World Families Forums

General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse. => R1b General => Topic started by: alan trowel hands. on October 17, 2012, 09:18:53 PM



Title: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 17, 2012, 09:18:53 PM
I think Anthony, like Mallory gives a pretty convincing model for the eastern half of the story.  Neither really had much of a go at explaining the western half of the story other than dabbling in Corded Ware although Anthony does not portray Corded Ware as a steppes migration and sees it all about nested clientship etc.  Anthony as I said gives a very good model for eastern Europe and Asia.  However, I think his own book (which I feel is actually very honest in that he isnt selective or evasive in trying to build up his model) actually in itself throws doubts on his own model or at least shows there is a lot to chew on.

I find it rather amazing that Anthony himself emphasises the corded ware roots of a chain of cultures which he derives from a contact zone on the steppes/farmer divide area (pretty close to the old Cuc-Tryp area).  He then describes this chain as moving in a roughly west to east direction through the forest steppes, basically avoiding the actual steppes.  This chain of culture from west to east (and in age order) is rougly Middle Dneiper-Fatyanovo-Abashevo-Sintashta.  He attributes the origins of Slavic, Baltic, Indo-Iranian and Iranian to these cultures.  

Now its pretty amazing that he attributes so many of the IE branches to a fairly late west to east movement of partly corded ware derived cultures through the forrest steppe (this actually avoided the actual steppes proper - see Anthony fig 379).  These also ultimately form the saetem IE group or certainly most of it.  This group is also the one most associated with R1a.  

I think he has got this group perfectly correct but that doesnt take away from the fact that he is deriving these branches all from a movement from or even just beyond the very westernmost end of the steppes which moved west to east and travelled through the forest steppes rather than the steppes.  Whatever he says in the earlier part of his model for PIE, that west to east movement is the model Anthony has for what would become the saetem group and which most of us in this hobby would assume was predominantly R1a (although I wouldnt rule out some R1b too-what is that weird eastern brother of M269?).

Now Anthony does not see a major steppe invasion in the genesis of Corded Ware although he sees its influence.  If that is so and he attributes virtually the whole saetem branch of IE to this movement which he repeatedly notes as having Corded Ware roots, then what really is the common denomenator that links Corded Ware and the cultural chain through the forest steppes which he links to the saetem languages ?  Its Corded Ware itself.  Corded Ware or roots in corded ware links all of those forrest steppe proto-Slavic, Baltic, Indo-Iranian and Iranian groups he suggests with the western half of the IE story.  Nothing else does.  The importance of the CW horizon seems rather unpopular in these forums but has always been seen as crucial in the western half of the story and still was pretty well the main non steppes culture talked about by Mallory and Anthony when discussing western IE languages.  

Now Corded Ware remains a source of disagreement and it is in no way a majority view that it is a steppes invasion.  Anthony doesnt even think so.  In addition recent papers have thrown doubt on the earliest dates for Corded Ware in southern Poland and removal of them leaves it rather later than currently thought and the issue of date and origin point a bit more hazy.  So, that remains a problem.


Another thought on Anthony is if you look at the map in his book I have mentioned above, it is noticeable that his placing of the language origins in this west to east movement through the forrest steppe leaves the steppes themselves as a linguistic blank in the 3rd millenium.  What on earth was going on there and what languages were they speaking while the west to east forrest steppe movement was spawning most of the later saetem language branches according to Anthony.  I find that extremely odd and that again make me think that the actual steppes is suddenly not looking like the womb of language branches in a simple ex-orient-lux kind of way.  That makes me extremely suspicious.  

I actually find Anthony's attribution of cultures to those saetem language branches very convincing.  I also think there R1a association or domination of this group of cultures seems likely.  Indeed it is interesting on this map when you consider that the proposed language groups in this cultural chain are today (in there present locations rather than just where they were in the 3rd millenium BC) very R1a associated.  

 However, it still leaves the steppes themselves in this period as a mystery zone of late steppes groups to whom he hasnt attributed any language.  Very very odd.  In Anthonys (fairly convincing) model, most if not all  the identifiable saetem IE languages branches originate in a single west to east movement. I also (I may be wrong here) believe that all pre-2000BC (even pre-1000BC?) ancient R1a DNA to date is either linked to this chain of cultures or its spin offs OR to corded ware.  

I would conclude that in Anthony's own model it cannot be ruled out that the spread of R1a actually originated at the farmer-nomad interaction zone at the western edge of the steppes and followed the forest steppe east.  Anthony himself emphasises the corded ware roots of this chain of cultures.  It is odd that this has not been much picked up on in these discussions.  

One other observation is that this attribution of a forest steppe west to east movement as the origin of the saetem branches does leave me wondering about the centum group and also the vast area of the true steppe which Anthony has not directly linked to any language branches.  If the main saetem branches are the result of a west-east forest steppe movement commencing at the farmer-nomad contact zone (which side we can argue that another time) then what about the centum group who broke off earlier?  Did they head west at a slightly earlier time from the same basic area as the west-east saetem associated chain of cultures moved from?  Seems a reasonable hypothesis.  Again, what was the main massive culture that spread west in this period-corded ware.  A lot of this keeps coming back to corded ware as a common denomenator in both the spread east of most of the saetem branches as per anthony and the spread west too.  its hardly new for corded ware to be pointed out as being in the right time and place and a really huge culture when considering the IE spread but I didnt really realise that Anthony's own book kind of makes corded ware and its derivatives a sort of common denomenator.  


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 17, 2012, 10:06:40 PM
....
I find it rather amazing that Anthony himself emphasises the corded ware roots of a chain of cultures which he derives from a contact zone on the steppes/farmer divide area (pretty close to the old Cuc-Tryp area).  He then describes this chain as moving in a roughly west to east direction through the forest steppes, basically avoiding the actual steppes.  ....
What pages is this on? It's been a while, but I'll reread those portions.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: MHammers on October 17, 2012, 11:30:22 PM
Are you thinking the R1a's were among the farming groups like Cucuteni-Tripoyle before Corded-Ware?  The interaction zone is in the same general area.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Jean M on October 18, 2012, 05:41:03 AM
Responding here to a post on another thread, as Alan has started this new thread to avoid hijacking the other.

So you are saying all of these people who have been studying this from many angles for generations have had some sort of collective logic bypass and cant see how clear cut and self evident it is?    

No. Mallory can see the Big Picture perfectly well and always could. Mallory is a giant intellect and does not need me to point out logic. For the proof of that picture (i.e.  what the language tells us about the culture) see Mallory and Adams, The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World (2006). This is nothing new. The book just brings together a lot of material in handy compilation.

The details of routes and degree of actual migration within Europe were uncertain when Mallory published In Search of the Indo-Europeans (1989) and argument has continued ever since over Bell Beaker and Corded Ware, partly because of entrenched anti-migrationism.  However the involvement of BB and CW in some way in the spread of the language was assumed within the "kurgan" theory from the 1950s. Nothing new. Gimbutas thought IE had spread into CW carried by elites. What is new today is the realisation that it was spread mainly via mass migration.

The only people to have a logic bypass were those who decided that the arguments over BB and CW somehow invalided the steppe homeland, despite the clear evidence of flow eastwards from the steppe, and up the Danube, and linguistic evidence pinpointing PIE. As I have already said to you, we cannot have two different homelands for the European and Asian languages, because of chronology. Asian IE languages include one of the earliest and some of the latest branches of IE. Ditto the western. I really do not wish to hurt anyone's feelings. But the steppe homeland debate was over a long time ago for those who could see the logic.

Recent publications, archaeological and genetic, get us a long way to sorting out the issues with BB and CW. But as I say, that wasn't really necessary in order to get the logic of the Big Picture.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Jean M on October 18, 2012, 05:54:30 AM
I think Anthony, like Mallory gives a pretty convincing model for the eastern half of the story.  Neither really had much of a go at explaining the western half of the story other than dabbling in Corded Ware although Anthony does not portray Corded Ware as a steppes migration and sees it all about nested clientship etc.

That is in the tradition stemming from Gimbutas, based on the fact that (unlike with BB) the CW people looked very much like the Mesolithic types from North Europe. So an explanation for the spread of IE north was sought by Gimbutas in "elite domination". The cultural spread northwards of elements of the Yamnaya package, such as single graves and cord-impressed pottery, was obvious. What was not obvious was that this was spread by mass migration and population replacement.

Now, with the benefit of genetics, we have a very different picture emerging.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Jean M on October 18, 2012, 06:00:36 AM
And repeating here what I said on the other thread.

Quote
I am not saying this means R1a entered the steppes and adjacent via the eastern extension of Corded Ware but can it be ruled out?  

Yes it can. I have already pointed out that Afanasievo was a colony from the Repin culture at the east end of the steppe that pre-dated Corded Ware by over 700 years. From Afanasievo people entered the Tarim Basin. We have their mummies. They were R1a1a.

Corded Ware springs from Yamnaya, not the other way around. The dates are clear. Yamnaya 3,300 BC. Corded Ware 2750 BC. The direction of influence is clear.  It really doesn't matter two hoots if Corded Ware contributed to Sintashta. The origin point was Yamnaya.  


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: IALEM on October 18, 2012, 06:46:15 AM
I think Anthony, like Mallory gives a pretty convincing model for the eastern half of the story.  Neither really had much of a go at explaining the western half of the story other than dabbling in Corded Ware although Anthony does not portray Corded Ware as a steppes migration and sees it all about nested clientship etc.

That is in the tradition stemming from Gimbutas, based on the fact that (unlike with BB) the CW people looked very much like the Mesolithic types from North Europe. So an explanation for the spread of IE north was sought in "elite domination". The cultural spread northwards of elements of the Yamnaya package, such as single graves and cord-impressed pottery, was obvious. What was not obvious was that this was spread by mass migration and population replacement.

Now, with the benefit of genetics, we have a very different picture emerging.
I don´t know about Anthony, as I haven´t read that book, but Mallory does not explain spread of IE because of some "Elite domination", but through the well proven theory of Fredrick Barth that apparently no one in this forum knows about.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Jean M on October 18, 2012, 07:49:54 AM
@ IALEM

Very true. However I don't agree with him. It seemed to be a generalisation from one idiosyncratic case. It does not reflect the common processes of language adoption and replacement as they are understood by modern linguists from countless well-studied examples in our own time. It flies in the face of common sense to imagine that majorities habitually adopted minority languages. That may occur under certain unusual circumstances. The general rule is the reverse. I cite modern linguists on this.

Frankly Mallory, Anthony and other IE specialists were severely handicapped in the decades of anti-migrationism in the explanations that they could use for the spread of IE without being instantly dismissed by the followers of immobilism. We are not so restricted by the iron bars of archaeological orthodoxy in this matter.  



Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Jean M on October 18, 2012, 08:41:33 AM
However, it still leaves the steppes themselves in this period as a mystery zone of late steppes groups to whom he hasn't attributed any language.  

Anthony pins PIE to the European steppe c. 4000 BC. We can deduce that it started at the east end of that region, close to the deduced home of Proto-Uralic. Groups broke away from that core prior to the invention  of the wheel c. 3500 BC (Anatolian) and very close to that point (Tocharian). This is many centuries before CW. Anthony scarcely needs to keep repeating every couple of pages throughout his text that PIE speakers were on the steppe. CW has nothing to do with the genesis of PIE.

Nor is CW the key to the Satem isogloss, which did not affect Germanic, showing that it did not spread with CW. R1a1a should not be confused with the isogloss.

The isogloss occurred (as far as we know) only in the dialect continuum remaining in contact from roughly the Middle Dnieper to Andronovo via the European steppe c. 2500-2000 BC. To the best of our limited knowledge, the Cimmerians spoke an Iranian language. Proof is tricky, as they are long gone. A few of their personal names were noted in records of the civilizations they attacked. I argue that the Cimmerians fleeing up the Danube explain the Iranian language contact with Proto-Celtic.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: IALEM on October 18, 2012, 10:11:05 AM
@ IALEM

Very true. However I don't agree with him. It seemed to be a generalisation from one idiosyncratic case. It does not reflect the common processes of language adoption and replacement as they are understood by modern linguists from countless well-studied examples in our own time. It flies in the face of common sense to imagine that majorities habitually adopted minority languages. That may occur under certain unusual circumstances. The general rule is the reverse. I cite modern linguists on this.

Frankly Mallory, Anthony and other IE specialists were severely handicapped in the decades of anti-migrationism in the explanations that they could use for the spread of IE without being instantly dismissed by the followers of immobilism. We are not so restricted by the iron bars of archaeological orthodoxy in this matter.  


I understand then that you know the work of Fredrick Barth? Because if you have read it you will recall that it is a question of numbers, but of social structure, and it has been proved right not just in the case of Pashtum but in many historical examples.
As I see it thinking that any shift in language is basically the product of a change in population is a very akward explanation, as you say, it flies in the face of common sense.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Jean M on October 18, 2012, 10:26:36 AM
I understand then that you know the work of Fredrick Barth? Because if you have read it you will recall that it is a question of numbers, but of social structure, and it has been proved right not just in the case of Pashtum but in many historical examples.

