World Families Forums

General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse. => R1b General => Topic started by: Richard Rocca on August 23, 2012, 04:59:40 PM



Title: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on August 23, 2012, 04:59:40 PM
I'm placing it here since it references genetics, is central to our understanding of R1b, and because 99.9% of the posts on this site are R1b specific. Hopefully the moderators will keep it here.

ABSTRACT
There are two competing hypotheses for the origin of the Indo-European language family. The conventional view places the homeland in the Pontic steppes about 6000 years ago. An alternative hypothesis claims that the languages spread from Anatolia with the expansion of farming 8000 to 9500 years ago. We used Bayesian phylogeographic approaches, together with basic vocabulary data from 103 ancient and contemporary Indo-European languages, to explicitly model the expansion of the family and test these hypotheses. We found decisive support for an Anatolian origin over a steppe origin. Both the inferred timing and root location of the Indo-European language trees fit with an agricultural expansion from Anatolia beginning 8000 to 9500 years ago. These results highlight the critical role that phylogeographic inference can play in resolving debates about human prehistory.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6097/957.full (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6097/957.full)


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on August 23, 2012, 05:06:57 PM
Gray and Atkinson have written this already in the past. Anyway the theory is that of Renfrew, already falsified many times in the past. Anyway also this time we should read the paper, but also this isn’t for free.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on August 23, 2012, 06:24:53 PM
Interesting analysis on the NYTimes.

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

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

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

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

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





Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: rms2 on August 23, 2012, 06:30:48 PM
I'd like to read the report. Can someone send it to me?

@Jean M

If you're here, will this paper become part of the Mini Library?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: eochaidh on August 23, 2012, 07:06:44 PM
Interesting analysis on the NYTimes.

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

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

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

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

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





Interesting, thanks.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 23, 2012, 07:43:03 PM
... "Biologists using tools developed for drawing evolutionary family trees say that they have solved a longstanding problem in archaeology: the origin of the Indo-European family of languages...

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

I have three comments, two of which are red flags.

1) A biologist solved an linguist problem.... doesn't sound quite right. I just listened to some lectures by Mallory, Renfrew and Anthony. I don't know if a biologist is going to solve this unless he has a bunch of properly located ancient DNA.

2) They used the words "decisive support." If this is the reporter, okay. If this is the scientific team, that's a red flag. In the business world in which I work when someone says "no problem" we quickly recognize they don't know what they are talking about.

3) I've accepted Jean Manco's interpretation of PIE is, at its base, a hunter-gatherer language.  This hunter-gather foundation does NOT match with an agricultural expansion. Jean M, what do you say? How does this all square with the purported early connection of PIE/pre-PIE with Uralic languages. That's along way from Anatolia.

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

How so other than many of us think M269 expanded from east to west across Europe? I think Vince V. has the perspective that M269 came out of the Near East, at least the northern parts of it. I realize that is close to Anatolia but that is not quite the same thing.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on August 23, 2012, 08:28:47 PM
Another interesting analysis in Scientific American. This article has an animated map, showing the spread of PIE, which I don't necessarily agree with.

"Languages as diverse as English, Russian and Hindi can trace their roots back more than 8,000 years to Anatolia — now in modern-day Turkey. That's the conclusion of a study that assessed 103 ancient and contemporary languages using a technique normally used to study the evolution and spread of disease. The researchers hope that their findings can settle a long-running debate about the origins of the Indo-European language group."

“Finally we have a clear spatial picture,” says Colin Renfrew at the University of Cambridge, UK, who originally proposed Anatolia as the source of the Indo-European language family. But he predicts that many historical linguists will be slow to accept the evidence. “The structure of 'Indo-European studies' has been founded for so long on the myth of mounted Kurgan warrior horsemen riding down from the Russian steppes that it will take scholars a while to recover,” he says.

Oh la, la....

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=disease-maps-pinpoint-origin-of-indo-european-languages




Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: rms2 on August 23, 2012, 08:39:56 PM
I imagine Gioiello is right and they did something like what Gray and Atkinson did, which I would not dismiss out of hand as wrong.

Still, I would like to read the actual report.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 23, 2012, 09:22:55 PM
I'd like to read the report. Can someone send it to me?

@Jean M

If you're here, will this paper become part of the Mini Library?

It's in there, courtesy of R.R.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 23, 2012, 09:25:58 PM
I imagine Gioiello is right and they did something like what Gray and Atkinson did..

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 23, 2012, 09:38:30 PM
Jean M, what do you say?

I don't need to say a thing. David Anthony commented on the paper to the New York Times. The link is given by Heber. Gray and Atkinson's first attempt was ripped apart by linguists and all the same applies again.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on August 23, 2012, 09:42:00 PM
I'd like to read the report. Can someone send it to me?

@Jean M

If you're here, will this paper become part of the Mini Library?

It's in there, courtesy of R.R.

...there goes the Supplementary Materials...all 57 pages of it.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on August 23, 2012, 10:06:42 PM
Linguists have been battling this out for 100 years and we are none the wiser for it. We can knock the authors, but we cannot knock the credentials of Colin Renfrew that backs the paper... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Renfrew,_Baron_Renfrew_of_Kaimsthorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Renfrew,_Baron_Renfrew_of_Kaimsthorn))

At a high level, this model looks a lot closer to a probable R1b+R1a expansion model than the Kurgan hypothesis that overall only satisfies the spread of some R1a. The thing that might be off is their dating of the older parts of the tree. However, they seem to have the Slavic languages branching off from the Italic-Celtic-Germanic branch around 3700-3600 BC which is around the time that prestige burials appear in North-Central Italy. They then have the Italic-Celtic split at around 2500 BC which is probably the biggest period of Bell Beaker (Belgeitkeramik and Rhone-Rhine) expansion in Central Europe.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 23, 2012, 10:24:40 PM
Linguists have been battling this out for 100 years and we are none the wiser for it. We can knock the authors, but we cannot knock the credentials of Colin Renfrew that backs the paper...

We can refuse to knock Renfrew's credentials, but that does not mean he is correct.

Should we knock Mallory's credentials? These two disagree vehemently, and have done so for years.

So to me, their credentials cancel each other out (or dare I say who cares? at risk of my knighthood again) ... so let's get on to the real debate of the issues.

As for a biologists mathematical model applied to linguistics, I'm a bit skeptical.... but I do agree R1b has lot of genetic data associated with the Near East and just East of that rather than the Steppes.  To me that is the issue.

Linguistically, how does a out of Anatolia model square with an early Uralic influence?

How does an "agricultral expansion" proposed by the authors square with a hunter-gatherer foundation for PIE? Or is Jean wrong on that?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 23, 2012, 10:29:03 PM
... At a high level, this model looks a lot closer to a probable R1b+R1a expansion model than the Kurgan hypothesis that overall only satisfies the spread of some R1a....

Can you be more specific on how the Anatolian model is a better fit for R1b+R1a than a Steppes hypothesis?

Is R1a of high diversity in Anatolia or something?  Is R1b's diversity highest in Anatolia?   ... or are you saying the primary point is R1b expanded into Europe from Anatolia?

I may be missing something but I do respect Vince V's opinions on the earliest branching of of R1b. It seems to be associated with areas south or south and east of Anatolia. The earliest branching of R1b is where the trail back to R1a should lead.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: vineviz on August 23, 2012, 10:38:50 PM
I have just started reading the paper, but I do give the authors credit for this bit:

Quote
Despite support for an Anatolian Indo- European origin, we think it unlikely that agricul- ture serves as the sole driver of language expansion on the continent. The five major Indo-European subfamilies—Celtic, Germanic, Italic, Balto-Slavic, and Indo-Iranian—all emerged as distinct lineages between 4000 and 6000 years ago (Fig. 2 and fig. S1), contemporaneous with a number of later cul- tural expansions evident in the archaeological record, including the Kurgan expansion (5–7). Our inferred tree also shows that within each subfamily, the lan- guages we sampled began to diversify between 2000 and 4500 years ago, well after the agricul- tural expansion had run its course.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on August 23, 2012, 10:54:32 PM
Can you be more specific on how the Anatolian model is a better fit for R1b+R1a than a Steppes hypothesis?

Is R1a of high diversity in Anatolia or something?  Is R1b's diversity highest in Anatolia?   ... or are you saying the primary point is R1b expanded into Europe from Anatolia?

I may be missing something but I do respect Vince V's opinions on the earliest branching of of R1b. It seems to be associated with areas south or south and east of Anatolia. The earliest branching of R1b is where the trail back to R1a should lead.

By R1a and R1b I was generalizing. I really meant the two main branches responsible for modern IE lineages: R1a1a and R1b1a2.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 24, 2012, 03:22:07 AM
...there goes the Supplementary Materials...all 57 pages of it.

Received with thanks and uploaded.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 24, 2012, 03:28:00 AM
Linguists have been battling this out for 100 years and we are none the wiser for it. We can knock the authors, but we cannot knock the credentials of Colin Renfrew..

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 24, 2012, 03:44:26 AM
Or is Jean wrong on that?

Please don't drag me into it Mike, as though I have personally made a contribution to this linguistic debate. As I keep pointing out, I have not. Linguists sorted out the PIE homeland debate before I knew anything about it. It is absolutely nothing to do with me.

What I have been doing is attempting to mesh together genetics, linguistics, archaeology, history and any other useful discipline to draw an outline at least of the major migrations involved in the peopling of Europe. Right now I'm limping, exhausted, towards the end of a reshuffle/revision of material for eventual print. I cannot spare the time to join the ever-popular PIE homeland debate. I swore off this remember. :)


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on August 24, 2012, 04:03:07 AM
I noted the following regarding the Celtic Language. It is a pity that the database lacks Continental Celtic varients as it does not allow us to infer the important question of Celtic (language) expansion from the West.

"The rapid expansion of a single langauge and nodes associated with branches not represented in our sample will not be refected in this figure. For example, the lack of Continental Celtic variants in our sample means we miss the Celtic incursion into Iberia and instead infer a later arrival into the Iberian peninsular associated with the break-up of the Romance languages (and not the initial rapid expansion of Latin). The chronology represented here therefore covers a minimum age for expansion into a given area."


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on August 24, 2012, 04:36:51 AM
As I have written of other researches: a massive waste of time, and in this case also of ℠∑PDT (((xkn⁄‰ etc. etc. They have already used MCMC, BEAST, BSP etc. for STRs and haven’t got nowhere.
History (and glottology) are sciences of the particular and maths isn’t able to capture them. That Hittite was the first branch to get detached itself from IE we did already know, but it isn’t demonstrated that it was spoken in Anatolia before 2000 BC, on the contrary it is very unlikely. All these languages have changed their places in these millennia and only by reconstructing their itineraries we could understand something of their past. And above all these languages don’t say anything about the men who spoke them and of their haplogroups.
Kiwis get good kiwis and perhaps heard a peripheral conference of Sir Renfrew, but that they study Maori dialects and let IE and hg. R to us, about which some certitudes we have.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: vineviz on August 24, 2012, 08:07:22 AM
Linguists are not in battle. Colin Renfrew is an archaeologist. Mallory has PhDs in both linguistics and archaeology.

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

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 24, 2012, 10:22:04 AM
Or is Jean wrong on that?

Please don't drag me into it Mike, as though I have personally made a contribution to this linguistic debate. As I keep pointing out, I have not. Linguists sorted out the PIE homeland debate before I knew anything about it. It is absolutely nothing to do with me....
Sorry. I realize you did not create the arguments and assemble the research details but I respect your interpretation of them.  I've not heard specific arguments, that sounded reasonable, against an early Uralic influence on PIE and against PIE being hunter-gatherer at its base. That puts a serious crimp in an agricultural Anatolian origin for PIE. I guess it could have been hunter-gatherers in mountainous areas of Anatolia that were out of the way of of agriculture, but that still leaves a reconciliation with a Uralic influence. The Urals are a long way away. I just don't get out how Anatolia could meet that criteria.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 24, 2012, 10:34:45 AM
Linguists are not in battle. Colin Renfrew is an archaeologist. Mallory has PhDs in both linguistics and archaeology.

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

Absolutely true. Couldn't agree more in fact. Frankly I know people with PhDs that I wouldn't trust to get anything right. Placing my faith blindly is the last thing I'm going to do. In academia people are judged on publications. Paper qualifications cease to have much relevance after someone gets to be a professor.

I was just trying to clarify where exactly the fighting line is. It is not really within linguistics. Certainly there are a few linguists not in tune with the majority, but that is a kind of sideshow. The big battle has gone on between Renfrew and Mallory, who are both archaeologists, but Mallory happens to be a linguist as well. That is not a coincidence in my view. You really have to take in the linguistic evidence to see the argument for the Steppe homeland. I didn't myself until I read Mallory.  


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 24, 2012, 11:43:25 AM
The problem with all of these huge questions of prehistory is big names from all the relevant disciplines can be rolled out by both sides of the debate.  To be honest archaeology has done very little to convince me of a major spread from the steppes through Europe (beyond the eastern fringe).  Much more sophisticated models have been suggested but the need for complex non-self evident models and very thin inference for the spread of IE into the western half of Europe still remains, much as was the situation in the late 80s when Mallory and Renfew wrote.  The situation still remains of seeking the missing links between the steppes cultures and the corded ware and beaker cultures in order to explain how an eastern language (and eastern haplogroups) became the main vehicles of spread of IE into much of Europe.  While there is other non-archaeological evidence that may support a kurgan model of some sort (see below), if the best we can come up is faint ripples of the sort Harrison and Heyd list then archaeology is clearly not going to solve this (unless some unexpected discoveries are made).  I wont comment on linguistics as they clearly dont agree among themselves and I am not a linguist.


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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 24, 2012, 12:14:33 PM
Linguists are not in battle. Colin Renfrew is an archaeologist. Mallory has PhDs in both linguistics and archaeology.

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

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

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on August 24, 2012, 12:46:40 PM
Yes, ancient DNA so far fits neatly with the Kurgan hypothesis...but only for Corded Ware, R1a and the famous 2900 BC H&H date. However, there is a huge ancient DNA sampling gap between the German LBK samples (5000 BC) and the Bell Beaker samples (2600 BC). To put that time difference into perspective, that is the time difference between today and the Celtic sacking of Rome before Rome became an Empire! That R1b wasn't in central Europe in 3900 BC (Austrian Copper Age) and 3700 BC (NW Italian Copper Age) really does not make sense to me. And nobody attributes the inception of the Copper Age to Kurgans from the steppe. The copper smelted in Austria used ores from the Rudana Glava mine in the central Balkans. These could very well have been some of the earliest M269 folks as the central Balkans also have the highest remnants of M269(xL23).

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 24, 2012, 01:03:23 PM
... Kurgan folks may have introduced the horse into Eastern Europe, but they seem to have left very little of their Y-DNA legacy in Western Europe.

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

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

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

Why do you say the Steppes folks apparently left little Y DNA legacy in Western Europe? I don't know how we know one way or another without ancient DNA from those Kurgans.  What's the oldest Y DNA we have from the Steppes regions?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 24, 2012, 01:08:46 PM
Yes, ancient DNA so far fits neatly with the Kurgan hypothesis...but only for Corded Ware, R1a and the famous 2900 BC H&H date. However, there is a huge ancient DNA sampling gap between the German LBK samples (5000 BC) and the Bell Beaker samples (2600 BC). To put that time difference into perspective, that is the time difference between today and the Celtic sacking of Rome before Rome became an Empire! That R1b wasn't in central Europe in 3900 BC (Austrian Copper Age) and 3700 BC (NW Italian Copper Age) really does not make sense to me. And nobody attributes the inception of the Copper Age to Kurgans from the steppe. The copper smelted in Austria used ores from the Rudana Glava mine in the central Balkans. These could very well have been some of the earliest M269 folks as the central Balkans also have the highest remnants of M269(xL23).

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

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

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 24, 2012, 01:13:53 PM
... Kurgan folks may have introduced the horse into Eastern Europe, but they seem to have left very little of their Y-DNA legacy in Western Europe.

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

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

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


EDIT-it was K.Krell


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: rms2 on August 24, 2012, 01:21:49 PM
I am not taking a side, so don't get me wrong, but I think some of you are underplaying the strength of Renfrew's position. What makes it attractive - whether right or wrong - is that it is based on something big that actually happened in Europe all the way to the Atlantic: the Neolithic Revolution. We know that farming and animal husbandry spread through Europe and changed things mightily. We also know that somehow Europe became overwhelmingly Indo-European speaking. When you go through the archaeological record looking for something that had a big enough impact to change almost the entire linguistic landscape of Europe, it's hard not to think the Neolithic Revolution might have had something to do with it.

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

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

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 24, 2012, 01:34:43 PM
I am a lot less convinced that M269* and L23* was in the farming zone of SW Asia now.  it doesnt really take off until L23 with a rather long straight line behind it.  That IMO is hard to correlate with it being in Anatolia although I suppose everything depends on what its real date is.  Some corners of Anatolia were later than others in taking up farming. 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: rms2 on August 24, 2012, 01:40:24 PM
I just want to throw this out there for consumption and consideration: a number of scholars over the years have claimed to notice a resemblance between the "Dinaric" Beaker physical type and something similar in the highlands of eastern Anatolia and Armenia.

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 24, 2012, 01:43:06 PM
I am not taking a side, so don't get me wrong, but I think some of you are underplaying the strength of Renfrew's position. What makes it attractive - whether right or wrong - is that it is based on something big that actually happened in Europe all the way to the Atlantic: the Neolithic Revolution. We know that farming and animal husbandry spread through Europe and changed things mightily. We also know that somehow Europe became overwhelmingly Indo-European speaking. When you go through the archaeological record looking for something that had a big enough impact to change almost the entire linguistic landscape of Europe, it's hard not to think the Neolithic Revolution might have had something to do with it.

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

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

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

I certainly agree that the Kurgan theory does require all sorts of mental gymnastics to extend into much of Europe.  That is not to say it is wrong but its clearly not self evident.  Behavoural changes swept Europe in the copper age but there is no simply trail to show the human aspect at it.  H&H map of Kurgan influences falls massively short of anything convincing in the western half of Europe. I tend to be suspicious of anything that diverges so far from Occam's Razor and virtually all copper age explanations for the extension of IE languages into the western half of Europe do suffer from that IMO.  I say suspicious but I am not dismissing it.  Some things just are complex.  


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: razyn on August 24, 2012, 01:50:56 PM
Sometime this debate will get back to post-apocalyptic speculation; it's happened before (mainly with ice and floods).  I hope that "the world's on fire" type of apocalypse will get considered, now that we know about that 3123 BC asteroid.  About as many cultures have that sort of myth (Sodom and Gomorrah, Loki, or whatever) as have the Great Flood.  Some of the more northern ones mention that the flames were to the south, etc.

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: MHammers on August 24, 2012, 03:30:24 PM
I just want to throw this out there for consumption and consideration: a number of scholars over the years have claimed to notice a resemblance between the "Dinaric" Beaker physical type and something similar in the highlands of eastern Anatolia and Armenia.

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

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

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 24, 2012, 03:33:44 PM
I just want to throw this out there for consumption and consideration: a number of scholars over the years have claimed to notice a resemblance between the "Dinaric" Beaker physical type and something similar in the highlands of eastern Anatolia and Armenia.

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

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: MHammers on August 24, 2012, 04:27:41 PM
Here it is..
Reconstruction of the Bronze Age of the Caspian Steppes(Natalia Shishlina 2008)

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

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

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

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

Is it possible a very early form of PIE develops in Anatolia and arrives on the steppe via the Caucasus where the PIE vocabulary expands with the Anthony/Mallory model?  The only difference is proto-Anatolian splits off in Anatolia, before the rest of the proto-form is developed on the steppe.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 24, 2012, 07:22:41 PM
Dienekes hints at multiple waves entering Europe from the SE in the Neolithic.  This paper here indicates several very wide successive pottery horizons and suggests they either indicate movement or a large and sustained contact network that linked large areas of Asian Minor, SW Asia and SE Europe.  Either possibility is interesting in terms of languages.

http://ege.academia.edu/%C3%87iler%C3%87ilingiro%C4%9Flu/Papers/1003842/Neolithic_red_slipped_and_burnished_wares_Recognizing_their_widespread_distribution


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on August 24, 2012, 07:42:15 PM
This is what Menk says about Yamnaya and Bell Beaker skulls...

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: rms2 on August 24, 2012, 07:53:29 PM
Have you all listened to Atkinson's podcast (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6097/957/suppl/DC2)? It's brief but interesting.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: MHammers on August 24, 2012, 08:35:43 PM
This is what Menk says about Yamnaya and Bell Beaker skulls...

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

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

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: acekon on August 24, 2012, 08:38:21 PM
Similarities and differences,Indo-European Language Family;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pa7SPns8fQ


East to West

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

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

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

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

5]Isolated Aran Islands. figure 4-5-6
http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/troeplate29.htm


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 24, 2012, 11:18:29 PM
Here it is..
Reconstruction of the Bronze Age of the Caspian Steppes(Natalia Shishlina 2008)

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

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

.

I have to say that brachycephalic and protuberant nose anyway does sound rather beaker-like. 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 25, 2012, 12:06:25 AM
... Kurgan folks may have introduced the horse into Eastern Europe, but they seem to have left very little of their Y-DNA legacy in Western Europe.

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

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

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


EDIT-it was K.Krell

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

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

If I'm wrong, so be it, but I'd like to hear someone truly logically link Renfrew's hypothesis and explain the early Uralic influence and the hunter-gatherer base for IE languages. I don't care one way or another.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 25, 2012, 12:15:15 AM
... . We know that farming and animal husbandry spread through Europe and changed things mightily. We also know that somehow Europe became overwhelmingly Indo-European speaking. When you go through the archaeological record looking for something that had a big enough impact to change almost the entire linguistic landscape of Europe, it's hard not to think the Neolithic Revolution might have had something to do with it.

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

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

However, weight doesn't always equate to correctness.

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

LOL. This is just the Irish contrariannism rising up from me.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on August 25, 2012, 12:30:24 AM
I imagine Gioiello is right and they did something like what Gray and Atkinson did..

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

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

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

In this case, the authors are trying to mathematically model where IE came from even though the model doesn't know the array of ancient languages or their relative mobilities and prosperity. I have yet to read it but I have the suspicion the model is pretty ridiculous.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: rms2 on August 25, 2012, 12:43:29 AM
The difference here, from what I can tell from listening to Atkinson's podcast, is they used 14 different known, datable linguistic events to calibrate their work. Atkinson mentions one of them specifically: the development of Romance languages.

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on August 25, 2012, 12:44:05 AM
Interesting analysis on the NYTimes.

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

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

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

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

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





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

@rms2 np. I appreciate it.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: rms2 on August 25, 2012, 12:51:50 AM
This is what Menk says about Yamnaya and Bell Beaker skulls...

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

. . .
 If R1b does show up in Yamnaya aDNA, I think it would likely be from absorbed farmers rather than steppe mesolithic ancestry.
. . .

Why? Because we have already assumed who played what roles?

The subject class would not get buried in a kurgan. Kurgan burials were reserved for the elite.

If R1b does not show up in western steppe kurgans, then I don't buy the PC steppe theory at all, because R1a did not spread IE all the way to the Atlantic, and I don't find the PIE extended domino theory compelling.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: rms2 on August 25, 2012, 01:06:22 AM
... . We know that farming and animal husbandry spread through Europe and changed things mightily. We also know that somehow Europe became overwhelmingly Indo-European speaking. When you go through the archaeological record looking for something that had a big enough impact to change almost the entire linguistic landscape of Europe, it's hard not to think the Neolithic Revolution might have had something to do with it.

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

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

However, weight doesn't always equate to correctness.

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

LOL. This is just the Irish contrariannism rising up from me.

As I mentioned a couple of posts back, this time they used 14 known, datable linguistic events to calibrate their work, and they tried alternatives. All of them pointed to Anatolia.

I'm not competent to judge their work . . . or anyone else's for that matter.

But remember that the Kurgan Theory has a certain appeal of its own: the warlike,  mounted steppe heroes swooping down on the poor, pedestrian farmers, as the latter babbled their inelegant, non-IE gibberish.

It's certainly more romantic than the idea that PIE was spread by Anatolian farmers trudging into Europe with plows and cows.

I don't know which idea is right.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on August 25, 2012, 03:11:13 AM
This has been written on “Dienekes’ Anthropology blog” by someone who has a better knowledge of English than me, but the ideas are the same, only I used more sarcasm as usual:

The map shown in the blog post here, and the podcast timeline evolving map both suffer from the defect of being ahistorical.
For example, neither indicates any presence if Celtic languages in Iberia or Gaul, which in fact, the Celtic languages of the British Isles are very likely derivatives of earlier Celtic language populations in Iberia and Gaul.
The map shows Tocharian languages in places where they were spoken from ca. 2000 BCE to 600 CE, but where they didn't even exist when the Romance languages were born from Latin.
Likewise, the podcast video map series fails to reflect the fact that while the Balkan languages may be relatively old, that Slavic language expansion mostly occurred in the middle of the first Millennium C.E.
The podcast video map seems to have the known direction of Indo-Iranian language expansion backward - West to East across Iran, rather than the other way around.
One of the whole points of using Bayesian statistical methods over Frequentist statistical approaches is to give weight to what you already know. We know quite a bit. We have fairly decent dates, source locations and paths of expansion for a variety of archaeological cultures. We know that languages change at a much more rapid pace at moments of language differentiation and language contact (e.g. via substrate influences and elements of creolization) than they do in "midlife" when they are in isolation. We have fairly good dates for moments like (1) the transition from Minoan (non-IE) to Mycenaean (IE) Greek in Crete, (2)decent dates for a similar earlier transition in mainland Greece, (3) the date of the Hattic (non-IE)-Hittite (IE) transition in Anatolia and more generally the dates of Hittite expansion, (4) the appearance of an Indo-Aryan Mittani dialect in far eastern Anatolia, (5) the presence and general location of group of non-IE Kassites east of Mespotamia, (6) the times and places where non-IE Sumerian and Akkadian and all subsequent Mesopotamian languages were spoken, (7) the time and places where Tocharian was spoken and the plausible possible origins of those peoples, and (8) the dates when Celtic cultures appear in various places. There is good reason to think that the pre-Bronze Age IE world was very small - regardless of where within that world the actual urheimat was located - large swaths of Europe and South Asia and Iran had never encountered an IE language at that point, and quite a bit of IE expansion in Western Europe was an Iron Age phenomena.
The study's methods seem to implicitly assume a slow gradualist diffusion model when the reality was probably much more dramatic and punctuated. The archaeological record shows long periods of continuity interrupted by disruption followed by rapid expansion of new cultures often lots of places at once.
There are also points we don't know and have to guess on, with some guesses being more certain than others. We don't have any direct evidence of the linguistic affiliations of Megalithic, Corded Ware, Urnfield, BMAC or Bell Beaker archaeological cultures - although we do have when information about the when, where and to some extent, the from whence of these cultures. We don't know to what extent relatively new IE language families (e.g. Romance and Slavic) replaced IE v. non-IE predecessors in particular places and that is particularly difficult to discern in Anatolia. A useful model would focus on assigning linguistic affiliation probabilities to particular archaeological cultures on the theory that an archaelogical culture is likely to share a linguistic family affinity. Usually, there are just two or three plausible first IE language in the region candidates in any given place, and often one or two of them are far more likely than any other.
Bottom line: this is a crude toy model not a serious effort to really get at the truth using all available data. Saturday, August 25, 2012 3:10:00 AM




Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on August 25, 2012, 09:00:09 AM
Maliclavelli,

Thanks for posting this. These are exactly my concerns with the paper, but he/she has articulated them in a clear fashion. Regarding the Renfrew / Mallory debate, we are fortunate to have two giants in the field working on this problem. I do not confess to understand all the methodology or the science of linguistics used in the the study but welcome any new tools or approaches to help clarify this mighty question. My own slight preference is for the Anatolian model, perhaps due to the M269 hotspots found by Myres although I don't agree with Myres age estimates.  For sure we need more aDNA from Anatolia, The Steppes and the Balkens. I hope the B.E.A.N (Bridging the European and Anatolian Neolithic) project and will provide this.

https://sites.google.com/site/beanresearchnetwork/


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on August 25, 2012, 09:12:02 AM
Maliclavelli,
Thanks for posting this. These are exactly my concerns with the paper, but he/she has articulated them in a clear fashion.

This is the author: Andrew Oh-Willeke



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on August 25, 2012, 09:22:17 AM

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

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


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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on August 25, 2012, 09:35:55 AM

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

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


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

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



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on August 25, 2012, 09:42:56 AM
This has been written on “Dienekes’ Anthropology blog” by someone who has a better knowledge of English than me, but the ideas are the same, only I used more sarcasm as usual:

The map shown in the blog post here, and the podcast timeline evolving map both suffer from the defect of being ahistorical.
For example, neither indicates any presence if Celtic languages in Iberia or Gaul, which in fact, the Celtic languages of the British Isles are very likely derivatives of earlier Celtic language populations in Iberia and Gaul....

...Bottom line: this is a crude toy model not a serious effort to really get at the truth using all available data. Saturday, August 25, 2012 3:10:00 AM


So this guy bashed the paper based on a video and a sound clip? Obviously he didn't read the supplementary data. For someone to come up with a "Bottom Line" statement without taking the data, running it through on their own and then pointing out the flaws in the model less two days after the study came out is grossly premature.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on August 25, 2012, 09:45:55 AM

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


True, and my only point is that a mathematical formula applies logic for all to see. A linguist's 'gut feel' on what linguistic characteristics are/are not important are immeasurable.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 25, 2012, 10:01:11 AM
... Kurgan folks may have introduced the horse into Eastern Europe, but they seem to have left very little of their Y-DNA legacy in Western Europe.

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

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

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


EDIT-it was K.Krell

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

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

If I'm wrong, so be it, but I'd like to hear someone truly logically link Renfrew's hypothesis and explain the early Uralic influence and the hunter-gatherer base for IE languages. I don't care one way or another.


The paper is
Krell, Kathrin S. 1998. “Gimbutas’ Kurgan-PIE Homeland Hypothesis: A Linguistic Critique”. In Roger Blench and Mathew Spriggs (eds.) Archaeology and Language, II:267-289. London: Routledge.

Cant see a free copy online.  All I found were some quotes:

According to Krell (1998), Gimbutas' homeland theory is completely incompatible with the linguistic evidence. Krell compiles lists of items of flora, fauna, economy, and technology that archaeology has accounted for in the Kurgan culture and compares it with lists of the same categories as reconstructed by traditional historical-Indo-European linguistics. Krell finds major discrepancies between the two, and underlines the fact that we cannot presume that the reconstructed term for 'horse', for example, referred to the domesticated equid in the protoperiod just because it did in later times. It could originally have referred to a wild equid, a possibility that would "undermine the mainstay of Gimbutas's arguments that the Kurgan culture first domesticated the horse and used this new technology to spread to surrounding areas,"
 
And
 
"Kathrin Krell (1998) finds that the terms found in the reconstructed Indo-European language are not compatible with the cultural level of the Kurgans. Krell holds that the Indo-Europeans had agriculture whereas the Kurgan people were "just at a pastoral stage" and hence might not have had sedentary agricultural terms in their language, despite the fact that such terms are part of a Proto-Indo-European core vocabulary.
 Krell (1998), "Gimbutas' Kurgans-PIE homeland hypothesis: a linguistic critique", points out that the Proto-Indo-European had an agricultural vocabulary and not merely a pastoral one. As for technology, there are plausible reconstructions suggesting knowledge of navigation, a technology quite atypical of Gimbutas' Kurgan society. Krell concludes that Gimbutas seems to first establish a Kurgan hypothesis, based on purely archaeological observations, and then proceeds to create a picture of the PIE homeland and subsequent dispersal which fits neatly over her archaeological findings. The problem is that in order to do this, she has had to be rather selective in her use of linguistic data, as well as in her interpretation of that data."
 
Second, like Krell hinted at, if you are a nomadic horseman how do you sustain civilization? You can't, unless you fully assimilate into native populations like how populations from Central Asia like Turks or Huns assimilated among the natives. The cultural links between these populations and Central Asians, today, are minuscule. Within a 1000 year period you have Turks and Huns fully assimilated into native populations. The only remnant is the language and notice, this is not the same as the IE expansion. I purposely highlight this example to show people like yourself that the Kurgen hypothesis if compared to later and more clear immigration patterns that are nomadic, clearly, the cultural legacy would not sustain a 6000 year excursion, as the original Turkic populations that penetrated into Anatolia are remotely related to populations in Central Asia, both genetically, culturally, and linguistically.


Clearly not having read it I cant comment.  However, there is always wriggle roon in the linguistic reconstruction approach.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 25, 2012, 10:20:42 AM
Dienekes hints at multiple waves entering Europe from the SE in the Neolithic.  This paper here indicates several very wide successive pottery horizons and suggests they either indicate movement or a large and sustained contact network that linked large areas of Asian Minor, SW Asia and SE Europe.  Either possibility is interesting in terms of languages.

http://ege.academia.edu/%C3%87iler%C3%87ilingiro%C4%9Flu/Papers/1003842/Neolithic_red_slipped_and_burnished_wares_Recognizing_their_widespread_distribution

Just to expand of this, the thrust of the pottery paper is that time and time again vast swathes of Asia Minor, SE Europe and parts of SW Asia changed in parallel in terms of pottery.  That at least suggests some mobility and interaction across this vast area.  It kind of suggests to me the possibility of a common linguistic zone in the Neolithic covering this area.  What the language was of course is unclear.  One thing that I find interesting is that it has been suggested by some scholars that the substrate in Greece and adjacent is an Anatolian language, not a pre-IE one.  I just wonder if this zone of interaction was the site of the development of Anatolian in the Neolithic.   If it is, then proto-IE could have developed from elements of this group located on its northern edge in contact with steppes groups.  It also suggests a large homeland zone rather than a compact one and also the possible fluidity of contact.  Its a bit obscure but there are other papers that suggest that places like Anatolia, the west of the Black Sea and the Crimea were interacting too in the Neolithic and copper age.  That suggests the possibility of a model that is intermediate between the first farmers idea and the Kurgan model with an early Anatolian and SE European zone of Anatolian languages and a secondary zone at the steppes-farming interface where PIE could have evolved and then spread in the copper age.  I personally dont find any of the linguistic arguements clinching and still feel its an open question. 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on August 25, 2012, 10:45:19 AM
This has been written on “Dienekes’ Anthropology blog” by someone who has a better knowledge of English than me, but the ideas are the same, only I used more sarcasm as usual:

The map shown in the blog post here, and the podcast timeline evolving map both suffer from the defect of being ahistorical.
For example, neither indicates any presence if Celtic languages in Iberia or Gaul, which in fact, the Celtic languages of the British Isles are very likely derivatives of earlier Celtic language populations in Iberia and Gaul....

...Bottom line: this is a crude toy model not a serious effort to really get at the truth using all available data. Saturday, August 25, 2012 3:10:00 AM


So this guy bashed the paper based on a video and a sound clip? Obviously he didn't read the supplementary data. For someone to come up with a "Bottom Line" statement without taking the data, running it through on their own and then pointing out the flaws in the model less two days after the study came out is grossly premature.

 Václav Hrdonka said...
I totally agree with Andrew Oh-Willeke. The map of languages is at least controversial, the tree as well. If we will summarize what we know:

Before 20th century BC - no traces of IE language in Anatolia or around.
20th century BC - the first traces of Hittite language started to appear in old Assyrian from 20th century BC, they highly probably came to Anatolia from outside.
18th century - Old Hittite language with non-IE substratun appears in Anatolia
15th century - Mittani came from the east the northern Mesopotamia
15th century - First record of Mycenaean Greek - I think we are pretty sure, they did not come from Anatolia
We can make a conclusion that the IE languages did not originated in Anatolia
Saturday, August 25, 2012 10:08:00 AM
There were few languages before Hittite in Anatolia and they were not IE (Hattians, Hurrians, Assyrian...). The reason why I think, IE does not originate in Anatolia is that there are no IE languages in the area very close to or even within Anatolia long time after hypothetical split of them. If the IE languages would originated in Anatolia before 8000 year, I guess, there should be some IE words in the records of northern Mesopotamia before 2000 BC, but there are none.
Saturday, August 25, 2012 1:52:00 PM

   
And Gray and Atkinson profess themselves as professional linguists!


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: rms2 on August 25, 2012, 10:50:34 AM
This has been written on “Dienekes’ Anthropology blog” by someone who has a better knowledge of English than me, but the ideas are the same, only I used more sarcasm as usual:

The map shown in the blog post here, and the podcast timeline evolving map both suffer from the defect of being ahistorical.
For example, neither indicates any presence if Celtic languages in Iberia or Gaul, which in fact, the Celtic languages of the British Isles are very likely derivatives of earlier Celtic language populations in Iberia and Gaul....

...Bottom line: this is a crude toy model not a serious effort to really get at the truth using all available data. Saturday, August 25, 2012 3:10:00 AM


So this guy bashed the paper based on a video and a sound clip? Obviously he didn't read the supplementary data. For someone to come up with a "Bottom Line" statement without taking the data, running it through on their own and then pointing out the flaws in the model less two days after the study came out is grossly premature.

I used to read the comments at Dienekes' blog. I don't so much anymore for those sorts of reasons. It's nearly a complete waste of time.



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on August 25, 2012, 11:00:49 AM

 Václav Hrdonka said...
I totally agree with Andrew Oh-Willeke. The map of languages is at least controversial, the tree as well. If we will summarize what we know:

Before 20th century BC - no traces of IE language in Anatolia or around.
20th century BC - the first traces of Hittite language started to appear in old Assyrian from 20th century BC, they highly probably came to Anatolia from outside.
18th century - Old Hittite language with non-IE substratun appears in Anatolia
15th century - Mittani came from the east the northern Mesopotamia
15th century - First record of Mycenaean Greek - I think we are pretty sure, they did not come from Anatolia
We can make a conclusion that the IE languages did not originated in Anatolia
Saturday, August 25, 2012 10:08:00 AM
There were few languages before Hittite in Anatolia and they were not IE (Hattians, Hurrians, Assyrian...). The reason why I think, IE does not originate in Anatolia is that there are no IE languages in the area very close to or even within Anatolia long time after hypothetical split of them. If the IE languages would originated in Anatolia before 8000 year, I guess, there should be some IE words in the records of northern Mesopotamia before 2000 BC, but there are none.
Saturday, August 25, 2012 1:52:00 PM

   
And Gray and Atkinson profess themselves as professional linguists!

How valid of an argument is this? It's like saying that Italic or Celtic didn't exist before 700 BC because there is no written evidence.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: rms2 on August 25, 2012, 11:04:07 AM
This has been written on “Dienekes’ Anthropology blog” by someone who has a better knowledge of English than me, but the ideas are the same, only I used more sarcasm as usual:

The map shown in the blog post here, and the podcast timeline evolving map both suffer from the defect of being ahistorical.
For example, neither indicates any presence if Celtic languages in Iberia or Gaul, which in fact, the Celtic languages of the British Isles are very likely derivatives of earlier Celtic language populations in Iberia and Gaul....

...Bottom line: this is a crude toy model not a serious effort to really get at the truth using all available data. Saturday, August 25, 2012 3:10:00 AM


So this guy bashed the paper based on a video and a sound clip? Obviously he didn't read the supplementary data. For someone to come up with a "Bottom Line" statement without taking the data, running it through on their own and then pointing out the flaws in the model less two days after the study came out is grossly premature.

 Václav Hrdonka said...
I totally agree with Andrew Oh-Willeke. The map of languages is at least controversial, the tree as well. If we will summarize what we know:

Before 20th century BC - no traces of IE language in Anatolia or around.
20th century BC - the first traces of Hittite language started to appear in old Assyrian from 20th century BC, they highly probably came to Anatolia from outside.
18th century - Old Hittite language with non-IE substratun appears in Anatolia
15th century - Mittani came from the east the northern Mesopotamia
15th century - First record of Mycenaean Greek - I think we are pretty sure, they did not come from Anatolia
We can make a conclusion that the IE languages did not originated in Anatolia
Saturday, August 25, 2012 10:08:00 AM
There were few languages before Hittite in Anatolia and they were not IE (Hattians, Hurrians, Assyrian...). The reason why I think, IE does not originate in Anatolia is that there are no IE languages in the area very close to or even within Anatolia long time after hypothetical split of them. If the IE languages would originated in Anatolia before 8000 year, I guess, there should be some IE words in the records of northern Mesopotamia before 2000 BC, but there are none.
Saturday, August 25, 2012 1:52:00 PM

   
And Gray and Atkinson profess themselves as professional linguists!

Atkinson said, as I have mentioned here twice already, that this time they used to 14 known, datable linguistic events to calibrate their work. They tried alternatives to eliminate possible bias, but everything they did pointed to Anatolia.

I don't know whether or not they are right, but there are a few obvious reasons why Hrdonka is wrong or at least has not taken everything into consideration.

Anthony himself, in his book, The Horse The Wheel and Language, points out that the Anatolian branch of IE is uniquely archaic. I will go into more detail if it becomes necessary (and it probably will), but he supposes Anatolian must have left the steppe Urheimat very early, and that explains its unique position in the IE hierarchy. That only makes sense if one begins by assuming a PC steppe homeland for PIE, which forces one to derive all IE branches from there. It could be that the Anatolian branch is uniquely archaic because it was born in the uniquely archaic birthplace of IE itself and stayed there.

Then you have Whitaker's The Case for Euphratic, which, naturally, the internet kurgatrons have to dismiss out of hand as beneath consideration (an approach similar to the one they are taking with this paper).

I know it sounds like I am arguing for an Anatolian origin, but, actually, I'm not. I don't know who is right. What I am arguing for is some healthy respect for this work and at least some careful consideration of an alternative to the PC steppe.



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on August 25, 2012, 11:21:40 AM
To Richard Rocca I’d say that Hrdonka has expressed what who has chewed a little of glottology knows from his first steps:

Before 20th century BC - no traces of IE language in Anatolia or around.
20th century BC - the first traces of Hittite language started to appear in old Assyrian from 20th century BC, they highly probably came to Anatolia from outside.
18th century - Old Hittite language with non-IE substratun appears in Anatolia
15th century - Mittani came from the east the northern Mesopotamia
15th century - First record of Mycenaean Greek - I think we are pretty sure, they did not come from Anatolia
We can make a conclusion that the IE languages did not originated in Anatolia
There were few languages before Hittite in Anatolia and they were not IE (Hattians, Hurrians, Assyrian...). The reason why I think, IE does not originate in Anatolia is that there are no IE languages in the area very close to or even within Anatolia long time after hypothetical split of them. If the IE languages would originated in Anatolia before 8000 year, I guess, there should be some IE words in the records of northern Mesopotamia before 2000 BC, but there are none”.

Then not the lack of written witnesses, but something deeper, as linguists usually do: Hittite language wasn’t born in Anatolia, but detached from the main IE languages first. My idea is that those languages were at that time in the Balkans (but you know that my idea is that before they were in Italy or around it).

To Richard Stevens I’d want to remember that I wrote a lot about Euphratic and I carried many observations about its link with Latin more than other IE languages.
If you read also my posts about mtDNA perhaps you know that many mtDNA haplogroups expanded from Italy between LGM and Younger Dryas, then may have expanded also hg. R1b1 and IE languages.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on August 25, 2012, 11:29:13 AM
If Gray and Atkinson went to Pisa University or to Scuola Nomale Superiore where illustrious linguists like Tristano Bolelli, Romano Lazzeroni, Emilio Peruzzi and numerous others of the same level taught, they will be thrown out at the first answer.



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: rms2 on August 25, 2012, 11:29:43 AM
To Richard Rocca I’d say that Hrdonka has expressed what who has chewed a little of glottology knows from his first steps:

Before 20th century BC - no traces of IE language in Anatolia or around.
20th century BC - the first traces of Hittite language started to appear in old Assyrian from 20th century BC, they highly probably came to Anatolia from outside.
. . .


That's the unknown Hrdonka's argument, so I don't mind characterizing it as silly.

Why should we think Hittite was the first language in the Anatolian branch or that it did not appear until the Assyrians made trading contacts with the Hittites and began writing about them?

Laughable.



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: rms2 on August 25, 2012, 11:50:48 AM
To Richard Rocca I’d say that Hrdonka has expressed what who has chewed a little of glottology knows from his first steps:

Before 20th century BC - no traces of IE language in Anatolia or around.
20th century BC - the first traces of Hittite language started to appear in old Assyrian from 20th century BC, they highly probably came to Anatolia from outside.
. . .


That's the unknown Hrdonka's argument, so I don't mind characterizing it as silly.

Why should we think Hittite was the first language in the Anatolian branch or that it did not appear until the Assyrians made trading contacts with the Hittites and began writing about them?

Laughable.



By the way, if we were to apply Hrdonka's standard of documentary evidence everywhere, how would the PC steppe or anywhere in Europe stack up?

I think we all know the answer.



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on August 25, 2012, 11:54:33 AM
Rich (Stevens), speak about what you know and not about what you don’t know. Hittite is an archaic form of IE because, amongst many other characteristics, maintains a trace of the laryngeals, theorized firstly by the great Swiss linguist Ferdinand De Saussure (Mémoire sur les voyelles), written at 20 years old. Another IE language which gets a trace of them is Albanian, spoken in the Balkans and not in Anatolia. To be an archaic form of IE doesn’t mean to be Anatolian.



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: rms2 on August 25, 2012, 12:05:33 PM
Rich (Stevens), speak about what you know and not about what you don’t know. Hittite is an archaic form of IE because, amongst many other characteristics, maintains a trace of the laryngeals, theorized firstly by the great Swiss linguist Ferdinand De Saussure (Mémoire sur les voyelles), written at 20 years old. Another IE language which gets a trace of them is Albanian, spoken in the Balkans and not in Anatolia. To be an archaic form of IE doesn’t mean to be Anatolian.



Gioiello,

Avoid using my complete name, please. Use "rms2" if you want to distinguish between me and any other Rich or Richard here. Thanks.

Second, I am speaking about what I know from my own reading on the subject, and there is more to the archaic nature of Anatolian than what you described above, at least according to what I have read. When I have time (which is not right now), I will (once again) write about some of those things.

Third, no one here, including you, is either a noted linguist or a geneticist. Alan is actually an archaeologist, so we do have one of those. We all give our opinions based on our readings and interpretations of what those who are better qualified have written.

Fourth, who else in the entire world has proposed that Italy is not only the ultimate source of all the R1b in Europe but also of the Indo-European languages? Is Italy even a candidate for the consensus pick as IE Urheimat? I don't think so.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on August 25, 2012, 12:15:16 PM
To Richard Rocca I’d say that Hrdonka has expressed what who has chewed a little of glottology knows from his first steps:

Before 20th century BC - no traces of IE language in Anatolia or around.
20th century BC - the first traces of Hittite language started to appear in old Assyrian from 20th century BC, they highly probably came to Anatolia from outside.
18th century - Old Hittite language with non-IE substratun appears in Anatolia
15th century - Mittani came from the east the northern Mesopotamia
15th century - First record of Mycenaean Greek - I think we are pretty sure, they did not come from Anatolia
We can make a conclusion that the IE languages did not originated in Anatolia
There were few languages before Hittite in Anatolia and they were not IE (Hattians, Hurrians, Assyrian...). The reason why I think, IE does not originate in Anatolia is that there are no IE languages in the area very close to or even within Anatolia long time after hypothetical split of them. If the IE languages would originated in Anatolia before 8000 year, I guess, there should be some IE words in the records of northern Mesopotamia before 2000 BC, but there are none”.

Then not the lack of written witnesses, but something deeper, as linguists usually do: Hittite language wasn’t born in Anatolia, but detached from the main IE languages first. My idea is that those languages were at that time in the Balkans (but you know that my idea is that before they were in Italy or around it).

To Richard Stevens I’d want to remember that I wrote a lot about Euphratic and I carried many observations about its link with Latin more than other IE languages.
If you read also my posts about mtDNA perhaps you know that many mtDNA haplogroups expanded from Italy between LGM and Younger Dryas, then may have expanded also hg. R1b1 and IE languages.


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

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Herakles/bull.html

http://www.kunstkopie.de/a/mycenaean-1/bullc1400-1100bcterracott.html

http://www.amazon.de/Europe-Between-Oceans-9000-BC-Ad/dp/0300170866



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: rms2 on August 25, 2012, 12:16:02 PM
By the way, I already knew about de Saussure and his work.

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

Is there any worse topic?

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



 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 25, 2012, 12:28:39 PM
My understanding is that the first Neolithic expansion out of Anatolia was to Crete and eventually led to the Mycean and Minoan cultures. I don't know which language they spoke. However we do know of their veneration of the bull. Have a look at the Mycean bull figurines and notice the similarity of later Iberian and Gaelic Celtic depictions of the same, For example in the Tain Bo Cuailnge.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Herakles/bull.html

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

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

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on August 25, 2012, 12:33:42 PM
Fourth, who else in the entire world has proposed that Italy is not only the ultimate source of all the R1b in Europe but also of the Indo-European languages? Is Italy even a candidate for the consensus pick as IE Urheimat? I don't think so.
Yes, this theory is mine. I have expressed it during these last years. About our studies I am a teacher, then I got my "laurea", I wrote books of poetry and critics, but I studied glottology too, I had like teachers Emilio Peruzzi, Romano Lazzeroni, Tristano Bolelli. Perhaps I did too many things in my life, because beside this I cultivated also what an Italian (Calabrian/Sicilian) comic calls "lu pilu". About one thing I regret: to not having published a paper I presented to Romanno Lazzeroni more than 30 years ago where I demonstrated a link between IE *sweks and Chinese "liu". There were all the theories about the Nostratic languages that were theorized then by Russian linguists, above all Illych Svitich.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: rms2 on August 25, 2012, 12:35:05 PM
My understanding is that the first Neolithic expansion out of Anatolia was to Crete and eventually led to the Mycean and Minoan cultures. I don't know which language they spoke. However we do know of their veneration of the bull. Have a look at the Mycean bull figurines and notice the similarity of later Iberian and Gaelic Celtic depictions of the same, For example in the Tain Bo Cuailnge.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Herakles/bull.html

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 25, 2012, 12:42:09 PM

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

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 25, 2012, 12:44:48 PM
I don't think Linear A, the writing of the Minoans, has ever yet been deciphered,

Correct.

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

I doubt that. Some pre-IE language of Anatolia I dare say.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: rms2 on August 25, 2012, 12:47:08 PM
Maybe. I wasn't saying I think Linear A was Semitic, just that some scholars have proposed that it was.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on August 25, 2012, 12:48:36 PM
I don't think Linear A, the writing of the Minoans, has ever yet been deciphered, but some scholars have theorized that it was some form of Semitic. Linear B, which followed it, was Mycenaean Greek.
There is another theory: that some semitic words were a religious language like Sumer for Akkadians or Latin in Middle Ages, but the language and the people hadn't anything to do with Semites, but were Asianic ones. Someone links it to the Sea Peoples, and I remember to you all (also here against almost all) that some of them were Italians: Etruscans, Sicels, Sardinians. Read the last news about the ship with ossidian found at Capri: at least 5000 YBP!


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on August 25, 2012, 01:06:10 PM
My understanding is that the first Neolithic expansion out of Anatolia was to Crete and eventually led to the Mycean and Minoan cultures. I don't know which language they spoke. However we do know of their veneration of the bull. Have a look at the Mycean bull figurines and notice the similarity of later Iberian and Gaelic Celtic depictions of the same, For example in the Tain Bo Cuailnge.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Herakles/bull.html

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

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

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

Mike,

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

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

Myres et Al.

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




Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on August 25, 2012, 01:12:31 PM
Rich (Stevens), speak about what you know and not about what you don’t know. Hittite is an archaic form of IE because, amongst many other characteristics, maintains a trace of the laryngeals, theorized firstly by the great Swiss linguist Ferdinand De Saussure (Mémoire sur les voyelles), written at 20 years old. Another IE language which gets a trace of them is Albanian, spoken in the Balkans and not in Anatolia. To be an archaic form of IE doesn’t mean to be Anatolian.

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on August 25, 2012, 01:45:52 PM
Rich (Stevens), speak about what you know and not about what you don’t know. Hittite is an archaic form of IE because, amongst many other characteristics, maintains a trace of the laryngeals, theorized firstly by the great Swiss linguist Ferdinand De Saussure (Mémoire sur les voyelles), written at 20 years old. Another IE language which gets a trace of them is Albanian, spoken in the Balkans and not in Anatolia. To be an archaic form of IE doesn’t mean to be Anatolian.

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

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

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

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





Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on August 25, 2012, 02:05:36 PM
As you know, the Bosphorus is probably the great dividing line between M269(xL23) and L23(xL51). Whether the original PIE area (for R1b) is slightly to the east (Anatolia) or slightly to the west (Albania), the point is that they are both are a long way from the Steppe.

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

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on August 25, 2012, 02:46:27 PM
Apparently, the follow is an important published critique of the study. But you do need access.

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 25, 2012, 03:34:51 PM
Science is one online journal to which I don't have access. That's why R.R. had to send me the paper.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 25, 2012, 04:12:43 PM
Apparently, the follow is an important published critique of the study. But you do need access.

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 25, 2012, 04:22:06 PM
I believe the first Neolithic expansion out of Anatolia was to Crete

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 25, 2012, 04:45:11 PM
The difference here, from what I can tell from listening to Atkinson's podcast, is they used 14 different known, datable linguistic events to calibrate their work. Atkinson mentions one of them specifically: the development of Romance languages.

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

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

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on August 25, 2012, 04:47:20 PM
I believe the first Neolithic expansion out of Anatolia was to Crete

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


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

Early Villages
Shillourokambos

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

http://www.mnh.si.edu/exhibits/cyprus/neolithic.html


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 25, 2012, 04:47:31 PM
By the way, I already knew about de Saussure and his work.

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

Is there any worse topic?

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



 

I know what you mean.  I feel its one of the worst subjects for people to become so partizan to one model.  Should be a rule that you are only allowed to enter IE threads when you have had at least 2 beers, chilled out and are in a mellow mood (unless of course beer has the opposite effect  :0).  


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 25, 2012, 04:50:59 PM
I don't want to distract Jean M from her work,

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 25, 2012, 04:56:57 PM
Thanks Jean. I meant the first Neolithic expansion out of Anatolia.
It is not clear to me if the original settlers in Cyprus were Neolithic farmers or hunter gatherers.

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 25, 2012, 05:12:20 PM
I would think that the very early move into Europe along the east Med. (possibly from the Levant) could be ruled out as IE.  However, the paper I posted does show later phases in the 7th and 6th of flow/contact that linked Anatolia (and adjacent areas of SW Asia) and the SE Europe.  On top of that pottery evidence there is of course other factors including the spread of cattle dairying which has been discussed on these forums a fair bit.  So, I dont think we any longer need to see this in the two extremes of first farmers vs Kurgan.  There is a period in between that is of considerable interest to the history of languages. 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on August 25, 2012, 05:36:13 PM
Thanks Jean. I meant the first Neolithic expansion out of Anatolia.
It is not clear to me if the original settlers in Cyprus were Neolithic farmers or hunter gatherers.

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

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 25, 2012, 05:38:24 PM
My understanding is that the first Neolithic expansion out of Anatolia was to Crete and eventually led to the Mycean and Minoan cultures. I don't know which language they spoke. However we do know of their veneration of the bull. Have a look at the Mycean bull figurines and notice the similarity of later Iberian and Gaelic Celtic depictions of the same, For example in the Tain Bo Cuailnge.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Herakles/bull.html

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

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 25, 2012, 05:52:47 PM
I'm not sure what you meant by "settled", but in Sicily AMH have been around since at least the Upper Paleolithic.

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 25, 2012, 06:06:04 PM
If I was a betting man, based on all I have read about Linear A, I have a feeling it will turn out to be IE.

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 25, 2012, 06:12:25 PM
Exactly! I don't like this plead to numbers as if it were somehow inherently better, or more appropriate, than plain old analytic thinking.

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

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 25, 2012, 06:15:42 PM
I'm not sure what you meant by "settled", but in Sicily AMH have been around since at least the Upper Paleolithic.

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 25, 2012, 06:20:38 PM
... Kurgan folks may have introduced the horse into Eastern Europe, but they seem to have left very little of their Y-DNA legacy in Western Europe.

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

Why do you say the Steppes folks apparently left little Y DNA legacy in Western Europe? I don't know how we know one way or another without ancient DNA from those Kurgans.  What's the oldest Y DNA we have from the Steppes regions?

I didn't follow your response on this? Are you saying the skull types of the Steppes should be more prevalent in Western Europe?

I'm fine with the concept that R1b wasn't in the Steppes during the PIE timeframe, but I don't know and I'm open to that possibility. It solves some riddles if it was true. Do you have something that shows R1b couldn't have been any where in the Steppes during the PIE timeframe?  If R1b was in the Caucasus back then, that's pretty close, which is why I'm open to the idea.

Tripolye is close for that matter.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 25, 2012, 06:23:42 PM
I'm not sure what you meant by "settled", but in Sicily AMH have been around since at least the Upper Paleolithic.

What do you mean by AMH?  

Anatomically Modern Humans.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jarman on August 25, 2012, 07:17:32 PM
I'm not sure what you meant by "settled", but in Sicily AMH have been around since at least the Upper Paleolithic.

What do you mean by AMH?  Atlantic Modal Haplotype?  Are you talking about R1b-P312 in Sicily?
Anatomically Modern Humans - I wish people would stop abreviating this (or just not use it at all) as it causes too much confusion!


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on August 25, 2012, 07:52:46 PM
Quote from: alan trowel hands.
I am in no position to critique it though being a mathematical model.

No worries, it looks like that's most of us ; )

I briefly skimmed through the paper and I can see the method is beyond me. What I can discern is that the model is complex and it requires the input of many rates, which are assumed! More assumptions should lead to a greater margin of error. However, I can also see that the validity of assumptions are tested (in ways I don't understand)... Complicated for sure!

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

I have read somewhere that the same two people behind this paper had previously published a similar paper that did not assume a constant rate of evolution of language (I vaguely recall) because they incorporated historical data, which involved punctuated jumps in evolution, in the model. My reaction is that it's still a limited set and the many other punctuations can't possibly be accounted for. Unpredictable, right?

Anyways, if you have time read the comments from people who have a better grasp on the subject here,

 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4142#comment-237029

I'll add that the more obvious flaw in applying the method designed for bio evolution to language evolution is the huge excess of lateral transfer in the latter. I heard that the method assumes zero lateral transfer!!!



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 25, 2012, 07:59:06 PM
If I was a betting man, based on all I have read about Linear A, I have a feeling it will turn out to be IE.

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

Really just a feeling I get looking through the various bits they have cracked.  Could be wrong.  Yes I suppose the Anatolian idea did tempt me a bit.  There has been a fair bit of too and fro about an Anatolian substrate beyond Anatolia but not a lot of agreement.  A very recent paper was against the notion.  However, the evidence is clearly wafer thin either way.  I am not sure what an Anatolian substrate beyond Anatolia would do for any of the current IE theories.  It could probably be used by either side of the divide.  


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on August 25, 2012, 08:35:27 PM
Quote from: Mikewww

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

Why do you say the Steppes folks apparently left little Y DNA legacy in Western Europe? I don't know how we know one way or another without ancient DNA from those Kurgans.  What's the oldest Y DNA we have from the Steppes regions?

I didn't follow your response on this? Are you saying the skull types of the Steppes should be more prevalent in Western Europe?

I'm fine with the concept that R1b wasn't in the Steppes during the PIE timeframe, but I don't know and I'm open to that possibility. It solves some riddles if it was true. Do you have something that shows R1b couldn't have been any where in the Steppes during the PIE timeframe?  If R1b was in the Caucasus back then, that's pretty close, which is why I'm open to the idea.

Tripolye is close for that matter.

Let me start by saying that I didn't say I had 100% proof of anything and that's why I carefully sprinkle in words like "seem". The day we know 100% what really happened, these types of forums will become very boring.

Now on to your questions...ancient DNA samples from the steppe Adronovo Culture (1800 BC) were mostly R1a1 with one lone C sample. Given the huge disparity in Ukrainian R1a (43%) and R1b (4%), It seems highly unlikely that a minority R1b Yamnaya people left and a majority R1a Yamnaya stayed behind. In fact, I2 (21%), E1b (7%), J2 (6.5%) and N (5%) all have higher numbers in Ukraine than R1b, and there is almost no chance that I2 and N weren't on the steppe during the times we are talking about.

There is too much R1b data (variance, SNP progression M269>L23>L51) and linguistic doubt (Anatolian being the most archaic IE language) that puts a lot of doubt into the Kurgan theory.

As for Cucuteni-Tripolye, they were part of pre-Kurgan "Old Europe". Surprisingly, the Cucuteni-Tripolye craniums do not match that of Yamnaya, but are closest to the Rinalonde Culture of central Italy.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: rms2 on August 25, 2012, 08:47:36 PM
I suspect Cucuteni-Tripolye didn't have much R1b, for the same reason Rich cites above about modern Ukraine. Cucuteni-Tripolye extended from Romania through Moldova and into Ukraine.

If and when they get ancient y-dna from C-T, I think it will be I2a, G2a, and E1b1b.

The only other possibility that occurs to me is if R1b were a western steppe population that moved west en masse, perhaps due to pressure behind it. Not likely, I guess.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on August 25, 2012, 09:17:31 PM
I suspect Cucuteni-Tripolye didn't have much R1b, for the same reason Rich cites above about modern Ukraine. Cucuteni-Tripolye extended from Romania through Moldova and into Ukraine.

If and when they get ancient y-dna from C-T, I think it will be I2a, G2a, and E1b1b.

The only other possibility that occurs to me is if R1b were a western steppe population that moved west en masse, perhaps due to pressure behind it. Not likely, I guess.

You are probably right about C-T. However, there is a decent amount of R1b in the two earlier areas of C-T...Romania (16-12% depending on the study) and Moldova (15%). The thing that has always intrigued me is that a Romance language survived in both those areas even though Roman occupation there was relatively short and light. Like other Eastern European countries, a serious Y-DNA study from Romania is long overdue and I wouldn't be surprised if they find higher R1b pockets in the Carpathian mountains.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 25, 2012, 09:22:46 PM
Anyways, if you have time read the comments from people who have a better grasp on the subject here,

 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4142#comment-237029

Thanks for the link. Yes some excellent stuff from Language Log comments.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: vineviz on August 25, 2012, 09:30:36 PM
The basic problem with glottochronology and all similar methods is that they are based on the idea of a lexical clock i.e. a steady rate of linguistic change. The trouble is that languages do not change at a steady rate.

I haven't dug into the technical details of this paper, but I will say that in general the Bayesian models of the type these authors used do not necessarily depend on a "steady rate" clock.

When I did Bayesian analyses of mtDNA it was quite easy to let the model use different mutation rates on different branches of the inferred tree.

I can't claim that this paper took advantage of that, but it is such a basic feature of Bayesian models that its hard to imagine that they didn't


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 25, 2012, 10:15:47 PM
@ V.V.

That would suppose that we actually know which rates applied to which parts of the tree. We are still stuck with the problem that a reliable outcome actually depends on already knowing the answer.

Bayesian models seem to me a bit like sympathetic magic. It will work if you believe in it. But anyway. Some dates for PIE for comparison: 

Holman 2011: 2348 BC (for PIE excluding Tocharian and Hittite), which they note was some way off their calibration date from archaeology of 3500 BC.

Starostin 2004 (in Blazek 2005): 4670 BC for PIE including Tocharian and Hittite.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: vineviz on August 25, 2012, 11:26:57 PM
That would suppose that we actually know which rates applied to which parts of the tree. We are still stuck with the problem that a reliable outcome actually depends on already knowing the answer.

You seem to be unsympathetic to Bayesian analysis, so maybe you don't care but . . . .

You don't actually specify the rates for each particular branch a priori.

For instance, the 14 calibrations that the authors did were most likely NOT used to estimate an "average" rate of lexical mutation but rather to provide the MCMC process some data from which to build a distribution of lexical mutation rates.  Then, the tree construction and TMRCA calculation process samples from that distribution.

Bayesian estimation does not always produce the right answer, of course, and I don't mean sound as if I think it does.  However, I do think that linguists who dismiss this kind of approach do so at their own peril because  it is really sophisticated method.  I'd rather see more linguists working to refine the matrix and the model parameters than simply ignore the method outright.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on August 26, 2012, 02:24:35 AM
There is a interesting website associated with the study which discusses in detail the findings and methodology including a very useful FAQ which discusses the Steppes alternative:

    How robust are these findings?
    What about the potential for borrowing words?
    How does this study build on our 2003 paper in Nature?
    As the languages expanded, did people move with them?
    Why do people think Indo-European languages came from the Steppes?

Regarding the latter:

"The historical linguist, Larry Trask, captures most of the above arguments more succinctly: -
“There is a PIE word *ekwo- ‘horse’, as well as *wegh- ‘convey, go in a vehicle’, *kwekwlo- ‘wheel’, *aks- ‘axle’, and *nobh- ‘hub of a wheel’. This has led some scholars to conclude that the PIE-speakers not only rode horses but had wagons and chariots as well. This is debateable, however, since everyone places PIE at least 6000 years in the past, while hard evidence for wheeled vehicles is perhaps no earlier than 5000 years ago. Watkins (1969) considers that these terms pertaining to wheeled vehicles were chiefly metaphorical extensions of older IE words with different senses (*nobh-, for example, meant ‘navel’). The word *kwekwlo- ‘wheel’ itself is derived from the root *kwel- ‘turn, revolve’.  Nevertheless, the vision of fierce IE warriors, riding horses and driving chariots, sweeping down on their neighbours brandishing bloody swords, has proven to be an enduring one, and scholars have found it difficult to dislodge from the popular consciousness the idea of the PIE-speakers as warlike conquerors in chariots.”  (Trask, 1996)."

http://language.cs.auckland.ac.nz/faq/

Several graphics and videos are presented in the Media Material section and a very comprehensive coverage od Media articles in The Media Coverage section.
I learned a lot from the "What we did" section.










Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on August 26, 2012, 02:30:07 AM
nm


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 26, 2012, 06:16:18 AM
Bayesian estimation does not always produce the right answer, of course, and I don't mean sound as if I think it does. 

For linguists, this particular exercise produced the wrong answer. The date which Gray and Atkinson want to wish away is not negotiable. The fact that they keep arguing that it is negotiable suggests that they started out to prove Renfrew right and have fed into their model parameters which will produce the desired result.

So this exercise is just another way of fighting Renfrew's corner, but using methods which sound convincingly scientific to people who don't fully understand what they have done and why it does not constitute independent proof. There is no way to provide independent proof via mathematics, no matter how brilliantly sophisticated the method is.

If you take a look at Holman 2011, you will see that the authors invited a mass of comment on their paper from linguists. Some were surprisingly encouraging! (I was surprised anyway.)


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 26, 2012, 06:43:47 AM
"The historical linguist, Larry Trask, captures most of the above arguments more succinctly: -
“There is a PIE word *ekwo- ‘horse’, as well as *wegh- ‘convey, go in a vehicle’, *kwekwlo- ‘wheel’, *aks- ‘axle’, and *nobh- ‘hub of a wheel’. This has led some scholars to conclude that the PIE-speakers not only rode horses but had wagons and chariots as well. This is debateable, however, since everyone places PIE at least 6000 years in the past, while hard evidence for wheeled vehicles is perhaps no earlier than 5000 years ago.

That depends on what you consider hard evidence. Wood rots in the earth, so preservation may depend on items falling into bog, or leaving metal parts.

Pictographs of wagons appear around 3500 BC in Mesopotamia and on a Funnel Beaker pot from Poland. The earliest evidence of the wheel comes from the Late Cucuteni-Tripolye culture of what is now Romania and the Ukraine, in the form of wheeled toys. Around 3600 BC this culture produced models of sledges harnessed with oxen. By the inventive stroke of adding wheels, it seems that the sledge became the cart. (The wheeled toys are a bit ahead of the pictographs). The remains of about 250 wagons or carts, dated around 3000-2000 BC, have been found in kurgans (burial mounds) in the Russian and Ukrainian steppes.  A wagon from Ostannii kurgan was radiocarbon dated to 3300-2900 BC – the earliest anywhere. The new technology soon spread. Working on a pile-dwelling settlement in the Ljubljana marshes in April 2002, Slovenian archaeologists discovered an ancient wooden wheel in amazingly good condition, and nearby a wooden axle. They had been preserved by the boggy, oxygen-free conditions. Radiocarbon-dated to between 3160 and 3100 BC, it is the among the oldest wooden wheels so far found in the world.

So the accepted date for wheeled vehicles is c. 3500 BC, not 3000 BC. See Bakker, J.A., Kruk, J., Lanting, A.E. and Milisauskas, S. 1999. The earliest evidence of wheeled vehicles, Antiquity, 73 (282), 778–790; Parpola, A. 2008. Proto-Indo-European speakers of the Late Tripolye culture as the inventors of wheeled vehicles: Linguistic and archaeological considerations, in Proceedings of the 19th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. (The Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series 54) K. Jones-Bley, M.E. Huld, A. Della Volpe and M. Robbins Dexter (eds.), 1-59. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.

The date of c. 4000 BC is for PIE prior to the invention of wheeled vehicles. The only language family which split off from PIE before the invention of wheeled vehicles is the Anatolian branch, which arrived in Anatolia as intrusive. The crucial point here is that all the other branches have to have split away from PIE after 3,500 BC. The Anatolian branch has the PIE word for thill (harness-pole) which could refer to a plough-shaft rather than the same part in a wheeled vehicle. (Or perhaps the same item used for harnessing oxen to a sled, as we see in Cucuteni toys.) But using animals for any form of traction was not invented until around the same time as wheeled vehicles - a little ahead it seems on this evidence. Ploughs were unknown in the early Neolithic.

They are being highly selective and even sly. Trask was an expert in Basque, not Indo-European. The question of evidence for wheeled vehicles has been extensively discussed by archaeologists who are expert on the topic. Why are they not quoting from such books and papers? Why quote from someone who clearly hadn't a clue on this particular point, wonderful though he was in his own specialist field?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 26, 2012, 07:25:03 AM
You can tell I have my Internet back on my usual machine. :)


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on August 26, 2012, 08:26:38 AM

...

