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 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 12 Go Down Print
Author Topic: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012  (Read 58788 times)
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #150 on: April 09, 2012, 10:09:06 AM »

I have to confess that I haven't kept up with all of the latest papers on the Beaker Folk. Was their influence and spread so pervasive that it could account for the switch to Indo-European?

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

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

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

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

The progress of the Battle of the Radiocarbon dates can be found on the New Bell Beaker papers thread.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2012, 10:37:29 AM by Jean M » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #151 on: April 09, 2012, 10:40:19 AM »

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

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

Prieto-Martinez 2012 also shows links between Bell Beaker and anthropomorphic stelae, but I will give a resume of that on the New Bell Beaker Papers thread, after I get the chance to read it properly.
Volker Heyd's work seems to be what David Anthony is using too. In the "The Horse The Wheel The Language" on footnote #31 of the chapter "The Western Indo-European Languages"
Quote from: David Anthony
Bell Beaker decorated cup styles, domestic pot types, and grave and dagger types from the middle Danube were adopted about 2600 BCE in Moravia and Southern Germany. The material network could have been the bridge through which pre-Celtic dialects spread into Germany. See Heyd, Husty, and Kreiner 2004, especially the final section by Volker Heyd.
Footnote #32
Quote
See Hamp 1998; and Schmidt 1991 for connections between Italic and Celts.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2012, 10:41:47 AM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 1253


« Reply #152 on: April 09, 2012, 10:49:30 AM »

Quote from: Mikewww link=topic=10498.msg128750#msg128750
Heyd, Husty, and Kreiner 2004

Thanks - I see it. I'm a bit handicapped in not reading German. Quite a bit of Heyd's work is in German, including that one.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2012, 10:49:53 AM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #153 on: April 09, 2012, 10:55:50 AM »

I suppose I just don't believe this issue is sewn up.  

Of course you don't Alan. You like to argue. :) That is pretty well written into the job description for archaeologists. I'm sure Prof. Mallory would be proud of the way that you have boldly tossed all of his conclusions out of the window, because the most important thing he teaches is to question, question, question and when you are through with that - doubt. Tolerance of uncertainty is a prerequisite for those pushing back the boundaries of knowledge.  
« Last Edit: April 09, 2012, 10:57:48 AM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #154 on: April 09, 2012, 06:05:44 PM »

I suppose I just don't believe this issue is sewn up.  

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


lol.  His tutorials were set up as two arguing teams and each team leader was given a point of view to argue for even if it was the opposite of what you believed.  I dont actually disagree with all that much he has written on Indo-Europeans, because, as well as being an archaeological giant (and a giant archaeologist!), his most detailed work has been on the eastern half of the IE spread issue.  His seminal book on the IE and his subsequent ones on Tarim etc are extremely detailed on the whole eastern half of the story.  His IE book did basically was very honest in that he wasnt optimistic that any sort of level of understanding of the western half of the story was emerging with the best bet still that the corded ware and beaker culture is involved in some way.  The same basic situation remains.  Even Anthony really doesnt dedicate many pages to the western half of the story.  I suppose my only real point of departure with Jim is I fancy a homeland just a little further west or at least I am still not sure about the nature of the kurgan-farmers frontier dynamic.  
« Last Edit: April 09, 2012, 06:07:59 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #155 on: April 09, 2012, 08:47:03 PM »

If that is right, though, Alan, then it would tend to support the IE-Yamnaya connection and an eastern origin for Beaker stuff. That would also tend to lend credence to the R1a association, given the aDNA R1a finding (one father and son pair, as I recall) at that Corded Ware site at Eulau in Germany.

