it is as Jean says it is, it's just the natural outcome of evidence and logic that are effective.

I think though that a lot of the apparent strength of the case for the steppes for the PIE homeland is predicated by setting up Anatolia as the alternative.  I dont believe these arguements are anywhere near as strong when the alternative to the steppes is the adjacent farming area of the west side of the Black Sea in the Bulgaria/east Romania/Ukraine area. Although this 'third way' has not been formally presented in a recent publication, several fairly new developments including the placing of Anatolian influences and the spread of dairying first into Europe in those area and indeed the importance of that area in the transformation of the steppe hunters do point to its great importance in the period 5000-3500BC.  I dont think it can be emphasised enough how vastly more advanced that area was to the steppes.  Dairying moved both east and west from that area in this period for example and fed both into the steppes and into the mid Neolithic cultures of northern Europe too.  I am a great believer in gut feeling in these things and while I think the Black Sea area probably is where PIE arose I think it would make a lot more sense if we moved the homeland just west of the steppes on the west and NW side of the Black Sea.  I dont think linguistic arguements against Anatolia would stand as arguements against that much more steppe-adjacent area.  I think the pitching of the steppes against Anatolia gives the impression of a false triumph of the Kurgan theory.  As for the steppe hunters I tend to think they were Uralic.

In such a scenario it is entirely possible that both R1a and R1b were in some form present in this area on the west of the Black Sea and had perhaps been there since the 5th millenium BC in the form of L23* and some form of R1a (sorry I dont really know enough about R1a). 


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 08, 2012, 08:26:10 AM
I do wish these debates would be a bit more convivial.  This IE question seems to raise people's blood pressure.  I think some sort of yoga breathing hyperlink is needed on threads about IE, Celtic etc :0).  Anyway, happy Easter folks. 


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: NealtheRed on April 08, 2012, 10:09:14 AM
Nevertheless, growing evidence that questions R1a's affinities with PIE will not be censored and will continue to be posted here, much to your chagrin, and to the dismay of many others who may or may not be R1a.

I just want to be clear that although I think R1a was involved in the spread of some IE languages, I don't think that all of the PIE speakers (back at the time before the pre-Germanic, Italic, Celtic, etc. branching) were R1a. I don't know what happened, but it is definitely worth investigating the interaction of R1b and R1a in relation to the spread of IE languages.

On the other hand, R1a's position related to PIE (Proto-IndoEuropean language) does not any way negate the hypotheses based on PIE being a real langage and PIE's homeland being the Pontic Steppes.   By the way, what is a "Kurganist?"  I don't think of myself as one and I don't see the usefulness of pinning labels on people who take a particular position. Labels can sometimes cloud or divert attention from the actual discussion of evidence and logic.

Anyway, I have no prior background (or prejudices) in any of these things but my readings led me to conclude the concept of a PIE is quite likely to be true and that if I had to pick a homeland for PIE, I'd pick the Pontic-Steppes.   Those are just two pieces to a puzzle.  

I don't know how IE languages made it all the way to the Atlantic but there are migrations that could support this.  Just because we can't concretely link those migrations to all Western European languages, Italic, Germanic, Celtic and integrate Euskara into the outcome doesn't mean PIE wasn't real or that PIE didn't originate in the steppes. David Anthony does make an attempt to link PIE to archeologically documented expansions/migrations that link Western IE languages. He admits he is speculating but even if he is wrong on some of these linkages they do not negate, IMO, the high degree of likelihood that PIE was real and PIE's homeland was in the steppes.  I don't know if that is the general consensus, but if it is as Jean says it is, it's just the natural outcome of evidence and logic that are effective.

I think though that a lot of the apparent strength of the case for the steppes for the PIE homeland is predicated by setting up Anatolia as the alternative.  I dont believe these arguements are anywhere near as strong when the alternative to the steppes is the adjacent farming area of the west side of the Black Sea in the Bulgaria/east Romania/Ukraine area. Although this 'third way' has not been formally presented in a recent publication, several fairly new developments including the placing of Anatolian influences and the spread of dairying first into Europe in those area and indeed the importance of that area in the transformation of the steppe hunters do point to its great importance in the period 5000-3500BC.  I dont think it can be emphasised enough how vastly more advanced that area was to the steppes.  Dairying moved both east and west from that area in this period for example and fed both into the steppes and into the mid Neolithic cultures of northern Europe too.  I am a great believer in gut feeling in these things and while I think the Black Sea area probably is where PIE arose I think it would make a lot more sense if we moved the homeland just west of the steppes on the west and NW side of the Black Sea.  I dont think linguistic arguements against Anatolia would stand as arguements against that much more steppe-adjacent area.  I think the pitching of the steppes against Anatolia gives the impression of a false triumph of the Kurgan theory.  As for the steppe hunters I tend to think they were Uralic.

In such a scenario it is entirely possible that both R1a and R1b were in some form present in this area on the west of the Black Sea and had perhaps been there since the 5th millenium BC in the form of L23* and some form of R1a (sorry I dont really know enough about R1a). 

Well said, Alan. Happy Easter to you too!


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 08, 2012, 04:21:06 PM
I do wish these debates would be a bit more convivial.  This IE question seems to raise people's blood pressure.  I think some sort of yoga breathing hyperlink is needed on threads about IE, Celtic etc :0).  Anyway, happy Easter folks. 

I for one am toning down my participation in discussions about who the Indo-Europeans were.

I agree with what you have written, but I tend to think Pre-Proto-Indo-European (Indo-Hittite) probably originated in Anatolia and subsequently moved north with farmers and husbandmen into SE Europe, where, over time, it evolved into PIE.

As for why we refer to people who agree with the Kurgan Theory as "kurganists" (mentioned by Mike earlier), it is just easier than writing something like "people who agree with the Kurgan Theory", or "people who think PIE originated on the Pontic-Caspian steppe".

I tend to think it is rather a big deal that we can't make sense of kurganism when it comes to the success of Indo-European languages beyond the Hungarian Plain and all the way to the Atlantic coast.

That is why, despite all the seemingly excellent arguments in Anthony's and Mallory's books, I suspect there is something else, something more momentous, that is connected to the drive of Indo-European to the west. The Neolithic Revolution or some aspect of it seems like it must be part of the story, but it is really unpopular to say that, and one fears being branded as just too stupid and out of touch if he even suggests such a thing.

BTW, that's how I used to feel when I suggested, way back in 2006 and 2007, that R-M269 was not Paleolithic in western Europe. Back then there was just Ellen Levy Coffman and I who were saying that. And we were just too stupid, or so everyone thought.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 08, 2012, 11:36:18 PM
....  I just find it very very hard to imagine the language change flowing in the opposite direction.  You would have thought these hunters morphing into nomadic pastoralists would have been in complete awe of Cucutene-Trypole culture for instance.  They were just light years ahead of the steppes peoples in so many ways.    
I think the same could be said of the Minoans. Weren't they so far ahead of the Mycenaeans?  .. but what happened?  The Greeks are IE and they are Mcyenaean. The Minoans culture was diminished and subordinated as it turns out.

The same can be said of the Cucuteni-Tripolye. We know the climate change hit them.

Alan, do you dispute what David Anthony writes about the archaeology of the situation? His conclusion of the changes is that the "steppe herders got the upper hand on the upland farmers."


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 08, 2012, 11:45:11 PM
... As for why we refer to people who agree with the Kurgan Theory as "kurganists" (mentioned by Mike earlier), it is just easier than writing something like "people who agree with the Kurgan Theory", or "people who think PIE originated on the Pontic-Caspian steppe".
I think it is proper to refer to the specific argument you are concerned with is that PIE's homeland is the Pontic-Steppes.   That's fine.
However, that doesn't mean that all PIE were R1a or were not R1a. That is another hypothesis that does not have to be tied to the PIE Pontic-Steppe homeland theory.
I think part of the Kurgan theory is that the steppe herder advances were related to violent take-overs. I don't necessarily think that was the case. Given that, I am NOT a Kurganist.

I tend to think it is rather a big deal that we can't make sense of kurganism when it comes to the success of Indo-European languages beyond the Hungarian Plain and all the way to the Atlantic coast.
I agree, but that still doesn't mean that PIE's homeland is not the Pontic-Steppes.

That is why, despite all the seemingly excellent arguments in Anthony's and Mallory's books, I suspect there is something else, something more momentous, that is connected to the drive of Indo-European to the west. The Neolithic Revolution or some aspect of it seems like it must be part of the story, but it is really unpopular to say that, and one fears being branded as just too stupid and out of touch if he even suggests such a thing.
I understand. There is a tremendous "weight" to the pro-Neolithic arguments for the spread of R1b, which is pretty much what Balaresque suggests. I think Jean M suggests it was a hair later with the advance of dairy herding.

I think the Neolithic Cardial Wares and LBK or Anatolian dairy herding are very reasonable hypotheses for the expansion of R1b, but given what we know about PIE and its probable homeland, PIE doesn't seem to be the language of the dairy herders or the prior farmers. I tend to agree with Jean M on this. The language itself, just doesn't fit those two agricultural developments/expansions.

Quote from: Wikipedia
Like other Neolithic societies, the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture had almost no division of labor.
No division of labor? I'm not sure this was that advanced of a society. No matter how cool their household goods were, a society without a military may have had difficulties against violent neighbors. In that sense, the Kurgan theory may have been correct.  I don't know.

.. but either way, IE, as a language set, doesn't seem to come from farmers or dairy herders. Is there a good case that PIE is farming or dairy herding based versus nomadic pastoralist based?

As for the steppe hunters I tend to think they were Uralic. 
PIE is apparently shows a heavy Uralic influence, right?


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 09, 2012, 05:25:54 AM
As for the steppe hunters I tend to think they were Uralic.  
PIE apparently shows a heavy Uralic influence, right?

The Proto-Uralic lexicon indicates that it developed far from the sea, in a forest environment. Its speakers were foragers who hunted and fished. They were late adopters of farming. For more on the origins of PU (with maps and references) see The linguistic arguments: Proto-Uralic.  (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/language.shtml#Uralic) Its spread correlates genetically with Y-DNA N1c1.

There is more than one connection between PU and PIE:

  • Shared basic words, like those for water, name and walk. This suggests an ancient common ancestor. But the roots for these are so similar in PU and PIE that most recent linguists argue that they are early loans from PIE to PU. Words like "water" are so basic that it is hard to picture them as loans, but who knows. Inter-marriage between small roving bands could account for such an oddity I suppose.
  • Another 36 words were borrowed from differentiated IE languages into early forms of Uralic, prior to the emergence of differentiated Indic and Iranian (i.e. before 1700-1500 BC), such as words for bread, dough, beer, to winnow and piglet. This would go hand-in-hand with the gradual adoption of farming from IE-speaking neighbours.



Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 09, 2012, 05:42:10 AM
I tend to think it is rather a big deal that we can't make sense of kurganism when it comes to the success of Indo-European languages beyond the Hungarian Plain and all the way to the Atlantic coast.

That used to be a problem (or gap in the story, anyway) when archaeologists had not made a clear link from Yamnaya to Bell Beaker. That link was made by the brilliant Harrison and Heyd 2007 article which I discussed on this forum at length, cite in my text and have made available in the Mini-Library. I have taken that story all the way to the Atlantic in my own text with the Stelae people, as a logical progression from Harrison and Heyd.

Prieto-Martinez 2012 also shows links between Bell Beaker and anthropomorphic stelae, but I will give a resume of that on the New Bell Beaker Papers thread, after I get the chance to read it properly.




Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 09, 2012, 07:51:22 AM
I have to confess that I haven't kept up with all of the latest papers on the Beaker Folk. Was their influence and spread so pervasive that it could account for the switch to Indo-European?

As I understand it, and I realize this is not without controversy, the first place where the Beaker burial package - round barrow, flexed body, beaker pots, archery equipment, etc. - appears is in the Tagus River Valley in Portugal. If that is right, then Beaker would have to travel east, get converted to Indo-European languages by the intrepid Yamnaya people, and then head back west to convert everybody else to the new lingo. That seems an unlikely scenario.

Only a maritime movement of people already speaking an IE language or languages, as you propose or at least once proposed, can get around that problem, since even if the Tagus Beaker stuff doesn't turn out to be the absolute oldest, it is still among the oldest.

It just all seems so tenuous, so strained, to me. Sorry.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 09, 2012, 08:00:57 AM
... As for why we refer to people who agree with the Kurgan Theory as "kurganists" (mentioned by Mike earlier), it is just easier than writing something like "people who agree with the Kurgan Theory", or "people who think PIE originated on the Pontic-Caspian steppe".
I think it is proper to refer to the specific argument you are concerned with is that PIE's homeland is the Pontic-Steppes.   That's fine.
However, that doesn't mean that all PIE were R1a or were not R1a. That is another hypothesis that does not have to be tied to the PIE Pontic-Steppe homeland theory.
I think part of the Kurgan theory is that the steppe herder advances were related to violent take-overs. I don't necessarily think that was the case. Given that, I am NOT a Kurganist.

I tend to think it is rather a big deal that we can't make sense of kurganism when it comes to the success of Indo-European languages beyond the Hungarian Plain and all the way to the Atlantic coast.
I agree, but that still doesn't mean that PIE's homeland is not the Pontic-Steppes.

That is why, despite all the seemingly excellent arguments in Anthony's and Mallory's books, I suspect there is something else, something more momentous, that is connected to the drive of Indo-European to the west. The Neolithic Revolution or some aspect of it seems like it must be part of the story, but it is really unpopular to say that, and one fears being branded as just too stupid and out of touch if he even suggests such a thing.
I understand. There is a tremendous "weight" to the pro-Neolithic arguments for the spread of R1b, which is pretty much what Balaresque suggests. I think Jean M suggests it was a hair later with the advance of dairy herding.

I think the Neolithic Cardial Wares and LBK or Anatolian dairy herding are very reasonable hypotheses for the expansion of R1b, but given what we know about PIE and its probable homeland, PIE doesn't seem to be the language of the dairy herders or the prior farmers. I tend to agree with Jean M on this. The language itself, just doesn't fit those two agricultural developments/expansions.

Quote from: Wikipedia
Like other Neolithic societies, the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture had almost no division of labor.
No division of labor? I'm not sure this was that advanced of a society. No matter how cool their household goods were, a society without a military may have had difficulties against violent neighbors. In that sense, the Kurgan theory may have been correct.  I don't know.

.. but either way, IE, as a language set, doesn't seem to come from farmers or dairy herders. Is there a good case that PIE is farming or dairy herding based versus nomadic pastoralist based?

As for the steppe hunters I tend to think they were Uralic. 
PIE is apparently shows a heavy Uralic influence, right?

Mike

As I posted a couple of times before I dont think the linguistic argements are as strong if we place the PIE homeland in the area immediately west of the steppes and in contact with (Uralic?) hunter-gatherers immediately to the east.  I think despite the lack of warrior type display in the Neolithic societies that it is very unlikely they were not capable of defending themselves.  After all there was probably a myriad of competing tribes among those farmers and in many other parts of Europe the Gimbutas idea of peaceful matriarchal farmers has been exploded.  In the period when steppes nomadic groups moved into the C-Tryp areas, they seemed to live in parallel with each other for a very very long time rather than wiping each other out.  Its possible that the steppes peoples did feed into how PIE developed and certain social characterstics at that time.  Its should also be remember that the C-Tryp/steppes contact zone had existed for a long period before this and there had clearly been contact befoe this. 

I tend to look at these things by end results when the process in unclear.  Steppe nomadic input seems to have been very limited gepgraphically in Europe and the societies that followed in Europe were very unlike that of the steppe nomads.  A study of Holland in the late Neolithic/copper age I just read (thanks to Jean) actually indicated that the main change that came about due to the plough in northern Europe (roughly what you could call the Corded Ware/single grave culture zone) resulted in much more settled farming compared to the preceding more slash and burn type stuff that had gone before.  That hardly sounds like an influence of the steppe nomadic culture.

I suppose I am just dont believe this issue is sewn up.  I dont believe it is certain at all which side of the contact zone between the farmers and steppes hunters is the original abode of PIE or pre-PIE.  The fact that the west shore of the Black Sea was the location where Anatolian influences and dairying appeared in Europe c. 5000BC and the possibly pre-PIE nature of Anatolian does make me favour the idea that the Anatolian dairy farmers who moved to the west side of the Black Sea planted an offshoot that developed into PIE.  That would place them relatively close to the steppes from 5000BC.  As for Uralic, something I read recently suggests to me that the date and location are also far from concrete.       


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 09, 2012, 08:33:21 AM
I have to confess that I haven't kept up with all of the latest papers on the Beaker Folk. Was their influence and spread so pervasive that it could account for the switch to Indo-European?

As I understand it, and I realize this is not without controversy, the first place where the Beaker burial package - round barrow, flexed body, beaker pots, archery equipment, etc. - appears is in the Tagus River Valley in Portugal. If that is right, then Beaker would have to travel east, get converted to Indo-European languages by the intrepid Yamnaya people, and then head back west to convert everybody else to the new lingo. That seems an unlikely scenario.

Only a maritime movement of people already speaking an IE language or languages, as you propose or at least once proposed, can get around that problem, since even if the Tagus Beaker stuff doesn't turn out to be the absolute oldest, it is still among the oldest.

It just all seems so tenuous, so strained, to me. Sorry.

A very recent paper has indicated that the idea that the Portuguese dates for beaker are oldest is not safe and that there are new dates from Holland that are just as early.  The same paper suggests that if RC dating cant at present define the beaker origin point then we need to fall back on typology and that supports the old idea of beaker arising on the western edge of the single grave/corded ware complex, perhaps in Holland.  I have always had doubts about the Portugal origin idea simply because beaker culture looks so much more like it relates to the pottery and cultures of the single grave/corded ware zones.  So, I think from this article that the Iberia origin thing may be about to be replaced by a 'we dont know' conclusion.  Seems that beaker just spread too fast for RC dating to sort out.  If the people who saw beaker from the periphery of corded ware are correct then that could create a cultural trail going from  beaker-corded ware-TRB (Funnel Beaker), a trail that leads back to Poland.  TRB in seen as an outcome of the late Lengyel in Poland.  Lengyel in turn is perhaps a culture created by a mix of LBK and other new dairy pastoralist elements.   Wiki notes Lengyel pottery was found in western Hungary, the Czech and Slovak Republics, Austria, Poland, and in the Sopot culture of the northern parts of Former Yugoslavia. That takes us back closer to the whole upstream of L11 zone.  The way I look at it is people are prepared to see IE influences in Corded Ware and even late TRB so why not in early TRB or even Lengyel?  Its not a huge leap in time.  I think if people are prepared to see IE in late TRB/early Corded Ware c. 3200BC or earlier then its not much of a leap to see it in TRB or Lengyel c. 4200BC.  I am not sure that either linguists or variance calculations are capable of distinguishing between 5200 years ago and 6200 years ago. 


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 09, 2012, 10:09:06 AM
I have to confess that I haven't kept up with all of the latest papers on the Beaker Folk. Was their influence and spread so pervasive that it could account for the switch to Indo-European?

Only in Western Europe (very broadly defined). The switch to IE languages in Asia and parts of Europe outside the Bell Beaker zone is another story.

Quote
As I understand it, and I realize this is not without controversy, the first place where the Beaker burial package - round barrow, flexed body, beaker pots, archery equipment, etc. - appears is in the Tagus River Valley in Portugal.

Not so. Most of what is considered the Bell Beaker package is inherited from Yamnaya and is held in common with Corded Ware - copper-working, single graves etc. Archery equipment - the wrist guards - are found in the Cetina Culture ( red on this map (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/images/BellBeaker.gif)) before Bell Beaker pottery appears.

The great dating controversy has been simply over a pottery style. Because pottery is common in the archaeological record, it is immensely helpful in identifying cultures. Therefore rather too great a weight gets placed upon it.  It's much like assuming that the Industrial Revolution began with Josiah Wedgwood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Wedgwood), and if we can't find a shard of Wedgwood china on the site of a cotton mill, then this site cannot be considered industrial.

The progress of the Battle of the Radiocarbon dates can be found on the New Bell Beaker papers thread.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 09, 2012, 10:40:19 AM
I tend to think it is rather a big deal that we can't make sense of kurganism when it comes to the success of Indo-European languages beyond the Hungarian Plain and all the way to the Atlantic coast.

That used to be a problem (or gap in the story, anyway) when archaeologists had not made a clear link from Yamnaya to Bell Beaker. That link was made by the brilliant Harrison and Heyd 2007 article which I discussed on this forum at length, cite in my text and have made available in the Mini-Library. I have taken that story all the way to the Atlantic in my own text with the Stelae people, as a logical progression from Harrison and Heyd.