They are being highly selective and even sly. Trask was an expert in Basque, not Indo-European. The question of evidence for wheeled vehicles has been extensively discussed by archaeologists who are expert on the topic. Why are they not quoting from such books and papers? Why quote from someone who clearly hadn't a clue on this particular point, wonderful though he was in his own specialist field?


You are right Jean, there is a lot of information on wheels that place them before 3000 BC, so they are just quoting old information.

That said, the word for wheel or horse could have been introduced into an existing IE speaking population. Here is a real example of such a scenario:

It is highly likely that IE was spoken in Sicily at least as far back as the Bell Beaker period (2400 BC). And yet, the horse was not introduced in Sicily until 1100 BC by the Italic speaking Siculi.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 26, 2012, 09:05:38 AM
I suspect Cucuteni-Tripolye didn't have much R1b, for the same reason Rich cites above about modern Ukraine. Cucuteni-Tripolye extended from Romania through Moldova and into Ukraine.

If and when they get ancient y-dna from C-T, I think it will be I2a, G2a, and E1b1b.

The only other possibility that occurs to me is if R1b were a western steppe population that moved west en masse, perhaps due to pressure behind it. Not likely, I guess.

You might well be right about C-T but I think if we are going to take the line that languages normally are changed by substantial population change then we have to be consistant and think that the Slavic expansion might have massively increased the level of R1a at the expense of others in the Ukraine.  Ukraine got a double doze of R1a.  Also, I actually dont think it is unlikely per se that the west of the steppes was the early location of R1b.  The mobility of the cultures there would make the area unusually prone to radical changes in population and language.

 I have wondered in the past if the R1b people were not the hunters adjacent to C-T and R1a were not rather more to the east.  I recall that, through long period of farmer-steppes hunters contact there was a division between western steppes groups who took on more farming characteristics and eastern groups who were less influenced by farming.  I wonder if this could have predisposed the western steppe people to look for more agricultural areas to expand into and the more  eastern (including Yamnaya) to seek lands more suitable to continue their nomadic lifestyle.  That might explain aspects of the R1a and R1b distributions in eastern Europe.  

As I have posted many times too, if (and it remains a big if) the variance dating is correct and we look at its structure of a fairly straight line down to L23 then it really doesnt make sense for R1b to have been located in a booming farming population like C-T and its predecessors.  It is absolutely crucial though, to really have a handle on our options, that a date on L23 and its branching is resolved. Something happened to the ancestors of the main European line of R1b at the M269/L23 point and it started to grow after a huge period of time of doing very badly. Perhaps it was encorporated into the farming world at that time.  

If I was to take a semi-Kurganist point of view I would suspect R1b to be a western steppes lineage immediately east of C-T's expansion east.  I think the strange distribution of L23* which runs from Crimea down the Caucuses through Anatolia and then into SE Europe could explained by a two way split commencing on the north side of the Black Sea.  

I also (if I try and use a Kugan type model) have a strong feeling R1b people had or early aquired a maritime tradition (which apparently PIE had by the way) and were situation near or on the shores of large bodies of water.  For me, R1b existed somewhere where farming arrived relatively late, in a maritime area that also featured a tradition of metal working and settlement/exploitation of the uplands.  I also believe its structure with the extreme dominance of descendants of a few men from L23 down gives a hint of the sort of society it had developed by that stage.  


Another general impression I get is that R1a headed on a north-west trajectory heading from the Ukraine to the northern Europe.  I think one question we should be asking is why?  Why did they head that way and make a far lesser impact south of the Danube?  


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 26, 2012, 09:22:55 AM
Has anyone ever set side by side a map of Anthony's Kurgan expansion phases west of the steppe and the distribution of R1a upsteam forms and L23*?  Do either actually coincide well?  I always thought that R1a looked rather like the Corded Ware distribution but never really have considered if it has any resemblance to the actual steppes intrusions.  Or does L23* bear any resemblance to the latter. Is there such a thing as a map of R1a minus the historic Slavic lines. I have never seen a map that tries to plot what R1a looks like if you removed the obvious historic period Slavic lineages.  

Another thought that has been brewing for a while is what enviroments did R1b and R1a follow and does that tell us something about where and in which culture they originated.  L23* seems to be better represented in south-central Europe but what interest me is the way R1a seems to follow a NW trajectory and passes through what was forest steppe and forest at one time. That seems odd to me for a steppe people.  Does anyone have maps which show the vegetation/eco-zones of eastern Europe c. 4000-3000BC.    


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on August 26, 2012, 10:14:10 AM
Has anyone ever set side by side a map of Anthony's Kurgan expansion phases west of the steppe and the distribution of R1a upsteam forms and L23*?  Do either actually coincide well?  I always thought that R1a looked rather like the Corded Ware distribution but never really have considered if it has any resemblance to the actual steppes intrusions.  Or does L23* bear any resemblance to the latter. Is there such a thing as a map of R1a minus the historic Slavic lines. I have never seen a map that tries to plot what R1a looks like if you removed the obvious historic period Slavic lineages.  

Another thought that has been brewing for a while is what enviroments did R1b and R1a follow and does that tell us something about where and in which culture they originated.  L23* seems to be better represented in south-central Europe but what interest me is the way R1a seems to follow a NW trajectory and passes through what was forest steppe and forest at one time. That seems odd to me for a steppe people.  Does anyone have maps which show the vegetation/eco-zones of eastern Europe c. 4000-3000BC.    

The only L23* map I've seen is Myres' and there are only 2 subtle hotspots west of the steppe: Switzerland and NE Poland. To the south is one in Anatolia. Busby has a M269(xL11) frequency map that  looks a lot like "Old Europe" and makes one think that M269 expanded from there. Unfortunately the map seems to be flawed as the data tables they provided do not correspond with the frequency shown on the map.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 26, 2012, 11:02:36 AM
This recent paper about the origins of the steppe Neolithic sums up the incredible complexity of the steppe Neolithic and makes the idea of a mono-haplotype population there seem pretty absurd.

http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf36/36_10.pdf


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 26, 2012, 11:26:08 AM
...ancient DNA samples from the steppe Adronovo Culture (1800 BC) were mostly R1a1 with one lone C sample. Given the huge disparity in Ukrainian R1a (43%) and R1b (4%), It seems highly unlikely that a minority R1b Yamnaya people left and a majority R1a Yamnaya stayed behind. In fact, I2 (21%), E1b (7%), J2 (6.5%) and N (5%) all have higher numbers in Ukraine than R1b, and there is almost no chance that I2 and N weren't on the steppe during the times we are talking about.

We don't really have ancient DNA from the Yamnaya territories and fringe during the timeframe that the proposed Steppes PIE homeland would have existed.

Too bad we don't have ancient DNA from the Catacomb cultures that were a successor or latter and westerly branch of Yamnaya.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catacomb_culture

I'm a little confused on the linkages between Corded Ware and Catacomb. They were essentially contemporaries, right?  We know R1a was found in Elau at 2600 BC, a Corded Ware culture. I'm just looking for clues to the west of the Yamnaya territories. Do we think Catacomb was like Corded Ware genetically?

I caution against using modern frequencies to indicate too much about ancient haplogroup distributions and suggest that diversity may be more helpful. In the case of the vast Eurasian plains, nomadic peoples were common to a fairly late date. I'm not sure there were great places to hide from on-coming war-like peoples. Some theorize the pre-Slavic people found haven in swamp lands in Eastern Europe, from where they re-expanded.

I took these frequencies of R-M269 (R1b1a2) from Busby's data supplements. These are the pockets of R-M269 that are greater than 5%.

Circum-Uralic Bashkirs N ___ 74.3%
Caucasus Bagvalals _________ 67.9%
Caucasus Tabasarans ________ 39.5%
Circum-Uralic Bashkirs SE __ 35.9%
Circum-Uralic Bashkirs SW __ 16.7%
Caucasus Lezgis ____________ 16.1%
Circum-Uralic Bashkirs _____ 15.2%
Caucasus Kumyks ____________ 14.5%
Caucasus Daghestan _________ 14.3%
Circum-Uralic Komis ________ 13.1%
Circum-Uralic Tatars _______ 10.3%
Caucasus Cossacs of Adygea _ 7.7%
Circum-Uralic Tatars Kazan _ 6.3%
Caucasus Andis _____________ 6.1%
Afghanistan ________________ 5.9%
Russians Northern Russia ___ 5.8%
Russians Central Russia ____ 5.7%


The mountainous areas of the Caucasus may have been another place out of the way.  How did R-M269 get to the Caucasus? From Anatolia or from the north?  I don't know but I don't think we can rule out from the north, from old Yamnaya territories or interfacing territories, i.e. Maykop.  At least one of the above populations think they descend from the Khazars, which were definitely in old Yamnaya territories.

I am not claiming that these R-M269 frequency percentage are that high or that widespread nor even significant in the center of old Yamnaya territories. I'm just saying R-M269 can be found in the vicinity.

Given we don't have ancient Y DNA from the old Yamnaya territories of the Steppes PIE homeland hypothesis timeframe, I don't think we can rule out that R-M269 was not present in at least some Yamnaya or Yamnaya related groups. I don't think we can say that is "highly unlikely." It's more like "we don't know." That's all I'm suggesting, leaving R-M269 as on the table for an expansion of IE speaking peoples based out of the Yamnaya territories or fringe territories.





Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 26, 2012, 11:31:45 AM
Has anyone ever set side by side a map of Anthony's Kurgan expansion phases west of the steppe and the distribution of R1a upsteam forms and L23*?  Do either actually coincide well?  I always thought that R1a looked rather like the Corded Ware distribution but never really have considered if it has any resemblance to the actual steppes intrusions.  Or does L23* bear any resemblance to the latter. Is there such a thing as a map of R1a minus the historic Slavic lines. I have never seen a map that tries to plot what R1a looks like if you removed the obvious historic period Slavic lineages.  

Another thought that has been brewing for a while is what enviroments did R1b and R1a follow and does that tell us something about where and in which culture they originated.  L23* seems to be better represented in south-central Europe but what interest me is the way R1a seems to follow a NW trajectory and passes through what was forest steppe and forest at one time. That seems odd to me for a steppe people.  Does anyone have maps which show the vegetation/eco-zones of eastern Europe c. 4000-3000BC.    

The only L23* map I've seen is Myres' and there are only 2 subtle hotspots west of the steppe: Switzerland and NE Poland. To the south is one in Anatolia. Busby has a M269(xL11) frequency map that  looks a lot like "Old Europe" and makes one think that M269 expanded from there. Unfortunately the map seems to be flawed as the data tables they provided do not correspond with the frequency shown on the map.

The Myres map seems to show its more common deep into Russia judging by the shading.  

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/wp-content/blogs.dir/34/files/r1b1b2-figures/r1bd.png

I dont know what to make of that.  


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 26, 2012, 11:32:51 AM
Has anyone ever set side by side a map of Anthony's Kurgan expansion phases west of the steppe and the distribution of R1a upsteam forms and L23*?  Do either actually coincide well?  I always thought that R1a looked rather like the Corded Ware distribution but never really have considered if it has any resemblance to the actual steppes intrusions.  Or does L23* bear any resemblance to the latter. Is there such a thing as a map of R1a minus the historic Slavic lines. I have never seen a map that tries to plot what R1a looks like if you removed the obvious historic period Slavic lineages.   ...

Klyosov and his cohorts have created elaborate R1a expansion/migration maps. If I remember he actually thinks R1a almost went extinct in the Russian plains, but was "saved" by a back migration from more westerly locations in Europe. I'll go look for that, but I think he calculates R1a1 as older in areas to the west of the Russian plains than in the Russian plains.... just one more reason I caution looking at modern frequency %s too much, like R1a1's high Ukraine %.

EDIT: I may misunderstand what he is saying (check italics.) Let me dig it up so don't take my comments to the bank on reflecting Klyosov acccurately.

Well, here is a quote from Klyosov,
Quote
After 4,500 ybp R1a1 practically disappeared from Europe, incidentally, along with I1. Maybe more incidentally, it corresponded with the time period of populating of Europe with R1b1b2. Only those R1a1 who migrated to the Russian Plain from Europe around 6,000-5,000 years bp, stayed. They had expanded to the East, established on their way a number of archaeological
cultures, including the Andronovo culture, which has embraced Northern Kazakhstan, Central Asia and South Ural and Western Siberia, and about 3600 ybp they migrated to India and Iran as the Aryans. Those who left behind, on the Russian Plain, re-populated Europe between 3200 and 2500 years bp, and stayed mainly in the Eastern Europe
http://www.jogg.info/52/files/Klyosov2.pdf

He's getting his direction of movement hypotheses based on his diversity calculations... so forget his additional commentary or languages, etc., from a genetic diversity perspective of R1a1 this is what direction of movements he sees.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 26, 2012, 11:51:09 AM
...ancient DNA samples from the steppe Adronovo Culture (1800 BC) were mostly R1a1 with one lone C sample. Given the huge disparity in Ukrainian R1a (43%) and R1b (4%), It seems highly unlikely that a minority R1b Yamnaya people left and a majority R1a Yamnaya stayed behind. In fact, I2 (21%), E1b (7%), J2 (6.5%) and N (5%) all have higher numbers in Ukraine than R1b, and there is almost no chance that I2 and N weren't on the steppe during the times we are talking about.

We don't really have ancient DNA from the Yamnaya territories and fringe during the timeframe that the proposed Steppes PIE homeland would have existed.

Too bad we don't have ancient DNA from the Catacomb cultures that were a successor or latter and westerly branch of Yamnaya.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catacomb_culture

I'm a little confused on the linkages between Corded Ware and Catacomb. They were essentially contemporaries, right?  We know R1a was found in Elau at 2600 BC, a Corded Ware culture. I'm just looking for clues to the west of the Yamnaya territories. Do we think Catacomb was like Corded Ware genetically?

I caution against using modern frequencies to indicate too much about ancient haplogroup distributions and suggest that diversity may be more helpful. In the case of the vast Eurasian plains, nomadic peoples were common to a fairly late date. I'm not sure there were great places to hide from on-coming war-like peoples. Some theorize the pre-Slavic people found haven in swamp lands in Eastern Europe, from where they re-expanded.

I took these frequencies of R-M269 (R1b1a2) from Busby's data supplements. These are the pockets of R-M269 that are greater than 5%.

Circum-Uralic Bashkirs N ___ 74.3%
Caucasus Bagvalals _________ 67.9%
Caucasus Tabasarans ________ 39.5%
Circum-Uralic Bashkirs SE __ 35.9%
Circum-Uralic Bashkirs SW __ 16.7%
Caucasus Lezgis ____________ 16.1%
Circum-Uralic Bashkirs _____ 15.2%
Caucasus Kumyks ____________ 14.5%
Caucasus Daghestan _________ 14.3%
Circum-Uralic Komis ________ 13.1%
Circum-Uralic Tatars _______ 10.3%
Caucasus Cossacs of Adygea _ 7.7%
Circum-Uralic Tatars Kazan _ 6.3%
Caucasus Andis _____________ 6.1%
Afghanistan ________________ 5.9%
Russians Northern Russia ___ 5.8%
Russians Central Russia ____ 5.7%


The mountainous areas of the Caucasus may have been another place out of the way.  How did R-M269 get to the Caucasus? From Anatolia or from the north?  I don't know but I don't think we can rule out from the north, from old Yamnaya territories or interfacing territories, i.e. Maykop.  At least one of the above populations think they descend from the Khazars, which were definitely in old Yamnaya territories.

I am not claiming that these R-M269 frequency percentage are that high or that widespread nor even significant in the center of old Yamnaya territories. I'm just saying R-M269 can be found in the vicinity.

Given we don't have ancient Y DNA from the old Yamnaya territories of the Steppes PIE homeland hypothesis timeframe, I don't think we can rule out that R-M269 was not present in at least some Yamnaya or Yamnaya related groups. I don't think we can say that is "highly unlikely." It's more like "we don't know." That's all I'm suggesting, leaving R-M269 as on the table for an expansion of IE speaking peoples based out of the Yamnaya territories or fringe territories.





I agree. Its a pity we cant strip away R1a maps to produce a distribution of pre-Slavic expansion R1a.  Or laternatively does variance help show where R1a was prior to the Slavic expansion?  


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on August 26, 2012, 12:00:27 PM

The Myres map seems to show its more common deep into Russia judging by the shading.  

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/wp-content/blogs.dir/34/files/r1b1b2-figures/r1bd.png

I dont know what to make of that.  

The devil is in the details. What drives up R1b frequency there is the Bashkirs. However, their L23* variance is a fraction of what it is in places like the Caucasus and Turkey and by far the lowest of all sampled populations. Together with the zero variance in U152 samples (since the U152+ Bashkiris all had the same exact haplogroup), it looks like both L23* and U152 arrived there rather recently.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 26, 2012, 12:00:42 PM
That said, the word for wheel or horse could have been introduced into an existing IE speaking population.

The word for horse is irrelevant. The word would have existed when horses were not domesticated. So it is not a word that comes with a built-in date.

The word for wheel does come with a built-in date. It is based upon a PIE root, so it was not introduced into PIE. It was invented within a PIE-speaking community. That is a clue that the wheel itself was invented within said community. Words for inventions tend to travel with said inventions. Of course that is not invariably the case. A community speaking a different language from that of an inventor can come up with its own word for an invention. But the point here is that the words for wagon, wheel and a whole slew of other things belonging to the secondary products revolution were not borrowed by PIE from another language. They were coined by PIE-speakers.

That is in marked contrast to the number of words relating to irrigation agriculture and urban life that were borrowed by Proto-Indo-Iranians and Indic speakers from an unrecorded language thought to be that of the BMAC, or words borrowed by Hittite from existing Hattic, which included words for "king" and "queen".


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 26, 2012, 12:01:09 PM

The Myres map seems to show its more common deep into Russia judging by the shading.  

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/wp-content/blogs.dir/34/files/r1b1b2-figures/r1bd.png

I dont know what to make of that.  

The devil is in the details. What drives up R1b frequency there is the Bashkirs. However, their L23* variance is a fraction of what it is in places like the Caucasus and Turkey and by far the lowest of all sampled populations. Together with the zero variance in U152 samples (since the U152+ Bashkiris all had the same exact haplogroup), it looks like both L23* and U152 arrived there rather recently.

Remember, I am not claiming a high frequency % means much of anything.  L23* is clearly present among these groups, though.  Other than in the Bashkirs, I think M269xL11 is dominant over L11.

You can't assume L23* and U152 arrived at the same time in the Bashkirs and then project that to the other populations. You may be right, but we really can't extrapolate that.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on August 26, 2012, 12:40:52 PM

Remember, I am not claiming a high frequency % means much of anything.  L23* is clearly present among these groups, though.  Other than in the Bashkirs, I think M269xL11 is dominant over L11.

You can't assume L23* and U152 arrived at the same time in the Bashkirs and then project that to the other populations. You may be right, but we really can't extrapolate that.

And where exactly did I assume that they came at the same time? I said they both arrived late, that is a big difference than saying they arrived together or even from the same area. And if we can't extrapolate that L23* and U152 are due to late founders due to their low variance in the former and non-existent variance in the later, then we should never speak of variance again.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: rms2 on August 26, 2012, 03:39:09 PM
. . .

I took these frequencies of R-M269 (R1b1a2) from Busby's data supplements. These are the pockets of R-M269 that are greater than 5%.

Circum-Uralic Bashkirs N ___ 74.3%
Caucasus Bagvalals _________ 67.9%
Caucasus Tabasarans ________ 39.5%
Circum-Uralic Bashkirs SE __ 35.9%
Circum-Uralic Bashkirs SW __ 16.7%
Caucasus Lezgis ____________ 16.1%
Circum-Uralic Bashkirs _____ 15.2%
Caucasus Kumyks ____________ 14.5%
Caucasus Daghestan _________ 14.3%
Circum-Uralic Komis ________ 13.1%
Circum-Uralic Tatars _______ 10.3%
Caucasus Cossacs of Adygea _ 7.7%
Circum-Uralic Tatars Kazan _ 6.3%
Caucasus Andis _____________ 6.1%
Afghanistan ________________ 5.9%
Russians Northern Russia ___ 5.8%
Russians Central Russia ____ 5.7%


The mountainous areas of the Caucasus may have been another place out of the way.  How did R-M269 get to the Caucasus? From Anatolia or from the north?  I don't know but I don't think we can rule out from the north, from old Yamnaya territories or interfacing territories, i.e. Maykop.  At least one of the above populations think they descend from the Khazars, which were definitely in old Yamnaya territories.

I am not claiming that these R-M269 frequency percentage are that high or that widespread nor even significant in the center of old Yamnaya territories. I'm just saying R-M269 can be found in the vicinity.

Given we don't have ancient Y DNA from the old Yamnaya territories of the Steppes PIE homeland hypothesis timeframe, I don't think we can rule out that R-M269 was not present in at least some Yamnaya or Yamnaya related groups. I don't think we can say that is "highly unlikely." It's more like "we don't know." That's all I'm suggesting, leaving R-M269 as on the table for an expansion of IE speaking peoples based out of the Yamnaya territories or fringe territories.


Add in the frequency of R-L23 from the recent Herrera et al study of Armenia:

Ararat Valley (ARV)= 36%; Gardman (GRD)= 30%; Lake Van (Van)= 33%; Sasun (SAS)= 16%

That's nearly 30% on average.

Take into account what Kurt Gerhardt, who studied Beaker skulls, said in his 1953 book, Die Glockenbecherleute in Mittel-und West Deutschland (http://www.amazon.com/Glockenbecherleute-Mittel-Westdeutschland-Pal%C3%A4anthropologie-Eurafrikas/dp/B002MBH5T4). Not only was there a skull type among the "Glockenbecherleute" (Bell Beaker People) that was brachycephalic, but it was somewhat unique in that the back of the skull was almost vertical. Gerhardt named the skull type "Plano-Occipital Steilkopf". Steilkopf is German and literally means "steep head". He claimed there was an anatomical connection of the Steilkopf Beaker skull to Anatolia/Armenia, where it is found in a similar proportion of the men.

And, of course, the only two ancient Beaker men for whom we have y-dna test results were both R1b (xU106).


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: acekon on August 26, 2012, 04:41:37 PM

The Myres map seems to show its more common deep into Russia judging by the shading.  

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/wp-content/blogs.dir/34/files/r1b1b2-figures/r1bd.png

I dont know what to make of that.  

The devil is in the details. What drives up R1b frequency there is the Bashkirs. However, their L23* variance is a fraction of what it is in places like the Caucasus and Turkey and by far the lowest of all sampled populations. Together with the zero variance in U152 samples (since the U152+ Bashkiris all had the same exact haplogroup), it looks like both L23* and U152 arrived there rather recently.

When you say "recently" could you be more specific in time frame, L23* and U152 arrived in the Bashkiris region?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: vineviz on August 26, 2012, 05:53:42 PM

When you say "recently" could you be more specific in time frame, L23* and U152 arrived in the Bashkiris region?

Hundreds of years.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: vineviz on August 26, 2012, 05:55:29 PM
For linguists, this particular exercise produced the wrong answer.

Clearly, but there remains open the possibility that linguists are completely full of crap.

It happens.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 26, 2012, 05:58:40 PM

Remember, I am not claiming a high frequency % means much of anything.  L23* is clearly present among these groups, though.  Other than in the Bashkirs, I think M269xL11 is dominant over L11.

You can't assume L23* and U152 arrived at the same time in the Bashkirs and then project that to the other populations. You may be right, but we really can't extrapolate that.

And where exactly did I assume that they came at the same time? I said they both arrived late, that is a big difference than saying they arrived together or even from the same area. And if we can't extrapolate that L23* and U152 are due to late founders due to their low variance in the former and non-existent variance in the later, then we should never speak of variance again.

I apologize if I didn't understand the significance of what you were posting earlier when you posted this.
... their L23* variance is a fraction of what it is in places like the Caucasus and Turkey and by far the lowest of all sampled populations. Together with the zero variance in U152 samples (since the U152+ Bashkiris all had the same exact haplogroup), it looks like both L23* and U152 arrived there rather recently.

I see you are making a discernment between arriving recently versus at the same time (speaking of U152 and L23*.)  I see you are saying they are arrived recently but not at the same time. I apologize for not discerning the difference in your statement.

However, to me, that is of little consequence. The real issue is are some of the R1b-L23 very diverse? or possibly very old?

I don't think the Busby/Myres, etc. data is representative. The sample size is very low for an large area as large as from the Black and Caspian Seas all the way to the Urals.  This area is nearly as big as the Mediterranean.

Do you think that Busby/Myres' data is representative? You are apparently basing your assertions on that L23* is of low diversity in the vicinty. I do not disagree that L23* may be of low diversity in some samples. I just think that the general high (non-European-like) ratio fo L23xL11 to L11 in this general vicinity of the Eurasian plains, Caucasus, nearby SW Asia, etc., is something to consider closely. This is high haplogroup diversity as far as early branching goes.

What are the diversity numbers you are citing for low diversity of L23*? How many STRs are they using across how many hapltoypes? My questions are not just related to the Bashkirs, but to the various populations in the region.

I don't think you can rule out an R-M269 possibility as an element in the vincinity of the Yamnaya horizon in a period related to the PIE-Steppe homeland hypothesis.  I don't even think we can even say it is "highly unlikely."  We don't know.  I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but I don't see any effective evidence yet to that effect.

As far as STR variance goes, please, please don't go the way of Dienekes, You said
Quote from: RRocca
And if we can't extrapolate that L23* and U152 are due to late founders due to their low variance in the former and non-existent variance in the later, then we should never speak of variance again.
If the data survey is bad, that is no reason to throw the STR diversity measurement out, throwing the baby out with the bath water.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 26, 2012, 06:23:18 PM

When you say "recently" could you be more specific in time frame, L23* and U152 arrived in the Bashkiris region?

Hundreds of years.

Vineviz, I think you are implying/agreeing that R-L23xL11 diversity is low among the Bashkirs?

Do you think the same for R-L23xL11 in the Caucasus?     or how does this contrast with L23xL11 in Turkey?   or versus the Arabian Peninsula?   or versus the Balkan Peninsula?

This is critical to understand.   Where do you think R-L23 is most diverse?  How does R-L23 diversity in the Caucasus rank compared to Anatolia?

I don't care what the answer is, but this is important to know.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 26, 2012, 06:35:02 PM
. . .

I took these frequencies of R-M269 (R1b1a2) from Busby's data supplements. These are the pockets of R-M269 that are greater than 5%.

Circum-Uralic Bashkirs N ___ 74.3%
Caucasus Bagvalals _________ 67.9%
Caucasus Tabasarans ________ 39.5%
Circum-Uralic Bashkirs SE __ 35.9%
Circum-Uralic Bashkirs SW __ 16.7%
Caucasus Lezgis ____________ 16.1%
Circum-Uralic Bashkirs _____ 15.2%
Caucasus Kumyks ____________ 14.5%
Caucasus Daghestan _________ 14.3%
Circum-Uralic Komis ________ 13.1%
Circum-Uralic Tatars _______ 10.3%
Caucasus Cossacs of Adygea _ 7.7%
Circum-Uralic Tatars Kazan _ 6.3%
Caucasus Andis _____________ 6.1%
Afghanistan ________________ 5.9%
Russians Northern Russia ___ 5.8%
Russians Central Russia ____ 5.7%


The mountainous areas of the Caucasus may have been another place out of the way.  How did R-M269 get to the Caucasus? From Anatolia or from the north?  I don't know but I don't think we can rule out from the north, from old Yamnaya territories or interfacing territories, i.e. Maykop.  At least one of the above populations think they descend from the Khazars, which were definitely in old Yamnaya territories.

I am not claiming that these R-M269 frequency percentage are that high or that widespread nor even significant in the center of old Yamnaya territories. I'm just saying R-M269 can be found in the vicinity.

Given we don't have ancient Y DNA from the old Yamnaya territories of the Steppes PIE homeland hypothesis timeframe, I don't think we can rule out that R-M269 was not present in at least some Yamnaya or Yamnaya related groups. I don't think we can say that is "highly unlikely." It's more like "we don't know." That's all I'm suggesting, leaving R-M269 as on the table for an expansion of IE speaking peoples based out of the Yamnaya territories or fringe territories.


Add in the frequency of R-L23 from the recent Herrera et al study of Armenia:

Ararat Valley (ARV)= 36%; Gardman (GRD)= 30%; Lake Van (Van)= 33%; Sasun (SAS)= 16%...  

Yes, I just picked the above numbers from Busby for the relationship to area of a Steppes PIE hypothesis.

R-L23* has high frequency in other areas too. I agree. I was not trying to skirt any possibility of R-L23* having high frequency elsewhere.

... but I still think it is more important where the non L11 branches of R-L23 have higher diversity levels. I'm just trying to change the course of the conversation more towards diversity rather than frequency.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on August 26, 2012, 08:24:59 PM
For linguists, this particular exercise produced the wrong answer.

Clearly, but there remains open the possibility that linguists are completely full of crap.

It happens.

Surely the data these authors used came from the research of linguists, in quantitative form?

My question is, seeing how models are essentially about starting with certain assumptions and getting certain predictions, what should be assumed? Should we assume that PIE must have encountered the wheel and wagon just as we assume certain dates in history or particular structures in language?

Any model that contradicted a know date should be discarded, right? Would if it contradicts the linguistic/archeological argument? Anthony has made this very argument, that the linguistic/archeological argument should calibrate the model as opposed to the reverse.

But I still agree that the linguistic arguement needs more definitive support.





Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: rms2 on August 26, 2012, 08:32:31 PM
Yes, I just picked the above numbers from Busby for the relationship to area of a Steppes PIE hypothesis.

R-L23* has high frequency in other areas too. I agree. I was not trying to skirt any possibility of R-L23* having high frequency elsewhere.

... but I still think it is more important where the non L11 branches of R-L23 have higher diversity levels. I'm just trying to change the course of the conversation more towards diversity rather than frequency.

In my last post, I was actually just trying to show a possible connection between the Beaker Folk and Anatolia/Armenia.

I think haplotype diversity can be deceptive. It's important, but I think some places that are relatively high in diversity are that way because they were receivers of populations from several or many different sources. Thus a newly settled area (newly settled relative to the old place the people emigrated from) could appear to be more diverse than a single older source area. I think you would see that if you calculated R-L23 haplotype diversity in North America, for example.

I'm not sure how you overcome that problem, unless you calculate the combined haplotype diversities of various hypothetical source areas and compare the different regional combinations to each other and to smaller, single geographic units.

That is also where history (where it exists) and archaeology come into play.



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 26, 2012, 08:55:20 PM
I think haplotype diversity can be deceptive. It's important, but I think some places that are relatively high in diversity are that way because they were receivers of populations from several or many different sources. Thus a newly settled area (newly settled relative to the old place the people emigrated from) could appear to be more diverse than a single older source area. ....

I agree that diversity is not a perfect measurement and should be considered in context of archeological data, historical information and the like.

However, diversity might rule out some areas as source areas.  Even a cross-roads or pooling point should not have higher diversity than the true origin. Areas of low diversity can be ruled out, or at least to a great extent.

As far as genetic data goes, I still think diversity is more important than frequency in understanding migration patterns.

I'm not try to ask a loaded question in regards to R-L23*.  Anyway we can shed light on this is great. I just went back to the FTDNA project I data I have for L23xL11 and calculated relative STR variances on long (67 STR) haplotypes for the non-multi-copy, non-null markers.

SW Asia_____________:  Var=1.68 [Mixed 49]  (N=103)
East Europe_________:  Var=1.07 [Mixed 49]  (N=23)
Balkans/Italy_______:  Var=1.28 [Mixed 49]  (N=12)
West/NW Europe______:  Var=1.21 [Mixed 49]  (N=62)


What I label East Europe goes all the way into Russia.

SW Asia includes a lot of folks from Anatolia, so from a potential aging perspective, Anatolia wins vs Russia/Ukraine.

Unfortunately, our FTDNA projects don't have much data from the Caucasus so the numbers above don't tell us much about the Caucasus. The Caucasus is still a big question mark.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: rms2 on August 26, 2012, 09:01:24 PM
That is very interesting, and telling, I think.

Of course, those are broad geographic areas. When I was talking about a receiver of population possibly being more diverse than an older single source, I had in mind smaller geographic units.

Anyway, I think also archaeology would support the notion that Europe acted more as the receiver of population from SW Asia than as the donor, so it would support your findings above, Mike.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 26, 2012, 09:21:44 PM
For linguists, this particular exercise produced the wrong answer.

Clearly, but there remains open the possibility that linguists are completely full of crap.

It happens.

Surely the data these authors used came from the research of linguists, in quantitative form?

I think Vineviz's answer applies the same....   meaning not necessarily, at least in the sense of proper applicability.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on August 26, 2012, 10:39:04 PM

...

However, to me, that is of little consequence. The real issue is are some of the R1b-L23 very diverse? or possibly very old?

I don't think the Busby/Myres, etc. data is representative. The sample size is very low for an large area as large as from the Black and Caspian Seas all the way to the Urals.  This area is nearly as big as the Mediterranean.

Do you think that Busby/Myres' data is representative? You are apparently basing your assertions on that L23* is of low diversity in the vicinty. I do not disagree that L23* may be of low diversity in some samples. I just think that the general high (non-European-like) ratio fo L23xL11 to L11 in this general vicinity of the Eurasian plains, Caucasus, nearby SW Asia, etc., is something to consider closely. This is high haplogroup diversity as far as early branching goes.

What are the diversity numbers you are citing for low diversity of L23*? How many STRs are they using across how many hapltoypes? My questions are not just related to the Bashkirs, but to the various populations in the region.

I don't think you can rule out an R-M269 possibility as an element in the vincinity of the Yamnaya horizon in a period related to the PIE-Steppe homeland hypothesis.  I don't even think we can even say it is "highly unlikely."  We don't know.  I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but I don't see any effective evidence yet to that effect.

As far as STR variance goes, please, please don't go the way of Dienekes, You said
Quote from: RRocca
And if we can't extrapolate that L23* and U152 are due to late founders due to their low variance in the former and non-existent variance in the later, then we should never speak of variance again.
If the data survey is bad, that is no reason to throw the STR diversity measurement out, throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Mike, don't worry, I won't go the Dienekes route. Much like yourself I think that variance, while it shouldn't be trusted blindly, can at least point us in the right direction.

If you are asking if the L23* Bashkiri samples are representative, I would say they are representative of Bashkirs, since Myres sampled SE, W, S, N and SW Bashkiris. If you are asking if I think they are representative of all areas that remain unsampled, then my answer is "how would I know what I don't know?". I'm not going to start formulating ideas/opinions based on what we don't know. So in the mean time, I will continue to say that I think the Kurgan theory for R1b is "highly unlikely" not just based on frequency or diversity, but based on a whole lot of other things I've triangulated in my mind.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on August 27, 2012, 03:43:12 AM
The debate on “Dienekes’ Anthropology blog” continues, with some interesting contributes, but in this age of “centrisms” was born also a Lybiacentrism! Anyway the most interesting post seems to me this and this link (http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/UralicEvidence.pdf): Uralic evidence for the Indo-European homeland, by Jaakko Häkkinen, 13th February 2012   

“What is the conclusion about the Uralic evidence on the location of Proto-Indo-European? If the oldest Indo-European loanwords are already Late Proto-Indo-European – which now seems to be the less probable option – the case would be clear: Proto-Uralic cannot in any case be located south from the taiga zone, and therefore Late Proto-Indo-European could not be very far. Southeast European steppe would then be the obvious solution (the Kurgan theory).
If, however, the oldest Archaic Indo-European loanwords are only contemporaneous with the Early Proto-Aryan loanwords – which now seems the most probable option – things get more complicated. First we must identify the donor language. On geographical reason it can hardly be the Graeco-Armenian or any other remote dialect, so we are left with either Tocharian or Northwest Indo-European. Tocharian is generally seen to split off very early from the Indo-European stock, and it is connected to the Afanasyevo Culture. The main problem with the Tocharian explanation is that it could not have been present in the Volga region anymore at the Early Proto-Aryan stage. On the other hand, it is possible that Pre-Proto-Uralic was spoken in Asia and met Tocharian there; but the Archaic Indo-European loanword layer was contemporaneous with the Early Proto-Aryan layer, and Early Proto-Aryan was not spoken in Asia. Tocharian explanation thus seems to be a dead end.
Northwest Indo-European, which is connected to the Corded Ware Culture, matches better both the temporal and spatial closeness to Early Proto-Aryan: in the first half of the 3rd millennium BC the Corded Ware Fatyanovo-Balanovo Culture and the steppe Poltavka Culture reached each other in the Mid-Volga area (Carpelan & Parpola 2001), which happens to be the Proto-Uralic homeland (Kallio 2006; Häkkinen 2009). This solution explains best the oldest Indo-European loanword layers in Uralic, the x-strata. In the same area we can locate the next oldest loanword layers, the Northwest Indo-European š-stratum and the Late Proto-Aryan w-stratum.
Consequently, we have a situation where we have two very close dialects of Proto-Indo-European spoken in adjacent areas in the easternmost Europe near the great Volga bend at the 3rd millennium BC. The farther in time and space we go from there, the more implausible is the solution concerning the Proto-Indo-European homeland. No language remains unchanged for millennia, least of all when spreading thousands of kilometers to new areas. It is most credible to derive these dialects from the homeland from less than 1 000 kilometers southwest and one millennium back in time (the Copper/Bronze Age steppe homeland). It would be very improbable indeed to derive them from more than 2 000 kilometers southwest, behind the Black Sea, and up to 4 000 years back in time (the Neolithic Anatolian homeland). So much we get from the Uralic anchor: the Kurgan theory seems to be the only credible one.
Caucasian and Semitic contacts – even if they were as accurately stratified as the Uralic contacts – do not require the Anatolian homeland, either: it does not matter whether the Proto-Indo-European was spoken north (Ukraine) or west (Anatolia) of these contact languages. However, they exclude the Central European homeland, as does the Uralic argument as well”.


But we can see that the link with Uralic languages was due above all to “Early Archaic (Proto- or Northwest?) IE”, then what is conceived like IE was simply its Eastern part, that which generated the Indo-Aryan languages and was above all hg. R1a1 and subclades, even a few R1a-M420, above all Western European, from the Alps to the Isles. Then they should speak of this half of the IE world, and not of its whole. For this I wouldn’t exclude Central Europe or the Balkans like the fatherland of the IE world, above all if we think to the witness that the most ancient IE has left in the Etruscan-Rhaetian-Camun languages, if Etruscan “puplu” derives from *kwe/okwlo-, but about Etruscan language and its “peri-indoeuropean” origin (Giacomo Devoto) I have spoken many times in the past.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 27, 2012, 05:59:51 AM
But I still agree that the linguistic argument needs more definitive support.

What more support do you want? Linguistically it is all logical deduction, but supported by archaeological data.

We have a widely-dispersed language family, which arose in the days before telephones and the like. So the people at one end of that range (say Ireland) had no way of communicating with people at the other end (say India). So the similarities between their languages must therefore have arisen from a common parent. None of the parties in the Renfrew-Mallory conflict disagrees with this.

That common parent - PIE - can be reconstructed from comparisons between its offspring. The first farmers used digging sticks rather than ploughs. They had no wheels or wagons, no gold or silver. They kept cattle for beef, not milk and cheese. They did not make wine. They did not use wool. Yet PIE had words for all these things. Putting rough dates on inventions from archaeological evidence is known as lexico-cultural dating.   


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 27, 2012, 06:22:10 AM
For linguists, this particular exercise produced the wrong answer.

Clearly, but there remains open the possibility that linguists are completely full of crap.

It happens.

It certainly does. :) There are some linguists who have published utter rubbish. But in the case of PIE, you can judge for yourself, since the PIE lexicon (http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/PokornyMaster-X.html) is online. See what date you put on it. It is fun to do.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on August 27, 2012, 06:22:51 AM
But I still agree that the linguistic argument needs more definitive support.

What more support do you want? Linguistically it is all logical deduction, but supported by archaeological data.


Honestly, I want to find a cave in Ukraine with ancient markings in PIE saying "this is the home of my ancestors".


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 27, 2012, 06:26:47 AM
Honestly, I want to find a cave in Ukraine with ancient markings in PIE saying "this is the home of my ancestors".

And you would believe that, would you? :) 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on August 27, 2012, 06:29:14 AM
Honestly, I want to find a cave in Ukraine with ancient markings in PIE saying "this is the home of my ancestors".

And you would believe that, would you? :) 

Idk, I'm sure even the ancients had trolls too : )


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 27, 2012, 06:34:40 AM
Idk, I'm sure even the ancients had trolls too : )

Very likely. What these particular ancients didn't have was any idea of writing. Though having said that, there is something vaguely like a script (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C4%83rt%C4%83ria_tablets) not far away.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: razyn on August 27, 2012, 08:46:50 AM
The debate on “Dienekes’ Anthropology blog” continues, with some interesting contributes, but in this age of “centrisms” was born also a Lybiacentrism! Anyway the most interesting post seems to me this and this link (http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/UralicEvidence.pdf): Uralic evidence for the Indo-European homeland, by Jaakko Häkkinen, 13th February 2012   
[snip]
we have a situation where we have two very close dialects of Proto-Indo-European spoken in adjacent areas in the easternmost Europe near the great Volga bend at the 3rd millennium BC. The farther in time and space we go from there, the more implausible is the solution concerning the Proto-Indo-European homeland.

There was an earlier mention of Bell Beaker ceramic forms (and other archaeological traits associated with the said BBs) at Khvalynsk, presumably near the said great Volga bend, circa 3000 BC:

http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10639.msg131232#msg131232

An allusion in that post to moving it to "the other WF thread" referred to this one:

http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10580.msg131263#msg131263

And Jean M (along with several others) has already taken the trouble to dismiss the notion, in the above threads; I'm just putting them together so the disputed artifacts can be found near the disputed linguistics.

And btw, Jean M: imagine my surprise, reading your "vaguely like a script" reference, to see that a principal advocate of its being a form of writing is named Gimbutas.  I was just thinking, good ol' Rokus would be turning over in his grave, to read all these kurgan droppings [he hadn't posted on his own blog since last November] -- and when I checked that, on the off chance, it turns out that he just posted a few thousand words yesterday.  Have not read it, but may as well cite it, just in case:

http://rokus01.wordpress.com/2012/08/26/otzi-tells-it-all-on-recent-evolution-and-migration/  


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 27, 2012, 09:19:19 AM
And btw, Jean M: imagine my surprise, reading your "vaguely like a script" reference, to see that a principal advocate of its being a form of writing is named Gimbutas. 

Golly! She gets everywhere. :0

I'm neutral on this topic. The idea that it is writing appeals enormously to some people, but is equally strongly dismissed by others. So I haven't bothered with it.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 27, 2012, 09:33:33 AM
And Jean M (along with several others) has already taken the trouble to dismiss the notion

Not sure which notion I am alleged to have dismissed. These strands of discourse are getting so tangled.  Bell Beaker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture) (2700-2000 BC)  is a descendant of Yamnaya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamna_culture) (3300 BC+), which is partly derived from Khvalynsk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khvalynsk_culture) (5000-4500 BC),  on the Volga. Very close to where we think Proto-Uralic developed: in the Ljalovo or Pit-Comb Ware culture (5000-3650 BC) around the Volga-Oka region.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on August 27, 2012, 09:56:43 AM
Bell Beaker (2700-2000 BC)  is a descendant of Yamnaya (3300 BC+)

Yes, Yamanya people by sea rowed all the Black Sea and the Mediterranean and also passed the Hercules columns to dock Portugal and from there to spread Bell Beakers to Central Europe! When a physicist, expert in Maths whose name we can say here, discussed with me about Sardinian I-M26 and supported that it came from Iberia, I asked him whether he preferred to swim to Sardinia from Iberia or from Tuscan shores. He answered he preferred his yacht. Probably Yamnaya people too.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 27, 2012, 10:18:23 AM
The only L23* diversity or variance map I have seen is Rokus's

http://rokus01.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/l23.png

Why does his map look fairly supportive of a broad early zone that includes both SW Asia and the steppes.  I have heard grumbles that it is flawed but I have never seen an attempt to do a better one.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on August 27, 2012, 10:26:08 AM
The only L23* diversity or variance map I have seen is Rokus's

http://rokus01.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/l23.png

Why does his map look fairly supportive of a broad early zone that includes both SW Asia and the steppes.  I have heard grumbles that it is flawed but I have never seen an attempt to do a better one.

If I'm not mistaken, that is actually VVs map and it is based on Myres which showed highest L23* variance in the Caucasus.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 27, 2012, 10:30:24 AM
The only L23* diversity or variance map I have seen is Rokus's

http://rokus01.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/l23.png

Why does his map look fairly supportive of a broad early zone that includes both SW Asia and the steppes.  I have heard grumbles that it is flawed but I have never seen an attempt to do a better one. 

If I'm not mistaken, that is actually VVs map and it is based on Myres which showed highest L23* variance in the Caucasus.

Perhaps we should look at the details. Sometimes graphics with limited data are not the best depiction.  I think JeanL has done this, but I'll go see what I can find.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 27, 2012, 10:32:03 AM
The only L23* diversity or variance map I have seen is Rokus's

Why does his map look fairly supportive of a broad early zone that includes both SW Asia and the steppes.

Doesn't surprise me at all. The complicating factor here is that people will move around. If only they would just fan out in one big migration then it would be easy to see on such maps. Instead the wretched creatures mill around, double back on themselves and generally mess up our calculations. Anatolia and some other parts of SW Asia had influxes of IE speakers at various times, a lot of whom were descended from fairly early departures from the PIE core. So far it is looking like a lot of L23* is connected with their descendants. These include Greeks and   Armenians, who are linguistically connected to Phrygians, so we can add them. The Anatolian branch seems to be an earlier influx from much the same source. So we would end up with high variance as well as relatively high density.

Of course it is possible that L23* was actually born in SW Asia somewhere, and moved into SE Europe. That might add to the variety. Time will tell.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: vineviz on August 27, 2012, 10:35:41 AM
If I'm not mistaken, that is actually VVs map and it is based on Myres which showed highest L23* variance in the Caucasus.

That is my map, plotting only the data from Myres.

I subsequently produced another version that included the Myres data plus also some from other sources that included the same STRs (e.g. other papers, FTDNA projects, etc.)

http://vizachero.com/R1b1/R1b1b2Diversitymodified.png

This appears to show highest diversity in the Levant, but with just 9 STRs and often small sample sizes  it is important to remember that variance differentials between adjacent bands are probably not statistically significant.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: vineviz on August 27, 2012, 10:39:14 AM
This appears to show highest diversity in the Levant, but with just 9 STRs and often small sample sizes  it is important to remember that variance differentials between adjacent bands are probably not statistically significant.

It is also worth noting that we have some new SNPs which, when analyzed across more samples, can give us additional lines of evidence for this part of the R-M269 tree.  Not sure any of this has any bearing on the origins of IE though.

VV


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 27, 2012, 10:40:16 AM
That is very interesting, and telling, I think.

Of course, those are broad geographic areas. When I was talking about a receiver of population possibly being more diverse than an older single source, I had in mind smaller geographic units.

Anyway, I think also archaeology would support the notion that Europe acted more as the receiver of population from SW Asia than as the donor, so it would support your findings above, Mike.

I agree and I'm also an advocate of using longer haplotypes. My personal experiences are that using a lot of STRs makes the relative results more consistent.  The FTDNA projects have a number of long haplotypes.... only problem is not enough in some of these key areas, hence the very broad geographical units.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 27, 2012, 10:42:48 AM
If I'm not mistaken, that is actually VVs map and it is based on Myres which showed highest L23* variance in the Caucasus.

That is my map, plotting only the data from Myres.

I subsequently produced another version that included the Myres data plus also some from other sources that included the same STRs (e.g. other papers, FTDNA projects, etc.)

http://vizachero.com/R1b1/R1b1b2Diversitymodified.png

This appears to show highest diversity in the Levant, but with just 9 STRs and often small sample sizes  it is important to remember that variance differentials between adjacent bands are probably not statistically significant.
Thank you for the update. Yes, I wish we could get at least 25 STRs measured.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 27, 2012, 11:28:45 AM
I was thinking there, is there still any value in the diversity maps of R1b as a whole such as this one

http://rokus01.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/balaresque_2010_r1b-variance.jpg

I realise that this is mixing clades but there does seem to be a rather neat pattern there.  It also indicates something interesting to me.  The spread of M269 may have commenced in the area of the Turkish-Bulgarian border (an area associated with the early spread of cattle dairying) but it actually was in the steppes long before it moved into central and western Europe.  So, was R1b simply in the mix (presumably the guys who brought the cattle etc to the hunters there) a millenia or so before the Kurgan movements.  The IE's are after all some sort of blend of steppes hunters and farming elements, both of whom were there and had mixed before the PIE period.  So in a way PIE culture is a hybrid of farmers and hunters leading to mobile pastoralists.  I think based on what I know, the idea that R1b relates to early cattle dairy farmers who spread from northern Anatolia to Bulgaria and onward is appealing.  This could have taken place at the M269-L23 period of R1b's development.  It must be noted that dairying elements were a wave behind the very first farmers.  Farming is really ancient is some parts of Anatolia (Pre-pottery Neolithic or PPN) but in others it is much later secondary and perhaps even tertiary in some areas in terms of the pottery sequence and may have been dependent on dairy farming being developed.

There seem to have been several phases of influence and/or movement that passed through Anatolia represented by several very widespread changes in pottery across the SW Asia/Anatolia?SE Europe area (see article I posted above)

1.PPN with its white ware (not true pottery but lime vessels)

2. Simple monocrome dark faced burnished  ware or DFBW (which probably originated in Northern Syria and southern/Central Anatolia and spread only as far as southern Greece in Europe.

3. Red slipped burnished ware or RSBW (which appeared almost simultaniously from NW Iran to Hungary and was widespread across SW Asia, Anatolia) and was the first pottery in the non-Greek Balkans and SE Europe and even entered into the steppes).

4. Painted wares shortly after expand over the same areas.

The most likely one of these to be associated with the spread of dairying and the establisment of a large area of Anatolia, the Balkans and even areas towards the steppes linked by language seem to be the third one.  This would appear to have established a widespread network of contact that was re-used in the painted pottery phase.  I think that must have implications for both genes and languages and there may have been the establisment of a language grouping in this era.  It is interesting how both this and the earliest spread of dairying have a resemblance to M269* and L23*.  The author of the report on this pottery sequence places this phase of internsive interaction broady in the 7th and 6th millenium BC.  I am not sure is that is too old to involve M269 and L23* though.   

 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 27, 2012, 12:00:42 PM
.... But in the case of PIE, you can judge for yourself, since the PIE lexicon (http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/PokornyMaster-X.html) is online. See what date you put on it. It is fun to do.

I see the regular livestock related items, cow, pig/pork, horse, goat, milk, etc. Of course, wheel, but I don't see wagon or cart. Am I missing that? I see "to ride (in vehicle)" so that gets at the same thing, I guess.  As expected "ore" or metal is there.

What about the grains? Is there some significance to this?   I was looking for emmer and/or einkhorn wheat. These are supposed to be key staples of the large neolithic LBK and Impressed Wares advances.

I see rye, flax, oats and spelt wheat (but not "wheat" itself) have PIE words.

Words for emmer and einkhorn wheat do not, although they were domesticated in Anatolia, southeast to be specific.
 ... it does look like we need to be specific as to regions within Anatolia.

"Evidence from DNA finger-printing suggests einkorn was domesticated near Karaca Dağ in southeast Turkey" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einkorn_wheat

"DNA studies on emmer wheat have shown its place of domestication to be near Şanlıurfa, in southeast Turkey." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmer

"earliest archaeological evidence of spelt is from the fifth millennium BC in Transcaucasia, north-east of the Black Sea" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelt

"Genetic evidence shows the ancestral forms of A. sterilis (oats) grew in the Fertile Crescent of the Near East. Domesticated oats appear relatively late, and far from the Near East, in Bronze Age Europe. Oats, like rye, are usually considered a secondary crop" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oat

"Rye is one of a number of species that grow wild in central and eastern Turkey, and in adjacent areas. Domesticated rye occurs in small quantities at a number of Neolithic sites in Turkey, such as PPNB Can Hasan III, but is otherwise virtually absent from the archaeological record until the Bronze Age of central Europe" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rye

"Flax was extensively cultivated in ancient Ethiopia and ancient Egypt. In a prehistoric cave in the Republic of Georgia, dyed flax fibers have been found that date to 30,000 BC, implicating it as the first domesticated species in human history" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flax


PIE vocabulary crops:

Spelt wheat - not directly from the Fertile Crescent, but from Transcaucasia.

Oats - good livestock feed (this is what we feed horses around here.) From the Fertile Crescent but did not hit Europe until the Bronze Age. A secondary product.

Rye - from the Fertile Crescent, but a secondary product as well, from central and eastern Turkey.

Flax - perhaps the earliest crop of all, found as far north as the Rep of Georgia used by humans 30K years ago, although probably domesticated in the Near East.

I see why Jean M has always talked about the secondary products revolution. There does seem to be some correlation with the Bronze Age in Europe, secondary products and PIE. These PIE related items seem to have missed the early Neolithic, which Barry Cunliffe felt was the most significant in terms of people impact.

When Renfrew, and Gray/Atkinson talk about PIE associated with an agricultural expansion, are they talking LBK and Impressed Wares, or the secondary products revolution? I thought I remember Renfrew emphasizing wheat.

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

umm.... that's 7500 to 6000 BC.

The LBK was in Central Europe "flourishing 5500–4500 BC". Before that, "in southeast Europe agrarian societies first appeared in the 7th millennium BC." (7000-6000 BC.)

I think they are talking about the early Neolithic.  This is what I don't get about Renfrew. Is he looking at the PIE vocabulary itself?  This needs to align with the archeological findings.  PIE is too late in Europe for the great early Neolithic advances.  I just don't get this.  What am I missing in what Renfrew is saying? Plowing through numbers in a math model doesn't solve basic vocabulary/archaeology alignment issues.

P.S. - I'm pleased see to they produced something in Austin at UT that I can use. I've sent plenty of money with kids there.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 27, 2012, 12:12:57 PM
The only L23* diversity or variance map I have seen is Rokus's

Why does his map look fairly supportive of a broad early zone that includes both SW Asia and the steppes.

Doesn't surprise me at all. The complicating factor here is that people will move around. If only they would just fan out in one big migration then it would be easy to see on such maps. Instead the wretched creatures mill around, double back on themselves and generally mess up our calculations. Anatolia and some other parts of SW Asia had influxes of IE speakers at various times, a lot of whom were descended from fairly early departures from the PIE core. So far it is looking like a lot of L23* is connected with their descendants. These include Greeks and   Armenians, who are linguistically connected to Phrygians, so we can add them. The Anatolian branch seems to be an earlier influx from much the same source. So we would end up with high variance as well as relatively high density.

Of course it is possible that L23* was actually born in SW Asia somewhere, and moved into SE Europe. That might add to the variety. Time will tell.

That paper of Nadezha linking movements into and within the steppes in the Neolithic with radical changes in aridity shows how mind boggling one period in one zone is. Kind of makes it seem a bit hopeless to unravel without ancient DNA from a whole host of Neolithic cultures all over Anatolia, Caucuses, steppes, Balkans etc.  The R ancient DNA samples are all too late (3rd millenium) at the moment to tell us much at all.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: acekon on August 27, 2012, 12:16:09 PM
@Renfrew emphasizing millet.

His lecture.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NrLZ8CzRWk

21:50 red wheat in China.
21:00-23:42,millet map.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 27, 2012, 01:49:52 PM
One possibility is the PIE was dispersed in the period of the Kurgan expansions but not by the Kurgans themselves and related more to the dispersal of the Old Europeans adjacent to them.  There was a demographic upheaval caused by an arid period at the take off of the Kurgan movements that also badly effected Old Europe.  So the Kurgans limited movement west may have taken place at the same time but may not actually be the causal factor for the displacement and scattering of the PIE speakers which may be down to the dispersal of the huge populations of the Old Europeans to less arid areas.  Could the strange rise in R1b you see in mountainous and Atlantic areas be the result of an arid phase which drove people to them?

Because that scattering only happened relatively late and involved a population adjacent to (and who had even entered )the steppes then most of the linguistic arguements that eliminate an earliest farmer origin would not apply.  After all, for much of Europe the big event of the copper age period is the appearance of R1b, not R1a.  That leads to the question as to why R1b has not yet been spotted in the Neolithic.

 One thing I would suggest is that R1b was not present in the very earliest phases related to Levantine originated movements along the Med such as PPN and Cardial/Impressed  ( for the latters origins see http://istanbul.academia.edu/EGuldogan/Papers/380951/Mezraa-Teleilat_Settlement_Impressed_Ware_and_Transferring_Neolithic_Life_Style

However, R1b could have arrived in the Old Europe zone of SE Europe slightly later and with a temporarily more confined distribution as suggested by the the Red slipped and painted ware zone.  The lack of R1b in the Med. zone and LBK (and the high amount of G) could relate to the non-Anatolian origins of those cultures.  Indeed a non-Anatolian (perhaps Levantine) origin has also been suggested by a recent study of the domesticated flora and fauna of LBK too.  

However, in contrast, SE Europe remained linked with Anatolia on a long terms basis from the 7th millenium to the early copper age and that could have seen gene flow that didnt make it into the earliest PPN, Dark Burnished Ware, Cardial and LBK elements of the movements into Europe which appear to not have Anatolian origins.  It will be very interesting to get some ancient DNA from Balkans Neolithic groups.  

    


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: razyn on August 27, 2012, 01:52:22 PM
P.S. - I'm pleased see to they produced something in Austin at UT that I can use. I've sent plenty of money with kids there.

They produced me... but, I haven't seen UT Austin mentioned in this thread.  Was it in some Wiki article about wheat varieties, or something?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 27, 2012, 03:00:43 PM
For those interested Whittaker seems to have written another piece on Eurphratic in a linguistics journal this year.  Unfortunately half the pages are missing in this

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vm2SugMy8C0C&pg=PA577&lpg=PA577&dq=euphratic+language&source=bl&ots=5AkbOV9JoK&sig=3Cgrp6EEzqd6Glb0mYczFU2cQUk&hl=en#v=onepage&q=euphratic%20language&f=false


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 27, 2012, 03:19:43 PM
P.S. - I'm pleased see to they produced something in Austin at UT that I can use. I've sent plenty of money with kids there.

They produced me... but, I haven't seen UT Austin mentioned in this thread.  Was it in some Wiki article about wheat varieties, or something?

Jean M posted a link labeled "PIE Lexicon."  This is it: http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/PokornyMaster-X.html


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 27, 2012, 03:53:37 PM
....
However, in contrast, SE Europe remained linked with Anatolia on a long terms basis from the 7th millenium to the early copper age and that could have seen gene flow that didnt make it into the earliest PPN, Dark Burnished Ware, Cardial and LBK elements of the movements into Europe which appear to not have Anatolian origins.  It will be very interesting to get some ancient DNA from Balkans Neolithic groups.

I've been guilty of just associating Anatolia with modern Turkey, as a homogenous location, but Turkey is wider east to west than California is north to south so its pretty big area with multiple river tributary systems heading towards different seas, including the Black Sea, the Caspian and the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf.

What drives up the higher STR variance numbers for FTDNA project Anatolia people is primarly the Armenians. Due to political strife, etc. (but let's not get into that), I'm sure we have a lot of Armenians immigrated out of Turkey. If we look at the map of old Armenia, it isn't even a part of the Anatolian Peninsula. Maybe the Armenians seem to be driving up the diversity just because they are the majority. I don't know, but is worth understanding their origins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maps_of_the_Armenian_Empire_of_Tigranes.gif

The core area is actually considered to be in Transcaucasia. During the latter times of the Anthony hypothesized PIE homeland, the groups covering Trancaucasia  were part of the Kura–Araxes culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuro-Araxes_culture

The Kura-Araxes supposedly influence the Maykops, as did the Yamnaya. The influence might have been bi-directional:
Quote
At some point the (Kura-Araxes) culture's settlements and burial grounds expanded out of lowland river valleys and into highland areas. Although some scholars have suggested that this expansion demonstrates a switch from agriculture to pastoralism, and that it serves as possible proof of a large-scale arrival of Indo-Europeans, facts such as that settlement in the lowlands remained more or less continuous suggest merely that the people of this culture were diversifying their economy to encompass both crop and livestock agriculture.

If they were diversifying their economy, they may have been quite wise or at least fortunate.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 27, 2012, 06:20:42 PM
One possibility is the PIE was dispersed in the period of the Kurgan expansions but not by the Kurgans themselves and related more to the dispersal of the Old Europeans adjacent to them.  
....
Because that scattering only happened relatively late and involved a population adjacent to (and who had even entered )the steppes then most of the linguistic arguements that eliminate an earliest farmer origin would not apply. ...    

I don't understand what you are saying here? Are you saying the secondary product words and word for metal, etc. don't apply? If that is what you are saying, I'm not following.

As far as PIE goes (regardless of genetics,) it is my understanding that glottochronology is the concept Gray and Atkinson (and I guess Renfrew now) are banking on in it in their math model.

The foundation of glottochronology is that there exists "relatively stable basic vocabulary." This means there had to be a finite group of people that knew of and spoke this basic vocabulary at the point and location right before its dispersal. PIE did not disperse without a basic PIE word otherwise all* of the historical IE languages wouldn't have had the derivatives of these words.

* This is where I understand some Anatolian languages are different. They don't have all of the words so the thought (by Anthony) is they are possibly a separate branch from "pre" PIE, or before PIE was fully developed.

The same full PIE word set went to the west into Western Europe, but also as far as China and India in the other direction.  There still has to be finite group and geography for this to start from.

Cattle, pork, goats, sheep, milk and some forms of crops, particularly secondary agricultural products, went with the word set in all directions. Words like horse, wheel and ore also went with them. The dispersal could not have happened before these words were being used or from a location where these words were not used.

Apples, oaks, honey bees, snow, boat/ship, sea/lake are on the PIE list.  Peaches, citrus fruit, bananas are not, which makes some sense. No words for emmer wheat or einkhorn wheat are on the list, which I think would be a big thing for an early neolithic origin. If some kind of "pre" PIE language spread with the Neolithic, its strange that some of the key Neolithic products were omitted or forgotten.

A caveat is that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence so a base word could have just been lost somehow. However, the positive appearance of a word in all derivatives is pretty good evidence.

The one that I find strange is that apes are on the PIE basic vocabulary list.






Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on August 27, 2012, 07:34:44 PM
.... But in the case of PIE, you can judge for yourself, since the PIE lexicon (http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/PokornyMaster-X.html) is online. See what date you put on it. It is fun to do.
I see rye, flax, oats and spelt wheat (but not "wheat" itself) have PIE words

Wow!!! That looks like a really fun tool.

I don't know much about the evolution of crops but I will try to find out which ones did not exist in Kurgan Europe but did exist in neolithic anatolia and verify that they aren't in PIE.

Things like that would completely seal the deal for me.

The only problem is that just as a branch of PIE could move to anatolia and acquire a totally new word, a branch of PIE could move from anatolia to the steppe and loose said word, before it diversifies into more branches...

This problem highlights the uniqueness and beauty of the words "wheel" and "wagon". As far as we know, both the objects and the words spread from the same place (Steppe) at the same time. Thus the word couldn't be gained from outside the steppe and, due to the spread of the objects, they weren't lost after their daughter languages moved out of the Steppe.

I'd like to find even more examples, because I'm greedy. hehe!


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on August 27, 2012, 07:38:47 PM
Quote
Because that scattering only happened relatively late and involved a population adjacent to (and who had even entered )the steppes then most of the linguistic arguements that eliminate an earliest farmer origin would not apply. ...

I believe the primary argument is about location and timing. In that case ethnicity does not matter.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 27, 2012, 08:27:15 PM
... Peaches, citrus fruit, bananas are not, which makes some sense. No words for emmer wheat or einkhorn wheat are on the list, which I think would be a big thing for an early neolithic origin. If some kind of "pre" PIE language spread with the Neolithic, its strange that some of the key Neolithic products were omitted or forgotten. ....

Archaic Celtic and Italo-Celtic people have been in Iberia and the southern part of France for a long time.  

What's the Celtic word for "olive?"  Does the Celtic word for olive match with the Vulgar Latin word?  and the Greek word for it? Olive trees are native to the coastal areas of the eastern Mediterranean Basin (the adjoining coastal areas of southeastern Europe, western Asia and northern Africa) as well as northern Iraq, and northern Iran at the south end of the Caspian Sea." Southern Turkey might be the origin of wild olive trees, but they have been around so long I don't know if anyone knows.

References to olive, olive tree or olive oil are strangely missing from the PIE word set.  On the other hand the PIE vocabulary has butter and references to animal fats.  

It's understandable if the IE speakers moving towards Germany and the Baltic lost the word as they may not have had the cultivars to grow there.  However, the Mycenaean Greeks, Iberian and Southern Gaul Celts along with the Latins and probably the Anatolians should all have a word derived from a base word for "olive."  Shouldn't they? ... unless the PIE homeland didn't have or understand the use of olive trees and oil.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 27, 2012, 09:28:56 PM
@ Mikewww

I see you are enjoying the lexicon. :) A couple of papers on the history of the olive have gone into the Plant Domestication folder for you. Good you brought it up. I have corrected a point in my text as a result. In fact this whole discussion has been a lot more useful than I thought it would be. Got me thinking about points to make.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 27, 2012, 09:47:24 PM
John Hawks wrote a nice article on his blog.  Here is his conclusion.

Quote from: John Hawks
So, there we are. Even though the present study supports an early, Anatolian origin for Indo-European, other evidence rejects the simple Colin Renfrew model. The present Indo-European families did not reach their present geographic distributions with the first agriculturalists. That means we need to look at more complex intermediate steps to explain how current and historic Indo-European languages got to their attested locations. The steppic model might well explain the spread of languages between 6000 and 4000 years ago, even if they shared earlier ancestors that fit the Anatolian model.
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/archaeology/recent/indo-european-anatolia-bouckaert-2012.html

I'm still baffled by Renfrew. I know he is a smart man but it seems like he can't see the forest through the trees. Either that, or I'm just plain missing something... but if so, at least Mallory is missing it too so there is some good company.

The Anatolian branch must be screwing these guys up. Apparently they can't view it as a pre-PIE branch. I'll speculate that this would be similar to trying to make STR based clusters fit as subclades (like they apparently should) while ignoring an SNP discovery that tells something different, although simply. Of course, the backdrop is that of the huge appeal (not emotional or macho, but logical) of early Neolithic expansions, and the weight of their archaeological evidence as a "revolution" in Europe.

Jean M, yes, it is a bit fun to ponder the PIE lexicon. I kind of wondered why you put it in that light (fun), but I see what you mean.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 27, 2012, 11:16:06 PM
One possibility is the PIE was dispersed in the period of the Kurgan expansions but not by the Kurgans themselves and related more to the dispersal of the Old Europeans adjacent to them.  
....
Because that scattering only happened relatively late and involved a population adjacent to (and who had even entered )the steppes then most of the linguistic arguements that eliminate an earliest farmer origin would not apply. ...    






I don't understand what you are saying here? Are you saying the secondary product words and word for metal, etc. don't apply? If that is what you are saying, I'm not following.

What I am saying is two things happened as a result of the arid phase - the specacular dispersal of the massive population of farmers in SE Europe and the intrusion of steppe peoples into the same area.  These two event effected the same time and same place.  So, I guess what I am saying is what really dispersed IE, the dispersal of the massive farming population of SE Europe or the intrusion of the Kurgans into SE Europe?  The former has the potential to have been a huge population displacement but the latter seems very limited in extent.  Are we getting it wrong and looking at the right time and place but looking at the wrong population? Maybe the scattering of the massive farming population was what spread IE into the west and the limited Kurgan phenomenon was no more than that.  

The other point I am making is that this particular group of farmers in SE Europe and Anatolia seem to have formed a sustained contact zone that lasted millenia, something that is not true of the rest of the spread of farming.  Time and again innovations in pottery spread among the same block.  They seem to me to have the hallmarks of a linguistic block of some type.  

The third point I am making is that this block closely neighboured the steppe for millennia and were eating into the forest steppe too.  They were at the right time and in the right area to make it easy for that area to know about the wheel etc.

So, in short I am kind of raising again the model that this block of farmers could have been IE, with the ones in SE Europe closest to the steppes forming PIE towards the end and the slighly more detached sections in Anatolia (with less contact with the steppes) forming the Anatolian branch.   These farmers living around the time of the environmentally caused collapse of the SE European farming cultures may well have by that late stage have learned of the wheel etc.  There was then a dispersal of huge farming populations of SE Europe creating a good scenario for the break up of PIE.  The fact that this dispersal/collapse happened at the same time as the movement of the Kurgans is really down to the common cause of a severe arid phase.  At the time of the dispersal those farmers would have been well aware of any steppe innovations, would have had words for them and they would have been in contact with both steppe and forest steppe peoples (C-Trype having overrun a chunk of them) so I dont see Uralic borrowing a big issue.  

So in short I am suggesting the simultanious dispersal of the massive Old European population of SE Europe and the movement of the Kurgans into the area was simultaneus but are we pointing the finger at the right group?  They were neighbours right up the point when both went a-moving at the same time due to the arid phase so I dont see how vocab and time depth can be used to seperate them.  They moved from adjacent areas at the same time after all.  The juxtaposition of aguement with two extreme options of a homogenous group called 'the Anatolian farmers' of say 6-7000BC against steppe Kurgans of say 3-4000BC is a massive misrepresenting of the range of options.  Yes that was the old Renfrew theory but even he doesnt believe that now.   Renfrews original model presented vs Mallory meant that the time depth and geographical differences were grossly exagerated when only those two options are considered.  