The argument as I recall is that a culture with a more flexible social structure, which can absorb outsiders more easily, and present opportunities therefore to incomers, will have an expanding language, since the incomers will shift to the language of the majority within the said culture. Nothing wrong with that basic idea. The problem lies in trying to twist this into an explanation for language spreading over thousands of miles with only minimal migration, or some idea that languages most commonly spread from minority to majority populations.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Jean M on October 18, 2012, 10:30:05 AM
Here's what I say:

Quote
Two factors loom large in language replacement: time and numbers. The longer two languages are in contact, the more time there is for the speakers of one or both groups to become bilingual. If one of the two groups is much larger than the other, the members of the smaller group are more likely to become bilingual, which is the most common route to the death of the minor language. One reason that the major language predominates is that its speakers are likely to belong to the dominant culture, socially and economically, making  a third factor in language replacement.1 More complex societies tend to engulf less complex groups. Political complexity is a good predictor of the size of the territory of a language.2

  • 1. S.G. Thomason,  Language Contact: An introduction (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press 2001), p. 66 and chapter 9.
  • 2. T.E. Currie, and R. Mace,  Political complexity predicts the spread of ethnolinguistic groups, PNAS, vol. 106, no. 18 (2009), 7339–7344.

(Of course I say a lot more than that, but I'm wary of quoting too much right now.)
 


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: IALEM on October 18, 2012, 12:59:36 PM
It is not like that. The number of people speaking one or another language is not the relevant factor, it is the social structure the relevant factor. People becomes bilingual because one of the languages is used in a particular context, for example in a hierarchical structure that encourage people to learn it because the opportunities for social promotion that offers. Bilinguisme, by the way, is a very common situation in history before the advent of the modern national state.
Languages become extinct when there is no longer a social structure that supports the use of that language. A shift in language can occur in a society just by social change, without requiring any large replacement of population.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Jean M on October 18, 2012, 01:33:29 PM
@ IALEM

Of course social structure comes into the story, but social structure is related to economic and political structure, as I was hinting by snipping that bit out of my text. Numbers are also related to social structure. For example:

Case 1: a man from language A community moves permanently to language B community a long way away on his own. This is at a period with no telephones or radio or other mass communications. He has no way to talk to people of his mother tongue. He has no way to communicate to the people around him except by learning their language. This is the extreme example of how language shift takes place. The incentive is overwhelming. The opportunity to pass on the mother-tongue is so limited, it is likely to die in one generation.

Case 2: a family from language A community moves to language B community looking for opportunities. Let us say Italians move to New York in 1800. They find other Italians there. The incentive to learn English is strong, but they are most likely to become bilingual. They retain a mother-tongue community around them. They can marry within that community, and have a family that is Italian-speaking at home.  The possibility to return to Italy remains. The mother-tongue could be retained over several generations.



Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 18, 2012, 01:57:13 PM
However, it still leaves the steppes themselves in this period as a mystery zone of late steppes groups to whom he hasn't attributed any language.  

Anthony pins PIE to the European steppe c. 4000 BC. We can deduce that it started at the east end of that region, close to the deduced home of Proto-Uralic. Groups broke away from that core prior to the invention  of the wheel c. 3500 BC (Anatolian) and very close to that point (Tocharian). This is many centuries before CW. Anthony scarcely needs to keep repeating every couple of pages throughout his text that PIE speakers were on the steppe. CW has nothing to do with the genesis of PIE.

Nor is CW the key to the Satem isogloss, which did not affect Germanic, showing that it did not spread with CW. R1a1a should not be confused with the isogloss.

The isogloss occurred (as far as we know) only in the dialect continuum remaining in contact from roughly the Middle Dnieper to Andronovo via the European steppe c. 2500-2000 BC.
To the best of our limited knowledge, the Cimmerians spoke an Iranian language. Proof is tricky, as they are long gone. A few of their personal names were noted in records of the civilizations they attacked. I argue that the Cimmerians fleeing up the Danube explain the Iranian language contact with Proto-Celtic.

I agree with that.  That chain looks the most likely source of spread of that change.  Not surprising really as they not only seemed to be derived from each other to some degree but did kind of form a geographical/temporal chain


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 18, 2012, 02:10:07 PM
While taking on board all the comments above, it still remains that the Saetem language blocks are all (I think) derived from the chain of cultures from what Anthony calls the mixing zone or something like that (on the steppe-farmer western border) that had corded ware roots (as Anthony and other big guns make clear) and which essentially was a forrest steppe spread.  Now what I think we can all agree on is that that makes the nature and origin of Corded Ware crucial.  Whatever its roots (and there certainly is not anything like agreement on this) the thing that just hit me like a ton of bricks is that the saetem group are a west to east spread of cultures with strong corded ware roots and who followed more the forest steppe than the steppes.  That makes the whole saetem group and history of R1a hang on what the nature of corded ware was.  OK some will emphasis steppe influences and explain this as a kind of reflux back east of transformed steppe peoples in a corded ware guise.  However, this totally depends on the view that corded ware really is strongly steppe migration based in origin.  That has not as yet become gospel and as its so important to the steppe nomad migration model of IE I really would like to see more experts in the corded ware field actually state this.  However, regardless, there is no doubt from Anthony's own words that the cultures he attributes as likely ancestral to Slavic,Baltic, Indic and Iranian had very noriceable corded ware roots and these are the very language families that R1a is most closely tied to.  I am not taking an R1a came into the steppes from Corded Ware stance but I see absolutely nothing to rule it out. 


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 18, 2012, 02:13:28 PM
I have got to say that I am a skeptic that we can be sure that Uralic-PIE contacts must imply an eastern source for PIE in Yamnaya.  If Uralic was the language of some forest steppe dwellers then (taking a bit of an evironmental determinist angle) then is it not possible that the same Uralic languages could have been in the western forrest steppe which after all ran north of the steppes for their entire length. 


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Jean M on October 18, 2012, 02:41:52 PM
Alan - If you want to understand the reasoning behind the Uralic homeland, you'd need to do some reading. I'm not sure that I can sum up in a forum post. Essentially Proto-Uralic appears to have arrived in the Volga/Ural area from Siberia after a trek from the Altai. (To judge from linguistic connections with more eastern languages.) It seems to have arrived at around the time that PIE was developing and borrowed words from it. A group split away westwards to form Proto-Finnic. A group split eastwards to form Samoyedic. That left the rump to form Ugric. Proto-Ugric speakers came in contact with Iranian-speaking nomads some time before 500 BC and borrowed from them the words for 'horse', 'saddle' and 'stirrup'. As the ancestors of the Magyar emerge into history, they seem to have been living on the left bank of the Volga, in what was later called Magna Hungaria.

Jaska will probably turn up and explain better.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 18, 2012, 03:31:39 PM
I have no conclusions but it is weird the way that this west to east chain of forrest steppe cultures with corded roots is responsible for all the saetem languages.  its not how the general public imagine it.  Later in their final homes those languages do seem to correspond with an band of R1a.  Whatever its roots (be they steppe or just steppe influenced or both), the Corded Ware people even by Anthony's own words have been made the main vector of the creation of Slavic, Baltic, Indic, Iranian in the east and of course pre-Germanic in the west.  Mallory added Celtic to that list too.  Although its hardly new news, the extreme importance of corded ware as a vehicle of spreading IE in both the east and west remains in Anthony's book even though he barely notes this as his main focus is the steppes.  Its actually weird that this has sort of been put into blurred focus because whatever the genesis of corded ware it and cultures with deep corded ware roots seem to have been responsible for the origins of a heck of a lot of branches of IE in both Mallory and Anthony's books.  I am not making any judgement here on the origins of corded ware but its clear that its importance in the spread of IE east and west remains highly likely (whether or not it is steppe originated).  Clearly corded ware doesnt provide a common link for all languages.  It does not explain SE European IE languages.  However, it was around at the right time and place to be a vector in the spread of many of the branches.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Jaska on October 18, 2012, 07:52:21 PM
Quote from: Alan Trowel Hands
Whatever its roots (and there certainly is not anything like agreement on this) the thing that just hit me like a ton of bricks is that the saetem group are a west to east spread of cultures with strong corded ware roots and who followed more the forest steppe than the steppes.
The Aryan branch is so "steppic" as a branch can be. Armenian seems to have been a steppe language too, following Greek to Balkan and then passed it to Anatolia. Corded Ware Culture can hardly have anything to do with these languages. Balto-Slavic is seen as a Northwest Indo-European (<-- Corded Ware) branch with later satem-infection from Aryan. In Aryan, RUKI-rule occurred before the satemization (Kobayashi 2004), in Balto-Slavic the order was the opposite (Matasović 2005), but Northwest Indo-European seems to have remained very archaic to the 2nd millennium BC, while these changes occurred in Aryan already at the 3rd millennium BC. Also in Armenian the satemization has to be old.

So, the oldest satem-languages were in the steppe. The Corded Ware Culture was not born there, but seemingly in the north, around the Middle Dnieper region with some steppe influence.

Quote from: Alan Trowel Hands
I have got to say that I am a skeptic that we can be sure that Uralic-PIE contacts must imply an eastern source for PIE in Yamnaya.  If Uralic was the language of some forest steppe dwellers then (taking a bit of an evironmental determinist angle) then is it not possible that the same Uralic languages could have been in the western forrest steppe which after all ran north of the steppes for their entire length.
The evidence is:

1. Pre-Proto-Uralic seems to have been spoken in Siberia: http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust264/sust264_hakkinenj.pdf

2. Proto-Uralic can be located around Volga-Kama fork based on the words related to eastern coniferous trees and bronze metallurgy, and the deepest taxonomic gap: http://www.sgr.fi/susa/92/hakkinen.pdf . This area also witnesses the meeting of two contemporaneous intrusive cultures at the late 3rd millennium BC: Corded Ware Fatyanovo-Balanovo from the west, and the steppe-originating Abashevo from the south. This situation is the best archaeological match for the contemporaneous loanword layers from both Northwest Indo-European and Proto-Aryan to Proto-Uralic. http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/UralicEvidence.pdf

3. Proto-Uralic cannot be located in the more western areas, like in the Upper Volga region, because there were other languages, which have left substrate loanwords with un-Uralic phonotactics in the Finno-Permic languages (see the second link, unfortunately so far only in Finnish, until my dissertation is finished during the next year).


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: IALEM on October 19, 2012, 01:13:19 AM
@ IALEM

Of course social structure comes into the story, but social structure is related to economic and political structure, as I was hinting by snipping that bit out of my text. Numbers are also related to social structure. For example:

Case 1: a man from language A community moves permanently to language B community a long way away on his own. This is at a period with no telephones or radio or other mass communications. He has no way to talk to people of his mother tongue. He has no way to communicate to the people around him except by learning their language. This is the extreme example of how language shift takes place. The incentive is overwhelming. The opportunity to pass on the mother-tongue is so limited, it is likely to die in one generation.

Case 2: a family from language A community moves to language B community looking for opportunities. Let us say Italians move to New York in 1800. They find other Italians there. The incentive to learn English is strong, but they are most likely to become bilingual. They retain a mother-tongue community around them. They can marry within that community, and have a family that is Italian-speaking at home.  The possibility to return to Italy remains. The mother-tongue could be retained over several generations.


Those are examples of individuals or group of individuals on one side and a complete society on the other side interacting, but we are discussing the shifting of languages by a society interacting with another society.
 Individuals isolated from their own society don´t have the complete record of his own language and lack the support of a social structure to redevelope it.

Social structural change conducting to a shifting in language can only happen when the society A as a complete organization is capable of influence society B, but that doesn´t mean that the members of society A phisically replace those of society B or that they outnumber them, it simply means that society A is more hierarchically structured, promoting an imitative change in society B.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Jean M on October 19, 2012, 05:40:15 AM
Those are examples of individuals or group of individuals on one side and a complete society on the other side interacting, but we are discussing the shifting of languages by a society interacting with another society.

I am talking about language shift and the reasons for it. I am not confining myself to talking about one nation interacting with another nation. That is not the situation that occurs generally when a language moves right across an entire continent in prehistory.

We all know that one scenario for such a spread is conquest and incorporation into an empire. That is familiar from the case of Latin. Economics and politics dominate this case. You can frame it in terms of one society (Roman) interacting with all the tribes they conquered. But in fact these tribes were a patchwork of different communities, speaking different languages. The overall picture is of a dominant culture, politically and economically, swallowing up smaller, less politically complex groups. 

But what happened to tribe A could be very different from what happened to tribe B. Caesar sold off certain entire tribes in Gaul as slaves. So let's say that happened to tribe A. As slaves they could be scattered across the empire, torn from their own society and without the support of a language community of their own. The likelihood would be the adoption of Latin within one generation. Let's say tribe B has more favoured status with Rome - a client kingdom. While its chiefs might find their sons being educated in Rome and coming back bilingual, the rest of the tribe could carry on communicating in their mother tongue. The language would have a better chance of survival, if Roman rule did not last too long. It is really a case of time and numbers. :)


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Jean M on October 19, 2012, 06:03:19 AM
Balto-Slavic is seen as a Northwest Indo-European (<-- Corded Ware) branch with later satem-infection from Aryan.

As I understand it neither Baltic nor Slavic actually spread with Corded Ware. It is more a question of a "Northwest Indo-European" dialect spreading with Corded Ware, to be later overlain in large areas by waves from the Middle Dnieper (and from Jutland). Fatyanovo (3200 BC-2300 BC), has been linked with Proto-Baltic. The spread into the the region now Baltic-speaking came later. As for Slavic - that burst out in all directions in the early Middle Ages, long after a large chunk of former CW territory had become Germanic. So there is a pattern of one IE dialect/language washing over another. Andersen 2003 discusses this.  