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

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #156 on: April 09, 2012, 10:52:04 PM »

Quote from: Mikewww link=topic=10498.msg128750#msg128750
Heyd, Husty, and Kreiner 2004
Thanks - I see it. I'm a bit handicapped in not reading German. Quite a bit of Heyd's work is in German, including that one.
Can you point to Heyd's last section, even if it is in German.  Perhaps we can get it translated?  Actually, isn't that up RMS's alley?
Logged

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

Posts: 1253


« Reply #157 on: April 09, 2012, 11:15:37 PM »

His IE book did basically was very honest in that he wasn't optimistic that any sort of level of understanding of the western half of the story was emerging with the best bet still that the corded ware and beaker culture is involved in some way.  The same basic situation remains.  

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

Linguistically BB could represent an earlier stage between PIE and Celtic. I see it as Proto-Italo-Celtic, as you know. But let's not get bogged down in detail.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2012, 11:39:22 PM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #158 on: April 09, 2012, 11:21:01 PM »

Heyd, Husty, and Kreiner 2004 .... Can you point to Heyd's last section, even if it is in German.  Perhaps we can get it translated? 

Actually Heyd put a translation online: Bell Beaker settlements in South Germany and Central Europe A summary of our evidence, discussions about it, and the wider picture of cultural identities in the later third millennium BC

I'd seen it, but only just put two and two together and realised what it is a translation of.
Logged
OConnor
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676


« Reply #159 on: April 10, 2012, 04:28:41 AM »

Perhaps the Beaker influence in Portugal originated from sea people from the continental North Sea area?
Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b4


R-DF13**(L21>DF13)
M42+, M45+, M526+, M74+, M89+, M9+, M94+, P108+, P128+, P131+, P132+, P133+, P134+, P135+, P136+, P138+, P139+, P14+, P140+, P141+, P143+, P145+, P146+, P148+, P149+, P151+, P157+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P161+, P163+, P166+, P187+, P207+, P224+, P226+, P228+, P229+, P230+, P231+, P232+, P233+, P234+, P235+, P236+, P237+, P238+, P239+, P242+, P243+, P244+, P245+, P280+, P281+, P282+, P283+, P284+, P285+, P286+, P294+, P295+, P297+, P305+, P310+, P311+, P312+, P316+, M173+, M269+, M343+, P312+, L21+, DF13+, M207+, P25+, L11+, L138+, L141+, L15+, L150+, L16+, L23+, L51+, L52+, M168+, M173+, M207+, M213+, M269+, M294+, M299+, M306+, M343+, P69+, P9.1+, P97+, PK1+, SRY10831.1+, L21+, L226-, M37-, M222-, L96-, L193-, L144-, P66-, SRY2627-, M222-, DF49-, L371-, DF41-, L513-, L555-, L1335-, L1406-, Z251-, L526-, L130-, L144-, L159.2-, L192.1-, L193-, L195-, L96-, DF21-, Z255-, DF23-, DF1-, Z253-, M37-, M65-, M73-, M18-, M126-, M153-, M160-, P66-

12 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 18


Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #160 on: April 10, 2012, 07:35:25 AM »

Perhaps the Beaker influence in Portugal originated from sea people from the continental North Sea area?

Unlikely. The flow seems to be in the other direction for the early dates of Maritime Bell Beaker, but then the Netherlands gets a flow down the Rhine later, so the Netherlands is an important BB hub. http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/images/BellBeakerGroups.jpg
« Last Edit: April 10, 2012, 07:37:27 AM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #161 on: April 10, 2012, 02:22:57 PM »

His IE book did basically was very honest in that he wasn't optimistic that any sort of level of understanding of the western half of the story was emerging with the best bet still that the corded ware and beaker culture is involved in some way.  The same basic situation remains.  

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

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


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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #162 on: April 15, 2012, 12:19:52 PM »

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


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

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

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

If you only read one paper on this subject I would recommend it is Kristiansen's   
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #163 on: April 15, 2012, 12:49:44 PM »

@ Alan - Yes I thought that you would like the Maikop = PIE idea. I don't buy it,  for reasons I gave on another thread and will repeat here as a more appropriate place.