Prieto-Martinez 2012 also shows links between Bell Beaker and anthropomorphic stelae, but I will give a resume of that on the New Bell Beaker Papers thread, after I get the chance to read it properly.
Volker Heyd's work seems to be what David Anthony is using too. In the "The Horse The Wheel The Language" on footnote #31 of the chapter "The Western Indo-European Languages"
Quote from: David Anthony
Bell Beaker decorated cup styles, domestic pot types, and grave and dagger types from the middle Danube were adopted about 2600 BCE in Moravia and Southern Germany. The material network could have been the bridge through which pre-Celtic dialects spread into Germany. See Heyd, Husty, and Kreiner 2004, especially the final section by Volker Heyd.
Footnote #32
Quote
See Hamp 1998; and Schmidt 1991 for connections between Italic and Celts.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 09, 2012, 10:49:30 AM
Quote from: Mikewww link=topic=10498.msg128750#msg128750
Heyd, Husty, and Kreiner 2004

Thanks - I see it. I'm a bit handicapped in not reading German. Quite a bit of Heyd's work is in German, including that one.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 09, 2012, 10:55:50 AM
I suppose I just don't believe this issue is sewn up.  

Of course you don't Alan. You like to argue. :) That is pretty well written into the job description for archaeologists. I'm sure Prof. Mallory would be proud of the way that you have boldly tossed all of his conclusions out of the window, because the most important thing he teaches is to question, question, question and when you are through with that - doubt. Tolerance of uncertainty is a prerequisite for those pushing back the boundaries of knowledge.  


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 09, 2012, 06:05:44 PM
I suppose I just don't believe this issue is sewn up.  

Of course you don't Alan. You like to argue. :) That is pretty well written into the job description for archaeologists. I'm sure Prof. Mallory would be proud of the way that you have boldly tossed all of his conclusions out of the window, because the most important thing he teaches is to question, question, question and when you are through with that - doubt. Tolerance of uncertainty is a prerequisite for those pushing back the boundaries of knowledge.  


lol.  His tutorials were set up as two arguing teams and each team leader was given a point of view to argue for even if it was the opposite of what you believed.  I dont actually disagree with all that much he has written on Indo-Europeans, because, as well as being an archaeological giant (and a giant archaeologist!), his most detailed work has been on the eastern half of the IE spread issue.  His seminal book on the IE and his subsequent ones on Tarim etc are extremely detailed on the whole eastern half of the story.  His IE book did basically was very honest in that he wasnt optimistic that any sort of level of understanding of the western half of the story was emerging with the best bet still that the corded ware and beaker culture is involved in some way.  The same basic situation remains.  Even Anthony really doesnt dedicate many pages to the western half of the story.  I suppose my only real point of departure with Jim is I fancy a homeland just a little further west or at least I am still not sure about the nature of the kurgan-farmers frontier dynamic.  


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on April 09, 2012, 08:47:03 PM
If that is right, though, Alan, then it would tend to support the IE-Yamnaya connection and an eastern origin for Beaker stuff. That would also tend to lend credence to the R1a association, given the aDNA R1a finding (one father and son pair, as I recall) at that Corded Ware site at Eulau in Germany.

That's fine, but even if the rc dates are not dead certain, the Portuguese finds are pretty early for something that came out of the east.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 09, 2012, 10:52:04 PM
Quote from: Mikewww link=topic=10498.msg128750#msg128750
Heyd, Husty, and Kreiner 2004
Thanks - I see it. I'm a bit handicapped in not reading German. Quite a bit of Heyd's work is in German, including that one.
Can you point to Heyd's last section, even if it is in German.  Perhaps we can get it translated?  Actually, isn't that up RMS's alley?


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 09, 2012, 11:15:37 PM
His IE book did basically was very honest in that he wasn't optimistic that any sort of level of understanding of the western half of the story was emerging with the best bet still that the corded ware and beaker culture is involved in some way.  The same basic situation remains.  

Nope. Things have moved on. As I said. Harrison and Heyd 2007 was the big breakthrough for Yamnaya > Bell Beaker. Jim has seen my text. He made no objection to the Stelae People scenario (which would have occurred to him already I imagine), though he has linguistic arguments with seeing Beaker as specifically Celtic, since he places Proto-Celtic later (1200 BC or older), which I knew. He laid out his arguments in his lecture to the Rethinking the Bronze Age conference 2010, in which he cited Harrison and Heyd by the way. He's well up on developments.

Linguistically BB could represent an earlier stage between PIE and Celtic. I see it as Proto-Italo-Celtic, as you know. But let's not get bogged down in detail.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 09, 2012, 11:21:01 PM
Heyd, Husty, and Kreiner 2004 .... Can you point to Heyd's last section, even if it is in German.  Perhaps we can get it translated? 

Actually Heyd put a translation online: Bell Beaker settlements in South Germany and Central Europe A summary of our evidence, discussions about it, and the wider picture of cultural identities in the later third millennium BC (http://www.bris.ac.uk/archanth/staff/heyd/Bell2.pdf)

I'd seen it, but only just put two and two together and realised what it is a translation of.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: OConnor on April 10, 2012, 04:28:41 AM
Perhaps the Beaker influence in Portugal originated from sea people from the continental North Sea area?


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 10, 2012, 07:35:25 AM
Perhaps the Beaker influence in Portugal originated from sea people from the continental North Sea area?

Unlikely. The flow seems to be in the other direction for the early dates of Maritime Bell Beaker, but then the Netherlands gets a flow down the Rhine later, so the Netherlands is an important BB hub. http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/images/BellBeakerGroups.jpg


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 10, 2012, 02:22:57 PM
His IE book did basically was very honest in that he wasn't optimistic that any sort of level of understanding of the western half of the story was emerging with the best bet still that the corded ware and beaker culture is involved in some way.  The same basic situation remains.  

Nope. Things have moved on. As I said. Harrison and Heyd 2007 was the big breakthrough for Yamnaya > Bell Beaker. Jim has seen my text. He made no objection to the Stelae People scenario (which would have occurred to him already I imagine), though he has linguistic arguments with seeing Beaker as specifically Celtic, since he places Proto-Celtic later (1200 BC or older), which I knew. He laid out his arguments in his lecture to the Rethinking the Bronze Age conference 2010, in which he cited Harrison and Heyd by the way. He's well up on developments.

Linguistically BB could represent an earlier stage between PIE and Celtic. I see it as Proto-Italo-Celtic, as you know. But let's not get bogged down in detail.


I will give Harrison another go.  I always thought he never got a fair crack of the whip from Lennon and McCartney (BTW the Living in the Material World film about George Harrison by Scorcesi is brilliant but I digress)


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 15, 2012, 12:19:52 PM
I have to say the 2012 paper The Bronze Age Expansion of Indo-European Languages by Kristian Kristiansen is incredibly good.  Really brings a lot together.  A very good read and interesting the way he is broadly into the late Neolithic/Copper Age Black Sea area origin of IE but he actually sees both the Steppes and Anatolian as secondary to the Maykop area near the north Caucuses.  He indicates that Maykop developed a stratified society due to its unique position in control of copper supplies to Mesopotamia.   He also seems to see the main resevoir for what he sees as major population movements in the late Neolithic as deriving from dispersal of the Cucuteni-Trypole giant settlements. 


He sees the dispersal of the initial beaker culture as rooted in a similar dispersal of the huge pre-beaker settlements in Iberia.  He doesnt emphasise it but its also true at this time that dry areas had to abandoned due to an arid climatic phase.  Interestingly he believes in the intermittently revived idea that the beakers originated in Iberia but the full beaker culture and beaker people really developed west of the Rhine due to a hybriding of beaker and corded ware elements and it was this secondary beaker culture that spread all over. 

What this all means for R1b, R1a etc is not clear.  Kristiansen doesnt discuss DNA at all.  I still have a major issue in the leap from Anatolia or somewhere in SE Europe to Iberia that any 'out of Iberia' model for L11 or P312 would require.  I still have doubts that R1b and beakers were linked in the initial Iberian phase and would find it easier to see any beaker-R1b link only developing after R1b was denoted by Corded Ware folks after a period of hybriding between beaker and corded ware.  However, I have an open mind of this and I wouldnt rule out anything. 

I also find the association of PIE or Pre-PIE he proposes with the Maykop culture an interesting one.  He sees the origin of Anatolian in an early offshoot from Maykop to Anatolia.  That not only makes sense to me but it also seems to place both the origin point and the early offshoot in high R1b areas (close to the Caucuses and Anatolia).  It would also potentially fit with the dual peak of upstream forms like L23 in those areas.  It is also an ideal location to move both north and south and when you look at a map of Maykop then the whole importance of north vs south routes melts away.  It is sort of intermediate between the steppes and Anatolian locations favoured by many.  R1b could easily have spread in either direction from that position. The Maykop people with their role of controlling trade to mesopotamia and their great wealth must have made them outstandingly prestigious in the area. 

If you only read one paper on this subject I would recommend it is Kristiansen's   


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 15, 2012, 12:49:44 PM
@ Alan - Yes I thought that you would like the Maikop = PIE idea. I don't buy it,  for reasons I gave on another thread and will repeat here as a more appropriate place.

There are a number of scenarios that might explain the fact that both R1a1a and R1b-M269 are correlated with IE languages and lactase persistence.
 
  
  • R1b and R1a were on the steppe from the Mesolithic. The geographic split may have been between R1b1a settling on the steppe and R1b1c going south from the Caspian into the heartland of the Neolithic. In that case the east-west pattern could simply have been  formed by the coincidence of where two men decided to camp.
  •   R1b-M269 entered the steppe from the Maikop Culture. Certainly we have evidence that some Maikop people were absorbed into Yamnaya when Maikop collapsed. Among the new Bell Beaker papers is one by Kristiansen suggesting that PIE was brought to the steppe by the Maikop. I don't buy that for chronological and linguistic reasons. PIE bears all the signs of birth around the Urals, and the ancestor of Tocharian left before the remnants of Maikop took refuge in Yamnaya.
  •   R1b-M269 entered the steppe from the west with dairy farming via the Cucuteni Culture (c. 5500 BC +). This would explain the importation of lactase persistence, which also seems to have flowed up the Danube into the TRB and so probably had its origin in the dairy farmers around the lower Danube. We have plenty of archaeological evidence of the crash of the Cucuteni Culture c. 4000 BC and melding of its remnants with the steppe cultures to create Yamnaya c. 3,300 BC. The logical problem of the Basques - high in R1b and lactase persistence and speaking a Copper Age language - would be resolved if they were descendants of some of the refugees from Cucuteni, moving west c. 4000 BC.      

Scenarios that can be ruled out: anything that requires having carriers of these haplogroups set off on their IE-spreading journeys from totally different points at different times, having never met and mixed. That simply won't work. They had to mix to spread lactase persistence.  They had to mix to share a language. They travelled together along many routes. Their homeland was certainly one and the same by the time of the fully-fledged Yamnaya Culture, but the east end of that homeland was strong in R1a1a and the west end strong in R1b-M269+, to judge by end results. We know that R1a1a was in steppe kurgans in a chronological sequence of related cultures from Andronovo to Iranian-speaking Scythians. So that fits the IE steppe homeland.
 


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: JeanL on April 15, 2012, 01:10:12 PM
There were 4 T/T individuals, 2 T/C individuals, and 13 C/C individuals in the SJAPL(n=19) site in Araba, which is dated back to 5000 ybp (Plantinga et al(2012)). However in a site also dated to the same time period(5000 ybp) in Treilles, France there were 26 C/C individuals. So this means lactase persistance was 31% in SJAPL, Araba, whereas it was 0% in Treilles, France both dated to 5000 ybp. We also know that Treilles was overwhelmingly G2a, with some minor I2a. How does that reconcile with the idea of:


Quote from: Jean M
The importation of lactase persistence, which also seems to have flowed up the Danube into the TRB and so probably had its origin in the dairy farmers around the lower Danube


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 15, 2012, 01:25:22 PM
@ JeanL

Thank goodness you asked that question. It made me realise that I made two mistakes (now fixed) in my table of Ancient DNA related to traits and diseases.

Anyway - I can't explain the 13910T in Araba particularly, but 3000 BC is certainly around the period that pastoralists were on the move from the Danube area. They would not necessarily arrive everywhere at exactly the same time.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 15, 2012, 02:19:15 PM
@ Alan - Yes I thought that you would like the Maikop = PIE idea. I don't buy it,  for reasons I gave on another thread and will repeat here as a more appropriate place.

There are a number of scenarios that might explain the fact that both R1a1a and R1b-M269 are correlated with IE languages and lactase persistence.
 
  
  • R1b and R1a were on the steppe from the Mesolithic. The geographic split may have been between R1b1a settling on the steppe and R1b1c going south from the Caspian into the heartland of the Neolithic. In that case the east-west pattern could simply have been  formed by the coincidence of where two men decided to camp.
  •   R1b-M269 entered the steppe from the Maikop Culture. Certainly we have evidence that some Maikop people were absorbed into Yamnaya when Maikop collapsed. Among the new Bell Beaker papers is one by Kristiansen suggesting that PIE was brought to the steppe by the Maikop. I don't buy that for chronological and linguistic reasons. PIE bears all the signs of birth around the Urals, and the ancestor of Tocharian left before the remnants of Maikop took refuge in Yamnaya.
  •   R1b-M269 entered the steppe from the west with dairy farming via the Cucuteni Culture (c. 5500 BC +). This would explain the importation of lactase persistence, which also seems to have flowed up the Danube into the TRB and so probably had its origin in the dairy farmers around the lower Danube. We have plenty of archaeological evidence of the crash of the Cucuteni Culture c. 4000 BC and melding of its remnants with the steppe cultures to create Yamnaya c. 3,300 BC. The logical problem of the Basques - high in R1b and lactase persistence and speaking a Copper Age language - would be resolved if they were descendants of some of the refugees from Cucuteni, moving west c. 4000 BC.      

Scenarios that can be ruled out: anything that requires having carriers of these haplogroups set off on their IE-spreading journeys from totally different points at different times, having never met and mixed. That simply won't work. They had to mix to spread lactase persistence.  They had to mix to share a language. They travelled together along many routes. Their homeland was certainly one and the same by the time of the fully-fledged Yamnaya Culture, but the east end of that homeland was strong in R1a1a and the west end strong in R1b-M269+, to judge by end results. We know that R1a1a was in steppe kurgans in a chronological sequence of related cultures from Andronovo to Iranian-speaking Scythians. So that fits the IE steppe homeland.
 

I find it interesting that the (apparently unrelated to the Caucasian) monster early copper mine of Kargaly in the Urals was bought by the Russians from the Bashkirs, a people who are very high in R1b in Bashkiristan. 



Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: IALEM on April 15, 2012, 03:33:56 PM
One item very lightly argumented by Kristiansen, if anything, is the expansion from Maykop to Anatolia througth the Caucasus, which is a route much more improbable than the expansion from the Balkans that has been usually assumed.
The route Through the Caucasus is full of non IE people, and Historically the hittites are known to move north from Kanesh into the territory of the non IE Kaska. It is a difficult reconstruction to have the Hittites moving south through the Caucasus and expanding back north from their setlement.
Besides, there is a well recorded movement of the Luwians from west to east in Anatolia. Aain very unlikely to have the Luwians moving from the Caucasus south to the west of Anatolia and back to the East.
The expansion from the Balkans is the more economical explanation for all those movements of IE into the lands of historically recorded non Ie peoples


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 15, 2012, 03:50:50 PM
One item very lightly argumented by Kristiansen, if anything, is the expansion from Maykop to Anatolia througth the Caucasus, which is a route much more improbable than the expansion from the Balkans that has been usually assumed.
The route Through the Caucasus is full of non IE people, and Historically the hittites are known to move north from Kanesh into the territory of the non IE Kaska. It is a difficult reconstruction to have the Hittites moving south through the Caucasus and expanding back north from their setlement.
Besides, there is a well recorded movement of the Luwians from west to east in Anatolia. Aain very unlikely to have the Luwians moving from the Caucasus south to the west of Anatolia and back to the East.
The expansion from the Balkans is the more economical explanation for all those movements of IE into the lands of historically recorded non Ie peoples


However, Anatolian is seem as, if not being the root of PIE, then at least being an early split away of pre-PIE.  That would place pre-PIE in SE Europe at the point of the move to Anatolia.  The presence of pre-PIE in SE Europe would need to be explained.  That would first of all push the date of any move from the Balkans to Anatolia to at least the 4th millenium BC if not earlier. 


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: MHammers on April 15, 2012, 04:19:53 PM
How does R1b-M73, which is largely Central Asian in its distribution, fit with the spread of IE? 

Supposing the homeland is in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, it looks like they joined up with R1a and the eastern movements of IE.  For those who favor an Anatolian or southern homeland, why does M73 appear to spread east instead of the Balkans? Granted, there are some M73 in Europe, but it has a frequency even less than R1a in Atlantic Europe.

Any thoughts?


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 15, 2012, 04:41:57 PM
How does R1b-M73, which is largely Central Asian in its distribution, fit with the spread of IE?  

I have been assuming that it spread east along the Silk Road sometime after the collapse of Andronovo, because it does not appear to be part of the movement into India and Iran. Its appearance in Europe could reflect the flight of the Cimmerians, or later movements west by Scythians etc.

[Added 16 April] The Baskirs - a Turkic people of Russia - are particularly interesting:

35% R1b-M269
26% R1a
17% N1c
13% R1b -M73
(Source Lobov 2009)


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: IALEM on April 16, 2012, 06:04:31 AM



However, Anatolian is seem as, if not being the root of PIE, then at least being an early split away of pre-PIE.  That would place pre-PIE in SE Europe at the point of the move to Anatolia.  The presence of pre-PIE in SE Europe would need to be explained.  That would first of all push the date of any move from the Balkans to Anatolia to at least the 4th millenium BC if not earlier.  
Yes, it is an early split, but the move to Anatolia doesn´t have to coincide with the split. The earliest record of Hittites is from 1900 BC, they could have moved some centuries earlier c.2300. An early movement directly from Maykop through the Caucasus seems even more improbable, Hittites then would have been living for 2.000 years unrecorded in their historical location.
If you look at the map, the route through the Caucasus put the Hittites at the end of a number of non IE peoples ion that route, long separated from their origin, while the route from the West put them at the end of a continuous of IE peoples, and it is only natural that being the earliest split they would be at the head of that movement west to east. It is a much more logical explanation.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 16, 2012, 06:46:45 AM
Yes, it is an early split, but the move to Anatolia doesn´t have to coincide with the split.

Anthony sees this early split from the linguistic parent expressed archaeologically by herder settlements of the Suvorovo group appearing in the Danube valley about 4,200 BC. One group moved into the Transylvanian plateau and then down the Mureş river valley into eastern Hungary. Others remained around the mouth of the Danube. Anthony suggests that groups from this culture entered Anatolia around 3,000 BC, perhaps founding Troy I; those left behind seem to fuse with local populations to emerge into history as Thracians.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: IALEM on April 16, 2012, 12:18:27 PM
Yes, it is an early split, but the move to Anatolia doesn´t have to coincide with the split.

Anthony sees this early split from the linguistic parent expressed archaeologically by herder settlements of the Suvorovo group appearing in the Danube valley about 4,200 BC. One group moved into the Transylvanian plateau and then down the Mureş river valley into eastern Hungary. Others remained around the mouth of the Danube. Anthony suggests that groups from this culture entered Anatolia around 3,000 BC, perhaps founding Troy I; those left behind seem to fuse with local populations to emerge into history as Thracians.
Yes, something along that line is the general line of reasoning in what I have read about Hittites, and their origin. The early arrival to the Balkans also explain the high diversity of ancient IE languages in the region


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 16, 2012, 01:00:08 PM
@ Alan - Yes I thought that you would like the Maikop = PIE idea. I don't buy it,  for reasons I gave on another thread and will repeat here as a more appropriate place.

There are a number of scenarios that might explain the fact that both R1a1a and R1b-M269 are correlated with IE languages and lactase persistence.
 
  
  • R1b and R1a were on the steppe from the Mesolithic. The geographic split may have been between R1b1a settling on the steppe and R1b1c going south from the Caspian into the heartland of the Neolithic. In that case the east-west pattern could simply have been  formed by the coincidence of where two men decided to camp.
  •   R1b-M269 entered the steppe from the Maikop Culture. Certainly we have evidence that some Maikop people were absorbed into Yamnaya when Maikop collapsed. Among the new Bell Beaker papers is one by Kristiansen suggesting that PIE was brought to the steppe by the Maikop. I don't buy that for chronological and linguistic reasons. PIE bears all the signs of birth around the Urals, and the ancestor of Tocharian left before the remnants of Maikop took refuge in Yamnaya.
  •   R1b-M269 entered the steppe from the west with dairy farming via the Cucuteni Culture (c. 5500 BC +). This would explain the importation of lactase persistence, which also seems to have flowed up the Danube into the TRB and so probably had its origin in the dairy farmers around the lower Danube. We have plenty of archaeological evidence of the crash of the Cucuteni Culture c. 4000 BC and melding of its remnants with the steppe cultures to create Yamnaya c. 3,300 BC. The logical problem of the Basques - high in R1b and lactase persistence and speaking a Copper Age language - would be resolved if they were descendants of some of the refugees from Cucuteni, moving west c. 4000 BC.      