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 28, 2012, 12:16:16 AM


One possibility is the PIE was dispersed in the period of the Kurgan expansions but not by the Kurgans themselves and related more to the dispersal of the Old Europeans adjacent to them.  
....
Because that scattering only happened relatively late and involved a population adjacent to (and who had even entered )the steppes then most of the linguistic arguements that eliminate an earliest farmer origin would not apply. ...  

I don't understand what you are saying here? Are you saying the secondary product words and word for metal, etc. don't apply? If that is what you are saying, I'm not following.

.... So, I guess what I am saying is what really dispersed IE, the dispersal of the massive farming population of SE Europe or the intrusion of the Kurgans into SE Europe?  The former has the potential to have been a huge population displacement but the latter seems very limited in extent.  Are we getting it wrong and looking at the right time and place but looking at the wrong population? Maybe the scattering of the massive farming population was what spread IE into the west and the limited Kurgan phenomenon was no more than that.  

I'm in agreement that is a real possibility. I've tried to be careful to never say the expansion of PIE into Europe had to be core Yamnaya population, but could be someone on the fringes. The same goes that I wouldn't want to say R1b was an originator of PIE. I also see no romantic appeal in who was or wasn't a Kurganist.  Who cares? What counts is where was the PIE homeland right before the dispersal of its branches westward and would R1b folks have been there at the same time? I think some say the Cucu-Trypillian integration with Yamnaya but maybe it was Yamnaya/Maykop with Kuro-Araxes or something else near the lower Danube.

Quote from: alan trowel hands
The other point I am making is that this particular group of farmers in SE Europe and Anatolia seem to have formed a sustained contact zone that lasted millenia, something that is not true of the rest of the spread of farming.  Time and again innovations in pottery spread among the same block.  They seem to me to have the hallmarks of a linguistic block of some type.  

The third point I am making is that this block closely neighboured the steppe for millennia and were eating into the forest steppe too.  They were at the right time and in the right area to make it easy for that area to know about the wheel etc.

So, in short I am kind of raising again the model that this block of farmers could have been IE, with the ones in SE Europe closest to the steppes forming PIE towards the end and the slighly more detached sections in Anatolia (with less contact with the steppes) forming the Anatolian branch.   These farmers living around the time of the environmentally caused collapse of the SE European farming cultures may well have by that late stage have learned of the wheel etc.  There was then a dispersal of huge farming populations of SE Europe creating a good scenario for the break up of PIE.  The fact that this dispersal/collapse happened at the same time as the movement of the Kurgans is really down to the common cause of a severe arid phase.  At the time of the dispersal those farmers would have been well aware of any steppe innovations, would have had words for them and they would have been in contact with both steppe and forest steppe peoples (C-Trype having overrun a chunk of them) so I dont see Uralic borrowing a big issue.  

So in short I am suggesting the simultanious dispersal of the massive Old European population of SE Europe and the movement of the Kurgans into the area was simultaneus but are we pointing the finger at the right group?  They were neighbours right up the point when both went a-moving at the same time due to the arid phase so I dont see how vocab and time depth can be used to seperate them.  They moved from adjacent areas at the same time after all.  

What cultures make up this particular group of Old Europe farmers? Are these remnants of the old LBK? If so, I'm trying to figure out what haplogroups they might be.

Quote from: alan trowel hands
The juxtaposition of aguement with two extreme options of a homogenous group called 'the Anatolian farmers' of say 6-7000BC against steppe Kurgans of say 3-4000BC is a massive misrepresenting of the range of options.  Yes that was the old Renfrew theory but even he doesnt believe that now.  Renfrews original model presented vs Mallory meant that the time depth and geographical differences were grossly exagerated when only those two options are considered.  

I think Jean M has been right there emphasizing the dairy people and the secondary products revolutions as an in-between (time-wise) alternative.

What is Mallory's restated position? This latest paper clearly point towards dates of an Early Neolithic expansion.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 28, 2012, 12:31:48 AM
Jean M, yes, it is a bit fun to ponder the PIE lexicon. I kind of wondered why you put it in that light (fun), but I see what you mean.

I meant that instead of ploughing through papers full of other people's thoughts, you can do your own thinking. I find that more enjoyable.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 28, 2012, 12:47:54 AM
What is Mallory's restated position? This latest paper clearly point towards dates of an Early Neolithic expansion.

Why should Mallory need to restate his position? It's all in print. There have been comments on Language Log (http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4142) from some of his collaborators: Victor Mair and David Anthony, if that is of interest. I was struck by a comment from someone who often posts comments on Dienekes' blog, ohwilleke:

Quote
If you are going to be a Baysean statistican and use prior probability distributions, then, by God, be a Baysean statistican and use as many firm calibration points as possible from past research by other methods when you do your modeling, and you don't have to be genius historical linguistics scholar to come up with a lot of data points that are pretty solid from material culture archaeology, historical sources and known linguistic familiy relationships. (Razib Khan notes the absurdity of the dates assigned to the Roma divergence in the model). If your model can't fit the data points we already have accurately, then you know that you are wrong and need to go back to the drawing board before trying to publish work that reaches rubbish conclusions. The deepest flaw in the model in addition to its failure to use enough prior probabilities when they exist is its failure to adequately account for differential rates of language evolution attributable to language contact, substrate influences and language differentiation, each of which drive above average rates of language evolution relative to periods when a language is isolated and has little contact with other highly distinct languages.

A good Bayesean model would start with a framework of known archaeological cultures that could have different linguistic affiliations from each other and a lot of historical data points on dates and places where we know languages were spoken or not spoken, and would then assign probabilities to the IE or non-IE (and IE subfamily) linguistic affiliations of various archaeological cultures. For example, we can be almost certain about which archaeological cultures were associated with Celtic languages, but Urnfield and Bell Beaker are much closer calls and quantitative efforts to estimate their linguistic affiliation probabilities would be helpful.  


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 28, 2012, 12:56:24 AM
Here is part of what David Anthony had to say:

Quote
I don't understand why every iteration of the model kept returning a geographic root in Anatolia. They said it wasn't just because Anatolia is in the center of the IE distribution so would make the most efficient starting point for an expansion that operated through random movements, but I don't understand what other aspect of the Anatolian starting point makes it the geographic root. It seems to me that it might be a combination of the efficient-center-random-walk process, strengthened by the constraint that Anatolian is the earliest branch, and additionally strengthened by the decision to map the Anatolian languages in Anatolia for the purposes of the geographic-spread model. But then the the Anatolian root would be an artifact of assumptions inherent to the model, particularly the prior mapping of Anatolian in Anatolia. But don't most Anatolian linguists consider the Anatolian languages as probably intrusive in a non-IE Hattic-speaking Anatolian environment? To the extent that the geographic rooting is determined by the prior decision to place Anatolian in Anatolia, isn't that decision responsible for the Anatolian root?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on August 28, 2012, 04:46:59 AM
I know we've already ripped at this paper quite a bit but I think the following quote goes to the very heart and idea of the paper.

Quote
... is in the center of the IE distribution so would make the most efficient starting point for an expansion...

It looks like the intent of this method is to find a model with the most efficient movements, a goal which is not intuitive to say the least, given the messy look of human history. It will be nice to get a critique from someone who understands the method intimately.

I've been thinking, it gets kind of old when someone of importance claims to know the answer to a controversial subject when they don't. It forces us spend all this time finding out why their claims are BS. Sure, we learn along the way, but its not a very fun process. I think its the dishonesty bit. Am I alone in this, or do you guys actually find it fun?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 28, 2012, 06:05:37 AM
It looks like the intent of this method is to find a model with the most efficient movements, a goal which is not intuitive to say the least, given the messy look of human history.

David Anthony has published on patterns of human migration. The problem is not so much the lack of efficiency in them as the complexity of them. They are not random, as he points out.

Quote
... about the applicability of a virus-based model of geographic spread, I find that in particular a problematic aspect of the Gray-Atkinson approach, since viruses don't move with intentionality, and human migrations tend to be very patterned and intention-based. Human spreads are like targeted streams, not like waves, because humans choose geographic targets and skip large areas to reach them–unlike viruses. Later migrants then follow first migrants to those specific places, rather than moving randomly. The Relaxed Random Walk model they used assumes movements at the front of an expanding wave that are random in regards to direction. I don't know to what degree their logarithm permits variable-distance movements, but I doubt that it permits long-distance leaps like the movement that brought Athabascan languages into the Southwest; or the movement that seems to have brought steppe Yamnaya people to the Altai. It permits over-sea movements, which must be long-distance, but then it doesn't permit additional long-distance leaps to specific targets over land, as far as I know. The direction of geographic movement is constrained in their logarithm by the positions of some daughter languages in some ancient records or in modern times, but they do not rank these possible locations according to archaeological data for movements in that direction from the presumed earlier edge of the wave–for archaeological plausibility, in other words.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 28, 2012, 09:41:28 AM
David Anthony has published on patterns of human migration. The problem is not so much the lack of efficiency in them as the complexity of them. They are not random, as he points out.

Quote from: David Anthony
... about the applicability of a virus-based model of geographic spread, I find that in particular a problematic aspect of the Gray-Atkinson approach.....
I don't know to what degree their logarithm permits variable-distance movements, but I doubt that it permits long-distance leaps like the movement that brought Athabascan languages into the Southwest; or the movement that seems to have brought steppe Yamnaya people to the Altai. It permits over-sea movements, which must be long-distance, but then it doesn't permit additional long-distance leaps to specific targets over land, as far as I know. ...

To understand the Beaker folks, I think you'd have to take into account the river systems as well as the seas and some "portages" through plains or passages.  To be valuable, the spatial aspect of a Gray-Atkinson type approach needs to do something to grease the skids for certain transportation routes, barriers, probably climate too, at the very least.

The reason I brought up Beaker folks, besides their spaghetti like spread, is an effort to understand where they come from, and where they come from before. I don't know that they did emanate out of Portugal, but if they did, where did they come from before that. They were clearly intruders where they show up. Is there step backward at some point to the vicinity of a PIE homeland?

I guess this is a good place to ask - who were the Sea People? They were real and they were aggressive. Do they connect to the Beaker folks?  Do they connect to the Levant, to western Anatolia or to the western or southern coasts of the Black Sea?

I don't know if it is conclusive, but as you've noted, the stelae trail may be a clue. What other clues are there as to who/where were the Beaker folks, before they were Beaker folks.

Quote from: David Anthony
But don't most Anatolian linguists consider the Anatolian languages as probably intrusive in a non-IE Hattic-speaking Anatolian environment? To the extent that the geographic rooting is determined by the prior decision to place Anatolian in Anatolia, isn't that decision responsible for the Anatolian root? 

Good point. Do the early PIE related Anatolian language speakers probably come from across the Bosporus and SE Europe or do they come from Transcaucasia?  Is from the south and the Euphratic people a viable alternative?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on August 28, 2012, 12:25:24 PM
Here is an interesting article, from an old study, which deals with the domestication of animals and plants during the Neolithic and how agriculture spread through the Meditteranean.

"Dr. Zeder finds that goats and sheep were first domesticated about 11,000 years ago, much earlier than previously thought, with pigs and cattle following shortly afterwards. The map, from her article in the August 11 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows the regions and dates where the four species were first domesticated. Other dates, color-coded as to species, show where domesticated animals first appear elsewhere in the Fertile Crescent."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/11/science/12visuals.html?_r=1

A more recent study on a similar topic.

"Early Neolithic sedentary villagers started cultivating wild cereals in the Near East 11,500 y ago [Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA)]. Recent discoveries indicated that Cyprus was frequented by Late PPNA people, but the earliest evidence until now for both the use of cereals and Neolithic villages on the island dates to 10,400 y ago. Here we present the recent archaeological excavation at Klimonas, which demonstrates that established villagers were living on Cyprus between 11,100 and 10,600 y ago."

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/22/8445.abstract


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on August 28, 2012, 12:44:19 PM
David Anthony has published on patterns of human migration. The problem is not so much the lack of efficiency in them as the complexity of them. They are not random, as he points out.

Quote from: David Anthony
... about the applicability of a virus-based model of geographic spread, I find that in particular a problematic aspect of the Gray-Atkinson approach.....
I don't know to what degree their logarithm permits variable-distance movements, but I doubt that it permits long-distance leaps like the movement that brought Athabascan languages into the Southwest; or the movement that seems to have brought steppe Yamnaya people to the Altai. It permits over-sea movements, which must be long-distance, but then it doesn't permit additional long-distance leaps to specific targets over land, as far as I know. ...

To understand the Beaker folks, I think you'd have to take into account the river systems as well as the seas and some "portages" through plains or passages.  To be valuable, the spatial aspect of a Gray-Atkinson type approach needs to do something to grease the skids for certain transportation routes, barriers, probably climate too, at the very least.

The reason I brought up Beaker folks, besides their spaghetti like spread, is an effort to understand where they come from, and where they come from before. I don't know that they did emanate out of Portugal, but if they did, where did they come from before that. They were clearly intruders where they show up. Is there step backward at some point to the vicinity of a PIE homeland?

I guess this is a good place to ask - who were the Sea People? They were real and they were aggressive. Do they connect to the Beaker folks?  Do they connect to the Levant, to western Anatolia or to the western or southern coasts of the Black Sea?

I don't know if it is conclusive, but as you've noted, the stelae trail may be a clue. What other clues are there as to who/where were the Beaker folks, before they were Beaker folks.

Quote from: David Anthony
But don't most Anatolian linguists consider the Anatolian languages as probably intrusive in a non-IE Hattic-speaking Anatolian environment?  

Good point. Do the early PIE related Anatolian language speakers probably come from across the Bosporus and SE Europe or do they come from Transcaucasia?  Is from the south and the Euphratic people a viable alternative?

Here is an interesting description of the Sea Peoples along with clay tablets made during the period which depicts the events themselves.
Notice the horn shaped helmets of the bronze sculpture. They resemble the bronze Celtic sculptures of Halstatt.

"The invasion of the Sea Peoples is one of the best documented incursions of a military force into ancient Egypt in Egyptian art history. The invasions occurred in two primary waves over a fifty year period beginning toward the end of the the Twelfth Century BCE during the rule of the Pharaoh Merneptah (1224-1210bc) and climaxing during the reign of Ramesses III 1194-1163bc toward the middle of the the eleventh Century BCE. The exploits of Rameses III are documented on the walls of Medinet Habu and the Invasions which took place during the rule of Merneptah are recorded in the Merneptah tablet. These invasions are some the best recorded in Egyptian History, literally written in stone both of these records have survived in relatively good condition to the present day."

http://artsales.com/ARTistory/Ancient_Ships/17_sea_peoples.html





Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on August 28, 2012, 12:51:50 PM
The reason I brought up Beaker folks, besides their spaghetti like spread, is an effort to understand where they come from, and where they come from before. I don't know that they did emanate out of Portugal, but if they did, where did they come from before that. They were clearly intruders where they show up. Is there step backward at some point to the vicinity of a PIE homeland?
Of course they came from Italy. A first migration of agriculuralists by sea is documented (Zhilao et al.). Nobody remembers anymore the paper about the Tudorella sulcata from Sardinia to North Africa, Sicily, South France and Iberia. It is documented that Lusitanian language derives from an IE language of Italy, probably linked with Ligurian. I have asked whether these agriculturalists from Italy (7500YBP and those after them) were autochthonous of Italy or came from Balkans etc. This for me is the unique question to which I think only the aDNA will be able to give an answer.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on August 28, 2012, 12:56:42 PM
Notice the horn shaped helmets of the bronze sculpture. They resemble the bronze Celtic sculptures of Halstatt.
In Italian we'd say that "stai prendendo lucciole per lanterne": this helmet is that of Sardinian warriors (SHRDN in ancient Egyptian language)!


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on August 28, 2012, 01:03:32 PM
“The illustration above is a Bronze Casting of Soldier found in a middle bronze age context on Sardinia showing similar horned Helmets to those illustrated at Mendinet Habu. The similarity of the helmet, shield and dress of this statue to illustrations in the Mendinet Habu Wall panels strongly suggests part of the Sea Peoples forces came from Sardinia”.
 



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 28, 2012, 01:16:52 PM
“The illustration above is a Bronze Casting of Soldier found in a middle bronze age context on Sardinia showing similar horned Helmets to those illustrated at Mendinet Habu. The similarity of the helmet, shield and dress of this statue to illustrations in the Mendinet Habu Wall panels strongly suggests part of the Sea Peoples forces came from Sardinia”.

It looks like the Sea Peoples might have come about in the aftermath of the Bell Beakers since the Egyptians documented them towards the end of the 2nd millenium BC.  Does anyone know the earliest citation of Bronze Age seafarers in the Med? Is it the Beakers?

On Sardinia, what's their earliest Bronze Age archaeological dig?



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on August 28, 2012, 01:53:59 PM
On Sardinia, what's their earliest Bronze Age archaeological dig?
Which “Bronze Age”? Italians sailed 7500YBP, perhaps 15000. I have written a lot about the sailors of obsidian of the Aegean Sea, and I think of Italian Seas, and I linked them to the first hg. G, seen that Italy also for G2c has the most ancient hapoltypes etc. Recently I have spoken of the ship with a loading of obsidian found at Capri (more than 5000YBP). But does anyone remember the “Tudorella sulcata”?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on August 28, 2012, 02:03:57 PM
“The illustration above is a Bronze Casting of Soldier found in a middle bronze age context on Sardinia showing similar horned Helmets to those illustrated at Mendinet Habu. The similarity of the helmet, shield and dress of this statue to illustrations in the Mendinet Habu Wall panels strongly suggests part of the Sea Peoples forces came from Sardinia”.

It looks like the Sea Peoples might have come about in the aftermath of the Bell Beakers since the Egyptians documented them towards the end of the 2nd millenium BC.  Does anyone know the earliest citation of Bronze Age seafarers in the Med? Is it the Beakers?

On Sardinia, what's their earliest Bronze Age archaeological dig?


Mike, while Sardinians are a pretty good candidate for Sea Peoples...

1. Sardinians did not speak an Ind-European language until the Roman conquest.
2. Modern Sardinians are overwhelmingly not R1b. In fact, they have the lowest levels of R1b in Western Europe.
3. Are referenced more than 1000 years after Bell Beakers.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on August 28, 2012, 02:17:50 PM
Quote from: Mikewww

On Sardinia, what's their earliest Bronze Age archaeological dig?


BTY, the Sardinians probably had the most advanced civilization in Bronze Age Europe, with castles that pre-dated the Middle Ages by a couple of thousand years. I'm amazed every time I see this:

http://www.sardegnacultura.it/documenti/7_26_20060401123630.pdf (http://www.sardegnacultura.it/documenti/7_26_20060401123630.pdf)


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on August 28, 2012, 02:24:38 PM
1. Sardinians did not speak an Ind-European language until the Roman conquest.
2. Modern Sardinians are overwhelmingly not R1b. In fact, they have the lowest levels of R1b in Western Europe.
3. Are referenced more than 1000 years after Bell Beakers.

1)   I have hypothesized, by basing me on the Sardinian word “thiligugu” and others, linked with Caucasian languages, that the ancient language of Sardinians was a Caucasian one, perhaps ancestor of the same Basque, seen that Sardinians colonized Iberia and the hg. I-M26, Sardinian one per excellence, is found also amongst Basques. But also Etruscan-Rhaetian-Camun was intermediate between Caucasian and IE languages.
2)   Sardinia has a low level of R1b, but they have R-M18, which demonstrates R-V88-, which demonstrates that ancient R1b haplotypes were present in ancient Sardinians.
3)   If Sardinians carried to Iberia hg. G and I-M26 above all, from Liguria and Tuscany probably came hg R (R-L51, R-P312, perhaps some ancient R-U152), more linked to IE languages and Ceramica Impressa, ancestor of Bell Beakers.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on August 28, 2012, 02:54:19 PM
1. Sardinians did not speak an Ind-European language until the Roman conquest.
2. Modern Sardinians are overwhelmingly not R1b. In fact, they have the lowest levels of R1b in Western Europe.
3. Are referenced more than 1000 years after Bell Beakers.

1)   I have hypothesized, by basing me on the Sardinian word “thiligugu” and others, linked with Caucasian languages, that the ancient language of Sardinians was a Caucasian one, perhaps ancestor of the same Basque, seen that Sardinians colonized Iberia and the hg. I-M26, Sardinian one per excellence, is found also amongst Basques. But also Etruscan-Rhaetian-Camun was intermediate between Caucasian and IE languages.
2)   Sardinia has a low level of R1b, but they have R-M18, which demonstrates R-V88-, which demonstrates that ancient R1b haplotypes were present in ancient Sardinians.
3)   If Sardinians carried to Iberia hg. G and I-M26 above all, from Liguria and Tuscany probably came hg R (R-L51, R-P312, perhaps some ancient R-U152), more linked to IE languages and Ceramica Impressa, ancestor of Bell Beakers.


1. I completely agree with you on the Basque-Sardinian link via I-M26 and mtDNA V. Unfortunately the book linking the two areas linguistically is too expensive: "Paleosardo, le radici linguistiche de la Sardegna neolítica"
2. R1b-V88 could be very old or very young in Sardinia. I have no opinion on it one way or the other.
3. Yes, we all know the aDNA Cardial samples from Iberia were G2a and that the pottery flow of Cardial pottery was from Italy to Iberia. However, that is not proof that L51 and friends made the migration together. The early Copper Age is a much better candidate in my opinion.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on August 28, 2012, 03:05:22 PM
After Ramesses II succeeded in defeating the invaders and capturing some of them, Sherden captives are depicted in this Pharaoh's bodyguard, where they are conspicuous by their helmets with horns with a ball projecting from the middle, their round shields and the great Naue II swords,[5] with which they are depicted in inscriptions of the Battle with the Hittites at Kadesh. Ramesses tells us, in his Kadesh inscriptions, that he incorporated some of the Sherden into his own personal guard at the Battle of Kadesh.[6] Little more than a century later, many Sherden are found cultivating plots of their own; these are doubtless rewards given to them for their military services. There is also evidence of Sherden at Beth Shean, the Egyptian garrison in Canaan."

"Guido suggests that the Sherden may ultimately derive from Ionia, in the central west coast of Anatolia, in the region of Hermos, east of the island of Chios. It is suggested that Sardis, and the Sardinian plain nearby, may preserve a cultural memory of their name. Until recently it was assumed that Sardis was only settled in the period after the Anatolian and Aegean Dark Age, but American excavations have shown the place was settled in the Bronze Age and was a site of a significant population. If this is so, the Sherden, pushed by Hittite expansionism of the Late Bronze Age and prompted by the famine that affected this region at the same time, may have been pushed to the Aegean islands, where shortage of space led them to seek adventure and expansion overseas. It is suggested that from here they may have later migrated to Sardinia."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherden


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on August 28, 2012, 03:13:36 PM
1. I completely agree with you on the Basque-Sardinian link via I-M26 and mtDNA V. Unfortunately the book linking the two areas linguistically is too expensive: "Paleosardo, le radici linguistiche de la Sardegna neolítica"
2. R1b-V88 could be very old or very young in Sardinia. I have no opinion on it one way or the other.
3. Yes, we all know the aDNA Cardial samples from Iberia were G2a and that the pottery flow of Cardial pottery was from Italy to Iberia. However, that is not proof that L51 and friends made the migration together. The early Copper Age is a much better candidate in my opinion.

That R-L51 may have migrated to Iberia from Italy was suggested to me by your map (presence of R-L51 just in the places where we know landed the first agriculturalists from Italy: Valencia region and central Portugal), but I said that probably the migrations were many, and not only the first of 7500 years ago.
About Sardinian language and the link of “thiligugu” with Caucasian I made for first here in some previous post. In spite of what rms2 says, I have no need to read professorial linguists. Anyhow the book : Massimo Pittau, La lingua dei Sardi Nuragici e degli Etruschi, Editrice Libreria Dessì, Sassari 1981, is in my library from “8.V.1982”.



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on August 28, 2012, 03:21:14 PM
After Ramesses II succeeded in defeating the invaders and capturing some of them, Sherden captives are depicted in this Pharaoh's bodyguard, where they are conspicuous by their helmets with horns with a ball projecting from the middle, their round shields and the great Naue II swords,[5] with which they are depicted in inscriptions of the Battle with the Hittites at Kadesh. Ramesses tells us, in his Kadesh inscriptions, that he incorporated some of the Sherden into his own personal guard at the Battle of Kadesh.[6] Little more than a century later, many Sherden are found cultivating plots of their own; these are doubtless rewards given to them for their military services. There is also evidence of Sherden at Beth Shean, the Egyptian garrison in Canaan."

"Guido suggests that the Sherden may ultimately derive from Ionia, in the central west coast of Anatolia, in the region of Hermos, east of the island of Chios. It is suggested that Sardis, and the Sardinian plain nearby, may preserve a cultural memory of their name. Until recently it was assumed that Sardis was only settled in the period after the Anatolian and Aegean Dark Age, but American excavations have shown the place was settled in the Bronze Age and was a site of a significant population. If this is so, the Sherden, pushed by Hittite expansionism of the Late Bronze Age and prompted by the famine that affected this region at the same time, may have been pushed to the Aegean islands, where shortage of space led them to seek adventure and expansion overseas. It is suggested that from here they may have later migrated to Sardinia."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherden


Bullshit. It is the usual blatering against Italy. I have proofs that at least SHRDN, SHKLSH and TWRSH came from Italy. Read the book of Woudhuizen about the Sea peoples we spoke a lot also here.
Anyway nothing to do with Celts. I think having demonstrated many times that Celts came from Iberia and first from Italy, if you like it or not.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on August 28, 2012, 03:49:28 PM
Maliclavelli,

Whatever you say! You are a better language and Italy scholar than I am. I agree that Celts came from Iberia and before that Italy and before that The Balkens and before that Anatolia.
I am also facinated that the Sea People's, horned helmet, long sword, round shield and maritine skills are similar to that of the Celts.

http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763591605/



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 28, 2012, 04:02:36 PM
I suppose one of the points I am labouring but want to make clear is the idea of 'the farmers' is a misnomer and should not be used in juxtaposition to Kurgans.  The spread of farming into Europe was multi-faceted with different non-European departure points and dates.  This is not exhaustive but here goes in order:

1. Very early pre-pottery Neolithic people from the Levant and Anatolia reached Cyprus and Greece

2. Surprisingly early Impressed Ware/Cardial groups probably also originated in the Levant and maybe SE Anatolia and spread up the eastern Adriatic then Italy and the west Med.

3. A limited dark faced ware group moved from central/southern Anatolia as far as mainland Greece.

4. A more widespread red slipped ware zone was settled from Anatolia and spread over much of Anatolia, NW Iran and the Balkans (where they were the first Neolithic group).  I am not 100% sure but I think this phase corresponded with the spread of cattle dairying into SE Europe from Anatolia into SE Europe.

5. The same area as no.4 was quickly followed by a spread of painted ware suggesting a cultural-linguistic contact zone was formed during no. 4 and sustained for millenia.
(the last 2 groups formed into a number of Balkans cultures but I cant honestly go through them)

6.  LBK arose out of Koros at a location close to where Balkans and Cardial influences, apparently featuring an agricultural form with more in common with the Med. groups.

That is an oversimplified macro-view of only the period 9000-5500BC from the Pre-pottery Neolithic until the start of LBK.   I only set this out to indicate just how many intrusions there were made into Europe of varying origin, varying date, varying direction and varying extent over nearly 5000 years even up to the point when the first LBK pot was being made.  The idea of 'the farmers' in a single demographic wave of advance is an outdated idea that has been demolished.  There were many groups of farmers of varying origin, date and location and the flow even before faming had penetrated beyond the Balkans and Med. zone is very complex involving at least 5 phases and probably more and forming into many cultures.  The concept of 'the farmers' is invalid in many ways.   It gets a lot more complex later but I am not even going there as I think I have made my point.    


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on August 28, 2012, 05:00:38 PM
Alan, I think you are touching on a lot of valid points. Neither Renfrew's farming scenario nor Mallory's Kurgan scenario on their own seem to satisfy the distribution of R1b & R1a. And let's not foget that women spoke languages too. Is it impossible for mtDNA H to have spoken a PIE and spread into Europe with agriculture only to be followed during the Copper Age be R1b with a vocabulary consisting of secondary products?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 28, 2012, 05:14:02 PM
.... Is it impossible for mtDNA H to have spoken a PIE and spread into Europe with agriculture only to be followed during the Copper Age be R1b with a vocabulary consisting of secondary products?

Absolutely (I would guess) it would be possible, but I think from the strict perspective of what PIE is, an early language accompanying agricultural might have been been pre-PIE, but NOT really PIE itself.

It helps to think of PIE in terms of the Most Recent Common Ancestor concept.  PIE is relatively stable language last spoke before the dispersal of what we now think of as IE languages.  PIE, itself, has the secondary products, metal, the wheel and the horse. The earliest agriculturists in Europe didn't have those.

Pre-Indo-European languages are not really Indo-European languages. Only the Proto-Indo-European language kicks that off. I guess the western PIE homeland (or maybe just western PIE) could be SE Europe though with folks from the Steppes in the mix.

I think we all agree that we really don't know that R1b (et al) brought PIE to Europe, but whoever did, had to come from or very near the PIE homeland at the last point before it started being replaced by its successor languages.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 28, 2012, 05:24:20 PM
I suppose one of the points I am labouring but want to make clear is the idea of 'the farmers' is a misnomer and should not be used in juxtaposition to Kurgans.  The spread of farming into Europe was multi-faceted with different non-European departure points and dates.  This is not exhaustive but here goes in order:

1. Very early pre-pottery Neolithic people from the Levant and Anatolia reached Cyprus and Greece

2. Surprisingly early Impressed Ware/Cardial groups probably also originated in the Levant and maybe SE Anatolia and spread up the eastern Adriatic then Italy and the west Med.

3. A limited dark faced ware group moved from central/southern Anatolia as far as mainland Greece.

4. A more widespread red slipped ware zone was settled from Anatolia and spread over much of Anatolia, NW Iran and the Balkans (where they were the first Neolithic group).  I am not 100% sure but I think this phase corresponded with the spread of cattle dairying into SE Europe from Anatolia into SE Europe.

5. The same area as no.4 was quickly followed by a spread of painted ware suggesting a cultural-linguistic contact zone was formed during no. 4 and sustained for millenia.
(the last 2 groups formed into a number of Balkans cultures but I cant honestly go through them)

6.  LBK arose out of Koros at a location close to where Balkans and Cardial influences, apparently featuring an agricultural form with more in common with the Med. groups.

That is an oversimplified macro-view of only the period 9000-5500BC from the Pre-pottery Neolithic until the start of LBK.   I only set this out to indicate just how many intrusions there were made into Europe of varying origin, varying date, varying direction and varying extent over nearly 5000 years even up to the point when the first LBK pot was being made.  The idea of 'the farmers' in a single demographic wave of advance is an outdated idea that has been demolished.  There were many groups of farmers of varying origin, date and location and the flow even before faming had penetrated beyond the Balkans and Med. zone is very complex involving at least 5 phases and probably more and forming into many cultures.  The concept of 'the farmers' is invalid in many ways.   It gets a lot more complex later but I am not even going there as I think I have made my point.    

How does Starčevo I play into this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star%C4%8Devo_culture

Is the dark ware group Dudesti?

Is there another name for the "red slipped ware zone" ?  I'm trying to read up on it but can't find much info.

I like this web site for showing early SE Europe.
http://www.eliznik.org.uk/EastEurope/History/balkans-map/early-neolithic.htm
I like it because you can hit "next" and "previous" go through different map visuals of the cultures in SE Europe at different points in time. If it is accurate, is there something we can glean from it?

Here is a map of the Balkans with the terrain. Wow, a lot of mountains.
http://pipesmagazine.com/python/files/2011/03/balkan-peninsula-map.jpg


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on August 28, 2012, 05:32:26 PM
I have written a lot about mtDNA, also here, but it seems that nobody read them. MtDNA frequently is more careful to follow the migrations. One sample is my K1a1b1e, born in Italy about 7000 years ago and diffused to the Isles with the mutations 477C. One Irish living in Australia said it was the mt of Henry I, then of his mother, but he didn’t reply to a letter of mine. Probably a bluff. Illustrious geneticists tried to demonstrate the origin of HV4 in Iberia, but there are only late subclades, whereas in Italy there are the most ancient haplotypes. I, as usual, “broke in pieces” that paper in on line version, that they haven’t published yet.
Also about R1a (I wrote some posts about also on eng.molgen, and illustrious R1a experts replied, but nobody to my last letter) I remember my ancient hypothesis that was born in the Alps Region. In the last paper I cited some posts ago on the Hutterites (Irene Pichler et al.) there are 5 R1a-M420 with DYS392=13 and 3 R1a-M420 with DYS392=11 out of 227 samples, an astronomical percentage. I think that this could demonstrate where is the origin of this haplogroup, thinking also to its massive presence in the Isles.



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on August 29, 2012, 06:03:33 AM
I have written a lot about mtDNA, also here, but it seems that nobody read them. MtDNA frequently is more careful to follow the migrations. One sample is my K1a1b1e, born in Italy about 7000 years ago and diffused to the Isles with the mutations 477C. One Irish living in Australia said it was the mt of Henry I, then of his mother, but he didn’t reply to a letter of mine. Probably a bluff. Illustrious geneticists tried to demonstrate the origin of HV4 in Iberia, but there are only late subclades, whereas in Italy there are the most ancient haplotypes. I, as usual, “broke in pieces” that paper in on line version, that they haven’t published yet.
Also about R1a (I wrote some posts about also on eng.molgen, and illustrious R1a experts replied, but nobody to my last letter) I remember my ancient hypothesis that was born in the Alps Region. In the last paper I cited some posts ago on the Hutterites (Irene Pichler et al.) there are 5 R1a-M420 with DYS392=13 and 3 R1a-M420 with DYS392=11 out of 227 samples, an astronomical percentage. I think that this could demonstrate where is the origin of this haplogroup, thinking also to its massive presence in the Isles.

Not only, but, as amongst the 11 UEP tested there is also M17, we are sure that the other 7 haplotypes (6 different ones) are R1a1*. Then 15 R1a*/R1a1* amongst 227 people tested: 6,6%, and no more recent subclades.   


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on August 29, 2012, 07:38:25 AM
1. Sardinians did not speak an Ind-European language until the Roman conquest.
2. Modern Sardinians are overwhelmingly not R1b. In fact, they have the lowest levels of R1b in Western Europe.
3. Are referenced more than 1000 years after Bell Beakers.

1)   I have hypothesized, by basing me on the Sardinian word “thiligugu” and others, linked with Caucasian languages, that the ancient language of Sardinians was a Caucasian one, perhaps ancestor of the same Basque, seen that Sardinians colonized Iberia and the hg. I-M26, Sardinian one per excellence, is found also amongst Basques. But also Etruscan-Rhaetian-Camun was intermediate between Caucasian and IE languages.
2)   Sardinia has a low level of R1b, but they have R-M18, which demonstrates R-V88-, which demonstrates that ancient R1b haplotypes were present in ancient Sardinians.
3)   If Sardinians carried to Iberia hg. G and I-M26 above all, from Liguria and Tuscany probably came hg R (R-L51, R-P312, perhaps some ancient R-U152), more linked to IE languages and Ceramica Impressa, ancestor of Bell Beakers.


1. I completely agree with you on the Basque-Sardinian link via I-M26 and mtDNA V. Unfortunately the book linking the two areas linguistically is too expensive: "Paleosardo, le radici linguistiche de la Sardegna neolítica"
2. R1b-V88 could be very old or very young in Sardinia. I have no opinion on it one way or the other.
3. Yes, we all know the aDNA Cardial samples from Iberia were G2a and that the pottery flow of Cardial pottery was from Italy to Iberia. However, that is not proof that L51 and friends made the migration together. The early Copper Age is a much better candidate in my opinion.

The Geno 2.0 test will use 5,000 SNPs from Sardinian samples. THis should give us better insights into this interesting population and perhaps solve the riddle of the Basque - Sardinian link.

"the Y-markers on the Geno 2.0 chip come from a variety of sources.  The majority are entirely new, and are drawn from the work of our team and collaborators:

~3500 from Chris Tyler-Smith, drawn primarily from 1K Genomes data
 
~3500 from Li Jin, discovered by deep sequencing in East Asian populations from a variety of haplogroups
 
~5000 from Paolo Francalacci and Sergio Tofanelli, discovered by deep sequencing in Sardinian populations from a variety of haplogroups"
 



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 29, 2012, 11:21:52 AM
I suppose one of the points I am labouring but want to make clear is the idea of 'the farmers' is a misnomer and should not be used in juxtaposition to Kurgans.  The spread of farming into Europe was multi-faceted with different non-European departure points and dates.  This is not exhaustive but here goes in order:

1. Very early pre-pottery Neolithic people from the Levant and Anatolia reached Cyprus and Greece

2. Surprisingly early Impressed Ware/Cardial groups probably also originated in the Levant and maybe SE Anatolia and spread up the eastern Adriatic then Italy and the west Med.

3. A limited dark faced ware group moved from central/southern Anatolia as far as mainland Greece.

4. A more widespread red slipped ware zone was settled from Anatolia and spread over much of Anatolia, NW Iran and the Balkans (where they were the first Neolithic group).  I am not 100% sure but I think this phase corresponded with the spread of cattle dairying into SE Europe from Anatolia into SE Europe.

5. The same area as no.4 was quickly followed by a spread of painted ware suggesting a cultural-linguistic contact zone was formed during no. 4 and sustained for millenia.
(the last 2 groups formed into a number of Balkans cultures but I cant honestly go through them)

6.  LBK arose out of Koros at a location close to where Balkans and Cardial influences, apparently featuring an agricultural form with more in common with the Med. groups.

That is an oversimplified macro-view of only the period 9000-5500BC from the Pre-pottery Neolithic until the start of LBK.   I only set this out to indicate just how many intrusions there were made into Europe of varying origin, varying date, varying direction and varying extent over nearly 5000 years even up to the point when the first LBK pot was being made.  The idea of 'the farmers' in a single demographic wave of advance is an outdated idea that has been demolished.  There were many groups of farmers of varying origin, date and location and the flow even before faming had penetrated beyond the Balkans and Med. zone is very complex involving at least 5 phases and probably more and forming into many cultures.  The concept of 'the farmers' is invalid in many ways.   It gets a lot more complex later but I am not even going there as I think I have made my point.    

How does Starčevo I play into this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star%C4%8Devo_culture

Is the dark ware group Dudesti?

Is there another name for the "red slipped ware zone" ?  I'm trying to read up on it but can't find much info.

I like this web site for showing early SE Europe.
http://www.eliznik.org.uk/EastEurope/History/balkans-map/early-neolithic.htm
I like it because you can hit "next" and "previous" go through different map visuals of the cultures in SE Europe at different points in time. If it is accurate, is there something we can glean from it?

Here is a map of the Balkans with the terrain. Wow, a lot of mountains.
http://pipesmagazine.com/python/files/2011/03/balkan-peninsula-map.jpg

Mike- I just dont have time at the moment to refresh my memory on the Balkans Neolithic and summarise it.  its incredibly complex once it gets going.  All I know from the recent paper I posted is that in non-Greek Balkans area that it was at the time of him writing believed that the first Neolithic people brought red slipped ware very soon after followed by the painted stuff.  The latter could represent continuing interaction with Anatolia etc rather than 2 waves.  In terms of correlation I assume what he is saying is the first Neolithic Balkans cultures earliers pottery was of that type.  So what you need is a list of the primary Neolithic cultures of the Balkans (I will have to refresh my memory as its been years).  That is of course just the root and quick diversification happened along with continuing contact.  In terms of R1b, this time period is well before the normal dates I have seen given for M269.  

EDIT-note that the Adriatic coast of the Balkans was different again in that it had a pretty early Cardial/Impressed Ware culture.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 29, 2012, 11:40:01 AM
I suppose one of the points I am labouring but want to make clear is the idea of 'the farmers' is a misnomer and should not be used in juxtaposition to Kurgans.  The spread of farming into Europe was multi-faceted with different non-European departure points and dates.  This is not exhaustive but here goes in order:

1. Very early pre-pottery Neolithic people from the Levant and Anatolia reached Cyprus and Greece

2. Surprisingly early Impressed Ware/Cardial groups probably also originated in the Levant and maybe SE Anatolia and spread up the eastern Adriatic then Italy and the west Med.

3. A limited dark faced ware group moved from central/southern Anatolia as far as mainland Greece.

4. A more widespread red slipped ware zone was settled from Anatolia and spread over much of Anatolia, NW Iran and the Balkans (where they were the first Neolithic group).  I am not 100% sure but I think this phase corresponded with the spread of cattle dairying into SE Europe from Anatolia into SE Europe.

5. The same area as no.4 was quickly followed by a spread of painted ware suggesting a cultural-linguistic contact zone was formed during no. 4 and sustained for millenia.
(the last 2 groups formed into a number of Balkans cultures but I cant honestly go through them)

6.  LBK arose out of Koros at a location close to where Balkans and Cardial influences, apparently featuring an agricultural form with more in common with the Med. groups.

That is an oversimplified macro-view of only the period 9000-5500BC from the Pre-pottery Neolithic until the start of LBK.   I only set this out to indicate just how many intrusions there were made into Europe of varying origin, varying date, varying direction and varying extent over nearly 5000 years even up to the point when the first LBK pot was being made.  The idea of 'the farmers' in a single demographic wave of advance is an outdated idea that has been demolished.  There were many groups of farmers of varying origin, date and location and the flow even before faming had penetrated beyond the Balkans and Med. zone is very complex involving at least 5 phases and probably more and forming into many cultures.  The concept of 'the farmers' is invalid in many ways.   It gets a lot more complex later but I am not even going there as I think I have made my point.    

How does Starčevo I play into this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star%C4%8Devo_culture

Is the dark ware group Dudesti?

Is there another name for the "red slipped ware zone" ?  I'm trying to read up on it but can't find much info.

I like this web site for showing early SE Europe.
http://www.eliznik.org.uk/EastEurope/History/balkans-map/early-neolithic.htm
I like it because you can hit "next" and "previous" go through different map visuals of the cultures in SE Europe at different points in time. If it is accurate, is there something we can glean from it?

Here is a map of the Balkans with the terrain. Wow, a lot of mountains.
http://pipesmagazine.com/python/files/2011/03/balkan-peninsula-map.jpg

Mike-thanks so much for the link to the site on the Balkans Neolithic.  That makes an excellent starting point for anyone wanting to know more or refresh their memory.  The very interesting thing about this is the way that it goes as far as to show the regions of Central Balkan, Anatolian and Med. influences and the way they waxed an wained with the Balkans cultures thrusting east before the Anatolia ones then thrust west.  Of course I was aware of these basic divisions but I have never seen a map that is so explicit about the Anatolian tradition (archaeologist tend to be uber cautious about stuff like that).  It does demonstrate what I was saying about a long sustained Anatolian-SE European contact zone of some sort that was active over millenia.  I think it looks like a language block but I am not going to say I am sure what.  Nevertheless it is rather like the zone of the Indo-Hittie hypothesis with Anatolian in Anatolia and a semi-detached area in the Balkans giving rise to PIE.  One way or other I think it was likely a language block of some sort be it related to IE or not.  I will try and translate the Vinca tablets over the weekend and settle this old arguement :0)  

NB I cannot vouch for how correct and up to date that site/maps are.  It would take a while till I could dig around enough to see if it is sound or not...but it certainly looks good!


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 29, 2012, 11:58:36 AM
Mike- another thought is that what those maps also make clear (maybe clearer than is warranted) is that the farmers probably had several languages.  As the map suggests there was a Balkans-Anatolia zone which presumably had roots in or around Anatolia.  There was also a zone where farmers were early linked to the Levant in the pre-pottery Neolithic including Cyprus, parts of Greece etc.  There were also cultures that bypassed the east of Greece and headed up the Adriatic even though they likely originated in and around the Levant. 

So, even the Balkans could have featured three linguistic blocks whose fortunes waxed and wained. It is the east Balkans ones that are catching my eye as they are close to both Anatolia and were on the Black Sea shores too.  I would think only they could have been IE or IE-ised early.  The west of the Balkans surely spoke a language related to the Levantine origin of Impressed/Cardial culture.  I need to read up about the roots of the initial central Balkans cultures Cris-Koros-Starcevo in between and see what the latest thinking is.  I note on the map that Anatolian seems to thrust west into their lands in the form of Vinca later on. 

I also need to refresh my memory as to how Cucuteni-Trypole is linked in with these cultures. It seems to be a bit unclear and origins involving both the Cris-Koros-Starcevo central Balkans cultures and the more Anatolian linked Vinca culture (as well as influences from other more Anatolian east Balkan cultures) are indicated on Wiki

A great map though Mike.  A map or a little boxed cartoon of the main characteristics of a culture (pots, tools, burials, houses etc) sticks far better in the mind and longer than words IMO. 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 29, 2012, 12:24:24 PM
BTW Mike-I would intepret the cultures in red as being in the red slipped monochrome (then shorly after painted) Anaolian-Balkans group of the pottery article I posted. It appears so from the notes.  The western one is clearly impressed ware  which has its roots in the Levant.  The only one I am less sure of how to link with the pottery article is Starcevo central Balkans one which is stated on the map to feature course ware and barbotine decoration.  I am not sure how that fits in with the pottery paper I posted.  However, the important one seems to me to be the Anatolian-Balkans monochrome (red slipped) and painted zone.  This is the one that the pottery paper sees as forming a long zone of interaction between the Balkans and Anatolia and which I would think is a good candidate for a linguistic zone whether or not that relates to IE in any way.  However, if R1b was involved from the get-go (8500 years ago) then it would have had to be a very old form if the normal variance dates are correct.  Then again if it was a sustained network (8500BC-past 5000BC) it could have entered it at any time. 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: razyn on August 29, 2012, 02:23:28 PM
A map or a little boxed cartoon of the main characteristics of a culture (pots, tools, burials, houses etc) sticks far better in the mind and longer than words IMO. 

Can't help noticing that's a singularly archaeological picture of the main characteristics of a culture...


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on August 29, 2012, 02:42:02 PM
I suppose one of the points I am labouring but want to make clear is the idea of 'the farmers' is a misnomer and should not be used in juxtaposition to Kurgans.  The spread of farming into Europe was multi-faceted with different non-European departure points and dates.  This is not exhaustive but here goes in order:

1. Very early pre-pottery Neolithic people from the Levant and Anatolia reached Cyprus and Greece

2. Surprisingly early Impressed Ware/Cardial groups probably also originated in the Levant and maybe SE Anatolia and spread up the eastern Adriatic then Italy and the west Med.

3. A limited dark faced ware group moved from central/southern Anatolia as far as mainland Greece.

4. A more widespread red slipped ware zone was settled from Anatolia and spread over much of Anatolia, NW Iran and the Balkans (where they were the first Neolithic group).  I am not 100% sure but I think this phase corresponded with the spread of cattle dairying into SE Europe from Anatolia into SE Europe.

5. The same area as no.4 was quickly followed by a spread of painted ware suggesting a cultural-linguistic contact zone was formed during no. 4 and sustained for millenia.
(the last 2 groups formed into a number of Balkans cultures but I cant honestly go through them)

6.  LBK arose out of Koros at a location close to where Balkans and Cardial influences, apparently featuring an agricultural form with more in common with the Med. groups.

That is an oversimplified macro-view of only the period 9000-5500BC from the Pre-pottery Neolithic until the start of LBK.   I only set this out to indicate just how many intrusions there were made into Europe of varying origin, varying date, varying direction and varying extent over nearly 5000 years even up to the point when the first LBK pot was being made.  The idea of 'the farmers' in a single demographic wave of advance is an outdated idea that has been demolished.  There were many groups of farmers of varying origin, date and location and the flow even before faming had penetrated beyond the Balkans and Med. zone is very complex involving at least 5 phases and probably more and forming into many cultures.  The concept of 'the farmers' is invalid in many ways.   It gets a lot more complex later but I am not even going there as I think I have made my point.    

How does Starčevo I play into this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star%C4%8Devo_culture

Is the dark ware group Dudesti?

Is there another name for the "red slipped ware zone" ?  I'm trying to read up on it but can't find much info.

I like this web site for showing early SE Europe.
http://www.eliznik.org.uk/EastEurope/History/balkans-map/early-neolithic.htm
I like it because you can hit "next" and "previous" go through different map visuals of the cultures in SE Europe at different points in time. If it is accurate, is there something we can glean from it?

Here is a map of the Balkans with the terrain. Wow, a lot of mountains.
http://pipesmagazine.com/python/files/2011/03/balkan-peninsula-map.jpg

Mike-thanks so much for the link to the site on the Balkans Neolithic.  That makes an excellent starting point for anyone wanting to know more or refresh their memory.  The very interesting thing about this is the way that it goes as far as to show the regions of Central Balkan, Anatolian and Med. influences and the way they waxed an wained with the Balkans cultures thrusting east before the Anatolia ones then thrust west.  Of course I was aware of these basic divisions but I have never seen a map that is so explicit about the Anatolian tradition (archaeologist tend to be uber cautious about stuff like that).  It does demonstrate what I was saying about a long sustained Anatolian-SE European contact zone of some sort that was active over millenia.  I think it looks like a language block but I am not going to say I am sure what.  Nevertheless it is rather like the zone of the Indo-Hittie hypothesis with Anatolian in Anatolia and a semi-detached area in the Balkans giving rise to PIE.  One way or other I think it was likely a language block of some sort be it related to IE or not.  I will try and translate the Vinca tablets over the weekend and settle this old arguement :0)  

NB I cannot vouch for how correct and up to date that site/maps are.  It would take a while till I could dig around enough to see if it is sound or not...but it certainly looks good!


Mike,
I also enjoyed reading all the maps of the Balkens Neolithic. If the rest of the European Neolithic was as complex as this we have a long way to go in understanding the total picture.
What appears to me is relatively peaceful Anatolian farming cultures, Starcevo and Vinca, coexisting for millennia until the descent of the horse borne Kurgan warriors from the Steppes.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 29, 2012, 04:10:59 PM
...the horse borne Kurgan warriors from the Steppes.

Kurgan warriors? Not at that date. The steppe nomads did not turn into mounted warriors until much, much later. The people of the European steppe were not even nomadic until about 3300 BC. The Starčevo culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star%C4%8Devo_culture) and Vinča culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin%C4%8Da_culture) were long gone by then.
 
The vision of kurgan warriors captured people's minds I know. But that really reflects a much later time - the Scythians of the Iron Age.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 29, 2012, 04:34:27 PM
...the horse borne Kurgan warriors from the Steppes.

Kurgan warriors? Not at that date. The steppe nomads did not turn into mounted warriors until much, much later. The people of the European steppe were not even nomadic until about 3300 BC. The Starčevo culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star%C4%8Devo_culture) and Vinča culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin%C4%8Da_culture) were long gone by then.
 
The vision of kurgan warriors captured people's minds I know. But that really reflects a much later time - the Scythians of the Iron Age.

This seems to be the thing that really bothers Colin Renfrew. He makes a point to say mounted warriors from the Steppes didn't show up until too late. In fact, Alan has mentioned that Renfrew has changed his position over the years. I can see that Renfrew is no longer so much the early agricultural Anatolian advocate as the mounted warrior kurganist opposition.

I was thinking about it and David Anthony doesn't push the mounted warrior thing that I noticed. He does, however, have in the title of his book "bronze age riders." He doesn't say warrior per se, but I imagine "bronze age rider" implies it and was better for book sales ... and perhaps something the publisher pushed.

Did Mallory or Gimbutas push the mounted warrior thing?

I see the PIE lexicon has a word for "army" or "warrior". That doesn't mean they did a lot of damage, maybe just the bodyguards for the chief.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on August 29, 2012, 04:49:04 PM
Quote
Did Mallory or Gimbutas push the mounted warrior thing?

Of course Gimbutas did!

She interjected a whole lot of her ideology, you know the "men barbaric, women pure" nonsense, into her works in which the warrior society served as the counterpart to these spiritual societies.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 29, 2012, 05:11:53 PM
.... Renfrew is no longer so much the early agricultural Anatolian advocate as the mounted warrior kurganist opposition.

Not my reading of it, having seen him lecture. He keeps gleefully dragging in the old Gimbutas vision from which Mallory and Anthony have been at pains to distance themselves, because he knows people hate it. Tarring the opposition. In the lecture I saw, he pretended to have forgotten the title of Anthony's book, so that he could pretend to misremember it as "horse-riders conquering Europe."


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 29, 2012, 05:13:08 PM
Quote
Did Mallory or Gimbutas push the mounted warrior thing?

She interjected a whole lot of her ideology, you know the "men barbaric, women pure" nonsense, into her works in which the warrior society served as the counterpart to these spiritual societies.

Ironically about 20% of those mounted Scythians warriors were women.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on August 29, 2012, 05:55:40 PM
Quote
Did Mallory or Gimbutas push the mounted warrior thing?

She interjected a whole lot of her ideology, you know the "men barbaric, women pure" nonsense, into her works in which the warrior society served as the counterpart to these spiritual societies.

Ironically about 20% of those mounted Scythians warriors were women.

There's something about that land which makes the women tough : )

I hear the Russian women, about one million of them, held their own in the fighting of WWII.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 29, 2012, 06:05:48 PM
There's something about that land which makes the women tough : )

Not quite my interpretation, but I suppose terrain comes into it. My thinking is that if the males of a community are highly mobile, you need a female home guard. If you have men  who say things like "Just popping out for a bit of raiding, Penelope. Back in ten years. Don't wait up." Sort of thing.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on August 29, 2012, 06:38:57 PM
There's something about that land which makes the women tough : )

Not quite my interpretation, but I suppose terrain comes into it. My thinking is that if the males of a community are highly mobile, you need a female home guard. If you have men  who say things like "Just popping out for a bit of raiding, Penelope. Back in ten years. Don't wait up." Sort of thing.

Ha, good point.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 29, 2012, 07:15:01 PM
.... Renfrew is no longer so much the early agricultural Anatolian advocate as the mounted warrior kurganist opposition.

Not my reading of it, having seen him lecture. He keeps gleefully dragging in the old Gimbutas vision from which Mallory and Anthony have been at pains to distance themselves, because he know people hate it. Tarring the opposition. In the lecture I saw, he pretended to have forgotten the title of Anthony's book, so that he could pretend to misremember it as "horse-riders conquering Europe."

Yes I agree and I would apply that to both sides.  Some people think its still Gimbutas vs a monolithic farmers wave of advance model like it was 25 years ago.  The models of both sides have changed and saying 'both sides' is also misleading because there are many shades in between.   


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 29, 2012, 07:26:13 PM
A map or a little boxed cartoon of the main characteristics of a culture (pots, tools, burials, houses etc) sticks far better in the mind and longer than words IMO. 

Can't help noticing that's a singularly archaeological picture of the main characteristics of a culture...

I know what you mean but it does start with the basic remains before further analysis and comparisons can be done.  You have to learn a lot of dry facts first before you get into interesting stuff.  Just depends on how your memory works too. Mine is very visual and I will remember an image for a very long time indeed but cant remember a phone number until I have used it 100s of times. Visual memory is very useful in every day archaeological work.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 29, 2012, 09:45:50 PM
.... Renfrew is no longer so much the early agricultural Anatolian advocate as  (edit:Renfrew now is) the mounted warrior kurganist opposition.

Not my reading of it, having seen him lecture. He keeps gleefully dragging in the old Gimbutas vision from which Mallory and Anthony have been at pains to distance themselves, because he know people hate it. Tarring the opposition. In the lecture I saw, he pretended to have forgotten the title of Anthony's book, so that he could pretend to misremember it as "horse-riders conquering Europe."

That's exactly my point. Alan said earlier that Renfrew was more open in his position.  From my interpretation, Alan may be right, but Renfrew's main purpose seems to be to knock any "mounted warrior" aspect of a IE expansion from the Steppes.

I always thought the Gimbutas perspective sounded a bit crazy so I never delved into it.  However, is Renfrew using the Gimbutas mounted warrior vision as his strawman target, keeping Mallory and Anthony busy deflecting that while distracting the audience emotionally?

If Anthony has separated himself from Gimbutas, Renfrew is fighting the last battle, maybe because he can't win the current one.

Alan, help... or whoever will defend Renfrew. I'm beginning to not think so well of him.  I'm not following where Renfrew is going for shades of gray in terms of periods later than the early Neolithic. I mainly just hear Renfrew attacking mounted warriors, the horse and such. This latest paper on PIE with an early agricultural expansion seems to have Renfrew's full support. It's clearly an early Neolithic hypothesis.

May be Renfrew is right, but I'd like to see his arguments about why secondary products, metals, etc. words are in PIE.  The only argument I've seen from him there is that glottochronology doesn't work and he cites the Latin word for cafe or something. If glottochronology and the language tree concept don't work then Renfrew should not support this latest paper timing language development.

Okay, I'll be a bit harsh, but Renfrew is well esteemed and use to facing criticism. I'm just hoping to inspire a better defense of his position.... but it's like he is fighting the windmills (the mounted warriors) but he has a problem because they really are dragons (the PIE lexicon.)

I'm not saying Anthony is 100% correct, BTW, I'm just trying to figure out why PIE didn't expand with the secondary products or later.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 30, 2012, 08:18:50 AM
Yes I agree and I would apply that to both sides.  Some people think its still Gimbutas vs a monolithic farmers wave of advance model like it was 25 years ago.  The models of both sides have changed

Renfrew has wobbled around over the years, certainly. In 1999 and 2004, he proffered a compromise position. But since it was no more satisfactory to linguists than his original out-of-Antolia, it did not get the chorus of approval that might have encouraged him to hang on to it. The latest lectures by him have shown him right back to his original position. May as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 30, 2012, 12:03:35 PM
.... Renfrew is no longer so much the early agricultural Anatolian advocate as  (edit:Renfrew now is) the mounted warrior kurganist opposition.

Not my reading of it, having seen him lecture. He keeps gleefully dragging in the old Gimbutas vision from which Mallory and Anthony have been at pains to distance themselves, because he know people hate it. Tarring the opposition. In the lecture I saw, he pretended to have forgotten the title of Anthony's book, so that he could pretend to misremember it as "horse-riders conquering Europe."

That's exactly my point. Alan said earlier that Renfrew was more open in his position.  From my interpretation, Alan may be right, but Renfrew's main purpose seems to be to knock any "mounted warrior" aspect of a IE expansion from the Steppes.

I always thought the Gimbutas perspective sounded a bit crazy so I never delved into it.  However, is Renfrew using the Gimbutas mounted warrior vision as his strawman target, keeping Mallory and Anthony busy deflecting that while distracting the audience emotionally?

If Anthony has separated himself from Gimbutas, Renfrew is fighting the last battle, maybe because he can't win the current one.

Alan, help... or whoever will defend Renfrew. I'm beginning to not think so well of him.  I'm not following where Renfrew is going for shades of gray in terms of periods later than the early Neolithic. I mainly just hear Renfrew attacking mounted warriors, the horse and such. This latest paper on PIE with an early agricultural expansion seems to have Renfrew's full support. It's clearly an early Neolithic hypothesis.

May be Renfrew is right, but I'd like to see his arguments about why secondary products, metals, etc. words are in PIE.  The only argument I've seen from him there is that glottochronology doesn't work and he cites the Latin word for cafe or something. If glottochronology and the language tree concept don't work then Renfrew should not support this latest paper timing language development.

Okay, I'll be a bit harsh, but Renfrew is well esteemed and use to facing criticism. I'm just hoping to inspire a better defense of his position.... but it's like he is fighting the windmills (the mounted warriors) but he has a problem because they really are dragons (the PIE lexicon.)

I'm not saying Anthony is 100% correct, BTW, I'm just trying to figure out why PIE didn't expand with the secondary products or later.

To be honest although I am a fence sitter on the IE thing, I have never been impressed by Renfrew.  I think some sort of case could be put far better than Renfrew has done.  Even his seminal book was not a great read.  I actually hated it at the time and was an arch Kurganist lol.  I am by no means a convinced pre-Kurganist now either.  I really lack confidence in concluding on this one personally.  Both models have massive elements that are hard to swallow when we are talking about the establishement of a huge language spread. My gut feeling is that BOTH steppes and farming people of the east Balkans AND steppe people simply had to be involved in the PIE linguistic and cultural ethnogenesis. The crucial interface is clearly from the east Balkans/west shore of the Black Sea through along the steppes.  However, in that zone there was a lot of waxing and waning and giving and taking etc and I am just not 100%. They all probably knew about the late Neolithic objects and secondary products etc and had words for them because they were so intertwined.  I just am not sure if the language and words for these things we took away was originally the language of the Kurgan people or the farmers (and remember they waxed, mained and overlapped). 

So, I think i agree with the general time and the general place where PIE as reconstructed may have finally formed (the east European farmer-hunter/steppe nomad interface) but I am not sure which element spoke it first.  I also do not believe we can distingish between a word spoken among PIEs before they dispersed and a word that spread post-dispersal among early dispersed IEs after dispersal.  The period when this is impossible to distinguise between a genetic PIE word and a later invovation spread among dispersed IEs could be a long one if the IEs continued to have close interaction networks with each other after dispersal, slowing down divergence. So, I think we cant nail it down as close to a date as we would like IMO.  Maybe to within a 1000 years or so but I am not buying the idea that we know enough about how long it took the divergence from PIE into distinct languages.  There are so many factors that could affect that. That is why I sit on the fence getting splinters in my derriere on this issue. 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: IALEM on August 30, 2012, 04:01:12 PM
It is very significant that Hittite specialist pay very little regard to the anatolian origin of PIE. Most hold that Hittites are foreigners to anatolia, having arrived in the 3rd millenium.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 30, 2012, 11:28:03 PM
.... My gut feeling is that BOTH steppes and farming people of the east Balkans AND steppe people simply had to be involved in the PIE linguistic and cultural ethnogenesis. The crucial interface is clearly from the east Balkans/west shore of the Black Sea through along the steppes.  However, in that zone there was a lot of waxing and waning and giving and taking etc and I am just not 100%. They all probably knew about the late Neolithic objects and secondary products etc and had words for them because they were so intertwined.  I just am not sure if the language and words for these things we took away was originally the language of the Kurgan people or the farmers (and remember they waxed, mained and overlapped).  

Alan, I'm with you on this, but I lose confidence in the crucial interface being in the "east Balkans/west shore of the Black Sea."  I'd like to think that, but I have to ask if I'm being Euro-centric.

Objectively, my understanding of the the PIE language tree is Jack Lynch's from Rutgers.
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/language.html

If there is something wrong with Lynch's tree, please let me know. I think linguists generally agree with this.

The part that causes the hitch in my "SE Europe/Steppes/West Anatolia" interface origin is the Indo-Iranian branch.  How in the world did a Western Black Sea oriented group of folks provide the same basic word set for the Indo-Iranian group?  

I may be missing Anatolian relationships with Northern Iran and some connection across the south of the Black and Caspian Seas. Am I?

If the Satem languages have the same base PIE word set and if they are a little younger then I just don't see a connection across the south of the Black Sea/Caspian line. The Satem PIE derived languages probably came from north/east of the Caspian Sea. That's what I understand, anyway.

If so, the PIE homeland would have a hard time being placed on the west side of the Black Sea.

I have to come back to Transcaucasia from Northern Iran up to the Sea of Azov. I don't understand the ethnicities and waxing and waning of agriculturalists and pastoralists in this region but my gut feel is that this area is at least as complex as SE Europe on the west side of the Black Sea.

The mix of peoples and languages in Transcaucasia might also account for such things as Basque language.  The people of Transcaucasia might also account for the higher R1b-L23* diversity... that from what I can see is from Armenians. The Bosphorus up through the Sea of Asov, or maybe it is the other way around, may have been a transportation route for people interfacing and/or intermixing with both old style agriculturalists and nomadic herders.

I wish we had aDNA from the Maykop culture and related cultures both north and south.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 31, 2012, 02:35:32 PM
.... My gut feeling is that BOTH steppes and farming people of the east Balkans AND steppe people simply had to be involved in the PIE linguistic and cultural ethnogenesis. The crucial interface is clearly from the east Balkans/west shore of the Black Sea through along the steppes.  However, in that zone there was a lot of waxing and waning and giving and taking etc and I am just not 100%. They all probably knew about the late Neolithic objects and secondary products etc and had words for them because they were so intertwined.  I just am not sure if the language and words for these things we took away was originally the language of the Kurgan people or the farmers (and remember they waxed, mained and overlapped).  

Alan, I'm with you on this, but I lose confidence in the crucial interface being in the "east Balkans/west shore of the Black Sea."  I'd like to think that, but I have to ask if I'm being Euro-centric.

Objectively, my understanding of the the PIE language tree is Jack Lynch's from Rutgers.
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/language.html

If there is something wrong with Lynch's tree, please let me know. I think linguists generally agree with this.

The part that causes the hitch in my "SE Europe/Steppes/West Anatolia" interface origin is the Indo-Iranian branch.  How in the world did a Western Black Sea oriented group of folks provide the same basic word set for the Indo-Iranian group?  

I may be missing Anatolian relationships with Northern Iran and some connection across the south of the Black and Caspian Seas. Am I?

If the Satem languages have the same base PIE word set and if they are a little younger then I just don't see a connection across the south of the Black Sea/Caspian line. The Satem PIE derived languages probably came from north/east of the Caspian Sea. That's what I understand, anyway.

If so, the PIE homeland would have a hard time being placed on the west side of the Black Sea.

I have to come back to Transcaucasia from Northern Iran up to the Sea of Azov. I don't understand the ethnicities and waxing and waning of agriculturalists and pastoralists in this region but my gut feel is that this area is at least as complex as SE Europe on the west side of the Black Sea.

The mix of peoples and languages in Transcaucasia might also account for such things as Basque language.  The people of Transcaucasia might also account for the higher R1b-L23* diversity... that from what I can see is from Armenians. The Bosphorus up through the Sea of Asov, or maybe it is the other way around, may have been a transportation route for people interfacing and/or intermixing with both old style agriculturalists and nomadic herders.

I wish we had aDNA from the Maykop culture and related cultures both north and south.


Mike-what I really mean is that the farming-hunter/steppe pastoralist interface waced and waned.  The farmers overrun part of Ukraine leading to the dissapearance of the Bug-Dneister culture which itself had taken on a lot of farming aspects.  Wiki:

At about 5800 BC they began to make a native pottery, mainly jars, flat-bottomed or pointed-bottomed, decorated in patterns of wavy lines. Influence from the Starcevo struck the native culture changing it drastically. Pottery suddenly became like that of the Starcevo culture and the wild grass was abandoned in favor of einkorn, emmer and spelt, already popular in south Europe.
 
At some time after 5500 BC, the Starcevo lost its influence in favor of one from the LBK (Linear Pottery culture). LBK people probably did enter the region from the upper Dniester and overran it as far south as the lower Danube. The pottery became like the LBK. Native stone subterranean houses were replaced by long houses.
 
The LBK that overran this region was a specific phase. At around 5270 BC calibrated, at the most populous peak of the LBK, judging from the number of dates obtained as a rough guideline, the pottery in eastern Austria acquired a new decorative style, termed Notenkopfkeramik by its German discoverers. In English it means "Notehead Pottery." Notehead is a good English word also but a little obscure. Most use "musical note" to translate Notenkopf.
 
In this style the incised broken line, one or two incisions wide, replaces the convolute bands of the early LBK. The lines may wander, as did the convolute bands, forming square maeanders, or they may go around the pot in zig-zag motifs, resembling bars of music. At the intersection of every broken line is a double or single deep puncture, the "notehead." An unbroken but punctured ring of one or more lines circle(s) the top of the piece. The style appears to be a modification of the LBK bands.
 
The style quickly spread into Poland through Slovakia, where it found the Western Bug. Moving along this corridor, they entered Ukraine and Romania along the Dneister and Prut. It is not known further west.
 
This specific culture acquired a very dense population, which in later times became the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture.
 
[edit] External links


Over and above that I posted a paper earlier in this thread which explained the complexity and extremely long duration of farming influence and intrusion into the steppes going right back to the pre-pottery Neolithic.  The siituation with farmers and forgagers in the genesis of the steppes cultures of the copper age is extremly complex and appears to have involved both.  There were so many groups there its extremely hard to conclude much.  There was also very complex upheavals caused by environmental variations.  The very recent paper I posted above on this shows that it is a lot harder to understand the forager-farmer interaction in the steppes than you would think from the way it is usually presented. 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on August 31, 2012, 06:11:46 PM
  Mike-what I really mean is that the farming-hunter/steppe pastoralist interface waced and waned.  The farmers overrun part of Ukraine leading to the dissapearance of the Bug-Dneister culture which itself had taken on a lot of farming aspects.  Wiki:

At about 5800 BC they began to make a native pottery, mainly jars, flat-bottomed or pointed-bottomed, decorated in patterns of wavy lines. Influence from the Starcevo struck the native culture changing it drastically. Pottery suddenly became like that of the Starcevo culture and the wild grass was abandoned in favor of einkorn, emmer and spelt, already popular in south Europe.
 
At some time after 5500 BC, the Starcevo lost its influence in favor of one from the LBK (Linear Pottery culture). LBK people probably did enter the region from the upper Dniester and overran it as far south as the lower Danube. The pottery became like the LBK. Native stone subterranean houses were replaced by long houses.
 
The LBK that overran this region was a specific phase. At around 5270 BC calibrated, at the most populous peak of the LBK, judging from the number of dates obtained as a rough guideline, the pottery in eastern Austria acquired a new decorative style, termed Notenkopfkeramik by its German discoverers. In English it means "Notehead Pottery." Notehead is a good English word also but a little obscure. Most use "musical note" to translate Notenkopf.
 
In this style the incised broken line, one or two incisions wide, replaces the convolute bands of the early LBK. The lines may wander, as did the convolute bands, forming square maeanders, or they may go around the pot in zig-zag motifs, resembling bars of music. At the intersection of every broken line is a double or single deep puncture, the "notehead." An unbroken but punctured ring of one or more lines circle(s) the top of the piece. The style appears to be a modification of the LBK bands.
 