I don't know how you feel about the 'Old European Hydronymy', but it seems to me possible that "Northwest Indo-European" could explain some of this.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 19, 2012, 07:11:38 AM
I dont want to get into an arguement about the origins of Corded Ware as there is clearly some disagreement and even questioning of some of the earliest dates now.  I also dont want to talk about the whole steppes vs farmers IE thing .  All I want to observe is that the Mallory-Anthony models do (as I posted above) place the origins of Slavixc, Baltic, Indic and Iranian in a sequence of cultural fissions that head west to east through the forrest steppe zone and this seems to capture both the majority if not all saetem languages but also the IE branches most associated with R1a.  

The thing that interests me in this is that this was relatively late c. 2800BC onwards and in a west to east direction that for a huge distance actually avoided the true steppes.  The origin point of set off of this chain of eastward moving cultures is on the steppe-farming interaction zone (actually on the farming side of the zone) near the Carpathians.  I feel this zone is very important in the hybriding that led to steppe and farmer elements forming new cultures like Corded Ware who then went on to be responsible for a surprisingly massive amount of the spreading of the IE language branches according to Anthony.  Corded Ware is traditionally said to be oldest in southern Poland (Carpathians) which is pretty close to Anthony's crucial melting pot zone.  The old C-Tryp area is also in this zone.  Globular Amphorae was in this zone too.  

It seems to me that a great period of expansion of IE took place c. 3000BC and a lot of it had some sort of root in the corded ware culture.  So, whatever we think, if Anthony is even partly correct then what Corded Ware was is crucial to know.  Anthony himself doesnt place a lot of emphasis on heavy migration from the steppes.  Other evidence might say he is underplaying it.  Who knows?  Its not clear but its clearly very important because corded ware and its eastern derivatives seem to have been the main factor in the formation of most of the early IE language family branches (the only certain exceptions being the languages of SE Europe and their offshoots).  I think the fact that Anthony has directly or indirectly through a cultural chain linked so many of the IE branches to corded ware has been somewhat overlooked because most people tend to look at his book more in terms of the PIE homeland question.  

However, the contribution of corded ware to the spread of IE in terms of the important descendant branches was staggering and that is all in Anthony's own book.  This also has implications that Anthony has not explored because he was not particularly interested in the DNA side of things.  Anthony himself sees Corded Ware as a steppes-influenced but essentially of native north/central European roots.  He then links 5 of the major branches to either Corded Ware or the corded ware descended eastern cultural chain.  He never actually states this but if you put those two aspect together he is essentially saying that Baltic, Slavic, Indic, Iranian and NW IE were spread by non-steppe steppe-influenced central/north European natives.  That is basically what his model adds up to if you follow the logic.  That group is clearly the geographical- linguistic block which is strongly associated with R1a (at least the eastward thrust).  

So, in short you could say his model would make R1a a native central/north European group who have been Kurganised to some degree but were not steppe peoples.  I am not saying he is right or wrong.  All I am saying is that is what his model amounts to if you follow it through and do not tweak it.  He isnt placing the origin of PIE with corded ware but he is implying at least that corded ware, a non-steppe people in his view, was the main vehicle for spreading a large number of the IE family branches both east and west.  So, again following his logic the R1a homeland would be something like the Carpathians.  This is all close to the melting pot zone that Anthony notes in east-central Europe around the Carpathians.  Who lived there before corded ware?  Well its complex but all the groups would broadly be thought of as Old European groups.    


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Jean M on October 19, 2012, 08:21:07 AM
I agree entirely that CW is the result of steppe influences filtering through the Late Cucuteni settlements. I have been saying this all along, following Anthony. It is not news.

However Anthony is not "essentially saying that Baltic, Slavic, Indic, Iranian and NW IE were spread by non-steppe steppe-influenced central/north European natives." That is lunatic fringe stuff with which I don't imagine that Anthony would wish to be tarred. I can't speak for him of course, but I certainly don't see him as associated with or supporting in any way the European Aryan "Hitler was right" Manic Front. He would scarcely command the respect in the field that he has if he were so associated.

The people of the west-east movement into Sintashta had nothing to do with central/north Europe. CW spread into Central and North Europe, not out of it. The west-east movement you mention was just part of the Yamnaya/Cucuteni melting pot that spilled over east of the Urals. From there it became the Asian steppe cultures of Sintashta, expanding into Andronovo. These people did not, repeat not, come from North Europe. Anthony says where they came from - the Yamnaya/Cucuteni melting pot. That is where CW began.

At the same time CW was moving north. It is not earliest in Poland. Essentially it springs from Yamnaya moving northwards. (Sigh)

Alan - you are coming into this late. These arguments have been raging for years. They have been very ugly at times. I'm bored rigid with clash after clash on this topic. I can't give any more time to it. I'm trying to write a report. Sorry.  

I will not be posting here again.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Jaska on October 19, 2012, 09:20:06 AM
Alan, I haven't seen Anthony or anybody else derive the Aryan branch from the Corded Ware Culture. Aryan branch has always been located in the steppe. Please present a direct quote if you still claim this.


Quote from: Jean M
As I understand it neither Baltic nor Slavic actually spread with Corded Ware. It is more a question of a "Northwest Indo-European" dialect spreading with Corded Ware, to be later overlain in large areas by waves from the Middle Dnieper (and from Jutland).
It looks like I meant this... Unless you mean that Balto-Slavic is not a descendant of Northwest Indo-European.

Quote from: Jean M
Fatyanovo (3200 BC-2300 BC), has been linked with Proto-Baltic. The spread into the the region now Baltic-speaking came later. As for Slavic - that burst out in all directions in the early Middle Ages, long after a large chunk of former CW territory had become Germanic. So there is a pattern of one IE dialect/language washing over another. Andersen 2003 discusses this.
Yes, that is a recurring phenomenon.
Proto-Baltic is too young a stage to be connected with Fatyanovo, say the linguists. Archaeologists have still presented views like that, but we have Proto-Baltic loanwords in Middle Proto-Finnic at the 1st millennium BC; Proto-Baltic loanwords are contemporaneous with Palaeo-Germanic and Early Proto-Germanic loanwords. Proto-Balto-Slavic loanwords are dated at the 2nd millennium BC.

Quote from: Jean M
I don't know how you feel about the 'Old European Hydronymy', but it seems to me possible that "Northwest Indo-European" could explain some of this.
Everything is possible – that hydronymy layer seems to be open for many interpretations...


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 19, 2012, 12:42:36 PM
I agree entirely that CW is the result of steppe influences filtering through the Late Cucuteni settlements. I have been saying this all along, following Anthony. It is not news.

However Anthony is not "essentially saying that Baltic, Slavic, Indic, Iranian and NW IE were spread by non-steppe steppe-influenced central/north European natives." That is lunatic fringe stuff with which I don't imagine that Anthony would wish to be tarred. I can't speak for him of course, but I certainly don't see him as associated with or supporting in any way the European Aryan "Hitler was right" Manic Front. He would scarcely command the respect in the field that he has if he were so associated.

The people of the west-east movement into Sintashta had nothing to do with central/north Europe. CW spread into Central and North Europe, not out of it. The west-east movement you mention was just part of the Yamnaya/Cucuteni melting pot that spilled over east of the Urals. From there it became the Asian steppe cultures of Sintashta, expanding into Andronovo. These people did not, repeat not, come from North Europe. Anthony says where they came from - the Yamnaya/Cucuteni melting pot. That is where CW began.

At the same time CW was moving north. It is not earliest in Poland. Essentially it springs from Yamnaya moving northwards. (Sigh)

Alan - you are coming into this late. These arguments have been raging for years. They have been very ugly at times. I'm bored rigid with clash after clash on this topic. I can't give any more time to it. I'm trying to write a report. Sorry.  

I will not be posting here again.

 fair enough you have your views and you have set them out and have some interesting ideas and now need to finish writing them up formally.  I look forward to reading getting a copy.  However, there are many other views and this is a topic which will probably be being debated for a long while yet.  So there is such thing as late in the game unless you are applying your own timetable universally.  The game is already many generations old and even I have been interested in it for over a quarter of a century.   The game is not just going to be done and dusted by anyones timescale.  People enjoy debating this and will go on doing so at their own pace until it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt.  We are not at that stage yet.  We may be by the end of the decade if ancient DNA testing mushrooms but its not reached the stage where this issue is solved so the debate will go on.  Where there is doubt there will always be debate.

Regarding your other points I totally agree that CW didnt originate in northern Europe. Southern Poland was where the earliest dates come from and that has been known for years.  Thats pretty well near the Carpathians not a million miles from in the farmers-Kurgan melting pot zone of Anthony.  I wouldnt be surprised if it is to the south of that even closer to the melting pot zone near the west end of the steppes.   I dont think I disagree with any of that.  Eastern influences or people (or a bit of both) did move west in the formation of Corded Ware.  However that is another issue and does not detract from and is not incompatible with the fact that it then spread both east (and north) and west and that Anthony has named a chain of Corded Ware rooted cultural fissions heading from the melting pot area eastwards as formative in the roots of Baltic, Indic, Iranian, Slavic etc.  Pointing that out is not saying that corded ware is not utimately steppe derived.  It may well be.  All I am saying is proving it is steppe derived and gaining consensus on that is vital for the steppes model because its clear that a heck of a lot of languages are attributed to corded ware and chain of derived fission cultures heading east.  Only ancient DNA in considerable quantity across many cultures is going to actually prove beyond reasonable doubt.      


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: T101 on October 19, 2012, 01:00:10 PM
@Alan

The Corded Ware Culture (R1a-Z283) represents the first major wave of R1a into Central and Northern Europe and is almost certainly derived from Yamnaya (R1a-Z645). The Indo-Iranians (Aryans) on the other hand are derived from the Sintashta Culture (by way of Abashevo) and are best represented by R1a-Z93. Northern Europe from a genetics viewpoint had nothing to do with the Central Eurasian cultures down to the Andronovo Horizon. There were however (in all likelyhood) some hunter-gatherer bands of R1a (M417, M17) in Northwestern Europe prior to the arrival of Corded Ware wandering around. But the bulk of modern R1a in Europe and Asia (Z284, Z280, M458, L342 etc) all can trace their roots back to the Yamnaya Horizon not Northern Europe.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Jean M on October 19, 2012, 01:13:02 PM
fair enough you have your views and you have set them out and have some interesting ideas and now need to finish writing them up formally.       

I said I wouldn't post here again, but I see that I should clarify. I am not writing my book currently. It is written. Text has been with the publisher since the end of September. The illustrators are at work.

I am writing a building history report. A lot of things got put on hold for the book, which I now need to catch up on. Naturally my absence from this forum will not prevent the swirl of debate. It might even encourage it. I get the feeling that the way I go round stamping on romance is a bit of a damper at times. Have fun! :)  


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 19, 2012, 01:18:53 PM
@Alan

The Corded Ware Culture (R1a-Z283) represents the first major wave of R1a into Central and Northern Europe and is almost certainly derived from Yamnaya (R1a-Z645). The Indo-Iranians (Aryans) on the other hand are derived from the Sintashta Culture (by way of Abashevo) and are best represented by R1a-Z93. Northern Europe from a genetics viewpoint had nothing to do with the Central Eurasian cultures down to the Andronovo Horizon. There were however (in all likelyhood) some hunter-gatherer bands of R1a (M417, M17) in Northwestern Europe prior to the arrival of Corded Ware wandering around. But the bulk of modern R1a in Europe and Asia (Z284, Z280, M458, L342 etc) all can trace their roots back to the Yamnaya Horizon not Northern Europe.

All we know is that R1a was present in a bunch of later steppe cultures associated with IE language branches.  However, read Anthony and he states that this group of languages is associated with a chain of cultures that headed east from almost west of the steppes and who had eastern corded ware roots.  That means IMO that we cannot rule out any of those cultures as having R1a as a result of their corded ware origins.  OK corded ware and R1a itself may have steppes roots but seeing it as a steppes migration is not accepted orthodoxy at present and there is no clinching evidence which means it simply has to be true.  In balance there is some reasonably negative evidence that suggests R1a may have moved from the steppes but there is a massive hole in the tiny sample of ancient DNA and it is far from proven.  All that is needed now is a systematic campaign of ancient yDNA testing across eastern European and neighbouring cultures so we have a handful or so for each culture and we can have more confidence.  I think now its a matter of ancient DNA.  Nothing else is going to resolve this issue.  The current sample is far too patchy and small to conclude much.  


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: razyn on October 19, 2012, 01:37:16 PM
I think now its a matter of ancient DNA.  Nothing else is going to resolve this issue.

I don't think it's going to resolve yours unless the ancient DNA is from the spit on the rim of an ancient piece of pottery.  But even that may happen.

Anyway, I believe T101 is one of our Russian colleagues from the MolGen site, and I'm glad to see him here.  He has just posted an interesting (but hard to interpret) graphic on the little-used R1a forum here.  Maybe that group will come to life -- or its few Anglo-American participants can migrate to MolGen, where R1a has been active (in English) for months.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: IALEM on October 19, 2012, 02:38:16 PM
Those are examples of individuals or group of individuals on one side and a complete society on the other side interacting, but we are discussing the shifting of languages by a society interacting with another society.

I am talking about language shift and the reasons for it. I am not confining myself to talking about one nation interacting with another nation. That is not the situation that occurs generally when a language moves right across an entire continent in prehistory.