Scenarios that can be ruled out: anything that requires having carriers of these haplogroups set off on their IE-spreading journeys from totally different points at different times, having never met and mixed. That simply won't work. They had to mix to spread lactase persistence.  They had to mix to share a language. They travelled together along many routes. Their homeland was certainly one and the same by the time of the fully-fledged Yamnaya Culture, but the east end of that homeland was strong in R1a1a and the west end strong in R1b-M269+, to judge by end results. We know that R1a1a was in steppe kurgans in a chronological sequence of related cultures from Andronovo to Iranian-speaking Scythians. So that fits the IE steppe homeland.
 


One thing I liked about Kristiansen's paper is that he explains the sudden movement of peoples (which he clearly considered quite large scale in places) as due to the vast concentrated population of late Cucuteni being forced to disperse and adopt elements of the steppe as a result of the onset of an arid phase which made their previous economic model unsustainable.  The crux of his arguement is a move to the less settled dispersed dairying model means that each person needs far more land to support them and an end to the old methods would have induced a massive outpouring of the populations to less arid areas.  He also hints this happened in the west too and the major nucleated settlements presumably also couldnt be sustained and a parallel outpouring occurred from the west.
 


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 16, 2012, 02:08:36 PM
@ Alan

Yes Kristiansen has some stimulating ideas, as ever. He is well worth reading. There is some really useful stuff in there, particularly fig. 14.3 showing the shift to grassland in Jutland. It is dramatic. Fig 14.6 showing the spread of the chariot updates what I have as well.  

However his ideas are not really gelling for me this time. Apart from the problematic Maikop starting point, the population push element doesn't seem to quite work. It's more of an environmental shift c. 4000 BC. I don't think Celtic spread from the West, and I'm not swayed by the idea that a couple of towns in Iberia constitute a population explosion.  


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: MHammers on April 16, 2012, 04:05:16 PM
I have been assuming that it spread east along the Silk Road sometime after the collapse of Andronovo, because it does not appear to be part of the movement into India and Iran. Its appearance in Europe could reflect the flight of the Cimmerians, or later movements west by Scythians etc.

[Added 16 April] The Baskirs - a Turkic people of Russia - are particularly interesting:

35% R1b-M269
26% R1a
17% N1c
13% R1b -M73
(Source Lobov 2009)

Here's the Myres' (2010) data for M73.  I've included other locations and frequencies that have M73 in conjunction with other early R1b.

R1b-M343* (likely P25*) and M73
Kazan, Russia (Tatars) .01 and .01
Turkey .006 and .006
Turkey (Cappadocia) .01 and .01

R1b-M269* and M73
Southeast Bashkirs .02 and .23
Turkey .02 and .006
Turkey (Cappadocia) .02 and .006

R1b-L23* and M73
Central Russia .02 and .004
Kazan, Russia (Tatars) .02 and .01
Bashkortostan (Tatars) .08 and .03
Southeast Bashkirs .32 and .23
North Bashkirs .03 and .01
Southwest Bashkirs .17 and .02
Karachays (NW Caucasus) .04 and .06
Megrels (S Caucasus) .01 and .01
Balkars (NW Caucasus) .02 and .10
Kabardians (NW Caucasus) .03 and .007
North Pakistan .02 and .09
Turkey .11 and .006
Turkey (Cappadocia) .15 and .01

Other than Pakistan, there is a hint of a trail of early R1b types from Anatolia to Central Russia when including M73.  However, many of these frequencies are possibly just outliers.  This may not have anything to do with PIE.  It could just as easily be related to historic Turkic movements and absorption of pre-existing r1b populations.




Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 16, 2012, 04:39:06 PM
Indeed I am assuming that M73 was absorbed into Turkic populations as they moved westward over what had been Scythian territory, with some Scythians taking a "If you can't beat them, join them" attitude. 


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: IALEM on April 18, 2012, 05:40:46 AM
I finally ended reading Krisitiansen.It is a valuable effort to search in archeology beyond material remains and into social structures. Some details, though, are problematic. I found this paragraph particularly shocking.
 Also, on the Iberian Peninsula we find complex
Chalcolithic societies with a concentrated population
living inside huge fortified settlements. They stretched
from Zambujal at the Tagus estuary in Portugal to
south-east Spain, with Los Millares as the most wellknown
example. These complex societies collapsed
and were transformed into small expanding, maritime
Bell Beaker groups in the second quarter of the third
millennium BC

1) societies collapsed in by 2750-2500 BC? Certainly not Los Millares
2) Zambujal and Los Millafres are clearly parto of the same culture, however there is no Bell Beaker remains in Los Millares until very late, after 2000 BC and in a way that is clearly intrusive

Finally, the identification of Bell Beaker with protocletic is, of course, very problematic, to say the least.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on April 18, 2012, 07:20:40 AM
@ IALEM - I agree entirely. As I said in a post above, I feel that Kristiansen's piece should not be swallowed whole.  


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: intrestedinhistory on May 07, 2012, 08:28:45 PM
I suppose it is understandable for men who carry a particular haplogroup to want to believe that their direct ancestor had primacy in everything, but I'm getting a bit tired of R1a1a carriers fighting for the idea that 13910T lactase persistence arose in an R1a1a man, and R1b carriers fighting for the idea that PIE was first spoken by an R1b man. It doesn't matter. Not in the story of IE spread anyway. Both PIE and lactase persistence appear to have spread together east and west. For that to happen where carriers were predominantly R1a1a in the east and R1b in the west, then there cannot have been some rigid genetic and linguistic divide between R1a and R1b carriers.  
  
As like as not 13910T first occurred in a milkmaid. :) As for PIE - it developed in contact with Proto-Uralic around the southern Urals. I suggest that R1 had long moved between the steppe in summer and the south Caspian in winter, and that R1b cropped up among those who eventually settled at the southern end of the seasonal cycle while R1a distinguished those who settled at the northern end. Presumably they spoke the same language back in the Mesolithic - an ancestor of PIE. But those R1b V88 people (initially just just one man maybe) who moved south into the farming belt seem to have adopted Proto-Afro-Asiatic from other farmers before some of them moved to north Africa. There were probably many other languages among the farmers, only some of which survived. I'm suggesting that the ancestor of the language spoken in the Cucuteni Culture was one such.  

Yamnaya is seen not as a single culture, but as an "horizon" that spread west across the steppe, with a particular cultural package and (it seems) language. The package included much that had been acquired from adjacent cultures originally, including dairy farming, but not the concept of pottery-making, which had arrived earlier from the east.


So should there have been some R1b and tripoyle mtdnas carried east with Indo-Iranians? Why isn't it possible lactose persistence arose in an R1a man?


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: intrestedinhistory on May 07, 2012, 08:33:16 PM
I suppose it is understandable for men who carry a particular haplogroup to want to believe that their direct ancestor had primacy in everything, but I'm getting a bit tired of R1a1a carriers fighting for the idea that 13910T lactase persistence arose in an R1a1a man, and R1b carriers fighting for the idea that PIE was first spoken by an R1b man. It doesn't matter . . .

It isn't in the same league with having enough air to breathe or food and drink and shelter, but it does matter. Otherwise, there would be far fewer sales of y-dna tests and far far fewer posts here at World Families and elsewhere.

Maybe R1a was the original PIE y haplogroup. I don't know. I tend to think there wasn't much R1b, if any, in Cucuteni-Tripolye and that what was there will turn out to have been I2a, G2a, and E1b1b. So, if IE was transmitted rather than carried west, then perhaps R1b men learned it from I2a, G2a, and E1b1b middlemen, and not so much from the R1a originators themselves. Maybe R1b hasn't yet been found at Neolithic sites because our ancestors were the European aborigines, still at the hunter-gatherer stage, and thus rather scarce in farming communities.



That seems incredibly unlikely.  All the advantages would be with cultures who were used to farming products.  Lets put it this way, the mt DNA representative of the hunters (mainly U) did not prosper with the coming of farming.  U shrunk in size dramatically.  Its more likely by far that R1b hasnt been found simply because no yDNA from west European late Neolithic sites have been published as yet (other than one Corded Ware R1a family burial).  It may well be that it is associated with beakers and their post-beaker descendants in the same areas.   

I know, Alan. I wasn't giving my own opinion, just kind of continuing the line of "maybes" that began with "Maybe R1a was the original PIE y haplogroup".

I don't think R1b was in western Europe during the Paleolithic or even the Mesolithic Period.

I was giving my opinion about Cucuteni-Tripolye, though. I don't think any ancient R1b will be found there.

I wouldnt be surprised if the original area of PIE speaking was in the Bulgaria/Romania area that lies between the big R1a an R1b blocks on either side.  It was the first area of the spread of cattle dairying into Europe and there developed advanced and very populous cultures in that area.  I find it very hard to believe that some steppes hunters (later nomads) would have  imposed their language on Europe.  I think the whole Kurgan theory (in so much as it is seen as the actual source of IE and the origin of IE languages across most of Europe) will one day be seen as a textbook example of counter-intuitive arguing to support an inherited bit of baggage from the earlier days of the study of antiquity.  I have no doubt that at some stage R1a populations learned IE and were responsible for the spread of the language in some directions to the east and south but I dont think they were the original source.  I suspect that IE arose closer to the near east and spread into Anatolia in a pre-PIE form before spreading to the west side of the Black Sea with dairying.  From there it may have exercised an influence both east into the steppes and west into the rest of Europe.


Wishful thinking. The only thing worth exploring which subclade is related to PIE and when PIE R1a split into subclades.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: intrestedinhistory on May 07, 2012, 08:36:11 PM
In what you posted earlier, about Yamnaya mothers teaching R1b sons IE, you seemed to be saying that PIE originated among peoples who were predominantly R1a. .. What I thought we were discussing was who the original IE folk were. If R1b peoples learned it, however early on, from R1a peoples, then R1a is the PIE y haplogroup.

I'm very sorry that you feel that way. It just feeds what you rightly call haplogroup cheerleading. I think it a big mistake to assume that any ethnic group was ever composed of a single haplogroup, except possibly very early in its development, if it began as a single family group.

Yes it is pretty plain that PIE developed from a hunter-gatherer language, which came in contact with farming/stock-keeping. Yes it is pretty plain that it developed around the south Urals. Yes it is pretty plain that those who developed an early form of it were strong in R1a1a, though it is is unlikely that R1a1a was the only Y-DNA haplogroup among them. We can tell this from the predominance of R1a1a in those IE speakers who went east, including the ancestors of the Tocharian-speakers. Those ancestors left c. 3,500 BC and created the copper-working Afanasievo Culture, which  is an offshoot of the culture of the Volga-Ural region.

However the input of the dairy farmers and copper workers of Cucuteni into the composite culture (and therefore PIE as a language of that culture) cannot be denied. The language spread because of the strength and mobility of that culture. By the time that IE-speaking people moved up the Danube c. 3000 BC, evidently R1b was very strong among them. Lactase persistence, which most probably cropped up first among dairy farmers around the Sea of Marmara or Danube delta, travelled east with people strong in R1a1a (and travelled also with Uralic-speakers). That means that R1b and R1a1a people had been inter-mixing. There cannot have been a genetic/cultural/language barrier between them. The barriers had dissolved.  



Are you suggesting Indo-Iranians and tocharians had uralic admixture?


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: intrestedinhistory on May 07, 2012, 08:54:36 PM
It is also possible that Anthony is wrong about the Yamnaya people bringing proto-Italo-Celtic west.  It could just as easily spun off from somewhere in the Cernavoda-Ezero horizon before them.

I doubt it. There is a very clear cultural trail from the steppe up the Danube and into what became Celtic/Italic areas. See my Stelae people map: http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/images/StelaePeople.jpg

In my efforts to make things succinct and easily understood, I may have conveyed the impression of a very simple story of R1b living only and always in the Balkans and R1a living only and always around the Volga-Urals. This is very obviously not the case.  The reality must have been much more complex. Some R1b ended up in places on the steppe. Some R1a filtered up the rivers into the remnants of Cucuteni villages. Ra1a and R1b could travel together. They very clearly interacted.

Is this the M73? or M269 found in Central Asia?


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: intrestedinhistory on June 18, 2012, 01:22:24 PM
Mostly missing in action are the R1a "elites" who somehow managed to change the speech of almost all of western Europe despite their rather primitive level of civilization.

Who is suggesting that R1a1a elites changed the speech of all western Europe? What idiot would buy into that? This sounds like some garbled mish-mash of the old elite transfer of language concept and the aDNA evidence of continuity of R1a1a from Andronovo to Scythian (Iranian-speaking) graves. If IE languages spread east by mass migration, why try to hang onto the old idea that they spread by elite transfer, but only in the west. You yourself came up with the brilliant deduction years ago that R1b was the other half of the IE story. It was mass migration east and west.

What has changed since then, apart from you getting driven up the wall by Rah-Rah-R1a1a silliness?  

I still think R1b is the IE story to the west, but I don't think the R1bs were first "kurganized" by R1a language donors from the steppe. I think it was the other way around, with R1a steppe folk acquiring their Indo-European from R1b folk who probably arrived in the Balkans from Anatolia.

Aside from that, believe me, there are plenty of idiots (your word) out there who believe Indo-European was propagated in every direction  by R1a elites. Witness Klyosov's recent Rootsweb declarations about R1a "Celts", for example. The main reason I quit posting at the Eupedia y-dna forum was that very sort of thing. I don't mind arguing - I enjoy it, actually - but I don't like being the Lone Ranger.

I realize I am an R1b partisan. I admit it, without shame. But I really don't find the Kurgan Theory as compelling as you apparently do, and I see some gaping holes in it, at least from my perspective.

I don't want to re-post what I wrote in my last post above. What of it? Is Euphratic just Whittaker's silliness, or is it real? If so, would you derive it from the Pontic-Caspian steppe or from nearby eastern Anatolia? He says the textual evidence for it dates from the 4th millennium BC. That's pretty early.

So R1b farming elites managed to spread their language east but it is okto call people who suggest the vice versa idiots? Because believing IE was propagated in every direction by R1b farmers is so much more respectable idea and isn't motivated by any bias? Nice.

I am also curious on what makes an Anatolian origin R1b the PIE group. I wasn't aware R1b dominates Anatolia the way it does Western Euro. Anatolians have much more diversity in their ydnas than Western Europeans. Anatolia=R1b is a ridiculous oversimplification. If you want to go down that Anatolian route be open to the possibility of J2a and G2a being the PIE groups and the idea of J2a and G2a elites. Maybe even J1 , E and T.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: intrestedinhistory on June 18, 2012, 01:25:35 PM
Mostly missing in action are the R1a "elites" who somehow managed to change the speech of almost all of western Europe despite their rather primitive level of civilization.

Who is suggesting that R1a1a elites changed the speech of all western Europe? What idiot would buy into that? This sounds like some garbled mish-mash of the old elite transfer of language concept and the aDNA evidence of continuity of R1a1a from Andronovo to Scythian (Iranian-speaking) graves.

What has changed since then, apart from you getting driven up the wall by Rah-Rah-R1a1a silliness?



The inherent problem here is connecting graves in Krasnoyarsk, Siberia with PIE, when it is clear that R1a is connected with spreading Iranian languages. I believe Haplogroup C is also found at the grave site.

Nothing is particularly offensive or bothersome about early R1a tribes spreading PIE, but the problem is finding some way to explain the lack of this haplogroup among western/Centum IE speakers. It is much simpler to assume that R1a tribes receive IE from an R1b-rich population, and carry later innovations east.



Yes but somehow there is no problem in having to explain the lack of R1b in Asian IE speakers.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: intrestedinhistory on June 18, 2012, 01:34:03 PM
the purported (indeed, a stretch of the imagination) theory that the Tarim Basin mummies are Tocharians

(sigh) I knew that would get argued as well. I don't want to be disobliging but this has been argued to absolute death. I have covered the evidence over and over, but if you don't like it you will ignore it again, so why bother?  

I suspect more genetic tests will need to be done to find different strains of R1a in Central Asia. I also think the Tocharians were the ones who picked up R1b-M73 or at least it originally expanded with them.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: intrestedinhistory on June 18, 2012, 02:24:53 PM
Nevertheless, growing evidence that questions R1a's affinities with PIE will not be censored and will continue to be posted here, much to your chagrin, and to the dismay of many others who may or may not be R1a.

I just want to be clear that although I think R1a was involved in the spread of some IE languages, I don't think that all of the PIE speakers (back at the time before the pre-Germanic, Italic, Celtic, etc. branching) were R1a. I don't know what happened, but it is definitely worth investigating the interaction of R1b and R1a in relation to the spread of IE languages.

On the other hand, R1a's position related to PIE (Proto-IndoEuropean language) does not any way negate the hypotheses based on PIE being a real langage and PIE's homeland being the Pontic Steppes.   By the way, what is a "Kurganist?"  I don't think of myself as one and I don't see the usefulness of pinning labels on people who take a particular position. Labels can sometimes cloud or divert attention from the actual discussion of evidence and logic.

Anyway, I have no prior background (or prejudices) in any of these things but my readings led me to conclude the concept of a PIE is quite likely to be true and that if I had to pick a homeland for PIE, I'd pick the Pontic-Steppes.   Those are just two pieces to a puzzle.  

I don't know how IE languages made it all the way to the Atlantic but there are migrations that could support this.  Just because we can't concretely link those migrations to all Western European languages, Italic, Germanic, Celtic and integrate Euskara into the outcome doesn't mean PIE wasn't real or that PIE didn't originate in the steppes. David Anthony does make an attempt to link PIE to archeologically documented expansions/migrations that link Western IE languages. He admits he is speculating but even if he is wrong on some of these linkages they do not negate, IMO, the high degree of likelihood that PIE was real and PIE's homeland was in the steppes.  I don't know if that is the general consensus, but if it is as Jean says it is, it's just the natural outcome of evidence and logic that are effective.

I think though that a lot of the apparent strength of the case for the steppes for the PIE homeland is predicated by setting up Anatolia as the alternative.  I dont believe these arguements are anywhere near as strong when the alternative to the steppes is the adjacent farming area of the west side of the Black Sea in the Bulgaria/east Romania/Ukraine area. Although this 'third way' has not been formally presented in a recent publication, several fairly new developments including the placing of Anatolian influences and the spread of dairying first into Europe in those area and indeed the importance of that area in the transformation of the steppe hunters do point to its great importance in the period 5000-3500BC.  I dont think it can be emphasised enough how vastly more advanced that area was to the steppes.  Dairying moved both east and west from that area in this period for example and fed both into the steppes and into the mid Neolithic cultures of northern Europe too.  I am a great believer in gut feeling in these things and while I think the Black Sea area probably is where PIE arose I think it would make a lot more sense if we moved the homeland just west of the steppes on the west and NW side of the Black Sea.  I dont think linguistic arguements against Anatolia would stand as arguements against that much more steppe-adjacent area.  I think the pitching of the steppes against Anatolia gives the impression of a false triumph of the Kurgan theory.  As for the steppe hunters I tend to think they were Uralic.

In such a scenario it is entirely possible that both R1a and R1b were in some form present in this area on the west of the Black Sea and had perhaps been there since the 5th millenium BC in the form of L23* and some form of R1a (sorry I dont really know enough about R1a).  

Ah wouldn't you love it if they were Uralic. Yes all R1a is indeed Uralic who learned IE languages from their superior R1b PIE masters.


Unfortunately for you Uralic is a language of the forest not of the steepe. Some Indo-Iranians moved into the forest.  As far as your uralic steepe link goes. your idea of Uralic steepe hunter gatherers was funny indeed.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Mike Walsh on June 18, 2012, 02:47:14 PM
Ah wouldn't you love it if they were Uralic. Yes all R1a is indeed Uralic who learned IE languages form their superior R1b PIE masters.

Unfortunately for you Uralic is a language of the forest not of the steepe. Some Indo-Iranians moved into the forest.  s far as your uralic steepe link goes. your idea of Uralic steepe hunter gatherers was funny indeed.

I don't think there is a need to use this tone of conversation over who is superior or not.  There are probably other blogs where you can find more willing conversants in this.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on June 18, 2012, 07:34:53 PM

Yes but somehow there is no problem in having to explain the lack of R1b in Asian IE speakers.

Sure, mainly because we do not attribute the eastern spread of IE to R1b. We are not so fixated on R1b as to do that.

But those who want to attribute the spread of IE entirely to R1a have a big problem in the West.

We don't have a similar problem with R1b in the East because we don't think R1b spread IE to the East. We think R1a did that.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: intrestedinhistory on June 19, 2012, 10:17:13 AM

Yes but somehow there is no problem in having to explain the lack of R1b in Asian IE speakers.

Sure, mainly because we do not attribute the eastern spread of IE to R1b. We are not so fixated on R1b as to do that.

But those who want to attribute the spread of IE entirely to R1a have a big problem in the West.

We don't have a similar problem with R1b in the East because we don't think R1b spread IE to the East. We think R1a did that.

The fact that you think R1b spread the language to R1a carriers is telling enough. I'm open to the idea of the steepe being a mixed place and the picture not being so clear cut as one way spread either way.

You are fixated on R1b. Which is why I keep on hearing Anatolia=R1b. Why talk about R1b? If the homeland is Anatolia then J2a is just as likely to be the PIE lineage.