The style quickly spread into Poland through Slovakia, where it found the Western Bug. Moving along this corridor, they entered Ukraine and Romania along the Dneister and Prut. It is not known further west.
 
This specific culture acquired a very dense population, which in later times became the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture.
 
[edit] External links


Over and above that I posted a paper earlier in this thread which explained the complexity and extremely long duration of farming influence and intrusion into the steppes going right back to the pre-pottery Neolithic.  The siituation with farmers and forgagers in the genesis of the steppes cultures of the copper age is extremly complex and appears to have involved both.  There were so many groups there its extremely hard to conclude much.  There was also very complex upheavals caused by environmental variations.  The very recent paper I posted above on this shows that it is a lot harder to understand the forager-farmer interaction in the steppes than you would think from the way it is usually presented. 

Thanks, Alan. I think I'm beginning to understand your vision a little better of the waxing and waning.  This was going on for quite a period of time it looks like. 

I remember that Anthony said the Cucuteni-Tripolye farming people struggled with Usatovo steppes for some time with the final result being an integrated culture that actually expanded eastward after the integration, although I think he felt like the Usatovo had the upper hand.

What do you think about the Usatovo Culture?

Quote from: Wikipedia
Usatovo culture, 3500—3000 BC, an archaeological culture facing the Black sea between the mouths of the Bug River and the Danube in present-day Romania, Moldavia, and southern Ukraine.

It is seen as a hybrid, with roots in both the Cernavodă and the Tripolye cultures, overlain by an intrusive steppe-derived element of the perhaps Indo-European-speaking Kurgan culture.

Metal artefacts are connected to contacts with the distant Caucasus.

It is seen as part of the "Balkan-Danubian complex" that stretched from Troy, the Danube valley up into the Elbe.

Usotov seems very suspicious if if was seen across the Danube Valley and over to the Elbe while also touching the Caucasus and Troy.

Where did metallurgy start?  Not really on the Steppes themselves, I see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Metallurgical_diffusion.png


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on August 31, 2012, 06:41:07 PM

Where did metallurgy start?  Not really on the Steppes themselves, I see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Metallurgical_diffusion.png


Anatolia followed by Serbia.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 31, 2012, 07:13:57 PM
Anatolia followed by Serbia.

Not exactly. From about 10,000 BC copper and malachite were worked cold into beads and ornaments in the heartland of the Neolithic where Anatolia meets the Levant. By 8000 BC some within that core area had discovered that heat (annealing) made copper-working easier. Then around 5000 BC smelting and cast-copper objects appeared both east and west of the heartland: at Tal-i Iblis in Iran and Belovode in Serbia. This simultaneous surge of the same technology makes a single locus of invention likely, probably in eastern Anatolia, the centre of the range of early smelting.

See Roberts, Thornton and Pigott 2009; Roberts 2008.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on August 31, 2012, 07:23:05 PM
By the way - I strongly suspect that the importance of Iran in both the Neolithic and Copper Age has been under-rated, simply because it has been more difficult to excavate there.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on August 31, 2012, 08:46:18 PM
  Mike-what I really mean is that the farming-hunter/steppe pastoralist interface waced and waned.  The farmers overrun part of Ukraine leading to the dissapearance of the Bug-Dneister culture which itself had taken on a lot of farming aspects.  Wiki:

At about 5800 BC they began to make a native pottery, mainly jars, flat-bottomed or pointed-bottomed, decorated in patterns of wavy lines. Influence from the Starcevo struck the native culture changing it drastically. Pottery suddenly became like that of the Starcevo culture and the wild grass was abandoned in favor of einkorn, emmer and spelt, already popular in south Europe.
 
At some time after 5500 BC, the Starcevo lost its influence in favor of one from the LBK (Linear Pottery culture). LBK people probably did enter the region from the upper Dniester and overran it as far south as the lower Danube. The pottery became like the LBK. Native stone subterranean houses were replaced by long houses.
 
The LBK that overran this region was a specific phase. At around 5270 BC calibrated, at the most populous peak of the LBK, judging from the number of dates obtained as a rough guideline, the pottery in eastern Austria acquired a new decorative style, termed Notenkopfkeramik by its German discoverers. In English it means "Notehead Pottery." Notehead is a good English word also but a little obscure. Most use "musical note" to translate Notenkopf.
 
In this style the incised broken line, one or two incisions wide, replaces the convolute bands of the early LBK. The lines may wander, as did the convolute bands, forming square maeanders, or they may go around the pot in zig-zag motifs, resembling bars of music. At the intersection of every broken line is a double or single deep puncture, the "notehead." An unbroken but punctured ring of one or more lines circle(s) the top of the piece. The style appears to be a modification of the LBK bands.
 
The style quickly spread into Poland through Slovakia, where it found the Western Bug. Moving along this corridor, they entered Ukraine and Romania along the Dneister and Prut. It is not known further west.
 
This specific culture acquired a very dense population, which in later times became the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture.
 
[edit] External links


Over and above that I posted a paper earlier in this thread which explained the complexity and extremely long duration of farming influence and intrusion into the steppes going right back to the pre-pottery Neolithic.  The siituation with farmers and forgagers in the genesis of the steppes cultures of the copper age is extremly complex and appears to have involved both.  There were so many groups there its extremely hard to conclude much.  There was also very complex upheavals caused by environmental variations.  The very recent paper I posted above on this shows that it is a lot harder to understand the forager-farmer interaction in the steppes than you would think from the way it is usually presented. 

Thanks, Alan. I think I'm beginning to understand your vision a little better of the waxing and waning.  This was going on for quite a period of time it looks like. 

I remember that Anthony said the Cucuteni-Tripolye farming people struggled with Usatovo steppes for some time with the final result being an integrated culture that actually expanded eastward after the integration, although I think he felt like the Usatovo had the upper hand.

What do you think about the Usatovo Culture?

Quote from: Wikipedia
Usatovo culture, 3500—3000 BC, an archaeological culture facing the Black sea between the mouths of the Bug River and the Danube in present-day Romania, Moldavia, and southern Ukraine.

It is seen as a hybrid, with roots in both the Cernavodă and the Tripolye cultures, overlain by an intrusive steppe-derived element of the perhaps Indo-European-speaking Kurgan culture.

Metal artefacts are connected to contacts with the distant Caucasus.

It is seen as part of the "Balkan-Danubian complex" that stretched from Troy, the Danube valley up into the Elbe.

Usotov seems very suspicious if if was seen across the Danube Valley and over to the Elbe while also touching the Caucasus and Troy.

Where did metallurgy start?  Not really on the Steppes themselves, I see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Metallurgical_diffusion.png


lol vision is not what I would call it.  Maybe very blurred vision.  All I am doing is poking about at the ideas relating to the contact zone between and within the steppes and SE Europe.  All sorts of elements could have been on the steppes.  Again, I would urge anyone who wants to understand how much more complicated it was should read this paper

http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf36/36_10.pdf


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 01, 2012, 12:16:07 PM
ut at the ideas relating to the contact zone between and within the steppes and SE Europe.  All sorts of elements could have been on the steppes.  Again, I would urge anyone who wants to understand how much more complicated it was should read this paper

http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf36/36_10.pdf
[/quote]

One aspect of this paper is that it shows how elements kept being internally displaced and moved within the steppes depending on climatic changes.  One thing I would strongly feel from that is that there were probably a very mixed bunch on the steppes and the very high levels of more recent R1a clades is not representative of the Neolithic there.  If you think about it, the   high levels of R1b in western Europe is not at all representative of the earlier Neolithic there.  So this could also be true of the R1a area.  Clearly we need to improve our understanding of the more upstream forms of R1a and R1b that pre-dates say 5000BC.  The lesson of R1b should be learned i.e. looking at unsorted unresolved R1b (mainly consisting of downstream forms) and their frequency was utterly misleading and pointed us to the completely wrong end of Europe.  I am sure the same danger exists for R1a.   


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on September 01, 2012, 04:53:57 PM
ut at the ideas relating to the contact zone between and within the steppes and SE Europe.  All sorts of elements could have been on the steppes.  Again, I would urge anyone who wants to understand how much more complicated it was should read this paper

http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf36/36_10.pdf

One aspect of this paper is that it shows how elements kept being internally displaced and moved within the steppes depending on climatic changes.  One thing I would strongly feel from that is that there were probably a very mixed bunch on the steppes and the very high levels of more recent R1a clades is not representative of the Neolithic there.  If you think about it, the   high levels of R1b in western Europe is not at all representative of the earlier Neolithic there.  So this could also be true of the R1a area.  Clearly we need to improve our understanding of the more upstream forms of R1a and R1b that pre-dates say 5000BC.  The lesson of R1b should be learned i.e. looking at unsorted unresolved R1b (mainly consisting of downstream forms) and their frequency was utterly misleading and pointed us to the completely wrong end of Europe.  I am sure the same danger exists for R1a.   
[/quote]

Alan,
This is a good paper. I enjoyed reading it.
I can understand that horse domistication possibly originated on the steppes, but I believe pigs, goats and cattle came from Anatolia and the Levent. It is possible that due to over farming the Anatolian farmers moved to The Balkens and on to The Steppes, bringing their farming culture with them. I have a hard time dealing with the concept of a sudden swap of languages from the R1a to R1b people's.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 01, 2012, 07:29:26 PM
ut at the ideas relating to the contact zone between and within the steppes and SE Europe.  All sorts of elements could have been on the steppes.  Again, I would urge anyone who wants to understand how much more complicated it was should read this paper

http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf36/36_10.pdf

One aspect of this paper is that it shows how elements kept being internally displaced and moved within the steppes depending on climatic changes.  One thing I would strongly feel from that is that there were probably a very mixed bunch on the steppes and the very high levels of more recent R1a clades is not representative of the Neolithic there.  If you think about it, the   high levels of R1b in western Europe is not at all representative of the earlier Neolithic there.  So this could also be true of the R1a area.  Clearly we need to improve our understanding of the more upstream forms of R1a and R1b that pre-dates say 5000BC.  The lesson of R1b should be learned i.e. looking at unsorted unresolved R1b (mainly consisting of downstream forms) and their frequency was utterly misleading and pointed us to the completely wrong end of Europe.  I am sure the same danger exists for R1a.   

Alan,
This is a good paper. I enjoyed reading it.
I can understand that horse domistication possibly originated on the steppes, but I believe pigs, goats and cattle came from Anatolia and the Levent. It is possible that due to over farming the Anatolian farmers moved to The Balkens and on to The Steppes, bringing their farming culture with them. I have a hard time dealing with the concept of a sudden swap of languages from the R1a to R1b people's.
[/quote]

So do I.  I find it very hard to understand any model that puts either R1a or R1b outside the PIE homeland wherever that is.  I am not a linguist but it does not seem to me that either the IE languages in the mainly R1a zone or in the mainly R1b zone have been shown to show the sort of structural contrast that would suggest one was the doner and the other the receiver.  I would like to think that that is the sort of thing that would leave traces that linguists could detect.  One possibility to explain that is the possibility that PIE had been established among both steppe groups and adjacent and intermingled farming elements prior to the climatic driven demographic upheavals that moved both the steppes peoples and the adjacent farmers.  In fact maybe that is the very moment in time of the scattering of PIE and its breakup.  It would make sense if the PIE language evolved in the steppe-farmer interface and straddled both sides prior to the break up.  That way then both the Kurgan movement and the scattering of the huge adjacent SE European farming population would have been involved. 

The way I see it is late Neolithic words for new innovations may ruin the early farmer dispersal theory but it does not help separate late farming populations on the west shore of the Black Sea from the Kurgan populations.  They were in adjacent areas at the same time after all, would have both known of the various late Neolithic/Copper Age innovations and would have had words for them in their languages.  It is also true that the words for objects and innovations we find in PIE do not necessarily have to be in the language of the inventors.  PIE is a snapshot in time of the state of things at the time of the dual Kurgan-SE European farmer dispersal caused by climatic decline. 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 02, 2012, 07:27:46 AM
Or to put it another way, you could have a situation such as we saw in France where a group of outsiders (the Germanic Franks) came in but their language didnt prevail and there genetic impact was limited.  Perhaps the Kurgan peoples who intermingled with the farmer groups in SE Europe did bring innovations and a more militaristic aspect but their genes and language did not prevail.  I would have thought that prior to the collapse of the farming groups in the face of the arid period c. 3200BC, the farmers must have had numbers that were a quantum leap higher than the steppe nomads.  Some of their settlements were of the order of 20 or 30 thousand.  I have a feeling one way or another that that group (probably a group that had mixed elements) when they were dispersed by climatic disaster give a very potent demographic possibility for dispersal through Europe of languages and genes.  I must admit I am a little suspicious that the sudden dramatic appearance a little before 3000BC of cultures like Globular Amphora and Corded Ware is related to this as the timing and the locations are suggestive of this. 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 02, 2012, 11:30:06 AM
Perhaps the Kurgan peoples who intermingled with the farmer groups in SE Europe did bring innovations and a more militaristic aspect but their genes and language did not prevail.

It is natural that you should want to think your own way through the evidence. Jim Mallory would be the first to urge you to do so. Let us start with the genetics.

  • MtDNA from the European Mesolithic: U5, U4
  • MtDNA from an Ust-Tartas group in Russia, east of the Urals: A, C, D, U2e, U4, U5a1, Z. This is a mixture of European and Central Asian Mesolithic haplogroups, plus U2e which was probably roaming around the Urals
  • MtDNA from the Dnieper-Donets farmers 5616–5482 BC: C, C4a2 plus the Neolithic U3, T, H. Mixing had been going on even this early.
  • MtDNA from Cucuteni-Trypillia c. 3500-3000 BC: H, R0, T2a1b1.
  • MtDNA from Andronovo: H6, K2b, T1, T2a1b1, U2e, U4, U5a1, Z1.
  • MtDNA from Bell Beaker: I1, K1, T1a, U2e,  U4, U5a1, W5a

So we can see the origins of the mixture in Andronovo. Andronovo was not 100% descended from hunter-gatherers of the Urals. Neither was it 100% descended from Cucuteni-Trypillian villagers. This is important because the Y-DNA of Andronovo was R1a1a in the main, which we can then trace through subsequent cultures to people that we know spoke Indo-European languages in Asia. It also appears alongside R1b in Corded Ware, so there is no reason to imagine any different story in Europe.

Then we have R1b in Bell Beaker along with some of the same mtDNA haplogroups as in Andronovo. Again this group was not 100% descended from hunter-gatherers of the Urals. Neither was it 100% descended from Cucuteni-Trypillian villagers. Patrilocal mixing had gone on.  


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 02, 2012, 02:03:12 PM
Perhaps the Kurgan peoples who intermingled with the farmer groups in SE Europe did bring innovations and a more militaristic aspect but their genes and language did not prevail.

It is natural that you should want to think your own way through the evidence. Jim Mallory would be the first to urge you to do so. Let us start with the genetics.

  • MtDNA from the European Mesolithic: U5, U4
  • MtDNA from an Ust-Tartas group in Russia, east of the Urals: A, C, D, U2e, U4, U5a1, Z. This is a mixture of European and Central Asian Mesolithic haplogroups, plus U2e which was probably roaming around the Urals
  • MtDNA from the Dnieper-Donets farmers 5616–5482 BC: C, C4a2 plus the Neolithic U3, T, H. Mixing had been going on even this early.
  • MtDNA from Cucuteni-Trypillia c. 3500-3000 BC: H, R0, T2a1b1.
  • MtDNA from Andronovo: H6, K2b, T1, T2a1b1, U2e, U4, U5a1, Z1.
  • MtDNA from Bell Beaker: I1, K1, T1a, U2e,  U4, U5a1, W5a

So we can see the origins of the mixture in Andronovo. Andronovo was not 100% descended from hunter-gatherers of the Urals. Neither was it 100% descended from Cucuteni-Trypillian villagers. This is important because the Y-DNA of Andronovo was R1a1a in the main, which we can then trace through subsequent cultures to people that we know spoke Indo-European languages in Asia. It also appears alongside R1b in Corded Ware, so there is no reason to imagine any different story in Europe.

Then we have R1b in Bell Beaker along with some of the same mtDNA haplogroups as in Andronovo. Again this group was not 100% descended from hunter-gatherers of the Urals. Neither was it 100% descended from Cucuteni-Trypillian villagers. Patrilocal mixing had gone on.  


Thanks Jean.  That is a handy summary of mtDNA.  What about Corded Ware and Globular Amphora?   Do we have mtDNA from there?  I am curious about them because they seem to have appeared about the time of the climatic collapse and of course elements of the steppes have been suggested as well as Neolithic continuity,  One possibility (leaving linguistics aside for simplicities sake) is that the appearance of these groups owes something to the Kurganised Neolithic farmers of SE Europe.  There is some coincidence of dates of the appearance of those with the crisis among the farmers and perhaps the taking on on Kurgan features so that perhaps the generalised Kurgan element in those cultures was moved via Kurganised farmers of SE/eastern Europe who underwent a massive collapse and perhaps dispersal at the time.I remain uncertain if the Kurgan driven social changes meant the imposition of their language or whether the new innovations were taken on by local farmers and then spread by them when the climate disaster happened.  Clearly as you note its complex and the populations had mixed both by farming elements entering the steppes and by steppe elements entering the farming zone.  Perhaps the problem is people seek a black and white winner and losers answer when in fact the farmer -steppe interface was complex for 3500 years or more prior to the big climatically driven demographic upheaval c. 3200BC.  As you note the mtDNA situation is complex.  I suspect too that the 3500 years or so of farmer-steppes interaction may have made the yDNA aspect complex, maybe patterned too.    We could of course have the answers right now if only enough ancient yDNA studies had been done and there were not huge gaps in the times, locations and cultures which have been subject to such testing.  Just a matter of time I suppose.   


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 02, 2012, 02:40:42 PM
Quote from: alan trowel hands.

What about Corded Ware and Globular Amphora?   Do we have mtDNA from there?    

You can see for yourself what has been published in my collated table of Ancient Western Eurasian DNA (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/ancientdna.shtml).

Corded Ware: mtDNA H, I, K1a2, K1b, U5b and X2, together with Y-DNA R1a.





Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: gtc on September 02, 2012, 05:29:48 PM
Quote from: alan trowel hands.

What about Corded Ware and Globular Amphora?   Do we have mtDNA from there?    

You can see for yourself what has been published in my collated table of Ancient Western Eurasian DNA (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/ancientdna.shtml).

Corded Ware: mtDNA H, I, K1a2, K1b, U5b and X2, together with Y-DNA R1a.

What a fantastic resource!



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on September 03, 2012, 04:23:36 PM
Interesting article on the origin of PIE and Gobekli Tepe. While I don't agree with everything they say or the slant of the journal, it gives an interesting view point.

"Indo European Language Distribution Ca. 9500 BCE.
Gobekli Tepe — and its apparent rapid or sudden demise around the year 8000 BCE — now comes into startling contrast with another artifact of our past that has just been re-evaluated in a new way. The Indo-European language, long thought to have taken shape in the steppes of what is now southern Ukraine around the year 6000 BCE, may in fact be older and may also have originated from Anatolia (modern Turkey), in approximately the same region or very close to it where Gobekli Tepe (and perhaps similar communities waiting to be found) was located.

The idea that Indo-European (or whatever gave rise to what we think of as Indo-European) may be 10,000 years old (or older) suddenly forces us to look at Anatolia as possibly the cradle of the Neolithic Age (or the Western Neolithic Age), perhaps the source of all modern human agricultural culture. If the region was fertile enough to support a permanent population that had learned how to cook wild Einkorn wheat, agriculture may have arisen as a consequence of simply gradually harvesting more and more Einkorn and not as a product of radical experimentation."

"After Gobekli Tepe was abandoned people began settling the islands in the Mediterranean Sea, colonizing the British Isles, expanding agriculture to other plants, and we find the appearance of domestic dogs in Europe. It was also during this time that the English Channel was formed (Circa. 6600 BCE), the Black Sea (until then a fresh water lake) was enlarged, and the Persian Gulf was formed when these areas were inundated by their neighboring seas (Circa. 6000 BCE). These inundation events may have given rise to the stories of world-wide floods. The flooding of the Black Sea may further have forced the migration north of some of the Anatolian peoples who were speaking Indo European."

http://history.sf-fandom.com/2012/08/24/new-evidence-challenges-old-assumptions/


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 03, 2012, 05:03:37 PM
Perhaps the Kurgan peoples who intermingled with the farmer groups in SE Europe did bring innovations and a more militaristic aspect but their genes and language did not prevail.

It is natural that you should want to think your own way through the evidence. Jim Mallory would be the first to urge you to do so. Let us start with the genetics.

  • MtDNA from the European Mesolithic: U5, U4
  • MtDNA from an Ust-Tartas group in Russia, east of the Urals: A, C, D, U2e, U4, U5a1, Z. This is a mixture of European and Central Asian Mesolithic haplogroups, plus U2e which was probably roaming around the Urals
  • MtDNA from the Dnieper-Donets farmers 5616–5482 BC: C, C4a2 plus the Neolithic U3, T, H. Mixing had been going on even this early.
  • MtDNA from Cucuteni-Trypillia c. 3500-3000 BC: H, R0, T2a1b1.
  • MtDNA from Andronovo: H6, K2b, T1, T2a1b1, U2e, U4, U5a1, Z1.
  • MtDNA from Bell Beaker: I1, K1, T1a, U2e,  U4, U5a1, W5a

So we can see the origins of the mixture in Andronovo. Andronovo was not 100% descended from hunter-gatherers of the Urals. Neither was it 100% descended from Cucuteni-Trypillian villagers. This is important because the Y-DNA of Andronovo was R1a1a in the main, which we can then trace through subsequent cultures to people that we know spoke Indo-European languages in Asia. It also appears alongside R1b in Corded Ware, so there is no reason to imagine any different story in Europe.

Then we have R1b in Bell Beaker along with some of the same mtDNA haplogroups as in Andronovo. Again this group was not 100% descended from hunter-gatherers of the Urals. Neither was it 100% descended from Cucuteni-Trypillian villagers. Patrilocal mixing had gone on.  


Hi Jean.  What I am pocking about with at the moment is the hetrogeniety of the farming groups is Europe and the sheer number of different roots they have.  I am kind of trying to get people to move away from the idea of 'the farmers' as a block which tends to be the way they get treated in this hobby.  I suspect that timing, origin point and later interaction networks indicates that there could have been 3 or 4 different linguistic groups among the farmers even in SE Europe.  That interests me in terms of language and population dispersal when the Old European cultures of eastern Europe collapsed, whether or not it relates to IE.    


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 03, 2012, 05:20:25 PM
I suspect that ...  there could have been 3 or 4 different linguistic groups among the farmers even in SE Europe.  

I have just said something similar in an email, though not specifically about SE Europe. I feel that there is a common failure to recognise that there would have been many non-IE languages spoken in Europe that did not survive to be written down. As you know, I feel that we have evidence for several farming waves into SE Europe:

  • Early aceramic. Not much evidence, but seems to have happened.
  • Refugees of 6200 BC climate shift - island hopping.
  • Dairy farming via Anatolia.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 03, 2012, 06:21:05 PM
Perhaps the Kurgan peoples who intermingled with the farmer groups in SE Europe did bring innovations and a more militaristic aspect but their genes and language did not prevail.

It is natural that you should want to think your own way through the evidence. Jim Mallory would be the first to urge you to do so. Let us start with the genetics.

  • MtDNA from the European Mesolithic: U5, U4
  • MtDNA from an Ust-Tartas group in Russia, east of the Urals: A, C, D, U2e, U4, U5a1, Z. This is a mixture of European and Central Asian Mesolithic haplogroups, plus U2e which was probably roaming around the Urals
  • MtDNA from the Dnieper-Donets farmers 5616–5482 BC: C, C4a2 plus the Neolithic U3, T, H. Mixing had been going on even this early.
  • MtDNA from Cucuteni-Trypillia c. 3500-3000 BC: H, R0, T2a1b1.
  • MtDNA from Andronovo: H6, K2b, T1, T2a1b1, U2e, U4, U5a1, Z1.
  • MtDNA from Bell Beaker: I1, K1, T1a, U2e,  U4, U5a1, W5a

So we can see the origins of the mixture in Andronovo. Andronovo was not 100% descended from hunter-gatherers of the Urals. Neither was it 100% descended from Cucuteni-Trypillian villagers. This is important because the Y-DNA of Andronovo was R1a1a in the main, which we can then trace through subsequent cultures to people that we know spoke Indo-European languages in Asia. It also appears alongside R1b in Corded Ware, so there is no reason to imagine any different story in Europe.

Then we have R1b in Bell Beaker along with some of the same mtDNA haplogroups as in Andronovo. Again this group was not 100% descended from hunter-gatherers of the Urals. Neither was it 100% descended from Cucuteni-Trypillian villagers. Patrilocal mixing had gone on.  


Hi Jean.  What I am pondering with at the moment is the hetrogeniety of the farming groups is Europe and the sheer number of different roots they have.  I am kind of trying to get people to move away from the idea of 'the farmers' as a block which tends to be the way they get treated in this hobby.  I suspect that timing, origin point and later interaction networks indicates that there could have been 3 or 4 different linguistic groups among the farmers even in SE Europe.  That interests me in terms of language and population dispersal when the Old European cultures of eastern Europe collapsed, whether or not it relates to IE.   It seems a major demographic horizon but I would like to understand this in more detail looking more at the farmer element rather than the Kurgan element.  That is not to say I am going down the road of an old European IE model.  However, it is very interesting that the demographic collapse at one end of Europe seems to coincide with huge rises elsewhere which do not seem to be accompanied by Kurgan transfer in a direct way.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 04, 2012, 04:31:21 AM
That interests me in terms of language and population dispersal when the Old European cultures of eastern Europe collapsed, whether or not it relates to IE.   .... it is very interesting that the demographic collapse at one end of Europe seems to coincide with huge rises elsewhere which do not seem to be accompanied by Kurgan transfer in a direct way.

Later movements have mainly obscured what might have been happening linguistically c. 4000 BC. The TRB seems to have been a direct result of farmers fleeing the Balkan collapse. But then it is overlain by Corded Ware etc. However the Basques and Paleo-Sardinian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-Sardinian_language) may provide clues to languages exported from the Balkans at this time. A Copper Age culture arrived in Sardinia c. 4000 BC. I ended up playing safe on this one though. Though there are similarities to Cucuteni, there are also similarities to items in the Cyclades, which were being populated at this time from Anatolia as well as the Balkans, probably also as a result of climate change.

There is a book out claiming that Paleo-Sardinian is related to Basque, but I am not sure how this is evaluated by linguists.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 04, 2012, 05:06:16 AM
I have written this in the past. Nothing I have to change now, only to underline the link of a Sardinian word with Caucasic, that for what I know I have been the first to do: I thank you for having posted the link to this paper, very interesting. Of course I think that the link between Basque and North-East Caucasian languages is demonstrated, and from more than a century, from when Alfredo Trombetti published “Delle relazioni delle lingue caucasiche con le lingue camitosemitiche e con altri gruppi linguistici” (1902-1903) and then with the fundamental “Le origini della lingua basca” (1923-1925). Trombetti saw the “origini della lingua basca” in his wider theory of the monogenesis of the language. Of course we don’t know where the Caucasian languages were spoken 10000 years ago, and probably the Caucasus has been a refugium from other regions nearby, and we don’t know which path has had the Basque language for arriving to Pyrenees. Someone thinks that similar languages were diffused overall in Western Europe and is trying to find some vestigial of them. And we don’t know where IE languages formed etc etc. and we don’t know where Etruscan language (and similar) formed: you all are repeating slavishly its origin from Aegean sea, which is undemonstrated and not in line with the last archaeological studies. Etruscan languages is a language of ancient Italy with Rhaetian and Camun and Trombetti thought it was intermediate between Caucasian and IE languages. We don’t know which language was spoken in Sardinia or Corsica, but makes me think the possible link of Basque *čori “bird” with Tindi č’uri-GaGa “quail” and Sardinian (from substrate) thiligugu “owl”. I interpreted in the past similar words (see also thilighelta “lizard”) like Berber-wise ones, but probably they are linked to the Caucasian ones in a wider link of the first ancient linguistic groups. If we still hold what archaeology has demonstrated: 1) 7500 years ago agriculturalists from Italy colonized Iberia. We don’t know which language they spoke and if they were autochthonous or came from East. They could speak a Caucasian language, the ancestor of the Basque, the only one survived. We don’t know which hg. they were, but they could be mostly hg. G, that we have found at Treilles and in all the ancient findings. But I wouldn’t exclude that also R-L51* was amongst them, if we look at the RRocca’s map and the presence of this haplogroup exactly in the places that they colonized: Valencia region and Portugal. 2) The link between Ligurian and Lusitanian, probably the ancestor of all the Celt languages which expanded to Central-North Europe from Iberia with the BB, should be later, but we don’t know another period with a colonization of Iberia from Italy before the Roman Empire, and we shouldn’t think that an unique language was spoken in Italy then. There could be many different languages like in every other place of Europe. 3) Of course I still hold my conviction that R1b1* with YCAII=18-22 and 18-23, the intermediate haplogroup between R1b1* and R1b1a2* (Mangino/Mancini), R-L23+/150-, my R-L23/L150*, R-L51*, and why not R-P312* (not found so far) but R-DF27* yes etc. are “cosa nostra”.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: rms2 on September 04, 2012, 07:51:55 AM
No more arguing about Indo-Europeans for me, at least for awhile. I have filed them away in my mind in the same category in which I store things like unicorns and griffins.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 04, 2012, 08:01:13 AM
I have filed them away in my mind in the same category in which I store things like unicorns and griffins.
You could add also "thiligugu".


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 04, 2012, 03:22:59 PM
The date which Gray and Atkinson want to wish away is not negotiable. The fact that they keep arguing that it is negotiable suggests that they started out to prove Renfrew right and have fed into their model parameters which will produce the desired result.

If anyone is still interested, Hans Holm says they did exactly that.

Quote
And they in fact on the one hand openly (in the main article!) admit that the (prejudiced) root has then been intentionally inserted in the middle between Hittite and its split-off point, subsequently telling their audience that this has been the outcome of their computations. This alone is sufficient to reject the whole approach!
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4142#comment-237029


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Arch Y. on September 04, 2012, 04:51:10 PM
By the way - I strongly suspect that the importance of Iran in both the Neolithic and Copper Age has been under-rated, simply because it has been more difficult to excavate there.

You make an excellent argument about how more difficult it is to excavate in Iran. There is something about the Zagros Mountain range that needs consideration too; the birth of drinking alcohol as well the domestication of goats. The biggest one I think is the alcohol and perhaps following domestication of the pig (wherever that may have been). I think wherever pork and alcohol is concerned, there tends to be an R1b and IE association with it. Also, I think its too easy to get wrapped up at Gobekli Tepe when there are older sites to the east towards the lower Caucasus. Southern Armenia (Syunik) is also a treasure trove of iron and other minerals; so is the Zagros. I really wished we had more studies of the Zagros and Lower Caucasus.

Arch


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 04, 2012, 05:09:52 PM
The date which Gray and Atkinson want to wish away is not negotiable. The fact that they keep arguing that it is negotiable suggests that they started out to prove Renfrew right and have fed into their model parameters which will produce the desired result.

It anyone is still interested, Hans Holm says they did exactly that.

Quote
And they in fact on the one hand openly (in the main article!) admit that the (prejudiced) root has then been intentionally inserted in the middle between Hittite and its split-off point, subsequently telling their audience that this has been the outcome of their computations. This alone is sufficient to reject the whole approach!
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4142#comment-237029

I'm interested.

I just don't feel good about Colin Renfrew's approach to this.  David Anthony may be wrong, but his approach sounds thorough and logical and he seems to follow the trail, wherever it leads.

The reason I'm interested, is that if the PIE basic lexicon is correct, that restricts a PIE homeland significantly and apparently both out of the way of the early Neolithic kick-offs and central enough that it could spread at a late time both all the way to China and India as well as all the way to the Atlantic.

If the concept of PIE is true, then R-M269 must have:
1) been in the PIE homeland but only restricted areas that didn't go east
2) been in the PIE homeland but evacuated early to the west while parts of its brothers or some catastrophic situation caused it to be decimated in the home land before the other members of PIE expanded east. In this case R1a and maybe others were raising cain.
3) been on the first stop west of the PIE train going out of town due west. It apparently took over the train at the first stop. R1a must have gotten mugged at this point.

I kind of think alternative #3 is actually the most difficult - the complete take-over at the first stop.

There were plenty of catastrophes and violence in the region to go around so alternatives 1 and 2 make a lot of sense.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 04, 2012, 05:44:55 PM
One thing that I think we can now all agree on on the basis of ancient DNA there was clearly a major population change post the first wave of farmers.  That seems  very clear now although it was not considered likely until very recently based purely on archaeological evicence. I have not a hard and fast opinion on the details of the linguistic element of it.  However, IMO Kurgans are just one element in the major shake up and general upheaval and shunt of populations and I am not convinced they were the main element of the waves of population shift in a westward direction.  As always, R1b and its somewhat mysterious story above L51 would seem to hold the key to the IE-isation of much of Europe.  

I have been pondering for a while that the Bug-Dniester culture could have been where R1b was hiding for much of the Neolithic.  There is a lot to commend this possibility IMO in terms of Geography, the timing of the take off of R1b, the high variance of L23* nearby in Romania, the lack of a true take off demographically until rather late indicated by the structure above L23 being suggestive of a late or slow take up of farming, being a substrate in an area where the population is known to have grown huge in the C-Tyrp period and dramtically dispersed in the early 3000s, a position that makes some sort of IE connection possible.  By the way, one thing I dont give much credence to is anthropological evidence of robustness etc.  It seems pretty clear across human history that changes in  can radically alter skeletal form.  


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 04, 2012, 06:00:15 PM
There is something about the Zagros Mountain range that needs consideration too; the birth of drinking alcohol ....

Are you positive about that? Wine came quite late to the party. There is mead and beer before that.  In China, where rice-cultivation developed independently of the Near Eastern Neolithic, a type of mead was brewed as early as 7,000 BC with rice, honey, and fruit. This is the earliest evidence of man-made alcohol so far found in the world. (P. E. McGovern et al., Fermented beverages of pre- and proto-historicChina, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol. 101 no. 51 (December 21, 2004), pp. 17593-17598.)


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 04, 2012, 07:12:49 PM
The date which Gray and Atkinson want to wish away is not negotiable. The fact that they keep arguing that it is negotiable suggests that they started out to prove Renfrew right and have fed into their model parameters which will produce the desired result.

It anyone is still interested, Hans Holm says they did exactly that.

Quote
And they in fact on the one hand openly (in the main article!) admit that the (prejudiced) root has then been intentionally inserted in the middle between Hittite and its split-off point, subsequently telling their audience that this has been the outcome of their computations. This alone is sufficient to reject the whole approach!
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4142#comment-237029

I'm interested.

I just don't feel good about Colin Renfrew's approach to this.  David Anthony may be wrong, but his approach sounds thorough and logical and he seems to follow the trail, wherever it leads.

The reason I'm interested, is that if the PIE basic lexicon is correct, that restricts a PIE homeland significantly and apparently both out of the way of the early Neolithic kick-offs and central enough that it could spread at a late time both all the way to China and India as well as all the way to the Atlantic.

If the concept of PIE is true, then R-M269 must have:
1) been in the PIE homeland but only restricted areas that didn't go east
2) been in the PIE homeland but evacuated early to the west while parts of its brothers or some catastrophic situation caused it to be decimated in the home land before the other members of PIE expanded east. In this case R1a and maybe others were raising cain.
3) been on the first stop west of the PIE train going out of town due west. It apparently took over the train at the first stop. R1a must have gotten mugged at this point.

I kind of think alternative #3 is actually the most difficult - the complete take-over at the first stop.

There were plenty of catastrophes and violence in the region to go around so alternatives 1 and 2 make a lot of sense.

Sometimes the simplest points are the best and I think you make a very good point there about the improbability of the R1a master race simply fading out in eastern Europe and heading into the waste of the eastern steppes and leaving all the prime developed lands to R1b.  I would contend a good solution might be that R1b and R1a were located next door to each other but that R1b had take in a lot more farming culture from their neighbours while R1a was to the east, less developed and perhaps seeking to continue a similar steppe lifestyle.  They may have had a tendency to seek out different land types and run society in different ways.  The simplest solution to the evidence would place R1b at the steppe-farming interface zone c. 6000-4000BC with R1b to the east (which is indeed where Yamnaya arose I believe).  R1b also shares the lack of take off with R1a in the earlier Neolithic so it makes sense to have them both peripheral to farming until rather late.  The difference may simply be that R1b was a western steppe element that was more farming adapted while R1a was less so.  The archaeology of the steppes tends to show this trend, even within a single culture.  I think too we should look again at Cuc-Tyrp's origins.  The archaeology of this is not the simple conquest of the old Bug-Dniester population.  It was a very long drawn out process indeed with no sharp horizon.  There is plenty of room to see an incorporation of the steppes population into Bug-Dniester.  I am highly suspicious of interpretation of skeletal evidence when  seems to cause such a change (even in recent history).  When I read up about the Bug-Dniester/Cuc-Tryp transformation going back purely to archaeology it really does not read anything like it tends to get interpreted in the DNA hobby. I imagine they were are complex mix of mt and yDNA of hunters and farmers.  The timing and geography seems to fit quite well and there is of course a huge dispersal horizon as the worst hit farming group in the arid phase c. 3200BC. 

I ask simply does this fit R1b?

1.  Big Dniester Hunter gatherer group on western fringes of steppes
2. Very slow incremental partial take up of farming c. 5000BC (give or take) under Cris-Koros then eastern LBK influences.
3. Same zone develops a full blown farming culture c. 4800BC covering Ukraine, Moravia and Romania. 
4. Major expansion and growth c. 4000-3500BC followed by massive collapse and dispersal. 

Some of this to me sounds a very plausible match for R1b.  I think too that the idea that this is an Old European conquest of the Bug-Dniester population is being overstated.  The archaeological evidence reads absolutely nothing like that.  R1b appears to have not been in an early farming group if the variance ages being presented and the shape of the R1b tree above L23 is anything to go by.  It seems unlikely to me that if it was in C-Tryp that it was the intrusive element but more likely the native element in that area that had been absorbed in Cuc-Tryp - Bug Dniester. 

I think there is an awful lot to be said for matching this with R1b's pre-3000BC history. 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Bren123 on September 04, 2012, 07:36:02 PM
This has been written on “Dienekes’ Anthropology blog” by someone who has a better knowledge of English than me, but the ideas are the same, only I used more sarcasm as usual:

The map shown in the blog post here, and the podcast timeline evolving map both suffer from the defect of being ahistorical.
For example, neither indicates any presence if Celtic languages in Iberia or Gaul, which in fact, the Celtic languages of the British Isles are very likely derivatives of earlier Celtic language populations in Iberia and Gaul.
The map shows Tocharian languages in places where they were spoken from ca. 2000 BCE to 600 CE, but where they didn't even exist when the Romance languages were born from Latin.
Likewise, the podcast video map series fails to reflect the fact that while the Balkan languages may be relatively old, that Slavic language expansion mostly occurred in the middle of the first Millennium C.E.
The podcast video map seems to have the known direction of Indo-Iranian language expansion backward - West to East across Iran, rather than the other way around.
One of the whole points of using Bayesian statistical methods over Frequentist statistical approaches is to give weight to what you already know. We know quite a bit. We have fairly decent dates, source locations and paths of expansion for a variety of archaeological cultures. We know that languages change at a much more rapid pace at moments of language differentiation and language contact (e.g. via substrate influences and elements of creolization) than they do in "midlife" when they are in isolation. We have fairly good dates for moments like (1) the transition from Minoan (non-IE) to Mycenaean (IE) Greek in Crete, (2)decent dates for a similar earlier transition in mainland Greece, (3) the date of the Hattic (non-IE)-Hittite (IE) transition in Anatolia and more generally the dates of Hittite expansion, (4) the appearance of an Indo-Aryan Mittani dialect in far eastern Anatolia, (5) the presence and general location of group of non-IE Kassites east of Mespotamia, (6) the times and places where non-IE Sumerian and Akkadian and all subsequent Mesopotamian languages were spoken, (7) the time and places where Tocharian was spoken and the plausible possible origins of those peoples, and (8) the dates when Celtic cultures appear in various places. There is good reason to think that the pre-Bronze Age IE world was very small - regardless of where within that world the actual urheimat was located - large swaths of Europe and South Asia and Iran had never encountered an IE language at that point, and quite a bit of IE expansion in Western Europe was an Iron Age phenomena.
The study's methods seem to implicitly assume a slow gradualist diffusion model when the reality was probably much more dramatic and punctuated. The archaeological record shows long periods of continuity interrupted by disruption followed by rapid expansion of new cultures often lots of places at once.
There are also points we don't know and have to guess on, with some guesses being more certain than others. We don't have any direct evidence of the linguistic affiliations of Megalithic, Corded Ware, Urnfield, BMAC or Bell Beaker archaeological cultures - although we do have when information about the when, where and to some extent, the from whence of these cultures. We don't know to what extent relatively new IE language families (e.g. Romance and Slavic) replaced IE v. non-IE predecessors in particular places and that is particularly difficult to discern in Anatolia. A useful model would focus on assigning linguistic affiliation probabilities to particular archaeological cultures on the theory that an archaelogical culture is likely to share a linguistic family affinity. Usually, there are just two or three plausible first IE language in the region candidates in any given place, and often one or two of them are far more likely than any other.
Bottom line: this is a crude toy model not a serious effort to really get at the truth using all available data. Saturday, August 25, 2012 3:10:00 AM




Do you have a link for this?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 04, 2012, 08:12:46 PM
Jean - do you have anything on the Verteba Cave rare Cuc-Tryp large burial site in the Ukraine? 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on September 05, 2012, 04:28:57 AM
This could be a trace of the early route from Anatolia to the Steppes.


"Archaeologists working on the route of the new Sibiu – Orastie highway in Romania have made what looks to be a once in a lifetime discovery of a Stone Age settlement. The site, located in Sibiu county, is believed to be around 8,000 years old, but this, although remarkable in itself, is perhaps less exciting than the discovery that the people who lived in the settlement were Neolithic farmers using technology from the Near East.
 
If confirmed, the find will provide material evidence of the migration of people from Eastern Anatolia bringing farming to Europe. “Why is this important? I have discovered something that everyone considered hypothetical, at least in Romania; the first phase, the oldest phase, of people from Eastern Anatolia carrying Neolithic technologies beginning to colonize an area previously occupied by hunters and fishermen, following a major climate change,” said Sabin Luca, director of the  Brukenthal Museum in Sibiu.
 



The site has provided evidence of religion and ritual among these earliest of migrant to Romania’s territory. The archeologists have found what they believe to be a cemetery and a shrine or sanctuary, which contained pottery with apparently ritual significance.
 
On the central axis of the sanctuary area a vessel was found, which, according to Luca, is unique, the first example of its kind ever found. Analysis of the vessel revealed evidence of the world’s oldest paint. Other important finds are a mask, which Sabin Luca believes will prove to be at least the oldest in Europe, and the oldest known pot with two mouths. The mask shows similarities with examples found in Anatolia, displaying the same ‘coffee bean eyes.’ Polished stone tools and the fine clay used for pottery provide further evidence that this was a ‘hi-tech’ stone age society.
 
The site is four meters underground and another unique feature is the absence of later settlements on top of the Neolithic site. According to the archeologists, the site was abandoned during the Neolithic era, probably because of a conflict, and has remained undisturbed for the last 8,000 years."


http://www.romania-insider.com/discovery-of-8000-year-old-settlement-in-romania-provides-evidence-of-first-neolithic-farmers-in-the-region/62909/


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 05, 2012, 09:09:18 AM
Jean - do you have anything on the Verteba Cave rare Cuc-Tryp large burial site in the Ukraine? 

Yes Alan. As you can see from my online table (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/ancientdna.shtml), the mtDNA that I posted above as Cucuteni-Trypillia was from there. All the details and reference are in the table.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 05, 2012, 09:31:31 AM
I think too that the idea that this is an Old European conquest of the Bug-Dniester population is being overstated. 

Who has suggested an Old European conquest of Bug-Dniester? Are you reading Wikipedia again?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 05, 2012, 09:34:11 AM
Jean - do you have anything on the Verteba Cave rare Cuc-Tryp large burial site in the Ukraine?  

Yes Alan. As you can see from my online table (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/ancientdna.shtml), the mtDNA that I posted above as Cucuteni-Trypillia was from there. All the details and reference are in the table.

However, the genetic data isn't that right now. I don't think. I think Jean's point makes sense. T2a1b is the mtDNA that is both on the western edge of they hypothesized homeland and on the east is T2a1b. Wouldn't this make it more likely that it was steppes R1a that integrated with farmers to form the final integrated phases of Cucuteni-Trypolae people?

We don't see T2a1b in Bell Beakers yet, where R1b is found.


I know it seems like if R1b was on the first train stop due west from the PIE homeland, the Cucuteni-Tripillian integration of Old European farmers with Steppes PIE people is the likely suspect.

  • MtDNA from the European Mesolithic: U5, U4
  • MtDNA from an Ust-Tartas group in Russia, east of the Urals: A, C, D, U2e, U4, U5a1, Z. This is a mixture of European and Central Asian Mesolithic haplogroups, plus U2e which was probably roaming around the Urals
  • MtDNA from the Dnieper-Donets farmers 5616–5482 BC: C, C4a2 plus the Neolithic U3, T, H. Mixing had been going on even this early.
  • MtDNA from Cucuteni-Trypillia c. 3500-3000 BC: H, R0, T2a1b1.
  • MtDNA from Andronovo: H6, K2b, T1, T2a1b1, U2e, U4, U5a1, Z1.
  • MtDNA from Bell Beaker: I1, K1, T1a, U2e,  U4, U5a1, W5a
 

If R1b was at a first stop for PIE going west, it must have been further south than Cucutenci-Trypillian peoples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cucuteni-Tripol%27ye_Culture_Outline_Map.png

Remember, David Anthony proposes that a second group of Steppes people passed by the integrated (PIE/farmer) Cucuteni-Trypillian people down to the lower Danube Valley. It is this group that he proposes were pre-Italo-Celtic IE dialect speakers. He does refer to this group, which he says makes it to the Hungarian Plains, as a "true folk movement".  He did not speak of the same kind of integration that took place in Cucuteni-Tripolye. I don't know. It seems like a mystery that these guys "passed" through/by the Cucuteni-Tryipolye. However, the placement closer to the Danube is also closer to Anatolia and to the dairy herding core, right?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 05, 2012, 01:48:11 PM
@ Mikewww

You put your finger right on the tricky question. What was going on around the Sea of Azov? The anthropomorphic stelae start from the Crimea and just north of it. The Kemi-Oba culture developed there from Mikhailovka I people, who seem to have intermarried with people from Tripolye towns, but also had contacts with Maikop and Sredni Stog, according to Anthony 2007, pp. 268-271.  Logically there had to be some R1b there.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on September 05, 2012, 03:07:21 PM
Jean, are you able to get the following paper? 

http://m.hol.sagepub.com/content/15/2/263.abstract

"Holocene environmental change in southwestern Crimea (Ukraine) in pollen and soil records

I'm thinking it would give us a detailed and comprehensive description of Ukraine's climate and botany for the time period relevant to PIE.

I've collected all the arboreal terms from the PIE lexicon site you linked early and now I want to see if I can tie them to the steppe over anatolia.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 05, 2012, 03:42:05 PM
I think too that the idea that this is an Old European conquest of the Bug-Dniester population is being overstated.

Who has suggested an Old European conquest of Bug-Dniester? Are you reading Wikipedia again?

I only commented because I think some posters tend to think that way and see Cuc-Tryp as a Balkans farmers intrusion and therefore starkly distinct from the steppes elements to the east.  I dont think that at all computes with the archaeology.  What is your take on the whole B-D to C-T transformation Jean?  I was reading through a few papers including those in Europe's First Farmers.  I know archaeologists became too anti-invasionist but there is a lot of gradualistic change in both the Bug-Dniester and the C-T culture as well as east-west divisions within both. I just think we have to be careful not to overreact to the anti-invasionists.  Reading through the data and characteristics of each phase even within  the C-T culture doesnt arrive as a completely formed horizon from somewhere else. If C-T encorporated a significant amount of B-D people into it then the late timing of true ontake of farming, the location and the subsequent know dispersal could fit nicely into the idea of a B-D R1b substrate in C-T (maybe more than a substrate).  I havent read up on C-T for a while but re-reading didnt change my opinion that it has a lot to suggest a gradual change rather than a sharp one.   Burial sites are so scarce that I wouldnt want to generalise anything about their genetic origins  although what little we have is interesting.  


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 05, 2012, 04:05:10 PM
@ Mikewww

You put your finger right on the tricky question. What was going on around the Sea of Azov? The anthropomorphic stelae start from the Crimea and just north of it. The Kemi-Oba culture developed there from Mikhailovka I people, who seem to have intermarried with people from Tripolye towns, but also had contacts with Maikop and Sredni Stog, according to Anthony 2007, pp. 268-271.  Logically there had to be some R1b there.

I agree they are interesting.  I think in general the shape of R1b, the variance calculations and its later dispersal point to incorportation of a non-farming group located on or adjacent to the western edge of the steppes into a farming economy in the 5th millenium BC at some point and then an initial dispersal phase somewhere in the L23XL51 era, mainly west and south, perhaps in the 4th millenium. That is my best guest based on modern geographical patterns, variance, phylogeny, the shape of the R1b tree etc.  It would make a whole lot of sense in terms of the patterning of R1a and R1b if R1b was a sister group of R1a who had taken on farming to a more sophisticated degree than the steppe nomads.  The anti-anti-invasionist angles that I have got used to in this hobby had clouded this for me for a while and it had become a state of mind.  However, looking back over the last week or two through the phases and characteristics of the farming groups in SE Europe not only reminded me of their diverse origins but also reminded me that in some cases there is a good case that farming at times involved native pre-farming elements (perhaps dominant), something that DNA does demonstrate to some degree.  Even in the Balkans some of the major cultures developments do read rather like a major, maybe dominant native element was involved. Others look more dominantly intrusive. I would put the C-Tryp culture in the category of one where it is as easy to interpret it as having a major, maybe dominant local element.  I have just had a read through all the papers and books I can put my hands on in hard copy or the web (no Wiki involved :0) but that would very much be my opinion.  


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 05, 2012, 04:18:08 PM
I am not sure where looking at the possibility of C-Tryp as a Bug-Dniester substrate-heavy culture, possibly R1b) would leave us in terms of language.  Lets say for a moment this idea is correct (it may well not be).  Can we envisage the Bug-Dniester people as speaking a similar language to steppe elements to the east and later the Yamnaya etc.  That would avoid the need to see one group as the orign and doner and the other as the recipient, something that surely would have left linguistic traces. 

   


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 05, 2012, 05:47:54 PM
@ Mikewww

You put your finger right on the tricky question. What was going on around the Sea of Azov? The anthropomorphic stelae start from the Crimea and just north of it. The Kemi-Oba culture developed there from Mikhailovka I people, who seem to have intermarried with people from Tripolye towns, but also had contacts with Maikop and Sredni Stog, according to Anthony 2007, pp. 268-271.  Logically there had to be some R1b there.

The Sea of Azov is supposed to be very shallow. I would think it would not be that rough to cross. Is there any very early archaeology of maritime vessels and related cultures?  If you learned maritime skills and were successful in a safe place, you might have been able to advance to controlling parts of the Black Sea.  I guess people from the Sea of Azov area could have colonized along on the mouth of the Danube without having to pass through Cucuteni-Trypillian lands.

For that matter, they may have been colonizing along the western and southern coasts of the Black Sea for a long time. Is there evidence of commonality in among coastal settlements?

Good maritime skills? Good enough to get to Iberia quickly?  Where did the Bell Beakers become good maritime people?  Don't forget the early hyphothesis that U106 folks were "river" Celts. Some sects of R1b might have taken to the seas. Just speculation but the Black Sea may have been an excellent place for travel. Perhaps the PIE homeland should be considered as much Pontic coastal/mountains as Pontic steppes.   Any linguists who know if pre-Italo-Celtic had a lot of words related to maritime travel?

Early copper mining wasn't actually on the steppes, was it? It was mountainous regions.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 05, 2012, 05:49:56 PM
Jean - do you have anything on the Verteba Cave rare Cuc-Tryp large burial site in the Ukraine? 

Yes Alan. As you can see from my online table (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/ancientdna.shtml), the mtDNA that I posted above as Cucuteni-Trypillia was from there. All the details and reference are in the table.

Jean for some reason that is weird when I opened it.  You posted a table of all ancient DNA a day or so ago on world families.  I cant find it now.  I am really looking for the reference to the Verteba cave site.  Is there a paper in your library on this? cheers


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 05, 2012, 05:50:58 PM
Jean, are you able to get the following paper? 

A pleasure. It is now in Climate and Population > Steppe.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 05, 2012, 05:55:03 PM
I am really looking for the reference to the Verteba cave site.  Is there a paper in your library on this?

Yes. Nikitin, A. et al. (2010), Comprehensive site chronology and Ancient Mitochondrial DNA analysis from Verteba Cave – a Trypillian Culture site of Eneolithic Ukraine, Interdisciplinaria archaeologica: Natural Sciences in Archaeology, vol. 1, nos.1-2, pp. 9-18.

It is in Population Genetics > aDNA > East Europe. Next time you should be able to find papers either via the index by primary author in root, or by using Google's search function in documents.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 05, 2012, 06:09:27 PM
I am really looking for the reference to the Verteba cave site.  Is there a paper in your library on this?

Yes. Nikitin, A. et al. (2010), Comprehensive site chronology and Ancient Mitochondrial DNA analysis from Verteba Cave – a Trypillian Culture site of Eneolithic Ukraine, Interdisciplinaria archaeologica: Natural Sciences in Archaeology, vol. 1, nos.1-2, pp. 9-18.

It is in Population Genetics > aDNA > East Europe. Next time you should be able to find papers either via the index by primary author in root, or by using Google's search function in documents.

cheers Jean


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 05, 2012, 06:47:07 PM
I only commented because I think some posters tend to think that way and see Cuc-Tryp as a Balkans farmers intrusion and therefore starkly distinct from the steppes elements to the east.  I dont think that at all computes with the archaeology.  What is your take on the whole B-D to C-T transformation Jean?  

Anthony is your man for all this Alan. I have before me his table 8.1 in the 2007 book. The last dates there for Bug-Dniester are 5870-5500 BC. According to Anthony, Bug-Dniester was clearly a local Mesolithic group which fairly rapidly took up farming when Cris farmers made their way over the Carpathians to become their neighbours. These farmers were descendants of the wave that entered Greece c. 6200 BC, so they would be mixed farmers. They had cattle, but went in for arable farming as well.

As I deduce, Cucuteni-Tripolye people were descended from a later wave of dairy farmers from around the Sea of Marmara, moving north from around the mouth of the Danube via the Hamangia culture. They had massive cattle herds. They expanded gradually eastwards. From about 4300-4000 BC they increase in settlement density, perhaps taking in refugees from the tell settlements to the west. There is also widespread evidence of contact with steppe cultures. Presumably with the colder climate, the arable farmers were suffering, while pastoralists could survive.  


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 05, 2012, 07:11:04 PM
(no Wiki involved :0)  

Only wondered because Wikipedia was making strange statements re B-D. I fixed it. I wouldn't use the word "conquest" about events at that date myself.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Arch Y. on September 06, 2012, 10:45:01 PM
There is something about the Zagros Mountain range that needs consideration too; the birth of drinking alcohol ....

Are you positive about that? Wine came quite late to the party. There is mead and beer before that.  In China, where rice-cultivation developed independently of the Near Eastern Neolithic, a type of mead was brewed as early as 7,000 BC with rice, honey, and fruit. This is the earliest evidence of man-made alcohol so far found in the world. (P. E. McGovern et al., Fermented beverages of pre- and proto-historicChina, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol. 101 no. 51 (December 21, 2004), pp. 17593-17598.)

Thanks Jean. I'm aware of it. The event in China is too distant and far back in time to have any influence on Western culture or that of a nascent IE in the Caucasus or emerging R1b in the Zagros.

Arch


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: IALEM on September 07, 2012, 03:54:06 AM
The whole idea of the anatolian origin of PIE is based on a priori conclusions, since IE languages are well extended in Europe there is a moment in which those languages extended, and what better moment than neolithic colonization, than in turn came from Anatolia, so there you are, PIE must come from Anatolia.
However all the facts known of Anatolian history contradicts that.
If we turn ito the prper research method instead of lookling for a priori conclussions, we sould see that what we have in Anatolia is a picture of recently arrived IE peoples over a substratum of non IE populations.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 07, 2012, 05:15:46 AM
The event in China is too distant and far back in time to have any influence on Western culture or that of a nascent IE in the Caucasus or emerging R1b in the Zagros.

Of course Arch. But what I'm saying is that we don't know where in the Near East beer was first made, unless you have some information unknown to me. It was certainly made long before wine.

I don't think that there was any nascent IE in the Caucasus. There is no evidence of that at all.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Albannach on September 07, 2012, 08:08:52 AM
I am a total newbie and still trying to learn so please excuse my ignorance but what evidence is their that R1b carried IE in to Europe? from what I have read on various forums R1b was brought to Europe by the Bell Beaker people who became Indo-Europeanized by contact with the R1a Cordedware Culture. Is this true? it is hard to know what is true or not as a lot of people seem to have agenda's. If it is true what language did the original R1b's speak? where did they come from and what route did they take to western Europe?





Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 07, 2012, 10:19:14 AM
...  what evidence is their that R1b carried IE in to Europe?

The joint distribution of R1b1a2 and R1a1a coincides pretty well with the distribution of Indo-European languages. Only if both are seen jointly do we see a match to the distribution of IE languages. Much as some men who carry one or the other of these haplogroups would like to see their haplogroup as the one-and-only source of the spread of IE, that simply does not fit the facts.    

Quote
from what I have read on various forums R1b was brought to Europe by the Bell Beaker people who became Indo-Europeanized by contact with the R1a Cordedware Culture.

You have been reading the wrong forums. Corded Ware had no influence on BB. These are two cultures that both spring from the same source: Yamnaya on the European steppe, which is also deduced to be the source of PIE on linguistic and cultural grounds. BB and CW have many similarities, but there are also distinct differences. The similarities can all be traced to Yamnaya. The differences do not spread from one to the other of BB and CW.

The spread of CW over NE Europe certainly suggests that it carried R1a1a from Yamnaya. Indeed R1a1a has been found at a Corded Ware site. R1a1a has also been found in an Asian culture descended from Yamnaya - Andronovo.

The spread of BB suggests that it carried R1b1a2, and indeed it has been found at a BB site. The archaeological trail of Yamnaya up the Danube to the Carpathian Basin  is so heavily marked archaeologically that it has been fully accepted for decades as a mass migration. One feature is anthropomorphic stelae, which first appear on the steppe. There are a few in the Carpathian Basin. Then we find a trail of them from North Italy along to Iberia. That seems to mark the route of Proto-Celto-Italic speakers who later began to make Bell Beaker. They had nothing to do with Corded Ware. They had no contact with Corded Ware. Corded Ware people never went anywhere near Iberia.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: IALEM on September 07, 2012, 10:52:34 AM

You have been reading the wrong forums. Corded Ware had no influence on BB. These are two cultures that both spring from the same source: Yamnaya on the European steppe, which is also deduced to be the source of PIE on linguistic and cultural grounds. BB and CW have many similarities, but there are also distinct differences. The similarities can all be traced to Yamnaya. The differences do not spread from one to the other of BB and CW.


Jean, that is your personal opinion, but it is not a vision generally held, in fact If I said something like that at my university I would be ridiculized.
What Albannach wrote, except for the genetic part, is what Mallory described as the most probable scenario


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 07, 2012, 11:03:15 AM
The spread of BB suggests that it carried R1b1a2, and indeed it has been found at a BB site. The archaeological trail of Yamnaya up the Danube to the Carpathian Basin  is so heavily marked archaeologically that it has been fully accepted for decades as a mass migration. One feature is anthropomorphic stelae, which first appear on the steppe. There are a few in the Carpathian Basin. Then we find a trail of them from North Italy along to Iberia. That seems to mark the route of Proto-Celto-Italic speakers who later began to make Bell Beaker.

Ridiculous. How people coming from a R1a1a region would have brought to West R1b1 etc.?  I have written a post here and also on eng.molgen about R1a* in Western Europe. Even though probably the test of Irene Pichler et al. were made two years ago and their R1a* should be R1a1* and their R1a1* should be R1a1a and subclades, the percentage of R1a1*  in the Rhaetian Region is  anyway very  high and not comparable to other places where R1a is high now. We should add that the true R1a*/M420 is present above all in Western Europe and very few in Iran and Western Asia like a dust from the Russian Plane. Then the origin of R1a/R1b is the other way around : from West to East, and the same for the Indo-European languages.
I have given an appointment to Vincent Vizachero about Z2103/Z2105. The same to you. And that the BB derives from Yamnaya and not from the Impressa and Cardial from Italy is another desire of yours.
The unique thing uncertain yet is whether these agriculturalists from Italy were autochthonous or came from East, but I see very hard for you this too.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 07, 2012, 12:13:18 PM
I am a total newbie and still trying to learn so please excuse my ignorance but what evidence is their that R1b carried IE in to Europe? from what I have read on various forums R1b was brought to Europe by the Bell Beaker people who became Indo-Europeanized by contact with the R1a Cordedware Culture. Is this true? it is hard to know what is true or not as a lot of people seem to have agenda's. If it is true what language did the original R1b's speak? where did they come from and what route did they take to western Europe?





I am amused at the way Corded Ware is an R1a culture based on one site.  I wouldnt be surprised if the beaker=R1b and corded ware=R1a thing broke down once we have more than one site each.  Maybe it wont but its way too early to say corded ware=R1a.  If corded ware was a vector for major yDNA spread then it should be recalled that it spread well into the modern R1b-rich zone including the west Alpine area, south Germany, the Upper Rhone, the Rhine, the Low Countries etc. Corded Ware is the most obvious culture that could have swept eastern yDNA west in the pre-beaker era.  All the other options are rather more a matter of complex interpretation of a chain of links.  I wouldnt be surprised if Corded Ware actually turned out to be the main vector of spreading both R1a and R1b to the west.   


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 07, 2012, 12:39:46 PM
(no Wiki involved :0)  

Only wondered because Wikipedia was making strange statements re B-D. I fixed it. I wouldn't use the word "conquest" about events at that date myself.

Reading recent papers about the very complex climatically driven internal displacement and return of groups within the steppes makes it seem that a marginal area like the steppes is going to be incredibly difficult to ever come up with anything concrete about how things without ancient DNA.  There are just far too wide a range of diverse opinions among experts on the pre-Yamnaya period on the steppes and its margins that the mind boggles. I dont think I am going to dabble in that any more and think I will just wait for some ancient yDNA from the period 6000-4000BC to be found and to reach a sample big enough to say anything.   


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on September 07, 2012, 01:24:24 PM

I am amused at the way Corded Ware is an R1a culture based on one site.  I wouldnt be surprised if the beaker=R1b and corded ware=R1a thing broke down once we have more than one site each.  Maybe it wont but its way too early to say corded ware=R1a.  If corded ware was a vector for major yDNA spread then it should be recalled that it spread well into the modern R1b-rich zone including the west Alpine area, south Germany, the Upper Rhone, the Rhine, the Low Countries etc. Corded Ware is the most obvious culture that could have swept eastern yDNA west in the pre-beaker era.  All the other options are rather more a matter of complex interpretation of a chain of links.  I wouldnt be surprised if Corded Ware actually turned out to be the main vector of spreading both R1a and R1b to the west.    

On the contrary, I would be surprised if the R1a=Corded Ware, R1b=Beaker trend didn't hold up. Let's not forget that in places like Moravia and the Czech Republic were those cultures lived side by side, even the most junior archaeologist can tell the difference between a Corded Ware skeleton and a Bell Beaker skeleton. They are that distinct from one another. I can tell you without hesitation that Corded Ware makes very little sense for Italian pre-Beaker population, not in the timing, not in the distribution of R1b and not in the material cultural.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 07, 2012, 02:27:51 PM

I am amused at the way Corded Ware is an R1a culture based on one site.  I wouldnt be surprised if the beaker=R1b and corded ware=R1a thing broke down once we have more than one site each.  Maybe it wont but its way too early to say corded ware=R1a.  If corded ware was a vector for major yDNA spread then it should be recalled that it spread well into the modern R1b-rich zone including the west Alpine area, south Germany, the Upper Rhone, the Rhine, the Low Countries etc. Corded Ware is the most obvious culture that could have swept eastern yDNA west in the pre-beaker era.  All the other options are rather more a matter of complex interpretation of a chain of links.  I wouldnt be surprised if Corded Ware actually turned out to be the main vector of spreading both R1a and R1b to the west.    

On the contrary, I would be surprised if the R1a=Corded Ware, R1b=Beaker trend didn't hold up. Let's not forget that in places like Moravia and the Czech Republic were those cultures lived side by side, even the most junior archaeologist can tell the difference between a Corded Ware skeleton and a Bell Beaker skeleton. They are that distinct from one another. I can tell you without hesitation that Corded Ware makes very little sense for Italian pre-Beaker population, not in the timing, not in the distribution of R1b and not in the material cultural.

true but that doesnt tell us what the pool of male lineages were at the start.  The same male lineages may have mixed with different local groups and developed peculiar phenotypes prior to expansion. Also, as I have posted before, both Bell beaker and P312 exploded so fast in 100 years or so that the peculiar beaker types noted (which I understand are a minority among a less distinctive general group) may have basically been one extended family c. 2500-2400BC (when they expanded really dramtically) with a family resemblence.  The geographical patterning of the major downstream clades in Europe whose variance is very little different from L11, P312 etc (i.e. L21, U152 etc) indicates that this line was travelling fast at the time it was exploding into branches.  This matches too the sudden extension of beaker out of its smaller core and across a wide area in 100 years or so. Basically if Mr P312 came into being in SE France (or similar), his grandsons or great grandsons were settling in the north a century later.  That to me is a dramtic but initially very small scale expansion (which by implication cannot have been a military one - there was not enough time between P312 and L21 for example for there to be many of them.   

I am not sure its wise to look on either P312 or the beaker groups as a race or something similar to that.  I also think this extended family idea possible the reason why its hard to find their ancestors. Its not easy to detect a single non-prolific family (as the lack of ancestral L51* suggests) prior to their sudden explosion.  Somewhere in Europe one guy suddenly produced a line that spread far and wide.  Yes that does suggest the beakers 'family' was R1b but I am a lot less certain that in pre-beaker times R1b was was confined to one culture.  Just because one L11 line or P312 line out of the blue expanded dramatically does not indicate they were from an R1b-dominated group or that R1b was not present in other groups. Other groups look less like a single-family expansion.  Just to make clear I am not trying to derive the beaker people's ancestors from any particular pre-beaker culture but I am saying that one explosive lineage could have come a population with any sort of mix of haplogroups and clades.   


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 07, 2012, 02:38:41 PM
What Albannach wrote, except for the genetic part, is what Mallory described as the most probable scenario

Mallory has said no such thing. In the Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture (1997), p. 53 he said:

Quote
The Beaker "culture" has often been associated with the Indo-Europeans since there are good reasons to derive it from the area of the earlier Corded Ware culture (the Netherlands/ Rhineland region is probably the most widely accepted), which is frequently regarded as early Indo-European. Alternatively, Marija Gimbutas derived the Beakers from east central European cultures that witnessed the early impact ...

In other words he presented the Dutch origin theory that was popular at the time he wrote. Since then other publications have blown apart the Dutch origin theory.  Mallory is well aware of this. He is not living in 1997. The dating evidence shows that BB and CW are contemporary. CW was thought at one time to be earlier. Not so. The earliest BB is in the southern group. Yes some arrived from Portugal by coast to the mouth of the Rhine quite early on. But that was not the origin point. Harrison & Heyd have clearly proven that Bell Beaker derives from  the earlier copper-producing culture that arrived in Iberia.

If your university is unaware of any publication relating to Bell Beaker later than 1997, then it is behind the times. Strange as it may seem to you, I am not intending to go into print with views that are not shared by any academic. I'm not going to drop names here of the persons who have refereed my text, but I can tell you that none of the eminent archaeologists concerned has objected to what I say about the origins of Bell Beaker.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 07, 2012, 03:11:41 PM
(as the lack of ancestral L51* suggests)
So far, for what I know, only one Italian has been tested (Lorenzini), and Italy (above all Tuscany, Emilia, etc.) is plenty of R-L23 which are certainly L277- and L584-. Don't look at the "ht 35 FTDNA Project": there I, my son, my cousin (a different line) aren't. If 1KGP is reliable, R-L23 should be 2% in Tuscany, i.e. 36,000 L23, and I think having demonstrated in another thread that my haplotype, even though with many mutations in the first markers as to my "cousin" Tognarelli, is the closest to the subclades at 111 markers. I think that L11 was already expanding to north (in fact we find the highest presence in the Alpine region, in the Baltic region and in the Isles, and less in Italy. But L51* will be found here!


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on September 07, 2012, 03:49:05 PM
Quote from: alan trowel hands.
If corded ware was a vector for major yDNA spread then it should be recalled that it spread well into the modern R1b-rich zone including the west Alpine area, south Germany, the Upper Rhone, the Rhine, the Low Countries etc.

That's s good point! I hadn't really even thought on that before. But I still think CW brought a lot of r1a given the likely places and timings of it's mutations.

Quote from: alan trowel hands.
I wouldnt be surprised if Corded Ware actually turned out to be the main vector of spreading both R1a and R1b to the west.

The genetics of that is too hard to imagine. How could one migrating group carry such a strong degree of internal structure so that one part of the migration leaves r1a and the other, r1b?

Sure, I might argue that PIE, or early IE, had internal structure but that's easier to argue when they aren't one migrating group.

You could say that western r1b pcw migrated before eastern r1a pcw but that senario is just too strange on multiple levels.