I don think you are right about that, I would say that, on the contrary, that is what occurs generally. In fact, I find very difficult to explain how a language shift can happen in a given population that remains in place, unlike your examples, that would be the most usual situation.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 19, 2012, 04:30:04 PM
fair enough you have your views and you have set them out and have some interesting ideas and now need to finish writing them up formally.       

I said I wouldn't post here again, but I see that I should clarify. I am not writing my book currently. It is written. Text has been with the publisher since the end of September. The illustrators are at work.

I am writing a building history report. A lot of things got put on hold for the book, which I now need to catch up on. Naturally my absence from this forum will not prevent the swirl of debate. It might even encourage it. I get the feeling that the way I go round stamping on romance is a bit of a damper at times. Have fun! :)  

Congratulations! We are proud of you and can't wait to see the finished product.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: princenuadha on October 20, 2012, 02:46:09 AM
Quote from: alan trowel hands
the thing that just hit me like a ton of bricks is that the saetem group are a west to east spread of cultures with strong corded ware roots and who followed more the forest steppe than the steppes. That makes the whole saetem group and history of R1a hang on what the nature of corded ware was.

I think you could give me a little credit or reference : )
http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10990.425

I began to think of an r1a1a origin in eastern Central Europe when I saw the cranial map of mesolithic-neolithic-metal age west eurasians. That map showed a dichotomy in the CW, with the German-Polish CW being more neolithic like. So how much yamnaya demic input actually went into the GPCW?!? Obviously r1a1a was in the GPCW and it could have spread eastwards from there, along with linguist influence.

But when you suggested that the D-D gave r1b to C-T, I realized that r1b could fill the steppes largely devoid of r1a1a. An awesome bonus is that it would explain the dominance of r1b in the west with a centum connection in the east, ie early migrations from steppes. 


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: princenuadha on October 20, 2012, 02:57:51 AM
Quote from: Jean M
I am writing a building history report.

What exactly is this?

Quote from: Jean M
I get the feeling that the way I go round stamping on romance is a bit of a damper at times. Have fun! :)


Eeeek, that sounds permanent. I hope not. Actually, your presence allows me the freedom to test out ideas... But perhaps you don't like having explain the same things.

Hope you at least check in once in a while and looking foreword to your book!


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 20, 2012, 07:04:35 AM
Quote from: alan trowel hands
the thing that just hit me like a ton of bricks is that the saetem group are a west to east spread of cultures with strong corded ware roots and who followed more the forest steppe than the steppes. That makes the whole saetem group and history of R1a hang on what the nature of corded ware was.

I think you could give me a little credit or reference : )
http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10990.425

I began to think of an r1a1a origin in eastern Central Europe when I saw the cranial map of mesolithic-neolithic-metal age west eurasians. That map showed a dichotomy in the CW, with the German-Polish CW being more neolithic like. So how much yamnaya demic input actually went into the GPCW?!? Obviously r1a1a was in the GPCW and it could have spread eastwards from there, along with linguist influence.

But when you suggested that the D-D gave r1b to C-T, I realized that r1b could fill the steppes largely devoid of r1a1a. An awesome bonus is that it would explain the dominance of r1b in the west with a centum connection in the east, ie early migrations from steppes. 


I think one thing that is pretty clear from all of this is the steppes-farmer contact zone around the Carpathians was incredibly important in the creation of new cultures that blended steppes and other traditions.  In Anthony's own model it was just such groups (in this case corded ware derivatives) that actually in spreading east formed the root of many of the IE branches in an immediate sense (I am not talking about even deeper roots here).   I find it very odd the way so many IE languages have a link to Corded Ware and whatever CW's nature it clearly was the main vector of spread of IE across an enormous swath of Europe and Asia.  Something in the nature of CW allowed it to spread dramatically in a way that pure steppes cultures could not.  The clue is probably in the fact that the spread of cultures with CW elements eastwards followed a different eco-zone from the true steppes  - it cut a swathe though the forrest steppes before passing beyond them and into Asia ultimately.  The transformation involved in the genesis of CW seems to have involved a mixing of TRB and steepe ideas.  The real question is can we say for sure which one the R1a y lineage was derived from.  How many y-lineages (something very different from autosomal DNA) from cultures like TRB or its possible central European middle Neolithic ancestors do we have?  Ridiculously few to conclude anything.

Really, all we need now is the extension of ancient yDNA extraction to give a decent sample of eastern European yDNA across the complex of cultures that occupied that area from the Neolithic to copper age.  That is not going to happen over night but I would hope the obvious possibility of this solving the IE origin problem for once and for all will get some money thrown at it and the answers will start to become clear over the next 5 years. 


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 20, 2012, 07:09:20 AM
talking of R1a I take it people have read the new paper co-authorded by Klyosov that came out this year.  Unfortunately it is not especially wonderful at pinpointing R1a's deep origins.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=21698


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 20, 2012, 08:11:51 AM
Anatolia's paper about R1a states:

We found that the most ancient R1a sub- clades (R1a1-M198− and R1a1a-M198+/M417−) bearers of which currently live in Europe (the present day haplotypes are scattered between England and the Balkans) appeared in Europe at least 7300 ybp, and possibly 9000 ybp.  R1a’s three principal downstream subclades, L664 (North-Western branch), Z93 (South-Eastern branch), and Z283 (Eurasian branch), split from their common European ancestor at about the same time, around 7000 - 6000 ybp. L664 apparently stayed in North-Western Europe; its lineage re- covered and began expanding ~4575 ybp.

I find that summary interesting.  In particular the idea that the earliest branch of R1a is spread from the Balkans across northern Europe well before the Kurgan intrusions.  That strongly suggests to me that R1a was in or in the path of the Neolithic spread when farming spread into Northern Europe.  The main earliest Neolithic culture of northern continental Europe was TRB which is found earliest in south Poland and may have roots Lengyel of east central Europe.  All of this does suggest the possibility that R1a was somewhere in the farming part of eastern Europe by at least c. 5000BC and perhaps 6000BC.     This of course raises the question of when R1a got into the steppes.  It is often assumed that it is a native steppes hunter gatherer clade but is this a safe assumption.  Do we know for sure it wasnt some group from non-steppe eastern Europe who were farming by 5 or 6000BC and only entered the steppes with the spread of farming influences?  I think Anatole's new paper could be interpreted that way. 


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: dodelo on October 20, 2012, 10:08:35 AM
I get the feeling that the way I go round stamping on romance is a bit of a damper at times. Have fun! :)  

  As a newbie I have enjoyed your informative posts . Pointing out errors isn't  "Stamping on romance "  more enlightening than damping .


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: MHammers on October 20, 2012, 11:06:12 AM
Anatolia's paper about R1a states:

We found that the most ancient R1a sub- clades (R1a1-M198− and R1a1a-M198+/M417−) bearers of which currently live in Europe (the present day haplotypes are scattered between England and the Balkans) appeared in Europe at least 7300 ybp, and possibly 9000 ybp.  R1a’s three principal downstream subclades, L664 (North-Western branch), Z93 (South-Eastern branch), and Z283 (Eurasian branch), split from their common European ancestor at about the same time, around 7000 - 6000 ybp. L664 apparently stayed in North-Western Europe; its lineage re- covered and began expanding ~4575 ybp.

I find that summary interesting.  In particular the idea that the earliest branch of R1a is spread from the Balkans across northern Europe well before the Kurgan intrusions.  That strongly suggests to me that R1a was in or in the path of the Neolithic spread when farming spread into Northern Europe.  The main earliest Neolithic culture of northern continental Europe was TRB which is found earliest in south Poland and may have roots Lengyel of east central Europe.  All of this does suggest the possibility that R1a was somewhere in the farming part of eastern Europe by at least c. 5000BC and perhaps 6000BC.     This of course raises the question of when R1a got into the steppes.  It is often assumed that it is a native steppes hunter gatherer clade but is this a safe assumption.  Do we know for sure it wasnt some group from non-steppe eastern Europe who were farming by 5 or 6000BC and only entered the steppes with the spread of farming influences?  I think Anatole's new paper could be interpreted that way.  

In the paper, he has the most upstream branches as M198- and M198+.  M198- hints at a forest-steppe or at least an eastern origin for R1a on Map 1.  M198+ is all central and western European.  If the Balkan neolithic included R1a, it seems like it would be  found with G2a in the aDNA.  Nor has G2a, been found in the east with IE derived peoples so far.  It looks like these hg's entered Europe from different directions.  As usual, we need more samples to get a better reading on it.

I think it is more likely that pre-Old European R1a moved from the south, but arrived near the north Caspian/Volga regions.  From there, they mostly avoided the steppe foragers at this time and moved into the forest-steppe towards NW Europe (L664+).  It might help to see if any of the dna or isotopes from animal remains like sheep, goats, horses, etc. would indicate this route.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: razyn on October 20, 2012, 11:30:16 AM
It might help to see if any of the dna or isotopes from animal remains like sheep, goats, horses, etc. would indicate this route.

I think there was a DNA study a couple of years ago indicating that the most popular edible frogs in France were of Volga origin.  Somebody like Didier or Bernard who read the actual study might know.  I just saw a couple of posts about it on the French part of DNA Forums, and don't have that now to review for a source.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 20, 2012, 12:39:50 PM
Anatolia's paper about R1a states:

We found that the most ancient R1a sub- clades (R1a1-M198− and R1a1a-M198+/M417−) bearers of which currently live in Europe (the present day haplotypes are scattered between England and the Balkans) appeared in Europe at least 7300 ybp, and possibly 9000 ybp.  R1a’s three principal downstream subclades, L664 (North-Western branch), Z93 (South-Eastern branch), and Z283 (Eurasian branch), split from their common European ancestor at about the same time, around 7000 - 6000 ybp. L664 apparently stayed in North-Western Europe; its lineage re- covered and began expanding ~4575 ybp.

I find that summary interesting.  In particular the idea that the earliest branch of R1a is spread from the Balkans across northern Europe well before the Kurgan intrusions.  That strongly suggests to me that R1a was in or in the path of the Neolithic spread when farming spread into Northern Europe.  The main earliest Neolithic culture of northern continental Europe was TRB which is found earliest in south Poland and may have roots Lengyel of east central Europe.  All of this does suggest the possibility that R1a was somewhere in the farming part of eastern Europe by at least c. 5000BC and perhaps 6000BC.     This of course raises the question of when R1a got into the steppes.  It is often assumed that it is a native steppes hunter gatherer clade but is this a safe assumption.  Do we know for sure it wasnt some group from non-steppe eastern Europe who were farming by 5 or 6000BC and only entered the steppes with the spread of farming influences?  I think Anatole's new paper could be interpreted that way.  

In the paper, he has the most upstream branches as M198- and M198+.  M198- hints at a forest-steppe or at least an eastern origin for R1a on Map 1.  M198+ is all central and western European.  If the Balkan neolithic included R1a, it seems like it would be  found with G2a in the aDNA.  Nor has G2a, been found in the east with IE derived peoples so far.  It looks like these hg's entered Europe from different directions.  As usual, we need more samples to get a better reading on it.

I think it is more likely that pre-Old European R1a moved from the south, but arrived near the north Caspian/Volga regions.  From there, they mostly avoided the steppe foragers at this time and moved into the forest-steppe towards NW Europe (L664+).  It might help to see if any of the dna or isotopes from animal remains like sheep, goats, horses, etc. would indicate this route.

I did notice that the chain of cultures that Anthony sees moving from somewhere near the carpathians eastwards and forming the roots of Slavic, Baltic and Indo-Uranian avoided the steppe and travelled through the forrest steppe.  That is obviously a different time and direction from what you are outlining but nevertheless it is noticeable that this environment was associated with this chain of cultures who are seen as ancestral to so many IE branches by Anthony.  Now, forest steppe was the environment that the late eastern LBK, C-Tryp farmers and later the Corded Ware eastern groups were nibbled into at various times, avoiding the steppes themselves.  The group of cultures that Anthony cites as thrusting west through the forest steppe and forming the basis of several IE language branches (all with R1a associations and all with Corded Ware roots to some degree) clearly were well adapted to/had a preference for the forrest steppe, almost perfectly avoiding the actual European steppe.   Meanwhile in Anthony's model the only specific IE branches he connects to actual steppe cultural groups are actually Anatolian (Sovorovo) and some of the Centum groups in SE Europe and Celto-Italic.  That seems rather weird to me.  I hadnt really read his theories that closely until recently but now I have there is a lot of things that strike me as odd.  

I actually think his complex model tends to somehow be morphed back to a more Gimutas type eastern hoards heading west model in peoples heads but that is not what Anthony is saying.  He is sort of saying PIE started on the steppes then they influenced farming cultures who then thrust back east through the forrest steppe forming most of the known IE branches of eastern Europe and Asia.  He seems to lean more towards the CW people as old farmers from the SE end of the TRB area around the Carpathians as having taken up steppe influences rather than CW people as steppe peoples who had taken up farming ideas in the interface zone.  That of course is incredibly important to know because Anthony is pretty clear about the corded ware roots of these cultures who spread east through Russia forming the roots of several IE branches.  If you put the fact Anthony saw Corded Ware as kurganised farmers with the fact that he points out the CW roots of the cultures he sees ancestral as Slavic, Baltic, Indo-Iranian etc then what that adds up to is that kurganised farmers heading east through the forest steppe is the root of so many IE languages.  Now, given those branches are strongly associated with R1a today, that does question the idea that R1a was in the actual steppes before 3000BC.  