But in your world Anatolian farmers somehow lost their non R1b lineages and managed to spread a hunter gatherer language to hunter gatherers without any trace.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: acekon on June 19, 2012, 11:40:33 AM
Ah wouldn't you love it if they were Uralic. Yes all R1a is indeed Uralic who learned IE languages form their superior R1b PIE masters.

Unfortunately for you Uralic is a language of the forest not of the steepe. Some Indo-Iranians moved into the forest.  s far as your uralic steepe link goes. your idea of Uralic steepe hunter gatherers was funny indeed.

Comment removed by Moderator.  Come on folks - whether you agree or disagree - don't call each other names.  Please keep discussions focused on the ideas and not the personalities


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on June 19, 2012, 11:42:48 AM
If would be nice if moderators did not tolerate personal attacks of any kind from any quarter.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: acekon on June 19, 2012, 12:17:58 PM
Perhaps that is why they speak so poorly on some of the prominent members on this forum?


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on June 19, 2012, 12:24:36 PM
Nevertheless, growing evidence that questions R1a's affinities with PIE will not be censored and will continue to be posted here, much to your chagrin, and to the dismay of many others who may or may not be R1a.

I just want to be clear that although I think R1a was involved in the spread of some IE languages, I don't think that all of the PIE speakers (back at the time before the pre-Germanic, Italic, Celtic, etc. branching) were R1a. I don't know what happened, but it is definitely worth investigating the interaction of R1b and R1a in relation to the spread of IE languages.

On the other hand, R1a's position related to PIE (Proto-IndoEuropean language) does not any way negate the hypotheses based on PIE being a real langage and PIE's homeland being the Pontic Steppes.   By the way, what is a "Kurganist?"  I don't think of myself as one and I don't see the usefulness of pinning labels on people who take a particular position. Labels can sometimes cloud or divert attention from the actual discussion of evidence and logic.

Anyway, I have no prior background (or prejudices) in any of these things but my readings led me to conclude the concept of a PIE is quite likely to be true and that if I had to pick a homeland for PIE, I'd pick the Pontic-Steppes.   Those are just two pieces to a puzzle.  

I don't know how IE languages made it all the way to the Atlantic but there are migrations that could support this.  Just because we can't concretely link those migrations to all Western European languages, Italic, Germanic, Celtic and integrate Euskara into the outcome doesn't mean PIE wasn't real or that PIE didn't originate in the steppes. David Anthony does make an attempt to link PIE to archeologically documented expansions/migrations that link Western IE languages. He admits he is speculating but even if he is wrong on some of these linkages they do not negate, IMO, the high degree of likelihood that PIE was real and PIE's homeland was in the steppes.  I don't know if that is the general consensus, but if it is as Jean says it is, it's just the natural outcome of evidence and logic that are effective.

I think though that a lot of the apparent strength of the case for the steppes for the PIE homeland is predicated by setting up Anatolia as the alternative.  I dont believe these arguements are anywhere near as strong when the alternative to the steppes is the adjacent farming area of the west side of the Black Sea in the Bulgaria/east Romania/Ukraine area. Although this 'third way' has not been formally presented in a recent publication, several fairly new developments including the placing of Anatolian influences and the spread of dairying first into Europe in those area and indeed the importance of that area in the transformation of the steppe hunters do point to its great importance in the period 5000-3500BC.  I dont think it can be emphasised enough how vastly more advanced that area was to the steppes.  Dairying moved both east and west from that area in this period for example and fed both into the steppes and into the mid Neolithic cultures of northern Europe too.  I am a great believer in gut feeling in these things and while I think the Black Sea area probably is where PIE arose I think it would make a lot more sense if we moved the homeland just west of the steppes on the west and NW side of the Black Sea.  I dont think linguistic arguements against Anatolia would stand as arguements against that much more steppe-adjacent area.  I think the pitching of the steppes against Anatolia gives the impression of a false triumph of the Kurgan theory.  As for the steppe hunters I tend to think they were Uralic.

In such a scenario it is entirely possible that both R1a and R1b were in some form present in this area on the west of the Black Sea and had perhaps been there since the 5th millenium BC in the form of L23* and some form of R1a (sorry I dont really know enough about R1a).  

Ah wouldn't you love it if they were Uralic. Yes all R1a is indeed Uralic who learned IE languages from their superior R1b PIE masters.


Unfortunately for you Uralic is a language of the forest not of the steepe. Some Indo-Iranians moved into the forest.  As far as your uralic steepe link goes. your idea of Uralic steepe hunter gatherers was funny indeed.

I have revised my ideas anyway and no longer think R1b was in the farming zone because the structure of R1b doesnt fit that.  I would now tend to think both were in the steppes albeit distributed differently, perhaps with R1b hugging the Black Sea area.  R1b people seemed to have excellent maritime skills judging from the way L51 spread so I think they were located in a non-farming area north of the Black Sea but also with a maritime culture.  So I would now tend to shift it more towards the actual north shores of the Black Sea just east of the Cucutene=Trypole area.  So there is no point in me debating this and defending something I dont believe in.  However, you could do with brushing up on your people skills a bit in the way you post as others have noted.  Unlike yourself I am pretty dispassionate about this and dont really care what the final truth comes out as.  There is clearly a lot not to admire about the steppes peoples as well as to admire.  Would have been a horrible world for the female half of the population for a start judging by the R1 people's tendancy for the poweful to monopolise women as comodities that seems to be shown by the yDNA trees.    


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on June 19, 2012, 09:17:10 PM

Yes but somehow there is no problem in having to explain the lack of R1b in Asian IE speakers.

Sure, mainly because we do not attribute the eastern spread of IE to R1b. We are not so fixated on R1b as to do that.

But those who want to attribute the spread of IE entirely to R1a have a big problem in the West.

We don't have a similar problem with R1b in the East because we don't think R1b spread IE to the East. We think R1a did that.

The fact that you think R1b spread the language to R1a carriers is telling enough. I'm open to the idea of the steepe being a mixed place and the picture not being so clear cut as one way spread either way.

I said that was a possibility, not a certainty. Perhaps R1a spread IE to R1b. Who knows?

You are fixated on R1b.

I am R1b and this is an R1b forum.

Has any of that ever occurred to you?

Which is why I keep on hearing Anatolia=R1b. Why talk about R1b? If the homeland is Anatolia then J2a is just as likely to be the PIE lineage.

But in your world Anatolian farmers somehow lost their non R1b lineages and managed to spread a hunter gatherer language to hunter gatherers without any trace.

You don't know what you are talking about.

We don't usually discuss J2a here. This is an R1b forum. So, we talk mainly about R1b. What a surprise!

As for Anatolia, it does come up from time to time.

I keep hearing about the steppe. There is loads of I2a on the steppe. My own stepson, born in Volgograd, Russia, in the heart of the steppe, is I2a. To use your own words a little differently, if the homeland is the steppe, then I2a is just as likely to be the PIE lineage.
 


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: gtc on June 20, 2012, 07:47:59 AM
You are fixated on R1b.

I am R1b and this is an R1b forum.

Has any of that ever occurred to you?

Methinks it's time for interestedinhistory to declare his own haplogroup, assuming it is a he.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Mark Jost on June 20, 2012, 09:16:51 AM

I have revised my ideas anyway and no longer think R1b was in the farming zone because the structure of R1b doesnt fit that.  I would now tend to think both were in the steppes albeit distributed differently, perhaps with R1b hugging the Black Sea area.  R1b people seemed to have excellent maritime skills judging from the way L51 spread so I think they were located in a non-farming area north of the Black Sea but also with a maritime culture.  So I would now tend to shift it more towards the actual north shores of the Black Sea just east of the Cucutene=Trypole area.  

Alan,

Have you posted an updated summary of your R1b ideas in one location? I seem to not be able to keep up with you.

MJost


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: intrestedinhistory on June 21, 2012, 01:00:02 PM

Yes but somehow there is no problem in having to explain the lack of R1b in Asian IE speakers.

Sure, mainly because we do not attribute the eastern spread of IE to R1b. We are not so fixated on R1b as to do that.

But those who want to attribute the spread of IE entirely to R1a have a big problem in the West.

We don't have a similar problem with R1b in the East because we don't think R1b spread IE to the East. We think R1a did that.

The fact that you think R1b spread the language to R1a carriers is telling enough. I'm open to the idea of the steepe being a mixed place and the picture not being so clear cut as one way spread either way.

I said that was a possibility, not a certainty. Perhaps R1a spread IE to R1b. Who knows?

You are fixated on R1b.

I am R1b and this is an R1b forum.

Has any of that ever occurred to you?

Which is why I keep on hearing Anatolia=R1b. Why talk about R1b? If the homeland is Anatolia then J2a is just as likely to be the PIE lineage.

But in your world Anatolian farmers somehow lost their non R1b lineages and managed to spread a hunter gatherer language to hunter gatherers without any trace.

You don't know what you are talking about.

We don't usually discuss J2a here. This is an R1b forum. So, we talk mainly about R1b. What a surprise!

As for Anatolia, it does come up from time to time.

I keep hearing about the steppe. There is loads of I2a on the steppe. My own stepson, born in Volgograd, Russia, in the heart of the steppe, is I2a. To use your own words a little differently, if the homeland is the steppe, then I2a is just as likely to be the PIE lineage.
 

No I think it is you who doesn't know what you are talking about. Your ignorance is owerwhelming.
It doesn't matter if this is an R1b forum or not. If IE languages are from Anatolia then R1b isn't the only ydna among them because this is an R1b forum. This being an R1b forum makes the non R1b lineages of Anatolia you chose to ignore disappear.

The I2a on the steepe is of recent origins related to the expansion of Slavs. Get over it.

On the other hand the J2a and G in Anatolia aren't of recent origins. In fact they probably originated there along with numerous subclades of J1. Anatolia isn't the steepe and hasn't been subjected to the same population replacements the steepe where groups tend to be mobile has. But it is easy for you to ignore of course.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: intrestedinhistory on June 21, 2012, 01:14:56 PM

Perhaps that is why they speak so poorly on some of the prominent members on this forum?


Your petty, immature insults are getting old.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on June 21, 2012, 07:59:07 PM

I have revised my ideas anyway and no longer think R1b was in the farming zone because the structure of R1b doesnt fit that.  I would now tend to think both were in the steppes albeit distributed differently, perhaps with R1b hugging the Black Sea area.  R1b people seemed to have excellent maritime skills judging from the way L51 spread so I think they were located in a non-farming area north of the Black Sea but also with a maritime culture.  So I would now tend to shift it more towards the actual north shores of the Black Sea just east of the Cucutene=Trypole area.  

Alan,

Have you posted an updated summary of your R1b ideas in one location? I seem to not be able to keep up with you.

MJost

My views are not very fixed because the DNA evidence is always changing and even archaeological interpretation is going through a major phase of change, more in the last few years than the previous 30 or 40.  All I can do is take whatever new information on DNA that comes through and try to correlate it with my knowledge as an archaeologists.  I am kind of at the mercy of others to provide the DNA distribution, variance, phylogeny etc and the long term doubts over DNA dating has made it compicated, even foolish, to come out with a fixed model.  I certainly do not have an emotionally or culturally derived preference for the story of R1b as I think is quite common in this hobby.  The main change in my ideas is that I am coming around to be less of a doubting Thomas on the issue of variance dating thanks to the ancient DNA which is backing it up so far.  The only thing clear to me is that R1b was holed up in a place where it couldnt expand for a long time when other lineages were expanding, like G, E, J etc.  IMO a large expansion means extinction and bottle necks in the future wont tend to happen.  My conclusion if that R1b didnt have any sort of expansion worth the name until some point after L23 developed and only had its great expansion after L51.  That for me makes me think that wherever it was located was non-farming, be it a large area or some pocket somewhere.  As to where it was, I dont know but I hugely doubt it was in Anatolia or Mesopotamia or the Levant in the early Neolithic.  That would have placed it in the very best positions to have a farming driven expansion and expand into Europe etc, the exact reverse of what seems to have happened.  If R1b was vaguely in 'the east' in the early Neolithic I think Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Levant, the Balkans etc can be struck of the list of possibles as these all experienced early farming in an impressive way. While I am hardly known as a huge Kurganist, its the most obvious place where farming arrived late on the eastern fringes of Europe and SW/central Asia.   Its possible there could have been a pocket of non-farmers elsewhere and Jean L is clearly putting a case for SW Europe.  its not impossible archaeologically as the bell beaker culture did have early partial origins in that corner of Europe.  However, I find it hard to correlate with the vast majority of the DNA analysis of R1b that is presented.  I cant present a model I am sure of though because there is just too many variables that are unknown.  I does however seem that the case for the Neolithic farmers as the bringers of R1b to Europe has had a heck of a lot of blows and seems very unlikely now. 


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on June 21, 2012, 08:19:14 PM
JeanL's "case for SW Europe" is just "Paleolithic R1b 2.0".

R-M269 heads over to Iberia prior to the LGM, hides out there for the duration of that, starts to expand after it but is reduced by the arrival of Neolithic farmers, which reduction, of course, makes it look younger than it really is (convenient). This causes it to hide out in the Pyrenees and in nearby caves. Later, as L11, it emerges from its Pyrenean fastnesses. Despite all the advantages the farmers had in possessing the better lands and the means of increased food production, L11, perhaps now as P312, nearly completely replaces the Neolithic farmers and becomes the dominant y haplogroup in western Europe.

Meanwhile, the R-M269 in the East is still there, but it bears little relationship to western R-M269 except a very very distant one, since the two have been separated since before the LGM. Eastern R-M269, as R-L23 (never mind that L11 and P312 are downstream of L23) advances into Europe as part of the Yamnaya Culture that brought IE to Europe. Somehow it transfers IE to its long lost western cousins.

Rube Goldberg would be proud.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on June 21, 2012, 08:52:17 PM
Anyone see Dienekes blog and the new paper showing that Phyrigian may be the origin of an obscure language in NE Pakistan.  I just wonder how R1b and R1a fair in that population.   This strange group are of course surrounded by a sea of indo-iranian etc.  If this small population is significantly different then it might be indirectly telling us what the Phyrgians were like in the past. 


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: IALEM on June 22, 2012, 04:44:10 AM
As I see many people here ridiculizing the theories of other people, and it is not amusing, could we just stick to the arguments and leave out the mocking part?


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on June 22, 2012, 06:29:33 AM
References to Rube Goldberg are not "ridiculizing". They're a legitimate way to characterize ideas that appear to be overly complex, convoluted, and overdone.

To say "Rube Goldberg would be proud" may not exactly be a compliment, but it is a criticism of an argument and not a person.



Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: IALEM on June 22, 2012, 10:24:34 AM
References to Rube Goldberg are not "ridiculizing". They're a legitimate way to characterize ideas that appear to be overly complex, convoluted, and overdone.

To say "Rube Goldberg would be proud" may not exactly be a compliment, but it is a criticism of an argument and not a person.


In fact, i wasn´t thinking of that particular example. There is a general tone that seems to be infectious, in which such or such other theory are dismissed not by arguments, but by sarcastic remarks.
I wish people keep to arguments, and if you are tired of arguing over and over the same, just point to the relevant bibliography or the thread in which it was already discussed. That could save a lot of effort and bad feelings.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Mark Jost on June 22, 2012, 10:39:50 AM
Quote from: alan trowel hands. link=topic=10498.msg133301#msg133301
Its possible there could have been a pocket of non-farmers elsewhere and Jean L is clearly putting a case for SW Europe.  its not impossible archaeologically as the bell beaker culture did have early partial origins in that corner of Europe.  However, I find it hard to correlate with the vast majority of the DNA analysis of R1b that is presented.  I cant present a model I am sure of though because there is just too many variables that are unknown.  I does however seem that the case for the Neolithic farmers as the bringers of R1b to Europe has had a heck of a lot of blows and seems very unlikely now.  
Thanks for your overview of your position. I appreciate your response.

I am not that knowledgeable but being in the Heartland of America, I know the farming is the core of any society. As the below UK Farming website reports, 'By 4,000 years ago farming systems were well developed',  So it’s apparent that in NW Europe and the Isles., farming had to dominate the landscapes. So it seems that the R1b guys knew and expanded the knowledge of overall farming systems which resulted in economic growth allowing for better tools and finer things in life at the time.

So my question is: What is the farming and Beaker Bell correlation, knowing that there was a late Bronze Age (around 1000 BC) the northern climate cooled affecting trade in foodstuffs, tin, leather, tools, baskets, pots, textiles and metal goods which all had so much economic commonallity.

http://www.ukagriculture.com/countryside/countryside_history_2000bc.cfm

MJost


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on June 22, 2012, 11:35:15 AM
Quote from: alan trowel hands. link=topic=10498.msg133301#msg133301
Its possible there could have been a pocket of non-farmers elsewhere and Jean L is clearly putting a case for SW Europe.  its not impossible archaeologically as the bell beaker culture did have early partial origins in that corner of Europe.  However, I find it hard to correlate with the vast majority of the DNA analysis of R1b that is presented.  I cant present a model I am sure of though because there is just too many variables that are unknown.  I does however seem that the case for the Neolithic farmers as the bringers of R1b to Europe has had a heck of a lot of blows and seems very unlikely now.  



I am not that knowledgeable but being in the Heartland of America, I know the farming is the core of any society. As the below UK Farming website reports, 'By 4,000 years ago farming systems were well developed',  So it’s apparent that in NW Europe and the Isles., farming had to dominate the landscapes. So it seems that the R1b guys knew and expanded the knowledge of overall farming systems which resulted in economic growth allowing for better tools and finer things in life at the time.

So my question is: What is the farming and Beaker Bell correlation, knowing that there was a late Bronze Age (around 1000 BC) the northern climate cooled affecting trade in foodstuffs, tin, leather, tools, baskets, pots, textiles and metal goods which all had so much economic commonallity.

http://www.ukagriculture.com/countryside/countryside_history_2000bc.cfm

MJost


Well assuming R1b was no among the first farmers in Britain (which seems on balance likely on present evidence) there is no doubt that the following Bronze Age peoples also were agricultural by the time they reached that area, even if they had been late ot the farming game back in their ancestral area (I currently favour the steppes but its uncertain).  The Bronze Age actually saw an expansion into marginal uplands suggesting pressure on land , similar to a similar phase in the high Medieval era.  I suppose we need to credit the copper and early Bronze Age peope's as introducing the horse, the wheel and the true plough (as per Anthony's book of that name).  Its strange but while on some areas its stated that the copper age saw a more mobile type of agriculture I have also head the Early Bronze Age period stated to be the origin of the northern European agricultural systems that persisted into modern times.  Its rather confusing and you can only be a master of certain periods in certain places in archaeology as the data is now just far to big.  I am afraid archaeology is always a work in progress and there is a lot of debate and reverses in interpretation.  Mind you if we had all the answers (even more) archaeologists would be unemployed.  Archaeology in Europe was mainly rescue archaeology and paid for by developers of houses, roads, you name it.  So, the economic crash and lack of building has many (actually most archaeologists who actually do the digging unemployed or in a precarious position.  The only plus point is after a huge phase of data through excavations during the economic boom there may be a period where this stuff is published and analysed.  There is a huge amount that has been excavated but not published.  However, many of the construction companies who are meant to pay for it have gone bust so that is a problem.   


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Mike Walsh on July 06, 2012, 06:16:41 PM
I suggest that the Basque language derived from that of the Copper Age Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/copperage.shtml), which collapsed in large part c. 4000 BC due to climate change. Refugees from this culture could have sought  literally greener pastures. I don't imagine that they settled the whole of western Europe, but that some travelled via Sardinia and the Garonne to what became Aquitaine, and others northward up the Danube to feed into the TRB.

Meanwhile the remains of the Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture was absorbed by Yamnaya. Picture a lot of intermarriage with patrilocality, so we could have Yamnaya-born mothers teaching R1b sons to speak PIE. Then we have further waves of departures westward and up the Danube 3,100 and 2,800 BC, this time by people genetically closely related on the male line from the ones who left before, but speaking a different language.

I thought these recent posts by Dienekes were interesting. Don't know quite what to make up of it and it is not necessarily connected to R1b, but Dienekes is making some of his strongest statements that sound David Anthony-like from "The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World"

Quote from: Dienekes on July 3
"Indo-European genetic signatures in an Orcadian and a Lithuanian"
It seems fairly clear that a post-5kya link between the North Atlantic and the Indian subcontinent admits to a single parsimonious explanation: the expansion of the Indo-Europeans out of their West Asian homeland during the Copper and Bronze Ages.

Quote from: Dienekes on July 1
"The Bronze Age Indo-European invasion of Europe".
There are several observations we can make:
    The West_Asian component has a pan-European distribution: it must have been involved in a pan-European process rather than a more localized historical phenomenon.
    Its absence from prehistoric individuals down to ~5ky ago suggests that it may have been added to the European population at a later date, although it may already have been present in currently unsampled areas (e.g., the Balkans) prior to 5kya.
    It reaches its lowest occurrence in areas where non-Indo-European languages have been spoken (Basques and Iberia in general, Sardinia, and Finland)
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/

However, I don't think Dienekes is necessarily saying this West Asian IE component is Steppes herder based.
Quote from: Dienekes on July 4
The West_Asian component is not "a "Caucasian" in reality", because its maximum extent stretches from the Caucasus to Balochistan. The Caucasus is one of its two peaks, the other being Balochistan, with very high occurrence in all regions in-between.