BTW, could someone tell me the correct way of using the terms bell beaker and beaker? I had always called the western expansion bell beaker, and the later (mixed) eastern expansion beaker.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: IALEM on September 07, 2012, 04:59:23 PM
What Albannach wrote, except for the genetic part, is what Mallory described as the most probable scenario

Mallory has said no such thing. In the Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture (1997), p. 53 he said:

Quote
The Beaker "culture" has often been associated with the Indo-Europeans since there are good reasons to derive it from the area of the earlier Corded Ware culture (the Netherlands/ Rhineland region is probably the most widely accepted), which is frequently regarded as early Indo-European. Alternatively, Marija Gimbutas derived the Beakers from east central European cultures that witnessed the early impact ...

In other words he presented the Dutch origin theory that was popular at the time he wrote. Since then other publications have blown apart the Dutch origin theory.  Mallory is well aware of this. He is not living in 1997. The dating evidence shows that BB and CW are contemporary. CW was thought at one time to be earlier. Not so. The earliest BB is in the southern group. Yes some arrived from Portugal by coast to the mouth of the Rhine quite early on. But that was not the origin point. Harrison & Heyd have clearly proven that Bell Beaker derives from  the earlier copper-producing culture that arrived in Iberia.

If your university is unaware of any publication relating to Bell Beaker later than 1997, then it is behind the times. Strange as it may seem to you, I am not intending to go into print with views that are not shared by any academic. I'm not going to drop names here of the persons who have refereed my text, but I can tell you that none of the eminent archaeologists concerned has objected to what I say about the origins of Bell Beaker.

Jean, you will say in your book that BB and CW have the same origin and no one has objected that? Is that what you say?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 07, 2012, 06:58:08 PM
Quote from: alan trowel hands.
If corded ware was a vector for major yDNA spread then it should be recalled that it spread well into the modern R1b-rich zone including the west Alpine area, south Germany, the Upper Rhone, the Rhine, the Low Countries etc.

That's s good point! I hadn't really even thought on that before. But I still think CW brought a lot of r1a given the likely places and timings of it's mutations.

Quote from: alan trowel hands.
I wouldnt be surprised if Corded Ware actually turned out to be the main vector of spreading both R1a and R1b to the west.

The genetics of that is too hard to imagine. How could one migrating group carry such a strong degree of internal structure so that one part of the migration leaves r1a and the other, r1b?

Sure, I might argue that PIE, or early IE, had internal structure but that's easier to argue when they aren't one migrating group.

You could say that western r1b pcw migrated before eastern r1a pcw but that senario is just too strange on multiple levels.

BTW, could someone tell me the correct way of using the terms bell beaker and beaker? I had always called the western expansion bell beaker, and the later (mixed) eastern expansion beaker.

Well firstly, remember if the variance guys are right in their calculations, most western European R1b is descended from just one guy living c. 2600BC or so.  So we dont need to see blocks of R1b.  Its just one R1b guy.  Also the possibility that R1b migrated before R1a west shouldnt be ruled out.  It would fit the fact that in Europe anyway R1b is tied to the centum form of the language that broke away from the core earlier.  R1a had to stay in the core zone a little longer for it to experience the saetem change.  Come to think about it that would maybe support the idea that in pre-Corded Ware times (perhaps  meaning pre-3000BC - there is some reviewing about this going on) some R1b had already distanced itself from the core zone in eastern Europe.   However, that really Of course there is all sorts of wriggle room so anything is possible.   We really dont know anything about the westward movement of R1a and R1b until we find both near each other in Germany c. 2600BC.

What does R1a variance look like on a country by country basis?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 07, 2012, 07:17:17 PM
Jean- One thing I was wondering is has anyone put in print anything linking the pre-beaker copper age culture of western Iberia with an arrival of people who had got there by moving along the Alps?  I understand that H&H place Yamnanya influences all over Europe but has anyone explicitly recently discussed the external origins of the west Iberian cultures of pre-beaker copper age?  


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 07, 2012, 07:18:17 PM
Jean, you will say in your book that BB and CW have the same origin and no one has objected that?

The same origin in the sense that both derive culturally from Yamnaya and both can be deduced to be speaking a form of PIE or close descendant,  not that the populations were exactly the same genetically or came from the exact same spot on the steppe. Why would anyone object? Anthony 2007 said this. Harrison and Heyd said this. What exactly is the problem?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 07, 2012, 07:35:13 PM
Jean- One thing I was wondering is has anyone put in print anything linking the pre-beaker copper age culture of western Iberia with an arrival of people who had got there by moving along the Alps?  I understand that H&H place Yamnaya influences all over Europe but has anyone explicitly recently discussed the external origins of the west Iberian Vila Nova de Sao Pedro culture of pre-beaker copper age culture?  

Let's say that I hope no-one has told the story exactly as I do. I like to think I have made a contribution there. But I must correct one point - I do not say that they got there by moving along the Alps. They seems to have made forays into the Alps on the return journey, as it were, creating more routes than the coastal one they arrived by.

Plenty has been written on the stelae, and I have not read it all, so I can't swear that no-one has made the specific point, though a number have come very close, including Lemercier and Harrison/Heyd who point to the chain of contact among the southern BB. Harrison and Heyd made the specific point that Bell Beaker people at Sion were derived from the Copper Age arrivals there. Other authors have argued for Bell Beaker arising in Portugal from the Copper Age arrivals there (on archaeological evidence of continuity from same.) I have just pieced the story together and related it to linguistics and genetics.



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 07, 2012, 07:38:49 PM
By the way, the new paper Patterson et al., Ancient Admixture in Human History, Genetics, finds evidence of "Substantial population movement into Spain occurring around the same time as the archaeologically attested Bell-Beaker phenomenon". I'm still reading it. 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on September 07, 2012, 08:19:02 PM
@jean

I have no idea how books are made and published, so take what I say as curiosity...

How come you aren't publishing until one year from now? Isn't there a chance that some of the "big questions", which your book addresses (like the BB-steppe-r1b connection), will be answered around that time by adna?

Of course, I would still read your book for the depth and story it provides, ie the whole backdrop of these "big questions".

Just curious, you seem to have a good grasp of what you want to say.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 07, 2012, 08:36:48 PM
@jean

How come you aren't publishing until one year from now?

That is just the normal timetable for this publisher, which is international in outlook. The timetable will vary according to publication type. Books of local interest might have a much faster lead-in time. They don't have to think about possible foreign editions.

Even papers for scholarly journals are often written a year before publication, and can be out of date by the time they hit print. They have to go through a refereeing process for one thing. Nowadays months can be shaved off by publishing online before print. 

You could say that I published online before print (up to a point) and that was a useful process. It is annoying for readers that there is a big wait now for the (much revised and enlarged) print version. But it can't be helped.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on September 07, 2012, 08:46:28 PM
Quote from: alan trowel hands.
most western European R1b is descended from just one guy living c. 2600BC or so. So we dont need to see blocks of R1b. Its just one R1b guy

Hmmmmm, I'm not sure what perspective to take but...

For one thing, that guy had a lot of time for his haplogroup to grow relative to the others around him. In that whole time period there have been many population expansions and population crashes to over represent his particular haplogroup.

It's still just too hard for me to comprehend r1b segregating itself within a migration at the right time and place. Another option would be the analogy to the r1b founder, but I can't see r1b having a huge amount reproductive advantage in the west, while r1a has extremely bad luck (even relative to the other hgs) in that time frame. Then the reverse happens simultaneously in the east?

That how it appears to me, but ill admit that strange stuff does happen!

@jean, ya, we are at least aware of some of the stances you have taken.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 07, 2012, 09:18:22 PM
Jean you probably have these on the Portuguese pre-beaker copper age but this in case here they are

http://mtmercy.academia.edu/AnnaWaterman/Papers/664433/In_search_of_homelands_using_strontium_isotopes_to_identify_biological_markers_of_mobility_in_late_prehistoric_Portugal


http://run.unl.pt/bitstream/10362/6220/1/Pereira_2011.pdf


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Arch Y. on September 07, 2012, 10:22:51 PM
The event in China is too distant and far back in time to have any influence on Western culture or that of a nascent IE in the Caucasus or emerging R1b in the Zagros.

Of course Arch. But what I'm saying is that we don't know where in the Near East beer was first made, unless you have some information unknown to me. It was certainly made long before wine.

I don't think that there was any nascent IE in the Caucasus. There is no evidence of that at all.

Try this for the beer. Nobody really knows where IE originated, fair game I guess.
http://www.penn.museum/sites/biomoleculararchaeology/?page_id=84
Arch


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: IALEM on September 08, 2012, 04:09:24 AM
Jean, you will say in your book that BB and CW have the same origin and no one has objected that?

The same origin in the sense that both derive culturally from Yamnaya and both can be deduced to be speaking a form of PIE or close descendant,  not that the populations were exactly the same genetically or came from the exact same spot on the steppe. Why would anyone object? Anthony 2007 said this. Harrison and Heyd said this. What exactly is the problem?

Well, "derive culturally" is not the same a "same origin". I mean, if you say BB in Western Iberia growth out of Yamnaya influences, then I think few people will agree, but if you say that along the BB process of development Yamnaya influences were absorbed, that is a different story.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on September 08, 2012, 05:31:25 AM
By the way, the new paper Patterson et al., Ancient Admixture in Human History, Genetics, finds evidence of "Substantial population movement into Spain occurring around the same time as the archaeologically attested Bell-Beaker phenomenon". I'm still reading it. 

This is a very interesting paper with good analysis  by Dienekes and Razib.

"A conclusion to an important paper, Nick Patterson, Priya Moorjani, Yontao Luo, Swapan Mallick, Nadin Rohland, Yiping Zhan, Teri Genschoreck, Teresa Webster, and David Reich:
In particular, we have presented evidence suggesting that the genetic history of Europe from around 5000 B.C. includes:
1. The arrival of Neolithic farmers probably from the Middle East.
2. Nearly complete replacement of the indigenous Mesolithic southern European populations by Neolithic migrants, and admixture between the Neolithic farmers and the indigenous Europeans in the north.
3. Substantial population movement into Spain occurring around the same time as the archaeologically attested Bell-Beaker phenomenon (HARRISON, 1980).
4. Subsequent mating between peoples of neighboring regions, resulting in isolation-by-distance (LAO et al., 2008; NOVEMBRE et al., 2008). This tended to smooth out population structure that existed 4,000 years ago.
Further, the populations of Sardinia and the Basque country today have been substantially less influenced by these events...

We hypothesize that we are seeing here a genetic signal of the ‘Bell-Beaker culture’ (HARRISON, 1980). Initial cultural flow of the Bell-Beakers appears to have been from South to North, but the full story may be complex. Indeed one hypothesis is that after an initial expansion from Iberia there was a reverse flow back to Iberia (CZEBRESZUK, 2003); this ‘reflux’ model is broadly concordant with our genetic results, and if this is the correct explanation it suggests that this reverse flow may have been accompanied by substantial population movement."

Following Dr. Chris Tyler Smith paper earlier this week of "extreme" Neolithic  expansion of R1b ~5-10 K YBP in Europe Patterson would appear to suggest a very rapid expansion of R1b sub clades (L11 - P312 ??) out of and in to Iberia 3,600 +/- 400 BP driven by the Bell Beakers which led to L21 on the Atlantic Facade and The Isles, U152 from Alpine to the Brabant, U106 in Central Europe.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/09/across-the-sea-of-grass-how-northern-europeans-got-to-be-10-northeast-asian/

http://dienekes.blogspot.de/2012/09/estimating-admixture-proportions-and.html

http://dna2012.gerichtsmedizin.at/files/DNA_in_Forensics_2012.pdf

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










Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 08, 2012, 05:42:11 AM
Well, "derive culturally" is not the same a "same origin". I mean, if you say BB in Western Iberia growth out of Yamnaya influences, then I think few people will agree  

Really. We have anthropomorphic stelae all the way from the steppe to Iberia and you don't think that scholars are capable of recognising this very obvious piece of evidence. You feel that the large number of cultural similarities between the Copper Age arrivals in Iberia and Yamnaya, listed by H and H, are going to be ignored by the world of scholarship. You feel that the papers discussing the similarity of motif on Bell Beaker pottery and on the stelae, and the fact that BB people were clearly related to those who made the stelae are going to be ignored. You feel that papers pointing out that Bell Beaker pottery in Iberia was encrusted with bone paste, a method first found on pottery in the Danube Basin, are going to be ignored. You feel in short that the huge body of evidence that has amassed is going to be ignored because it does not suit a certain agenda? Very interesting.



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 08, 2012, 05:52:47 AM
Try this for the beer.
http://www.penn.museum/sites/biomoleculararchaeology/?page_id=84

Thanks. Patrick McGovern is the expert on the topic. I cite his work. He suspects that beer was probably discovered a lot earlier than the confirmed date at Godin Tepe ca. 3400-3000 B.C. See Brian Hayden, Neil Canuel and Jennifer Shanse, What Was Brewing in the Natufian? An Archaeological Assessment of Brewing Technology in the Epipaleolithic (http://www.springerlink.com/content/t01003643l771337/), Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2012.
Quote
It has long been speculated that increasing demands for cereals for the purposes of brewing beer led to domestication in the Near Eastern Natufian cultures. While the question of whether cereals were being used in beer production is an important issue, it has remained a difficult proposition to test. We present some new perspectives on traditional brewing techniques relevant to this issue, on archaeological remains, and on the paleoecology of the Near East. Taken together, these observations provide more compelling circumstantial evidence that makes it increasingly likely that brewing of beer was an important aspect of feasting and society in the Late Epipaleolithic.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 08, 2012, 06:19:04 AM
Jean you probably have these on the Portuguese pre-beaker copper age but this in case here they are

Thank you very much. I did not have them, but now they are in the Mini-Library. The Pereira thesis is interesting. The techniques used are the same as in the Balkans/Steppe. The arsenic-copper alloy appears there. The gilding by diffusion at high temperature I know I have seen something on, but need to ferret it out.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Isidro on September 08, 2012, 06:29:39 AM
Well, "derive culturally" is not the same a "same origin". I mean, if you say BB in Western Iberia growth out of Yamnaya influences, then I think few people will agree  

Really. We have anthropomorphic stelae all the way from the steppe to Iberia and you don't think that scholars are capable of recognising this very obvious piece of evidence.

Anthropomorphic Stelae from the steppe to Iberia does not exist.I think I did point out to you long time ago maybe years and more recently I recall MHammers questioning you  about that. Stelae in Iberia are no older than 1000BC (ie Tartessian ), both times your answers were eluding this seemingly easy riddle to answer, either this 3000BC Stelae have been found in Iberia or not.
I am totally  for fact checking  like you have made clear you are.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 08, 2012, 06:34:13 AM
Anthropomorphic Stelae from the steppe to Iberia does not exist.I think I did point out to you long time ago maybe years and more recently I recall MHammers questioning you  about that Stelae in Iberia are no older than 1000BC (ie Tartessian ),

And I think I pointed out to you that the later warrior stelae in Iberia are not what I am talking about. There has been a lot of attention paid to these, while the Chalcolithic stelae don't get much of a mention by comparison. Do not let this blind you to the fact that there are two of them on display in the Portuguese national museum of archaeology. I gave a link to them. I referred to a paper which mentions these early stelae. Dating of course is a problem, but a number of the apparently early stelae have motifs similar to those at Sion. 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 08, 2012, 06:46:31 AM
Marta Díaz-Guardamino, Iconografía, lugares y relaciones sociales: Reflexiones en torno a las estelas y estatuas-menhir atribuidas a la Edad del Bronce en la Península Ibérica, en Vilaça, Raquel (ed.) “Estelas e Estátuas-menir: da Pré à Protohistória”, IV Jornadas Raianas, Sabugal, 23-24 de Octubre de 2009.

Quote
Teniendo en cuenta estas premisas, la elaboración de muchas de las estelas y estatuasmenhir incluidas en este trabajo puede ser atribuida con bastante seguridad a la Edad del Bronce (ca. 2200-850/825 AC), algunas a los inicios de la Edad del Hierro (ca. 850/825-700 AC), como han propuesto varios autores con anterioridad. Incluyen iconos que disponen de referentes en la Península Ibérica, especialmente armas metálicas, como puñales, alabardas y espadas, o fuera de ella, como escudos de cuero. Hay, sin embargo, un nutrido grupo de piezas que no incluyen armas en su iconografía. Parte de éstas incluyen otros iconos presentes en piezas con armas, como, por jemplo, los emblemas sub-rectangulares o estolas, por lo que es posible proponer para su  laboración una franja cronológica similar. Entre estos últimos ejemplares hay algunos
que presentan collares de varios semicírculos, por lo que se pueden considerar cronologías similares para los ejemplares que incluyen el grabado de este tipo de a dornos que, como hipótesis de trabajo, relacionamos con adornos realizados en oro, como las gargantillas de tiras o los torques. La mayoría de las estelas que incorporan tocado incluyen collares, por lo que también es posible atribuirles una cronología genérica de la Edad del Bronce (Barceló, 1989; Sevillano, 1991; Almagro-Gorbea, 1994; Díaz-Guardamino, 2010: 257-261), aunque algunos autores se inclinan por situar estas imágenes con tocado a partir de una fase un poco más avanzada del Bronce (Celestino, 2001: 254-260; Santos, 2009). Muchas de estas piezas sin armas han sido atribuidas al Calcolítico, lo que se ha basado esencialmente en la ausencia de representaciones de armas, en su posible carácter femenino, en el concepto de que lo femenino remite al mundo megalítico, en su ocasional proximidad a túmulos o estructuras atribuidas a esta época e, incluso, en paralelos formales con estelas o estatuas-menhir de otras zonas el Mediterráneo Occidental (Jorge, 1986; Bueno, 1990; Bueno y González, 1995; Jorge, 1999b; Bueno et al., 2005). Pero aún no se ha documentado ninguna de estas piezas en contextos estratigráficos que aporten referencias cronológicas, por lo que su cronología está abierta al debate, a no ser que se consideren como válidas las reflexiones  anteriores, que apuntarían, en todo caso, a una cronología genérica de la Edad del Bronce.

Since she does not point out the similarity of the ones with necklaces to those at Sion, I should do so. It's fortunate you mentioned the matter.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 08, 2012, 06:50:28 AM
Jean you probably have these on the Portuguese pre-beaker copper age but this in case here they are

Thank you very much. I did not have them, but now they are in the Mini-Library. The Pereira thesis is interesting. The techniques used are the same as in the Balkans/Steppe. The arsenic-copper alloy appears there. The gilding by diffusion at high temperature I know I have seen something on, but need to ferret it out.

I would definately like to know more about the copper working.  One thing I never believed was independent discover in Iberia of copper working.  If European R1b is largely down to one family of metal specialists and traders who set up in pockets everywhere and only subsequently gained great power and expansion in each area then its not surprising how hard it has been to find the trail and pin them down.    


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 08, 2012, 07:00:24 AM
@ Alan

I'm delighted to see scientific studies on the interesting material in Copper Age Portugal - both the metal and the people.

The isotope study does not necessarily show that the incoming metal workers formed only a tiny proportion of the communities in which they lived, since isotopes can only detect the first generation immigrants. The copper workers appear to have constructed their own settlements, some fortified, rather than settling as individuals among existing communities. But certainly the incomers would have trickled into Iberia, probably prospecting at first, and formed only a small proportion of its total population initially. They came with advantages though (the whole Secondary Products package) that would allow them to out-breed existing farmers.    

I find that I had already mentioned the arsenic-copper alloy in Zambujal from a published source, so I will stick with that. But I hadn't pointed out the connection to the arsenic-copper of the "circum-pontic" tradition.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on September 08, 2012, 07:55:13 AM
Anthropomorphic Stelae from the steppe to Iberia does not exist.I think I did point out to you long time ago maybe years and more recently I recall MHammers questioning you  about that Stelae in Iberia are no older than 1000BC (ie Tartessian ),

And I think I pointed out to you that the later warrior stelae in Iberia are not what I am talking about. There has been a lot of attention paid to these, while the Chalcolithic stelae don't get much of a mention by comparison. Do not let this blind you to the fact that there are two of them on display in the Portuguese national museum of archaeology. I gave a link to them. I referred to a paper which mentions these early stelae. Dating of course is a problem, but a number of the apparently early stelae have motifs similar to those at Sion. 

Jean, as you pointed out, dating stelae is somewhat tricky. Try as it may, I have not come across a reliable radiocarbon dates for the Yamnaya stelae - just some web generalizations. Do you know of any?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 08, 2012, 10:08:20 AM
@ Rich Rocca

Radiocarbon dating is not possible on stone. Therefore dating of stelae is a complex business, partly done by context, and partly by stylistic comparison with those that can be dated on context. (The same is true of rock carving.) A number of the earliest anthropomorphic stelae (Kemi-Oba) were re-used as grave covers in graves that can be dated. So it can be deduced that they were earlier. Those that are in situ associated with graves can be dated from those grave contents (bone, wood etc) that can be radiocarbon dated. The example at Troy I stood outside one of the gates and can be dated by dates for the whole structure of Troy I.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 08, 2012, 10:08:43 AM
@ Alan

I'm delighted to see scientific studies on the interesting material in Copper Age Portugal - both the metal and the people.

The isotope study does not necessarily show that the incoming metal workers formed only a tiny proportion of the communities in which they lived, since isotopes can only detect the first generation immigrants. The copper workers appear to have constructed their own settlements, some fortified, rather than settling as individuals among existing communities. But certainly the incomers would have trickled into Iberia, probably prospecting at first, and formed only a small proportion of its total population initially. They came with advantages though (the whole Secondary Products package) that would allow them to out-breed existing farmers.    

I find that I had already mentioned the arsenic-copper alloy in Zambujal from a published source, so I will stick with that. But I hadn't pointed out the connection to the arsenic-copper of the "circum-pontic" tradition.

I just wonder about the detail of linking this with R1b.  The explosion in R1b seems to fit best the beaker period as L11-P312-U152/L21/DF27 sequence seems to be incredibly fast but also strongly patterned suggesting thaat they happened during the most explosive beaker extension period c. 2600-2500BC.  That explosion in R1b and its patterning would not IMO fit a group who were confined for many centuries to Iberia or a trail west towards Iberia.  That seems to me to indicate that the group you are calling the Stelae People would have been of something from L11 and upstream.  Maybe L51* has some passing resemblance to a restricted exploritory pre-beaker phase or perhaps simply early beaker.  My tendency based on this is to think that the spread west of an ancestral pre-beaker line of copper workers should be traced by a trail of L23* or maybe L51*.  While the latter touches on Portugal its far from concentrated there.  Perhaps there was a very thin sprinkling of L23* or L51* people following the copper routes and among those related rival pockets struggling  for top position just one of them came to be the dominant dynasty.  However, I just still dont think the DNA pattern fits the idea that the dominant dynasty that dispersed in beaker times did so from Iberia.  Iberian DNA is dominanted by DF27 which cannot be ancestral to either L21 or U152.  The variance is also not as high there and there is not a very impressive remnant of L11* or L51*.  I still see the most likely position as the western Alps.  How it got there is another question but if L23* was just a thin sprinkling of copper working lineages then I suppose they should be derived from the main element of potentially ancestral L23* in eastern Europe.  


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 08, 2012, 11:10:28 AM
For those still doubting the existence of anthropomorphic stelae in Iberia: http://www.springerimages.com/Images/SocialSciences/1-10.1007_s10816-009-9066-z-1


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 08, 2012, 11:35:38 AM
@ Alan

I realise that it is a wrench to switch the neuron connections of decades. But I think we really have to accept that the Stelae People are genetically the same as the southern BB people. That is not evidence from aDNA, but it is only a matter of time before we get it, on present evidence. They had the same dental traits. The southern BB  looked after the graves of the Stelae people. There is archaeological continuity between them from Sion to Zambujal. The big changes that look like migrations happen:

1) When the Copper Age Stelae People arrive.
2) In the middle of the Bell Beaker period, when it looks like new BB people arrive from north of the Alps, who look different - broad-headed.

These second lot of BB people entered eastern Iberia to some extent, where they later seem to be the Celtiberians, but they did not spread all over Iberia. They did not replace all the previous Stelae People.

They do not explain the R1b-P312 and R1b-DF27 in Iberia. The distribution of R1b subclades in Iberia is not the same as that in France and the British Isles. We don't have to see all BB as exactly the same genetically. It is not all L21. In the British Isles it may well be dominated by L21, because most of the BB in the Isles seems to have come from the Rhine. But Iberia is not dominated by L21.  


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on September 08, 2012, 12:38:11 PM
@ Alan

I realise that it is a wrench to switch the neuron connections of decades. But I think we really have to accept that the Stelae People are genetically the same as the southern BB people. That is not evidence from aDNA, but it is only a matter of time before we get it, on present evidence. They had the same dental traits. The southern BB  looked after the graves of the Stelae people. There is archaeological continuity between them from Sion to Zambujal. The big changes that look like migrations happen:

1) When the Copper Age Stelae People arrive.
2) In the middle of the Bell Beaker period, when it looks like new BB people arrive from north of the Alps, who look different - broad-headed.

These second lot of BB people entered eastern Iberia to some extent, where they later seem to be the Celtiberians, but they did not spread all over Iberia. They did not replace all the previous Stelae People.

They do not explain the R1b-P312 and R1b-DF27 in Iberia. The distribution of R1b subclades in Iberia is not the same as that in France and the British Isles. We don't have to see all BB as exactly the same genetically. It is not all L21. In the British Isles it may well be dominated by L21, because most of the BB in the Isles seems to have come from the Rhine. But Iberia is not dominated by L21.  

We are getting tantilizingly close to understanding the genetic past.

The following paper/post concludes that a "north european" element entered iberia in a time frame consistent with bell beakers.

 http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/09/estimating-admixture-proportions-and.html?m=1


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 08, 2012, 01:01:31 PM
@ Alan

I realise that it is a wrench to switch the neuron connections of decades. But I think we really have to accept that the Stelae People are genetically the same as the southern BB people. That is not evidence from aDNA, but it is only a matter of time before we get it, on present evidence. They had the same dental traits. The southern BB  looked after the graves of the Stelae people. There is archaeological continuity between them from Sion to Zambujal. The big changes that look like migrations happen:

1) When the Copper Age Stelae People arrive.
2) In the middle of the Bell Beaker period, when it looks like new BB people arrive from north of the Alps, who look different - broad-headed.

These second lot of BB people entered eastern Iberia to some extent, where they later seem to be the Celtiberians, but they did not spread all over Iberia. They did not replace all the previous Stelae People.

They do not explain the R1b-P312 and R1b-DF27 in Iberia. The distribution of R1b subclades in Iberia is not the same as that in France and the British Isles. We don't have to see all BB as exactly the same genetically. It is not all L21. In the British Isles it may well be dominated by L21, because most of the BB in the Isles seems to have come from the Rhine. But Iberia is not dominated by L21.  

Jean I think we are a bit at crossed purposes.  I have no problem with the idea that there were small but important groups of copper age people working there way west as far as Iberia.  I dont have a problem with the idea of a chain of these small groups linking Iberia, southern France and the Alps in the pre-beaker phase.  I also dont have a problem with the concept that they stayed in touch and either pots etc or people spread from the west end of that pre-beaker network as far as say SE France and NW Italy, forming the zone of early beaker dates as defined by M&W.  I am not 100% sure its the last twist in the tail but I am happy to work with that as the latest anlaysis.   I am also happy with the idea that there was a second wave of beakers with the distinct type among them from a more central European source. 

Where I am (I think) differing from you is that I am not convinced the stelae people or the early phase beaker people in Iberia and along the west Med. were R1b.  What I think is an alternative is that R1b only entered the beaker culture in the secondary/middle phase of 'new' beaker people giving rise to the full beaker package and I believe that R1b only entered Iberia in that secondary period (i.e. the stelae people and the earliest beaker users were not R1b or at least not P312.  I tend to think of it more of a case of non-beaker central European people taking on some beaker ideas than early beaker people from the south-west taking on central European ideas but some sort of hybriding of cultures happened anyway and it may have been complex.  Clearly the location where the 'new' beaker people arose had to be in central Europe but close enough for them to have contact with the early beaker groups. 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 08, 2012, 01:24:48 PM
Where I am (I think) differing from you is that I am not convinced the stelae people or the early phase beaker people in Iberia and along the west Med. were R1b.  What I think is an alternative is that R1b only entered the beaker culture in the secondary/middle phase of 'new' beaker people giving rise to the full beaker package

Yes I know what you think Alan. And I am telling you that it does not add up. The Eastern Bell Beaker types spread L21. There is a lot of R1b in Iberia that is not L21. Iberia is genetically different from the British Isles and France. That would not be the case if they all were populated by the same wave of people - the Eastern BB.

It is not just a question of genetics. Linguistically the Stelae People can be linked to Proto-Italo-Celtic. The Eastern BB developed Celtic. There were remnants of Proto-Italo-Celtic in western Iberia (Lusitanian), while Celtiberian was a stage further towards Celtic.  



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 08, 2012, 01:52:15 PM
It is not just a question of genetics. Linguistically the Stelae People can be linked to Proto-Italo-Celtic. The Eastern BB developed Celtic. There were remnants of Proto-Italo-Celtic in western Iberia (Lusitanian), while Celtiberian was a stage further towards Celtic.  

Incredible! But Italic-Celtic languages were spoken in Italy, and from Italy in Iberia (Lusitanian, linked with Ligurian).
In the map of the stelae peoples posted above, out of 13 places 7 (comprising Haut Provence) were in Italy or nearby. Only 2 in the East, and those 2 would have peopled all Western Europe!

The same reasoning is that of Dienekes’. When Oetzi was going to be examined and I said he would have been linked with Italians, he said that he would have been linked with Middle Eastern people. Now that it is clear that he is linked with Sardinians above all, he says that Sardinians came recently from East (Caucasus, Middle East or whichever from East). But he says these lies with many caveats, but you don’t know either these.



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on September 08, 2012, 02:10:42 PM

Where I am (I think) differing from you is that I am not convinced the stelae people or the early phase beaker people in Iberia and along the west Med. were R1b.  What I think is an alternative is that R1b only entered the beaker culture in the secondary/middle phase of 'new' beaker people giving rise to the full beaker package and I believe that R1b only entered Iberia in that secondary period (i.e. the stelae people and the earliest beaker users were not R1b or at least not P312.  I tend to think of it more of a case of non-beaker central European people taking on some beaker ideas than early beaker people from the south-west taking on central European ideas but some sort of hybriding of cultures happened anyway and it may have been complex.  Clearly the location where the 'new' beaker people arose had to be in central Europe but close enough for them to have contact with the early beaker groups. 

Alan, is there a reason why you don't think they were R1b? The distribution of R1b makes little sense when considering just the Begleitkeramik group and only some sense when considering all Bell Beaker groups. It is only when pre-BB Copper Age groups + all Bell Beaker groups are taken into account that the R1b distribution makes sense.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on September 08, 2012, 02:24:53 PM
For those still doubting the existence of anthropomorphic stelae in Iberia: http://www.springerimages.com/Images/SocialSciences/1-10.1007_s10816-009-9066-z-1

Interesting maps. However they appear to be a Meditteranean and Atlantic route rather than an overland route. It seemed that metal workers also favored maritime routes as they could spot the ore seams from coastal navigation. Do we know of a connection between Bell Beakers an Stelae People.

http://www.springerimages.com/Images/SocialSciences/1-10.1007_s10816-009-9066-z-0


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on September 08, 2012, 03:21:06 PM
By the way, the new paper Patterson et al., Ancient Admixture in Human History, Genetics, finds evidence of "Substantial population movement into Spain occurring around the same time as the archaeologically attested Bell-Beaker phenomenon". I'm still reading it.  

Below is what Patterson has to say about Bell Beakers. This indicates that after an initial expansion out of Iberia there was a reverse flow back to Iberia. The timing is 3600 +/- 400 BP.

Couple this with yesterday's three papers from Tyler-Smith, Wei and Xue indicating an "extreme" expansion of R1b into Europe ~5 -10 KYA.

If the R1b expansion was associated with the Neolithic expansion out of Anatolia and P312 or L11 expansion with the Bell Beaker expansion out of Iberia we are beginning to see a pattern emerge.

Paterson uses a (SNP) array consisting of 629,433 sites designed for Population Genetics.
Tyler-Smith used 18,700 SNPs on the Y Chrosomone from the 1000 Genome project and 5,865 from the Complete Genomics data set.

"We applied rolloff to Spain using Ireland and Sardinians as the reference populations. In Fig- ure 7c we show a rolloff curve. The rolloff of signed LD out to about 2 cM is clear, and gives an admixture age of 3600 ± 400 B.P. (the standard error was computed using a block jackknife with a block size of 5cM).
We have detected here a signal of gene flow from northern Europe into Spain around 2000 B.C. We discuss a likely interpretation. At this time there was a characteristic pottery termed ‘bell-beakers’ believed to correspond to a population spread across Iberia and northern Europe. We hypothesize that we are seeing here a genetic signal of the ‘Bell-Beaker culture’ (HARRISON, 1980). Initial cultural flow of the Bell-Beakers appears to have been from South to North, but the full story may be complex. Indeed one hypothesis is that after an initial expansion from Iberia there was a reverse flow back to Iberia (CZEBRESZUK, 2003); this ‘reflux’ model is broadly concordant with our genetic results, and if this is the correct explanation it suggests that this reverse flow may have been accompanied by substantial population movement."


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 08, 2012, 03:29:45 PM
Do we know of a connection between Bell Beakers an Stelae People.

Have you not read any of my posts on this thread? Or my page on Bell Beaker when it was online? Would you like me to send you a copy?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 08, 2012, 03:30:38 PM
@ Alan

I realise that it is a wrench to switch the neuron connections of decades. But I think we really have to accept that the Stelae People are genetically the same as the southern BB people. That is not evidence from aDNA, but it is only a matter of time before we get it, on present evidence. They had the same dental traits. The southern BB  looked after the graves of the Stelae people. There is archaeological continuity between them from Sion to Zambujal. The big changes that look like migrations happen:

1) When the Copper Age Stelae People arrive.
2) In the middle of the Bell Beaker period, when it looks like new BB people arrive from north of the Alps, who look different - broad-headed.

These second lot of BB people entered eastern Iberia to some extent, where they later seem to be the Celtiberians, but they did not spread all over Iberia. They did not replace all the previous Stelae People.

They do not explain the R1b-P312 and R1b-DF27 in Iberia. The distribution of R1b subclades in Iberia is not the same as that in France and the British Isles. We don't have to see all BB as exactly the same genetically. It is not all L21. In the British Isles it may well be dominated by L21, because most of the BB in the Isles seems to have come from the Rhine. But Iberia is not dominated by L21.  

We are getting tantilizingly close to understanding the genetic past.

The following paper/post concludes that a "north european" element entered iberia in a time frame consistent with bell beakers.

 http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/09/estimating-admixture-proportions-and.html?m=1

I personally doubt that in Iberia the farmers and hunters lived side by side as late as 2-3000BC.  Actually Dienekes is reviving an old idea about the late Neolithic or copper age being a result of the final absorbtion of hunters with farmers.  The idea was raised in an isles context too.  However, there just isnt any evidence for the a lingering hunter group as late as 2-3000BC in the isles or Iberia.  If I recall correctly the hunters in the area sampled were much older and likely left Iberia when


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 08, 2012, 03:52:16 PM
Couple this with yesterday's three papers from Tyler-Smith, Wei and Xue indicating an "extreme" expansion of R1b into Europe ~5 -10 KYA.

The initial dating by Tyler-Smith and colleagues of said expansion was 5-8 KYA = c. 4500 BC.* I dare say it occurred to him that this did not fit the Neolithic as he expected it to and the date has been revised upwards to c. 5500 BC. That still does not fit the European Neolithic (7000 BC +) very well. Plus no R1b has turned up in Neolithic remains. G2a is dominant.

Other geneticists have realised what this means. They published recently in Trends in Genetics. It means that R1b spread across Europe post-Neolithic. I spoke to one of the authors recently. He confirmed his view that R1b did not arrive in western Europe until the Copper/Bronze Age.    

*Barbara Arredi, Estella S. Poloni and Chris Tyler Smith, The Peopling of Europe, Chapter 13 in  Michael Crawford (Ed): Anthropological Genetics, Theory, Methods and Applications; Cambridge University Press 2007.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on September 08, 2012, 04:00:02 PM
@ Alan

I realise that it is a wrench to switch the neuron connections of decades. But I think we really have to accept that the Stelae People are genetically the same as the southern BB people. That is not evidence from aDNA, but it is only a matter of time before we get it, on present evidence. They had the same dental traits. The southern BB  looked after the graves of the Stelae people. There is archaeological continuity between them from Sion to Zambujal. The big changes that look like migrations happen:

1) When the Copper Age Stelae People arrive.
2) In the middle of the Bell Beaker period, when it looks like new BB people arrive from north of the Alps, who look different - broad-headed.

These second lot of BB people entered eastern Iberia to some extent, where they later seem to be the Celtiberians, but they did not spread all over Iberia. They did not replace all the previous Stelae People.

They do not explain the R1b-P312 and R1b-DF27 in Iberia. The distribution of R1b subclades in Iberia is not the same as that in France and the British Isles. We don't have to see all BB as exactly the same genetically. It is not all L21. In the British Isles it may well be dominated by L21, because most of the BB in the Isles seems to have come from the Rhine. But Iberia is not dominated by L21.  

We are getting tantilizingly close to understanding the genetic past.

The following paper/post concludes that a "north european" element entered iberia in a time frame consistent with bell beakers.

 http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/09/estimating-admixture-proportions-and.html?m=1

I personally doubt that in Iberia the farmers and hunters lived side by side as late as 2-3000BC.  Actually Dienekes is reviving an old idea about the late Neolithic or copper age being a result of the final absorbtion of hunters with farmers.  The idea was raised in an isles context too.  However, there just isnt any evidence for the a lingering hunter group as late as 2-3000BC in the isles or Iberia.  If I recall correctly the hunters in the area sampled were much older and likely left Iberia when

Here is what Dienekes has to say on the Paper and Bell Beakers. As I am mainly interested in Celtic Migrations, I would assume that the Bell Beakers were connected to the Celtic expansion from Iberia. As he says, the plot thickens.

"Another application of the new methodology is to Spain, where many analyses (including some of the Dodecad Project) have shown that the population has both a "Mediterranean" and a "North European" component. The authors date this admixture to 3,600 +/- 400 BP, and they associate it with Bell Beaker-related backflow into Iberia. However, a newer study that probably appeared when this paper was in review showed that Mesolithic Iberians were also North European-like. So, one probably does not need a special explanation for their case: the Neolithic/Mesolithic mix that occurred in Scandinavia, probably also occurred in Spain.  The 3.6ky signal for North European/Sardinian-like admixture in Spain is similar to the 4.15ky signal of North Eurasian/Sardinian  admixture in northern Europe. Both cases may reflect the same event. The authors point out that these dates are inconsistent with Visigoths and the like contributing a major portion of north European ancestry to Spain, consistent with the Ralph and Coop (2012) study. It might even be tempting to ascribe the small ~0.5k difference in the age of the signal to this later migration, or even to Celtic-related migrations, since the Celts -based on phenotypic descriptions by ancient authors- belonged to a substantial degree to the northern Europeoids.

It will certainly be interesting to study the Beaker folk's autosomal DNA in relation to European prehistory, as R1b makes its first appearance with them on the European scene. Were they the people who brought North European/East Eurasian-like ancestry into Iberia, or did the pre-existing I folk already possess it? As more ancient DNA is sampled, so will our ideas about the sequence of events be better informed. (If Iron Age people from Bulgaria were also like Sardinians, then, as they say, the plot thickens.)"


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on September 08, 2012, 05:14:46 PM
Couple this with yesterday's three papers from Tyler-Smith, Wei and Xue indicating an "extreme" expansion of R1b into Europe ~5 -10 KYA.

The initial dating by Tyler-Smith and colleagues of said expansion was 5-8 KYA = c. 4500 BC.* I dare say it occurred to him that this did not fit the Neolithic as he expected it to and the date has been revised upwards to c. 5500 BC. That still does not fit the European Neolithic (7000 BC +) very well. Plus no R1b has turned up in Neolithic remains. G2a is dominant.

Other geneticists have realised what this means. They published recently in Trends in Genetics. It means that R1b spread across Europe post-Neolithic. I spoke to one of the authors recently. He confirmed his view that R1b did not arrive in western Europe until the Copper/Bronze Age.    

*Barbara Arredi, Estella S. Poloni and Chris Tyler Smith, The Peopling of Europe, Chapter 13 in  Michael Crawford (Ed): Anthropological Genetics, Theory, Methods and Applications; Cambridge University Press 2007.


I understand there were three papers. One dealing with the Complete Genomics data set, another with the 1000 Genomes Dataset and the third which consolidates both papers and summarises the big picture. This could explain different estimates. The date in the published abstract is 5 - 10 KYA.
In any event I have seen the full range of age estimates from many papers Myres, Busby, Balleresque etc. that I generally take them with a pinch of salt.
Regarding R1b and aDNA we will eventually find it as sampling increases and I expect the BEAN project to turn up something interesting.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 08, 2012, 05:29:23 PM
It will certainly be interesting to study the Beaker folk's autosomal DNA in relation to European prehistory, as R1b makes its first appearance with them on the European scene. Were they the people who brought North European/East Eurasian-like ancestry into Iberia, or did the pre-existing I folk already possess it?

Heber - the problem is that these autosomal studies can only guess what their results actually mean. What they are calling North European just means that there is more of this "component" now in north Europe than south Europe. If you look at Patterson et al 2012's other conclusions, you will see:
 
Quote
Nearly complete replacement of the indigenous Mesolithic southern European populations by Neolithic migrants and admixture between the Neolithic farmers and the indigenous Europeans in the north.

So according to their calculations Northern Europe has rather more "Mesolithic" DNA. That actually fits the mtDNA data for the NE (more U5) and the genome comparison of the two Spanish Mesolithic men with modern-day Europeans. They were more like northern Europeans. How did this arise? It is partly true that more hunter-gatherers actually survived in NE Europe after the arrival of farmers. But also yet more hunter-gatherers arrived later in the NE (Uralic-speakers), and yet more "Mesolithic" DNA arrived with Indo-Europeans, as they were the result of a mixture of hunter-gatherer and farming stock living close to the border with Asia. Both they and the Uralic speakers had some Central Asian DNA. 

It is this mixture that Patterson and team has detected arriving in Spain in the Copper Age.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on September 08, 2012, 05:45:23 PM
Or as Dienekes indicates, Mesolithic Iberians were already like North Europeans so you don't need a "reflux" explanation, just a migration out of Iberia.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 08, 2012, 05:47:30 PM
LOL! Ingenious but somehow silly. Why would a migration out of Iberia look like a migration into it? Why did the Mesolithic Spanish chaps not resemble modern Iberians? I'll tell you. Because Patterson et al are right about one thing. The hunter-gatherers in Iberia were submerged by farmers in the Neolithic. A migration of out of Iberia in the Copper or Bronze Age of people descended from Neolithic farmers would not look like modern "northern Europeans" at all.  

But you see what I mean about people just guessing what these results mean!


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: OConnor on September 08, 2012, 06:32:53 PM
some say Pastoralists built Stonehenge...does this include R1b subclades?
http://www.sciencenews.org/view//id/343984/title/Herders%2C_not_farmers%2C_built_Stonehenge


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 08, 2012, 08:11:08 PM
That article is based on the Stevens and Fuller paper from Antiquity: Did Neolithic farming fail? The case for a Bronze Age agricultural revolution in the British Isles (http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/086/ant0860707.htm).

Quote
This paper rewrites the early history of Britain, showing that while the cultivation of cereals arrived there in about 4000 cal BC, it did not last. Between 3300 and 1500 BC Britons became largely pastoral, reverting only with a major upsurge of agricultural activity in the Middle Bronze Age. This loss of interest in arable farming was accompanied by a decline in population, seen by the authors as having a climatic impetus. But they also point to this period as the time of construction of the great megalithic monuments, including Stonehenge. We are left wondering whether pastoralism was all that bad, and whether it was one intrusion after another that set the agenda on the island.

But in fact we already knew that some of the building phases of Stonehenge fall into the Bell Beaker period. And we know that R1b has been found at a Bell Beaker site in Germany. So we can join the dots. The paper is more of interest for the way it firms up the issue of the collapse of arable farming.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: JeanL on September 08, 2012, 08:40:24 PM
LOL! Ingenious but somehow silly. Why would a migration out of Iberia look like a migration into it? Why did the Mesolithic Spanish chaps not resemble modern Iberians? I'll tell you. Because Patterson et al are right about one thing. The hunter-gatherers in Iberia were submerged by farmers in the Neolithic. A migration of out of Iberia in the Copper or Bronze Age of people descended from Neolithic farmers would not look like modern "northern Europeans" at all. 

But you see what I mean about people just guessing what these results mean!

Ok, I was trying to stay out of this, but it seems to me a lot of stuff is being thrown around indiscriminately. First of all, if we are to assume that more mt-DNA U5=more Mesolithic ancestry, then what do you make of Basques, because they have the same levels of U5 as NE Europeans. Second of all, the conclusion of the paper was as follows:

Quote from: Patterson.et.al

Interpretation in light of ancient DNA


Ancient DNA studies have documented a clean break between the genetic structure of the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers of Europe and the Neolithic first farmers who followed them. Mitochondrial analyses have shown that the first farmers in central Europe, belonging to the Linear Pottery culture (LBK), were genetically strongly differentiated from European hunter-gatherers (BRAMANTI et al., 2009), with an ‘affinity’ to present day Near Eastern and Anatolian populations (HAAK et al., 2010). More recently, new insight has come from analysis of ancient nuclear DNA from three hunter-gatherers and one Neolithic farmer who lived roughly contemporaneously at about 5000 years B.P. in what is now Sweden (SKOGLUND et al., 2012). The farmer’s DNA shows a signal of genetic relatedness to Sardinians that is not present in the hunter-gatherers who have much more relatedness to present-day northern Europeans. These findings suggest that the arrival of agriculture in Europe involved massive movements of genes (not just culture) from the Near East to Europe and that people descending from the Near Eastern migrants initially reached as far north as Sweden with little mixing with the hunter-gatherers they encountered. However, the fact that today, northern Europeans have a strong signal of admixture of these two groups, as proven by this study and consistent with the findings of (SKOGLUND et al., 2012), indicates that these two ancestral groups subsequently mixed.


Combining the ancient DNA evidence with our results, we hypothesize that agriculturalists with genetic ancestry close to modern Sardinians immigrated into all parts of Europe along with the spread of agriculture. In Sardinia, the Basque country, and perhaps other parts of southern Europe they largely replaced the indigenous Mesolithic populations, explaining why we observe no signal of admixture in Sardinians today to the limits of our resolution. In contrast, the migrants did not replace the indigenous populations in northern Europe, and instead lived side-by-side with them, admixing over time (perhaps over thousands of years). Such a scenario would explain why northern European populations today are admixed, and also have a rolloff admixture date that is substantially more recent than the initial arrival of agriculture in northern Europe. (An alternative history that could produce the signal of Asian-related admixture in northern Europeans is admixture from steppe herders speaking Indo-European languages, who after domesticating the horse would have had a military and technological advantage over agriculturalists (ANTHONY, 2007). However, this hypothesis cannot explain the ancient DNA result that northern Europeans today appear admixed between populations related to Neolithic and Mesolithic Europeans (SKOGLUND et al., 2012), and so even if the steppe hypothesis has some truth, it can only explain part of the data.)


So here are the set of assumptions made by the authors in order to reach the conclusions they reached based upon ancient DNA:


1-That the three Swedish Hunter-Gatherers were similar to Mesolithic European Hunter-Gatherers, but thankfully enough we have now two truly Mesolithic Iberian Hunter Gatherers, and the chaps aren’t similar genetically so far to the Swedish Hunter-Gatherers.


2- That the Swedish Farmer was someone similar to Middle Eastern populations, and her genome was fully representative of Neolithic immigrant from the Middle East. This is yet another leap of faith, because the farmer gal was most similar to modern day Sardinians, not Anatolians, not folks from Cyprus, not Druze, so I’m on the bandwagon on the farmer being more similar to Sardinians, not really buying it for it being proof of massive movement of genes from the Near East to Europe.


3- In the Skoglund.et.al study Basques appear to be 65% Gok farmer, but that is assuming that the Finns represent the Mesolithic Europeans, and the Druze represent the Neolithic Europeans, see Figure S18 of the study for more details.


4- Even the CEU and the French appear to be ~50% Gok-like per table-S15. In fact the minimum amount of Gok-like happens on the Russians.


Now it turns out that while the Mesolithic Spanish chaps aren’t closest to modern day Iberians, they are in fact closer to modern day Iberians than they are to Finns, as per Figure-3 and Figure-S3 of Sanchez-Quito.et.al.2012. Also if we are to take the Dodecad K12b results at face value, then using the Oracle tool this is the genetic distance of modern European populations to the Mesolithic Iberians:


> DodecadOracle(c(0,0,0,0,45,41.6,0,10.3,0,0,0,1),k=45)
      [,1]                     [,2]     
 [1,] "British_Isles_D"        "15.0083"
 [2,] "British_D"              "15.5824"
 [3,] "Cornwall_1KG"           "15.6183"
 [4,] "Kent_1KG"               "15.6601"
 [5,] "English_D"              "15.8028"
 [6,] "CEU30"                  "15.9031"
 [7,] "French_D"               "16.3117"
 [8,] "Irish_D"                "16.3181"
 [9,] "French"                 "16.5142"
[10,] "Orcadian"               "16.5484"
[11,] "Dutch_D"                "16.7126"
[12,] "Orkney_1KG"             "16.7215"
[13,] "Argyll_1KG"             "17.5029"
[14,] "Mixed_Germanic_D"       "17.6445"
[15,] "Norwegian_D"            "20.687"
[16,] "German_D"               "21.1393"
[17,] "Swedish_D"              "23.3724"
[18,] "Cataluna_1KG"           "24.1348"
[19,] "Galicia_1KG"            "25.1992"
[20,] "Cantabria_1KG"          "25.5842"
[21,] "Spanish_D"              "26.0354"
[22,] "Castilla_Y_Leon_1KG"    "26.2402"
[23,] "Extremadura_1KG"        "26.3443"
[24,] "Spaniards"              "26.4142"
[25,] "Portuguese_D"           "26.4208"
[26,] "Valencia_1KG"           "27.3909"
[27,] "Baleares_1KG"           "27.4964"
[28,] "Castilla_La_Mancha_1KG" "27.5349"
[29,] "Aragon_1KG"             "27.5717"

[30,] "Hungarians"             "27.6812"
[31,] "Murcia_1KG"             "29.0618"
[32,] "Canarias_1KG"           "30.6531"
[33,] "Andalucia_1KG"          "30.9693"

[34,] "N_Italian_D"            "32.0387"
[35,] "Pais_Vasco_1KG"         "32.5157"
[36,] "North_Italian"          "32.7267"
[37,] "Polish_D"               "36.2155"
[38,] "Romanians"              "37.5155"
[39,] "Bulgarians_Y"           "39.1224"
[40,] "O_Italian_D"            "39.2311"
[41,] "TSI30"                  "39.2552"
[42,] "Bulgarian_D"            "39.568"
[43,] "French_Basque"          "39.9123"
[44,] "Mixed_Slav_D"           "40.2361"
[45,] "Ukranians_Y"            "40.3803"


So, Northeastern Europeans aren’t closer to the Iberian Mesolithic chaps than Spanish populations, and yet assuming that the Swedish HG represent European Mesolithic HG, it would seem as if the Finns should have come out as the closest folks to the Iberian Mesolithic HG, yet they do not even appear in the list of the 45 closest populations.


PS: The Mesolithic Spanish chaps were only two folks, and only 0.5 to 1.34% of their genome has been sequenced thus far, so let's not get ahead of ourselves.



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on September 09, 2012, 02:16:14 AM
@jeanL

Those are very good points. I'll respond to them as they are numbered.

1) They seem to be similar... but it doesn't even matter if the "North European" grouping for meso Iberians and h/g Gotlanders is superficial. The point is that meso Iberians, as designated by "North European", are significantly different from the otzi neolithic types, designated by "southern". The combining of these two components tells the timing of when these different types of people mixed.

Because the study doesn't distinguish meso iberians from h/g gotlanders, they don't know where the "North European" came from, local or foreign. However, they do admit this limitation. While I suspect both foreign and local "NE" were a part of the admixture "event", I think the former was much more important. If the latter were more important, I would certainly have expected this mixture "event" to have occured in iberia before it occurred in Sweden, not the reverse! I also think most of the local meso iberians were far outbred/outnumbered by the neolithics.

2) You're right, we don't know where these neolithic types came from..But we can pretty surely say that they didn't come from iberia or scandinavia.

And given the relative closeness of meso iberia and Scandinavia, its harder to imagine a group as different as the neolithics comming from Europe. If they did come from Europe I would have to place them in Southeastern Europe. But that's a big if!

3) .

4) ?

Ok, so here's your good stuff. I agree that western meso did survive. But, as previously stated, I don't think there was enough of it in iberia to explain this admixture "event". I also agree that meso iberian, indicated by "Northwest European", should be seen as a better proxy of meso European, than it currently is. The other groups peaking in NE Europe probably have some recent east Asian in them.

Northeastern Europeans aren’t closer to the Iberian Mesolithic chaps

I love how 'chaps' is spreading, very fetch!


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 09, 2012, 06:09:08 AM
First of all, if we are to assume that more mt-DNA U5=more Mesolithic ancestry, then what do you make of Basques, because they have the same levels of U5 as NE Europeans.

The Basques have as high a Mesolithic element as North East Europeans. Indeed there seems to be a direct connection, as U5b (found in Basques) appears to have radiated from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge in the Mesolithic and U5b is the most common mtDNA haplogroup found in the Saami.

The confusion has come from treating the Basques as though they must be 100% this or 100% that. Either/or 100% Mesolithic or 100% Neolithic or 100% Copper Age incomers. The Basques appear to be a mixed population, like all modern European populations. They are not a relic population, 100% descended from Mesolithic ancestors around the Pyrenees. Once we accept that, the other affinities of the Basques make sense.  


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 09, 2012, 06:16:29 AM
.. we have now two truly Mesolithic Iberian Hunter Gatherers, and the chaps aren’t similar genetically so far to the Swedish Hunter-Gatherers.

We should not expect an exact match. The two from Sweden are from a Pitted Ware site. Pitted Ware is an intrusion into Sweden long after farming arrived there with the TRB (from the Balkans c. 4000 BC). Pitted Ware is an extension westwards of the Comb Ceramic and Pit-Comb Ware tradition, which is the most likely culture to represent Proto-Uralic speakers. They would have more of an Asian element than Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in Iberia.

So of course do the modern-day Finns, who should not be taken as a simple proxy for the Mesolithic of the whole of Europe, though they certainly will be a lot closer than most European populations today.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 09, 2012, 06:55:38 AM
2- That the Swedish Farmer was someone similar to Middle Eastern populations, and her genome was fully representative of Neolithic immigrant from the Middle East. This is yet another leap of faith, because the farmer gal was most similar to modern day Sardinians, not Anatolians, not folks from Cyprus, not Druze

3- In the Skoglund.et.al study Basques appear to be 65% Gok farmer

The Basques, Sardinians and GOK farmer actually represent (in varying degrees) Europe just before the Indo-European expansions, not early Neolithic Europe or the Levant, which did not have dairy farming. The Basques and Sardinians both appear to have a strong element of a people from the Balkans which arrived c. 4000 BC. The GOK farmer was part of a wave from the Balkans c. 4000 BC which brought lactase persistence.  

One difference between the Sardinians and Basques is that the former are low in LP, and the latter are high. Another is that the latter are high in R1b. The two are not an exact genetic match, whatever similarities they may have.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: dodelo on September 09, 2012, 07:32:35 AM
That article is based on the Stevens and Fuller paper from Antiquity: Did Neolithic farming fail? The case for a Bronze Age agricultural revolution in the British Isles (http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/086/ant0860707.htm).

Quote
This paper rewrites the early history of Britain, showing that while the cultivation of cereals arrived there in about 4000 cal BC, it did not last. Between 3300 and 1500 BC Britons became largely pastoral, reverting only with a major upsurge of agricultural activity in the Middle Bronze Age. This loss of interest in arable farming was accompanied by a decline in population, seen by the authors as having a climatic impetus. But they also point to this period as the time of construction of the great megalithic monuments, including Stonehenge. We are left wondering whether pastoralism was all that bad, and whether it was one intrusion after another that set the agenda on the island.

There is a copy in the Mini-Library > Archaeology > Copper-Bronze > Bell Beaker

But in fact we already knew that some of the building phases of Stonehenge fall into the Bell Beaker period. And we know that R1b has been found at a Bell Beaker site in Germany. So we can join the dots. The paper is more of interest for the way it firms up the issue of the collapse of arable farming.

 Is the mini library accessible to all ?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 09, 2012, 08:00:15 AM
Is the mini library accessible to all ?

It is not open access, for copyright reasons. Access to it is strictly limited for the same reasons. Please forgive my mentioning it here, where there are some users. I must stop doing that.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: dodelo on September 09, 2012, 08:27:40 AM
Is the mini library accessible to all ?

It is not open access, for copyright reasons. Access to it is strictly limited for the same reasons. Please forgive my mentioning it here, where there are some users. I must stop doing that.

OK ,thank you .


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 09, 2012, 09:33:40 AM
2- That the Swedish Farmer was someone similar to Middle Eastern populations, and her genome was fully representative of Neolithic immigrant from the Middle East. This is yet another leap of faith, because the farmer gal was most similar to modern day Sardinians, not Anatolians, not folks from Cyprus, not Druze

3- In the Skoglund.et.al study Basques appear to be 65% Gok farmer

The Basques, Sardinians and GOK farmer actually represent (in varying degrees) Europe just before the Indo-European expansions, not early Neolithic Europe or the Levant, which did not have dairy farming. The Basques and Sardinians both appear to have a strong element of a people from the Balkans which arrived c. 4000 BC. The GOK farmer was part of a wave from the Balkans c. 4000 BC which brought lactase persistence.  

One difference between the Sardinians and Basques is that the former are low in LP, and the latter are high. Another is that the latter are high in R1b. The two are not an exact genetic match, whatever similarities they may have.

1. Some see links between the Sardinian and Basque languages.

2. Sardinian is seen as very much a Neolthic isolate

3. Basques are a mix of Neolithic and Mesolithic

4. Both Basques and Sardinian lack the copper age west Asian element that Dienkes talks about a lot
 
So, that seems to make the only common denomenator the Neolithic element (and lack of the copper age west Asian element).  That tends to make me want to conclude that the Basque language is a refuge of the Neolithic language of south-west Europe, not a Mesolithic or Palaeolithic one AND that the R1b element (dominant though it is) is somehow didnt have the impact on autosomal DNA that it did elsewhere, perhaps explaining why the Neolithic language survived and the IE languages associated with the centum languages elsewhere in Europe didnt catch on.  I recall someone posting a beaker distribution map that showed that beaker was pretty lacking in much of the pyrenees except around the Med. end.  Perhaps the dominant DF27 and L21 elements arrived later in the Basque area in the late beaker period and in Bronze Age and its take off was late.  I understand that the variance is low for the Basque R1b and tends to be explained away by bottlenecks etc.  Perhaps it simply is young and derived from a small amount of individuals who at some point took off in a big way but too late to change the language. 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 09, 2012, 11:19:34 AM
@ Alan

My own conclusions are rather different. I mention the Blasco Ferrer claim of a link between Basque and Sardinian, but point out that this does not necessarily mean a linguistic flow between the two. They could have a common origin elsewhere. That origin is certainly not Palaeolithic or Mesolithic. Sardinia was not settled until the Neolithic.The whole idea of a linguistic survival anywhere in Europe from so long ago seems over-optimistic. There are common features between Sardinians and the Basques, both genetic (I2a1a-M26) and archaeological (Cardial Ware). So we might want to picture the same Neolithic language, but I don't think I do.

Basque I suspect descends from a language of the Copper Age Balkans. It shares a feature with PIE which could arise from close contact over a long period of time, or even perhaps a common origin. You argued that when R1b and R1a split, they would have been speaking the same language. It is a good point. However I will leave all that sort of thing to linguists. At least one person has actually argued that Basque is Indo-European, which seems to be going too far altogether. Most linguists would not agree at all.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 09, 2012, 11:39:47 AM
@ Alan

My own conclusions are rather different. I mention the Blasco Ferrer claim of a link between Basque and Sardinian, but point out that this does not necessarily mean a linguistic flow between the two. They could have a common origin elsewhere. That origin is certainly not Palaeolithic or Mesolithic. Sardinia was not settled until the Neolithic.The whole idea of a linguistic survival anywhere in Europe from so long ago seems over-optimistic. There are common features between Sardinians and the Basques, both genetic (I2a1a-M26) and archaeological (Cardial Ware). So we might want to picture the same Neolithic language, but I don't think I do.

Basque I suspect descends from a language of the Copper Age Balkans. It shares a feature with PIE which could arise from close contact over a long period of time, or even perhaps a common origin. You argued that when R1b and R1a split, they would have been speaking the same language. It is a good point. However I will leave all that sort of thing to linguists. At least one person has actually argued that Basque is Indo-European, which seems to be going too far altogether. Most linguists would not agree at all.

Jean, you are right that Cardial was what I was thinking.  In the case of the Basques the link could either be down to the epi-cardial elements of the area or perhaps true Cardial-descended groups displaced later (maybe by early beaker or even later) from further south.  I do agree that there are alternatives such as yours but the Cardial link is tempting.  Cardial of course was known in the Balkans western Adriatic coast so maybe both arguements are right!    


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: JeanL on September 09, 2012, 11:44:18 AM
2) You're right, we don't know where these neolithic types came from..But we can pretty surely say that they didn't come from iberia or scandinavia.

How can we be sure that the Gok4 types did not come from Iberia, or elsewhere in Southern Europe, perhaps Italy, as they are most similar to Sardinians.

And given the relative closeness of meso iberia and Scandinavia, its harder to imagine a group as different as the neolithics comming from Europe. If they did come from Europe I would have to place them in Southeastern Europe. But that's a big if!

What relative closeness? As far as I know the Swedish Neolithic HG do not look similar to the Iberian Mesolithic HG, in fact the former have an excess of Atlantid_Med component, whereas the latter have an double the North European than the former had. The Swedish Neolithic HG appear closest to Finns and Swedish on the MDS plots, whereas the Iberian Mesolithic HG appear closest to the UK folks.




Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 09, 2012, 11:50:02 AM
How can we be sure that the Gok4 types did not come from Iberia, or elsewhere in Southern Europe, perhaps Italy, as they are most similar to Sardinians.

The Gok4 type is a farmer of the Funnel Beaker Culture (TRB), which appears from both archaeological links and physical similarity to be most similar to the people of the Late Neolithic cultures of the Balkans. These Balkan cultures were in collapse c. 4000 BC (due to climate change) when the TRB appears further north. So farmers seem to have been fleeing the Balkans up the Danube looking for greener pastures.   


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: JeanL on September 09, 2012, 11:56:10 AM
The confusion has come from treating the Basques as though they must be 100% this or 100% that. Either/or 100% Mesolithic or 100% Neolithic or 100% Copper Age incomers. The Basques appear to be a mixed population, like all modern European populations. They are not a relic population, 100% descended from Mesolithic ancestors around the Pyrenees. Once we accept that, the other affinities of the Basques make sense. 

Well that’s not what the authors of the latest study believe, i.e.:

Quote from: Patterson.et.al.2012
Combining the ancient DNA evidence with our results, we hypothesize that agriculturalists with genetic ancestry close to modern Sardinians immigrated into all parts of Europe along with the spread of agriculture. In Sardinia, the Basque country, and perhaps other parts of southern Europe they largely replaced the indigenous Mesolithic populations, explaining why we observe no signal of admixture in Sardinians today to the limits of our resolution.

So per the authors’ conclusions the Basques are nearly 100% derived from Neolithic farmers. Which is why I explained the assumptions that they made, and that even if we are to assume that Gok4, the Swedish farmer was 100% representative of incoming Neolithic farmers, then the Basques came out 65% Gok4-like in their genomes, as per the Skoglund.et.al.2012 study, Figure-S18.

Now, what’s interesting is that the authors ascribe the Northeast Asian affinity found in Northern European populations to a survival of Mesolithic ancestry, but in fact, that is assuming that the three Swedish HG are proxies for the European Mesolithic HG, so because the Swedish HG are East Asian shifted, then the explanation for the East Asian shift in Northern Europe is based upon that, and that’s why they discard the Steppe hypothesis.

Quote from: Patterson.et.al.2012
However, this hypothesis cannot explain the ancient DNA result that northern Europeans today appear admixed between populations related to Neolithic and Mesolithic Europeans (SKOGLUND et al., 2012), and so even if the steppe hypothesis has some truth, it can only explain part of the data.)

But like I said, this is once more assuming that the three Swedish HG are proxy for Mesolithic Europeans, and that Gok4 farmer is proxy for Neolithic farmers from the Near East. But, since the Basques aren’t 100% Neolithic as they claim them to be, or at least not 100% “Gok-like”, and yet they do not appear mixed, then I do think that the explanation for the presence of the Northeast Asian element does point to the Steppe hypothesis and the IE languages. I would expect the HG living in the Steppes to be significantly more East Asian shifted than the West European HG, so if the PIE folks were a mixture of farmers+Steppe HG, then it would make complete sense that they were East Asian shifted.

So in a nutshell, perhaps part of the shift came from Meso-European survival, but perhaps the biggest share of the East Asian shift came from the PIE expansions during the Copper and Bronze ages.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on September 09, 2012, 12:26:00 PM
Quote from: jeanL
in fact the former have an excess of Atlantid_Med component, whereas the latter have an double the North European than the former had.

Wait, where did you see this? That would change things a lot!

But I'm pretty sure brana was "Northwest European", which is like a subset of "North European", and NOT "atlanto med" (otzi).


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on September 09, 2012, 12:47:28 PM
Quote from: jeanL
So per the authors’ conclusions the Basques are nearly 100% derived from Neolithic farmers. Which is why I explained the assumptions that they made,

No, they only said that the sardinians are fully descended from this "neolithic" replacement population.

In regards to the basque, they said that the basque country was fully replaced by this neolithic population (im not sure why they think that), which doesnt mean mesolithic types didn't come back. The implication of what you quoted is that the basque are admixed!


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: JeanL on September 09, 2012, 01:02:54 PM
Wait, where did you see this? That would change things a lot!
But I'm pretty sure brana was "Northwest European", which is like a subset of "North European", and NOT "atlanto med" (otzi).


K12b Results

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZwmxlhXO8-k/T_B9lrlnFJI/AAAAAAAAE7w/My33JaMKr_E/s1600/ancientdna12.png)

 http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZwmxlhXO8-k/T_B9lrlnFJI/AAAAAAAAE7w/My33JaMKr_E/s1600/ancientdna12.png (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZwmxlhXO8-k/T_B9lrlnFJI/AAAAAAAAE7w/My33JaMKr_E/s1600/ancientdna12.png)

La Braña
Atlantid-Med: 45%
North European: 41.6%

Ajv52
Atlantid-Med: 13.3%
North European: 77.5%

Ajv52
Atlantid-Med: 20.6%
North European: 76.4%

MDLP5 Results

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wDvQLaC8DJM/T_KaHwZm-hI/AAAAAAAAE80/POcCBLDM8Ew/s1600/mdlp5.png)

 http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wDvQLaC8DJM/T_KaHwZm-hI/AAAAAAAAE80/POcCBLDM8Ew/s1600/mdlp5.png (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wDvQLaC8DJM/T_KaHwZm-hI/AAAAAAAAE80/POcCBLDM8Ew/s1600/mdlp5.png)

La Braña
Paleo-Mediterranean: 44.14%
West-Eurasian: 39.69%
East-Eurasian: 16.16%

Ajv52
Paleo-Mediterranean: 21.55%
West-Eurasian: 73.74%
South-Asian: 4.71%

Ajv52
Paleo-Mediterranean: 23.65%
West-Eurasian: 71.6%
East-Eurasian: 4.74%

MDS Plots

Skoglund.et.al.2012

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rl1bw36vh5E/T5WCj36-KyI/AAAAAAAAEyQ/IgbXJAn3FPo/s1600/skoglund.png)

 http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rl1bw36vh5E/T5WCj36-KyI/AAAAAAAAEyQ/IgbXJAn3FPo/s1600/skoglund.png (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rl1bw36vh5E/T5WCj36-KyI/AAAAAAAAEyQ/IgbXJAn3FPo/s1600/skoglund.png)

Sanchez-Quinto.et.al.2012

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-35pYfsnhd88/T-yeTCYGNSI/AAAAAAAAE64/LMV5iFcqBcU/s1600/brana.png)

 http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-35pYfsnhd88/T-yeTCYGNSI/AAAAAAAAE64/LMV5iFcqBcU/s1600/brana.png (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-35pYfsnhd88/T-yeTCYGNSI/AAAAAAAAE64/LMV5iFcqBcU/s1600/brana.png)


The implication of what you quoted is that the basque are admixed!

Then how do you explain this part of the study:

Quote from: Patterson.et.al.2012

In particular, we have presented evidence suggesting that the genetic history of Europe from around 5000 B.C. includes:

1. The arrival of Neolithic farmers probably from the Middle East.

2. Nearly complete replacement of the indigenous Mesolithic southern European populations by Neolithic migrants, and admixture between the Neolithic farmers and the indigenous Europeans in the north.

3. Substantial population movement into Spain occurring around the same time as the archaeologically attested Bell-Beaker phenomenon (HARRISON, 1980).

4. Subsequent mating between peoples of neighboring regions, resulting in isolation-by-distance (LAO et al., 2008; NOVEMBRE et al., 2008). This tended to smooth out population structure that existed 4,000 years ago.