Oddly, Anthony associated actual steppe cultures with the ancestors of the Anatolians and later the ancestors of the Celto-Italic peoples and perhaps Greek etc, all peoples who I would tend to think of as having stronger R1b associations.  

I have no conclusions on all that but I think there are many paradoxes in Anthony's model.  I also think people who have not actually read Anthony should not think his model is a nice simple fit for R1a as being very ancient hunter lineage on the steppes who became pastoral nomads and rampaged west (with those who stayed behind becoming the eastern IEs).  That is 100% not what his model is saying.  In fact he doesnt dabble a lot in genetics at all.

I also have to say I am a skeptic of the R1a Tarim Mummies as descendants of the Tocharians.  There were several waves of IEs and I suspect they were a later Iranian wave and that Tocharian may have been brought by M73 R1b peoples who are also common in the area today.  That would complete the strong centum R1b link seen elsewhere.  That of course raised the whole question of where R1b was pre-4000BC.  Again, I think this is very unclear.  It could have been on the southern steppes, it could have been among the Bug-Dniester hunter groups absorbed into C-Tryp, it could have been, like Corded Ware, among farming elements around the Carpathians.  I suspect there may be a lot of twists and surprises when ancient yDNA evidence reaches a reasonable level for the eastern European Neolithic and Copper Age.      


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: MHammers on October 20, 2012, 06:22:02 PM
You may be right.  There are a lot of data holes to fill yet.  I get the impression the spread of IE was more of a several centuries long kurganization-like process.  Yes, there was the Suvorovo movement into the Balkans in 4200 which Anthony thinks brought proto-Anatolian and the the Yamnaya migration into the Hungarian Plain around 3100-2800.  If we consider those movements of steppe people into farmer lands, there is still a gap between 4200-3300 where interaction or kurganization could take place.  Looking at the Baden, Globular Amphora, Cotofeni, and Corded-Ware cultures seems like locals were adapting to a more variable lifestyle.

I think part of the reason the Suvorovo people by-passed the Cucuteni-Tripolye settlements is because the C-T people were already integrated with the early PIE speakers and weren't considered "others".


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Jaska on October 20, 2012, 07:57:09 PM
Quote from: alan trowel hands
I did notice that the chain of cultures that Anthony sees moving from somewhere near the carpathians eastwards and forming the roots of Slavic, Baltic and Indo-Uranian avoided the steppe and travelled through the forrest steppe.
Alan, please give finally the exact quote from Anthony where he claims that Indo-Uranians or Indo-Neptunians (actually I mean Aryans = Indo-Iranians ;) ) are derived from the Corded Ware Culture.



Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: polako on October 21, 2012, 07:45:16 AM
As for Slavic - that burst out in all directions in the early Middle Ages, long after a large chunk of former CW territory had become Germanic. So there is a pattern of one IE dialect/language washing over another.

There's absolutely no evidence of any mass migration of Germanics from East Central Europe during the migration period. Modern DNA shows very clearly that this did not happen, with no signals being picked up by IBD or formal mixture tests.

Moreover, the "West Slavic" R1a-M458 is native to Central Europe, and spread into Ukraine and Belarus from the west.

http://polishgenes.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/the-history-of-slavs-in-light-of-y.html

In fact, it's likely that pressure by Germanic tribes on the Polabian Slavs in what is now Eastern Germany was one of the main factors behind the spread of R1a-M458 to Belarus, Ukraine and Russia.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/belarusian-r-m458-and-polabian.html

I'd say we're about to find out via ancient DNA that Germanics were never present in what is now Eastern Germany until the early Middle Ages.

All of this is crucial to understanding where Germanic languages and much of modern European R1b came from, and that certainly wasn't Eastern Europe.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Mkk on October 21, 2012, 08:18:22 AM
Polako,

You're confusing DNA with linguistics. Germanic, Slavic etc. are languages not races. There were East Germanic tribes (Goths, Vandals, Burgundians) in Poland and neighboring areas that according seem to have arisen out of a long archaeological connection between Poland and Scandinavia. In this case, cultural diffusion to explain the presence of Germanic peoples in Poland makes sense archaeologically. We don't have to invoke mass migration.

Secondly, there were Germanics on the Elbe before the middle ages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irminones


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: polako on October 21, 2012, 08:57:35 AM
Polako,

You're confusing DNA with linguistics. Germanic, Slavic etc. are languages not races. There were East Germanic tribes (Goths, Vandals, Burgundians) in Poland and neighboring areas that according seem to have arisen out of a long archaeological connection between Poland and Scandinavia. In this case, cultural diffusion to explain the presence of Germanic peoples in Poland makes sense archaeologically. We don't have to invoke mass migration.

Secondly, there were Germanics on the Elbe before the middle ages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irminones

I've never seen any evidence of Germanics in what is now Poland or even eastern Germany prior to the early middle ages.

No one really knows where Goths came from, and we won't know until we get some ancient DNA from verified Gothic remains.

Basically what I'm saying is that we don't know much at this stage, and a lot of the stuff about European prehistory and early history that has been published to date has been pure speculation. The fact that it's accepted by mainstream academia doesn't mean it's true.

I think it's time to wipe the slate clean, and asses all of the new information, like ancient DNA data, with a totally open mind.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Mkk on October 21, 2012, 11:58:17 AM
Polako,

You're confusing DNA with linguistics. Germanic, Slavic etc. are languages not races. There were East Germanic tribes (Goths, Vandals, Burgundians) in Poland and neighboring areas that according seem to have arisen out of a long archaeological connection between Poland and Scandinavia. In this case, cultural diffusion to explain the presence of Germanic peoples in Poland makes sense archaeologically. We don't have to invoke mass migration.

Secondly, there were Germanics on the Elbe before the middle ages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irminones

I've never seen any evidence of Germanics in what is now Poland or even eastern Germany prior to the early middle ages.

No one really knows where Goths came from, and we won't know until we get some ancient DNA from verified Gothic remains.

Basically what I'm saying is that we don't know much at this stage, and a lot of the stuff about European prehistory and early history that has been published to date has been pure speculation. The fact that it's accepted by mainstream academia doesn't mean it's true.

I think it's time to wipe the slate clean, and asses all of the new information, like ancient DNA data, with a totally open mind.
I'm not any expert, so I'll leave other posters (in particular the always excellent Jean M) to share their thoughts on this, but here goes.

Well, we don't have any written records. Germanics didn't learn how to write until after the 2nd century AD or so. But there is archaeological evidence for a strong Scandinavian (Jastorf, Nordic Bronze age etc.) influence on Northern and Western Poland around the time Germanic languages had or were forming, and many historians believe this reflects the migrations described in ancient sources of Vandals and Goths. See for example Kaliff, Anders. 2001. Gothic Connections. Contacts between eastern Scandinavia and the southern Baltic coast 1000 BC – 500 AD Also see the various Wikipedia articles on archaeological cultures during this time period. According to Wikipedia, it is believed that both migration and regional continuity created the cultures in Poland around the time of the Roman era, with certain burial types and structures thought to be indicative of Germanic and Gothic people, although the population density was low. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Circle_(Iron_Age) http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/archweb/gazociag/title5.htm

The non-partisan Encyclopedia of European people states on page 821 about the Vandals

The Vandals are thought to have originated on the northern Jutland Peninsula in present-day Denmark, although some scholars, on the basis of similarity of place-names, place the ancestral group in Norway or Sweden. At some point, possibly as early as the fifth century B.C.E .but more likely in the second century B.C.E,the Vandals crossed the Baltic Sea to present-day northern  Poland. They are associated by archaeologists with the Przeworsk culture of the Vistula-Oder region, characterized by burials of warriors with their full war panoply, including spurs, showing that, unlike many Germanic groups, Vandals,considered cavalry an important part of warfare.They perhaps were descended from the same ancestral group as the LUGII . By about 120 B.C.E .the Vandals made their home in the Sudeten Mountains of Silesia, a region mostly in what is now southwest Poland, with parts in the adjoining present-day Czech Republic and Germany




Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: polako on October 21, 2012, 12:24:50 PM
I'm not any expert, so I'll leave other posters (in particular the always excellent Jean M) to share their thoughts on this, but here goes. 

Jean isn't an expert and she's far from excellent. Here's the latest from some experts...

Quote
Summary:

Research on the ethnogenesis of the Slavs, or research related to the cultural development of the areas inhabited by the Slavs, are a subject of considerable social interest and as such are a very important part of historical and archeological studies. In this research the results obtained with methods employed by physical anthropology must be used, or, which is becoming increasingly more common, with methods employed in molecular biology.
In these project it was attempted to answer the question whether anthropological data (morphology of the cranium and odontological traits) support the model of population continuity or the model of population discontinuity of the land within the Odra and Vistula river basins at the turn of the eras.
The purposes of the research were:
(a) to describe morphological differentiation of human populations inhabiting the Odra and Vistula river basins in the period of Roman influence and in the Early Middle Ages, based on the cranial morphological traits and odontological traits (morphological features of permanent teeth),
(b) to compare biological differentiation of the studied populations with the cultural differentiation degree determined on the basis of the analysis of variation in time and space of physical cultural artifacts obtained in the course of archaeological excavation work.
Archaeological research carried out during highway construction provided new skeletal material from the Roman period from the region of Wielkopolska, Pomerania and Kujavia.
The present research will include odontological materials from:
- cemeteries from the Roman period – of the Wielbark culture population, in Kowalewko near Poznań, Rogowo near Toruń, and cemetery in Karczyn and Gąski near Inowrocław,
- medieval cemeteries in Cedynia, Słaboszewo near Mogilno and Łekno near Wągrowiec.
Materials from the above mentioned cemeteries were analyzed for 10 craniological traits and for the degree of development of 18 odontoglyphic traits. In the statistical procedure the principal components method and biological distance analysis were used. All odontological traits were recorded according to the methodology used in physical anthropology and described by Zubov and also by Turner for an ASU (Arizona State University) project, in the framework of the research project realized by Russian anthropologists and anthropologists from various countries in Asia and Central and Eastern Europe.
A comparative analysis was carried out on the basis of differented populations from Central, East and North Europe.
From literature the data on average adult life expectancy in populations from the Roman period (the Wielbark culture – 20 groups, 3089 individuals; the Przeworsk culture 10 groups, 542 individuals) and the eastern, western and southern Slavs, estimated by various authors have been used.
Therefore, the hypothesis concerning the biological continuity of the settlement of the Oder and Vistula rivers basin at the turn of the Antiquity to the early Mediaeval times was positively verified.
It also seems from the presented comparative data that the biological condition and dynamics of human populations in the Oder and the Vistula rivers basin in the Roman period were not significantly different from the biological condition and dynamics of the early medieval Slavic populations from this area.

Conclusions:
1. In terms of frequency of cranial and odontological traits populations included into the Wielbark Culture and the Chernyakhov Culture group do not differ genetically among one another. Therefore these populations cannot be treated as belonging to different ethnocultural systems.
2. Populations from the Roman period classified as the Wielbark Culture and the Chernyakhov Culture populations do not differ in terms of frequency of odontological and cranial traits from Western Slavic and Eastern Slavic populations. Thus it cannot be stated that the territory within the Oder and Vistula rivers basin was colonized by Western Slavic populations as late as in the 6th century AD.
3. In reference to the discussion on continuity or/and discontinuity of the ethnogenesis process of the Slavs the results of the present study support the model of sociocultural system transformations presented by the concept locating the cradle of the Slavs in the Oder and Vistula river basins and at the turn of the eras.
4. Morphological dental traits (non-metrical dental traits) strongly differentiated the compared populations belonging to different ethnocultural systems. Thus they proved to be a good research tool in the analysis of the biological differentiation of skeletal populations.

http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~anthro/pdf/mono/vol012/01piontek.pdf


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: T101 on October 21, 2012, 02:57:46 PM

Conclusions:
1. In terms of frequency of cranial and odontological traits populations included into the Wielbark Culture and the Chernyakhov Culture group do not differ genetically among one another. Therefore these populations cannot be treated as belonging to different ethnocultural systems.
2. Populations from the Roman period classified as the Wielbark Culture and the Chernyakhov Culture populations do not differ in terms of frequency of odontological and cranial traits from Western Slavic and Eastern Slavic populations. Thus it cannot be stated that the territory within the Oder and Vistula rivers basin was colonized by Western Slavic populations as late as in the 6th century AD.
3. In reference to the discussion on continuity or/and discontinuity of the ethnogenesis process of the Slavs the results of the present study support the model of sociocultural system transformations presented by the concept locating the cradle of the Slavs in the Oder and Vistula river basins and at the turn of the eras.
4. Morphological dental traits (non-metrical dental traits) strongly differentiated the compared populations belonging to different ethnocultural systems. Thus they proved to be a good research tool in the analysis of the biological differentiation of skeletal populations.

http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~anthro/pdf/mono/vol012/01piontek.pdf
[/quote]

The continuity in Poland (the Wielbark culture) and the Ukraine (Chernyakhov culture) with present day populations is probably more due to the quasi-Baltic tribes (R1a-Z280) from the Pomeranian culture and some R1a-M458 tribes ancestral to the future R1a-L260, and R1a-L1029 subclades). That indigenous population then mixed on the Roman frontier with some Germanic R1b-U106, I1 and I2 which emanated out of the Jastorf culture from present day Northern or Central Germany. The Main Slavic R1a-M458 group was probably just to the East of this area and that would account for their lack of words to describe the Amber trade, and Seafaring, which transversed the Oder and Vistula River basins.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: T101 on October 21, 2012, 03:16:15 PM