As for the idea that the West_Asian component was part of ancient steppe diversity and survives in the Caucasus as a refugium, this ignores the issue that this component stretches a long way from the Caucasus, and it's a strange refugium indeed that occupies pretty much the entire territory of West Asia all the way to Pakistan.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on July 06, 2012, 06:26:40 PM
Dienekes is still trying to make PIE from Anatolia, though he has given up the actual Anatolian theory which has PIE from  Anatolia with the Neolithic. The facts don't fit, as even he has recognised. Of course they never did, but the genetic evidence has tipped the balance for him. Unfortunately for his Anatolian preference, the facts don't fit a shift to a later date in the same region any better.

My responses to his latest theory can be found on Razib Khan's blog: The mystery of the origin of the Indo-Europeans may be solved within the next 2 years (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/07/the-mystery-of-the-origin-of-the-indo-europeans-may-be-solved-within-the-next-2-years/)

Incidentally that post initially read as an assumption that it had been solved by Dienekes. Razib clearly had second thoughts. :) Quite so.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 07, 2012, 11:08:04 AM
I notice Dienekes has slowly been shifting his wording so that its more about the whole mountain area that lies between the steppes and Mesopotamia.  He has linked IE with a particular late autosomal DNA division which some call west Asian, others call Caucasian.  It apparently appears at around 10% in IE speakers but not in non-IE speakers and it appears to be post-Neolithic.  Dienekes seems to think that a lack of this element in the steppes rules out a steppe origin.  However, if there is one place where the modern genetics might be very different from the ancient its the steppes with its many waves of nomads and major Slavic input. 


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Mike Walsh on July 07, 2012, 12:55:13 PM
I notice Dienekes has slowly been shifting his wording so that its more about the whole mountain area that lies between the steppes and Mesopotamia.  He has linked IE with a particular late autosomal DNA division which some call west Asian, others call Caucasian.  It apparently appears at around 10% in IE speakers but not in non-IE speakers and it appears to be post-Neolithic.  Dienekes seems to think that a lack of this element in the steppes rules out a steppe origin.  However, if there is one place where the modern genetics might be very different from the ancient its the steppes with its many waves of nomads and major Slavic input.  

I would think so too, that an open plains across which there were multiple migrations might have little residue from 3000 BC. However, I realize that also sounds like special pleading.

As far Dienekes' view that IE, apparently then PIE is from the West Asian Highlands, it seems he is counting on those people being there prior to the Hittities. The Hittites seem to be an easy explanation for the IE in the highlands of Anatolia and Northern Iran. Am I right on that?

I guess Dienekes also does not see the Steppes as the highest probability as the PIE homeland. Maybe I've read too much of Anthony and others that follow the Steppes homeland line of thinking but I lean that direction. Mallory's presentations did not "un"convince me. He didn't focus on the linguistics itself.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on July 07, 2012, 05:14:15 PM
Oh golly yes. It is all very logical. Here we have a Pontic Greek in origin who for some doubtless completely unconnected reason favours the homeland of his ancestors as the source of PIE and has discovered a "component" that just happens to be highest in Greeks that he feels represents IE speakers.

Meanwhile we have a certain vocal Australian who just happens for reasons totally unconnected with his Polish ancestry to feel that Poland should not only be the Slavic homeland, but that of "Aryans" tearing across the steppe to invade India.

Meanwhile we have a certain party from Amsterdam, who spent years arguing that the PIE homeland and origin of R1a was guess where and indeed that we are all descended from Neanderthals who roamed around in Northern Europe.

Then we have a party from the Balkans who .... you guessed.

Do you sense a certain pattern appearing?

I find it best to ignore all this on the whole. It is too time-consuming otherwise.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on July 07, 2012, 05:21:44 PM
Here, for those who can't be bothered to click through,  is my first responses.

Quote
Whatever the West Asian component here is, it can’t be a major IE strand if there is more of it in Greeks than Slavs and Germanic speakers. Greeks are notably low in the major Y-DNA haplogroups that are well known to correlate with IE speakers. In fact they are a stand out exception, seeming to have assimilated much more in the way of previous Neolithic people. Nor can it have much to do with IE speakers if it is strong in the Caucasus.

One big problem for this analysis is that on archaeological and aDNA evidence (from Andronovo and Bell Beaker sites) IE speakers appear to have arisen from mesolithic hunter-gatherers carrying mtDNA U5 and U4, just like the people of the rest of Europe in the Mesolithic. Yes they apparently had mixed with dairy farmers of an Anatolian origin, but the massive supposedly Mesolithic component is liable to have actually arrived in most places in Europe in the Copper Age.

Dienekes then, with a magnificent disregard for his own personal safety, argued that Greeks were more IE than Slavs.  :)


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 07, 2012, 07:26:18 PM
The Dienekes thing is nevertheless interesting and needs explained.  I wonder if it could mark remnants of the early stages of the IE group's trail out of the steppes that has subsequently been lost at the point of origin or perhaps they were simply a refuge area for populations of the steppes displaced by other steppes groups.  Maybe they left a bigger autosomal remnant in that area simply because the population there was more sparse but then became diluted to c. 10% as they moved into already well settled areas in Asia and west into Europe with only the y DNA impact being huge.  

Leaving aside the issue of languages, I also wonder if one YDNA equivelent to this mountain welling of the this autosomal DNA included L23*.  I understand it is the main clade of R1b in the area and it would have to be high among the candidates.  Its also about the right age.  I am not saying it originated there though.  In fact a lack of much upstream from L23* suggests it was not.  It is also tempting to associate it with Anatolian languages which again were an early breakoff and might have some correlation with L23*.

I suspect that the high variance area for L23* in Romania near the Black Sea amd the Caucuses might give a hint that L23* was located on the northern shores of the Black Sea prior to being squeezed out by R1a groups and it may have been preserved in the mountainous areas simply because they were less populated or they were early passed through or they later became refugia for the earlier groups as group after group swept through the steppes.  


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 07, 2012, 07:48:24 PM
Actually I had a look through Dienekes tables and the areas with a lot of his west Asian component does seem to resemble areas with elevated upstream forms of R1b, especially L23*.  I might be wrong but it looks to me like there would be some kind of statistical correlation.   That is mighty interesting.  I have thought for a while that L23* could represent scattered remanants and refugia survival of the non-R1a steppe elements perhaps those in the early forrays out of the steppes. 


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: A_Wode on July 07, 2012, 10:05:02 PM
^ In very simple terms, West Asian breaks into Caucasus and Gedrosia at high resolution. Caucasus is among European farmers, East Europeans (Germany -> eastwards) and fairly low in the west of Europe. Gedrosia however seems to cover the West Asian element among West Europeans (including Basque (~10% Ged) - who show 0 Caucasus)

I'm not entirely sure if it would relate to language, but the absence of "Gedrosia" among ancient European remains, and the fact it is a "sister" group to Caucasus but seemingly unrelated to European farmers indicates it ...may have arrived late to western Europe? If so, why did it skip eastern Europe and only pick up again in Anatolia and N.Middle East?


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on July 08, 2012, 06:54:51 AM
Quote
the absence of "Gedrosia" among ancient European remains

So far we have a very limited set of ancient genomes: half a dozen. To represent farmers we have two Late Neolithic examples: Gok4 from South Sweden (Funnel Beaker - seems to be Balkan in origin) and Oetzi (groups with modern Sardinians, who may also have a high Balkan/Carpathian component.)

These two should not be taken as representing the whole European Neolithic. There were several strands to that, apparently with different origins. If the "gedrosa" element is found among Western Europeans, but not Eastern, that suggests that it is related to Cardial Ware (which does indeed skip the Balkans to land in Italy) and/or the North African route to Iberia (related no doubt to Y-DNA haplogroup E.)



Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on July 08, 2012, 08:15:23 AM
I am wondering about the following assertion made by Dienekes, supported by a reference to Nikitin et al, which found mtDNA C, an East Eurasian haplogroup, in three of the ancient remains from two Neolithic sites in the North Pontic steppe in Ukraine (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/06/ancient-mtdna-from-neolithic-ukraine.html (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/06/ancient-mtdna-from-neolithic-ukraine.html)).

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/07/the-mystery-of-the-origin-of-the-indo-europeans-may-be-solved-within-the-next-2-years/ (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/07/the-mystery-of-the-origin-of-the-indo-europeans-may-be-solved-within-the-next-2-years/)

Quote from: Dienekes

So far, all the ancient mtDNA we’ve gotten from the steppe has shown a mixed Caucasoid-Mongoloid gene pool, and this extends all the way to Ukraine in the west:
dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/06/ancient-mtdna-from-neolithic-ukraine.html (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/06/ancient-mtdna-from-neolithic-ukraine.html)

This does not bode well for the identification of the steppe area as the PIE homeland, because East Eurasian mtDNA is lacking in most European populations or occurs at trace frequencies. Even if a supposed migration carried only males (explaining the non-existence of East Eurasian mtDNA) it would still carry East Eurasian autosomal component, which is similarly lacking.


That does seem to make a fairly good case that the steppe element in the PIE story did not spread IE very far to the west.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: A_Wode on July 08, 2012, 10:57:37 AM
Quote
the absence of "Gedrosia" among ancient European remains

So far we have a very limited set of ancient genomes: half a dozen. To represent farmers we have two Late Neolithic examples: Gok4 from South Sweden (Funnel Beaker - seems to be Balkan in origin) and Oetzi (groups with modern Sardinians, who may also have a high Balkan/Carpathian component.)

These two should not be taken as representing the whole European Neolithic. There were several strands to that, apparently with different origins. If the "gedrosa" element is found among Western Europeans, but not Eastern, that suggests that it is related to Cardial Ware (which does indeed skip the Balkans to land in Italy) and/or the North African route to Iberia (related no doubt to Y-DNA haplogroup E.)



Jean we have a limited set of genomes but in all cases 0% of these SNPs fit into this Gedrosia category. The remainder of the components (Caucasus, SW Asian, N.Euro, S.Euro) have all turned up in ancient remains and are of moderate-high frequency in current European populations.

I still think this is very odd. Why not IE? :D


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on July 08, 2012, 12:45:36 PM
That does seem to make a fairly good case that the steppe element in the PIE story did not spread IE very far to the west.

I see how keen he is to make a case, but it doesn't add up. First he claims an absolutely massive Mesolithic input into modern Europeans, and a comparatively tiny IE one on the basis of his component analysis, then he says that East Asian haplogroups should be at more than trace level if steppe populations carried IE. Well not if the IE component in modern Europeans was actually minute as he claims.

In reality the samples are too small to be used with statistical confidence. If you get a group from one burial site, they are liable to be related. Dig in the next village and you might get no mtDNA C. Personally I would think in terms of Cucuteni with Dnieper-Donets as the basic IE mixture. The former has turned up no East Asian haplogroups and the latter three. So just based on those limited samples, we might expect movement westwards and northwards from the steppe (i.e. of the more Cucuteni-heavy orgin) to carry fewer East Asian haplogroups.
 


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on July 08, 2012, 02:29:43 PM
I still think this is very odd. Why not IE? :D

Why not fairies? Or possibly aliens? That would make as much sense as the Greeks being more IE than the Slavs on account of Greek was written down first. :)


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on July 08, 2012, 05:10:59 PM
That does seem to make a fairly good case that the steppe element in the PIE story did not spread IE very far to the west.

I see how keen he is to make a case, but it doesn't add up. First he claims an absolutely massive Mesolithic input into modern Europeans, and a comparatively tiny IE one on the basis of his component analysis, then he says that East Asian haplogroups should be at more than trace level if steppe populations carried IE. Well not if the IE component in modern Europeans was actually minute as he claims.

In reality the samples are too small to be used with statistical confidence. If you get a group from one burial site, they are liable to be related. Dig in the next village and you might get no mtDNA C. Personally I would think in terms of Cucuteni with Dnieper-Donets as the basic IE mixture. The former has turned up no East Asian haplogroups and the latter three. So just based on those limited samples, we might expect movement westwards and northwards from the steppe (i.e. of the more Cucuteni-heavy orgin) to carry fewer East Asian haplogroups.
 

It occurred to me that those two mtDNA C remains might be isolated cases. We won't know for sure until we get some more aDNA. Hopefully, that's coming soon.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on July 08, 2012, 05:36:18 PM
. . . Personally I would think in terms of Cucuteni with Dnieper-Donets as the basic IE mixture. The former has turned up no East Asian haplogroups and the latter three. So just based on those limited samples, we might expect movement westwards and northwards from the steppe (i.e. of the more Cucuteni-heavy orgin) to carry fewer East Asian haplogroups.
 

You aren't thinking Cucuteni-Tripolye is the source of R1b, are you? (I don't mean the ultimate source, just the immediate source for the spread of IE.)

I just don't see that. I think C-T sites, when they do eventually get y-dna, will show up as Near Eastern farmers, with G2a, E1b1b, and Balkan I2a.

Weren't most Cucuteni-Tripolye physical types Mediterranean and rather small and gracile? How does that jive with R1b Bell Beaker with its brachycephaly, mesocephaly, and robust physical types?

Whatever the origin of Indo-European, there does seem to be some case for a physical connection between the Beaker Folk and the Armenian highlands. Look at the high levels of R-L23 there and the similarities in physical type.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on July 08, 2012, 05:37:59 PM
There is some more East Asian DNA from the area. One Y-DNA C in the group tested from Andronovo, that was otherwise R1a1, and one mtDNA Z out of nine samples. There was one mtDNA C5 and two N9a from the Körös Culture, Hungary 5500 BC.  

I suppose that East Asian DNA arrived with the first pottery from Lake Baikal, but it was a surprise to find it in Hungary. I gather some people have queried the date.  But this game is full of surprises.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on July 08, 2012, 07:26:46 PM
You aren't thinking Cucuteni-Tripolye is the source of R1b, are you?

I can't see a more logical way into the steppe for it on present evidence, and I've spent a lot of time thinking about it.

On the physical anthropology there is a new paper out that might interest you. Anahit Yu. Khudaverdyan, Bioarchaeological Analysis Mutual Relations of Populations Armenian Highlands and Eurasia Using Craniological and Dental Nonmetric traits (http://journal.ccsenet.org/index.php/ach/article/view/18453/12230), Asian Culture and History Vol. 4, No. 2; July 2012.

The author claims a movement out of the Armenian Highlands onto the steppe and suggests a link to R1b. Warning: he is from Armenia! :) He makes some astonishing claims of unexpected similarities between all sorts of cultures e.g. Kura-Araks culture of Georgia and Corded Ware culture in Poland, or Armenian Highlands and Yamnaya. However he may possibly have something.

I may be biased in favour, considering that I am actually suggesting that R1b moved from the South Caspian via the Armenian Highlands into Anatolia and from there into Europe including the steppe. The whole thing needs a critical eye from someone who actually understands physical anthropology well enough to judge whether he's making any sort of sense.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Humanist on July 08, 2012, 08:18:23 PM
The potential problem in Dienekes' reasoning is that he is apparently assuming the cephalic indices in West Asian populations have remained static (or relatively so) for a few thousand years (5000?).  I was skeptical of the degree of possible CI plasticity as well, until fairly recently.  

Actually, the point about the cephalic index is a bit moot, since there does appear to be continuity (see the Armenians, below).  But, the continuity excludes the cephalic index.  As long as he steers clear of CI, he might not do damage to his theory.   Well, his theory as far as the non-linguistic questions are concerned.  


Brachycephalization of Georgians

Craniometry of the Caucasus in the Feudal Period
Malkhas G. Abdushelishvili
Current Anthropology
Vol. 25, No. 4 (Aug. - Oct., 1984), pp. 505-509

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/craniometry_georgia.jpg


Brachycephalization of Armenians

On the Origin of the Armenians (In the Light of Non-Metric Cranial Traits Data)
Alla Movsesian and Nvard Kochar
Iran & the Caucasus
Vol. 8, No. 2 (2004), pp. 183-197

Quote
We can now postulate the genetic integrity of the contemporary and ancient populations of Armenia, starting from the Bronze period at least. This is corroborated by the data of craniometry, differentiating the contemporary and ancient groups only by value of the cephalic index.

“Their (ancient specimens) dolichocrany in this case does not impede the establishment of genetic links through the late development of brachycephalization.” The genetic ties between the epochs become even more evident when we examine the data on the discrete varying traits, subject to neither the epochal variation nor to the influence of the environmental factors.

[Note: The "Antique Period" refers to these crania:]

Relics of late third century B.C. - second century A.D. were discovered on the southern bank of the lake Sevan, near the village of Karchaghbyur (19 crania), as well as Shirakavan, district Ani (18 crania).


My population is closest genetically to the Iraqi Mandaeans.   If one were to go by the cephalic index alone, the genetic affinities that exist between the populations would not be apparent.

Iraqi Mandaean example: http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/Iraqi%20Mandaeans/Mandaean10.jpg

Assyrian example: http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/Faces/brachy_asy.jpg




Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on July 08, 2012, 09:02:40 PM
There was one mtDNA C5 and two N9a from the Körös Culture, Hungary 5500 BC.  

I suppose that East Asian DNA arrived with the first pottery from Lake Baikal, but it was a surprise to find it in Hungary. I gather some people have queried the date.  ...

Have now looked into this. The paper on the incorrect dating looks solid. The N9 are Sarmatian and Magyar. 


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: A.D. on July 08, 2012, 09:31:02 PM
We talked about vitamin D, folic acid and de-pigmentation (or lack of it) in Mesolithic Europe. Could light coloring hence low folic have led to a low birth rates or high infant mortality for the light skinned Ural-Altaic and ancestors of IE peoples. Then once they moved into Europe the addition of high folic 'Greens' reduced the problem and the population exploded.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 08, 2012, 09:57:49 PM
Leaving aside IE for now, I think a position for R1b in the highlands fringing the steppes is interesting.  Its a position I would like to see expanded with references to archaeological cultures and in particular to economy.  It seems that acceptance of the variance dating for R1b followed by a glance at its branching pattern (or lack of it) makes it fairly clear that M269 did not enter the path of farming until pretty late.  The steppes of course is a possibiliy but perhaps R1b was located on the mountain interface between the steppes and the farming core.  If this was the case I think its less likely to have been in Turkey because it is an early heartland of farming unless it was in some backwards niche.  I really am not familiar with the Neolithic and copper age of the mountain fringe areas bordering the steppes.  On the other hand maybe this is all overcomplicting things and R1b was simply on the steppes.  All we really know about R1b and R1a pre-3000BC is ???? zilch?  We know that LATER in the east and south-eastward push R1a dominanated among those IEs.  We know of one R1a burial site in Corded Ware and one R1b burial site in Europe c. 2600BC in the same area.  Everything else is a complete blanc for the period 5000-2600BC in terms of steppe and adjacent DNA.  That is a huge depth of time so I dont think we know much about the relative positions of R1a and R1b in the crucial area in the crucual period and everything is deduction based on very little data.  I think it could be a long time before we can safely deduce much.  In the steppes area alone you would really want a handful from each of the major cultural phases.  I would love to know who the Bug Dniester people that were overrun by Cuc-Tryp were.  I recall too that there was once not a single male burial known.  Dont know if that has changed but it would be interesting is there is a missing phase of mixing that is invisible. 


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: princenuadha on July 09, 2012, 02:12:28 AM
I am wondering about the following assertion made by Dienekes, supported by a reference to Nikitin et al, which found mtDNA C, an East Eurasian haplogroup, in three of the ancient remains from two Neolithic sites in the North Pontic steppe in Ukraine (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/06/ancient-mtdna-from-neolithic-ukraine.html (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/06/ancient-mtdna-from-neolithic-ukraine.html)).

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/07/the-mystery-of-the-origin-of-the-indo-europeans-may-be-solved-within-the-next-2-years/ (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/07/the-mystery-of-the-origin-of-the-indo-europeans-may-be-solved-within-the-next-2-years/)

Quote from: Dienekes

So far, all the ancient mtDNA we’ve gotten from the steppe has shown a mixed Caucasoid-Mongoloid gene pool, and this extends all the way to Ukraine in the west:
dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/06/ancient-mtdna-from-neolithic-ukraine.html (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/06/ancient-mtdna-from-neolithic-ukraine.html)

This does not bode well for the identification of the steppe area as the PIE homeland, because East Eurasian mtDNA is lacking in most European populations or occurs at trace frequencies. Even if a supposed migration carried only males (explaining the non-existence of East Eurasian mtDNA) it would still carry East Eurasian autosomal component, which is similarly lacking.


That does seem to make a fairly good case that the steppe element in the PIE story did not spread IE very far to the west.


Take a look at n/a's comments from an earlier post by dienekes.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/09/east-eurasian-mtdna-in-ukrainian.html?m=1

He argues that mtdna C could have decreased due to natural selection after a change of climate and lifestyle.

He even challenges the idea that mtdna c is "mongoliod".



Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on July 09, 2012, 07:32:37 AM
I am wondering about the following assertion made by Dienekes, supported by a reference to Nikitin et al, which found mtDNA C, an East Eurasian haplogroup, in three of the ancient remains from two Neolithic sites in the North Pontic steppe in Ukraine (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/06/ancient-mtdna-from-neolithic-ukraine.html (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/06/ancient-mtdna-from-neolithic-ukraine.html)).

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/07/the-mystery-of-the-origin-of-the-indo-europeans-may-be-solved-within-the-next-2-years/ (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/07/the-mystery-of-the-origin-of-the-indo-europeans-may-be-solved-within-the-next-2-years/)

Quote from: Dienekes

So far, all the ancient mtDNA we’ve gotten from the steppe has shown a mixed Caucasoid-Mongoloid gene pool, and this extends all the way to Ukraine in the west:
dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/06/ancient-mtdna-from-neolithic-ukraine.html (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/06/ancient-mtdna-from-neolithic-ukraine.html)

This does not bode well for the identification of the steppe area as the PIE homeland, because East Eurasian mtDNA is lacking in most European populations or occurs at trace frequencies. Even if a supposed migration carried only males (explaining the non-existence of East Eurasian mtDNA) it would still carry East Eurasian autosomal component, which is similarly lacking.


That does seem to make a fairly good case that the steppe element in the PIE story did not spread IE very far to the west.


Take a look at n/a's comments from an earlier post by dienekes.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/09/east-eurasian-mtdna-in-ukrainian.html?m=1

He argues that mtdna C could have decreased due to natural selection after a change of climate and lifestyle.

He even challenges the idea that mtdna c is "mongoliod".



I guess you read Dienekes' reply.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on July 09, 2012, 07:43:37 AM
You aren't thinking Cucuteni-Tripolye is the source of R1b, are you?

I can't see a more logical way into the steppe for it on present evidence, and I've spent a lot of time thinking about it.

On the physical anthropology there is a new paper out that might interest you. Anahit Yu. Khudaverdyan, Bioarchaeological Analysis Mutual Relations of Populations Armenian Highlands and Eurasia Using Craniological and Dental Nonmetric traits (http://journal.ccsenet.org/index.php/ach/article/view/18453/12230), Asian Culture and History Vol. 4, No. 2; July 2012.

The author claims a movement out of the Armenian Highlands onto the steppe and suggests a link to R1b. Warning: he is from Armenia! :) He makes some astonishing claims of unexpected similarities between all sorts of cultures e.g. Kura-Araks culture of Georgia and Corded Ware culture in Poland, or Armenian Highlands and Yamnaya. However he may possibly have something.

I may be biased in favour, considering that I am actually suggesting that R1b moved from the South Caspian via the Armenian Highlands into Anatolia and from there into Europe including the steppe. The whole thing needs a critical eye from someone who actually understands physical anthropology well enough to judge whether he's making any sort of sense.


I would be really surprised if they ever recover any R1b from Cucuteni-Tripolye people, but I've been surprised before. I just don't think that's the source. They'll turn out to have been G2a, E1b1b, and I2a, in my opinion.

I saw that Armenian craniometry and dental trait paper. Honestly, I couldn't make heads nor tails of it, but I didn't try too hard. I was hoping for something a little clearer to a layman, but it was confusing.

I know Gerhardt, whose study of Beaker skulls, Die Glockenbecherleute in Mittel-und Westdeutschland (1953), has been mentioned here before, is supposed to have found a resemblance between the Beaker Folk and Armenians, and I think Coon said something similar.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on July 09, 2012, 08:12:05 AM
Leaving aside IE for now, I think a position for R1b in the highlands fringing the steppes is interesting . . .

I agree for a number of reasons.

Just look at the results of that Herrera et al study, Neolithic patrilineal signals indicate that the Armenian Plateau was repopulated by agriculturalists (2011). It's in Jean's Mini-Library (Population Genetics - Asia - West Asia).

R-L23 was the single most frequent y haplogroup.

Ararat Valley (ARV)= 36%; Gardman (GRD)= 30%; Lake Van (Van)= 33%; Sasun (SAS)= 16%

Those are some substantial percentages.

Then there is the West_Asian autosomal component that Dienekes is emphasizing in his current arguments, as follows.

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

Quote from: Dienekes

Here's a challenge to those who think the migration that brought R-M269 to Western Europe is not related to the arrival of the "West_Asian" autosomal component to Western Europe.

What is responsible for that component, if not R-M269.

You can't pin it on:

I: native European
E: rare in Caucasus/Anatolia
G: related apparently to early Neolithic and all pre-Beaker autosomal data points lack "West_Asian"

The only other candidate is J2, which occurs at trace elements in the British Isles and Scandinavia.

So, let's summarize:

- R-M269 came to Europe from the east.
- In all existing autosomal samples from Europe up to 5,000 BC R-M269 is lacking in Europe, and so is the "West_Asian" autosomal component
- Modern Europeans have R-M269 and "West_Asian" autosomal component. The latter occurs at ~10% in populations that have almost no other lineages of West Asian origin other than R-M269

The writing is on the wall.


Even the Basques, who are the exception in not having much of the West_Asian component, have the "Gedrosia" component.

Add to that the similarity between Beaker Folk skulls and at least some Armenian skulls noted by Kurt Gerhardt in his study of Beaker skulls and, I think, mentioned earlier by Coon.

On the IE language front - and this part can be considered separate from the origin of European R1b, if desirable - you have the apparently strange and unique antiquity of the Anatolian languages, which, in the opinion of some linguists, points to the "Indo-Hittite" hypothesis. Ivanov and Gamkrelidze believe Armenia/Eastern Anatolia was the IE Urheimat; Whitaker has posited the existence of a pre-Sumerian IE language, Euphratic, in northern Mesopotamia; and Etchamendy has suggested that Basque is an archaic IE language (recall the Gedrosia component in modern Basques).

This doesn't necessarily amount to an all-or-nothing "out of Anatolia" scenario. It could simply mean that interaction between Armenia and the steppe led to PIE, and that the processes are more complex than we currently believe.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: MHammers on July 09, 2012, 12:11:23 PM
I checked out a hardcopy of Desideri's latest study When Beakers Met Bell Beakers 2011.  It is basically a more in-depth rehash of her dentition studies plus a more expansive interpretation of the interactions between east and west.  

She mentioned the brachycephalization element of Bell Beaker as not something directly associated with the arrival of the Beakers.  It is a continuation from the early neolithic when headform was more dolichocephalic, then in the middle neolithic a tendency towards an intermendiate form or mesocephaly.  This drifted towards an increase in 'roundheads' by the late neolithic.  She doesn't go into any potential causes only that headform was trending that way before the Beakers.  This is also seen in the Hungarian plain with the Baden people in the same timeframe.

Other points made were..

Exogamy was common for females in the eastern Beaker range.

The Bell Beaker population in Iberia was mostly non-intrusive, but a continuation of final neolithic/megalithic people.  

Beaker people in Czech Rep. were descended from Corded-ware people.  Only the Beaker package was intrusive.  There was a interestingly strong connection found between the Beaker in west Bohemia and Beaker in Villedubert, France.  

France received population movement from Iberia and Beaker is clearly intrusive.

Switzerland had a partial replacement during Beaker, also from the west or southern domain.

Hungarian Beaker developed over a Mako culture substrate, possibly from a southern domain intrusion.  It is not as clear as with France or Switzerland.  The problem is Mako used cremation exclusively, so no further analysis could be made.  The Nagyrev culture in Hungary seems to be derived from Beaker there.  Other contemporary cultures in the Hungarian plain do not show strong dental associations with Beaker.  These are Obeba-Pitvaros and Maros-Perjamos.

She concluded with a mention of further aDNA studies and more dentition studies needed from Italy, Germany, and the northern Beaker range.  


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: MHammers on July 09, 2012, 12:49:49 PM
You aren't thinking Cucuteni-Tripolye is the source of R1b, are you?

I can't see a more logical way into the steppe for it on present evidence, and I've spent a lot of time thinking about it.

On the physical anthropology there is a new paper out that might interest you. Anahit Yu. Khudaverdyan, Bioarchaeological Analysis Mutual Relations of Populations Armenian Highlands and Eurasia Using Craniological and Dental Nonmetric traits (http://journal.ccsenet.org/index.php/ach/article/view/18453/12230), Asian Culture and History Vol. 4, No. 2; July 2012.

The author claims a movement out of the Armenian Highlands onto the steppe and suggests a link to R1b. Warning: he is from Armenia! :) He makes some astonishing claims of unexpected similarities between all sorts of cultures e.g. Kura-Araks culture of Georgia and Corded Ware culture in Poland, or Armenian Highlands and Yamnaya. However he may possibly have something.

I may be biased in favour, considering that I am actually suggesting that R1b moved from the South Caspian via the Armenian Highlands into Anatolia and from there into Europe including the steppe. The whole thing needs a critical eye from someone who actually understands physical anthropology well enough to judge whether he's making any sort of sense.

I tried to analyze this until I got a headache looking at the dendograms.  It looks like there was significant south to north input, but the problem is that the oldest samples only go back to 4000 BC.  I think the movement of R1b was happening before then into SE Europe or the steppe.  I did notice that some of the Ochre Grave samples from Romania seem to be intermediate on the dendogram between east and west.  Are these the same as Yamnaya or Suvorovo?  I couldn't see a connection between Pitgrave or Yamnaya to anything in the west.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: princenuadha on July 09, 2012, 01:21:55 PM
Quote from: rms2
I guess you read Dienekes' reply.

I did, but read the rest of their discussion. The selection on C as described by n/a, would not only reduce its levels in the neolithic/pastoral steppe, but it could also make C appear to be younger* overall using standard methods, and make the far east appear as an older seat to C.

But the most relevant part to this discussion is that C might have been selected out of steppe people, without replacement.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on July 09, 2012, 04:25:26 PM
Quote from: rms2
I guess you read Dienekes' reply.

I did, but read the rest of their discussion. The selection on C as described by n/a, would not only reduce its levels in the neolithic/pastoral steppe, but it could also make C appear to be older overall using standard methods, and make the far east appear as an older seat to C.

But the most relevant part to this discussion is that C might have been selected out of steppe people, without replacement.

Make that Dienekes' replies, then.

MtDNA C could have been selected out, that is true, but what are the chances that both mtDNA C and an East Eurasian autosomal component would have been selected out?

I really have no dog in that race, but it is something to think about.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: princenuadha on July 09, 2012, 05:18:18 PM
Quote from: rms2
I guess you read Dienekes' reply.

I did, but read the rest of their discussion. The selection on C as described by n/a, would not only reduce its levels in the neolithic/pastoral steppe, but it could also make C appear to be older overall using standard methods, and make the far east appear as an older seat to C.

But the most relevant part to this discussion is that C might have been selected out of steppe people, without replacement.

Make that Dienekes' replies, then.

MtDNA C could have been selected out, that is true, but what are the chances that both mtDNA C and an East Eurasian autosomal component would have been selected out?

I really have no dog in that race, but it is something to think about.

I reread it and didn't see anything from dienekes about autosomal components. If you're referring to this post http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/06/mesolithic-iberians-la-brana-arintero.html?m=1 I would not take any of those minor components at face value. Take a look at the updates, in one brana has "African" while in the next he has "Asian". As arbitrary as those results are I think it does tell us that ancients aren't described well by moderns, probably due to drift (had to sneak that in ; ) ), making the program draw upon very ancient relations.

Or just consider that most the adna hunter gathers had funky components with arent in europe today.

Just curious, do you have a lot of respect for dienekes?


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on July 10, 2012, 06:33:11 AM
I don't agree with everything Dienekes says, but when he makes sense, he makes sense.

I was referring to Dienekes' post that I quoted earlier in this thread. If mtDNA C had much of a presence on the ancient P-C steppe (a big if), then chances are there was an East Eurasian autosomal component in ancient P-C steppe people. That component didn't make much headway in Europe. That fact would seem to indicate that P-C steppe people didn't have much impact on the genetic make-up of Europe.

That's all speculative, but it's something to consider.

Drift, when it is used as the answer to everything, starts to sound like special pleading, kind of like the good old "genetic bottleneck".


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 10, 2012, 01:12:14 PM
That is the problem when people buy into one model.  When something problematic comes up its just dismissed while they have 20-20 vision and act like an attack dog against any problems with alterantive theories and dismiss problems of their own as trivial.  Its totally rife in this hobby.  I think the logical position is still butt on fence and wait and see for now.  Its clearly going to come clear in the next few years and its not a sweepstake.   The evidence is suggestive but not conclusive.  I have got to be honest and say I am not impressed in this hobby by the way so many people buy into theories first (often for tranparent reasons) and then interpret all evidence to fit chosen theory for the same ideologgical reason or plain ego.  Its amazing how many people want to interpret human history in a way that is most favourable to their own countries, ethnicity or heritage.  Its so common in this hobby its laughable,  You almost need people to declare their ethnicity/cultural/national identity as an interest so you can take this bias into account with their interpretations!  The worst is the mania for their clade or a big clade of their own cultural group being as indigenous as possible.  That is just so childish and frankly a dangerous idea taken to its logical conclusion.     


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on July 10, 2012, 02:36:56 PM
That is the problem when people buy into one model.  When something problematic comes up its just dismissed while they have 20-20 vision and act like an attack dog against any problems with alterantive theories and dismiss problems of their own as trivial.  Its totally rife in this hobby.  I think the logical position is still butt on fence and wait and see for now.  Its clearly going to come clear in the next few years and its not a sweepstake.   The evidence is suggestive but not conclusive.  I have got to be honest and say I am not impressed in this hobby by the way so many people buy into theories first (often for tranparent reasons) and then interpret all evidence to fit chosen theory for the same ideologgical reason or plain ego.  Its amazing how many people want to interpret human history in a way that is most favourable to their own countries, ethnicity or heritage.  Its so common in this hobby its laughable,  You almost need people to declare their ethnicity/cultural/national identity as an interest so you can take this bias into account with their interpretations!  The worst is the mania for their clade or a big clade of their own cultural group being as indigenous as possible.  That is just so childish and frankly a dangerous idea taken to its logical conclusion.    

I think that is an excellent summary of the state of things.

I am pretty transparent about the emotional element in my own opinions. I am an admitted partisan for R1b. My partisanship grows more intense as one climbs the R-phylogenetic tree toward R-L21. But my partisanship is not particularly ethnic or nationalistic, though I have nothing against people who feel loyalty toward and pride in their tribes or nations. My partisanship does not also absolutely blind me to the truth, once the truth becomes plain.

I think that is especially true for me because I consider this stuff something I do for fun. Sure, I would like to think my y-dna ancestors were something heroic and ultra-cool, but I realize most of them were probably just hardworking peasants.

One is better off if he knows himself and his biases. Perhaps then he doesn't tend to take himself too seriously. I know I could be wrong in nearly all of my dna-related opinions.

So, if it turns out we got our IE languages from some mostly-R1a steppe people, that's fine. What have they done for us since the Bronze Age? The Cold War? The Iron Curtain? ;-)

Still, it will be interesting to see what the ancient y-dna results have to say. I'm still hoping for the ultimate triumph of R1b and especially P312 and L21! :-)

 


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Mike Walsh on July 10, 2012, 02:52:08 PM
That is the problem when people buy into one model. ...

It probably is just natural that something as complex and long ago as ancient migrations and expansions can't be perfectly explained with any one model we can come up with.

Dienekes has some great points and is probably right on many of them. Same for Jean M.  However, I think we all know this is speculative.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 10, 2012, 06:36:59 PM
That is the problem when people buy into one model. ...

It probably is just natural that something as complex and long ago as ancient migrations and expansions can't be perfectly explained with any one model we can come up with.

Dienekes has some great points and is probably right on many of them. Same for Jean M.  However, I think we all know this is speculative.

To be honest though, take away the details and the big picture is no different from 25 years ago when I bought Mallory's book.  The basic gist was the kurgan theory works well when dealing with the steppes, the adjacent area of eastern Europe and the spread east and south-east.  For the rest of Europe back then there was a bit of a feeing of hopelessness of the Kurgan model explaining IE in most of Europe and a general idea that somehow Corded Ware and beaker would need to be linked to the Kurgan culture even though the evidence was not clear on that link.  I think the big picture is the same.  There is a lot of new evidence, new models etc the big picture remains the same.  The issue is beyond archaeological inference and if its ever going to be solved it will be by ancient DNA. 


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Humanist on July 10, 2012, 08:45:26 PM
I have got to be honest and say I am not impressed in this hobby by the way so many people buy into theories first (often for tranparent reasons) and then interpret all evidence to fit chosen theory for the same ideologgical reason or plain ego.  Its amazing how many people want to interpret human history in a way that is most favourable to their own countries, ethnicity or heritage.  Its so common in this hobby its laughable,  You almost need people to declare their ethnicity/cultural/national identity as an interest so you can take this bias into account with their interpretations!  The worst is the mania for their clade or a big clade of their own cultural group being as indigenous as possible.  That is just so childish and frankly a dangerous idea taken to its logical conclusion.

I certainly agree that there are a good many people who fit that bill, but I still believe the majority of folks in this hobby are open-minded.  Perhaps I need a few more years in the hobby...

As for the indigeneity matter, I see nothing wrong with wanting to be descended, in principal part, from a particular area or group.  I sincerely doubt many folks here, whether Irish, African, or whatever, would wish for themselves otherwise.  What have I learned about my ancestry since beginning in this hobby?  I went from believing I was descended in significant part from the people of northern Mesopotamia, to now believing that I may have a good deal more ancestry from the central and southern parts of Mesopotamia, northern Arabia, parts of Iran, and other areas of the world.   Interestingly, the linguistic evidence (both Assyrian and Babylonian strata) appear to support this unexpected discovery regarding my ancestry.  I think this hobby can be a terrific way to past the time, if, again, one has an open mind.   


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 10, 2012, 09:00:19 PM
I have got to be honest and say I am not impressed in this hobby by the way so many people buy into theories first (often for tranparent reasons) and then interpret all evidence to fit chosen theory for the same ideologgical reason or plain ego.  Its amazing how many people want to interpret human history in a way that is most favourable to their own countries, ethnicity or heritage.  Its so common in this hobby its laughable,  You almost need people to declare their ethnicity/cultural/national identity as an interest so you can take this bias into account with their interpretations!  The worst is the mania for their clade or a big clade of their own cultural group being as indigenous as possible.  That is just so childish and frankly a dangerous idea taken to its logical conclusion.

I certainly agree that there are a good many people who fit that bill, but I still believe the majority of folks in this hobby are open-minded.  Perhaps I need a few more years in the hobby...

As for the indigeneity matter, I see nothing wrong with wanting to be descended, in principal part, from a particular area or group.  I sincerely doubt many folks here, whether Irish, African, or whatever, would wish for themselves otherwise.  What have I learned about my ancestry since beginning in this hobby?  I went from believing I was descended in significant part from the people of northern Mesopotamia, to now believing that I may have a good deal more ancestry from the central and southern parts of Mesopotamia, northern Arabia, parts of Iran, and other areas of the world.   Interestingly, the linguistic evidence (both Assyrian and Babylonian strata) appear to support this unexpected discovery regarding my ancestry.  I think this hobby can be a terrific way to past the time, if, again, one has an open mind.   

Its not a problem unless people start fighting desperate rearguard arguements against all evidence just to maintain their indigenous self image.  There are several people who are clearly unhappy that their haoplogroup or clade has not worked out to support their self identity and it drags them into asurd unlikely arguements of denial.  Anyone who desperately wants to prove some ancestry and really doesnt want another has to understand that this may e a risky hoby for them if they are insecure about stuff like that.  I think this is especially clear in countries with conflict and strong political and cultural nationalism where the 'we are the natives'arguement is still used.   To be honest the more you know about prehistory and DNA the more that doesnt work.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 10, 2012, 09:11:27 PM
I know from an Irish perspective that nationalistic people loved the idea that R1b was ice age because it gave the ultimate nativeness to the vast bulk of the Irish male lines.  The copper age and later re-dating of Irish R1b will fall of deaf ears in terms of the general public for a long time because the old Ice Age model was publicised widely a few years back (there was a program called Blood of the Irish or something like that) and the new dating of R1b is a lot less welcome to those seeking nativeness.  It will take another major program on this using new info to undo that disinformation.  Hopefully in 2 or 3 years when all becomes clear another program will be made.  Now is not the right moment though IMO as its clear we will have many of the answers in a couple of years.  It may sound odd but most Irish would not like to see themselves as conquerors or colonisers because later history has had so much of being on the sharp end of that.   The self image of victim of agression is very strong and I dont think being copper age beaker guys who squeezed out the guys who lived in Ireland for 5500 years before them and had built Newgrange etc would go down well at all! 


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: princenuadha on July 10, 2012, 09:30:20 PM
Quote from: alan trowel hands.
Its clearly going to come clear in the next few years and its not a sweepstake.

Yea, but its fun to pick something ahead of time and test it out along the way. I'm biased towards a steppe migration (though my bias is more relative than a specific thoery), I picked it for various reasons, and I do try to find evidence in support of it. But that doesn't mean I won't be excited when we get to find what actually happened and the steppe migration to the west isn't one of them. Basically, its a guessing game with some attachment.