Further, the populations of Sardinia and the Basque country today have been substantially less influenced by these events.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 09, 2012, 01:08:57 PM
So per the authors’ conclusions the Basques are nearly 100% derived from Neolithic farmers. Which is why I explained the assumptions that they made, and that even if we are to assume that Gok4, the Swedish farmer was 100% representative of incoming Neolithic farmers, then the Basques came out 65% Gok4-like in their genomes,

65% is not the same as 100%. I have no idea why the authors of the study feel that the Mesolithic population of the Basque Country was completely replaced by Neolithic. I wonder if they understand that the Spanish Basque Country is not where the Basques originated? I wouldn't let it worry you anyway. Not with that U5b to tell the tale.



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 09, 2012, 01:13:07 PM
I know there is not agreement on this but it would be interesting to further think through the implications of Cardial being the origin of the Sardinians and a lot of the Basque ancestry too, as well as their languages.  

I note that bell beaker is known in Sardinia.  I dont know the details but if it was part of the early south-west beaker network that stretched from Portugal along the west Med. then that could be indirect evidence that the early west to east phase of the beaker culture was not related to R1b, west Asian autosomal DNA or the IE language and that those aspects were part of the second east-west etc phase of full package beaker.  This may make sense of the fact that the some of the area within or adjacent to the early bell beaker zone featured non-IE languages, Iberian and Basque included.  You could add Etruscan, some Scicillian languages to that too but I dont want to go through that debate. In fact all in all it is possible to argue that the early beaker network contains one of the strongest collections of non-IE (which I am aware does not always mean pre-IE) langauges noted in late anquiquity.  This would fit into a scenario wherebye the genetics, linguistics etc of the early beaker network is very different from the later one.  As has been noted there is a major change in the culture (creation of the full beaker package combining early beaker and central European tratis) and physical types and direction of flow in the later (actually middle) beaker culture.  In fact the question has to be raised is whether the early and later beaker people are the same people at all or whether the later beaker people are another group who traded and gained wives etc from the early beaker people (who were basically a west Med. culture and physical group).  A very new paper already discussed indicates a flow of north European autosomal genes perhaps dating to around 2000BC.  This again would fit the idea that the early beaker people were basically a west Med. group flowing east as far as Italy but the developed full package group were a different people genetically/physically with a distinct phenotype and a lot of central European cultural traits that the early beaker group didnt have.  I tend to think in a patrilineal society such as the developed beaker culture, trade and a flow of beaker wives into a non-early Beaker male group created the full developed beaker group whose flow included a huge expansion of the beaker culture into the northern half of Europe as well as a reverse movement back to Iberia.


IF that is anywhere near the reality then the original early beaker group may, as well as lacking the west Asian component, may have been non-R1b.  Maybe a Sardinian type people autosomally.  I understand the early beaker people do have a basic west Med and adjacent phenotype from the study of their remains and its only later in the developed beaker phase that the classic beaker phenotype appears along with eastern influences.  


I think this model does make sense of a few things.  it was always hard to archaeologically explain the Iberian languages.  After the Neolithic, two things stand out in the later area of Iberian languages - a strong early beaker element and a strong urnfield showing.  Both seem at odds with the non-IE survival there.  However, if this west to east early beaker culture of the west Med. was non-IE then it does make much more sense.  In fact, someone (may have been jean L but not sure) pointed out that the early beaker zone as defined by Muller and Willigen is strongly associated with non-IE languages (Iberian, Etruscan, west Scicillian ancient language, Sardinian etc.  This has been attempted to be explained away by raising the possibility that they are late non-IE arrivals but archaeology doesnt really provide much of an indication of this.  Perhaps the historic reference to an Anatolian origin for the Etruscans is correct but the actual period was the spread of Impression elements from southern Anatolia.  

In summary

Early beaker c. 3000BC-2600BC=an west Med. perhaps largely native Cardial-descent non-R1b group speaking the Neolithic languages descended from Cardial

Developed Beaker c. 2600BC onwards=a central European beakerised R1b group whose prior pre-beaker culture is yet to be confirmed but probably lay in west-central or maybe the NW Balkans where non-beaker groups could have traded, intermarried etc with early beaker elements and taken on characteristic of the early beaker culture while retaining some of their own.  They were likely a hybrid group of central European males with a beaker female component.  


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 09, 2012, 01:17:24 PM
I would also add that it is also interesting that Aquitania was the location of a strong Cardial outpost slightly seperated from the Portugese and Med. groups probably having come up rivers from the Med. to Biscay.  That is another hint that Basque may originate in the Cardial element along with Sardinian and perhaps also Etruscan.  


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 09, 2012, 01:21:10 PM
Yes I know all about the Cardial Ware in Aquitania and mention it in my text.

Etruscan has nothing to do with Basque, as far as anyone can tell. The Etruscans arrived from Anatolia long after the Neolithic - around 1200 BC.

To be frank the constant attempts to link non-Indo-European languages of Europe together seem mainly to be based on the false premise that there would be only one Neolithic language in Europe. Most unlikely.

The relationship of R1b and various languages is certainly not simple and straightforward. Things will get clearer eventually as we get more aDNA. For the moment I'm using logical deduction.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on September 09, 2012, 01:26:44 PM
@jeanL

In all the data you've just shown, brana is significantly closer to the h/g Swedish than to otzi and the sardinians. (I was a little off in that the h/g Swedish were partly described by the "atlanto-med" component and even more so for brana).

The relative similarity between the brana and h/g Swedes is very obvious in the first chart. It is less obvious in the second chart but that is probably because of the "east asian" in brana, which probably eats up the "North European".

So all the points stay them same. Brana (mesolithic iberian) is very different from otzi (likely a neolithic replacer for western Europe).

However, given that brana has more "atlanto-med" than h/g Swedes AND modern Northwest Europeans have the most "brana", I now strongly suspect that "atlanto-med" is actually part European mesolithic. Is this the point you wanted to make? But again, the possible mesolithic component in "atlanto-med" would not be centered in meso iberia, but meso southeast Europe.

I hope my terms made sense...


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 09, 2012, 01:27:42 PM
Jean, in relation to your quickly deleted post, I have done nothing but archaeology for a period crossing 4 decades.  I dont need to be lectured on pots are not people etc. Granny, sucking eggs and all that.  In fact the very point of my post is that pots and people are not the same so I dont know where you are coming from at all.  You need to read it again and please accept people are going to have their own ideas and not just shout down dissenters from your own model.  I appreciate all that you do and the great help you give a lot of people but I wish you would be more tolerant of other views.  


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 09, 2012, 01:30:59 PM
@ Alan

Forgive me for getting a shade exasperated. As you realise, you were not meant to read that.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 09, 2012, 01:31:22 PM
Yes I know all about the Cardial Ware in Aquitania and mention it in my text.

Etruscan has nothing to do with Basque, as far as anyone can tell. The Etruscans arrived from Anatolia long after the Neolithic - around 1200 BC.

To be frank the constant attempts to link non-Indo-European languages of Europe together seem mainly to be based on the false premise that there would be only one Neolithic language in Europe. Most unlikely.

Why do you assume me mentioning Cardial in Aquitania is aimed at you or your text like I was implying you dont know about it.  I am sure you are well aware of it. 

I totally agree with the last paragraph but a language family in one culture like Cardial or at least the western part of it who remained in touch slowing down differentiation is possible.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 09, 2012, 01:39:58 PM
@ Alan

Forgive me for getting a shade exasperated. As you realise, you were not meant to read that.

Cheers.  Thats OK.  Passion for ideas can do that. 

I just like to boot around a few thoughts and have no problem if they are critiqued and shown to be misplaced.  I look on putting ideas out there and possibly getting them shot down as a good way of ruling stuff in or out.  I am not hard and fast on anything as there are too many variable to be certain. I thought my ideas were fairly in line with the date of the spread of pots and beaker proto-package from west to east, the early beaker physical type and the contrast with the later beaker types and full package etc.  I actually thought that was not too distant from your own (well informed) ideas but with the difference that I dont see it as the R1b vector and the pre-beaker copper age east-west flow.  I know that is a significant difference but there is common ground on the 2 stage beaker model as per Sion.  Anyway vive la difference 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 09, 2012, 01:43:20 PM


[Message Deleted]


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 09, 2012, 01:48:04 PM
I totally agree with the last paragraph but a language family in one culture like Cardial or at least the western part of it who remained in touch slowing down differentiation is possible.

Yes Cardial Ware - I agree. Etruscan is not part of that package though, as far as can be deduced. Naturally there are those who want to see it as indigenous. As soon as you mention Etruscan round here you can bet on support for that notion. :) 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on September 09, 2012, 01:48:58 PM
Yikes, all of our theories are clashing right now.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 09, 2012, 01:53:20 PM
@ Maliclavelli

I have no certitudes to offer on this topic - just deductions, which are not based on U7a, though I do mention it as a side issue, perhaps wrongly. Who knows? Here is what I say:

Quote
The Etruscan language is not Indo-European. In fact it does not belong to any living language family, though it resembles two other extinct languages: Raetic, testified by inscriptions in the Alps, and a language spoken on the island of Lemnos in the Aegean Sea. Studies of mtDNA in ancient Etruscans indicate an origin in Anatolia, but at what time? Could that resemblance date back to the Neolithic? Archaeology and DNA studies of Tuscan cattle breeds suggests not. The ancestors of the Etruscans seem to have arrived in Italy around 1200 BC. Herodotus reported that the Etruscans were from Lydia...  The people they supplanted were Umbrians, as Herodotus tells us. Place-name evidence supports him.  


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 09, 2012, 01:56:42 PM
Yikes, all of our theories are clashing right now.

I wouldn't worry about it. Happens all the time on forums such as this. It's actually quite helpful to me. I am taking U7a out of my text as I write! :)


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 09, 2012, 02:09:53 PM
I totally agree with the last paragraph but a language family in one culture like Cardial or at least the western part of it who remained in touch slowing down differentiation is possible.

Yes Cardial Ware - I agree. Etruscan is not part of that package though, as far as can be deduced. Naturally there are those who want to see it as indigenous. As soon as you mention Etruscan round here you can bet on support for that notion. :) 

lol I thought that as soon as I posted it.  Well again, if I post something that some agree and others disagree with passionately its a good way to get the main arguements put out there. 

BTW I should point out that when I am saying Cardial I just mean in terms of distant ancestry, I dont mean there was a direct Cardial-Beaker sequence.  Clearly that would be wrong as other cultures intervened.  I also do believe some eastern pre-beaker elements must have made it to Iberia due to the copper working etc so I am not dismissing that idea at all.  I am just not sure in my own mind if this was R1b.  One chap in the right sort of time and place in the pre-beaker copper age of western Europe (the ice man chappy) was not but I am not mad enough to deduce anything from a single ancient chap. 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 09, 2012, 02:15:38 PM
Yikes, all of our theories are clashing right now.

Indeed but if we all agreed there wouldnt be much point in the forum.  It would be some sort of mutual reaffirmation back slapping society :0)


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: JeanL on September 09, 2012, 02:36:42 PM
In all the data you've just shown, brana is significantly closer to the h/g Swedish than to otzi and the sardinians. (I was a little off in that the h/g Swedish were partly described by the "atlanto-med" component and even more so for brana).

Well I wasn’t aiming for Oetzi, but in fact what I was trying to show was that the La Braña Mesolithic HG were more akin to NW Europeans, whereas the Swedish HG were more akin to NE Europeans. Also, something else I noticed was that the La Braña individual appears like a mixture of the Swedish HG and the Swedish farmer Gok4. Even in the MDS plots one could sort of visualize where the La Braña individuals would plot (on the border of the Brits), and how they would be equidistant between the Swedish HG and the Swedish farmer.

The relative similarity between the brana and h/g Swedes is very obvious in the first chart. It is less obvious in the second chart but that is probably because of the "east asian" in brana, which probably eats up the "North European".

Well, like I said on the K12b chart (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZwmxlhXO8-k/T_B9lrlnFJI/AAAAAAAAE7w/My33JaMKr_E/s1600/ancientdna12.png)the Swedish HG are all 70%+ North European, and it is their principal component, La Braña is 45% Atlantid_Med, and 41.6% North European, so they are more Atlantid_Med than North European, on the other hand Gok4(Swedish farmer) was 81% Atlantid_Med and 5.5% North European. On the MDLP5 chart (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wDvQLaC8DJM/T_KaHwZm-hI/AAAAAAAAE80/POcCBLDM8Ew/s1600/mdlp5.png) what makes La Braña different from the Swedish HG wasn’t just the East Eurasian, but the fact that La Braña were 44.14% Paleo-Mediterranean, whereas the Swedish HG are only half of that ~22%, on the other hand the Swedish farmer was 66% Paleo-Mediterranean.

So all the points stay them same. Brana (mesolithic iberian) is very different from otzi (likely a neolithic replacer for western Europe).

I agree, but the La Braña individual is about as different from Gok4 (Swedish farmer) as he is from Avj (Swedish HGs).

However, given that brana has more "atlanto-med" than h/g Swedes AND modern Northwest Europeans have the most "brana", I now strongly suspect that "atlanto-med" is actually part European mesolithic.

Well, what we can say is that in the ~1000 SNPs used so far in the K12b run, La Braña does appear to be more Atlantid_Med than the Swedish HG in their ~20,000 SNPs analyzed. I would however say, that things could change a lot once the full genome is sequenced and the number of SNPs goes from ~20,000 to ~700,000. 

Is this the point you wanted to make? But again, the possible mesolithic component in "atlanto-med" would not be centered in meso iberia, but meso southeast Europe.
 

How so? Why would it be a Mesolithic component from Southeast Europe? Mind you, I’m not disagreeing with you, I’m just curious.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: JeanL on September 09, 2012, 02:44:57 PM
@Alan

So according to your hypothesis, then any pre-Beaker y-DNA analysis in Iberia ought to yield a non-R1b result. It would be good then to see what the SJAPL site (circa 4000-3000 BC) in Alava which is located in the southernmost fringe of the Basque Country yields in terms of y-DNA.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 09, 2012, 02:58:00 PM
@Alan

So according to your hypothesis, then any pre-Beaker y-DNA analysis in Iberia ought to yield a non-R1b result. It would be good then to see what the SJAPL site (circa 4000-3000 BC) in Alava which is located in the southernmost fringe of the Basque Country yields in terms of y-DNA.

Well I am not sure at all but there has always been doubt in my mind about the idea of R1b being located in the west in pre-copper age times.  Some interesting possibilities have been raised but any pre-beaker trail remains subtle and a matter of interpetation rather than self evident.  Ancient DNA would resolve this.  As you say pre-beaker copper age Iberian burials and of course early beaker period burials in the west and south Iberia, southern France area would help resolve this.  Goes without saying that we need a better range of yDNA, starting with at least a hanful of samples from seperate burial sites (i.e. not lots from the same potentially 'family' burial site)  from each culture.  That would be a starting point.  Not enough to prove absence but can certainly prove presence.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on September 09, 2012, 03:08:37 PM
@Alan

So according to your hypothesis, then any pre-Beaker y-DNA analysis in Iberia ought to yield a non-R1b result. It would be good then to see what the SJAPL site (circa 4000-3000 BC) in Alava which is located in the southernmost fringe of the Basque Country yields in terms of y-DNA.

Well I am not sure at all but there has always been doubt in my mind about the idea of R1b being located in the west in pre-copper age times.  Some interesting possibilities have been raised but any pre-beaker trail remains subtle and a matter of interpetation rather than self evident.  Ancient DNA would resolve this.  As you say pre-beaker copper age Iberian burials and of course early beaker period burials in the west and south Iberia, southern France area would help resolve this.  Goes without saying that we need a better range of yDNA, starting with at least a hanful of samples from seperate burial sites (i.e. not lots from the same potentially 'family' burial site)  from each culture.  That would be a starting point.  Not enough to prove absence but can certainly prove presence.

If you take the Archaeological, Linguistic, Cultural and Genetic evidence from "Celtic from the West" which linked Bell Beaker to Celtic Migrations and look at this additional DNA study From Patterson et Al. which place the influx to and expansion from Iberia by the Bell Beakers in the 3600 +/- 400 timeframe which corresponds to the findings of "Celtic from the West" we begin to see a convincing pattern emerging.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 09, 2012, 03:41:24 PM
I was looking again at RR's combined beaker and U152 map in and around Italy and it is interesting that although it looks like a good fit in north Italy, it is not so in Sardinia  and the south in general.  Sardinia actually has a significant beaker presence.  Is this evidence that the initial out of Iberia beaker network expansion phase was not R1b/west asian autosomal component driven? Is this suggestive that areas which were in the early beaker west-Med beaker network c. 3000-2700BC should not be looked at in the same way as areas which recieved later full developed beaker?  There was a relfux back to Iberia but it was not the same in distribution. 

http://www.u152.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=59:u152-bell-beakers-and-urnfield-tradition-in-italy&catid=1:latest-news

I wonder if there were some areas that only recieved the beaker element in its initial west-east phase but not in the later phase of the developed beaker package of central Europe which also spread back torwards source.  The overlap between the two phases was not complete. 

When you add that the location of Sardinian and Iberian may have shared a similar language, shared a similar strong early beaker phase but not shared a similar P312 pattern then it is tempting to speculate that there is a disconnect between early west-east beaker and P312 or IE languages.  This of course is not an original idea.  The idea that the IE developed beaker people were not the same people as the early Iberian and west Med. beaker people has been knocking about for a century in a number of forms.  The skeletal evidence at Sion apparently supports the idea that the early beaker element that had reached as far as Sion were of Neolithic Med. stock while the later waves were different and included the famous craggy large chaps with plano-occipital (flattened rear - a better term than round headed) skulls. 

I would suggest that U152 (and L21) are clear relics of the secondary phase of the spread of the developed full package beaker culture from west-central Europe.  I also feel that despite its welling up in Iberia, DF27 probably belongs to this phase too but its harder to prove this as DF27* has a weird distribution. 




Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on September 09, 2012, 04:05:26 PM
Quote from: jeanL
Even in the MDS plots one could sort of visualize where the La Braña individuals would plot (on the border of the Brits), and how they would be equidistant between the Swedish HG and the Swedish farmer

I'm pretty sure you cant simply translate the position on one map to the position on another. You could add dimensions...

 
Quote from: jeanL
the La Braña individual is about as different from Gok4 (Swedish farmer) as he is from Avj (Swedish HGs).

Stronly disagree here. If you got the component distances, you would find that brana is closer to the h/g than otzi after doing the math.

 
Quote from: jeanL
How so? Why would it be a Mesolithic component from Southeast Europe?


first, let me explain my reasoning for why I think otzi is part meso European.

The first assumption I make is that meso Europeans basically branched away from some homogeneous group, and that they only mixed with each other up to the neolithic. (I know that's not a great assumption). That would mean that meso Europeans are equally (or nearly so if my assumption is only a little off) related to the contemporaneous non Europeans. So if otzi is closer to brana than h/g swedes, then otzi must have some meso European.

Ok, so the reasoning I use to say that this theoretical x meso found in otzi/"atlanto-med" was not centered in meso iberia is as follows. The neolithic migration went from the near east, to the balkans, to Italy, and finally to Spain. Otzi and sardinians are about 100% "atlanto-med" and of this neolithic migration. For the mesolithic component in otzi to have been closest to the native iberian meso, would require that the balkans transfer little to no meso while Italy retains it's iberian meso like component during the neolithic. That alone would be a stretch. But even others have tied large scale migration to Italy from the east around the neolithic, leaving little room for western meso to dominate the meso that was there. That would suggest a good chunk of the meso in otzi, if its there, from the balkans.




Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: IALEM on September 09, 2012, 05:09:31 PM
Well, "derive culturally" is not the same a "same origin". I mean, if you say BB in Western Iberia growth out of Yamnaya influences, then I think few people will agree  

Really. We have anthropomorphic stelae all the way from the steppe to Iberia and you don't think that scholars are capable of recognising this very obvious piece of evidence. You feel that the large number of cultural similarities between the Copper Age arrivals in Iberia and Yamnaya, listed by H and H, are going to be ignored by the world of scholarship. You feel that the papers discussing the similarity of motif on Bell Beaker pottery and on the stelae, and the fact that BB people were clearly related to those who made the stelae are going to be ignored. You feel that papers pointing out that Bell Beaker pottery in Iberia was encrusted with bone paste, a method first found on pottery in the Danube Basin, are going to be ignored. You feel in short that the huge body of evidence that has amassed is going to be ignored because it does not suit a certain agenda? Very interesting.


Wow, do I feel all that? I wasn´t aware. Certainly I didn´t say anything about any agenda.
Jean, I don´t have any feelings on this story, what I said, and keep saying is that, as today, you will not find much people in university supporting your idea, at least for what I know certainly not in Spain.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: razyn on September 09, 2012, 05:13:37 PM
I would suggest that U152 (and L21) are clear relics of the secondary phase of the spread of the developed full package beaker culture from west-central Europe.  I also feel that despite its welling up in Iberia, DF27 probably belongs to this phase too but its harder to prove this as DF27* has a weird distribution. 

I've found myself agreeing with you more than usually in the last day or two -- hope you keep at this line of thought about two "Beaker" phases separated by a good 500 years that don't look genetically very similar (and with R1b belonging to the later group, if any); and if that happened, perhaps the earlier group also didn't speak PIE (or some derivative thereof).

And I might add that the distribution of DF27* gets a lot less weird if it doesn't have to originate in Iberia and spread to the east, along with a popular pattern in Portuguese pottery.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 09, 2012, 05:21:08 PM
..you will not find much people in university supporting your idea, at least for what I know certainly not in Spain.

Yes I was rather assuming that you were talking about Spanish academics. In fact I supposed that you were talking specifically about Basque academics. Strangely German, British, French, Irish and American academics are merrily publishing material that I cite in support.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on September 09, 2012, 05:21:57 PM
I feel comfortable with Rich Rocca's "L51 from the West" with hotspots in the Rhone, Alps, Northern Sardinia, Tagus, Erne.
I feel comfortable with L23 in the Balkens where Neolithic farmers from Anatolia (M269) met horse mounted People from the Steppes (R1a).
I believe this weeks Tyler et Al paper supports an R1b-M269 Neolithic expansion from Anatolia circa 5 -10 KYA.
I believe this weeks Patterson et Al paper supports an R1b Bell Beaker expansion from Iberia circa 3.6 KYA.
This can only have been L11 which gave rise to P312 in Iberia and U106 in Central Europe using the River networks already established by L51.
I believe P312 later gave rise to DF27 and M167 in Iberia and U152 in the Alpine Region.
Another P312 clade migrated to the Isles along the Atlantic Facade as L21 and expanded rapidly in the Isles as DF13 under the the Gaelic Clan System
This migration path is illustrated below. Age estimates are approximate.
http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763708372/




Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 09, 2012, 05:38:05 PM
One thing I would tend to think is that their may have been a difference between the Meso groups in Europe anyway.  Its generally thought that western and west-central Europe hunters spread out initially with the Magdallenian refugia while other epigravettian groups spread from the east.  So in autosomal DNA terms they would not have been identical.  They probably had similar very deep roots but there was a large degree of seperation and different environments too.  I dont know if this corresponds to the divide in Atlantic-Baltic between NE European and Atlanto-Med or not but it seems a possibility to me.  The hunters may often have been a mix of both because Madgallenian is thought to have partly been the result of an injection of new people from central Europe to the east (Badegoulian) and of course after the LGM the two groups also may have overlapped across a significant part of northern Europe.  So,  I would expect a mix of western and eastern Meso elemetns in most areas (even the Finns and Basque are connected by MtDNA.  I dont follow the autosomal stuff much but is it feasible that both NE European and Atlantic Med. elements are Meso?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 09, 2012, 05:50:26 PM
I would suggest that U152 (and L21) are clear relics of the secondary phase of the spread of the developed full package beaker culture from west-central Europe.  I also feel that despite its welling up in Iberia, DF27 probably belongs to this phase too but its harder to prove this as DF27* has a weird distribution. 

I've found myself agreeing with you more than usually in the last day or two -- hope you keep at this line of thought about two "Beaker" phases separated by a good 500 years that don't look genetically very similar (and with R1b belonging to the later group, if any); and if that happened, perhaps the earlier group also didn't speak PIE (or some derivative thereof).

And I might add that the distribution of DF27* gets a lot less weird if it doesn't have to originate in Iberia and spread to the east, along with a popular pattern in Portuguese pottery.

Glad to hear it!  However, I really wouldnt pretend to be certain on much.  I can see advantages to that idea I proposed.  The two types of beaker people/phases model is a very long held one and emerges in various guises from the early 20th century to very recent times.  I cant think of anything that I have read in archaeological papers or any other genetic or linguistic aspect that undoes that model entirely.  Which is a good starting point :0) but I am not committed to it.  I am sort of torn between a lack of experts in Iberian archaeology proposing external origins for the pre-beaker copper age (other than the  stuff in Harrison and Heyd) on the one hand but also the need to explain the establishment of copper working cultures on the other (I find independent invention in Iberia very unlikely).  I can see arguements for either angle but I was actually surprised at some of the hints at a non-R1b non-IE aspect of the early west-east beaker complex when I compared distributions.  I thought I was just playing Devil's Advocate when I had a look at it but was pretty surprised how well the two stage model seems to work. We will known soon enough with ancient DNA. 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: IALEM on September 09, 2012, 05:52:27 PM
..you will not find much people in university supporting your idea, at least for what I know certainly not in Spain.

Yes I was rather assuming that you were talking about Spanish academics. In fact I supposed that you were talking specifically about Basque academics. Strangely German, British, French, Irish and American academics are merrily publishing material that I cite in support.
No, not Basques, but Spanish. BB in the Basque Country is too controversial to even being discussed, as it is clearly a foreign influence, and one that bring radical changes, it doesn´t fit the paleolithic continuty paradigm.
But back to the BB origin, so you say that many scholars support the idea that the origin of BB in Portugal can be traced back to Yamnaya? Is that correct? just looking to clarify points.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: IALEM on September 09, 2012, 06:02:16 PM
I would suggest that U152 (and L21) are clear relics of the secondary phase of the spread of the developed full package beaker culture from west-central Europe.  I also feel that despite its welling up in Iberia, DF27 probably belongs to this phase too but its harder to prove this as DF27* has a weird distribution. 


I've found myself agreeing with you more than usually in the last day or two -- hope you keep at this line of thought about two "Beaker" phases separated by a good 500 years that don't look genetically very similar (and with R1b belonging to the later group, if any); and if that happened, perhaps the earlier group also didn't speak PIE (or some derivative thereof).

And I might add that the distribution of DF27* gets a lot less weird if it doesn't have to originate in Iberia and spread to the east, along with a popular pattern in Portuguese pottery.

Glad to hear it!  However, I really wouldnt pretend to be certain on much.  I can see advantages to that idea I proposed.  The two types of beaker people/phases model is a very long held one and emerges in various guises from the early 20th century to very recent times.  I cant think of anything that I have read in archaeological papers or any other genetic or linguistic aspect that undoes that model entirely.  Which is a good starting point :0) but I am not committed to it.  I am sort of torn between a lack of experts in Iberian archaeology proposing external origins for the pre-beaker copper age (other than the  stuff in Harrison and Heyd) on the one hand but also the need to explain the establishment of copper working cultures on the other (I find independent invention in Iberia very unlikely).  I can see arguements for either angle but I was actually surprised at some of the hints at a non-R1b non-IE aspect of the early west-east beaker complex when I compared distributions.  I thought I was just playing Devil's Advocate when I had a look at it but was pretty surprised how well the two stage model seems to work. We will known soon enough with ancient DNA. 
Sangmeister´s reflux theory, formulated in 1957. Under heavy attack by German and Dutch archaeologists, it has been held by Spanish archaeologists along all these years because simply it is the best explanation for the available archaeological evidence. I recall back in the 80s my professor, I. Barandiaran, at the University telling us student that no matter what the C-14 results of BB in Holland said, there were clearly 2 different BB people in Spain at different times.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: IALEM on September 09, 2012, 06:03:08 PM
@ Maliclavelli

I have no certitudes to offer on this topic - just deductions, which are not based on U7a, though I do mention it as a side issue, perhaps wrongly. Who knows? Here is what I say:

Quote
The Etruscan language is not Indo-European. In fact it does not belong to any living language family, though it resembles two other extinct languages: Raetic, testified by inscriptions in the Alps, and a language spoken on the island of Lemnos in the Aegean Sea. Studies of mtDNA in ancient Etruscans indicate an origin in Anatolia, but at what time? Could that resemblance date back to the Neolithic? Archaeology and DNA studies of Tuscan cattle breeds suggests not. The ancestors of the Etruscans seem to have arrived in Italy around 1200 BC. Herodotus reported that the Etruscans were from Lydia...  The people they supplanted were Umbrians, as Herodotus tells us. Place-name evidence supports him.  

If Herodotus was right, then Etruscans would be Indoeuropeans


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 09, 2012, 06:34:16 PM
But back to the BB origin, so you say that many scholars support the idea that the origin of BB in Portugal can be traced back to Yamnaya? Is that correct? just looking to clarify points.

I haven't the faintest idea how many scholars have even thought about it. All I can say is that BB has been part of thinking about Indo-European spread, within the steppe homeland model, from the earliest days of its concept by Gimbutas. That means that Indo-Europeanists such as Mallory and Anthony assume that BB sprang from Yamnaya in some way, though the exact route might not be clear, or ideas on said route might differ. So there is nothing new about the BB-from-Yamnaya-somehow thinking. There has been a lot of shifting around and confusion about BB itself.  
What Harrison and Heyd did was piece together the Yamnaya package and its relationship to the BB package and showed the evolution from one to the other at Sion. That provided the solid link previously missing.

At the conferences run by Koch and Cunliffe on the "Celtic from the West" idea, they have made it clear that they do not propose that PIE itself spread from Iberia. The PIE homeland debate is unchanged by their proposals. They start from the position that PIE or dialect of same came from the homeland somehow to Iberia. (Renfrew would like that to be in the Neolithic of course.) They are only concerned with the movement of Celtic, which they would like to argue spread from Iberia (with Bell Beaker), though they concede the alternative possibility (which I prefer) that Iberia simply remained a reservoir of an archaic form of Celtic, being on the periphery of its development. So I suppose you could colour them neutral on this issue.  


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 09, 2012, 06:36:30 PM
If Herodotus was right, then Etruscans would be Indoeuropeans

He assumed that they were Lydians, but Beeks has explained the confusion. They were most likely (non-IE) Anatolians who were pushed out by IE-speaking Lydians.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 09, 2012, 06:39:48 PM
...telling us student that no matter what the C-14 results of BB in Holland said, there were clearly 2 different BB people in Spain at different times.

You have mentioned this before and it fits the picture I have. I would be glad of a reference to the later BB brachycephalic types (whom I assume to be arrivals from north of the Alps after the power switch.) Rich pointed out a reference to one at Sion after said switch.  


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 09, 2012, 07:12:15 PM
I would suggest that U152 (and L21) are clear relics of the secondary phase of the spread of the developed full package beaker culture from west-central Europe.  I also feel that despite its welling up in Iberia, DF27 probably belongs to this phase too but its harder to prove this as DF27* has a weird distribution. 

I've found myself agreeing with you more than usually in the last day or two -- hope you keep at this line of thought about two "Beaker" phases separated by a good 500 years that don't look genetically very similar (and with R1b belonging to the later group, if any); and if that happened, perhaps the earlier group also didn't speak PIE (or some derivative thereof).

And I might add that the distribution of DF27* gets a lot less weird if it doesn't have to originate in Iberia and spread to the east, along with a popular pattern in Portuguese pottery.

Glad to hear it!  However, I really wouldnt pretend to be certain on much.  I can see advantages to that idea I proposed.  The two types of beaker people/phases model is a very long held one and emerges in various guises from the early 20th century to very recent times.  I cant think of anything that I have read in archaeological papers or any other genetic or linguistic aspect that undoes that model entirely.  Which is a good starting point :0) but I am not committed to it.  I am sort of torn between a lack of experts in Iberian archaeology proposing external origins for the pre-beaker copper age (other than the  stuff in Harrison and Heyd) on the one hand but also the need to explain the establishment of copper working cultures on the other (I find independent invention in Iberia very unlikely).  I can see arguements for either angle but I was actually surprised at some of the hints at a non-R1b non-IE aspect of the early west-east beaker complex when I compared distributions.  I thought I was just playing Devil's Advocate when I had a look at it but was pretty surprised how well the two stage model seems to work. We will known soon enough with ancient DNA. 
Sangmeister´s reflux theory, formulated in 1957. Under heavy attack by German and Dutch archaeologists, it has been held by Spanish archaeologists along all these years because simply it is the best explanation for the available archaeological evidence. I recall back in the 80s my professor, I. Barandiaran, at the University telling us student that no matter what the C-14 results of BB in Holland said, there were clearly 2 different BB people in Spain at different times.



Certainly some of the evidence such as the early dates for the actual pots in Iberia, a general spread west involving a Neolithic west Med. phenotype, the fact that several of the classic developed bell beaker culture elements only developed later in west central Europe, the fact that the early beaker spread east from Iberia was not much more than a west Med. culture, the fact that several non-IE languages exist in the early beaker west Med. zone,  the evidence of Sion, the new paper suggesting an injection of northern European DNA into Iberia c. 2000BC (give or take some centuries) and the fact that this developed culture then spread widely including back to Iberia all are compatible with this kind of hypothesis.  Maybe not exactly how Sangmeister saw it but something along those lines.  The developed beaker culture is some sort of new entity caused by interaction of beaker influences with central Europeans.  The exact location is a bit vague but it had to be somewhere where early beaker elements bordered other cultures or had some sort of interense contact (I imagine intermarriage may have been involved).   What we need is a map of bell beaker at the end of its eary spread up to c. 2600BC and a map of the contemporary cultures in contact wih it at that point in time.  The reason that corded ware or single grave culture is usually seen as the other element is simply because it was a massive block that occupied so much of temperate Europe around 2600BC but there were several other cultures and it could have even been a three culture hybrid.  Sion was an early beaker site at one point and shows population continuity from pre-beaker times.  I wonder if this is correct in that French archaeologists see the early beaker as a complete cultural rupture on the Med. coast and a substatial migration from Iberia.  If the migration from Iberia was essentially of the same Neolithic stock as was already present throught southern Europee then could they really tell if there was a migration or not in the beaker period?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 09, 2012, 07:17:53 PM
I would suggest that U152 (and L21) are clear relics of the secondary phase of the spread of the developed full package beaker culture from west-central Europe.  I also feel that despite its welling up in Iberia, DF27 probably belongs to this phase too but its harder to prove this as DF27* has a weird distribution.  

Do you have a link or paper on the Iberian perspective that discusses the evidence of the 2 waves?  Even if it is in Spanish I can usually work out what its saying (I once bought a book on the ancient Cantabri is Spanish and did manage to read it although it did take some time).


I've found myself agreeing with you more than usually in the last day or two -- hope you keep at this line of thought about two "Beaker" phases separated by a good 500 years that don't look genetically very similar (and with R1b belonging to the later group, if any); and if that happened, perhaps the earlier group also didn't speak PIE (or some derivative thereof).

And I might add that the distribution of DF27* gets a lot less weird if it doesn't have to originate in Iberia and spread to the east, along with a popular pattern in Portuguese pottery.

Glad to hear it!  However, I really wouldnt pretend to be certain on much.  I can see advantages to that idea I proposed.  The two types of beaker people/phases model is a very long held one and emerges in various guises from the early 20th century to very recent times.  I cant think of anything that I have read in archaeological papers or any other genetic or linguistic aspect that undoes that model entirely.  Which is a good starting point :0) but I am not committed to it.  I am sort of torn between a lack of experts in Iberian archaeology proposing external origins for the pre-beaker copper age (other than the  stuff in Harrison and Heyd) on the one hand but also the need to explain the establishment of copper working cultures on the other (I find independent invention in Iberia very unlikely).  I can see arguements for either angle but I was actually surprised at some of the hints at a non-R1b non-IE aspect of the early west-east beaker complex when I compared distributions.  I thought I was just playing Devil's Advocate when I had a look at it but was pretty surprised how well the two stage model seems to work. We will known soon enough with ancient DNA.  
Sangmeister´s reflux theory, formulated in 1957. Under heavy attack by German and Dutch archaeologists, it has been held by Spanish archaeologists along all these years because simply it is the best explanation for the available archaeological evidence. I recall back in the 80s my professor, I. Barandiaran, at the University telling us student that no matter what the C-14 results of BB in Holland said, there were clearly 2 different BB people in Spain at different times.


Do you have a link or paper on the Iberian perspective that discusses the evidence of the 2 waves?  Even if it is in Spanish I can usually work out what its saying (I once bought a book on the ancient Cantabri is Spanish and did manage to read it although it did take some time).


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: JeanL on September 09, 2012, 07:25:24 PM
I'm pretty sure you cant simply translate the position on one map to the position on another. You could add dimensions...

I wasn’t just going by the MDS plot, but also by the ADMIXTURE proportions on the K12b runs.

Quote from: jeanL
the La Braña individual is about as different from Gok4 (Swedish farmer) as he is from Avj (Swedish HGs).

Stronly disagree here. If you got the component distances, you would find that brana is closer to the h/g than otzi after doing the math.

But I’m not talking about Oetzi, I’m talking about Gok4, the Swedish farmer, on the K12b results  (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZwmxlhXO8-k/T_B9lrlnFJI/AAAAAAAAE7w/My33JaMKr_E/s1600/ancientdna12.png)the Swedish farmer was 81% Atlantid_Med and 5.5% North European, whereas each one of the Swedish Hunter-Gatherers were from 76.4% to 77.5% North European, and from 13.3% to 20.6% Atlantid_Med. The La Braña Hunter Gatherers were 45% Atlantid_Med and 41.6% North European.

first, let me explain my reasoning for why I think otzi is part meso European.

Again I wasn’t talking about Oetzi, but Gok4, Oetzi was 57.7% Atlantid_Med, and 22.3% Caucasus on the K12b results  (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZwmxlhXO8-k/T_B9lrlnFJI/AAAAAAAAE7w/My33JaMKr_E/s1600/ancientdna12.png).

The first assumption I make is that meso Europeans basically branched away from some homogeneous group, and that they only mixed with each other up to the neolithic. (I know that's not a great assumption). That would mean that meso Europeans are equally (or nearly so if my assumption is only a little off) related to the contemporaneous non Europeans. So if otzi is closer to brana than h/g swedes, then otzi must have some meso European.

I actually think that it is possible for La Braña to have Atlantid_Med component, yet, for the component to be Neolithic. Here, let me explain how, for once, La Braña was only tested for 1000 SNPs on the K12b runs, so what this means is that out of the ~1000 SNPs 45% were Atlantid_Med like, now, Oetzi was tested for a lot more SNPs than that, so for all we know, only on those specific 1000 SNPs that are overlapping  is that one could assign the Atlantid_Med component to a probably Mesolithic ancestry. Now the Atlantid_Med component has both Atlantid and Mediterranean components. The Atlantid_Med component found in Sardinians (which is 70.5%) is actually more akin to the Mediterranean portion than to the Atlantid portion. Oetzi was clearly linked to the Mediterranean world, so was Gok4, the La Braña individuals are clearly linked to NW Europe in the portion of their DNA thus far analyzed.

Ok, so the reasoning I use to say that this theoretical x meso found in otzi/"atlanto-med" was not centered in meso iberia is as follows. The neolithic migration went from the near east, to the balkans, to Italy, and finally to Spain. Otzi and sardinians are about 100% "atlanto-med" and of this neolithic migration. For the mesolithic component in otzi to have been closest to the native iberian meso, would require that the balkans transfer little to no meso while Italy retains it's iberian meso like component during the neolithic. That alone would be a stretch. But even others have tied large scale migration to Italy from the east around the neolithic, leaving little room for western meso to dominate the meso that was there. That would suggest a good chunk of the meso in otzi, if its there, from the balkans.

Actually neither Sardinians(70.5%) nor Oetzi(57.7%) were 100% Atlantid_Med, on the other hand Gok4 the Swedish farmer was 81% Atlantid_Med, and it is said that the culture that Gok4 belonged to was of Balkan origin, so yes, it is possible for the Mesolithic component on Gok4 to have come from the Balkans. Now the link between the Sardinians and Oetzi is also the presence of 22% Caucasus in Oetzi, and around that amount in Sardinians, on the other hand, Gok4(Swedish farmer) also had it, albeit at a lower percentage(4.2%).


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on September 09, 2012, 10:49:39 PM
@jeanL

My bad. You were talking about gok4. I kept assuming otzi ; )

Though, with good reason. Otzi, and by extension Sardinians, are probably the neolithic types who colonized Iberia. And the paper is, immediately, about understanding the demographics of Iberia.

So it remains that meso iberians were quite different from their neolithic counterparts.

(It still appears to me that brana is closer to the gotlanders than to gok4. Is there a way to verify?)

Quote from: jeanL
Now the link between the Sardinians and Oetzi is also the presence of 22% Caucasus in Oetzi, and around that amount in Sardinians...

This wouldn't affect my analysis since I assumed that brana and the gotlanders were equadistant to non meso European descended folks.  

Quote
I actually think that it is possible for La Braña to have Atlantid_Med component, yet, for the component to be Neolithic. Here, let me explain how, for once, La Braña was only tested for 1000 SNPs on the K12b runs, so what this means is that out of the ~1000 SNPs 45% were Atlantid_Med like, now, Oetzi was tested for a lot more SNPs than that, so for all we know, only on those specific 1000 SNPs that are overlapping is that one could assign the Atlantid_Med component to a probably Mesolithic ancestry. Now the Atlantid_Med component has both Atlantid and Mediterranean components. The Atlantid_Med component found in Sardinians (which is 70.5%) is actually more akin to the Mediterranean portion than to the Atlantid portion. Oetzi was clearly linked to the Mediterranean world, so was Gok4, the La Braña individuals are clearly linked to NW Europe in the portion of their DNA thus far analyzed.

This looks like good thinking.

After I made my last post I thought about the argument I was trying to make and now I think its pretty silly. Actually it was ridiculous! I still think that otzi being closer to brana than the gotlanders, suggests that "atlanto-med" has some southern meso European, but that is where ill stop. The stuff I said before is way way too nuanced for admixture runs. And it's definitely obvious that, as you point out, the "atlanto-med" component does not imply the same amount of meso built into it for each group.

So, ya, I don't really have a good idea of how much iberian like meso is is built into the "atlanto-med" component of modern iberians. Though, it can't be too much given that (roughly)

"Atlanto med" = modern sardinians = otzi/iberia neos =/= brana

BTW, where were you going with gok4? Were you trying to say gok4 was highly "northwestern" and kinda close to brana, so "northwestern" is close to west meso?



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: IALEM on September 10, 2012, 10:05:08 AM
I would suggest that U152 (and L21) are clear relics of the secondary phase of the spread of the developed full package beaker culture from west-central Europe.  I also feel that despite its welling up in Iberia, DF27 probably belongs to this phase too but its harder to prove this as DF27* has a weird distribution.  

Do you have a link or paper on the Iberian perspective that discusses the evidence of the 2 waves?  Even if it is in Spanish I can usually work out what its saying (I once bought a book on the ancient Cantabri is Spanish and did manage to read it although it did take some time).


I've found myself agreeing with you more than usually in the last day or two -- hope you keep at this line of thought about two "Beaker" phases separated by a good 500 years that don't look genetically very similar (and with R1b belonging to the later group, if any); and if that happened, perhaps the earlier group also didn't speak PIE (or some derivative thereof).

And I might add that the distribution of DF27* gets a lot less weird if it doesn't have to originate in Iberia and spread to the east, along with a popular pattern in Portuguese pottery.

Glad to hear it!  However, I really wouldnt pretend to be certain on much.  I can see advantages to that idea I proposed.  The two types of beaker people/phases model is a very long held one and emerges in various guises from the early 20th century to very recent times.  I cant think of anything that I have read in archaeological papers or any other genetic or linguistic aspect that undoes that model entirely.  Which is a good starting point :0) but I am not committed to it.  I am sort of torn between a lack of experts in Iberian archaeology proposing external origins for the pre-beaker copper age (other than the  stuff in Harrison and Heyd) on the one hand but also the need to explain the establishment of copper working cultures on the other (I find independent invention in Iberia very unlikely).  I can see arguements for either angle but I was actually surprised at some of the hints at a non-R1b non-IE aspect of the early west-east beaker complex when I compared distributions.  I thought I was just playing Devil's Advocate when I had a look at it but was pretty surprised how well the two stage model seems to work. We will known soon enough with ancient DNA.  
Sangmeister´s reflux theory, formulated in 1957. Under heavy attack by German and Dutch archaeologists, it has been held by Spanish archaeologists along all these years because simply it is the best explanation for the available archaeological evidence. I recall back in the 80s my professor, I. Barandiaran, at the University telling us student that no matter what the C-14 results of BB in Holland said, there were clearly 2 different BB people in Spain at different times.


Do you have a link or paper on the Iberian perspective that discusses the evidence of the 2 waves?  Even if it is in Spanish I can usually work out what its saying (I once bought a book on the ancient Cantabri is Spanish and did manage to read it although it did take some time).
The bibliography on that discussion is very old, since Harrison 1977  in the later years only regional studies of particular sites have been published in Spain, so that the last Congress on BB in Spain avoids carfeully the discussion, the book is available here (with an English version)
http://www.agapea.com/libros/El-campaniforme-en-la-Peninsula-Iberica-y-su-contexto-europeo-Bell-beakers-in-the-Iberian-Peninsula-and-their-European-context-9788484483335-i.htm
So it is something assumed more than explicitally exposed. When chronology is discussed usually only regional series are compared.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on September 10, 2012, 10:41:26 AM
I was looking again at RR's combined beaker and U152 map in and around Italy and it is interesting that although it looks like a good fit in north Italy, it is not so in Sardinia  and the south in general.  Sardinia actually has a significant beaker presence.  Is this evidence that the initial out of Iberia beaker network expansion phase was not R1b/west asian autosomal component driven? Is this suggestive that areas which were in the early beaker west-Med beaker network c. 3000-2700BC should not be looked at in the same way as areas which recieved later full developed beaker?  There was a relfux back to Iberia but it was not the same in distribution. 

http://www.u152.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=59:u152-bell-beakers-and-urnfield-tradition-in-italy&catid=1:latest-news

I wonder if there were some areas that only recieved the beaker element in its initial west-east phase but not in the later phase of the developed beaker package of central Europe which also spread back torwards source.  The overlap between the two phases was not complete. 

When you add that the location of Sardinian and Iberian may have shared a similar language, shared a similar strong early beaker phase but not shared a similar P312 pattern then it is tempting to speculate that there is a disconnect between early west-east beaker and P312 or IE languages.  This of course is not an original idea.  The idea that the IE developed beaker people were not the same people as the early Iberian and west Med. beaker people has been knocking about for a century in a number of forms.  The skeletal evidence at Sion apparently supports the idea that the early beaker element that had reached as far as Sion were of Neolithic Med. stock while the later waves were different and included the famous craggy large chaps with plano-occipital (flattened rear - a better term than round headed) skulls. 

I would suggest that U152 (and L21) are clear relics of the secondary phase of the spread of the developed full package beaker culture from west-central Europe.  I also feel that despite its welling up in Iberia, DF27 probably belongs to this phase too but its harder to prove this as DF27* has a weird distribution. 


Alan, just a slight word of caution on the U152 map. U152 in Sardinia has not been sampled at a regional level, so the map might actually not be representative (only one plot in the center of the island.). This is what Zei et al (2003) said about Sardinian M269:

"The low frequency of haplogroup R-M269 in the central-eastern area of Sardinia and its prevalence in the north suggest that R-M269 arrived to the Sardinian coasts from the continent, possibly after the occurrence and diffusion of the autochthonous I-M26 subhaplogroup."

Sardinia received mostly the "Iberian" BB package. The only two Sardinian R1b samples of any kind that I've been able to find in FTDNA projects are both from the BB heavy north west and they are both U152+L2-.   U152* and one of its subclades (Z56) seems to be the more archaic U152 type with L2 possibly being linked to the Central European Brachycephalic type.

In Sicily, R1b might be twice as common on the western half of the island than the eastern half (see Di Gaetano et al. 2009) and the west is the only area with heavy BB finds.

Unlike the British Isles where Bell Beaker might be a starting point for R1b (although I find it hard to believe that the pre-BB builders of Stonehenge weren't at least M269), BB did not seem to drastically change the cultural or genetic makeup of the Italian Copper Age (Remedello, Rinaldone and Gaudo).

If you are looking for an exact match for the tall robust plano-occipital Brachycephalic types of Central Europe, you should look at the Gaudo Culture (3300 BC) skeletons found from Latium to Campania. They are an almost exact match to the Czech and German BB types as per a study I have.

As for DF27, I don't think its distribution is as weird as everyone thinks...it can only be found in places where studies show P312(xU152,L21). IMO, the distribution of DF27 will be a pretty good match for the Iberian BB expansion.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: chris1 on September 10, 2012, 11:41:48 AM
Has anyone tackled a map of DF27 distribution yet?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 10, 2012, 12:14:46 PM
... As for DF27, I don't think its distribution is as weird as everyone thinks...it can only be found in places where studies show P312(xU152,L21). IMO, the distribution of DF27 will be a pretty good match for the Iberian BB expansion.

Do you think, then, that DF27 expanded from Portugal east across Spain and then across the Pyrenees into France?  Or do you  think DF27 expanded from Portugal by land through Iberia but more likely reached France and other points north via sea and river travel?

I don't know how DF27 expanded.  My default view is that DF27 would probably be similar to L21 in the Isles, but that probably means DF27 didn't expand out of Portugal originally. That is just a perception I have related to an assumption that DF27, L21 and U152 expanded outward from some point. I realize that is not fact, just an idea so I'm interested if you think DF27 came from some kind of already widely distributed P312* base versus expanding outward from some place like the Rhine or Rhone Valleys.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 10, 2012, 12:23:31 PM
Has anyone tackled a map of DF27 distribution yet?

We could do one but it would be based on FTDNA data so it'd probably be biased towards FTDNA markets and American immigration.

I don't think we can find DF27* folks in the studies, can we? We'd have to make some kind of assumption that most P312* is DF27* which is not necessarily so.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on September 10, 2012, 01:01:07 PM
Has anyone tackled a map of DF27 distribution yet?

We could do one but it would be based on FTDNA data so it'd probably be biased towards FTDNA markers and American immigration.

I don't think we can find DF27* folks in the studies, can we? We'd have to make some kind of assumption that most P312* is DF27* which is not necessarily so.

Here is a map of P312(xU152,L21) with an overlay of Palmeta Point finds. Since something like 95% of the Iberian 1KG samples that were originally classified as P312(xU152,L21) turned out to be DF27+, I have no reason to doubt the relationship between the two. I think the first DF27 probably sprang up somewhere near the mouth of the Rhone and then traveled westward towards the Pyrenees and then into Iberia.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: razyn on September 10, 2012, 01:28:29 PM
I don't think we can find DF27* folks in the studies, can we?

You can find just about anything you want to find, if the evidence in published studies was sampled at about 11 markers, and all the details of these old SNPs with asterisks are extrapolated on the basis of the modern distribution of their descendants (down mostly unstudied branches).  RR finds that DF27* looks Iberian; Gioiello thinks everything downstream of L51* (and that would include DF27*) is Italian.  And I see that while I was writing this, RR suggests (not alone, nor for the first time) that it's from the mouth of the Rhone.  I think Didier suggested that at least a year and a half ago, when it was Z196 and the Ligurians...

Just for purposes of speculation, I'll suggest that DF27 originates (around 2100 BC?) east of the Rhine, and probably north of the Alps (unless it's so far east of the Rhine, it's not quite that far north).  Anyway, to me, everything down to and including Z220 looks non-Iberian in origin; and maybe still non-Iberian as recently as 1500 BC.  Somewhere along in that period (first half of the second millennium BC) a well differentiated DF27 is planted, flourishes, and spawns a few subclades in the Loire valley, and places to the south and west.  And any present appearance of its Iberian success (which I am not disputing) is at least that recent -- if one perceives 3500 years as a short time.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: IALEM on September 10, 2012, 01:34:58 PM

The bibliography on that discussion is very old, since Harrison 1977  in the later years only regional studies of particular sites have been published in Spain, so that the last Congress on BB in Spain avoids carfeully the discussion, the book is available here (with an English version)
http://www.agapea.com/libros/El-campaniforme-en-la-Peninsula-Iberica-y-su-contexto-europeo-Bell-beakers-in-the-Iberian-Peninsula-and-their-European-context-9788484483335-i.htm
So it is something assumed more than explicitally exposed. When chronology is discussed usually only regional series are compared.
BTW in that book there is an article by X. Clop in which a analisis of BB pottery shows it was made of local clay, so we can have here a reverse of the adage "Pots are not people", pots didn´t travel, people did, and the idea of how to make those pots with them.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on September 10, 2012, 01:57:40 PM
I don't think we can find DF27* folks in the studies, can we?

You can find just about anything you want to find, if the evidence in published studies was sampled at about 11 markers, and all the details of these old SNPs with asterisks are extrapolated on the basis of the modern distribution of their descendants (down mostly unstudied branches).  RR finds that DF27* looks Iberian; Gioiello thinks everything downstream of L51* (and that would include DF27*) is Italian.  And I see that while I was writing this, RR suggests (not alone, nor for the first time) that it's from the mouth of the Rhone.  I think Didier suggested that at least a year and a half ago, when it was Z196 and the Ligurians...

Just for purposes of speculation, I'll suggest that DF27 originates (around 2100 BC?) east of the Rhine, and probably north of the Alps (unless it's so far east of the Rhine, it's not quite that far north).  Anyway, to me, everything down to and including Z220 looks non-Iberian in origin; and maybe still non-Iberian as recently as 1500 BC.  Somewhere along in that period (first half of the second millennium BC) a well differentiated DF27 is planted, flourishes, and spawns a few subclades in the Loire valley, and places to the south and west.  And any present appearance of its Iberian success (which I am not disputing) is at least that recent -- if one perceives 3500 years as a short time.

@razyn, for someone who complains a lot about the lack of interest in DF27, you sure do like using belittling tones to describe the theories of others don't you? Let me clarify that DF27 does look Iberian and SW French. In fact, the only unbiased points of reference (1KG project, studies incl. M153 and SYR2627) we have tells us that, and not something that I imagined. So, DF27 does look Iberian, but I never said it originated there. Surely you must know there is a big difference.

My theory stems from the movement of the Copper Age from the Western Alps towards the Pyrenees and from there into Iberia. So, aside from your personal desires, what do you attribute a migration out of the Rhine to? And please try not to use the FTDNA projects as a reference because all SNPs, including haplogroups E, J, etc. are all Palatine German and you can find every SNP known to man there.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: razyn on September 10, 2012, 02:56:22 PM
@razyn, for someone who complains a lot about the lack of interest in DF27, you sure do like using belittling tones to describe the theories of others don't you?

No, I believe I complained specifically about the lack of interest in creating the tests at FTDNA for all the new SNPs under Z196 (before you came up with DF27's higher position, last fall) that you and a few others, to whom I am indebted, found in the 1KG project.  And about a year after those tests were promised, they arrived; and I took them, and urged others to do so, and I'm happy enough with the pace of subsequent refinement of the ISOGG tree, etc.

What I am belittling -- or at any rate disagreeing with, in certain public contexts -- is what I perceive as a tendency to assume the conclusion and then look for its proof, disregarding whatever doesn't support it.  In this specific case, you have urged me (once again) "not to use the FTDNA projects as a reference."  What is one supposed to use?  We already had this discussion, and we disagree; I can still sleep at night, and I expect you can too.

Quote
Let me clarify that DF27 does look Iberian and SW French...  but I never said it originated there. Surely you must know there is a big difference.

I do know that, and would have sworn you had said it originated there (in the context of a widely admired, mostly blue map); but if not, I apologize for the implication.  Others have said it.  For years, though they were formerly talking about Iberian R-P312* rather than DF27*.

Anyway, the phylogeny under DF27 will ultimately look like what it looks like, whether the samples are from Palatine German descendants in the USA or Ligurian descendants in Mexico, or someone yet untested.  And it starts looking Iberian just below Z220 on one branch, and SRY2627 on the other.  (There's another DF27 branch independent of Z196 that may show up Iberian, but I think it's younger, not older.)  As far as I've seen, the DF27 stuff from the 1KG project fits these basic parameters -- and inferred DF27* in the more recent paper(s) hasn't been tested to that fine a degree of resolution, so we really have no idea from that source.  If we couldn't look at FTDNA project data, we'd have no idea, period.  But I'm looking at it, because the data are right there in plain sight, and that's where people are actually testing these SNPs.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Arch Y. on September 10, 2012, 03:36:39 PM
Is the mini library accessible to all ?

It is not open access, for copyright reasons. Access to it is strictly limited for the same reasons. Please forgive my mentioning it here, where there are some users. I must stop doing that.

OK ,thank you .

If you have a University account or subscription to journals such as Nature, whatever is in the mysterious and exclusive mini-library is probably accessible. My biggest beef is why education has such a extravagant price. No wonder why this world is a mess!!! Education should be free and accessible to everybody; not the privileged few. If you ever come across Khan Academy, this is what needs to happen for all branches of science. No hording of information, but the sharing of knowledge. Sorry for the rant.

Arch


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 10, 2012, 05:09:57 PM
I'll get my hat. Anyone who needs me will find me over in Athrogenica.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 10, 2012, 05:32:40 PM
I was looking again at RR's combined beaker and U152 map in and around Italy and it is interesting that although it looks like a good fit in north Italy, it is not so in Sardinia  and the south in general.  Sardinia actually has a significant beaker presence.  Is this evidence that the initial out of Iberia beaker network expansion phase was not R1b/west asian autosomal component driven? Is this suggestive that areas which were in the early beaker west-Med beaker network c. 3000-2700BC should not be looked at in the same way as areas which recieved later full developed beaker?  There was a relfux back to Iberia but it was not the same in distribution. 

http://www.u152.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=59:u152-bell-beakers-and-urnfield-tradition-in-italy&catid=1:latest-news

I wonder if there were some areas that only recieved the beaker element in its initial west-east phase but not in the later phase of the developed beaker package of central Europe which also spread back torwards source.  The overlap between the two phases was not complete. 

When you add that the location of Sardinian and Iberian may have shared a similar language, shared a similar strong early beaker phase but not shared a similar P312 pattern then it is tempting to speculate that there is a disconnect between early west-east beaker and P312 or IE languages.  This of course is not an original idea.  The idea that the IE developed beaker people were not the same people as the early Iberian and west Med. beaker people has been knocking about for a century in a number of forms.  The skeletal evidence at Sion apparently supports the idea that the early beaker element that had reached as far as Sion were of Neolithic Med. stock while the later waves were different and included the famous craggy large chaps with plano-occipital (flattened rear - a better term than round headed) skulls. 

I would suggest that U152 (and L21) are clear relics of the secondary phase of the spread of the developed full package beaker culture from west-central Europe.  I also feel that despite its welling up in Iberia, DF27 probably belongs to this phase too but its harder to prove this as DF27* has a weird distribution. 


Alan, just a slight word of caution on the U152 map. U152 in Sardinia has not been sampled at a regional level, so the map might actually not be representative (only one plot in the center of the island.). This is what Zei et al (2003) said about Sardinian M269:

"The low frequency of haplogroup R-M269 in the central-eastern area of Sardinia and its prevalence in the north suggest that R-M269 arrived to the Sardinian coasts from the continent, possibly after the occurrence and diffusion of the autochthonous I-M26 subhaplogroup."

Sardinia received mostly the "Iberian" BB package. The only two Sardinian R1b samples of any kind that I've been able to find in FTDNA projects are both from the BB heavy north west and they are both U152+L2-.   U152* and one of its subclades (Z56) seems to be the more archaic U152 type with L2 possibly being linked to the Central European Brachycephalic type.

In Sicily, R1b might be twice as common on the western half of the island than the eastern half (see Di Gaetano et al. 2009) and the west is the only area with heavy BB finds.

Unlike the British Isles where Bell Beaker might be a starting point for R1b (although I find it hard to believe that the pre-BB builders of Stonehenge weren't at least M269), BB did not seem to drastically change the cultural or genetic makeup of the Italian Copper Age (Remedello, Rinaldone and Gaudo).

If you are looking for an exact match for the tall robust plano-occipital Brachycephalic types of Central Europe, you should look at the Gaudo Culture (3300 BC) skeletons found from Latium to Campania. They are an almost exact match to the Czech and German BB types as per a study I have.

As for DF27, I don't think its distribution is as weird as everyone thinks...it can only be found in places where studies show P312(xU152,L21). IMO, the distribution of DF27 will be a pretty good match for the Iberian BB expansion.

Valid points.  Another way of looking at it is closer to Jean's although not exactly the same

1. R1b spread into the west in the pre-beaker copper age in low numbers related to specialist copper working and trade.

2.  As this low visibility pre-beaker group passed to the Rhine-Rhone area some L11 was left behind east of the Rhine (later to gain the U106 SNP)

3. Still in pre-beaker mode P312 occurred in the western Alps. Some remaining there and soe moving west.

4. L27 occurred as these copper worker reached SW France and Iberia.

5. The network between them was established.

6. Along this network beaker spread back east from Iberia towards its fellow P312 groups along the west Med. as far as SE France and Italy.

7. The beaker network (pots or people, it wouldnt really matter if they were already a P312 group from pre-beaker days) eventually reached back to their more peripheral pre-beaker compatriots in the central Europe and the Rhine who had been there for centuries (and who had since experienced the U152 and L21).  The latter pair had by then had a reasonable period of seperation before they were reconnected to their P312 compatriots along the Med. and gained beakers etc.

8.  Finally the U152 and L21 groups underwent a massive seconary developed beaker expansion through central, Alpine and north Atlantic Europe.  

This alternative is possible although horribly low visibility and complex.  However, it is better than a simple out of Iberia model.  A simple out of Iberia or Iberian origin of P312 model just doesnt work because the DF27 SNP just downstream of P312 which dominates there means it cannot be ancestral to U152 and L21 which dominates P312 outside Iberia.  The distributions make a lot more sense to me if P312 was located somewhere like the western Alps or SE France where all clades distributions kind of converge.

I dont much like the model I have just posted because it seem almost as non-Occams Razor as is humanly possible and very low in visibility but it makes more sense that P312 originating in Iberia which looks (if you subtract L21 and U152 on its fringes) like a DF27 zone.  The one thing simple phylogeny says is that what may have been a nearly exclusively DF27 zone in Iberia cant be the source of L21 and U152.  Its far more likely that P312 occurred somewhere like the Upper Rhone or the western Alps and spread from there forming clades as it went - DF27 occurring as it moved west, U152 around the western Alps and L21 maybe as P312* headed from the Rhone into the Loire and Seine the Middle Rhine.    

Any out of Iberia aspect in the beaker era would surely be marked almost exclusively by DF27 and perhaps its most upstream subclades.  Perhaps the large amount of early beaker in the west Med. of likely Iberian origin and the the very thin scatter of similar elsewhere is the totality of the material footprint of the genetic remnant of the out of Iberia early beaker element.  I cant see how it is possible for it to be anything else.  However, Iberia seems incredibly unlikely to be the source of the two great non-DF27 blocks - U152 and L21.  

Then that takes us back to the issue of L51* which even if not ancestral to L11 does (minus a couple of outliers in Ireland and east Germany) prefigure the  early phase of the beaker network although with the difference that its strongest area lies well east of Iberia in France and around Italy.  The comments upon the near-impossibility that P312 emerged in Iberia obviously as a consequence applies to L51* and L11* too.  To me everything points to Iberia (at whatever stage) recieving a subset of P312 from the east in the form of DF27 and the origin of L21 and U152 having nothing to do with Iberia other than sharing a likely west-central/Alpine P312 ancestor.  

There are two solutions to this (assuming we are correct in focussing on the copper age, which seems reasonable with the current evidence), either there was a pre-beaker eastt-west spread or the most recent review of RC dates for beaker that had Iberia as the origin point is wrong.  It would save us from the need for complex low-visibility models if the origin point of beaker was a little more to the east and would make a great deal of sense and keep Occam happy.  That and long bitter experience of how views on beaker (even those based on detailed review of RC dates) keep changing because the spread was simply so fast.

There are doubts about the certainty of the early Iberian dates due to the first half of the 3rd millenium falling into a wobble in the calibration curve.  Also the selection of safe 'Gold Standard' short-life radiocarbon samples (typically bone) effectly means many areas with poor bone preserving conditions had to be ignored because there dates were from charcoal which might suffer from 'old wood effect'.  It was an archaeologist backing the old Dutch model who raised this.  Jean dismissed this out of hand but I dont think this paper deserves to be as it raised a very valid point indeed IMO.   This point doesnt in any way mean a reversion back to a Dutch model because its not only Holland that would be effected by the twin issues of sample selection and radiocarbon calibration curves.  Calibration makes a huge difference to dates (shifting uncalibrated dates in the 4th and 3rd millenium somewhere between 500 and 1000 years back depending on the detail) so its very important that it is right.  All I am saying is we should be careful in building models for beaker based on R1b dates because it is a uniquely lightning spread and Radiocarbon has problems.  So for me the evidence is not conclusive and radiocarbon may have met its match on this one and it probably will be solved by DNA rather than radiocarbon.  



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 10, 2012, 05:39:41 PM
Is the mini library accessible to all ?

It is not open access, for copyright reasons. Access to it is strictly limited for the same reasons. Please forgive my mentioning it here, where there are some users. I must stop doing that.

OK ,thank you .

If you have a University account or subscription to journals such as Nature, whatever is in the mysterious and exclusive mini-library is probably accessible. My biggest beef is why education has such a extravagant price. No wonder why this world is a mess!!! Education should be free and accessible to everybody; not the privileged few. If you ever come across Khan Academy, this is what needs to happen for all branches of science. No hording of information, but the sharing of knowledge. Sorry for the rant.

Arch

The awful truth is the mini library is a combined rural mobile library and bakers van selling books, bread and cream teas.  Jean drives it around the UK and we loan out books from Jean's van when she is on one of her rounds further afield.  The books are great but the scones with clotted cream are to die for.  Petrol prices preclude continental or north American stops on her round. I think Jean's van is a wonderful voluntary service although it seems a bit old fashioned in this day and age.  Its very retro with the books being stamped and your little card slip being put into a card pocket inside the books sleeves.    She is doing a great tea, scone and DNA paper deal for £5.00 on Wednesdays :0)


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 10, 2012, 05:51:24 PM
I'm pretty sure you cant simply translate the position on one map to the position on another. You could add dimensions...

I wasn’t just going by the MDS plot, but also by the ADMIXTURE proportions on the K12b runs.

Quote from: jeanL
the La Braña individual is about as different from Gok4 (Swedish farmer) as he is from Avj (Swedish HGs).

Stronly disagree here. If you got the component distances, you would find that brana is closer to the h/g than otzi after doing the math.

But I’m not talking about Oetzi, I’m talking about Gok4, the Swedish farmer, on the K12b results  (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZwmxlhXO8-k/T_B9lrlnFJI/AAAAAAAAE7w/My33JaMKr_E/s1600/ancientdna12.png)the Swedish farmer was 81% Atlantid_Med and 5.5% North European, whereas each one of the Swedish Hunter-Gatherers were from 76.4% to 77.5% North European, and from 13.3% to 20.6% Atlantid_Med. The La Braña Hunter Gatherers were 45% Atlantid_Med and 41.6% North European.

first, let me explain my reasoning for why I think otzi is part meso European.

Again I wasn’t talking about Oetzi, but Gok4, Oetzi was 57.7% Atlantid_Med, and 22.3% Caucasus on the K12b results  (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZwmxlhXO8-k/T_B9lrlnFJI/AAAAAAAAE7w/My33JaMKr_E/s1600/ancientdna12.png).

The first assumption I make is that meso Europeans basically branched away from some homogeneous group, and that they only mixed with each other up to the neolithic. (I know that's not a great assumption). That would mean that meso Europeans are equally (or nearly so if my assumption is only a little off) related to the contemporaneous non Europeans. So if otzi is closer to brana than h/g swedes, then otzi must have some meso European.

I actually think that it is possible for La Braña to have Atlantid_Med component, yet, for the component to be Neolithic. Here, let me explain how, for once, La Braña was only tested for 1000 SNPs on the K12b runs, so what this means is that out of the ~1000 SNPs 45% were Atlantid_Med like, now, Oetzi was tested for a lot more SNPs than that, so for all we know, only on those specific 1000 SNPs that are overlapping  is that one could assign the Atlantid_Med component to a probably Mesolithic ancestry. Now the Atlantid_Med component has both Atlantid and Mediterranean components. The Atlantid_Med component found in Sardinians (which is 70.5%) is actually more akin to the Mediterranean portion than to the Atlantid portion. Oetzi was clearly linked to the Mediterranean world, so was Gok4, the La Braña individuals are clearly linked to NW Europe in the portion of their DNA thus far analyzed.

Ok, so the reasoning I use to say that this theoretical x meso found in otzi/"atlanto-med" was not centered in meso iberia is as follows. The neolithic migration went from the near east, to the balkans, to Italy, and finally to Spain. Otzi and sardinians are about 100% "atlanto-med" and of this neolithic migration. For the mesolithic component in otzi to have been closest to the native iberian meso, would require that the balkans transfer little to no meso while Italy retains it's iberian meso like component during the neolithic. That alone would be a stretch. But even others have tied large scale migration to Italy from the east around the neolithic, leaving little room for western meso to dominate the meso that was there. That would suggest a good chunk of the meso in otzi, if its there, from the balkans.

Actually neither Sardinians(70.5%) nor Oetzi(57.7%) were 100% Atlantid_Med, on the other hand Gok4 the Swedish farmer was 81% Atlantid_Med, and it is said that the culture that Gok4 belonged to was of Balkan origin, so yes, it is possible for the Mesolithic component on Gok4 to have come from the Balkans. Now the link between the Sardinians and Oetzi is also the presence of 22% Caucasus in Oetzi, and around that amount in Sardinians, on the other hand, Gok4(Swedish farmer) also had it, albeit at a lower percentage(4.2%).


