World Families Forums - An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012

ARCHIVAL COPY
Home Help Search Login Register

WorldFamilies has changed our Forum Operating system and migrated the postings from the prior system. We hope that you’ll find this new system easier to use and we expect it to manage spammers much better. If you can’t find an old posting, please check our Legacy Forum to see if you can see the old posting there.
+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: Maliclavelli)
| | |-+  An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 12 Go Down Print
Author Topic: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012  (Read 59463 times)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #100 on: April 06, 2012, 03:05:37 PM »

 There is evidence of Anatolian links both in terms of culture and dairying with the east end of the Danube c. 5000BC.

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

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

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #101 on: April 06, 2012, 03:06:06 PM »

The R1a1a project is a good source for tracking the latest developments.  The oldest R1a by SNP last time I looked, is an R1a1*(M17-) Russian.  The Indian and most other Asian R1a is Z93+, younger than what is in Europe. 

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

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


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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #102 on: April 06, 2012, 03:10:50 PM »

 There is evidence of Anatolian links both in terms of culture and dairying with the east end of the Danube c. 5000BC.

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



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

Posts: 1253


« Reply #103 on: April 06, 2012, 03:14:42 PM »

.. is there any evidence that R1a was in the steppes in (say) 5000BC. Is there any evidence at all that it was there pre-3000BC? If not why is it assumed it is?

We don't have any ancient Y-DNA at all from the European steppe i.e west of the Urals. That may change. But at the moment we are dependent on deduction from archaeology,  linguistics and correlation with IE spread. The aDNA trail starts in Andronovo. I wouldn't pay much attention to current R1a1a on the Russian and Ukrainian steppe. The steppe was a highway. The Scythians pushed out the Cimmerians in prehistory. The latter would have been our best bet for a reflection of Yamnaya peoples.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 04:21:40 PM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #104 on: April 06, 2012, 03:16:14 PM »

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

See Dairy Farming.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #105 on: April 06, 2012, 03:20:56 PM »

Different experts are coming to completely opposite conclusions.  

All too horribly true. But I have not read anything like that. To the contrary, there has been a lot of discussion among Indo-European specialists of the limitations of the agricultural vocabulary in the reconstructed PIE lexicon, in particular among the Indo-Iranian branch, which acquired a lot of vocabulary related to agriculture (particularly irrigation agriculture) and urban life from an unknown language thought to be that of the BMAC.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 03:28:21 PM by Jean M » Logged
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 406


« Reply #106 on: April 06, 2012, 05:18:52 PM »

Isn't the BMAC younger than the phylogenetic events these theories are attempting to relate to PIE?

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

R1b Z196*
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #107 on: April 06, 2012, 06:43:47 PM »

@ razyn

The BMAC is certainly too young to be the genesis of PIE or to feed vocabulary into PIE. No-one has suggested that. The idea is that PIE speakers moved east of the Urals c. 2100 BC to metal-working sites like Sintashta and later to Andronovo sites further east. The demand for metal probably came from the BMAC.  See Indo-Iranians.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 06:47:32 PM by Jean M » Logged
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #108 on: April 06, 2012, 07:51:46 PM »

The Balkan R1a mentioned was even before the discovery of M458 and hasn't not been tested for any of these newer SNP's.  However, there are some samples from various older studies like Underhills (2010) showing SRY10831.2- R1a's or R1a* which does suggest an Anatolia to SE Europe movement.

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

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

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

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

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

@Moderators, It looks like we need an ongoing IE discussion thread or subsection.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 07:59:39 PM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #109 on: April 06, 2012, 09:34:49 PM »

OK - The Euphratic dream-world, as dissected by an unromantic scholar:

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



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

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

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

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #110 on: April 06, 2012, 09:51:52 PM »

. . .

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

. . .


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

Recall Anthony's mention, on page 47, of the work of the Swiss linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure, in postulating a lost Indo-European consonant not preserved in any of the Indo-European languages. It wasn't until Hittite was discovered (in inscriptions, btw) forty years later that de Saussure's work was confirmed. The archaic lost consonant could only be found in an Anatolian language and no place else.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 09:52:41 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #111 on: April 06, 2012, 09:56:21 PM »

. . .