I think that's ok as long as you're being logical/reasonable about your claims.

Quote from: rms2
I don't agree with everything Dienekes says, but when he makes sense, he makes sense.


Ya, but I thought he was pretty bad in that thread, which he usually is when something goes against M.E. admixture. But when he's not advocating, he can be pretty good.

Ex.

* pre bronze age Europeans were missing a huge chunk of "North European" and a small chunk of "West Asian". Dienekes... "PROOF that PIE were 'West Asians'!!!"

* mtdna c was reduced after bronze age due to selection? Dienekes... "No way, if c were reducing after the bronze age it would have had to disappear before the bronze age for the same reason." ?!?

Quote from: Mikewww
It probably is just natural that something as complex and long ago as ancient migrations and expansions can't be perfectly explained with any one model we can come up with.

Ain't that the truth. Not too long ago I thought jean's idea on proto_Italo-Celtic was insane. A group going from East Europe to Portugal by sea, then swinging back to to Eastern Europe by land, and meeting up with a kin group (though the former is hugely diluted) before they both go west...

But recently we have seen very different groups living side by side and not mixing! That's amazing; stories can be so much more complicated because of that. People can migrate long distances without mixing in between. We can get one remain saying x and another nearby remain saying y. I don't know just how complicated the picture will be.






Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Humanist on July 10, 2012, 09:34:16 PM
alan.  Thanks.  Yes, I can certainly agree, and do appreciate your perspective.  As for people being indigenous, you can probably get an idea what "indigeneity" means to me, by something I posted on another forum a couple of days back:

Quote
Well. I do believe my ethnicity is relatively "old." And the same goes for my vernacular. However, I am the first to say that I am no different in many ways than, for example, a Turk. The difference being that they are the product of a hybridization event (or events) that took place in more recent times. That is all any of us are. Hybrids. Mongrels. What distinguishes one from the other is, as I said, the time since the "hybridization" event(s), and the nature of the original constituent parts. Those constituent parts, of course, were also products of earlier mixing. And so on. The same general concept can be applied to language. I speak Assyrian-Aramaic. An Aramaic language with strata of earlier and later language contacts (e.g. Akkadian and Kurdish respectively). Anyway, nothing most people do not already know.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on July 11, 2012, 09:52:07 AM
I tried to analyze this until I got a headache looking at the dendograms. 

Thanks for trying. You've made better headway than me! I think I'll pass on that paper and await more aDNA. 


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on July 11, 2012, 09:57:33 AM
I checked out a hardcopy of Desideri's latest study When Beakers Met Bell Beakers 2011.  

Thanks for pointing that out.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on July 11, 2012, 10:17:35 AM

... take away the details and the big picture is no different from 25 years ago when I bought Mallory's book.  The basic gist was the kurgan theory works well when dealing with the steppes, the adjacent area of eastern Europe and the spread east and south-east.  For the rest of Europe back then there was a bit of a feeing of hopelessness of the Kurgan model explaining IE in most of Europe and a general idea that somehow Corded Ware and beaker would need to be linked to the Kurgan culture even though the evidence was not clear on that link.  I think the big picture is the same.  

No so. The Yamnaya link to Bell Beaker is now so solid that it cannot be wished away.

I'll be blunt Alan, and hope not to cause offense. You (and some other archaeologists) placed great weight on the uncertainty about the archaeological evidence of the European strand as a means of denying the whole steppe homeland theory, despite the illogicality of that position even in the 1980s. The eastern archaeological evidence was enough to support the case made from linguistics, since we cannot have (linguistically) two different homelands for the European and Asian IE languages. The Asian IE languages include some of the earliest and latest break-aways from the mother language.

All sorts of interesting possibilities remain in terms of genetic input into the steppe or from mixture with adjoining cultures on routes out of the steppe. But PIE as a language sits on the European steppe.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 11, 2012, 02:25:19 PM

... take away the details and the big picture is no different from 25 years ago when I bought Mallory's book.  The basic gist was the kurgan theory works well when dealing with the steppes, the adjacent area of eastern Europe and the spread east and south-east.  For the rest of Europe back then there was a bit of a feeing of hopelessness of the Kurgan model explaining IE in most of Europe and a general idea that somehow Corded Ware and beaker would need to be linked to the Kurgan culture even though the evidence was not clear on that link.  I think the big picture is the same.  

No so. The Yamnaya link to Bell Beaker is now so solid that it cannot be wished away.

I'll be blunt Alan, and hope not to cause offense. You (and some other archaeologists) placed great weight on the uncertainty about the archaeological evidence of the European strand as a means of denying the whole steppe homeland theory, despite the illogicality of that position even in the 1980s. The eastern archaeological evidence was enough to support the case made from linguistics, since we cannot have (linguistically) two different homelands for the European and Asian IE languages. The Asian IE languages include some of the earliest and latest break-aways from the mother language.

All sorts of interesting possibilities remain in terms of genetic input into the steppe or from mixture with adjoining cultures on routes out of the steppe. But PIE as a language sits on the European steppe.

Jean.  No worries.  I dont see anything in what you said to take offense in.  Seems reasonable to me.  I am not really talking about the homeland issue to be honest and I am not trying to attack the steppe origin theory.  It has problems when applied to the west but the alternatives also have a lot of problems too and have been pretty undermined by new evidence.  I am just saying that the need for farily complex models to connect the east to beaker and corded ware as a vehicle to explain the IE nature of Europe outside the eastern fringes of Europe is still where we are at albeit the details change.  I am not saying its wrong but the contrast in straight forward migration explanations and fairly strong evidence for the eastern half of the story still stands in contrast to the need for very different complex models for the western half.  I think its fair enough comment that the Yamnaya influence maps in Harrison and Heyd use a level of evidence that if applied to other times and periods would mean you could argue for migration everywhere and at almost all times.  A scatter of selective uptake of influences, borrowings, styles and traits taken up differently all over the placee selectively from the east is very little different from what we see all through the Bronze Age where there is almost a constant multi-directional overlapping and movement of ideas.  I am afraid I just cant agree that it is possible to disitinguise between migration, contact etc in the case of selective and varied uptake of eastern influences.  Now, some of their stuff is more convincing and feels like it may go deeper than influences but other aspects of their map of Yamnaya influences really is nowhere near being clearcut evidence of migration.  I am not arguing against the evidence that the source of influences were what they have detected.  I am simply arguing that only some of what they list are in the category of being strong evidence for movement.  What is really creating evidence that is exposing what is and isnt movement is the white coat work rather than archaeological inference per se.  Only that kind of evidence is teasing out what is and isnt migration.  I think archaeological inference was basically defeated by this issue.   Its all a matter of personal taste but the bar of evidence other than the DNA etc is just too low in the western half of Europe for me to feel that a call can be made.  A lot of good ideas have been put out there but I think that only the DNA evidence will sort out the complex multi directional multi phase models in terms of how much is migration and how much is influence and at what point R1b got involved in the beaker story.  I do however believe this will come clear soon.  I just wouldnt want to make a call at the relationship between beaker, R1b and IE as yet.  I think they are related (cant see any alternative) but exactly how, I wouldnt feel confident yet.  beaker, R1b and the spread of IE into the west have individually been extremely tough nuts to crack and collectively they are an uber-nut.  I think only DNA will reveal the exact mechanism.   


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: MHammers on July 11, 2012, 05:23:34 PM
I checked out a hardcopy of Desideri's latest study When Beakers Met Bell Beakers 2011.  

Thanks for pointing that out.
No problem.  Looking over it again, I noticed on Figure 90a on p.145 the Hungarian Bell Beaker is connected to the Valaisian early Bronze Age in Switzerland.  This would of course be after the shift at Sion.  Also on page 152 Figure 95a, it's showing the Villedubert France Beaker population with an upstream connection to Beaker from Hungary and Central Bohemia.  I think both examples support Heyd's interpretation of Sion (and Fig. 103), i.e. eastern Beaker movement intruding upon the west ~2500-2400 BC.   It seems to line up with a north and west spread of R1b and the R1b at Kromsdorf.  

In regard to the stelae in Iberia, is there a solid date on those?  The studies seem to attribute them to the Bronze age, which would be well after early Beaker ~2900.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 11, 2012, 05:36:37 PM
I checked out a hardcopy of Desideri's latest study When Beakers Met Bell Beakers 2011.  

Thanks for pointing that out.
No problem.  Looking over it again, I noticed on Figure 90a on p.145 the Hungarian Bell Beaker is connected to the Valaisian early Bronze Age in Switzerland.  This would of course be after the shift at Sion.  Also on page 152 Figure 95a, it's showing the Villedubert France Beaker population with an upstream connection to Beaker from Hungary and Central Bohemia.  I think both examples support Heyd's interpretation of Sion (and Fig. 103), i.e. eastern Beaker movement intruding upon the west ~2500-2400 BC.   It seems to line up with a north and west spread of R1b and the R1b at Kromsdorf.  


So, would you see the initial phase of the spread of beaker from Iberia to S. France/ Italy/Switzerland as a non-R1b thing and R1b as being brought from the east by the secondary east-west movement from central Europe?   


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on July 11, 2012, 08:11:49 PM

No problem.  Looking over it again, I noticed on Figure 90a on p.145 the Hungarian Bell Beaker is connected to the Valaisian early Bronze Age in Switzerland.  This would of course be after the shift at Sion.  Also on page 152 Figure 95a, it's showing the Villedubert France Beaker population with an upstream connection to Beaker from Hungary and Central Bohemia.  I think both examples support Heyd's interpretation of Sion (and Fig. 103), i.e. eastern Beaker movement intruding upon the west ~2500-2400 BC.   It seems to line up with a north and west spread of R1b and the R1b at Kromsdorf.  

I haven't seen the book itself. I just went looking online and found that I could download an abstract.  

Quote
In regard to the stelae in Iberia, is there a solid date on those?  The studies seem to attribute them to the Bronze age, which would be well after early Beaker ~2900.

Which are these? Sanjuán 2010 & Perez 2006 on the warrior stelae of Tartessos? They are different. I have now obtained a copy of Perez 2006 with images, which makes matters clearer. The anthropomorphic stelae are found in a different region of Iberia.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: MHammers on July 11, 2012, 08:15:28 PM
I checked out a hardcopy of Desideri's latest study When Beakers Met Bell Beakers 2011.  

Thanks for pointing that out.
No problem.  Looking over it again, I noticed on Figure 90a on p.145 the Hungarian Bell Beaker is connected to the Valaisian early Bronze Age in Switzerland.  This would of course be after the shift at Sion.  Also on page 152 Figure 95a, it's showing the Villedubert France Beaker population with an upstream connection to Beaker from Hungary and Central Bohemia.  I think both examples support Heyd's interpretation of Sion (and Fig. 103), i.e. eastern Beaker movement intruding upon the west ~2500-2400 BC.   It seems to line up with a north and west spread of R1b and the R1b at Kromsdorf.  


So, would you see the initial phase of the spread of beaker from Iberia to S. France/ Italy/Switzerland as a non-R1b thing and R1b as being brought from the east by the secondary east-west movement from central Europe?   

Yes, early Iberian Beaker, at least from cranial and dental studies, suggest population continuity from the late neolithic.  I don't think that necessarily excludes some R1b arriving, building stelae, etc., but I'm guessing most of the ydna was E, G2, and I-M26.  I do think the L11-P312 sequence is part of this slightly later eastern expansion.  It obviously ended up in Iberia too, though not as much with the initial Beaker package.  This is not to say when Beaker expands out of Iberia, it didn't absorb some R1b in France on the way to Switzerland.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: MHammers on July 11, 2012, 08:18:30 PM
Which are these? Sanjuán 2010 & Perez 2006 on the warrior stelae of Tartessos? They are different. I have now obtained a copy of Perez 2006 with images, which makes matters clearer. The anthropomorphic stelae are found in a different region of Iberia.

I was skimming the 5 or 6 stelae studies in your library.  I was looking for dates, but might have overlooked them.  One says European stelae from 3500, but I'm thinking this might be the Pontic ones.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on July 11, 2012, 08:40:10 PM
I was skimming the 5 or 6 stelae studies in your library.  I was looking for dates, but might have overlooked them.  One says European stelae from 3500, but I'm thinking this might be the Pontic ones.

I used Diaz-Guardamino 2010 for Iberia. It is in Spanish. Although the title refers to the Bronze Age, he mentions earlier types. Cardoso 2011 (http://www.altotejo.org/UserFiles/File/Estudos_e_Publicacoes_arqueo/Anthropomorfic_Stele_Monte_Zebros_Rosmaninhal.pdf) is in English.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 12, 2012, 11:03:14 AM
I checked out a hardcopy of Desideri's latest study When Beakers Met Bell Beakers 2011.  

Thanks for pointing that out.
No problem.  Looking over it again, I noticed on Figure 90a on p.145 the Hungarian Bell Beaker is connected to the Valaisian early Bronze Age in Switzerland.  This would of course be after the shift at Sion.  Also on page 152 Figure 95a, it's showing the Villedubert France Beaker population with an upstream connection to Beaker from Hungary and Central Bohemia.  I think both examples support Heyd's interpretation of Sion (and Fig. 103), i.e. eastern Beaker movement intruding upon the west ~2500-2400 BC.   It seems to line up with a north and west spread of R1b and the R1b at Kromsdorf.  


So, would you see the initial phase of the spread of beaker from Iberia to S. France/ Italy/Switzerland as a non-R1b thing and R1b as being brought from the east by the secondary east-west movement from central Europe?  

Yes, early Iberian Beaker, at least from cranial and dental studies, suggest population continuity from the late neolithic.  I don't think that necessarily excludes some R1b arriving, building stelae, etc., but I'm guessing most of the ydna was E, G2, and I-M26.  I do think the L11-P312 sequence is part of this slightly later eastern expansion.  It obviously ended up in Iberia too, though not as much with the initial Beaker package.  This is not to say when Beaker expands out of Iberia, it didn't absorb some R1b in France on the way to Switzerland.

I basically agree.  It might be possible to suggest trials of the complex of phases something like

L23*=immedaite pre-beaker trail of R1b.  It has a strong east-west variance cline along the south and the Alpine fringe.  Seems the best correlation with Jean's stelae people or something similar to that.  However, it is also a route taken many times later so its problematic to assume a link like this.

L51*=well I think it might be a proxy parallel clade that travelled with L11* and maybe early P312*.  It has an extremely strong similarity to the beaker network c. 2600BC. However direction cant be inferred from distribution.  It seems strong is southern France and N. Italy but also known in lesser numbers in known beaker nodes Atlantic Iberia, further north in France and into west-central Europe.  I think its date may be implied by the fact it is almost unknown in areas where beaker didnt arrive until c. 2500 or later.  

U152-Tempting to link it with the central European beaker division seen intruding at Sion.

L21 -Its distribution would fit well with a seaborne extension of beaker into the northern Atlantic zone in an arc from the the Basque Country to Norway c. 2500-2400BC.  That extension would clearly have needed beaker people with maritime skills.   I think the relatively late maritime extension is the key to L21 distribution.  

The other main branch DF27 is harder to nail down.  We really need distribution maps for it, its subclades.  

We also could do with a map of true P312* as it is those lines that are closest to L21.




Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: MHammers on July 12, 2012, 11:40:22 AM
Also, when Beaker emerges out of Iberia, there is a trail of new projectile point types called Palmela points.  They're not found much in the eastern range.  These seem to extend up the Atlantic coast towards Brittany.  It is interesting that the Rhine Beakers are associated with the west group.  The Kromsdorf R1b's I think would be part of the south German/Czech/Hungarian branch.  However, Kromsdorf is north of this range.  Britain probably received R1b from a convergence of these two groups at the lower Rhine.

Starting 2800-2700 there is speculatively, a large movement of R1b
in two phases.  First east to west, which includes the destruction event at Sion.  This is also perhaps when the 'roundheads' begin showing up in Iberia in greater frequency after Beaker has already been established among the late neolithics.  The second R1b phase shifts from south to north with the Beaker spread to the British Isles and Scandinavia.  L21 and its subclades might begin towards the end of phase one.  I can imagine U106 born in the eastern group and maybe is more associated with the late Beaker/Unetice people until it expands with later Celts and Germanics.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: razyn on July 12, 2012, 12:04:13 PM
The other main branch L?? (sorry have forgotten this one) is harder to nail down.  e really need distribution maps for it, its subclades. 

We also could do with a map of true P312* as it is those lines that are closest to L21.

I suspect you mean DF27.  Often referred to as R-P312* in the literature before it was discovered... which is to say, all of the literature.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 12, 2012, 12:08:05 PM
The other main branch L?? (sorry have forgotten this one) is harder to nail down.  e really need distribution maps for it, its subclades. 

We also could do with a map of true P312* as it is those lines that are closest to L21.

I suspect you mean DF27.  Often referred to as R-P312* in the literature before it was discovered... which is to say, all of the literature.

It looks like DF27 is going to eliminate most P-312* as potential ancestors of L21 and U152,  Its the small rump of P312XDF27 where the ancestors of L21 and/or U152 lie.  That is what makes them a particularly interesting group to me.   


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 12, 2012, 12:31:21 PM
Also, when Beaker emerges out of Iberia, there is a trail of new projectile point types called Palmela points.  They're not found much in the eastern range.  These seem to extend up the Atlantic coast towards Brittany.  It is interesting that the Rhine Beakers are associated with the west group.  The Kromsdorf R1b's I think would be part of the south German/Czech/Hungarian branch.  However, Kromsdorf is north of this range.  Britain probably received R1b from a convergence of these two groups at the lower Rhine.

Starting 2800-2700 there is speculatively, a large movement of R1b
in two phases.  First east to west, which includes the destruction event at Sion.  This is also perhaps when the 'roundheads' begin showing up in Iberia in greater frequency after Beaker has already been established among the late neolithics.  The second R1b phase shifts from south to north with the Beaker spread to the British Isles and Scandinavia.  L21 and its subclades might begin towards the end of phase one.  I can imagine U106 born in the eastern group and maybe is more associated with the late Beaker/Unetice people until it expands with later Celts and Germanics.

I must admit I am a little uneasy about the idea that R1b largely entered beaker only in central Europe in a secondary phase.  However, I am also not convinced by the pre-beaker spread idea either.  Doesnt mean that either is wrong but I am not easily convinced on things in general and the Harrison and Heyd stuff gets pretty lightweight by the time Atlantic Iberia is reached. One or the other has to be right.  I would tend to go more for the idea that R1b entered the R1b network somewhere around west-central Europe.  Lets face it all of western Europe appears to have been heavily R1b-ised from a zero start in the 3rd millenium so we should feel no more amazement of that happening in Iberia than anywhere else.  Another thing that might support the idea that R1b entered Iberia from the east in the developed beaker stage is that it is stronger in the east of Iberia, not in the west of Iberia (where the earliest beakers were).  I dont know enough about the distribution of DF27 outside Iberia to suggest a route how it got there.  I would tend to guess from southern France but I am not sure.  With Iberia being a terminus its always easier to suggest France as its its only near neighbour!  The L21 in the Pyrenees looks like the boundary zone of the main L21 distribution and frequency suggests it was seaborne and arrived from Atlantic France.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: MHammers on July 12, 2012, 01:05:02 PM
I agree, aDNA, if we can get it from multiple copper/bronze age sites will tell us the big picture.  The next best thing is the upcoming results from Continental DF13 and DF63 testing.  For now, I think the large expansion of R1b is Beaker-related.  We have neolithic Y aDNA and its current frequency is much lower in relation to R1b.  However, R1b's presence in the pre-Beaker west would not be surprising, unless it is pre-late neolithic.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: MHammers on July 12, 2012, 04:26:38 PM
I used Diaz-Guardamino 2010 for Iberia. It is in Spanish. Although the title refers to the Bronze Age, he mentions earlier types. Cardoso 2011 (http://www.altotejo.org/UserFiles/File/Estudos_e_Publicacoes_arqueo/Anthropomorfic_Stele_Monte_Zebros_Rosmaninhal.pdf) is in English.

The stelae in the Cardoso paper are identified with the Iberian Bronze age.  This is long after early Beaker.  They don't really get into cultures or origins.  The first stelae were more of a female motif with diadems or headdresses carved on them.  The 'warrior' stelae that would be associated with Beakers or Indo-Europeans are actually later in the bronze age.  These feature the daggers, bows, and halberds.  I don't see any carbon dates or other mention in the context of an early Beaker/stelae people intrusion from the 1st half of the 3rd millenium.  Certainly, there were earlier stelae, but I'm hesitant to associate them with an intrusion in that time-frame.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Bren123 on July 15, 2012, 05:25:01 PM

No so. The Yamnaya link to Bell Beaker is now so solid that it cannot be wished away.


What is the evidence for this?


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on July 15, 2012, 06:20:58 PM
The stelae in the Cardoso paper are identified with the Iberian Bronze age.  This is long after early Beaker.  They don't really get into cultures or origins.