I am glad the fact that Atlanto-Med seems to be a mixture of western Meso and western Neo has been brought up.  I dont have much of a clue about autosomal DNA but it does sound like it needs broken down into Atlantic-Meso and Med-Neo.  Otherwise it doesnt seem to make any sense if its high in both  Sardinians and in La Branca Meso.  It sounds to me like its use is a bit limited until this is divided up. 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on September 10, 2012, 07:32:03 PM

Valid points.  Another way of looking at it is closer to Jean's although not exactly the same

1. R1b spread into the west in the pre-beaker copper age in low numbers related to specialist copper working and trade.

2.  As this low visibility pre-beaker group passed to the Rhine-Rhone area some L11 was left behind east of the Rhine (later to gain the U106 SNP)

3. Still in pre-beaker mode P312 occurred in the western Alps. Some remaining there and soe moving west.

4. L27 occurred as these copper worker reached SW France and Iberia.

5. The network between them was established.

6. Along this network beaker spread back east from Iberia towards its fellow P312 groups along the west Med. as far as SE France and Italy.

7. The beaker network (pots or people, it wouldnt really matter if they were already a P312 group from pre-beaker days) eventually reached back to their more peripheral pre-beaker compatriots in the central Europe and the Rhine who had been there for centuries (and who had since experienced the U152 and L21).  The latter pair had by then had a reasonable period of seperation before they were reconnected to their P312 compatriots along the Med. and gained beakers etc.

8.  Finally the U152 and L21 groups underwent a massive seconary developed beaker expansion through central, Alpine and north Atlantic Europe.  

This alternative is possible although horribly low visibility and complex.  However, it is better than a simple out of Iberia model.  A simple out of Iberia or Iberian origin of P312 model just doesnt work because the DF27 SNP just downstream of P312 which dominates there means it cannot be ancestral to U152 and L21 which dominates P312 outside Iberia.  The distributions make a lot more sense to me if P312 was located somewhere like the western Alps or SE France where all clades distributions kind of converge.

I dont much like the model I have just posted because it seem almost as non-Occams Razor as is humanly possible and very low in visibility but it makes more sense that P312 originating in Iberia which looks (if you subtract L21 and U152 on its fringes) like a DF27 zone.  The one thing simple phylogeny says is that what may have been a nearly exclusively DF27 zone in Iberia cant be the source of L21 and U152.  Its far more likely that P312 occurred somewhere like the Upper Rhone or the western Alps and spread from there forming clades as it went - DF27 occurring as it moved west, U152 around the western Alps and L21 maybe as P312* headed from the Rhone into the Loire and Seine the Middle Rhine.    

Any out of Iberia aspect in the beaker era would surely be marked almost exclusively by DF27 and perhaps its most upstream subclades.  Perhaps the large amount of early beaker in the west Med. of likely Iberian origin and the the very thin scatter of similar elsewhere is the totality of the material footprint of the genetic remnant of the out of Iberia early beaker element.  I cant see how it is possible for it to be anything else.  However, Iberia seems incredibly unlikely to be the source of the two great non-DF27 blocks - U152 and L21.  

Then that takes us back to the issue of L51* which even if not ancestral to L11 does (minus a couple of outliers in Ireland and east Germany) prefigure the  early phase of the beaker network although with the difference that its strongest area lies well east of Iberia in France and around Italy.  The comments upon the near-impossibility that P312 emerged in Iberia obviously as a consequence applies to L51* and L11* too.  To me everything points to Iberia (at whatever stage) recieving a subset of P312 from the east in the form of DF27 and the origin of L21 and U152 having nothing to do with Iberia other than sharing a likely west-central/Alpine P312 ancestor.  

There are two solutions to this (assuming we are correct in focussing on the copper age, which seems reasonable with the current evidence), either there was a pre-beaker eastt-west spread or the most recent review of RC dates for beaker that had Iberia as the origin point is wrong.  It would save us from the need for complex low-visibility models if the origin point of beaker was a little more to the east and would make a great deal of sense and keep Occam happy.  That and long bitter experience of how views on beaker (even those based on detailed review of RC dates) keep changing because the spread was simply so fast.

There are doubts about the certainty of the early Iberian dates due to the first half of the 3rd millenium falling into a wobble in the calibration curve.  Also the selection of safe 'Gold Standard' short-life radiocarbon samples (typically bone) effectly means many areas with poor bone preserving conditions had to be ignored because there dates were from charcoal which might suffer from 'old wood effect'.  It was an archaeologist backing the old Dutch model who raised this.  Jean dismissed this out of hand but I dont think this paper deserves to be as it raised a very valid point indeed IMO.   This point doesnt in any way mean a reversion back to a Dutch model because its not only Holland that would be effected by the twin issues of sample selection and radiocarbon calibration curves.  Calibration makes a huge difference to dates (shifting uncalibrated dates in the 4th and 3rd millenium somewhere between 500 and 1000 years back depending on the detail) so its very important that it is right.  All I am saying is we should be careful in building models for beaker based on R1b dates because it is a uniquely lightning spread and Radiocarbon has problems.  So for me the evidence is not conclusive and radiocarbon may have met its match on this one and it probably will be solved by DNA rather than radiocarbon.  


With a few minor differences, that pretty much sums up the picture I have in my head. On the surface, it may look complex, but compared to human migration, it is probably over simplistic.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 11, 2012, 12:55:22 AM
With a few minor differences, that pretty much sums up the picture I have in my head. On the surface, it may look complex, but compared to human migration, it is probably over simplistic.

Alan trowel hands calls West and Central Alps what I have called Italy. I am seeing that the name Italy isn’t liked, but this is the fact. I have said that the unique uncertainty I had was if these R1b were “Italians” or come from the Balkans. My theory of course is that they were autochthonous of Italy, for the pathway I have many times described in my posts and the expansion to West (but also to East) more ancient than it is usually thought and continued in the time. Of course to this only the aDNA will be able to answer.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 11, 2012, 06:57:40 AM

Valid points.  Another way of looking at it is closer to Jean's although not exactly the same

1. R1b spread into the west in the pre-beaker copper age in low numbers related to specialist copper working and trade.

2.  As this low visibility pre-beaker group passed to the Rhine-Rhone area some L11 was left behind east of the Rhine (later to gain the U106 SNP)

3. Still in pre-beaker mode P312 occurred in the western Alps. Some remaining there and soe moving west.

4. L27 occurred as these copper worker reached SW France and Iberia.

5. The network between them was established.

6. Along this network beaker spread back east from Iberia towards its fellow P312 groups along the west Med. as far as SE France and Italy.

7. The beaker network (pots or people, it wouldnt really matter if they were already a P312 group from pre-beaker days) eventually reached back to their more peripheral pre-beaker compatriots in the central Europe and the Rhine who had been there for centuries (and who had since experienced the U152 and L21).  The latter pair had by then had a reasonable period of seperation before they were reconnected to their P312 compatriots along the Med. and gained beakers etc.

8.  Finally the U152 and L21 groups underwent a massive seconary developed beaker expansion through central, Alpine and north Atlantic Europe.  

This alternative is possible although horribly low visibility and complex.  However, it is better than a simple out of Iberia model.  A simple out of Iberia or Iberian origin of P312 model just doesnt work because the DF27 SNP just downstream of P312 which dominates there means it cannot be ancestral to U152 and L21 which dominates P312 outside Iberia.  The distributions make a lot more sense to me if P312 was located somewhere like the western Alps or SE France where all clades distributions kind of converge.

I dont much like the model I have just posted because it seem almost as non-Occams Razor as is humanly possible and very low in visibility but it makes more sense that P312 originating in Iberia which looks (if you subtract L21 and U152 on its fringes) like a DF27 zone.  The one thing simple phylogeny says is that what may have been a nearly exclusively DF27 zone in Iberia cant be the source of L21 and U152.  Its far more likely that P312 occurred somewhere like the Upper Rhone or the western Alps and spread from there forming clades as it went - DF27 occurring as it moved west, U152 around the western Alps and L21 maybe as P312* headed from the Rhone into the Loire and Seine the Middle Rhine.    

Any out of Iberia aspect in the beaker era would surely be marked almost exclusively by DF27 and perhaps its most upstream subclades.  Perhaps the large amount of early beaker in the west Med. of likely Iberian origin and the the very thin scatter of similar elsewhere is the totality of the material footprint of the genetic remnant of the out of Iberia early beaker element.  I cant see how it is possible for it to be anything else.  However, Iberia seems incredibly unlikely to be the source of the two great non-DF27 blocks - U152 and L21.  

Then that takes us back to the issue of L51* which even if not ancestral to L11 does (minus a couple of outliers in Ireland and east Germany) prefigure the  early phase of the beaker network although with the difference that its strongest area lies well east of Iberia in France and around Italy.  The comments upon the near-impossibility that P312 emerged in Iberia obviously as a consequence applies to L51* and L11* too.  To me everything points to Iberia (at whatever stage) recieving a subset of P312 from the east in the form of DF27 and the origin of L21 and U152 having nothing to do with Iberia other than sharing a likely west-central/Alpine P312 ancestor.  

There are two solutions to this (assuming we are correct in focussing on the copper age, which seems reasonable with the current evidence), either there was a pre-beaker eastt-west spread or the most recent review of RC dates for beaker that had Iberia as the origin point is wrong.  It would save us from the need for complex low-visibility models if the origin point of beaker was a little more to the east and would make a great deal of sense and keep Occam happy.  That and long bitter experience of how views on beaker (even those based on detailed review of RC dates) keep changing because the spread was simply so fast.

There are doubts about the certainty of the early Iberian dates due to the first half of the 3rd millenium falling into a wobble in the calibration curve.  Also the selection of safe 'Gold Standard' short-life radiocarbon samples (typically bone) effectly means many areas with poor bone preserving conditions had to be ignored because there dates were from charcoal which might suffer from 'old wood effect'.  It was an archaeologist backing the old Dutch model who raised this.  Jean dismissed this out of hand but I dont think this paper deserves to be as it raised a very valid point indeed IMO.   This point doesnt in any way mean a reversion back to a Dutch model because its not only Holland that would be effected by the twin issues of sample selection and radiocarbon calibration curves.  Calibration makes a huge difference to dates (shifting uncalibrated dates in the 4th and 3rd millenium somewhere between 500 and 1000 years back depending on the detail) so its very important that it is right.  All I am saying is we should be careful in building models for beaker based on R1b dates because it is a uniquely lightning spread and Radiocarbon has problems.  So for me the evidence is not conclusive and radiocarbon may have met its match on this one and it probably will be solved by DNA rather than radiocarbon.  


With a few minor differences, that pretty much sums up the picture I have in my head. On the surface, it may look complex, but compared to human migration, it is probably over simplistic.
[/quote

That is true.  Problem is when it gets complex rather than a self evidence wave traditional archaeology will struggle to resolve it.  Its not that it would be impossible for archaeology to resolve it though.  Its just the sheer amount of data required from so many areas to make it clear-cut is hard to achieve and I think the DNA shortcut is much more likely to clarrify things before archaeology.

Anyway to change the subject, I found this paper fro 2005 on beakers Galicia (the one in Spain, not Poland) fascinating. 

 http://independent.academia.edu/Jos%C3%A9Su%C3%A1rezOtero/Papers/1129756/_A_new_Beaker_region_Northwest_Spain._A_synthesis_proposal_from_the_Galician_data_

Its recent enough to have benefitted from the Muller and Willigen redating and so should still be very valid.  I really like those regional studies of beaker. 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 11, 2012, 07:02:40 AM
With a few minor differences, that pretty much sums up the picture I have in my head. On the surface, it may look complex, but compared to human migration, it is probably over simplistic.

Alan trowel hands calls West and Central Alps what I have called Italy. I am seeing that the name Italy isn’t liked, but this is the fact. I have said that the unique uncertainty I had was if these R1b were “Italians” or come from the Balkans. My theory of course is that they were autochthonous of Italy, for the pathway I have many times described in my posts and the expansion to West (but also to East) more ancient than it is usually thought and continued in the time. Of course to this only the aDNA will be able to answer.

Frankly if the earliest dates for beaker had come from the Italian Alps or its border zone with Switserland and France I would have been delighted and it would have made life a lot easier as it wouldnt have required such complex pre-beaker and beaker models to explain R1b! 

Actually as our resident Italian expert I was wondering if you or anyone for that matter could point me to any online papers on beaker in Italy.

 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 11, 2012, 07:59:44 AM
... BB did not seem to drastically change the cultural or genetic makeup of the Italian Copper Age (Remedello, Rinaldone and Gaudo).

If you are looking for an exact match for the tall robust plano-occipital Brachycephalic types of Central Europe, you should look at the Gaudo Culture (3300 BC) skeletons found from Latium to Campania. They are an almost exact match to the Czech and German BB types as per a study I have.

What are you trying to say about Beakers not impacting the Copper/Chalcolithic in Italy? Do you think Gaudo was pre-Beaker or a completely separate?  I see Gaudo people had primitive copper tools.  From what I can tell, it is slightly earlier than Bell Beaker.

This brings to mind we (or at least I) probably have to be a lot more specific about Beaker types of cultures. I know there was a Rhenish version to go with what I guess would be an Iberian version but there are both geographic types and phases.

Quote from: Richard Rocca
As for DF27, I don't think its distribution is as weird as everyone thinks...it can only be found in places where studies show P312(xU152,L21). IMO, the distribution of DF27 will be a pretty good match for the Iberian BB expansion.
I don't think DF27's distribution is weird, and we've talked about this before, but I think it is a little more scattered than L21 or U152, or at least L21, although there is still a heavy preponderance of DF27 in Iberia.



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 11, 2012, 09:15:26 AM
Frankly if the earliest dates for beaker had come from the Italian Alps or its border zone with Switserland and France I would have been delighted and it would have made life a lot easier as it wouldnt have required such complex pre-beaker and beaker models to explain R1b! 
Actually as our resident Italian expert I was wondering if you or anyone for that matter could point me to any online papers on beaker in Italy.

I haven’t ever said that BB was born in Italy (I am not an expert of this) but only that Iberia was peopled by Italian agriculturalists by sea from at least 7500YBP and following millennia and that they carried to Iberia Cardial and Impressa and from those was born BB. I posted a few days ago about a site in Aragon (Spain) with samples of Impressa I think derived from Italy. Mine was only a discourse by a genetic point of view: R1b in Iberia derived from Italy, at least the R-L51 found in Valencia region and Central Portugal, perhaps the most ancient, and the R-P312* later. Italy has a few R-P312 as to Iberia, but, like always, it gets the most ancient haplotypes. Of course hg.G and E may have come from Italy too. As I have always fought against those who think that migrations happen like a one-way only as to the link with Middle East, I have always said that probably there have been also migrations from Iberia to Italy: R1b1* is well represented in Iberia and also in the Isles, like R1a/M420, but only aDNA will answer as to the place of origin.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: chris1 on September 11, 2012, 09:24:49 AM
I don't think DF27's distribution is weird, and we've talked about this before, but I think it is a little more scattered than L21 or U152, or at least L21, although there is still a heavy preponderance of DF27 in Iberia.


Yes. I remember when L21 was first discovered (2008) and fledgling google maps were made from early FTDNA L21+ results. Ireland seemed like it was soon covered in blue pins. Scotland was close behind. It was a while before L21 results were seen on continental Europe (eg. NW France and western Scandinavia) in any numbers.

By contrast, DF27 is well represented in FTDNA continental European results from the beginning, even considering the same British Isles bias that FTDNA projects have. Among the small number of results since May 2012 there are DF27* from Spain, France, Hungary, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Bohemia and the Ukraine.

Regarding recent mentions of DF27 elsewhere, there is Dr Jim Wilson's recent Anglesey Bone Setter report. Their name for DF27 is, 'R1b-S250*'. They say the bone setter, who has a very rare haplotype, might have been born anywhere between Spain and the Ukraine:

Quote
"The distribution of S250* Y chromosomes (which carry S250, but not S225 or S227, i.e. the
bone setter lineage) is not well defined, but research both as part of this project and reported
by others show it to be present in Spain, France, England, Switzerland, Italy, Bohemia and
the Ukraine in small numbers of individuals so far tested."

http://www.angleseybonesetters.co.uk/final_combined_reports_rev1_sep2012.pdf

http://www.angleseybonesetters.co.uk/


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on September 11, 2012, 10:51:33 AM
With a few minor differences, that pretty much sums up the picture I have in my head. On the surface, it may look complex, but compared to human migration, it is probably over simplistic.

Alan trowel hands calls West and Central Alps what I have called Italy. I am seeing that the name Italy isn’t liked, but this is the fact. I have said that the unique uncertainty I had was if these R1b were “Italians” or come from the Balkans. My theory of course is that they were autochthonous of Italy, for the pathway I have many times described in my posts and the expansion to West (but also to East) more ancient than it is usually thought and continued in the time. Of course to this only the aDNA will be able to answer.

Frankly if the earliest dates for beaker had come from the Italian Alps or its border zone with Switserland and France I would have been delighted and it would have made life a lot easier as it wouldnt have required such complex pre-beaker and beaker models to explain R1b! 

Actually as our resident Italian expert I was wondering if you or anyone for that matter could point me to any online papers on beaker in Italy.

 

Alan, there is a good summary level paper from the Riva del Garda conference that is in English but I'll have to scan it and send it to you.

The maps on Olivier Lemercier's "Campaniformes insulaires et continentaux de France et d'Italie méditerranéennes" are high level but show a good account ot the southern BB contacts...

http://hal.inria.fr/docs/00/08/73/10/PDF/Campaniformes_insulaires_et_continentaux_-_sous_presse.pdf (http://hal.inria.fr/docs/00/08/73/10/PDF/Campaniformes_insulaires_et_continentaux_-_sous_presse.pdf)


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 11, 2012, 11:24:20 AM
... BB did not seem to drastically change the cultural or genetic makeup of the Italian Copper Age (Remedello, Rinaldone and Gaudo).

If you are looking for an exact match for the tall robust plano-occipital Brachycephalic types of Central Europe, you should look at the Gaudo Culture (3300 BC) skeletons found from Latium to Campania. They are an almost exact match to the Czech and German BB types as per a study I have.

What are you trying to say about Beakers not impacting the Copper/Chalcolithic in Italy? Do you think Gaudo was pre-Beaker or a completely separate?  I see Gaudo people had primitive copper tools.  From what I can tell, it is slightly earlier than Bell Beaker.

This brings to mind we (or at least I) probably have to be a lot more specific about Beaker types of cultures. I know there was a Rhenish version to go with what I guess would be an Iberian version but there are both geographic types and phases.

Quote from: Richard Rocca
As for DF27, I don't think its distribution is as weird as everyone thinks...it can only be found in places where studies show P312(xU152,L21). IMO, the distribution of DF27 will be a pretty good match for the Iberian BB expansion.
I don't think DF27's distribution is weird, and we've talked about this before, but I think it is a little more scattered than L21 or U152, or at least L21, although there is still a heavy preponderance of DF27 in Iberia.



I find the heavy Iberian presence of DF27 clades and the scatter nature of DF27 very tempting to link with early maritime Bell beakers and probably represents the Iberia aspect of the beaker culture network.  As I posted above, it seems very unlikely that L21 and U152 are 'out of Iberia'.  Iberia would seem likely to have once been nearly totally DF27 prior to later arrival of L21 and U152 on its fringes.  The latter two obviously by definition cannot be derived from a DF27 lineage.  Ultimately I think it will be revealing where (if anywhere) P312XDF27XL21XU152 is concentrated and I would bet its not Iberia.  Somewhere to the east in SE France or even further east in the Alps or south Germany (basically west-central and west Alpine Europe) would seem more likely to me. 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 11, 2012, 11:31:23 AM
With a few minor differences, that pretty much sums up the picture I have in my head. On the surface, it may look complex, but compared to human migration, it is probably over simplistic.

Alan trowel hands calls West and Central Alps what I have called Italy. I am seeing that the name Italy isn’t liked, but this is the fact. I have said that the unique uncertainty I had was if these R1b were “Italians” or come from the Balkans. My theory of course is that they were autochthonous of Italy, for the pathway I have many times described in my posts and the expansion to West (but also to East) more ancient than it is usually thought and continued in the time. Of course to this only the aDNA will be able to answer.

Frankly if the earliest dates for beaker had come from the Italian Alps or its border zone with Switserland and France I would have been delighted and it would have made life a lot easier as it wouldnt have required such complex pre-beaker and beaker models to explain R1b! 

Actually as our resident Italian expert I was wondering if you or anyone for that matter could point me to any online papers on beaker in Italy.

 

Alan, there is a good summary level paper from the Riva del Garda conference that is in English but I'll have to scan it and send it to you.

The maps on Olivier Lemercier's "Campaniformes insulaires et continentaux de France et d'Italie méditerranéennes" are high level but show a good account ot the southern BB contacts...

http://hal.inria.fr/docs/00/08/73/10/PDF/Campaniformes_insulaires_et_continentaux_-_sous_presse.pdf (http://hal.inria.fr/docs/00/08/73/10/PDF/Campaniformes_insulaires_et_continentaux_-_sous_presse.pdf)

That paper looks very interesting.  I will have a read of it later.  I have to thank the Normans for the fact that although the English language may be Germanic at root they transformed it so much that its easier to read French than German for an English speaker.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on September 11, 2012, 12:13:31 PM
Quote from: alan trowel hands.
I am glad the fact that Atlanto-Med seems to be a mixture of western Meso and western Neo has been brought up. I dont have much of a clue about autosomal DNA but it does sound like it needs broken down into Atlantic-Meso and Med-Neo. Otherwise it doesnt seem to make any sense if its high in both Sardinians and in La Branca Meso. It sounds to me like its use is a bit limited until this is divided up.

Here is a good post from polako explaining the pitfalls of using ADMIXTURE.

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/37002-West-Asian-admixture-in-Southern-SouthEast-Europe?p=985826#post985826


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: JeanL on September 11, 2012, 01:24:48 PM
So it remains that meso iberians were quite different from their neolithic counterparts.

Well, we have yet to sequence any Neolithic Iberians to see if they are quite different from the Mesolithic Iberians, if you mean that the Mesolithic Europeans were quite different from the Neolithic counterparts, then I’d say that based upon the current evidence, it appears so, yet, the evidence is widely geographically distributed, and geography could indeed account for the observed variation.

(It still appears to me that brana is closer to the gotlanders than to gok4. Is there a way to verify?)

Yes La Braña HG are slightly closer to the Swedish HG than to the Swedish farmer Gok4.

BTW, where were you going with gok4? Were you trying to say gok4 was highly "northwestern" and kinda close to brana, so "northwestern" is close to west meso?

I’m getting at the fact that Gok4, the Swedish farmer was assumed to be purely representative of Neolithic types, and the Swedish HG to be purely representative of the Mesolithic types, but it appears that Gok4 might have had some Mesolithic ancestry herself, so the amount of Mesolithic it is yet to be determined. Hence using Gok4 as a proxy for Neolithic ancestry isn’t such a good idea.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: JeanL on September 11, 2012, 01:36:27 PM
Here is a good post from polako explaining the pitfalls of using ADMIXTURE….


Ironically it was Polako who said to you very recently on his blog the following:

^ It's hard to say who the La Brana remains were close to, because the authors of that study used a large number of Finns in their intra-Euro comparison, which probably confounded the results.

On the other hand, Dienekes merged the two samples. Vadim didn't, and his results showed that one of the La Brana had farmer ancestry.


 http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2012/09/they-had-blond-hair-and-light-eyes-and.html?showComment=1347232045662#c3837959229237211904 (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2012/09/they-had-blond-hair-and-light-eyes-and.html?showComment=1347232045662#c3837959229237211904)

He was referring of course to this plot:

(http://image-upload.de/image/bUVw9q/179189e059.png)

 http://image-upload.de/image/bUVw9q/179189e059.png (http://image-upload.de/image/bUVw9q/179189e059.png)

But doesn’t anyone here see the flaw in the logic of Polako? Bra1 appears to have ~30% of the cluster that Vadim labels as AM-Neolithic. Now the question stands, how do we now that the cluster is even real? Moreover, doesn’t the sole presence of such cluster on a Mesolithic European automatically disprove the idea that the cluster is of purely Neolithic origin. Also, there was likely more than one Mesolithic cluster in Europe, and the idea that there is only NE-Mesolithic (Northeastern) ancestry in Europe, appears very biased to me. After all, ADMIXTURE is a computer program, and it tries to find the best fit for the given populations, it as a computer program doesn’t distinguish between Mesolithic or Neolithic clusters, it is up to us to appropriately label the clusters. So we model our hypothesis to fit the empirical data, not the other way around. That’s is, if I predict through a computer model that a population would have X number of mutations after A number of generations, and it turns it has Y number of mutations, which is outside of the range of error of X, then I have to remodel my computer program to try to find a fit that would agree with the observed data, not discard the data based on the theoretical results. It is quite ironic, that Polako would use an ADMIXTURE results to try to argue for farmer’s ancestry on one of the Iberian Mesolithic HG, after having explained the pitfalls of ADMIXTURE and STRUCTURE.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on September 11, 2012, 02:29:12 PM
... BB did not seem to drastically change the cultural or genetic makeup of the Italian Copper Age (Remedello, Rinaldone and Gaudo).

If you are looking for an exact match for the tall robust plano-occipital Brachycephalic types of Central Europe, you should look at the Gaudo Culture (3300 BC) skeletons found from Latium to Campania. They are an almost exact match to the Czech and German BB types as per a study I have.

What are you trying to say about Beakers not impacting the Copper/Chalcolithic in Italy? Do you think Gaudo was pre-Beaker or a completely separate?  I see Gaudo people had primitive copper tools.  From what I can tell, it is slightly earlier than Bell Beaker.

This brings to mind we (or at least I) probably have to be a lot more specific about Beaker types of cultures. I know there was a Rhenish version to go with what I guess would be an Iberian version but there are both geographic types and phases.


The Copper Age cultures of Italy continued their burial tradition throughout the BB period, so much so that Bell Beaker burials are rare in Italy and most Bell Beaker finds are from shards found in settlements. They seem to have taken a fancy to the Bell Beaker pottery, but didn't think enough of them to use them in their burials. Mind you, they used their own drinking vessels for burial purposes and those resemble those found in the Copper Age Balkans.

As for the Gaudo Culture (3300 BC), they are thought to be IE people (see Mallory) and their culture is similar to the older Rinaldone Culture (3600 BC). Plano-occipital Brachycephy makes up such a high percentage of Gaudo Culture skulls that they are almost always tied to an incoming wave of new people. The most popular mention is Anatolia by way of the Balkans. Perhaps Gaudo was made up of R1b, or perhaps even the earliest J2 in Italy, it's hard to say. With the Rinaldone Culture of Tuscany and Latium, everything points to them being IE speaking R1b and several have attributed the spread of metallurgy into France to the Rinaldone Culture.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on September 11, 2012, 02:42:19 PM
Quote from: jeanL
the cluster is even real? Moreover, doesn’t the sole presence of such cluster on a Mesolithic European automatically disprove the idea that the cluster is of purely Neolithic origin.

Agreed! He is completely begging the question. What's even stranger is that Bra2 has more "meso" than ajv, and Bra1 has about the same amount of "meso" as ajv. So, together bra1-2 has more of this presupposed, exclusive, meso than the gotlander?

Ya, I won't bother analyzing his inconsistent comment any more.



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 11, 2012, 07:34:39 PM
... BB did not seem to drastically change the cultural or genetic makeup of the Italian Copper Age (Remedello, Rinaldone and Gaudo).

If you are looking for an exact match for the tall robust plano-occipital Brachycephalic types of Central Europe, you should look at the Gaudo Culture (3300 BC) skeletons found from Latium to Campania. They are an almost exact match to the Czech and German BB types as per a study I have.

What are you trying to say about Beakers not impacting the Copper/Chalcolithic in Italy? Do you think Gaudo was pre-Beaker or a completely separate?  I see Gaudo people had primitive copper tools.  From what I can tell, it is slightly earlier than Bell Beaker.

This brings to mind we (or at least I) probably have to be a lot more specific about Beaker types of cultures. I know there was a Rhenish version to go with what I guess would be an Iberian version but there are both geographic types and phases.


The Copper Age cultures of Italy continued their burial tradition throughout the BB period, so much so that Bell Beaker burials are rare in Italy and most Bell Beaker finds are from shards found in settlements. They seem to have taken a fancy to the Bell Beaker pottery, but didn't think enough of them to use them in their burials. Mind you, they used their own drinking vessels for burial purposes and those resemble those found in the Copper Age Balkans.

As for the Gaudo Culture (3300 BC), they are thought to be IE people (see Mallory) and their culture is similar to the older Rinaldone Culture (3600 BC). Plano-occipital Brachycephy makes up such a high percentage of Gaudo Culture skulls that they are almost always tied to an incoming wave of new people. The most popular mention is Anatolia by way of the Balkans. Perhaps Gaudo was made up of R1b, or perhaps even the earliest J2 in Italy, it's hard to say. With the Rinaldone Culture of Tuscany and Latium, everything points to them being IE speaking R1b and several have attributed the spread of metallurgy into France to the Rinaldone Culture.

They are often compared to Remedello too arent they?  I had a read about them some time ago and I thought the case for them being IE was pretty good.  The ice man was linked to Tamins-Carasso-Isera 5 but had Remedello influences too. 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: razyn on September 11, 2012, 08:14:08 PM
Let me clarify that DF27 does look Iberian and SW French...  but I never said it originated there. Surely you must know there is a big difference.

I do know that, and would have sworn you had said it originated there (in the context of a widely admired, mostly blue map); but if not, I apologize for the implication.

@ Rich Rocca, and anyone else who is idly interested:  Just by way of footnoting what I thought I had read elsewhere, it was these remarks on a thread titled R1b-L51 from the West:

Some place near the Franco-Italian border and close to the Ligurian Sea, the first carrier of L51* was born. This mutation would be carried by the Chasseen-Lagozza-Cortaillod Cultures and would produce L11 somewhere near central France. From there, all other branches would expand – U152 back to the Alps, DF27 to SW France and Iberia, and L21 from NW France into SW England.

2. All P312 branches seem to be Franco-something or other: U152 is Franco-Italian, L21 is Franco-British, DF27 is Franco-Iberian.

So, if I have somehow misinterpreted what you meant by those remarks, I apologize for the misinterpretation.  But they are anyway your remarks, to which I was alluding, and with which I still reserve the right to disagree -- admittedly on the basis of public data in FTDNA projects, which you don't want me to look at for purposes of argument, so that's a stalemate but not a checkmate.  I noticed a few posts up on this thread that Chris1 has also seen these obviously non-Iberian, non-French and non-Mediterranean instances of DF27, way the heck to the east of France.  I'm not imagining it -- but I concede, at least, that it remains to be proven where, and when, the DF27 SNP happened.  And in which direction its daddy might have been migrating, at the time.  There are a lot of options, of which the lower Rhone may well be one.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on September 11, 2012, 09:34:49 PM
Let me clarify that DF27 does look Iberian and SW French...  but I never said it originated there. Surely you must know there is a big difference.

I do know that, and would have sworn you had said it originated there (in the context of a widely admired, mostly blue map); but if not, I apologize for the implication.

@ Rich Rocca, and anyone else who is idly interested:  Just by way of footnoting what I thought I had read elsewhere, it was these remarks on a thread titled R1b-L51 from the West:

Some place near the Franco-Italian border and close to the Ligurian Sea, the first carrier of L51* was born. This mutation would be carried by the Chasseen-Lagozza-Cortaillod Cultures and would produce L11 somewhere near central France. From there, all other branches would expand – U152 back to the Alps, DF27 to SW France and Iberia, and L21 from NW France into SW England.

2. All P312 branches seem to be Franco-something or other: U152 is Franco-Italian, L21 is Franco-British, DF27 is Franco-Iberian.

So, if I have somehow misinterpreted what you meant by those remarks, I apologize for the misinterpretation.  But they are anyway your remarks, to which I was alluding, and with which I still reserve the right to disagree -- admittedly on the basis of public data in FTDNA projects, which you don't want me to look at for purposes of argument, so that's a stalemate but not a checkmate.  I noticed a few posts up on this thread that Chris1 has also seen these obviously non-Iberian, non-French and non-Mediterranean instances of DF27, way the heck to the east of France.  I'm not imagining it -- but I concede, at least, that it remains to be proven where, and when, the DF27 SNP happened.  And in which direction its daddy might have been migrating, at the time.  There are a lot of options, of which the lower Rhone may well be one.

Oh boy, here we go again. Like I said - DF27 is Franco-Iberian today, and of course I know that does not mean it was born there. If I refer to DF27 as Franco-Iberian, or more aptly Ibero-French, it is because it more than likely makes up anywhere from 60-80% of northern Iberian lineages.

You can point out references to instances "way the heck" out all you'd like, but nobody is going to put too much stock in them given the source of the data. Heck, the U106 project has a sample in Cyprus and I've never heard of anyone developing a whole theory around it.

Now, do you have something constructive to add to the topic, because I think we are probably boring everyone to death.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: razyn on September 11, 2012, 10:51:24 PM
If Mike Walsh and Hans van Vliet come to some sort of consensus about the age of DF27, and it's nowhere near early enough to be spreading eastward from Iberia with the first Bell Beakers, this is constructive.  And IMO probably has to do with a rather later wave (if that's the word) of Bell Beakers -- later than 2900 BC -- who were spreading westward to Iberia, maybe speaking proto-Celtic of some sort (unless/until they happened to settle down with the Basques, etc.).  That's not the picture painted in Celtic from the West, and it has its own problems; I just think the Y-DNA timing (of DF27 and its subclades) appears to work out that way, and therefore bears looking at.

However, I don't think migrants across Europe, or around it (by either a northern or a southern sea route), have ever had to migrate one haplogroup at a time.  Nor that each branch of the Indo-European language family may logically be identified with one SNP.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 11, 2012, 10:58:11 PM
If Mike Walsh and Hans van Vliet come to some sort of consensus about the age of DF27 ...

I hope you are not waiting for me to declare something related to TMRCA calculations. I am not smart enough to want to enter that fray so I just go with the smartest guy I know - Ken Nordtvedt, and his methodology which appears both innovative and logical - Generations interclade estimates.

TMRCA estimates are not very precise anway, which is why I prefer to look relative variance among known groups of related people to see what relationships remain consistent.   That only gives you relative timing, but I figure that is useful in and of itself.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: razyn on September 12, 2012, 01:04:00 AM
If Mike Walsh and Hans van Vliet come to some sort of consensus about the age of DF27 ...

I hope you are not waiting for me to declare something related to TMRCA calculations.

Nope, but Hans has begun declaring some things, based on your sorting of the SNP-tested guys you have found in projects.

http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10575.msg138524#msg138524

If Marko Heinila weren't busy doing something else, he might be in this fray.  Klyosov has his own approach, but his results are getting more similar to those from Nordtvedt methods (and btw getting younger).  It's a little off-topic, here, unless we start equating the expansion of haplogroups with expansion of their respective language families.  They almost certainly are related, but not 1:1.

A given TMRCA age prediction, however imprecise or subject to later refinement, is a terminus post quem for its SNP (as represented by a current surviving lineage).  And finding that SNP in an aDNA sample gives us a terminus ante quem, so it's bracketed.  We are barely beginning to see examples of that.  The most recent SNPs are likely to be the first nailed down, as e.g. Klyosov and McEachern think they got one nailed down a few years ago ("Scotland's R1a1 Highland Clansmen").  M153 is getting close, since there's a dated "ancient" grave find of it (Aldaieta) that approaches within about 250 years of the predicted date of that mutation.

Once the genealogy side begins to segue into the genetic anthropology side of this exercise, it will be a lot less abstract, and should interest a broader public.  Specialists in Indo-European linguistics will be part of that public.  And then the TMRCA digression in this thread won't be off-topic.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Arwunbee on September 12, 2012, 05:59:37 PM
Heck, the U106 project has a sample in Cyprus and I've never heard of anyone developing a whole theory around it.

The first U106 man was almost certainly born in Cyprus.  The theory of how it got to its present distribution is already validated here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-106


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on September 22, 2012, 11:33:11 AM
This paper seems more reliable of the Atkinson/Gray’s one:

Structural stability and ancient connections between languages

To what says Dienekes:

“Quite convincing is the evidence that Core Eurasian families (comprising Altaic – or Mongolic + Turkic –, Dravidian, Indo-European, Uralic and the Caucasian families) might form a group (p=0.0013, 5 methods, and , p=0.094, 4 methods, when controlling for geography). The authors were also able to reject the "broad" Afroasiatic group "comprising Afro-Asiatic, Indo-European, Dravidian and Uralic". I think this makes some sense, since Afroasiatic is basically an African language family with a Near Eastern offshoot, so I did not expect it to group with the Eurasian language families”

I’d add that Sino-Tibetan is close to the Eurasian family (probably developed in North China) as I think having demonstrated in a paper of mine (of more than thirty years ago and unpublished, but read by illustrious linguists like Vittore Pisani –I have a letter of his - and Romano Lazzeroni).


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jaska on September 24, 2012, 09:14:33 AM
I have finished my critical review on the computational phylogenetic method recently used by Bouckaert et al. (2012) and claimed to "prove" the Neolithic Anatolian homeland for Indo-European:
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Problems_of_phylogenetics.pdf


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 24, 2012, 10:25:38 AM
I have finished my critical review on the computational phylogenetic method recently used by Bouckaert et al. (2012) and claimed to "prove" the Neolithic Anatolian homeland for Indo-European:
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Problems_of_phylogenetics.pdf

Thanks, Jaakko. I like that you evaluated the pros and cons of the primary alternatives in a thoughtful discussion.

For those who haven't read the paper, this appears to be the primary conclusion (correct me if I'm wrong.)
Quote from: Jaakko Häkkinen,
Thus the results of computational phyloge-netics cannot give decisive support for the Neo-lithic Anatolian homeland. When we take into consideration all the linguistic evidence which can give support to either homeland option (linguistic paleontology, ancient dialect boundaries, and the Uralic contacts), we can see that...
the Copper Age steppe homeland is still the most credible option for the Indo-European homeland.

In think the Anatolian vicinity is still a very viable consideration. I just don't see how the expansion of IE was early Neolithic, which is what Gray/Atkins and Renfrew propose.

I think we have continue to investigate the Anatolian region, but must look at it from a more geographically granular level. It is apparent to me that the differences between the Med, the Black Sea, the plateaus, and the mountainous sub-regional cultures should be considered specifically. All of modern day Turkey did not get hit by the Neolithic in the same way at the same time, obviously.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jarman on September 24, 2012, 03:02:26 PM

true but that doesnt tell us what the pool of male lineages were at the start.  The same male lineages may have mixed with different local groups and developed peculiar phenotypes prior to expansion. Also, as I have posted before, both Bell beaker and P312 exploded so fast in 100 years or so that the peculiar beaker types noted (which I understand are a minority among a less distinctive general group) may have basically been one extended family c. 2500-2400BC (when they expanded really dramtically) with a family resemblence.  The geographical patterning of the major downstream clades in Europe whose variance is very little different from L11, P312 etc (i.e. L21, U152 etc) indicates that this line was travelling fast at the time it was exploding into branches.  This matches too the sudden extension of beaker out of its smaller core and across a wide area in 100 years or so. Basically if Mr P312 came into being in SE France (or similar), his grandsons or great grandsons were settling in the north a century later.  That to me is a dramtic but initially very small scale expansion (which by implication cannot have been a military one - there was not enough time between P312 and L21 for example for there to be many of them.   


From P312 to L21 may have been short but was it as short as L11 to both P312 and U106? To me the idea a fastly spreading single family implies a reason for other cultures to welcome them (or trade for them if they were slaves) and give them wives.  Maybe Papa L11 was a good metal worker - some sort of skill that made him and his descendants welcome as they roamed (or were traded) across Europe.  Another thought is that maybe they were some sort of priestly family - were any new religions rapdily expanding about the same time?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 25, 2012, 07:01:33 AM
In think the Anatolian vicinity is still a very viable consideration.

What on earth makes you think that?  It is not just the date that is wrong with the idea that PIE spread from Anatolia. It is everything. PIE evolved in direct contact with Proto-Uralic. That did not happen in Anatolia.

All the evidence, linguistic, archaeological and genetic, points to the Pontic-Caspian steppe as the PIE homeland. There is no archaeological or linguistic evidence of movements from Anatolia in the Copper Age towards cultures which are clear antecedents of IE-speaking ones. The IE Anatolian languages were intruders into Anatolia. They picked up words from languages there earlier.

Genetically and archaeologically we have a clear trail from Andronovo to Scythian (known to be IE speaking). We now have both R1a and R1b in  ancient DNA from cultures both European and Asian which we can assume were IE-speaking (on cultural continuity from the Bronze Age) and which have clear cultural antecedents in Yamnaya. How clear do we need this to be?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Arwunbee on September 25, 2012, 07:21:55 AM
How clear do we need this to be?

We need this to be very clear.  I suggest someone goes out and starts digging up 5000 year old femurs that contain plenty of juicy R1b marrow inside of them.  Only dig up those femurs that are clearly inscribed with PIE words, like "wheel", "iPod", etc.  Also be very careful to make sure the inscriptions are also 5000 years old, and not a forgery.



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 25, 2012, 05:34:00 PM
Its interesting in the new beaker book that at least a couple of the contributors see beaker as the only real candidate for the spread of a unified language or close language group across chunks of Europe.  They are not really coming from a strongly migratory position or an anti-migration position but clearly see that a major pan-European social change is hard to envisage without at least a modest degree of human movement to create a layer of uniformity within and linking diverse local cultures.  That seem to be the way they are pulling in this beaker book and I see that model of creation of a common element as very compatible with the early branching of R1b downstream from L51 and also very compatible with the Indo-Europeanisation.  I think they have got a balance between anti-migraton and old style 'invasions' just right.  The very structure of R1b below L51 in Europe shows that in the early days this was indeed a very fast spreading (but thin) strata in the beaker period and its actual domination of male lines was probably something that was only attained over many centuries, perhaps taking a couple of millennia to become very dominant in areas.  I am very happy with this model although the new book (as Jean pointed out) does dodge the origin issue which is more perplexing to people in this hobby than it is perhaps to the authors coming from a anthro-archaeological perspective. 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 27, 2012, 12:55:40 PM
In think the Anatolian vicinity is still a very viable consideration.

What on earth makes you think that?  It is not just the date that is wrong with the idea that PIE spread from Anatolia. It is everything. PIE evolved in direct contact with Proto-Uralic. That did not happen in Anatolia.

All the evidence, linguistic, archaeological and genetic, points to the Pontic-Caspian steppe as the PIE homeland. There is no archaeological or linguistic evidence of movements from Anatolia in the Copper Age towards cultures which are clear antecedents of IE-speaking ones. The IE Anatolian languages were intruders into Anatolia. They picked up words from languages there earlier.

Genetically and archaeologically we have a clear trail from Andronovo to Scythian (known to be IE speaking). We now have both R1a and R1b in  ancient DNA from cultures both European and Asian which we can assume were IE-speaking (on cultural continuity from the Bronze Age) and which have clear cultural antecedents in Yamnaya. How clear do we need this to be?


Good points. I was thinking we have to write off the early Neolithic expansions completely but not necessarily Anatolia, or at Transcaucasia.  As you noted, if the Proto-Uralic influence is clear on PIE itself then that pulls the center of gravity for the probable origin north, if not both north and east.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mkk on September 27, 2012, 01:39:07 PM
If Semetic influence could come from south of the Caucasus, why couldn't Uralic influence go south?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on September 27, 2012, 03:21:29 PM
I think the extreme Neolithic expansion ( as shown by Tyler Smith) came from Anatolia and the Womb of Nations. M269.
I have no problem with PIE possibly coming from The Steppes, as R1a.
However I believe the point of contact was the Balkens, L23.
How PIE could then have transferred on masse to the vastly superior in numbers Erbins (R1b), I do not know.
I believe next there were different routes, one by the Danube and the LBK, the other by the Meditteranean and Cardial Ware (Cunliffe). They reached a hub at the Rhone and Loire source as the transition from L51 to L11  and spread to Italy,  the Rhine and Rhone source and met their cousins who migrated via the Danube.
They then controlled all the great rivers of Europe and the littolal and therefore most of inland Europe.
It was just a short journey through the Pillars of Hercules or across the Garonne Valley to Iberia and the expansion of the Bell Beakers (Patterson)  from the Tagus Valley and the great copper mines of Rio Tinto.
The trail of the Stelae people could represent a hybrid of the Danube and Meditteranean route.
The Celtic language grew from there (Cunliffe and Koch) and was essentially an Atlantic expansion with P312 and L21.
From a hub at Morbihan they spread inland again via the Loire to the source or the great rivers to form the Halstatt and Le Tene cultures and U152 and P-Celtic. The rest as they say is history. L21 and DF13 went on to expansion in the Isles (Busby) under the Gaelic Clan system. Other iron Age Celts decendented from the Halstatt and La Tene cultures entered the Isles via the Channel crossing speaking p Celtic.
Busby shows that the highest frequency for M269, L51, L11, P312, L21 and M222 is in the Ireland and in particular in the West of Ireland.



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 27, 2012, 03:52:43 PM
If Semetic influence could come from south of the Caucasus, why couldn't Uralic influence go south?

Uralic was spoken by hunter-gatherers in the forest-steppe. Generally the language of a culture at a simple level of technology will borrow words from the language of a more complex culture. That is the case here. 

Proto-Uralic borrowed farming vocabulary from PIE and from Proto-Indo-Iranian. That places PIE to the south of Proto-Uralic, a bit closer to the Neolithic heartland. PIE in turn seems to have borrowed some vocabulary from more southerly languages such as Proto-Semitic via Kartvelian (a South Caucasian language). Exactly how much vocabulary is disputed. Some linguists think (surprisingly) that the word for "bull" that is similar in PIE and Proto-Semitic was borrowed from the former, while others argue vice-versa.

Either way there was a link between the two languages in the form of the Maikop culture trading between the North Caucasus and Sumer.

Proto-Semitic was a Copper-Age language of the Levant which seems to have spread into Sumer. It is not an Anatolian language. So it is strange that anyone would think that borrowed words from Proto-Semitic bolster the notion of an IE homeland in Anatolia millennia earlier. Wishful thinking really.



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 27, 2012, 04:00:47 PM
If Semetic influence could come from south of the Caucasus, why couldn't Uralic influence go south?

Uralic was spoken by hunter-gatherers in the forest-steppe. Generally the language of a culture at a simple level of technology will borrow words from the language of a more complex culture. That is the case here.  

Proto-Uralic borrowed farming vocabulary from PIE and from Proto-Indo-Iranian. That places PIE to the south of Proto-Uralic, a bit closer to the Neolithic heartland. PIE in turn seems to have borrowed some vocabulary from more southerly languages such as Proto-Semitic via Kartvelian (a South Caucasian language). Exactly how much vocabulary is disputed. Some linguists think (surprisingly) that the word for "bull" that is similar in PIE and Proto-Semitic was borrowed from the former, while others argue vice-versa.

Either way there was a link between the two languages in the form of the Maikop culture trading between the North Caucasus and Sumer.

Proto-Semitic was a Copper-Age language of the Levant which seems to have spread into Sumer. It is not an Anatolian language. So it is strange that anyone would think that borrowed words from Proto-Semitic bolster the notion of an IE homeland in Anatolia millennia earlier. Wishful thinking really.



Is it certain though that Uralic only existed among the hunters in the forest steppe?  How are we certain that in the hunter-gather period that Uralic didnt extend into non-forrest steppe groups?  Also, was the bit of the steppes that Cucuteni-Trypole extended into not forrest steppe?  I f it was forest steppe and if hunters in that environment were Uralic, would that not place Uralic in contact with the C-T farmers?  Seem to as far as I can see unless you are only talking about specific parts of the Forrest steppe for Uralic.

Also, I have read a few recent articles that showed that steppe and forest steppe fluctuated wildely in the Ukraine etc leading to absolutely mind bending complexity of displacement and reoccupation phases of various cultures.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 27, 2012, 04:57:54 PM
Is it certain though that Uralic only existed among the hunters in the forest steppe?

Proto-Uralic was a hunter-gatherer language. There are linguistic links to Central Asian languages which suggest that a precursor language was spoken in the Sayan region of south-central Siberia. That would fit with the archaeological evidence of a drift westwards from the Lake Baikal region in the Mesolithic, bringing the first pottery to enter Europe. This need not have been one sudden migration, but a gradual spread,  meeting and mixing with hunter-gatherers spreading eastwards from the Urals.

Certainly the ancient DNA found at Sopka, Siberia of the Ust-Tartas culture (4000-3000 BC) showed a mixture of mtDNA haplogroups suggestive of hunter-gatherer mixture from west and east prior to any mixture with Neolithic types. (That would fit with one linguist's estimate that the people who created Proto-Uralic may have arrived at the Urals as late as 3000 BC.) They did not get Y-DNA from this site, but Y-DNA N1c is of Asian origin and correlated with Uralic-speakers.  


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Bren123 on September 27, 2012, 11:28:31 PM


Genetically and archaeologically we have a clear trail from Andronovo to Scythian (known to be IE speaking). We now have both R1a and R1b in  ancient DNA from cultures both European and Asian which we can assume were IE-speaking (on cultural continuity from the Bronze Age) and which have clear cultural antecedents in Yamnaya. How clear do we need this to be?


Where can I obtain that data?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 28, 2012, 08:06:47 AM
Where can I obtain that data?

Ancient Western Eurasian DNA (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/ancientdna.shtml). In the right-hand column you will find links to the bibliography. From there are links to the published sources. For the archaeological links eastwards, see David Anthony The Horse, The Wheel and Language (2007). For the archaeological link from Yamnaya to Bell Beaker particularly see Richard Harrison and Volker Heyd, The Transformation of Europe in the Third Millennium BC: the example of ‘Le Petit-Chasseur I + III’ (Sion, Valais, Switzerland), Praehistorische Zeitschrift, vol. 82, no. 2 (2007), pp. 129–214.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Bren123 on September 29, 2012, 06:56:22 AM
Is there any evidence of pre Indo-European placenames in Europe?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jaska on September 29, 2012, 09:37:30 AM
Is there any evidence of pre Indo-European placenames in Europe?
Yes, a lot: many known non-IE languages in the Mediterranean coast (Iberian, Tartessian, Etruscan, Pelasgian, Sican, Siculian etc.) and many unknown in the more northern areas (language of geminates, language of bird names etc.). Unfortunately the information does not seem to be available in Internet.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 29, 2012, 09:51:42 AM
We have to be careful, because non-IE does not necessarily mean pre-IE. There have been a lot of assumptions made about non-IE languages that may not be true. I once went to a lecture where the speaker showed a slide of his vision of European prehistory. This had Basque, Etruscan, Finnish and Indo-European as developing in the Last Glacial Maximum refuges of southern Europe!

  • Basque appears to be a Copper Age language which may not have evolved where it is now spoken.
  • Etruscan appears to have arrived in Italy from NW Anatolia c.1,200 BC.
  • Finnish is a Uralic language. Proto-Uralic seems to have evolved c. 3000-4000 BC in the vicinity of the Urals. Jaska proposed that the people who evolved it had only just arrived there from somewhere in the Sayan Region of Central Asia. That fits the archaeological and genetic evidence.
  • Proto-Indo-European has been realistically dated to c. 4000 BC, not the early Mesolithic.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on September 29, 2012, 04:00:17 PM
Is there any evidence of pre Indo-European placenames in Europe?
Yes, a lot: many known non-IE languages in the Mediterranean coast (Iberian, Tartessian, Etruscan, Pelasgian, Sican, Siculian etc.) and many unknown in the more northern areas (language of geminates, language of bird names etc.). Unfortunately the information does not seem to be available in Internet.

Correction - Siculan was an IE language usually grouped with Q-Italic.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 29, 2012, 04:01:32 PM
Well I didn't want to be picky, but Koch recently argued that Tartessian is Celtic, and if we assume that the language which left the -ossos and -inthus place-names is Pelasgian, then some linguists argue that was Luwian.  


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 29, 2012, 05:00:18 PM
Is it certain though that Uralic only existed among the hunters in the forest steppe?

Proto-Uralic was a hunter-gatherer language. There are linguistic links to Central Asian languages which suggest that a precursor language was spoken in the Sayan region of south-central Siberia. That would fit with the archaeological evidence of a drift westwards from the Lake Baikal region in the Mesolithic, bringing the first pottery to enter Europe. This need not have been one sudden migration, but a gradual spread,  meeting and mixing with hunter-gatherers spreading eastwards from the Urals.

Certainly the ancient DNA found at Sopka, Siberia of the Ust-Tartas culture (4000-3000 BC) showed a mixture of mtDNA haplogroups suggestive of hunter-gatherer mixture from west and east prior to any mixture with Neolithic types. (That would fit with one linguist's estimate that the people who created Proto-Uralic may have arrived at the Urals as late as 3000 BC.) They did not get Y-DNA from this site, but Y-DNA N1c is of Asian origin and correlated with Uralic-speakers.  

I am curious though about what the language in the western forrest steppe of the Ukraine and west might have been.  That at least partly was the environment that Cucuteni-Trypolian farmers intruded into and assimilated the Bug-Dneister hunters.   Any thoughts on the possibility that R1b was in the Bug-Dneister group and got absorbed into farming as a substrate among the C-T farmers (who I assume were not R1b)?  It would seem to make a lot of sense in terms of geography and in terms of the variance dating for the initial take off of R1b in the east.  I understand that the L23* in the lower Danube area has high variance.     


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on September 29, 2012, 05:19:33 PM
Quote from: Alan trowel hands.
who I assume were not R1b

Im sure this has already been addressed at this site, but why do you assume the 'original' C-T weren't R1b? Also, do you have a guess as to how the hunters at the western end of the steppe forest would have gotten r1b?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 29, 2012, 05:29:23 PM
@ Alan

We have no idea what other languages might have been spoken by foragers in this region apart from pre-PIE. That is the only one to survive, apart from the late-arriving Proto-Uralic. Nor do we know what language was spoken by the first farmers (Cris/Koros) to mix with foragers. David Anthony guessed that it might have been an Afro-Asiatic language and that was where PIE borrowed the tauros-type word for "bull". However, as far as I can gather, said word is specifically Proto-Semitic, which is Copper Age. Some linguists even argue that the borrowing was in the other direction.

Frankly I think it would be more useful to focus on C-T, which was the survivor of the Balkan Neolithic cultures, and the one that blended with Yamnaya.

...  the C-T farmers (who I assume were not R1b)?

I'm assuming that they were. The first farmers were most likely carrying the haplogroups that have turned up elsewhere in Neolithic Europeans, while the D-D foragers were most likely carrying Y-DNA R1a1a and mtDNA U5, U4 and U2. By the time the D-D foragers had turned into farmers, they were mixed. (We have mtDNA.)   

Dairy farming brings the possibility of a new wave of people who could be carrying R1b as a majority or minority haplogroup, plus the gene(s) for lactase persistence. It seems to have come from the Sea of Marmara area via the Hamangia and Boian cultures. A group of the latter combined with some earlier farmers to create C-T. These are the people who could be speaking a linguistic precursor to Basque.   

  


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 29, 2012, 05:55:56 PM
Quote from: Alan trowel hands.
who I assume were not R1b

Im sure this has already been addressed at this site, but why do you assume the 'original' C-T weren't R1b? Also, do you have a guess as to how the hunters at the western end of the steppe forest would have gotten r1b?

Simply because R1b does not display the patterns of a lineage that was within the farming population until rather late.   The C-T culture originated from other older farming cultures.  If R1b had been within the ancestors of C-T then would have expanded and branched much earlier.  However it is possible that C-T may have absorbed R1b Bug-Dneister elements and that could be a way where R1b could have been in the C-T culture when its huge population was dispersed. 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 29, 2012, 08:03:40 PM
The C-T culture originated from other older farming cultures.  

No it didn't. That is what I'm saying. It originated from a new wave out of Anatolia. This is not at all apparent from many current works. The whole continuity assumption makes it hard to fathom what was actually happening. Some archaeologists will admit to new influences out of Anatolia. For others it is heresy. :)


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on September 29, 2012, 08:12:13 PM
Quote from: Jean m
The first farmers were most likely carrying the haplogroups that have turned up elsewhere in Neolithic Europeans, while the D-D foragers were most likely carrying Y-DNA R1a1a and mtDNA U5, U4 and U2. By the time the D-D foragers had turned into farmers, they were mixed. (We have mtDNA.)

This is a very random idea, but would if it was R1a1a people of a more neolithic and/or Central European type who mixed with the D-D around that time?

Bare with me. German CW has forms of r1a but every sample we have lacks u2e, which seems to be connected to chalcolithic Russia and by extension probably D-D. Even the small group of Beakers in Germany had U2e which is likely connected to the steppes. We also have a map on cranial morphology, by DiMarco, whereby the German-Polish CW shows a closer relation to the neolithic than the mesolithic, yamanaya, or even the Estonian-Russian CW. This might emphasise the neolithic spread of R1a1a. You (jean) have connected the TRB to the neolithic balkans. Though hardly suggestive, it is interesting that Swedish TRB seems to be more neolithic than Danish TRB, while modern Sweden has more r1a1a than Denmark. Evidence for the Swedish TRB being closer to the European neolithic migrations comes in the form of mtdna and the cranial morphology map referenced above.

It is also worth noting that "The Transformation of Europe in the Third Millennium BC", by Richard Harrison and Volker Heyd, seems to suggest that yamanaya demic input into Central European CW is not that great, which cooberates U2e not being found yet. This might also suggest that r1a1a was prominent in eastern-central Europe before the yamanaya migrations west.

For easy evaluation, what I have said in a nutshell, is that German-Polish CW (GPCW) is fairly neolithic-related and probably abundant in r1a1a. I don't think a whole lot of people, or r1a1a, went from the steppes to GPCW during its' development. There's a small chance that Scandinavian r1a1a has some connections to the TRB and the neolithic balkans.

And so, given the neolithicness of r1a1a (I argue) maybe r1a1a spread from eastern Central Europe to the east, including the D-D.

Is what I said even possible? Could r1a1a spread from eastern Central Europe post neolithic to Central Asia (mummies), anatolia, and other Eastern IE peoples?

Ok, I'm sure I'm wrong but I just wanted to play with some ideas.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 29, 2012, 08:16:56 PM
@ princenuadha

No. I just don't know where to start.

Look - the TRB people were similar to Balkan Neolithic types genetically. The Balkan Neolithic types are nothing like the steppe foragers or the Siberian foragers with mtDNA U2e who were more robust types. The TRB farmer who was tested for a large chunk of her genome was like Southern Europeans, not modern Scandinavians. So modern Scandinavians with all that R1a1a cannot be unalloyed descendants of the TRB. Corded Ware types were more robust and rather like Mesolithic types.

The idea that CW was local and just absorbed ideas from Yamnaya was orthodoxy for a long while, but does not meet the test of genetics. It is Yamnaya-derived, not just culturally, but genetically.



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on September 29, 2012, 08:44:21 PM
@jean

Well to be fair I was just pondering whether or not the r1a1a came to GPCW with yamanaya. I know there were migrants, but there was also some continuity.

I'm really just talking about r1a1a, not the existence of yamanaya movements west. I already believe the latter.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jaska on September 29, 2012, 11:21:01 PM


Quote from: JeanM
We have to be careful, because non-IE does not necessarily mean pre-IE.
Good point.

Quote from: JeanM
Basque appears to be a Copper Age language which may not have evolved where it is now spoken.
Etruscan appears to have arrived in Italy from NW Anatolia c.1,200 BC.
At least Basque still seems to be older in Western Europe than Indo-European languages. I'm not sure when the Italicization of Italy occurred - before or after Etruscan.

Quote from: Richard Rocca
Correction - Siculan was an IE language usually grouped with Q-Italic.
Thank you, so it seems to be.

Quote from: JeanM
Well I didn't want to be picky, but Koch recently argued that Tartessian is Celtic, and if we assume that the language which left the -ossos and -inthus place-names is Pelasgian, then some linguists argue that was Luwian.
That's very interesting. :)
I only saw mentions that Anatolian and Greek may have related substrates.

Quote from: Alan
I am curious though about what the language in the western forrest steppe of the Ukraine and west might have been.
Language of geminates has left traces at least in Germanic and Balto-Slavic, if I remember right what Schrijver wrote. Also western Uralic languages have traces of a language with un-Uralic nasal geminates *mm and *nn, but some shared substrate loanwords would be needed to identify if the language preceding Indo-European was the same preceding Uralic.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 30, 2012, 05:50:06 AM
At least Basque still seems to be older in Western Europe than Indo-European languages.

I'd love to see any evidence of this. It just seems to be an unquestioned assumption.

Quote
I'm not sure when the Italicization of Italy occurred - before or after Etruscan.

There is place-name evidence that the Etruscans entered a country that was already Indo-European. Specifically they entered the territory of the Umbrians. They created a linguistic wedge between IE-speakers north and south, which no doubt encouraged the separation of Italic from Proto-Italo-Celtic.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on September 30, 2012, 09:21:36 AM
At least Basque still seems to be older in Western Europe than Indo-European languages.

I'd love to see any evidence of this. It just seems to be an unquestioned assumption.

Quote
I'm not sure when the Italicization of Italy occurred - before or after Etruscan.

There is place-name evidence that the Etruscans entered a country that was already Indo-European. Specifically they entered the territory of the Umbrians. They created a linguistic wedge between IE-speakers north and south, which no doubt encouraged the separation of Italic from Proto-Italo-Celtic.

They only created a partial wedge as the Umbrians still held the territories to the east of the Etruscan areas. The real dividing line between Celtic and Italic seems to have been slightly further north, with the Ligurian tribes speaking a Celto-Italic language and the Veneti speaking an Italic language with strong Celtic and Germanic influences. I think it is more likely that the Etruscans continued an already existing differentiation process between Italic and Celtic.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 30, 2012, 09:30:06 AM
@ Richard

Yes I think I say something like that. 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jaska on September 30, 2012, 10:10:28 AM
Quote from: Jean M
I'd love to see any evidence of this. It just seems to be an unquestioned assumption.
The evidence does not come from Basque but from the Indo-European side:

1. Celtic has developed in continuous contacts with Germanic:
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kroch/courses/lx310/ringe-handouts-09/celt-loans.pdf

2. Germanic has developed in continuous contacts with Finnic and Saami:
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Jatkuvuus2.pdf

There are neither early Italic loanwords in Germanic, nor Celtic loanwords in Finnic and Saami, which shows that there are loanword layers only between adjacent languages. The development of Germanic must be placed in Scandinavia and the development of Celtic right to the south of it: Germany.

Other possibility would be to place the Germanic branch in Baltia, but Germanic shares less loanwords with Balto-Slavic than with Finnic and Saami, so Scandinavia must be the place.

No genetic or archaeological evidence can disprove these linguistic results. Celtic expansion to Western and Southwestern Europe must be later.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 30, 2012, 10:12:01 AM
@ princenuadha

No. I just don't know where to start.

Look - the TRB people were similar to Balkan Neolithic types genetically. The Balkan Neolithic types are nothing like the steppe foragers or the Siberian foragers with mtDNA U2e who were more robust types. The TRB farmer who was tested for a large chunk of her genome was like Southern Europeans, not modern Scandinavians. So modern Scandinavians with all that R1a1a cannot be unalloyed descendants of the TRB. Corded Ware types were more robust and rather like Mesolithic types.

The idea that CW was local and just absorbed ideas from Yamnaya was orthodoxy for a long while, but does not meet the test of genetics. It is Yamnaya-derived, not just culturally, but genetically.



I must admit that while not rejecting it completely I am highly suspicous of the robust/tall gracilee/short thing.    and stress just has so much to do with it.  Even in my own family the male line shrunk from someone who was remembered as a big strong guy then through urban poverty (and I imagine a bread and tea type  ) to a slight guy about 5ft 4 or 5 who then over the next three generations of improving economic position and better  grew about 3 inches bigger and more robust build each generation until well over 6ft.  You also see the effect of  world wide.  The young Japanese tower over their grandparents due to a more western .  The Dutch went from being very short to being the biggest people in Europe in one generation again down to .  Height and build is one of the things I trust least in the archaeological record.  I strongly suspect skull and face shape is influenced by this too although I dont have an real data on this.  I think I read that the lower face is underdeveloped in poverty.  

NB- for some reason the word d..i..e..t is being deleted from my post


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 30, 2012, 10:52:05 AM
At least Basque still seems to be older in Western Europe than Indo-European languages.

I'd love to see any evidence of this. It just seems to be an unquestioned assumption.

Quote
I'm not sure when the Italicization of Italy occurred - before or after Etruscan.

There is place-name evidence that the Etruscans entered a country that was already Indo-European. Specifically they entered the territory of the Umbrians. They created a linguistic wedge between IE-speakers north and south, which no doubt encouraged the separation of Italic from Proto-Italo-Celtic.

They only created a partial wedge as the Umbrians still held the territories to the east of the Etruscan areas. The real dividing line between Celtic and Italic seems to have been slightly further north, with the Ligurian tribes speaking a Celto-Italic language and the Veneti speaking an Italic language with strong Celtic and Germanic influences. I think it is more likely that the Etruscans continued an already existing differentiation process between Italic and Celtic.
By Veneti, you mean the Adriatic Veneti, right?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on September 30, 2012, 10:59:41 AM
At least Basque still seems to be older in Western Europe than Indo-European languages.

I'd love to see any evidence of this. It just seems to be an unquestioned assumption.

Quote
I'm not sure when the Italicization of Italy occurred - before or after Etruscan.

There is place-name evidence that the Etruscans entered a country that was already Indo-European. Specifically they entered the territory of the Umbrians. They created a linguistic wedge between IE-speakers north and south, which no doubt encouraged the separation of Italic from Proto-Italo-Celtic.

They only created a partial wedge as the Umbrians still held the territories to the east of the Etruscan areas. The real dividing line between Celtic and Italic seems to have been slightly further north, with the Ligurian tribes speaking a Celto-Italic language and the Veneti speaking an Italic language with strong Celtic and Germanic influences. I think it is more likely that the Etruscans continued an already existing differentiation process between Italic and Celtic.
By Veneti, you mean the Adriatic Veneti, right?

Correct. There are some attempts to connect the Veneti of the N. Adriatic with the Atlantic Veneti, but it seems to be a stretch.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on September 30, 2012, 11:03:25 AM
Quote from: Jean M
I'd love to see any evidence of this. It just seems to be an unquestioned assumption.
The evidence does not come from Basque but from the Indo-European side:

1. Celtic has developed in continuous contacts with Germanic:
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kroch/courses/lx310/ringe-handouts-09/celt-loans.pdf

2. Germanic has developed in continuous contacts with Finnic and Saami:
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Jatkuvuus2.pdf

There are neither early Italic loanwords in Germanic, nor Celtic loanwords in Finnic and Saami, which shows that there are loanword layers only between adjacent languages. The development of Germanic must be placed in Scandinavia and the development of Celtic right to the south of it: Germany.

Other possibility would be to place the Germanic branch in Baltia, but Germanic shares less loanwords with Balto-Slavic than with Finnic and Saami, so Scandinavia must be the place.

Germanic and Celtic languages, or some elements of them, may have developed in these spaces as you suggest. However, what would be most useful would be to understand where proto or pre- Germanic, Italo-Celtic and Balto-Slavic languages were spoken. They may have originated in different places than where elements of them interfaced and further developed.

No genetic or archaeological evidence can disprove these linguistic results. Celtic expansion to Western and Southwestern Europe must be later.

Sounds like a preconceived notion when new evidence can't change a perspective. Perhaps the challenge will not be in the linguistic results but your interpretation of them.

Back to Jean's question, I don't see how your commentary on IE languages provides evidence of your assertion.
At least Basque still seems to be older in Western Europe than Indo-European languages.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 30, 2012, 11:15:09 AM
@ Jaska

If we accept the existence of Proto-Italo-Celtic, as Don Ringe and colleagues do, things fall into place. It is my contention that Proto-Italo-Celtic spread initially up the Danube and then split into two streams from the Carpathian Basin.

One went south into Italy and across to Iberia. There we have evidence of Lusitanian, which seems Italo-Celtic, and Ligurians are mentioned. Ligurian is another seemingly Italo-Celtic language.  

The other stream moved north to the head of the Danube, north of the Alps. There Proto-Celtic developed. This group became dominant already in the mid-Bell Beaker period. (Some of them moved into NE Iberia. The language Celtiberian seems to reflect the early Proto-Celtic stage.) In the Bronze and Iron Ages there were migrations out of this area in pretty well all directions.

Proto-Germanic developed c. 500 BC in the Jastorf culture in contact with Celtic to the south.

If Basque had been the pre-IE language of Iberia, we would expect that to show in hydronyms at least. It doesn't. Nor are there borrowings from Basque in all the archaic Hispanic languages. It appears in fact that the precursor to Basque was Aquitanian, which was only spoken in part of Navarre in the Roman period. It entered the present Spanish Basque Country in the Post-Roman period.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 30, 2012, 11:21:52 AM
I must admit that while not rejecting it completely I am highly suspicious of the robust/tall gracile/short thing.

Me too believe me. But in this case the genetic results match up. The TRB farmer is not like modern Scandinavians. Of course we want lots more ancient DNA to completely sort all this out. But so far we have no reason whatsoever to believe that R1a1a was Neolithic in Europe or anywhere else. See http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a/ for tree and estimated dates.

Quote

for some reason the word d..i..e..t is being deleted from my post

It does that to me.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 30, 2012, 01:09:18 PM
I must admit that while not rejecting it completely I am highly suspicious of the robust/tall gracile/short thing.

Me too believe me. But in this case the genetic results match up. The TRB farmer is not like modern Scandinavians. Of course we want lots more ancient DNA to completely sort all this out. But so far we have no reason whatsoever to believe that R1a1a was Neolithic in Europe or anywhere else. See http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a/ for tree and estimated dates.