The non-partisan Encyclopedia of European people states on page 821 about the Vandals

The Vandals are thought to have originated on the northern Jutland Peninsula in present-day Denmark, although some scholars, on the basis of similarity of place-names, place the ancestral group in Norway or Sweden. At some point, possibly as early as the fifth century B.C.E .but more likely in the second century B.C.E,the Vandals crossed the Baltic Sea to present-day northern  Poland. They are associated by archaeologists with the Przeworsk culture of the Vistula-Oder region, characterized by burials of warriors with their full war panoply, including spurs, showing that, unlike many Germanic groups, Vandals,considered cavalry an important part of warfare.They perhaps were descended from the same ancestral group as the LUGII . By about 120 B.C.E .the Vandals made their home in the Sudeten Mountains of Silesia, a region mostly in what is now southwest Poland, with parts in the adjoining present-day Czech Republic and Germany


It is highly unlikely that any Eastern Germanic group originated in Scandinavia and crossed the Baltic Sea. This is due to the fact that Scandinavian R1a is almost exclusively Z284, and in Central and Eastern Europe there is an absolute dearth of R1a-Z284 with only one reported hit in Russia just west of the Urals.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Mkk on October 21, 2012, 04:10:36 PM

The non-partisan Encyclopedia of European people states on page 821 about the Vandals

The Vandals are thought to have originated on the northern Jutland Peninsula in present-day Denmark, although some scholars, on the basis of similarity of place-names, place the ancestral group in Norway or Sweden. At some point, possibly as early as the fifth century B.C.E .but more likely in the second century B.C.E,the Vandals crossed the Baltic Sea to present-day northern  Poland. They are associated by archaeologists with the Przeworsk culture of the Vistula-Oder region, characterized by burials of warriors with their full war panoply, including spurs, showing that, unlike many Germanic groups, Vandals,considered cavalry an important part of warfare.They perhaps were descended from the same ancestral group as the LUGII . By about 120 B.C.E .the Vandals made their home in the Sudeten Mountains of Silesia, a region mostly in what is now southwest Poland, with parts in the adjoining present-day Czech Republic and Germany


It is highly unlikely that any Eastern Germanic group originated in Scandinavia and crossed the Baltic Sea. This is due to the fact that Scandinavian R1a is almost exclusively Z284, and in Central and Eastern Europe there is an absolute dearth of R1a-Z284 with only one reported hit in Russia just west of the Urals.
Z284 doesn't have to have been around in the Goth and Vandal populations. It could have risen to prevalence later.

The stuff I've read also say that there was a large Jastorf and Nordic Bronze age influence on the Polish cultures I talked about. The clade you mentioned doesn't appear too common in Germany. So maybe the East Germanics developed out of that as the Wikipedia articles said, with only a small elite migration from Scandinavia. East Germanic was the earliest to diverge from proto-Germanic, so the hypothesis of it arising from Jastorf (considered to be proto-Germanic) influences makes sense. Also, a lot of the Goth and Vandal people later migrated to Western and Southern Europe.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 21, 2012, 05:24:09 PM
Quote from: alan trowel hands
I did notice that the chain of cultures that Anthony sees moving from somewhere near the carpathians eastwards and forming the roots of Slavic, Baltic and Indo-Uranian avoided the steppe and travelled through the forrest steppe.
Alan, please give finally the exact quote from Anthony where he claims that Indo-Uranians or Indo-Neptunians (actually I mean Aryans = Indo-Iranians ;) ) are derived from the Corded Ware Culture.




He doesnt state it in a single quote.  You have to follow his descriptions of the chain of cultures passing from the Carpathians into Asia and his comments on continuing indicators of their corded ware (eastern extension) roots and derivation from each other.  There is a good supporting map.  You have to read the whole of his books section on this.  I dont have my copy to hand but when I do I will try to did out the pages. 

People tend to focus on his book in terms of the PIE homeland question and he does have a clear Kurgan model approach for that.  Nevertheless when he comes to explaining the branches east of the Carpathians/Vistula he describes this in a way that can be summarised as a reflux eastwards movement of cultures with corded ware roots (although with other elements).

This tends to not be talked about on these forums because it slightly post-dates the PIE homeland question.  Also Anthony was not especially DNA interested.  He did not realise the implications of firstly describing corded ware as steppe-influenced TRB people (which has been the standard interpretation by archaeologists over the last decade) and then explaining Slavic, Baltic, Indo-Iranian as a corded ware inspired reflux movement through the forrest steppes then south.  The implication from a genetic point of view would be that the cultures of those languages which today are closest linked to R1a with cultures with corded ware roots is that R1a would not be steppe in origin. He didnt say that but that is the logical deduction in a couple of steppes.  The idea that corded ware people are in fact steppes derived R1a people is not Anthony's.  By the way noone is saying Anthony is infallible!  He may well be wrong in places but all I am saying is I think his description of a west to east corded ware influenced chain of cultures from the Carpathians to Asia as the roots of the Slavic, Baltic and Indo-Iranian seems to not be discussed. Nor are the implications of what he says if you peace together several aspects of his interpretation.  Then again he was not worrying about how DNA fitted his model.  Anyway, all I am saying is the R1a link in these cultures really does mean the nature of early Corded Ware in southern Poland (i.e is it kurgan influenced local farmers or kurgan settlers influenced by local farmers).  The incredibly importance of this to using Anthony's model to see R1a as steppe in deep origin just seems not to have been discussed as much as a logical interpretation of Anthony's model should dictate.  If you literally stitch together the following two aspects of Anthony's model

1. Corded Ware was kurgan-influenced local farmers in the main.
2. The chain of cultures that lead to Slavic, Baltic and Indo-Iranian with cultures which he notes as showing corded ware roots

THEN ADD the fact that those are the IE languages most closely linked with R1a

THEN the logical conclusion if you follow through the logic of those two beliefs of Anthony is that R1a among the Slavs, Balts and I-Iranians is due to the non-steppe element in corded ware that moved east.  That would place the immediate homeland of the sort of R1a associated with the those languages as the Balkans. I notice Anatole's latest offering on R1a implies a huge loop the appears to have arrived in the Balkans before the western steppes. 


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 21, 2012, 05:56:45 PM
As for Slavic - that burst out in all directions in the early Middle Ages, long after a large chunk of former CW territory had become Germanic. So there is a pattern of one IE dialect/language washing over another.

There's absolutely no evidence of any mass migration of Germanics from East Central Europe during the migration period. Modern DNA shows very clearly that this did not happen, with no signals being picked up by IBD or formal mixture tests.

Moreover, the "West Slavic" R1a-M458 is native to Central Europe, and spread into Ukraine and Belarus from the west.

http://polishgenes.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/the-history-of-slavs-in-light-of-y.html

In fact, it's likely that pressure by Germanic tribes on the Polabian Slavs in what is now Eastern Germany was one of the main factors behind the spread of R1a-M458 to Belarus, Ukraine and Russia.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/belarusian-r-m458-and-polabian.html

I'd say we're about to find out via ancient DNA that Germanics were never present in what is now Eastern Germany until the early Middle Ages.

All of this is crucial to understanding where Germanic languages and much of modern European R1b came from, and that certainly wasn't Eastern Europe.

It seem likely that they both started way to the east.  Anatole Klyosov seems to place them in southern Siberia and goes on to describe R1a as performing an incredible loop from there through the Himalayas and through Anatolia in SE Europe then into Russia etc.  That seems pretty incredible but it isnt without some logic. It places R1a in Balkans and eastern European farming groups before the steppes.  Linking that into Anthony's model would of course make it impossible not to link the final spread of R1a with the chain of cultures with corded ware roots (moving through the forrest steppes) that Anthony links with Slavic, Baltic and I-Iranian.  That of course would indeed place R1a in non-steppes (middle?) Neolithic eastern and/or south-eastern Europe.  I think Anthony somewhere does imply that the origin of the Slavs was among Kurganised older farmers of non-steppe eastern Europe that took off around Carpathians and nearby.  I think he considers the slavs the ones who stayed behind around the Carpathians or nearby when the Corded Ware derived chain of cultures thrust east through the forest steppe leading to Baltic and I-Iranian.  I think the idea that the Slavs originated in corded ware elements (or mixed elements) around the Carpathians is attractive.  Some say they descend from Kurganised Cucuteni-Trypole peoples in a similar area.  The basic concept of either seems reasonable and not hugely dissimilar.  Both of course would seem to imply that R1a entered the Ukraine, European Russia etc from the west not the east.

Of course these languages (and R1a), not least Slavic and Iranian, also hugely expanded in subsequent times into other areas, something that I think should not be forgotten when using modern maps to interpret the past.  I do think using the modern distribution of R1a to imply what was going on 5 or 6 thousand years ago could be as badly misleading for a place like Russia for R1a as doing the same would be in the west.  In the west pretty well no R1b is currently thought to have been present 6000 years ago but its full of it now.  The same applies for R1a in the east IMO.  Only extremely careful refining of subclades and variance should ever be used IMO.

I think this is important because I feel people try too hard to make as big a contrast as possible in the story of R1a and R1b.  If something like Anatole is implying for R1a and R1b in his 2012 papers then they did actually have a lot in common in their incredible journeys from the east.  Its so complex with so many uncertainties that I cant conclude at all on this. However, I certainly cannot rule out the possibility that R1a did enter the farming cultures of east-central or SE Europe in say the period 5000-4000BC and had nothing to do with the Ukrainian steppes etc.  In fact, I have also wondered if R1b did not also do this because of the M269* in the Balkans and high variance L23* in Romania.  I feel the impulse to give R1a and R1b very different early European histories is rather influenced by modern distribution which is at least partly tied to language expansions in later times. 


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 21, 2012, 06:04:23 PM
As for Slavic - that burst out in all directions in the early Middle Ages, long after a large chunk of former CW territory had become Germanic. So there is a pattern of one IE dialect/language washing over another.

There's absolutely no evidence of any mass migration of Germanics from East Central Europe during the migration period. Modern DNA shows very clearly that this did not happen, with no signals being picked up by IBD or formal mixture tests.

Moreover, the "West Slavic" R1a-M458 is native to Central Europe, and spread into Ukraine and Belarus from the west.

http://polishgenes.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/the-history-of-slavs-in-light-of-y.html

In fact, it's likely that pressure by Germanic tribes on the Polabian Slavs in what is now Eastern Germany was one of the main factors behind the spread of R1a-M458 to Belarus, Ukraine and Russia.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/belarusian-r-m458-and-polabian.html

I'd say we're about to find out via ancient DNA that Germanics were never present in what is now Eastern Germany until the early Middle Ages.

All of this is crucial to understanding where Germanic languages and much of modern European R1b came from, and that certainly wasn't Eastern Europe.

So, are you thinking that R1a has been in Poland since the Neolithic (pre-steppe) i.e. in TRB or Corded Ware and its presence in Ukraine is due to movements east from Poland and adjacent countries?


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: polako on October 21, 2012, 09:19:28 PM
So, are you thinking that R1a has been in Poland since the Neolithic (pre-steppe) i.e. in TRB or Corded Ware and its presence in Ukraine is due to movements east from Poland and adjacent countries?

I'm thinking that R1a has been in Poland & Germany since the late Neolithic at least. I think some of the groups studied below carried R1a, and that'll soon be confirmed when Y-DNA is tested in these samples...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440312003883

But here's a map of Europe from that time, or just prior. Note the large and looming Dniepr/Don cultural horizon just to the east of what is now Poland. I wonder what language they spoke and types of Y-DNA they carried? Probably R1a.

http://imageshack.us/a/img405/4904/93103898.png

None of this is really all that relevant to the later movements of M458 from Eastern Germany to Belarus and Ukraine though.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: princenuadha on October 21, 2012, 09:39:15 PM
Quote from: polako
There's absolutely no evidence of any mass migration of Germanics from East Central Europe during the migration period. Modern DNA shows very clearly that this did not happen, with no signals being picked up by IBD or formal mixture tests.

This is hardly a response to her post...

IBD shows huge exchanges in Eastern Europe supporting the post CW large scale spread of slavic, like jean said.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: polako on October 21, 2012, 09:43:32 PM
IBD shows huge exchanges in Eastern Europe supporting the post CW large scale spread of slavic, like jean said.

She keeps saying there was a massive migration of Germanics from what is now Poland. But there's no evidence of anything like that.

On the other hand, there is now plenty of evidence of genetic continuity in Poland, followed by a massive expansion from Poland...of Slavs not Germanics.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Jaska on October 21, 2012, 10:51:19 PM
IBD shows huge exchanges in Eastern Europe supporting the post CW large scale spread of slavic, like jean said.

She keeps saying there was a massive migration of Germanics from what is now Poland. But there's no evidence of anything like that.

On the other hand, there is now plenty of evidence of genetic continuity in Poland, followed by a massive expansion from Poland...of Slavs not Germanics.

Here are some interesting results from loanword studies:
- Germanic has had continuing contacts with Finnic and Saami
- Germanic has only later come into contact with Slavic (Gothic) and Baltic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Slavic_borrowings
- Balto-Slavic and then Baltic has been in contacts with Finnic

How can we explain the situation? Clearly Germanic and Slavic cannot have been spoken close to each other. If Slavic homeland is pulled as west as to Poland, then Germanic homeland must be somewhere else than in its immediate west - that excludes Germany. We could throw Germanic to Southern Finland to allow the Slavic homeland in Poland, but then we could not explain the continuing closeness of Germanic and Celtic.