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

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

I'll look into it now.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #112 on: April 06, 2012, 10:06:57 PM »

. . .

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

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

I'll look into it now.

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

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #113 on: April 07, 2012, 07:10:25 AM »

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

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

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

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

The truth is that there was no civilization in Sumer before the Sumerian. Writing was not invented by IE speakers. There is no problem with the possibility that speakers of an ancestor to Sumerian might have come in contact with speakers of an ancestor to PIE - in the South Caspian area perhaps. It's an intriguing idea.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 08:05:50 AM by Jean M » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #114 on: April 07, 2012, 07:37:07 AM »

We're non-linguists and so unsuited to judge such questions. Apparently Gamkrelidze thought Whittaker's work suitably worthy, or he would not have presented it, as he did.

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

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

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

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

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

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #115 on: April 07, 2012, 07:54:57 AM »

I haven't had time to really think about this, but I was taking a quick look back over Mallory's book, In Search of the Indo-Europeans. In the section on the Anatolian languages, he mentions that kurgan burials are "generally absent" in Anatolia (p. 30).

Anyway, that is interesting. It indicates that either the ancestors of those who spoke the Anatolian branch of the IE languages left the Pontic-Caspian steppe before "kurganism" (for lack of a better term) developed, or, if Anatolia is actually the IE Urheimat, kurganism was not present there and only developed after contact was made with steppe peoples. Either way, it seems the kurgan package represents an innovation, one that developed behind or in front of the IE Anatolians.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 07:55:42 AM by rms2 » Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #116 on: April 07, 2012, 08:06:32 AM »

We're non-linguists and so unsuited to judge such questions. Apparently Gamkrelidze thought Whittaker's work suitably worthy, or he would not have presented it, as he did.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posts: 1253


« Reply #117 on: April 07, 2012, 08:14:05 AM »

In the section on the Anatolian languages, he mentions that kurgan burials are "generally absent" in Anatolia (p. 30).

Curiously enough kurgan burial seems to be earliest in the Maikop Culture (c. 3,700-3,100 BC) of the north Caucasus and adopted from there by steppe people. On the other hand anthropomorphic stelae are earliest in the Kemi Oba Culture on and near the Crimea and one such stele was found in the earliest layer at Troy, which is now thought to have been founded by Luwian (IE Anatolian branch) speakers.    
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 08:19:44 AM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #118 on: April 07, 2012, 08:18:55 AM »

Apparently Gamkrelidze thought Whittaker's work suitably worthy, or he would not have presented it, as he did.

Yes the journal of publication for Whittaker 2008 is a big give-away. Only the Georgians would give it house-room. :)
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #119 on: April 07, 2012, 08:35:20 AM »

Apparently Gamkrelidze thought Whittaker's work suitably worthy, or he would not have presented it, as he did.

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

Perhaps only kurganists would dismiss it out of hand as too inconvenient for serious consideration.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 08:35:59 AM by rms2 » Logged

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #120 on: April 07, 2012, 09:17:08 AM »

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

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

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

The truth is that there was no civilization in Sumer before the Sumerian. Writing was not invented by IE speakers. There is no problem with the possibility that speakers of an ancestor to Sumerian might have come in contact with speakers of an ancestor to PIE - in the South Caspian area perhaps. It's an intriguing idea.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 09:18:12 AM by Jean M » Logged
Arwunbee
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


« Reply #121 on: April 07, 2012, 10:45:40 AM »

Why would farmers dump their language and start using the language of nomadic pastoralists?
Logged

Map of L44 subclade (of U106): http://g.co/maps/9xswy
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #122 on: April 07, 2012, 11:54:55 AM »

Why would farmers dump their language and start using the language of nomadic pastoralists?

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

The fact that we are getting mainly Y-DNA haplogroup G from Neolithic remains in Europe suggests that I'm thinking along the right lines. Of course we need much more ancient DNA. And the process was not necessarily uniform across Europe.  
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 11:55:53 AM by Jean M » Logged
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 406


« Reply #123 on: April 07, 2012, 02:54:44 PM »

@ razyn

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

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

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

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

R1b Z196*
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #124 on: April 07, 2012, 03:16:03 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 12 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.141 seconds with 17 queries.