Quote

for some reason the word d..i..e..t is being deleted from my post

It does that to me.

lol Think the word 'grub' or 'nosh' will have to do instead of .  I am looking forward to a paper called 'The effects of nosh on skeletal structure and how grub changed over the Neolithic-copper age transition'.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on September 30, 2012, 01:50:36 PM
Quote from: alan trowel hands.
I must admit that while not rejecting it completely I am highly suspicous of the robust/tall gracilee/short thing. and stress just has so much to do with it. Even in my own family the male line shrunk from someone who was remembered as a big strong guy then through urban poverty (and I imagine a bread and tea type ) to a slight guy about 5ft 4 or 5 who then over the next three generations of improving economic position and better grew about 3 inches bigger and more robust build each generation until well over 6ft. You also see the effect of world wide. The young Japanese tower over their grandparents due to a more western . The Dutch went from being very short to being the biggest people in Europe in one generation again down to . Height and build is one of the things I trust least in the archaeological record. I strongly suspect skull and face shape is influenced by this too although I dont have an real data on this. I think I read that the lower face is underdeveloped in poverty.

I take this as unwavering support for my "neolithic" speculation : )

In all seriousness though, despite CW being reported as robust like the mesolithic Europeans, the recent map by DiMarco suggests that there are different types of CW peoples and that the GPCW group (high in r1a1a?) is more neolithic-like. That's essentially what kick started my wandering.

Is it at all feasible for r1a1a to have been tied to some neolithic European movements, and latter spread east from eastern Central Europe based the haplogroup itself?

Also, back to r1b, how do you propose that r1b would have come to D-D without the C-T and earlier milk drinkers from around marmara? Or have you abandoned that idea?



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 30, 2012, 02:19:46 PM
Is it at all feasible for r1a1a to have been tied to some neolithic European movements, and latter spread east from eastern Central Europe based the haplogroup itself?

The idea that R1a1a sprang up in Central Europe or on the North European Plain or in India, or wherever happens to be closest to the hometown of the person presenting the case, is the cherished idea of romantics who happen to carry the haplogroup. Wouldn't it be lovely, they think, if my very own ancestors had lived within sight of the glorious (insert favourite landmark) from the Palaeolithic to the present.  

Practical persons want proof. Haplogroups cannot move without people carrying them around. That does not always mean that we see a clear trail in archaeology. But let's say the evidence is that movement which ended up with R1a1a in ancient DNA all took place from the Pontic-Caspian steppe from c. 4000 BC onwards.  

Obviously R1a1a is older than that and some might have travelled quite widely in the Holocene. Some might have reached India as the deserts in between bloomed. Some might have moved north. But if so, those movements did not leave a lot of descendants it seems, as the bulk of R1a1a tested in the subclades project is falling into the 4000 BC + subclades that match up with IE languages. That is what we would expect. The Copper Age economy was more productive and supported a rising population.  


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 30, 2012, 03:03:40 PM
Quote from: alan trowel hands.
I must admit that while not rejecting it completely I am highly suspicous of the robust/tall gracilee/short thing. and stress just has so much to do with it. Even in my own family the male line shrunk from someone who was remembered as a big strong guy then through urban poverty (and I imagine a bread and tea type ) to a slight guy about 5ft 4 or 5 who then over the next three generations of improving economic position and better grew about 3 inches bigger and more robust build each generation until well over 6ft. You also see the effect of world wide. The young Japanese tower over their grandparents due to a more western . The Dutch went from being very short to being the biggest people in Europe in one generation again down to . Height and build is one of the things I trust least in the archaeological record. I strongly suspect skull and face shape is influenced by this too although I dont have an real data on this. I think I read that the lower face is underdeveloped in poverty.

I take this as unwavering support for my "neolithic" speculation : )

In all seriousness though, despite CW being reported as robust like the mesolithic Europeans, the recent map by DiMarco suggests that there are different types of CW peoples and that the GPCW group (high in r1a1a?) is more neolithic-like. That's essentially what kick started my wandering.

Is it at all feasible for r1a1a to have been tied to some neolithic European movements, and latter spread east from eastern Central Europe based the haplogroup itself?

Also, back to r1b, how do you propose that r1b would have come to D-D without the C-T and earlier milk drinkers from around marmara? Or have you abandoned that idea?



Well it seems unlikely that R1a was in the earliest Neolithic spread but there is a heck of a long time between 6 or 7000BC and 3000BC and a lot could have happened in between in farming zone of SE Europe.  Probably the only chance for R1a to have been among later Neolithic farmers in SE Europe YET also have got somehow into the steppe populations who later moved east would be if it somehow was present, entered  or got encorporated in SE or east-central Europe in some farming culture in the middle Neolithic and became part of the Cuc-Tryp culture.  I am not supporting that but its probably the only possible wriggle room area I can think of for a farming origin of R1a.

One thing I do get a bit troubled by though is that there are a lot of parallels between R1a and R1b other than their later distributions but the explanation sought tends to be very different.  I would not be surprised if they both had a similar histories pre-4000BC and we are maybe being influenced too much by the modern distributions.   
 

 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jaska on September 30, 2012, 06:41:34 PM
Quote from: Mikewww
Germanic and Celtic languages, or some elements of them, may have developed in these spaces as you suggest. However, what would be most useful would be to understand where proto or pre- Germanic, Italo-Celtic and Balto-Slavic languages were spoken. They may have originated in different places than where elements of them interfaced and further developed.
Indeed there are Northwest Indo-European, Balto-Slavic, Proto-Baltic, Middle Slavic, Dialectal Baltic, Palaeo-Germanic, Early Proto-Germanic, Late Proto-Germanic etc. loanwords in Finnic and Saami. And yet we have only few late loanwords between Germanic and Balto-Slavic.
http://books.google.fi/books?id=RqkBXIJkkuEC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fi#v=onepage&q&f=false
(Chapter 67: Koivulehto)

Conclusion: Germanic development could not have occurred anywhere near the Southeast corner of Baltic Sea, but it must have occurred in Scandinavia. Only at some later stage Germanic spread to the area of Jastorf culture. Jastorf area cannot explain (1) the lack of Germanic–Balto-Slavic contacts, and (2) Germanic–Finnic/Saami contacts.

Quote from: Mikewww
Sounds like a preconceived notion when new evidence can't change a perspective. Perhaps the challenge will not be in the linguistic results but your interpretation of them.
Please take a look at the linguistic evidence above: Germanic developed in the area adjacent to Finnic and Saami. You cannot find another interpretation for those results, can you?

Read this if you disagreed with my claim that archaeological or genetic continuity cannot testify for linguistic continuity:
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Uralic.html

Quote from: Mikewww
Back to Jean's question, I don't see how your commentary on IE languages provides evidence of your assertion.
1. Celtic language is the earliest Indo-European languages in Western Europe.
2. Celtic language cannot have spread to Western Europe until the first millennium BC, because it was developing adjacent to Germanic, which was developing adjacent to Finnic and Saami.
3. Basque probably was there already before them, if we have this wide area of ancient Vasconic placenames (although they seem to be disputable).

Quote from: Jean M
The other stream moved north to the head of the Danube, north of the Alps. There Proto-Celtic developed. This group became dominant already in the mid-Bell Beaker period. (Some of them moved into NE Iberia. The language Celtiberian seems to reflect the early Proto-Celtic stage.) In the Bronze and Iron Ages there were migrations out of this area in pretty well all directions.
It could be possible that some Pre-Celtic dialect spread to Iberia already at the second millennium BC (if we have evidence?). But Celtic proper hardly could.

Quote from: Jean M
Proto-Germanic developed c. 500 BC in the Jastorf culture in contact with Celtic to the south.
That one is an axiom. Proto-Germanic cannot have been developed there: it arrived there from Scandinavia; see the evidence above. Contacts with Finnic and Saami were continuous since Northwest Indo-European. Archaeological continuity cannot prove about linguistic continuity, and that is all the support there is for the Jastorf hypothesis.

Quote from: Jean M
If Basque had been the pre-IE language of Iberia, we would expect that to show in hydronyms at least. It doesn't. Nor are there borrowings from Basque in all the archaic Hispanic languages. It appears in fact that the precursor to Basque was Aquitanian, which was only spoken in part of Navarre in the Roman period. It entered the present Spanish Basque Country in the Post-Roman period.
How about the wide area of Vasconic placenames? Although it seems that they are disputed; I haven't assessed them myself, so it is hard to say anything conclusive yet. But do we have any linguistic evidence for the early spread of Pre/Para-Celtic languages to Iberia, either?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: MHammers on September 30, 2012, 06:48:54 PM
Here is an excerpt from Zsuzanna K. Zoffman from Human remains from the kurgan at Hajdunanas-Tedej-Lyukas-halom and an anthropological outline of the Pit-Grave ethnic groups that supports a mixed population of Yamnaya people that might have implications for R1b and proto-Beaker people.

This is talking about the physical types found in Yamnaya graves that are different from the common steppe Cro-magnon type.

'Besides them, the representatives of a more gracile variant with narrower cranium and hypsiconch orbits also occur in the material from the Carpathian basin (Marcsik 1979; Zoffman 2000; 2004; 2006).  At the same time, leptodolichomorhous (gracile Mediterranean) and brachymorphous type variants appear at the Brailita Pit-Grave site in Moldova (Necrasov and Cristescu 1957).  According to the Romanian authors (Necrasov and Cristescu 1957, 1973; Haas and Maximilian 1958), the Cro-magnon type arrived from the east , while the gracile Mediterranean and the brachycranial types represent the autochthonous population.'


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 30, 2012, 06:56:02 PM
Germanic development could not have occurred anywhere near the Southeast corner of Baltic Sea, but it must have occurred in Scandinavia.

Yes that all fits with the archaeology. I see pre-Germanic speakers being sucked into Scandinavia in the Bronze Age when the climate was right for farming there, then moving south into Jastorf when the climate turned bad for farming further north. Proto-Germantic strictly speaking (i.e. the language immediately preceding the break-up into North, East and West Germanic) was therefore developed in Jastorf, which probably displaced some Celtic speakers. The expansion of the Germani appears to have been at the expense of Celts. But this was the extreme edge of the vast Celtic-speaking zone.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 30, 2012, 07:01:52 PM
Basque probably was there already before them, if we have this wide area of ancient Vasconic placenames (although they seem to be disputable).

What wide area of Vasconic placenames? If you are thinking of Venneman's theory, that has little/no support. Larry Trask didn't accept it all.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on September 30, 2012, 07:06:27 PM
It could be possible that some Pre-Celtic dialect spread to Iberia already at the second millennium BC (if we have evidence?). But Celtic proper hardly could.

Celtiberian is the most archaic form of Celtic, but it is generally seen as Celtic. I don't see any problem with that. As I said, Lusitanian appears earlier. It presumably arrived with Bell Beaker. Later there were waves of Gauls into parts of Iberia, bringing their own Celtic. In Galicia they overlaid a previous linguistic layer similar to Lusitanian. See http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_16/index.html


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: princenuadha on September 30, 2012, 07:17:31 PM
@alan trowel hands.

I'll try to squeeze this in that tiny space : )

Here is a senario, or a working hypothesis. Note that ill will presuppose that the given dates on the subclade map, here[1], are correct.

M417 originates around Central Europe or eastern Central Europe, near to where r1a1a* is found in abundance [1]. A group of M417 people wander west and latter become L664 folks. A mutation, z645, takes place somewhere around the balkans or central Europe. Some of those descendants stay in the area and become z283 while some move east (along the forest, not southern steppes) to become z93. Note that the ones who moved east mixed with locals, assuring that they were "meso-European-like" in their autosomal composition.

In the mean time, TRB people migrate into Scandinavia, immediately from Central Europe and possibly originating in the (late) neolithic balkans. The TRB people carry higher frequencies of M417 and "neolithic-like" autosomal DNA than the pre TRB Scandinavians. The migrating TRB people have a greater demic impact on contemporary Sweden than Denmark/North Germany. This results in the Swedish TRB being more "neolithic-like" in terms of mtdna [2] and craniometry [3] than the Danish-German TRB, along with having greater frequencies of M417 which is still causes some of the M417 disparities to this day.

By the time the German-Polish CW (GPCW) appears, the area is relatively high in M417 [2] and "neolithic-like" heritage [3]. Around 3k bc mutual interactions take place between CW, including GPCW, and yamanaya which certainly involves the spread yamanaya people and culture [4] (language included). I propose this exchange also involved the spread of forms of M417 into the southern steppes and yamanaya people. (Non-CW, M417, forest people may have done the same around the same time)

The exchanges in this part of the theory are especially convenient because it leaves room for r1b yamanaya in the southern steppes, largely exempt of r1a. In my theory, the migration of southern yamanaya people to GPCW could also explain what seems like an old presence of r1b in Eastern Europe.

Here are my sources:

[1] "R1a1a and Subclades Y-DNA Project - Results", familytreedna.com map "1. Old European (DYS392=13) ("C"/"OE")" Sept. 30 2012

[2] "Ancient Western Eurasian DNA", buildinghistory.org Sept. 30 2012

[3] DiMarco S. (2011) - Gente di Rame: Variabilita morfometrica craniofacciale e relazioni fenetiche in gruppi umani eneolitici dal territorio italiano. Attu della XLIII Riunione Scientifica. L'Eta del Rame in Italia. Florence 2011. pp 375-381.

Or  http://www.u152.org/images/stories/Copper_Age_Skulls.png courtesy Richard Rocca

[4] Richard Harrison and Volker Heyd, The Transformation of Europe in the Third Millennium BC: the example of ‘Le Petit-Chasseur I + III’ (Sion, Valais, Switzerland), Praehistorische Zeitschrift, vol. 82, no. 2 (2007), pp. 129–214.

Page 73 in article

 









Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on October 01, 2012, 03:56:14 AM
@ MHammers

I think you have cracked it.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on October 01, 2012, 04:07:56 AM
The exchanges in this part of the theory are especially convenient because it leaves room for r1b yamanaya in the southern steppes, largely exempt of r1a.

I suspected that this was R1b wishful thinking on your part, the counterpoint to the Rah-rah-R1a1a cheer-leading. :) Understandable maybe, but wishful thinking tends to get dashed on the rocks of reality sooner or later, so I find it generally best to follow the evidence rather than try to find "wiggle-room" for convoluted explanations that would make you happy for five minutes more.

The evidence suggests that R1a1a left the Repin culture at the east end of the steppe before Yamnaya developed, moving east to Afanasievo, and then south into the Tarim Basin, where it is found in mummies that we presume were the ancestors of the Tocharian speakers who show up there later in written records.  

The complete absence of any evidence of any cultural or genetic flow south from Central Europe into Yamnaya has clearly not deterred you, but I feel that I should point it out once more. The "exchanges" that you picture were a one-way flow northward.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: IALEM on October 01, 2012, 04:32:44 AM
It could be possible that some Pre-Celtic dialect spread to Iberia already at the second millennium BC (if we have evidence?). But Celtic proper hardly could.

Celtiberian is the most archaic form of Celtic, but it is generally seen as Celtic. I don't see any problem with that. As I said, Lusitanian appears earlier. It presumably arrived with Bell Beaker. Later there were waves of Gauls into parts of Iberia, bringing their own Celtic. In Galicia they overlaid a previous linguistic layer similar to Lusitanian. See http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_16/index.html

In fact that is not the conclusion of the paper, but that there was some Lusitanian influence in Galicia but that there was an IE layer previous to Celtic that was not Lusitanian. Furthermore, Celtici would have arrived not only from Celtiberian area but also from Andalucia.
I have to say I am very sceptical about those theories of linguists that see layer over layer of prehistorical IE languages, or alternatively Non IE using just a few names of dubious orthography. Curchin, for instance, see 2 different prehistoric IE non Celtic layers previous to "Iberian Colonization" in SE Spain, it is just going insane...


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on October 01, 2012, 04:49:33 AM
In fact that is not the conclusion of the paper, but that there was some Lusitanian influence in Galicia but that there was an IE layer previous to Celtic that was not Lusitanian.

The conclusion:

Quote
Summing up, the nature of the evidence makes it difficult to provide a detailed linguistic history of ancient Callaecia. However, by analyzing the various sources available, a global picture seems to emerge in which the Celts constituted the last layer of Indo-Europeans to come to this area. But what was there before? Obviously there were populations related to the Lusitanians. But only that? More investigation is needed before we can safely state that Lusitanian or Lusitanian-like populations are not the oldest Indo-European layer in this area. Leaving aside theonymy, which can be easily borrowed, Callaecia does not seem to have so much in common with Lusitania as is usually assumed. A very tentative explanation would be that a previous Indo-European layer was later influenced by the Lusitanian populations in the southern region and that that mixture was what the Celts found when they finally reached this westernmost region of Europe.

Quote
Curchin, for instance, see 2 different prehistoric IE non Celtic layers previous to "Iberian Colonization" in SE Spain, it is just going insane...

Not insane at all. Makes sense if we see

1) Stelae people arrive, speaking Italo-Celtic.
2) Late BB people arrive from S Gaul, speaking something a bit closer to Celtic.
3) Iberes arrive c. 2200 BC (La Bastida). Their culture (Argaric) collapses c. 1600 BC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7093685.stm), but  a remnant of its people remains somewhere in the area and later rises on the tide of trade with the Phoenicians. The language starts to spread along the coast c. 500 BC.  

Which paper by Churchin are you thinking of? I see  Toponimia antigua de Contestania y Edetania, Lucentum 28 (2009), 69-74. He just says:

Quote
...what that stands out is the large proportion of Indo-European names, which must represent one or more unknown Indo-European language, related with a settlement of the Indo-European speakers, perhaps before the arrival of the Iberians. the presence extensive Indo-European names in regions previously Iberian considered, has already been noted by Villar (2000) ..



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on October 01, 2012, 06:23:55 AM
[3] DiMarco S. (2011) - Gente di Rame: Variabilità morfometrica craniofacciale e relazioni fenetiche in gruppi umani eneolitici dal territorio italiano. Atti della XLIII Riunione Scientifica. L'Eta del Rame in Italia. Florence 2011. pp 375-381.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: IALEM on October 01, 2012, 07:39:39 AM
Related to, in the sense of influenced, but in the conclusions you can also read

For the linguistic and cultural history of this region it is important to remark that the linguistic characteristics of its god names, which for the most part clearly point to a link with the southern regions in the Lusitania province, do not reappear in personal names. If we have a look at the personal names of Lusitania we will see that at least some of the characteristics of the god names, for instance, the presence of 'strange' diphthongs and sequences of vowels reappear in personal names. I will not go now in detail into the debated problem whether a Celtic-like phonetic 'infection'154 is attested in Lusitania, but the fact is that while we frequently have variants of personal names with that infection or infection-like sequences in the onomastics of the Vettones155 and other peoples of Lusitania, there are virtually no corresponding examples among the peoples of Callaecia

What we have is an influence attested in Theonims, easily borrowed, but not in anthroponims. In other words, a religious/cultural influence, not a linguistic or pollitical one.

I said insane because they build theories of layers of different languages based just on aa few words dubiously transcripted in Classical sources.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on October 01, 2012, 08:09:18 AM
Here is an excerpt from Zsuzanna K. Zoffman from Human remains from the kurgan at Hajdunanas-Tedej-Lyukas-halom and an anthropological outline of the Pit-Grave ethnic groups that supports a mixed population of Yamnaya people that might have implications for R1b and proto-Beaker people.

This is talking about the physical types found in Yamnaya graves that are different from the common steppe Cro-magnon type.

'Besides them, the representatives of a more gracile variant with narrower cranium and hypsiconch orbits also occur in the material from the Carpathian basin (Marcsik 1979; Zoffman 2000; 2004; 2006).  At the same time, leptodolichomorhous (gracile Mediterranean) and brachymorphous type variants appear at the Brailita Pit-Grave site in Moldova (Necrasov and Cristescu 1957).  According to the Romanian authors (Necrasov and Cristescu 1957, 1973; Haas and Maximilian 1958), the Cro-magnon type arrived from the east , while the gracile Mediterranean and the brachycranial types represent the autochthonous population.'


As the lone Romance language speaks in eastern Europe, Romania and Moldova are linguistic enigmas. I have always found this interesting as the Roman occupation there was relatively short. It would not surprise me one bit if the ancient DNA of the Cucuteni-Tripolye people turns out to be heavily R1b.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: MHammers on October 01, 2012, 08:32:53 AM
@ MHammers

I think you have cracked it.


Lol.  Let's hope aDNA can be extracted from some of these places.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on October 01, 2012, 09:23:25 AM
@ MHammers

I think you have cracked it.


Lol.  Let's hope aDNA can be extracted from some of these places.

Credit where it's due Mike. You have stuck at this after it defeated me.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: MHammers on October 01, 2012, 09:43:05 AM
@ MHammers

I think you have cracked it.


Lol.  Let's hope aDNA can be extracted from some of these places.

Credit where it's due Mike. You have stuck at this after it defeated me.

Thanks.  I found this in a British Archaeological Reports publication (2011) by Archaeopress.  The actual title of this particular series was Kurgan Studies: An environmental and archaeological multiproxy study of burial mounds in the Eurasian steppe zone.  Zoffman's was just one of the papers in there.  There is a lot of detailed info on the Hungarian kurgans, though much of it is about soil, mineral composition, groundwater properties, etc.  I'll post more if they seem helpful to our discussions here.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on October 01, 2012, 09:52:16 AM
As the lone Romance language speaks in eastern Europe, Romania and Moldova are linguistic enigmas. I have always found this interesting as the Roman occupation there was relatively short. It would not surprise me one bit if the ancient DNA of the Cucuteni-Tripolye people turns out to be heavily R1b.

I wouldn't be surprised either, but I don't see how that would solve the Romance mystery, which also interested me. I couldn't see the explanation, so I ducked it. 


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 01, 2012, 10:21:35 AM
Indeed there are Northwest Indo-European, Balto-Slavic, Proto-Baltic, Middle Slavic, Dialectal Baltic, Palaeo-Germanic, Early Proto-Germanic, Late Proto-Germanic etc. loanwords in Finnic and Saami. And yet we have only few late loanwords between Germanic and Balto-Slavic.

Good points. I guess the reservations I have are about the possibility of contact between Balto-Slavic or pre-Balto-Slavic and pre-Germanic back to the east. I guess you are saying they were not adjacent to each other in the Steppes region.  Still, if the Saami had influence on Proto-Germanic, that would kind of force the high probability area for pre-Germanic to Scandinavia. Is the influence specifically Saami-like, or is it more generally Uralic?

Is there any chance the Saami influence could have occurred just south of the Kola Peninsula in Russia? I see Saami is classified as Uralic so the implication is they came from the east. There are Uralic speakers found all the way down to the Ukraine. I don't know how they got there but there might have other places for pre-Germanic influence from Uralic other than Scandinavia.

What do you mean by "Paleo-Germanic"? Germanic wouldn't have been spoken in the Stone Age.


2. Celtic language cannot have spread to Western Europe until the first millennium BC, because it was developing adjacent to Germanic, which was developing adjacent to Finnic and Saami.

This is interesting. I think you are implying that Proto-Celtic developed in the northern half of Germany because it had to be adjacent to pre/proto-Germanic which had to be adjacent next to the Finnic and Saami speakers.

What does this say about Italic?  Perhaps Richard R can comment. Italic had to develop from the same base that Proto-Celtic came from so it follows that Italic was up in Germany as well.  

Ultimately this should link up to U106 and P312 somehow.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on October 01, 2012, 10:37:32 AM
As the lone Romance language speaks in eastern Europe, Romania and Moldova are linguistic enigmas. I have always found this interesting as the Roman occupation there was relatively short. It would not surprise me one bit if the ancient DNA of the Cucuteni-Tripolye people turns out to be heavily R1b.

I wouldn't be surprised either, but I don't see how that would solve the Romance mystery, which also interested me. I couldn't see the explanation, so I ducked it. 

If you did know History by a first hand and not by second third or n one, you would know that Romanians formed themselves in the right bank of Danube and not on the left one that Romans abandoned in the 3rd century. They are then the descendants of the Balkan Latin speaking people, like the others submerged by the Slav invasion like Dalmatians and the now mostly assimilated Vlachs etc. If you did know a little bit Albanian language, you did know how many Latin words entered that language, almost those you find in English: 55%.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on October 01, 2012, 10:40:23 AM
What does this say about Italic?  Perhaps Richard R can comment. Italic had to develop from the same base that Proto-Celtic came from so it follows that Italic was up in Germany as well.  

No it doesn't Mike. Picture one long linguistic continuum from what is now Germany to the foot of Italy. Jaska is simply concerned with one contact edge of this - the most northerly. Italic was developing in Italy. No linguist has ever suggested otherwise. Proto-Celtic seems to have developed north of the Alps - not necessarily actually in Germany.

It is a complicated story, because groups split off at various times during the process of linguistic development.  


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 01, 2012, 10:55:28 AM
What does this say about Italic?  Perhaps Richard R can comment. Italic had to develop from the same base that Proto-Celtic came from so it follows that Italic was up in Germany as well.  

No it doesn't Mike. Picture one long linguistic continuum from what is now Germany to the foot of Italy. Jaska is simply concerned with one contact edge of this - the most northerly. Italic was developing in Italy. No linguist has ever suggested otherwise. Proto-Celtic seems to have developed north of the Alps - not necessarily actually in Germany.

It is a complicated story, because groups split off at various times during the process of linguistic development.  

I understand the core areas for these languages expanded (although perhaps only in one or two directions) as they developed.

... but on the language tree, they come from the same larger branch. I take it you accept there was an Italo-Celtic IE dialect from which both Celtic and Italic grew out of. Did Italic and Celtic both branch from the same area north of the Alps? If we think the PIE homeland is further east, then more than likely the source branch for Italo-Celtic would be east of Germany too, maybe not all the way to the homeland, but east. This should have been before Hallstatt, right?

It's the layering and timing of the layering of the branches that I'd like to further understand to see how they might overlay with P312 and U106.  There are some nice correlations that much of P312 ended up in Celtic regions, but some, like U152, were in Italic whereas U106 ended up in Germanic. The Germanic language "lineage" broke away early from the Centum IE lineages that would give birth to Italo-Celtic.  

Does anyone think the pre-Germanic dialect of IE originated in Scandinavia? Of course, that's a loaded question if the PIE homeland is far from Scandinavia. Some form of pre-Germanic IE dialect at some point in time had to be an immigrant into Scandinavai.  Would that immigration more likely come from the North Sea, such as by the Bell Beakers, or by some culture such as Globular Amphora.

Does anyone think Italic languages broke away at the beginning of Hallstat? or was that too late?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jaska on October 01, 2012, 11:06:43 AM
Quote from: Jean M
Yes that all fits with the archaeology. I see pre-Germanic speakers being sucked into Scandinavia in the Bronze Age when the climate was right for farming there, then moving south into Jastorf when the climate turned bad for farming further north. Proto-Germantic strictly speaking (i.e. the language immediately preceding the break-up into North, East and West Germanic) was therefore developed in Jastorf, which probably displaced some Celtic speakers. The expansion of the Germani appears to have been at the expense of Celts. But this was the extreme edge of the vast Celtic-speaking zone.

There are also Early Proto-Germanic, Late Proto-Germanic and Northwest Germanic loanwords in Finnic and Saami, so Jastorf could have represented only an extension of the Scandinavian homeland.

Quote from: Jean M
Celtiberian is the most archaic form of Celtic, but it is generally seen as Celtic. I don't see any problem with that. As I said, Lusitanian appears earlier. It presumably arrived with Bell Beaker. Later there were waves of Gauls into parts of Iberia, bringing their own Celtic. In Galicia they overlaid a previous linguistic layer similar to Lusitanian.

1) Stelae people arrive, speaking Italo-Celtic.
2) Late BB people arrive from S Gaul, speaking something a bit closer to Celtic.
3) Iberes arrive c. 2200 BC (La Bastida). Their culture (Argaric) collapses c. 1600 BC, but  a remnant of its people remains somewhere in the area and later rises on the tide of trade with the Phoenicians. The language starts to spread along the coast c. 500 BC.  

There may well have been many Indo-European languages expanding to the Southwest Europe; I find the evidence of Luján Martínez quite convincing. However, the datings you propose seem far too early. If Celtic proper (including Celtiberian) arrived there only close to the Common Era, and Lusitanian (a separate daughter language of Italo-Celtic?) somewhat earlier, we still have no particular reason to locate any Indo-European languages (some unknown IE language?) in Spain earlier than in the beginning of the first millennium BC.

Quote from: Mikewww
Good points. I guess the reservations I have are about the possibility of contact between Balto-Slavic or pre-Balto-Slavic and pre-Germanic back to the east. I guess you are saying they were not adjacent to each other in the Steppes region.  Still, if the Saami had influence on Proto-Germanic, that would kind of force the high probability area for pre-Germanic to Scandinavia. Is the influence specifically Saami-like, or is it more generally Uralic?

It is more a question of Germanic influence in Saami and Finnic, less has been presented to the other direction. But the new datings say that Proto-Saami arrived in Scandinavia from Southern Finland and Karelia only within the last 2000 years. As we now follow the spread of Saami and Finnic from Upper Volga (~2nd millennium BC) to the Ladoga and Ingria regions (respectively; ~ beginning of the 1st millennium BC), we could locate the Pre-Germanic speakers in Northeastern Europe, escaping from the expansion of the Uralic speakers. On the other hand, it has been argued that the names of the great lakes in Sweden are so early (productive heteroclitic stem or something like that) that they must have appeared soon after the Northwest IE stage, so the Germanic branch should have been there since the Corded Ware Culture. And we probably cannot pull Celtic to the Northeastern Europe, so the Scandinavian homeland for Germanic seems the plausible compromise. And we can explain the Germanic presence in the coasts of Gulf of Finland in the framework of the Nordic Bronze Culture.
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR_WfQ2xKoCBpUg5oVJQEjwVqNJma7rN8mfIFG6t_T_5dPNvDcJUg)

Quote from: Mikewww
Is there any chance the Saami influence could have occurred just south of the Kola Peninsula in Russia? I see Saami is classified as Uralic so the implication is they came from the east. There are Uralic speakers found all the way down to the Ukraine. I don't know how they got there but there might have other places for pre-Germanic influence from Uralic other than Scandinavia.

Yes, it is possible, but then the continuous adjacency of Germanic and Celtic prevents us to pull Germanic too far east.

Quote from: Mikewww
What do you mean by "Paleo-Germanic"? Germanic wouldn't have been spoken in the Stone Age.

Palaeo means 'old', and it is used by Petri Kallio about the stage preceding Early Proto-Germanic vowel change, which then precedes Late Proto-Germanic Grimm's law etc. Something like: PaG *kāpas > EPG *kōpas > LPG *χōfaz 'hoof'.

Quote from: Mikewww
This is interesting. I think you are implying that Proto-Celtic developed in the northern half of Germany because it had to be adjacent to pre/proto-Germanic which had to be adjacent next to the Finnic and Saami speakers.

What does this say about Italic?  Perhaps Richard R can comment. Italic had to develop from the same base that Proto-Celtic came from so it follows that Italic was up in Germany as well.

As far as Italo-Celtic is seen as a branch without clearly later contacts within it, we don't need to locate Italic to Germany. A reasonable chain would be: Germanic (Scandinavia, incl. Denmark) – Celtic (Germany) – Italic (around the Alps, incl. Northern Italy).


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 01, 2012, 11:32:33 AM
Quote from: Jean M
Yes that all fits with the archaeology. I see pre-Germanic speakers being sucked into Scandinavia in the Bronze Age when the climate was right for farming there, then moving south into Jastorf when the climate turned bad for farming further north. Proto-Germantic strictly speaking (i.e. the language immediately preceding the break-up into North, East and West Germanic) was therefore developed in Jastorf, which probably displaced some Celtic speakers. The expansion of the Germani appears to have been at the expense of Celts. But this was the extreme edge of the vast Celtic-speaking zone.

There are also Early Proto-Germanic, Late Proto-Germanic and Northwest Germanic loanwords in Finnic and Saami, so Jastorf could have represented only an extension of the Scandinavian homeland.

This is what I'm getting it. If the core pre-Germanic dialect came into Scandinavia early, well before Jastorf, then the correlation of R1b-U106 to pre-Germanic appears weak. I can't find a lot of U106 diversity in in Scandinavia. I know this is subject to all the vagaries of STR variance (and MJost might say something different), but I just don't see it. I'll go back and look at that again a little more in depth.

U106 just looks more continental to me, which means a critical carrier for the core of pre-Germanic IE into Scandinavia would have probably been R1a1. U106, in this scenario, would have just come into play in Jastorf, perhaps from a Hallstatt Celtic influence. It must have been a strong (populous) influence or somehow gathered a lot of growth in its paternal lineages. This is why I have a hard time decoupling U106 with pre-Germanic.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on October 01, 2012, 11:41:27 AM
What does this say about Italic?  Perhaps Richard R can comment. Italic had to develop from the same base that Proto-Celtic came from so it follows that Italic was up in Germany as well.  

No it doesn't Mike. Picture one long linguistic continuum from what is now Germany to the foot of Italy. Jaska is simply concerned with one contact edge of this - the most northerly. Italic was developing in Italy. No linguist has ever suggested otherwise. Proto-Celtic seems to have developed north of the Alps - not necessarily actually in Germany.

It is a complicated story, because groups split off at various times during the process of linguistic development.  

I understand the core areas for these languages expanded (although perhaps only in one or two directions) as they developed.

... but on the language tree, they come from the same larger branch. I take it you accept there was an Italo-Celtic IE dialect from which both Celtic and Italic grew out of. Did Italic and Celtic both branch from the same area north of the Alps? If we think the PIE homeland is further east, then more than likely the source branch for Italo-Celtic would be east of Germany too, maybe not all the way to the homeland, but east. This should have been before Hallstatt, right?

It's the layering and timing of the layering of the branches that I'd like to further understand to see how they might overlay with P312 and U106.  There are some nice correlations that much of P312 ended up in Celtic regions, but some, like U152, were in Italic whereas U106 ended up in Germanic. The Germanic language "lineage" broke away early from the Centum IE lineages that would give birth to Italo-Celtic.  

Does anyone think the pre-Germanic dialect of IE originated in Scandinavia? Of course, that's a loaded question if the PIE homeland is far from Scandinavia. Some form of pre-Germanic IE dialect at some point in time had to be an immigrant into Scandinavai.  Would that immigration more likely come from the North Sea, such as by the Bell Beakers, or by some culture such as Globular Amphora.

Does anyone think Italic languages broke away at the beginning of Hallstat? or was that too late?

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

As for Italic, there are two forms: Q-Italic and P-Italic. Q-Italic in its earliest forms (proto-Italic? proto-Italic-Celtic?) may have been spoken by the Copper Age groups that spread metallurgy via the Ligurian Sea into Southern France. They may be responsible for some of the Italic-like place names in Iberia and the Nordwestblock. P-Italic may be as early as the eastern Bell Beaker people and as late as the Urnfield period (incl. proto-Villanovans). Hallstatt is probably too late, but I think we will have a hard time distinguishing between Urnfield and Hallstatt groups.

Having said all of that, the origin of Q-Italic and P-Italic is as lively a debate as that of Q-Celtic / P-Celtic.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on October 01, 2012, 12:20:46 PM
... but on the language tree, they come from the same larger branch. I take it you accept there was an Italo-Celtic IE dialect from which both Celtic and Italic grew out of.

That's correct.

Quote
Did Italic and Celtic both branch from the same area north of the Alps?

No. That section of my website is down now, but I think you still have access to the illustration for the Stelae People. See the black line going up the Danube to the Carpathian Basin. Picture that as Proto-Italo-Celtic speakers. See the red/pink line branching off to Italy and on to Iberia. That represents the early breakaway of a group of Italo-Celtic speakers. They end up speaking languages that are Italo-Celtic (like Ligurian) shading into Italic in Italy south of the Ligurians. As I said Proto-Italic proper developed in Italy. Meanwhile the black line continues on to the head of the Danube, where we can picture Proto-Celtic developing. It spreads north and into the Isles with Bell Beaker.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 01, 2012, 12:29:12 PM
... but on the language tree, they come from the same larger branch. I take it you accept there was an Italo-Celtic IE dialect from which both Celtic and Italic grew out of.

That's correct.
Quote

Did Italic and Celtic both branch from the same area north of the Alps?

No. That section of my website is down now, but I think you still have access to the illustration for the Stelae People. See the black line going up the Danube to the Carpathian Basin. Picture that as Proto-Italo-Celtic speakers. See the red/pink line branching off to Italy and on to Iberia. That represents the early breakaway of a group of Italo-Celtic speakers. They end up speaking languages that are Italo-Celtic (like Ligurian) shading into Italic in Italy south of the Ligurians. As I said Proto-Italic proper developed in Italy. Meanwhile the black line continues on to the head of the Danube, where we can picture Proto-Celtic developing. It spreads north and into the Isles with Bell Beaker.

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on October 01, 2012, 12:29:52 PM
This is what I'm getting it. If the core pre-Germanic dialect came into Scandinavia early, well before Jastorf, then the correlation of R1b-U106 to pre-Germanic appears weak. I can't find a lot of U106 diversity in in Scandinavia.

You have mentioned that before. It is an interesting point.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on October 01, 2012, 12:35:24 PM
Do you have similar black line for pre-Germanic speakers?

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 01, 2012, 12:45:30 PM
Do you have similar black line for pre-Germanic speakers?

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

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

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on October 01, 2012, 12:48:01 PM
If Celtic proper (including Celtiberian) arrived there only close to the Common Era, and Lusitanian (a separate daughter language of Italo-Celtic?) somewhat earlier, we still have no particular reason to locate any Indo-European languages (some unknown IE language?) in Spain earlier than in the beginning of the first millennium BC.

My tree of IE, adapted from Don Ringe et al shows the break-up of Proto-Italo-Celtic c. 2500 BC. This language was very close to PIE. It is old.

Celtiberian is a Q-Celtic form, which I am assuming arrived in Iberia around 2200 BC with a new style of Bell Beaker which appeared in central Spain and has affinities with eastern BB. Lusitanian is presumably the descendant of Proto-Italo-Celtic which arrived in Portugal c. 3000 BC. P-Celtic arrived in Iberia with influxes of Gauls c. 500 BC.



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jarman on October 01, 2012, 12:54:15 PM
Quote from: Jean M
Yes that all fits with the archaeology. I see pre-Germanic speakers being sucked into Scandinavia in the Bronze Age when the climate was right for farming there, then moving south into Jastorf when the climate turned bad for farming further north. Proto-Germantic strictly speaking (i.e. the language immediately preceding the break-up into North, East and West Germanic) was therefore developed in Jastorf, which probably displaced some Celtic speakers. The expansion of the Germani appears to have been at the expense of Celts. But this was the extreme edge of the vast Celtic-speaking zone.

There are also Early Proto-Germanic, Late Proto-Germanic and Northwest Germanic loanwords in Finnic and Saami, so Jastorf could have represented only an extension of the Scandinavian homeland.

This is what I'm getting it. If the core pre-Germanic dialect came into Scandinavia early, well before Jastorf, then the correlation of R1b-U106 to pre-Germanic appears weak. I can't find a lot of U106 diversity in in Scandinavia. I know this is subject to all the vagaries of STR variance (and MJost might say something different), but I just don't see it. I'll go back and look at that again a little more in depth.

U106 just looks more continental to me, which means a critical carrier for the core of pre-Germanic IE into Scandinavia would have probably been R1a1. U106, in this scenario, would have just come into play in Jastorf, perhaps from a Hallstatt Celtic influence. It must have been a strong (populous) influence or somehow gathered a lot of growth in its paternal lineages. This is why I have a hard time decoupling U106 with pre-Germanic.


I understand the diversity argument. But I wonder about the affect of the population movements on diversity - would the addition of migrating U106 to an existing eastern U106 have impacted the diversity there enough to give a false impression of origin?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: stoneman on October 01, 2012, 01:13:47 PM
Haplotype diversity does not equall origin. If you want proof of that then study any of the private SNPs and their modal haplotypes.Modal haplotype and SNP go hand in hand. If you make the assumption that we are all descended from a single SNP like U106 then you have to think that at one time U106 was a private one.So you will all find the answers that you are looking for by studying them. This is only my opinion.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Bren123 on October 01, 2012, 01:53:56 PM
Well I didn't want to be picky, but Koch recently argued that Tartessian is Celtic, and if we assume that the language which left the -ossos and -inthus place-names is Pelasgian, then some linguists argue that was Luwian.  

Patrick Sims-Williams has a completely different point of view!


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Bren123 on October 01, 2012, 02:04:23 PM

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

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



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on October 01, 2012, 02:11:58 PM
Patrick Sims-Williams has a completely different point of view!

On which one?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Bren123 on October 01, 2012, 02:16:10 PM
Patrick Sims-Williams has a completely different point of view!

On which one?

The Tartesian language!


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jdean on October 01, 2012, 02:45:20 PM

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

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



I sometimes wonder if it isn't possible to make reasonable inferences from reasonable data without having to rely on absolute proof, at the very least it would allow us to talk about something whilst we wait for aDNA to turn up !!

Edit: Out of curiosity how would you apply aDNA to establish the language spoken ?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on October 01, 2012, 03:03:15 PM

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

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



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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Bren123 on October 01, 2012, 03:03:47 PM
[Edit: Out of curiosity how would you apply aDNA to establish the language spoken ?

I wouldn't


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Bren123 on October 01, 2012, 03:20:21 PM

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

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



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

That is called pseudo science...duh!


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on October 01, 2012, 03:22:10 PM

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

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



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

That is called puedo science...duh!

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Bren123 on October 01, 2012, 03:33:03 PM

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

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



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

That is called puedo science...duh!

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

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on October 01, 2012, 04:07:58 PM

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

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



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

That is called puedo science...duh!

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jaska on October 01, 2012, 06:19:36 PM
Quote from: Richard Rocca
Just one point about Celtic...there is no scenario I can think of where proto-Celtic or Q-Celtic is spread towards the west as late as the 1st millennium BC. Irish L21 just doesn't allow for it no matter which way you look at it.
Now you have made an ad hoc guess that all L21 is connected to the spread of Celtic language. Why? There are many possibilities, for example Celtic language may have spread with some other subgroup of R1b, or with only a certain branch of L21. There is absolutely no evidence to connect the whole L21 to the spread of Celtic language.

The method goes so that we must first look at the linguistic evidence, and then try to find a match for them: a genetic lineage which happens to be in the right place at the right time and spreads to the right direction.

Quote from: Jean M
My tree of IE, adapted from Don Ringe et al shows the break-up of Proto-Italo-Celtic c. 2500 BC. This language was very close to PIE. It is old.

Celtiberian is a Q-Celtic form, which I am assuming arrived in Iberia around 2200 BC with a new style of Bell Beaker which appeared in central Spain and has affinities with eastern BB. Lusitanian is presumably the descendant of Proto-Italo-Celtic which arrived in Portugal c. 3000 BC. P-Celtic arrived in Iberia with influxes of Gauls c. 500 BC.
Is there any evidence that the languages spread to the west so early? Or is it just an ad hoc guess?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on October 01, 2012, 06:59:08 PM
Is there any evidence that the languages spread to the west so early? Or is it just an ad hoc guess?

Jaska - It is a long story, as it tends to be when people are deducing the origin and movements of languages in prehistory. It boils down to the rough correlation of Bell Beaker and the distribution of Celtic and Italic languages. The idea that Celtic spread from Gaul in the Iron Age was once taken for granted. Indeed there were Celtic movements in this period. But they are insufficient to explain the full spread of Celtic in Ireland and Iberia.   


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on October 01, 2012, 07:27:52 PM
Quote from: Richard Rocca
Just one point about Celtic...there is no scenario I can think of where proto-Celtic or Q-Celtic is spread towards the west as late as the 1st millennium BC. Irish L21 just doesn't allow for it no matter which way you look at it.
Now you have made an ad hoc guess that all L21 is connected to the spread of Celtic language. Why? There are many possibilities, for example Celtic language may have spread with some other subgroup of R1b, or with only a certain branch of L21. There is absolutely no evidence to connect the whole L21 to the spread of Celtic language.

The method goes so that we must first look at the linguistic evidence, and then try to find a match for them: a genetic lineage which happens to be in the right place at the right time and spreads to the right direction.

Quote from: Jean M
My tree of IE, adapted from Don Ringe et al shows the break-up of Proto-Italo-Celtic c. 2500 BC. This language was very close to PIE. It is old.

Celtiberian is a Q-Celtic form, which I am assuming arrived in Iberia around 2200 BC with a new style of Bell Beaker which appeared in central Spain and has affinities with eastern BB. Lusitanian is presumably the descendant of Proto-Italo-Celtic which arrived in Portugal c. 3000 BC. P-Celtic arrived in Iberia with influxes of Gauls c. 500 BC.
Is there any evidence that the languages spread to the west so early? Or is it just an ad hoc guess?


I did not make the assumption that L21 was the sole clade responsible for the spread of Celtic, so I don't know where you are getting that from.

By they way, what you are calling "ad hoc", I consider "deductive reasoning". Big difference.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 01, 2012, 07:33:45 PM
I understand the diversity argument. But I wonder about the affect of the population movements on diversity - would the addition of migrating U106 to an existing eastern U106 have impacted the diversity there enough to give a false impression of origin?

We all wonder stuff like that. My thinking is that an area of high diversity could send a false positive signal. High diversity could have resulted from pooling up of a single haplogroup from several sources where it looks more diverse, therefore older in the destination pool than at some of those sources.

However, the real area of origin, or at least the general vicinity should have higher diversity yet as long as it has been sufficiently sampled. There can arguments about that, though.

On the other hand, an area of lower diversity is just that. The indication is such an area is not the origin. I don't think it would be a false negative. Such is the case for U106 and Scandinavia, at least according to Myres and my long haplotype calculations on project data, which I will renew with a deeper look at the Polish, German Language, Scandinavian/Swedish/Norwegian projects. The data should be building up from my last look a that.

BTW, I posted Stoneman's quote in the STR Wars thread so we could talk about the world of STRs over there.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jaska on October 01, 2012, 10:43:46 PM

Quote from: Richard Rocca
I did not make the assumption that L21 was the sole clade responsible for the spread of Celtic, so I don't know where you are getting that from.
From your sentence: "there is no scenario I can think of where proto-Celtic or Q-Celtic is spread towards the west as late as the 1st millennium BC. Irish L21 just doesn't allow for it no matter which way you look at it."

I interpret this so that you consider the Irish L21 too diverse to be explained by its arrival only at the 1st millennium BC. And this you seem to use as a counter-argument against that late spread of Celtic. My point was that all L21 (meaning: in Ireland, because that was the topic) need not to be connected to the Celtic expansion.

Quote from: Richard Rocca
By they way, what you are calling "ad hoc", I consider "deductive reasoning". Big difference.
I call "ad hoc" a situation when one solution is arbitrarily picked from many equally possible options. :)


Quote from: Jean M
Jaska - It is a long story, as it tends to be when people are deducing the origin and movements of languages in prehistory. It boils down to the rough correlation of Bell Beaker and the distribution of Celtic and Italic languages. The idea that Celtic spread from Gaul in the Iron Age was once taken for granted. Indeed there were Celtic movements in this period. But they are insufficient to explain the full spread of Celtic in Ireland and Iberia. 
Yes... I agree with the multi-layered expansion of Celtic, but to me the deep time-depth you promote does not seem any more credible than the more shallow time-depth. Or vice versa. :) Maybe there will appear more evidence for one or another option in the future.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on October 02, 2012, 05:07:24 AM
Yes... I agree with the multi-layered expansion of Celtic, but to me the deep time-depth you promote does not seem any more credible than the more shallow time-depth.

That is because I have not explained the reasoning in full. The movements from Gaul in the Iron Age (spreading p-Celtic) did not reach the whole of Iberia and Ireland. Neither did the earlier Urnfield. So that leaves us with Bell Beaker as the only credible option for spreading Celtic and Italic, with the distribution of which it coincides. Bear in mind that Proto-Italo-Celtic is very close to PIE. It is early. So early in fact that it is hard to tell the difference between PIE and Proto-Italo-Celtic. A number of place-name studies in Iberia just end up talking about an Indo-European layer. Only by the time of Late Bell Beaker do we reach something we can call Celtic. So it is all very complex.

For an introduction, see Alberto J. Lorrio and Gonzalo Ruiz Zapatero, The Celts in Iberia: An Overview (http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_4/lorrio_zapatero_6_4.html), E-Keltoi.

You might  also be interested in John T Koch, A case for Tartessian as a Celtic language (http://ifc.dpz.es/recursos/publicaciones/29/54/26koch.pdf). He and Barry Cunliffe want to argue that Celtic spread from a homeland in Iberia. But he admits that the alternative explanation for the archaic forms of Celtic in Iberia is that it was on the periphery of Celtic development, which makes more sense to me.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on October 02, 2012, 06:21:36 AM
Yes... I agree with the multi-layered expansion of Celtic, but to me the deep time-depth you promote does not seem any more credible than the more shallow time-depth.

That is because I have not explained the reasoning in full. The movements from Gaul in the Iron Age (spreading p-Celtic) did not reach the whole of Iberia and Ireland. Neither did the earlier Urnfield. So that leaves us with Bell Beaker as the only credible option for spreading Celtic and Italic, with the distribution of which it coincides. Bear in mind that Proto-Italo-Celtic is very close to PIE. It is early. So early in fact that it is hard to tell the difference between PIE and Proto-Italo-Celtic. A number of place-name studies in Iberia just end up talking about an Indo-European layer. Only by the time of Late Bell Beaker do we reach something we can call Celtic. So it is all very complex.

For an introduction, see Alberto J. Lorrio and Gonzalo Ruiz Zapatero, The Celts in Iberia: An Overview (http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_4/lorrio_zapatero_6_4.html), E-Keltoi.

You might  also be interested in  John T Koch, A case for Tartessian as a Celtic language (http://ifc.dpz.es/recursos/publicaciones/29/54/26koch.pdf). He and Barry Cunliffe want to argue that Celtic spread from a homeland in Iberia. But he admits that the alternative explanation for the archaic forms of Celtic in Iberia is that it was on the periphery of Celtic development, which makes more sense to me.

Cunliffe's latest and greatest, Britain Begins, gives a very clear picture for the spread of Celtic along the Atlantic Facade supporting a Bell Beaker expansion out of Iberia (Patterson et al) and Celtic from the West (Cunliffe, Koch).
This would appear to fit the following scenario:
Q Celtic Atlantic Facade 3000 BC (P312-L21)
P Celtic Continental Europe 2000 BC (U152)
Celto Italic 5500-5000 BC (L11-L51)
ProtoCeltic 6000 BC (L23)
PIE > 6000 BC (M269)

http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763837994/
http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763708372/

7.5 A model to suggest the stages that may have been involved in the development and spread of the Celtic languages following the establishment of Indo-European in south-eastern Europe in the seventh millenium. According to this hypothesis Indo-European was introduced into the central and western Meditteranean with the spread of the Impressed Ware Neolithic and subsequently developed into Celtic as a lingua franca in the Atlantic zone.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: stoneman on October 02, 2012, 06:43:29 AM
Heber
Why do you think that the Celts only belonged to P312 and subclades? What is the scientific explanation for this?There are people in Ireland with Gaelic names that belong in other haplogroups.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on October 02, 2012, 07:01:49 AM
Cunliffe's latest and greatest, Britain Begins, gives a very clear picture for the spread of Celtic along the Atlantic Facade supporting a Bell Beaker expansion out of Iberia (Patterson et al) and Celtic from the West (Cunliffe, Koch).
This would appear to fit the following scenario:
Q Celtic Atlantic Facade 3000 BC (P312-L21)
P Celtic Continental Europe 2000 BC (U152)
Celto Italic 5500-5000 BC (L11-L51)
ProtoCeltic 6000 BC (L23)
PIE > 6000 BC (M269)

http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763837994/
http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763708372/

7.5 A model to suggest the stages that may have been involved in the development and spread of the Celtic languages following the establishment of Indo-European in south-eastern Europe in the seventh millenium. According to this hypothesis Indo-European was introduced into the central and western Meditteranean with the spread of the Impressed Ware Neolithic and subsequently developed into Celtic as a lingua franca in the Atlantic zone.
"PIE > 6000 BC (M269)
If they were the Italian agriculturalists, this is my theory of the "Italian Refugium".


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on October 02, 2012, 07:12:49 AM
This would appear to fit the following scenario:
Q Celtic Atlantic Facade 3000 BC (P312-L21)
P Celtic Continental Europe 2000 BC (U152)
Celto Italic 5500-5000 BC (L11-L51)
ProtoCeltic 6000 BC (L23)
PIE > 6000 BC

That needs a bit of revision Heber I think. Starting from your bottom line:

PIE is dated 4000 BC. It cannot be earlier because it contains a whole lot of words for things that were unknown to the early farmers. The first farmers used digging sticks rather than ploughs. They had no wheels or wagons, no gold or silver. They kept cattle for beef, not milk and cheese. They did not make wine. They did not spin wool. Yet PIE had words for all these things.

Proto-Celtic comes after Proto-Italo-Celtic, not before. L23 is unrelated to either. V.V. is finding that all L23 tested so far falls into a subclade which is a brother to L51. This is new. It wasn't on the ISOGG tree last time I looked. But this is big news. It means that the current distribution of L23 is not a clue to the route to PIE. It is separate from it. It most probably relates to dairy farming reaching the Balkans. Some IE speakers do carry L23 - tellingly, they fit into the "Balkan group" of languages, of which Greek and Armenian are the survivors.

L51 shows no sign of being at the head of an expansion. We would expect a lot of subclades if that were the case. Instead we have a single lineage. L11 is the father of the explosion. It has been dated to around 3500 BC by Tim J. That fits with the departure of a whole lot of people up the Danube and by other routes from the Pontic-Caspian steppe. It is not exclusive to pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic. The ancestors of Illyrian and Germanic speakers were also departing at this time, as far as we can make out.

It seems likely that P312 was in the vanguard of the movement up the Danube carrying Proto-Italo-Celtic. From there two streams broke away. One early stream went into Italy and Iberia, taking an early Italo-Celtic. This at some point acquired DF27.

The stream that carried on up the Danube to its head at some point acquired L21. That was carried down the Rhine into Britain. The language that had developed north of the Alps was Proto-Celtic - still Q-Celtic at that time. A group of its speakers moved into NE Iberia and developed Celtiberian which is Q-Celtic. There was no Q-Celtic on the Atlantic-facade of Iberia at this time. It was Italo-Celtic - Lusitanian or Ligurian or whatever you want to call it.

P-Celtic developed in Gaul/North Italy before the Iron Age movements which spread it into Britain and parts of Iberia and Anatolia, etc. U152 is likely to be one marker for it.  

  


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on October 02, 2012, 07:18:03 AM
Heber
Why do you think that the Celts only belonged to P312 and subclades? What is the scientific explanation for this?There are people in Ireland with Gaelic names that belong in other haplogroups.

There are many clades in Ireland including R1b, I, J, R1a, etc. as there were many migrations inbound to and outbound from Ireland including, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Megalithic, Copper, Bronze, Iron Age, Atlantic, Celts, River Celts, Central European Celts, Vikings, Normans, Anglo Saxons, Hugeunot, Palatine etc.
My particular area of interest is M269 - DF21. My purpose is to show these migrations.
According to Busby the highest frequencies of M269, L51, L11, P312, L21 and M222 in Europe are found in Ireland. These are the defining mutations I focus on.
You can se a broader view of other migrations here:

http://pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on October 02, 2012, 09:12:35 AM
This would appear to fit the following scenario:
Q Celtic Atlantic Facade 3000 BC (P312-L21)
P Celtic Continental Europe 2000 BC (U152)
Celto Italic 5500-5000 BC (L11-L51)
ProtoCeltic 6000 BC (L23)
PIE > 6000 BC

That needs a bit of revision Heber I think. Starting from your bottom line:

PIE is dated 4000 BC. It cannot be earlier because it contains a whole lot of words for things that were unknown to the early farmers. The first farmers used digging sticks rather than ploughs. They had no wheels or wagons, no gold or silver. They kept cattle for beef, not milk and cheese. They did not make wine. They did not spin wool. Yet PIE had words for all these things.

Proto-Celtic comes after Proto-Italo-Celtic, not before. L23 is unrelated to either. V.V. is finding that all L23 tested so far falls into a subclade which is a brother to L51. This is new. It wasn't on the ISOGG tree last time I looked. But this is big news. It means that the current distribution of L23 is not a clue to the route to PIE. It is separate from it. It most probably relates to dairy farming reaching the Balkans. Some IE speakers do carry L23 - tellingly, they fit into the "Balkan group" of languages, of which Greek and Armenian are the survivors.

L51 shows no sign of being at the head of an expansion. We would expect a lot of subclades if that were the case. Instead we have a single lineage. L11 is the father of the explosion. It has been dated to around 3500 BC by Tim J. That fits with the departure of a whole lot of people up the Danube and by other routes from the Pontic-Caspian steppe. It is not exclusive to pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic. The ancestors of Illyrian and Germanic speakers were also departing at this time, as far as we can make out.

It seems likely that P312 was in the vanguard of the movement up the Danube carrying Proto-Italo-Celtic. From there two streams broke away. One early stream went into Italy and Iberia, taking an early Italo-Celtic. This at some point acquired DF27.

The stream that carried on up the Danube to its head at some point acquired L21. That was carried down the Rhine into Britain. The language that had developed north of the Alps was Proto-Celtic - still Q-Celtic at that time. A group of its speakers moved into NE Iberia and developed Celtiberian which is Q-Celtic. There was no Q-Celtic on the Atlantic-facade of Iberia at this time. It was Italo-Celtic - Lusitanian or Ligurian or whatever you want to call it.

P-Celtic developed in Gaul/North Italy before the Iron Age movements which spread it into Britain and parts of Iberia and Anatolia, etc. U152 is likely to be one marker for it.  

  

If one accepts the Anatolian model "Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family",  Bouckaert et al, then this fits fine with Cunliffes model.

"There are two competing hypotheses for the origin of the Indo-European language family. The conventional view places the homeland in the Pontic steppes about 6000 years ago. An alternative hypothesis claims that the languages spread from Anatolia with the expansion of farming 8000 to 9500 years ago."

The recent Tyler Smith paper would appear to support this extreme R1b Neolithic expansion from Anatolia.

L21 appears to be an Atlantic Clade. This supports Cunliffes model. I dont see it in the Danube and descending the Rhine.

Likewise P312 appears to be an Iberia and Atlantic Facade clade as does DF27, not Danube related.

L51 as per Rich Roccas map appears to be Rhone, Po, North Italy, and is also closer to the model proposed by Cunliffe. (Meditteranean Littoral)

L23 appears to be a Balkens clade (Myres, Busby), I have not seen any maps which says otherwise.

The Cunliffe map clearly show that Celtic developed on the Atlantic facade 3000 BC and spread inland at a later date 2000 BC.



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: stoneman on October 02, 2012, 09:25:25 AM
All of those haplogroups are more than 9000 years old. Why would they move anywhere in single groups?We are looking at the modern distribution maps of them as well, not one of 5000 years ago.




Heber
Why do you think that the Celts only belonged to P312 and subclades? What is the scientific explanation for this?There are people in Ireland with Gaelic names that belong in other haplogroups.

There are many clades in Ireland including R1b, I, J, R1a, etc. as there were many migrations inbound to and outbound from Ireland including, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Megalithic, Copper, Bronze, Iron Age, Atlantic, Celts, River Celts, Central European Celts, Vikings, Normans, Anglo Saxons, Hugeunot, Palatine etc.
My particular area of interest is M269 - DF21. My purpose is to show these migrations.
According to Busby the highest frequencies of M269, L51, L11, P312, L21 and M222 in Europe are found in Ireland. These are the defining mutations I focus on.
You can se a broader view of other migrations here:

http://pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 02, 2012, 09:29:23 AM
L23 is unrelated to either. V.V. is finding that all L23 tested so far falls into a subclade which is a brother to L51. This is new. It wasn't on the ISOGG tree last time I looked. But this is big news. It means that the current distribution of L23 is not a clue to the route to PIE. It is separate from it.

Although, this is somewhat from a technical perspective, I disagree that L23xL51 subclades are not relevant to the trail of L51 (and L11 within it.) They are brothers and it is not really new news that there is no L23*. The paragroup asterisk ("*") indicator has always been and will always be just a temporary holding status for SNP "to be discovered" subclades of any kind. The subclades were always there.  What's relevant is the diversity and location of the L23xL51. If there are three or two or one old SNPs so far discovered, that's not of great consequence. There will eventually be a whole set of layers SNPs within the branching of what we use to call R-L23*. As Ken Nordtvedt would tell you, kind of like pots are NOT people, SNPs are NOT subclades. The subclades are always there, how deep versus recent their branching is, is the question.

Where L11's first, second and third cousins are found and most diverse is still important. Where locations of the 2nd and 3rd cousins might tell us where L11's g or gg-grandfather is from. At least it tells us a direction to look.

Now back to the larger point you were making, I'm not saying L23xL51 subclades were or were not key to PIE's expansion. It think their locations have to be considered with L51* and L11* and P312 and U106. There are a lot of L23xL51 Armenians, who have been IE speaking. Doesn't mean they were of a branch of L23xL51 that was PIE speaking though. I guess we should consider the branching back linguistically of the proto and pre-Amenian languages.

Quote from: Wikipedia
Linguists classify Armenian as an independent branch of the Indo-European language family. Armenian shares a number of major innovations with Greek, and some linguists group these two languages together with Phrygian and the Indo-Iranian family into a higher-level subgroup of Indo-European which is defined by such shared innovations as the augment. More recently, others have proposed a Balkan grouping including Greek, Armenian, Phrygian and Albania.

It is interesting that pre-Armenian languages diverged from Proto-Celtic and Germanic earlier than they branched from each other. It's an old lineage in terms of its relationship with Western IE. Some apparently consider this lineage a pre-PIE branch.

Quote from: Wikipedia
The Anatolian branch is generally considered the earliest to split from the Proto-Indo-European language, from a stage referred to either as Indo-Hittite or "Middle PIE"; typically a date in the mid-4th millennium BC is assumed. Under the Kurgan hypothesis, there are two possibilities for how the early Anatolian speakers could have reached Anatolia: from the north via the Caucasus, and from the west, via the Balkans...


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jaska on October 02, 2012, 10:28:31 AM
Thank you for the links, Jean!

Quote from: Heber
7.5 A model to suggest the stages that may have been involved in the development and spread of the Celtic languages following the establishment of Indo-European in south-eastern Europe in the seventh millenium. According to this hypothesis Indo-European was introduced into the central and western Meditteranean with the spread of the Impressed Ware Neolithic and subsequently developed into Celtic as a lingua franca in the Atlantic zone.
Those datings for the spread of the Indo-European language are far too early...
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Problems_of_phylogenetics.pdf

Quote from: Heber
If one accepts the Anatolian model "Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family",  Bouckaert et al, then this fits fine with Cunliffes model.
It cannot be accepted, because the method is most unreliable; read the link above.

Also, the P-form from IE *kw seems to have developed independently in different branches of Celtic; it also happened in part of Italic and Greek (not in Mycenean). So there is no need for one P-Celtic expansion.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on October 02, 2012, 11:50:01 AM
“L51 as per Rich Roccas map appears to be Rhone, Po, North Italy, and is also closer to the model proposed by Cunliffe. (Mediterranean Littoral)” (Heber)

What would have Richard Rocca discovered? The first map of R-L51 was made by Argiedude many years ago also with my data, and R-L51 found above all in Italy is from always one of the points of my theory. I have posted some letters where I have demonstrated that in the Rhaetian Region (Alto Adige) probably R-L51 has the highest percentage all over the world, practically the double of the highest French percentage.

“V.V. is finding that all L23 tested so far falls into a subclade which is a brother to L51” (J Manco).

What would have VV discovered? What does he know of R-L23? He is hg. I and the other Italian Vizzaccaros are R-M73. I am R-L23*/L277-/L584- and I am waiting for my Z2105 test. I have written in many posts that I am waiting for the first R-L23/Z2105- in Tuscany or in Italy. We shall see. What we were waiting for by L150 now is from Z2105.

Of course you are free to think whatever you want, but:

R1b1* ancestor of R-M269 isn’t the Eastern one with YCAII= 21-23 or 23-23 but the Western European one with YCAII=18-22 or 18-23

The R-L23 of Middle East is above all L277+ or L584+, and cannot be the ancestor of R-L51. Also the Balkan R-L23 (see the Arberesh Ciulla) isn’t the ancestor of R-L51…

The most ancient and diffused R-M269 are the Italian ones, and I am waiting that someone tests the Tuscan R-M269 I have spoken many times about and which name is now withhold: he is the intermediate haplotype between R1b1* and R-M269, and he comes from Tuscany, from where comes also the highest percentage of R-U152* (57,14%).



Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on October 02, 2012, 12:11:33 PM
If one accepts the Anatolian model "Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family",  Bouckaert et al ...

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

Nor is the Anatolian model at all necessary to Barry Cunliffe's "Celtic from the West" idea. He and Prof. Koch have presented a neutral front on how IE arrived in Iberia. It is irrelevant to their thesis.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on October 02, 2012, 12:18:14 PM
Although, this is somewhat from a technical perspective, I disagree that L23xL51 subclades are not relevant to the trail of L51

OK Mike - not completely irrelevant I agree. 

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

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mkk on October 02, 2012, 12:21:27 PM
Heber,

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Bren123 on October 02, 2012, 01:44:45 PM

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

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



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

That is called puedo science...duh!

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

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on October 02, 2012, 10:22:06 PM
Heber,

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

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on October 03, 2012, 03:57:36 AM
Heber,

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

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

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

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

The "Celtic from the West" idea generated a lot of useful debate and paved the way for the more complex analysis that I think gets us closer to the truth. Without the big guns making a lot of noise about Celtic in Iberia, new ideas such as I present might not get a hearing. :)   


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on October 03, 2012, 05:57:41 AM
“Only one uncertain Early Proto-Indo-European loanword has been proposed so far (U *pata '(ceramic) pot'; Kallio 2006: 5–6); all the other Archaic Indo-European loanwords represent the level of Late Proto-Indo-European, and may thus be also later but not earlier”.

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on October 03, 2012, 06:58:09 AM
You can speak of links between Indo-Iranian languages and Uralic ones, then of their  presence in the Russian plane but not of the Proto-Indo-European, which can be born elsewhere, also in Central or Western Europe.

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Bren123 on October 03, 2012, 07:07:32 AM
You can speak of links between Indo-Iranian languages and Uralic ones, then of their  presence in the Russian plane but not of the Proto-Indo-European, which can be born elsewhere, also in Central or Western Europe.

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

Isn't there an influence of Iranian on Celtic?


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on October 03, 2012, 08:06:29 AM
@ Bren123

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

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on October 03, 2012, 12:18:55 PM
You can speak of links between Indo-Iranian languages and Uralic ones, then of their  presence in the Russian plane but not of the Proto-Indo-European, which can be born elsewhere, also in Central or Western Europe.

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

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Maliclavelli on October 03, 2012, 12:31:34 PM
No. Jaska is talking about loans from PIE into Proto-Uralic. There are in addition loans from Proto-Indo-Iranian into Proto-Uralic.
I ask you how is it possible that PIE and Proto-Indo Iranian entered the Proto-Uralic at the same time? They are separated from thousands of years and PIE is "centum" and Proto-Indo-Iranian is "satem".
What you are saying is simply absurd. Let that a linguist says it.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jaska on October 03, 2012, 12:32:46 PM
Quote from: Heber
Yes it is one hypothesis and it is supported by the the greatest Experts in Celtic Archealogy and Linguists in Europe and by thought leaders in Population Genetics. As I have stated previously Atlantic Celts are my particular area of interest. I do not propose to show how for example U152 of U106 expanded in Europe or got to the Isles as they are not in my specific defining mutations. I am sure at some stage someone will come up with a hybrid Steppes, Anatolia model that will satisfy everyone.
You must remember that you and they are talking about the genetic and cultural roots of Celts – that is a different level than language, and the root of language is often in different direction than the main cultural root.

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

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

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




Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jean M on October 03, 2012, 02:07:50 PM
You must remember that you and they are talking about the genetic and cultural roots of Celts – that is a different level than language, and the root of language is often in different direction than the main cultural root.

I cannot speak for Heber, but profs. Cunliffe and Koch define the Celts as persons speaking Celtic. They are indeed arguing for the homeland of the Proto-Celtic language in Iberia. See Celtic from the West: Alternative Perspectives from Archaeology, Genetics, Language and Literature (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Celtic-West-Alternative-Perspectives-Publications/dp/1842174754/) (2010)

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

I do not think they are right. But the debate has thrown up some interesting material.


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Heber on October 03, 2012, 02:42:06 PM
Quote from: Heber
Yes it is one hypothesis and it is supported by the the greatest Experts in Celtic Archealogy and Linguists in Europe and by thought leaders in Population Genetics. As I have stated previously Atlantic Celts are my particular area of interest. I do not propose to show how for example U152 of U106 expanded in Europe or got to the Isles as they are not in my specific defining mutations. I am sure at some stage someone will come up with a hybrid Steppes, Anatolia model that will satisfy everyone.
You must remember that you and they are talking about the genetic and cultural roots of Celts – that is a different level than language, and the root of language is often in different direction than the main cultural root.

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

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

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

Here are a few examples of the Atlantic Facade network.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Jaska on October 03, 2012, 03:22:56 PM
Quote from: Jean M
I cannot speak for Heber, but profs. Cunliffe and Koch define the Celts as persons speaking Celtic. They are indeed arguing for the homeland of the Proto-Celtic language in Iberia. See Celtic from the West: Alternative Perspectives from Archaeology, Genetics, Language and Literature (2010)

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 03, 2012, 03:31:35 PM
Do you have similar black line for pre-Germanic speakers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: Richard Rocca on October 03, 2012, 03:53:46 PM
Do you have similar black line for pre-Germanic speakers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 03, 2012, 04:02:08 PM
Do you have similar black line for pre-Germanic speakers?

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

Yes, I see the Dniester starts up on the east side of the Carpathians, very near the border with Poland. The Globul