Tied between Finnic and Saami on the one hand, and Celtic on the other hand, Germanic must be located in Southern Scandinavia. Slavic, then, cannot have been anywhere too close to Germanic or Celtic - that excludes Germany and the westernmost and northernmost parts of Poland, too.


Quote from: alan trowel hands
He doesnt state it in a single quote.  You have to follow his descriptions of the chain of cultures passing from the Carpathians into Asia and his comments on continuing indicators of their corded ware (eastern extension) roots and derivation from each other.  There is a good supporting map.  You have to read the whole of his books section on this.  I dont have my copy to hand but when I do I will try to did out the pages.  
Thank you. Fortunately I found the book here:
http://www.4shared.com/get/q3rB9byu/The_Horse_the_Wheel_and_Langua.html

You are right: Anthony argues for some Corded Ware (Fatyanovo) traits in Abashevo Culture, which then gave some influence to Sintashta Culture. But Poltavka Culture of the steppes south of Abashevo still seems to be the major factor behind Sintashta, if I got it right.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: polako on October 21, 2012, 11:17:23 PM
How can we explain the situation? Clearly Germanic and Slavic cannot have been spoken close to each other. If Slavic homeland is pulled as west as to Poland, then Germanic homeland must be somewhere else than in its immediate west - that excludes Germany. We could throw Germanic to Southern Finland to allow the Slavic homeland in Poland, but then we could not explain the continuing closeness of Germanic and Celtic.

Why and how language contacts were blocked is one issue. Another issue altogether is the claim that Germanics migrated on a massive scale to what is now Poland, and then from Poland, leaving the whole country empty.

Poland wasn't emptied, because there's now strong evidence of genetic continuity from before and after it was supposed to be empty, but there's no evidence of any massive Germanic migrations to and from Poland.

More likely, the Germanic migrations were much smaller, they didn't cause any part of northern or central Europe to empty, and the source of these Germanic movements was present-day southern Germany and Austria (ie. the former Roman frontier).


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Mkk on October 22, 2012, 03:23:04 AM
IBD shows huge exchanges in Eastern Europe supporting the post CW large scale spread of slavic, like jean said.

She keeps saying there was a massive migration of Germanics from what is now Poland. But there's no evidence of anything like that.

On the other hand, there is now plenty of evidence of genetic continuity in Poland, followed by a massive expansion from Poland...of Slavs not Germanics.
If you read my post properly I suggested that the presence of Germanics in Poland didn't need a large scale migration, but could be explained by the attested archaeological links between Scandinavia, northern Germany and Poland that had existed for centuries, which I provided evidence for. If ethnically Gothic and Vandalic people did ever migrate into Poland from Scandinavia, than I agree that both the genetic and archaeological evidence shows the migration was not very large.

Not only that, I was under the impression that the foundation of Vandalic and Gothic kingdoms were established by small-scale Germanic armies and were not true folk movements, as we know from the lack of Germanic markers in places like Spain and North Africa. So neither did I claim there was a large Germanic migration OUT of Poland.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Jaska on October 22, 2012, 12:54:44 PM
Quote from: Polako
Why and how language contacts were blocked is one issue. Another issue altogether is the claim that Germanics migrated on a massive scale to what is now Poland, and then from Poland, leaving the whole country empty.

Poland wasn't emptied, because there's now strong evidence of genetic continuity from before and after it was supposed to be empty, but there's no evidence of any massive Germanic migrations to and from Poland.

More likely, the Germanic migrations were much smaller, they didn't cause any part of northern or central Europe to empty, and the source of these Germanic movements was present-day southern Germany and Austria (ie. the former Roman frontier).

Yes, I think you may be right with this. If East Germanic languages/peoples spread through Poland, we should see more different loanwords in Slavic: archaic East Germanic words (looking like Proto-Germanic loanwords) and loanwords from other languages than Goth, too. As the Northwest Germanic can be located approximately in Denmark and Southern Sweden, the East Germanic could have originally been actually "South" Germanic, which only secondarily spread to the east. Later the expansion of the German dialects to the south would have wiped out the traces of this earlier "East" Germanic presence.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: T101 on October 22, 2012, 01:18:19 PM

Z284 doesn't have to have been around in the Goth and Vandal populations.

Exactly, as long as you have those Eastern Germanic groups arising on the North European plain (i.e. Jastorf)

It could have risen to prevalence later.

Possibly, but unlikely given that the age of R1a-Z284 is approximately 5000 BP (Rozhanskii - R1a.org) and that it was widespread by the age of the Vikings.


The stuff I've read also say that there was a large Jastorf and Nordic Bronze age influence on the Polish cultures I talked about. The clade you mentioned doesn't appear too common in Germany. So maybe the East Germanics developed out of that as the Wikipedia articles said, with only a small elite migration from Scandinavia. East Germanic was the earliest to diverge from proto-Germanic, so the hypothesis of it arising from Jastorf (considered to be proto-Germanic) influences makes sense.

Yeah I agree.


Also, a lot of the Goth and Vandal people later migrated to Western and Southern Europe.

Correct. But by that time, after living in Central Europe and the Ukraine for several centuries what probably constituted Goth and Vandal was a mix-mash of German, Balt, Slav, Celt, Thracian, Dacian, and people of Scythian descent etc. And quite possibly the overall numbers were vastly over-estimated, so that by the time they reached the Italian and Iberian peninsulas you just had one ruling-elite being exchanged for another.




Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: polako on October 22, 2012, 09:46:31 PM
If you read my post properly I suggested that the presence of Germanics in Poland didn't need a large scale migration, but could be explained by the attested archaeological links between Scandinavia, northern Germany and Poland that had existed for centuries, which I provided evidence for. If ethnically Gothic and Vandalic people did ever migrate into Poland from Scandinavia, than I agree that both the genetic and archaeological evidence shows the migration was not very large.

I did read your post properly, but I wasn't referring to you in my post, I was referring to Jean Manco.

She keeps saying there were massive migrations of Germanics into Poland during the Iron Age, and then massive migrations out of Poland during the early Middle Ages (so called migration period).

This is nonsense, because if it were true then there'd be no continuity between Iron Age Przeworsk and Wielbark remains from Poland with those of the early Polish Slavs in terms of craniofacial and dental traits. But clearly there are, and they're striking in how ethnic-specific they are.

Preliminary ancient DNA results show the same thing, and so does modern DNA (origins and spread of Y-DNA M458 from Central Europe).

Furthermore, there are no special relationships between modern Germanics and groups that are supposed to be of partly ancient Germanic descent. For instance, North Italians from Lombardy share very little Identity-by-Descent segments with Germans and Scandinavians dating to the migration period or thereabouts. The same can be said of Iberians who come from former Gothic regions of Iberia.

So there's something very rotten in all these claims of massive Germanic migrations around East Central, Eastern and Southern Europe. It looks like they weren't all that big, certainly not big enough to cause the emptying of territory anywhere north of the Alps and Carpathians.

I think much of what has been written to date about Germanic origins and migrations has been pure propaganda, straight out of a Nazi manual on how to twist the truth. Modern science is really going to blow the lid on all the crap that's been bragged about by so called scholars in the west.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 23, 2012, 02:07:48 AM
... I did read your post properly, but I wasn't referring to you in my post, I was referring to Jean Manco.

She keeps saying there were massive migrations of Germanics into Poland during the Iron Age, and then massive migrations out of Poland during the early Middle Ages (so called migration period).

This is nonsense...

I'm not a great student of this. Please quote Jean as to what she says related to massive migrations. Her book is not available publicly yet so I think you are talking about her posts. Please quote her.

BTW, I see higher U106 diversity in Poland and in the Baltic states than in Germany. I'm trying figure that out. This is a R1b and Subclades forum and U106 is found among Germanic speakers. Where do you think the U106 folks came from? Are they from Germany? or some place east of or north of there or whatever?


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: polako on October 23, 2012, 03:18:21 AM
I'm not a great student of this. Please quote Jean as to what she says related to massive migrations. Her book is not available publicly yet so I think you are talking about her posts. Please quote her.

I'm referring to her comments at the former DNA-forums and at the Building History website. Both are down at the moment.

But if you don't believe me then e-mail her and I'm sure she'll tell you that these massive Germanic migrations did happen, and that one of the consequences was the emptying of large swaths of territory south of the Baltic.

Quote
BTW, I see higher U106 diversity in Poland and in the Baltic states than in Germany. I'm trying figure that out. This is a R1b and Subclades forum and U106 is found among Germanic speakers. Where do you think the U106 folks came from? Are they from Germany? or some place east of or north of there or whatever?

You seem convinced that STR diversity means something in this context. But what if it means nothing? Have you considered that?

For instance, the STR diversity of R1a-Z93 reaches extreme levels in North India, so much so that it even makes things look like R1a originated there. But we now know that R1a-Z293 isn't ancestral to the R1a clades in Europe.

That's just one example. I'm sure there are many more like that. As for the question of where U106 came from, I have no idea. But it's unlikely to have arisen anywhere in present-day Poland or east of Poland. I just don't see how that's possible based on the phylogeny and present distribution of R1b clades.

Let me ask you a question. If you ignore the STR diversity within U106, then what's the most plausible location for its origin, perhaps based on SNP diversity and its frequencies in long-standing populations with no evidence of recent founder effects? Germany, France, Austria...Hungary?


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 23, 2012, 03:26:15 AM
I'm not a great student of this. Please quote Jean as to what she says related to massive migrations. Her book is not available publicly yet so I think you are talking about her posts. Please quote her.

I'm referring to her comments at the former DNA-forums and at the Building History website. Both are down at the moment.

But if you don't believe me then e-mail her and I'm sure she'll tell you that these massive Germanic migrations did happen, and that one of the consequences was the emptying of large swaths of territory south of the Baltic....

You are the one making the charge so you should make a direct reference to quote her. You email her and quote her yourself. It is encumbent on you.

I have no problem with your statement there were not "massive" Germanic migrations. I think there were Germanic migrations in the post-Roman Empire era but I don't really think they were "massive."

However, if you are charging that Jean is saying they are massive, you should back that up.

.... I was referring to Jean Manco.
She keeps saying there were massive migrations of Germanics into Poland during the Iron Age, and then massive migrations out of Poland during the early Middle Ages (so called migration period).
This is nonsense...

I'm very willing to accept this possibility. Please just back up your charges as to what Jean has said.

BTW, I may be missing something. Why are "massive" migrations important? U106 doesn't dominate Poland, right? I guess I'm missing this point.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: polako on October 23, 2012, 03:58:40 AM
^ I'm not making any charges. I'm saying that Jean firmly believes Poland was inhabited by Germanic tribes until the migration period, and then was almost left emptied of people when these tribes vacated because of pressure put on them by Huns.

This is not a new or fringe theory in the west, so there should be nothing surprising about me saying that it's accepted by Jean as a plausible scenario, especially since she said so on her website and at DNA-forums many times over.

It's not my problem that both are down or were taken down, or whatever. If you don't believe that this is her view and I'm making things up then prove it.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 23, 2012, 04:09:17 AM

Quote
BTW, I see higher U106 diversity in Poland and in the Baltic states than in Germany. I'm trying figure that out. This is a R1b and Subclades forum and U106 is found among Germanic speakers. Where do you think the U106 folks came from? Are they from Germany? or some place east of or north of there or whatever?

You seem convinced that STR diversity means something in this context. But what if it means nothing? Have you considered that?

I think all data should be considered and gene diversity is a valuable piece of data whether it is STR or SNP diversity. I think all data should be considered in context, though. Are you saying that some data should be discarded if it disagrees with a particular point of view?

For instance, the STR diversity of R1a-Z93 reaches extreme levels in North India, so much so that it even makes things look like R1a originated there. But we now know that R1a-Z293 isn't ancestral to the R1a clades in Europe.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your example. I profess to being a neophyte on R1a. What does R1a-Z293 diversity in North India have to do to disprove the value of STR diversity as a point of consideration?

I'm sure there are many more like that. As for the question of where U106 came from, I have no idea. But it's unlikely to have arisen anywhere in present-day Poland or east of Poland. I just don't see how that's possible based on the phylogeny and present distribution of R1b clades.

That's okay if you have no idea. I'm just a little surprised you have no idea because you seem very assertive about your R1b hypothesis, at least of where it didn't come from (according to your postings on other threads.)


Let me ask you a question. If you ignore the STR diversity within U106, then what's the most plausible location for its origin, perhaps based on SNP diversity and its frequencies in long-standing populations with no evidence of recent founder effects? Germany, France, Austria...Hungary?

I don't know the origin of U106. I don't see any reason that it can't be east of Germany, though.  SNP diversity is well balanced (high) east of Germany in our DNA projects. However, I don't think that is that meaningful because this is not a representative sample. Unfortunately, the academic studies have not done a good job of deep SNP testing withing U106. Likewise, the academic and project data shows low diversity in France, Austria and points west and south of Germany, but the data is too limited so I wouldn't say that is conclusive.

Do you really have a good reason to ignore the diversity of U106 in certain geographies? Myres' study has Poland and the Baltic states has higher diversity than Germany. That's as representative of data as anything we have, although I agree it is very limited. Let me say it like this - I would not say the Myres data proves U106 is older east of Germany, but it leaves open that possibility as plausible and by all means it definitely does not disprove it.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 23, 2012, 04:27:01 AM
^ I'm not making any charges. I'm saying that Jean firmly believes...