Yes I know the focus is very much on the later stelae, but I can't find a paper that concentrates specifically and exclusively on those dated to the Copper Age. You can see some of the necklace type  online in the Portuguese National Museum of Archaeology (http://www.mnarqueologia-ipmuseus.pt/?a=3&x=2&i=208). They are not particularly impressive, but they fit into the wider pattern.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on July 15, 2012, 06:25:47 PM

No so. The Yamnaya link to Bell Beaker is now so solid that it cannot be wished away.


What is the evidence for this?

Harrison and Heyd 2007. Though as a matter of fact I answered that question on this forum back in 2009 (http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=8701.msg110673#msg110673) before I had got around to reading their paper. My review of it appears further down that thread after I lashed out and purchased.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: princenuadha on July 16, 2012, 07:47:36 PM
I don't agree with everything Dienekes says, but when he makes sense, he makes sense.

I was referring to Dienekes' post that I quoted earlier in this thread. If mtDNA C had much of a presence on the ancient P-C steppe (a big if), then chances are there was an East Eurasian autosomal component in ancient P-C steppe people. That component didn't make much headway in Europe. That fact would seem to indicate that P-C steppe people didn't have much impact on the genetic make-up of Europe.

That's all speculative, but it's something to consider.

Drift, when it is used as the answer to everything, starts to sound like special pleading, kind of like the good old "genetic bottleneck".

Now dienekes is arguing that Northern Europeans have a little East Asian admixture, over south europeans... The lack of which he recently used to argue against steppe migrations, lol. Actually, according to his thought process the stepps had to be involved!

Anyways, whatever the special affinity between n Europeans and e asians, I'm not convinced that mtdna c is a signal of Mongoliod admixture.



Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 16, 2012, 08:23:10 PM
I don't agree with everything Dienekes says, but when he makes sense, he makes sense.

I was referring to Dienekes' post that I quoted earlier in this thread. If mtDNA C had much of a presence on the ancient P-C steppe (a big if), then chances are there was an East Eurasian autosomal component in ancient P-C steppe people. That component didn't make much headway in Europe. That fact would seem to indicate that P-C steppe people didn't have much impact on the genetic make-up of Europe.

That's all speculative, but it's something to consider.

Drift, when it is used as the answer to everything, starts to sound like special pleading, kind of like the good old "genetic bottleneck".

Now dienekes is arguing that Northern Europeans have a little East Asian admixture, over south europeans... The lack of which he recently used to argue against steppe migrations, lol. Actually, according to his thought process the stepps had to be involved!

Anyways, whatever the special affinity between n Europeans and e asians, I'm not convinced that mtdna c is a signal of Mongoliod admixture.



yeah I think he is arguing himself into a hole and beginning to look stubborn.  I have a lot of respect for him but I dont like the way he has a preconcieved model that all the evidence is then explained (or explained away) to fit that model.  Its just not a wise approach to back yourself into a corner like that.  When you look at the L23 map and its diversity, there is definately a strong chance it could be explained by a two-directional ourpouring from the north down both the east and west side the Black Sea. 

That said I think its not impossible he might have something in terms of R1b originating on the mountain fringe fringing the steppes, between the true steppes and the old farming area to the south.  If it was holed up there and then spread both west and south it could fit the distribution of L23* and the much older links with non-M269 R1b in the eastern steppes.  If he has some sort of middle way theory of a group between the steppes and the old farming area to the south then I would definately have an open mind on it and I would like to see him develop the idea with some more detail.  I would not be at all surprise to find R1b in that area or on the north shore of the Black Sea.  I think there could be surprises when that earlier steppes groups are looked at and I wouldnt be at all surprised if R1b is found in the earlier steppes burials.  I get the impression that R1a may have at some stage pushed R1b from there in two directions.  The high variance of R1b in both the Caucuses area and Romania could fit that.  I think much of Anatolia can be ruled out as the origin of R1b,  R1b does not display the kind of branching in the pre-Copper Age period (not to mention its non-appearance in Neolithic Europe) that you would expect if it was located in the heartland of farming which eastern Anatolia was part of.  It is not impossible that Dienekes could be on to something with the highland fringe idea but you could also argue that it is a rearguard arguement in the face of new evidence that is only stopping just short of a steppe model.  I dont think something like a Maekop link would be too radically different from that idea of a culture intermediate between the steppe and the faming zone but maybe too much is being read into the lack of R1b in the steppes today, a place where radical sweeps of populations has happened again and again. 


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: princenuadha on July 17, 2012, 02:08:31 AM
Quote from: alan trowel hands.
Its just not a wise approach to back yourself into a corner like that.

He does and he doesn't. His original purpose was to show that Europeans were largely admixed with recent middle eastern admixture as part of his "womb of nations theory". Now, he seems to have mostly resigned himself to arguing the origin of PIE.

I haven't really seen anyone call him on this and I wouldn't be surprised if he does some scrambling later on.

But ya, he still is in a corner and I think he'll be found wrong on both accounts.

Quote from: alan trowel hands.
When you look at the L23 map and its diversity, there is definately a strong chance it could be explained by a two-directional ourpouring from the north down both the east and west side the Black Sea.

Could I see the map you are referring to?




 




Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: rms2 on July 17, 2012, 06:29:37 AM
Quote from: rms
Its just not a wise approach to back yourself into a corner like that.

He does and he doesn't. His original purpose was to show that Europeans were largely admixed with recent middle eastern admixture as part of his "womb of nations theory". Now, he seems to have mostly resigned himself to arguing the origin of PIE.

I haven't really seen anyone call him on this and I wouldn't be surprised if he does some scrambling later on.

But ya, he still is in a corner and I think he'll be found wrong on both accounts.

Quote from: rms
When you look at the L23 map and its diversity, there is definately a strong chance it could be explained by a two-directional ourpouring from the north down both the east and west side the Black Sea.

Could I see the map you are referring to?

You are quoting alan trowel hands but attributing the quotation to me (or at least to the first three letters of my screen name).

I didn't write those things, so you'll have to ask Alan about them.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: princenuadha on July 17, 2012, 12:59:20 PM
Quote from: rms
Its just not a wise approach to back yourself into a corner like that.

He does and he doesn't. His original purpose was to show that Europeans were largely admixed with recent middle eastern admixture as part of his "womb of nations theory". Now, he seems to have mostly resigned himself to arguing the origin of PIE.

I haven't really seen anyone call him on this and I wouldn't be surprised if he does some scrambling later on.

But ya, he still is in a corner and I think he'll be found wrong on both accounts.

Quote from: rms
When you look at the L23 map and its diversity, there is definately a strong chance it could be explained by a two-directional ourpouring from the north down both the east and west side the Black Sea.

Could I see the map you are referring to?

You are quoting alan trowel hands but attributing the quotation to me (or at least to the first three letters of my screen name).

I didn't write those things, so you'll have to ask Alan about them.

Thanks, I don't know what I was thinking.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 17, 2012, 01:16:37 PM
Quote from: rms
Its just not a wise approach to back yourself into a corner like that.

He does and he doesn't. His original purpose was to show that Europeans were largely admixed with recent middle eastern admixture as part of his "womb of nations theory". Now, he seems to have mostly resigned himself to arguing the origin of PIE.

I haven't really seen anyone call him on this and I wouldn't be surprised if he does some scrambling later on.

But ya, he still is in a corner and I think he'll be found wrong on both accounts.

Quote from: rms
When you look at the L23 map and its diversity, there is definately a strong chance it could be explained by a two-directional ourpouring from the north down both the east and west side the Black Sea.

Could I see the map you are referring to?

You are quoting alan trowel hands but attributing the quotation to me (or at least to the first three letters of my screen name).

I didn't write those things, so you'll have to ask Alan about them.

That quoting problem does sometimes happen,  Not sure why.  

I do find it interesting though that Dienekes seems to be slowly morphing his Asia idea from the first farmers in Anatolia to the fringes of it slightly to the north and also to a point later in time.  I quite like that idea (and several people have offered ideas not too different from it in the past).  There were copper age cultures intermediate between the steppes and Mesopotamia.  The most famous is Maykop but there could be others.  The mountain fringe area to the east of the Caucuses is pretty obscure to me.  

However, I would tend to think, due to the two-direction movement of L23* into the farming zones to the south (Anatolia etc) and west (Balkans) that it is less likely to have come fom either an eastern or western extreme on the steppes.  I think its probably more likely that it was somewhere like on the very shore of the north Black Sea or the Caucuses.  We know R1a had a trajectory that took it into south-east Germany in the Corded Ware period and we know its distribution today tends to be from there eastwards.  We also know L23* tends to be older to the south of it.  So, I am tempted to see a pattern of R1b either being bypassed slightly by R1a passing to the north or maybe exiting in two directions (to the Balkans and through the Caucuses) from its path.  Yamanaya as far as I know is thought to have pulsed out from further east so perhaps L23* was located around the Caucuses or nearby on the Black Sea shore itself and was bypassed slightly to the north or pushed west and south.  One hint at a shore position for L23 is the apparent maritime aspect of L23* and its later descendants.  

I really could do with knowing more about the shores of the Black Sea.  I know about Kemi Oba which pre-Yamnaya roots in the Lower Michaeylovka culture and there were links with Maykop.  Maykop really facinates me the way it was the link between the steppes and Mesopotamia through the Caucuses and developed its own mountain agriculture.  I think somewhere in there might be where Dienekes is edging towards.  

The dates of Maykop of c. 3700BC would not seem out of place for L23* nor would its higher variance area.  It would also place R1b in a situation where it was more agricultural than steppe nomads like Yamnaya and that could have influenced its choice of directions to expand into, maybe preferring locations other than steppe land. That could partly explain the distibition of R1b.  Agriculturist groups (even if they had steppe roots) would not have been as attracted by steppe environments as groups who were well adapted to that environment and thrusting deep into the steppes may have not been an option to them compared to R1a Yamanaya and related groups.  

Disclaimer- i am dabbling in an area that I have limited knowledge on.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 17, 2012, 01:41:39 PM
Oh and I wonder if the whole L23* spread and distribution (and perhaps the mixing with mountain elements in the area) would have something to do with the gradual infilltration of rounder headed people that has been observed in Copper Age Europe.  It was apparently also rare in Anatolia before the copper age according to a new post by Dienekes on Anatolia and Greece. 

Another thought is that if R1b was a steppe fringe group who had developed upland farming rather than nomadism then they may have looked to spread into similar area.  If R1b and R1a first arose to prominance among groups adapted to upland settled farming and steppes nomadism then they may have spread in a way that they didnt initially actually conflict much as they were looking for different environments for their different subsistance strategy.  That could explain quite a lot about the way their distributions seem so different.  Basically two sides of the same coin but different in crucial ways.  L23* and to a lesser extent M269* may demonstrate this when compared to R1a of the same age.  Even downstream from L23* R1b does seem to peak in upland areas.  I wouldnt push this too far and it may simply be down to one group seeking open steppe-like environments and the other settling the agricultural lands (and not being phased by it being mountain land).   


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 17, 2012, 02:30:06 PM
Ignoring the details of the interpretation, these papers (which I am sure have been posted before) are very interesting

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2947100/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3355373/#R7

More food for thought type stuff than conclusive. 


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jarman on July 17, 2012, 03:23:39 PM
What is the direction of learned speculation now - does IE = Bell Beaker folk? And since there is a connection between Bell Beaker and Yamna, does that connection also include Maikop?  And finally, what pulled or pushed Yamna and/or Maikop away from their Black Sea homeland?


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: razyn on July 17, 2012, 03:47:57 PM
And finally, what pulled or pushed Yamna and/or Maikop away from their Black Sea homeland?

I was idly wondering whether the half-mile diameter asteroid impact of 3123 BC had anything to do with it.

Just saw that recently on some over-the-top cable TV show about Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot's wife being basically a cinder, etc.  There is a Sumerian astronomical observation that they think refers to it.  I take such things with a grain of salt; but an actual impact of that size (and at that recent date) might well have had observable consequences to the food supply then, and in the gene pool later.

On the other hand, the incoming body allegedly clipped a mountain in Australia, and I don't think Sumerians would have seen that.  Maybe too many separate events, or tales, are being conflated.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343674,00.html

Can't believe I just cited that, as if it were an actual news source.  It's just the easy path to what I'm talking about, whether real or imagined.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: A.D. on July 17, 2012, 04:24:17 PM
A while back there was a theory (I don't know who's) about an eruption of Krakatoa causing emissions that led to climate change in Europe that led to poor harvests and the effects led to Germanic migration and a weakening of the Roman Empire and it's eventual downfall. Dendrochronology in Ireland testified to the climate change at the time. 


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Richard Rocca on July 17, 2012, 04:35:31 PM

That quoting problem does sometimes happen,  Not sure why.  

I do find it interesting though that Dienekes seems to be slowly morphing his Asia idea from the first farmers in Anatolia to the fringes of it slightly to the north and also to a point later in time.  I quite like that idea (and several people have offered ideas not too different from it in the past).  There were copper age cultures intermediate between the steppes and Mesopotamia.  The most famous is Maykop but there could be others.  The mountain fringe area to the east of the Caucuses is pretty obscure to me.  

However, I would tend to think, due to the two-direction movement of L23* into the farming zones to the south (Anatolia etc) and west (Balkans) that it is less likely to have come fom either an eastern or western extreme on the steppes.  I think its probably more likely that it was somewhere like on the very shore of the north Black Sea or the Caucuses.  We know R1a had a trajectory that took it into south-east Germany in the Corded Ware period and we know its distribution today tends to be from there eastwards.  We also know L23* tends to be older to the south of it.  So, I am tempted to see a pattern of R1b either being bypassed slightly by R1a passing to the north or maybe exiting in two directions (to the Balkans and through the Caucuses) from its path.  Yamanaya as far as I know is thought to have pulsed out from further east so perhaps L23* was located around the Caucuses or nearby on the Black Sea shore itself and was bypassed slightly to the north or pushed west and south.  One hint at a shore position for L23 is the apparent maritime aspect of L23* and its later descendants.  

I really could do with knowing more about the shores of the Black Sea.  I know about Kemi Oba which pre-Yamnaya roots in the Lower Michaeylovka culture and there were links with Maykop.  Maykop really facinates me the way it was the link between the steppes and Mesopotamia through the Caucuses and developed its own mountain agriculture.  I think somewhere in there might be where Dienekes is edging towards.  

The dates of Maykop of c. 3700BC would not seem out of place for L23* nor would its higher variance area.  It would also place R1b in a situation where it was more agricultural than steppe nomads like Yamnaya and that could have influenced its choice of directions to expand into, maybe preferring locations other than steppe land. That could partly explain the distibition of R1b.  Agriculturist groups (even if they had steppe roots) would not have been as attracted by steppe environments as groups who were well adapted to that environment and thrusting deep into the steppes may have not been an option to them compared to R1a Yamanaya and related groups.  

Disclaimer- i am dabbling in an area that I have limited knowledge on.

In the end, it seems pretty clear where he is going with all of this - that J2 is "the" PIE Y-DNA marker.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 17, 2012, 08:05:44 PM

That quoting problem does sometimes happen,  Not sure why.  

I do find it interesting though that Dienekes seems to be slowly morphing his Asia idea from the first farmers in Anatolia to the fringes of it slightly to the north and also to a point later in time.  I quite like that idea (and several people have offered ideas not too different from it in the past).  There were copper age cultures intermediate between the steppes and Mesopotamia.  The most famous is Maykop but there could be others.  The mountain fringe area to the east of the Caucuses is pretty obscure to me.  

However, I would tend to think, due to the two-direction movement of L23* into the farming zones to the south (Anatolia etc) and west (Balkans) that it is less likely to have come fom either an eastern or western extreme on the steppes.  I think its probably more likely that it was somewhere like on the very shore of the north Black Sea or the Caucuses.  We know R1a had a trajectory that took it into south-east Germany in the Corded Ware period and we know its distribution today tends to be from there eastwards.  We also know L23* tends to be older to the south of it.  So, I am tempted to see a pattern of R1b either being bypassed slightly by R1a passing to the north or maybe exiting in two directions (to the Balkans and through the Caucuses) from its path.  Yamanaya as far as I know is thought to have pulsed out from further east so perhaps L23* was located around the Caucuses or nearby on the Black Sea shore itself and was bypassed slightly to the north or pushed west and south.  One hint at a shore position for L23 is the apparent maritime aspect of L23* and its later descendants.  

I really could do with knowing more about the shores of the Black Sea.  I know about Kemi Oba which pre-Yamnaya roots in the Lower Michaeylovka culture and there were links with Maykop.  Maykop really facinates me the way it was the link between the steppes and Mesopotamia through the Caucuses and developed its own mountain agriculture.  I think somewhere in there might be where Dienekes is edging towards.  

The dates of Maykop of c. 3700BC would not seem out of place for L23* nor would its higher variance area.  It would also place R1b in a situation where it was more agricultural than steppe nomads like Yamnaya and that could have influenced its choice of directions to expand into, maybe preferring locations other than steppe land. That could partly explain the distibition of R1b.  Agriculturist groups (even if they had steppe roots) would not have been as attracted by steppe environments as groups who were well adapted to that environment and thrusting deep into the steppes may have not been an option to them compared to R1a Yamanaya and related groups.  

Disclaimer- i am dabbling in an area that I have limited knowledge on.

In the end, it seems pretty clear where he is going with all of this - that J2 is "the" PIE Y-DNA marker.

Well I think we will finally have a lot of the answers over the next few years ane I doubt that is going to be one of them!


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on July 17, 2012, 09:08:25 PM
What is the direction of learned speculation now - does IE = Bell Beaker folk?

No. Bell Beaker is just one of the many cultures that can be linked with IE languages late and early. This being a R1b forum, there has been particular interest in Bell Beaker because its distribution correlates pretty well with the later coverage of Celtic and Italic languages and the spread of R1b. (I'm leaving Germanic out of this summary - it is too complicated. I'm also leaving out the Bell Beaker and R1b around the Vistula for the same reason.) 


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on July 17, 2012, 09:20:15 PM
And since there is a connection between Bell Beaker and Yamna, does that connection also include Maikop?  

Maikop is certainly connected to Yamnaya. It had an influence on the development of Yamna from the start (notably the use of kurgan burials). When the Maikop Culture collapsed c. 3,100 BC, some of its people melded into Yamnaya. The big debate has been over the language issue. Some scholars include Maikop in PIE. Others (such as David Anthony) firmly exclude it - with good reason in my view. Maikop has its origins in the Near East. It is not the culture from which Afanasievo derives. Maikop melds into Yamnaya far too late to provide the dominant language for that horizon.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: Jean M on July 17, 2012, 09:25:13 PM
what pulled or pushed Yamna and/or Maikop away from their Black Sea homeland?

The Maikop Culture collapsed because of some upset (pretty violent) in its trade relations with Sumer. Yamnaya was more moved by the pasture problem. A shift in the climate after 3200 BC may have encouraged an exodus from the European steppe. Conditions became colder and drier. In the forest-steppe belt the forest was reduced and the steppe expanded. The region was at its most arid between 2700 and 2000 BC.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: razyn on July 18, 2012, 10:57:43 AM
A shift in the climate after 3200 BC may have encouraged an exodus from the European steppe.

I was thinking a big asteroid impact in 3123 BC might have contributed to that (or even caused it).  Supposedly, the airborne ash darkened the sky for a few years.  And the Sumerians were the ones who wrote it up... for whatever that's worth.


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 18, 2012, 12:20:29 PM
what pulled or pushed Yamna and/or Maikop away from their Black Sea homeland?

The Maikop Culture collapsed because of some upset (pretty violent) in its trade relations with Sumer. Yamnaya was more moved by the pasture problem. A shift in the climate after 3200 BC may have encouraged an exodus from the European steppe. Conditions became colder and drier. In the forest-steppe belt the forest was reduced and the steppe expanded. The region was at its most arid between 2700 and 2000 BC.

I was reading the recent Maikop skulls paper with interest.  Pretty inconclusive but probably some sort of mixed near east-steppes group.  I was looking to see if there might be deeper roots to the bell beaker type or even some steppes towards it that pre-date the simialr Balkans types.  Not a great match though.

It is still interesting how the round headed form just came from nowhere (wasnt present in steppes or Anatolia) in the Copper Age in many places.  I know there are cases where climate or sexual selection may be the answer and something similar happened in Medieval Europe too.  Its hard not to notice that the round headed form was certainly later strongest in Mountain areas.  Clearly there was a lot of interest in mountain areas for metal deposits in the copper age.  I am wondering if the spread or development of rounder heads was particurly stong in the uplands as it spread in the copper age.  Some sort of adaptation mixed with migration (not sure about the chicken and egg aspect) might have happened.  You tend to read about this phenomenon in terms of Anatolia, Balkans, Alps, beaker people etc where round headedness remains in many places today.  This may be unconnected but I recall reading that rrounder heads in France were associated with the Alps and Brittany and I know In Ireland that the SW of Ireland (the area of the early copper mines) is seen as the Irish stronghold of round headedness.  I understand it is also common along the Rhine and Belgium and of course the alps east of France.  I dont know what was going on but there are interesting patterns.   


Title: Re: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
Post by: A.D. on July 18, 2012, 06:16:32 PM
Anyone seen this article  at

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/search/label/pigmentation