It's not my problem that both are down or were taken down, or whatever. If you don't believe that this is her view and I'm making things up then prove it.

It is your problem if you can't back up your characterizations of Jean's positions. I don't remember her speaking of "massive" migrations (your words) but maybe she did. If you can't back up what you say, you should retract it. That's okay. I make mistakes all the time. We have plenty of other stuff to talk about.

Let's just put your characterizations of Jean's writings aside, if you don't have specifics.

Let's go back to your argument.
.... I'm saying that Jean firmly believes Poland was inhabited by Germanic tribes until the migration period, and then was almost left emptied of people when these tribes vacated because of pressure put on them by Huns.

This is not a new or fringe theory in the west....

So what is your main point related to R1b, Germanic tribes and to Poland?  that is counter to Jean's contentions?

Is it that you think there could be no U106 east of Germany prior to the development of the proto-Germanic languages? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but could you relate U106 to these geographies and the development of Germanic cultures and pre-Germanic IE cultures? This is an R1b forum so I don't think it is off-topic.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Richard Rocca on October 23, 2012, 07:35:34 AM
I'm sure at some point Jean will jump in here, but I think she mentioned large scale migrations in places where language change is evident (England & Austria). So, "massive" migrations may have happened in some geographies and less so in others.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Terry Barton on October 23, 2012, 08:02:10 AM
Polako is serving a three ban for an ethnic slur, so you'll have to wait for his next response.

It would be good for Jean to restate her thoughts on this subject so that any issues for debate can be fairly defined

Terry


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Mkk on October 23, 2012, 09:41:50 AM
Quote
I think much of what has been written to date about Germanic origins and migrations has been pure propaganda, straight out of a Nazi manual on how to twist the truth.
By no means is the theories I, Jean and others have presented "Nazi" propaganda. For example, check out this Polish source on the Goths in Poland.

http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/muzeum/muz_eng/wyst_czas/Goci_katalog/index_kat.html

I'm not saying that makes it true. But it shows that these theories are not pro-Germanic propaganda.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Jean M on October 23, 2012, 10:03:41 AM
It would be good for Jean to restate her thoughts on this subject so that any issues for debate can be fairly defined

Terry - I'm trying to leave the forum. Big pile of work at the moment.

I've only read a few of the recent posts, but I saw Polako post that my position on the Goths and Vandals is standard in the West. He is correct and I thank him for resisting the goad to make this a personal gladiatorial contest. I would only add that ideas within Poland have changed since the fall of the Iron Curtain. I cite Polish archaeologists almost exclusively for archaeology within what is now Poland. So it would be better to just point at places online where these authors can be found rather than me try to sum up.

The issue of Poland's past is still very tender for many Poles, particularly those old enough to recall WWII. Nazi propaganda has been mentioned. This propaganda was designed to justify aggression towards a number of countries, including Britain and Poland. Nothing can justify such aggression. The fact that England was named for the Germanic Angles does not seem to me a good reason for Hitler to plan to invade my homeland. I can't imagine any sane Pole accepting that the Goths and Vandals who spent centuries on what is now Polish soil somehow gave Hitler the right to invade. Poland is now Slavic. It is a sovereign state. It doesn't matter how long it has been Slavic. Once we start to think that we only have the right to life and liberty if we can prove that all our ancestors have been living on the same spot for X number of centuries, it is a slippery slope.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Jaska on October 23, 2012, 10:36:36 AM
Quote from: Mikewww
I think all data should be considered and gene diversity is a valuable piece of data whether it is STR or SNP diversity. I think all data should be considered in context, though. Are you saying that some data should be discarded if it disagrees with a particular point of view?
We are talking about this in another thread.
Diversity alone is not reliable, because the calculations often contain different lineages. Diversity is meaningful only if it for certain contains haplotypes from only one lineage. Diversity of different R1b branches together is just as meaningless as the diversity of R1a, R1b and N1c together.

Diversity should not be calculated by population, region or even haplogroup as a whole – all that matters is the lineage; see Chapter 7 here: http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/N1b.pdf


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 23, 2012, 12:38:24 PM
Quote from: Mikewww
I think all data should be considered and gene diversity is a valuable piece of data whether it is STR or SNP diversity. I think all data should be considered in context, though. Are you saying that some data should be discarded if it disagrees with a particular point of view?

We are talking about this in another thread.

I don't know which thread you are talking about... STR Wars?  If so let's talk about that over there so as not to bog down discussions about David Anthony's writings.

Quote from: Jaska
Diversity alone is not reliable,
I agree. In fact I just said that we should look at all the data. Is there anyone who thinks we should look at diversity alone in a vacuum?

Quote from: Jaska
because the calculations often contain different lineages. Diversity is meaningful only if it for certain contains haplotypes from only one lineage.
I agree that measuring variance across different not closely related clades is not meaningful. I wasn't doing that. In this thread I was talking about U106 in its entirety, not just U106*.

Quote from: Jaska

Diversity of different R1b branches together is just as meaningless as the diversity of R1a, R1b and N1c together.

Your example is wrong and not at all equivalent. R1b encompasses a clade in its entirety. what I was talking about - U106, in its entirety,  is a relatively young clade.

R1a, R1b and N1c together are not one clade. You have to go way, way back to get to a common ancestor for N and R. You'd have to include Q and P and more to get to an entire clade with a common ancestor.

Quote from: Jaska
Diversity should not be calculated by population, region or even haplogroup as a whole – all that matters is the lineage; see Chapter 7 here: http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/N1b.pdf

I agree that diversity calculated by region is suspect. It's just another piece of data. I also agree that we should breakdown each clade into as many subclades as possible, analyze each and look at the components as well as the whole. I try to do that, whenever enough data is available.

It is not correct to say diversity is useless and totally discard it arbitrarily. There may be good reasons to dis-count (for some reason this word gets deleted so I had to stick in the hyphen) it for a for a particular comparison. It could also be a red herring as it could indicate a pooled/destination population rather than a launch pad population.  The data may not be representative. However, it is not wise to summarily dismiss it. What do you say if diversity for a clade in one region is .1 and in another it is .9 ? That's a huge difference and diminishes the probabilities that the .1 region is the source.

... but okay, so you don't like STR diversity.  I think it is more valuable than to analyze just frequency. Frequency is a better indicator oftentimes of the end of a trail rather than the beginning. If you disagree, that's fine but lets discuss over on your other thread.

Back to the topic here. What evidence do you offer that U106 or its predecessor lineages did not get to Northern Europe from an easterly source? Do you have any genetic evidence? Polako says he has no idea of U106's origin?  

What do you say? Where did U106 originate?






Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: T101 on October 23, 2012, 04:47:57 PM

BTW, I see higher U106 diversity in Poland and in the Baltic states than in Germany. I'm trying figure that out.

Haha... don't! it's a trap!! Use of diversity in Poland should only be done with extreme caution! It almost certainly indicates as you put it "a pooled/destination population," that has received countless dribs and drabs of migration to it for millenia.

From the West R1b-U106 was already there with Jastorf or perhaps sooner (dare I say R1b-U106 ancestors formed the Globular Amphora Culture - probably not but intriguing) then the Eastern Germanic tribes, the Frankish Marches, the Ostsiedlung, the Austro-Hungarian Empire etc. etc.

To quote Dienekes: Y-STR's are only good for "recent genealogy, or forensics." And "human prehistory in the broadest time scales."

Y-STR's often only lead to Klyosov-type conclusions. A roller coaster where you have haplogroups originating way out in China only to cross the Himalayas dip over to Saudi Arabia, flip up to Anatolia to build Gobekli Tepe then across Europe to build Stonehenge, leave Europe, do a 180 and come back to the Balkans to spread PIE! Haha.. He's a good guy... but wild ideas!


Where do you think the U106 folks came from?

I like Maciamo's idea that R1b-U106 "originated" in present-day Austria "during the Hallstatt period. Occam's razor simple and sweet.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Jaska on October 23, 2012, 06:33:52 PM
Quote from: Mikewww
It is not correct to say diversity is useless and totally discard it arbitrarily. There may be good reasons to dis-count (for some reason this word gets deleted so I had to stick in the hyphen) it for a for a particular comparison. It could also be a red herring as it could indicate a pooled/destination population rather than a launch pad population.  The data may not be representative. However, it is not wise to summarily dismiss it. What do you say if diversity for a clade in one region is .1 and in another it is .9 ? That's a huge difference and diminishes the probabilities that the .1 region is the source.

... but okay, so you don't like STR diversity.  I think it is more valuable than to analyze just frequency. Frequency is a better indicator oftentimes of the end of a trail rather than the beginning. If you disagree, that's fine but lets discuss over on your other thread.

I mean that diversity alone, loosely and blindly calculated (as in so many genetic studies), is worthless. But if we can divide all the haplotypes by their lineage to different subhaplogroups and branches, and then calculate the diversity lineage-wise, then the results are reliable.  

Frequency alone is the least worthy; diversity alone is worthier; and analysis by lineage is the worthiest.

Even your example of two populations/regions with diversities 0.9 and 0.1 cannot tell anything certain, if they represent the "blind" diversity. Lineage analysis may well show that the most basal and ancestral haplotypes are found in the population/region A, while all the haplotypes in the population/region B are closer to the tips of branches = descendants of those ancestral haplotypes of A. In such occasion the diversity of A would of course be much smaller, because basal haplotypes are closer to each other in GD (genetic distance), while the tip haplotypes are more distant from each other, separated by many cumulative mutations. Still, the original homeland of that lineage would be the region/population A.

Quote from: Mikewww
Back to the topic here. What evidence do you offer that U106 or its predecessor lineages did not get to Northern Europe from an easterly source? Do you have any genetic evidence? Polako says he has no idea of U106's origin?

I Still don't know anything about the origin of U106. I would like to see complete haplotype reconstructions: string of alleles, combined results of SNP's and STR's. Even Klyosov does not give those.

U106 is a descendant of L11. L11 has DYS492 = 12, while U106 has a mutation there: DYS492 = 12 > 13. L11 seems to concentrate in Central Europe, at least according to the FamilyTreeDNA R1b project:
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b/default.aspx?vgroup=r1b&section=ycolorized

U106 seems to concentrate in Central-Western Europe and Scandinavia, and its descendant Z18 seems to be even more western. I'm not sure what is the most up-to-date academic study about U106, but it seems to originate in Western-Central Europe according to the FTDNA database.


Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 23, 2012, 06:44:40 PM
... Frequency alone is the least worthy; diversity alone is worthier; and analysis by lineage is the worthiest.

I don't think that high frequency is any kind of indicator of origin, but I do understand your concerns on diversity and without much certainty of representativeness and deep data I think we just have to view these genetic measurements as considerations...  definitely, not proof of origin from a stand-alone perspective.

Quote from: Mikewww
Back to the topic here. What evidence do you offer that U106 or its predecessor lineages did not get to Northern Europe from an easterly source? Do you have any genetic evidence? Polako says he has no idea of U106's origin?
Quote from: Jaska
I Still don't know anything about the origin of U106. I would like to see complete haplotype reconstructions: string of alleles, combined results of SNP's and STR's. Even Klyosov does not give those.

U106 is a descendant of L11. L11 has DYS492 = 12, while U106 has a mutation there: DYS492 = 12 > 13. L11 seems to concentrate in Central Europe, at least according to the FamilyTreeDNA R1b project:
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b/default.aspx?vgroup=r1b&section=ycolorized

U106 seems to concentrate in Central-Western Europe and Scandinavia, and its descendant Z18 seems to be even more western. I'm not sure what is the most up-to-date academic study about U106, but it seems to originate in Western-Central Europe according to the FTDNA database.

Why do you think it originates in Western-Central Europe? I guess because that is where you see high frequency of brother L11* is or L11 as a whole??? Are you including France and Iberia?

There is a large file of all the consumer project U106 haplotypes I can find posted at the https://dl.dropbox.com/u/17907527/R1b-U106_Haplotypes.zip (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/17907527/R1b-U106_Haplotypes.zip)
Please have at them. We have a large number of deeply tested people so you can see some patterns emerging. There is a deep branching of the smaller Z18 group from the Z381 lineages.

Of course all of our project data is biased by testing patterns and American immigration sources, but perhaps you can find some noteworthy anomalies or patterns.



Title: Re: Another look at Anthony's ideas
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 23, 2012, 07:36:27 PM
... I did read your post properly, but I wasn't referring to you in my post, I was referring to Jean Manco.

She keeps saying there were massive migrations of Germanics into Poland during the Iron Age, and then massive migrations out of Poland during the early Middle Ages (so called migration period).

This is nonsense...

I'm not a great student of this. Please quote Jean as to what she says related to massive migrations. Her book is not available publicly yet so I think you are talking about her posts. Please quote her.

BTW, I see higher U106 diversity in Poland and in the Baltic states than in Germany. I'm trying figure that out. This is a R1b and Subclades forum and U106 is found among Germanic speakers. Where do you think the U106 folks came from? Are they from Germany? or some place east of or north of there or whatever?

My stab in the dark was its Bronze Age home was Lusatian.  Ethnicity I dont know.  When U106 came into existence there was no such thing as Germanic anyway according to mainstream linguists.  I think it was all a bit fluid linguistically until later in the Bronze Age.