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

Scenarios that can be ruled out: anything that requires having carriers of these haplogroups set off on their IE-spreading journeys from totally different points at different times, having never met and mixed. That simply won't work. They had to mix to spread lactase persistence.  They had to mix to share a language. They travelled together along many routes. Their homeland was certainly one and the same by the time of the fully-fledged Yamnaya Culture, but the east end of that homeland was strong in R1a1a and the west end strong in R1b-M269+, to judge by end results. We know that R1a1a was in steppe kurgans in a chronological sequence of related cultures from Andronovo to Iranian-speaking Scythians. So that fits the IE steppe homeland.
 
« Last Edit: April 15, 2012, 12:50:51 PM by Jean M » Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #164 on: April 15, 2012, 01:10:12 PM »

There were 4 T/T individuals, 2 T/C individuals, and 13 C/C individuals in the SJAPL(n=19) site in Araba, which is dated back to 5000 ybp (Plantinga et al(2012)). However in a site also dated to the same time period(5000 ybp) in Treilles, France there were 26 C/C individuals. So this means lactase persistance was 31% in SJAPL, Araba, whereas it was 0% in Treilles, France both dated to 5000 ybp. We also know that Treilles was overwhelmingly G2a, with some minor I2a. How does that reconcile with the idea of:


Quote from: Jean M
The importation of lactase persistence, which also seems to have flowed up the Danube into the TRB and so probably had its origin in the dairy farmers around the lower Danube
« Last Edit: April 15, 2012, 01:11:32 PM by JeanL » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #165 on: April 15, 2012, 01:25:22 PM »

@ JeanL

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

Anyway - I can't explain the 13910T in Araba particularly, but 3000 BC is certainly around the period that pastoralists were on the move from the Danube area. They would not necessarily arrive everywhere at exactly the same time.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2012, 01:27:42 PM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #166 on: April 15, 2012, 02:19:15 PM »

@ Alan - Yes I thought that you would like the Maikop = PIE idea. I don't buy it,  for reasons I gave on another thread and will repeat here as a more appropriate place.

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

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

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

Logged
IALEM
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #167 on: April 15, 2012, 03:33:56 PM »

One item very lightly argumented by Kristiansen, if anything, is the expansion from Maykop to Anatolia througth the Caucasus, which is a route much more improbable than the expansion from the Balkans that has been usually assumed.
The route Through the Caucasus is full of non IE people, and Historically the hittites are known to move north from Kanesh into the territory of the non IE Kaska. It is a difficult reconstruction to have the Hittites moving south through the Caucasus and expanding back north from their setlement.
Besides, there is a well recorded movement of the Luwians from west to east in Anatolia. Aain very unlikely to have the Luwians moving from the Caucasus south to the west of Anatolia and back to the East.
The expansion from the Balkans is the more economical explanation for all those movements of IE into the lands of historically recorded non Ie peoples
« Last Edit: April 15, 2012, 03:39:48 PM by IALEM » Logged

Y-DNA L21+


MDKA Lope de Arriçabalaga, born c. 1390 in Azcoitia, Basque Country

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #168 on: April 15, 2012, 03:50:50 PM »

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


However, Anatolian is seem as, if not being the root of PIE, then at least being an early split away of pre-PIE.  That would place pre-PIE in SE Europe at the point of the move to Anatolia.  The presence of pre-PIE in SE Europe would need to be explained.  That would first of all push the date of any move from the Balkans to Anatolia to at least the 4th millenium BC if not earlier. 
Logged
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #169 on: April 15, 2012, 04:19:53 PM »

How does R1b-M73, which is largely Central Asian in its distribution, fit with the spread of IE? 

Supposing the homeland is in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, it looks like they joined up with R1a and the eastern movements of IE.  For those who favor an Anatolian or southern homeland, why does M73 appear to spread east instead of the Balkans? Granted, there are some M73 in Europe, but it has a frequency even less than R1a in Atlantic Europe.

Any thoughts?
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #170 on: April 15, 2012, 04:41:57 PM »

How does R1b-M73, which is largely Central Asian in its distribution, fit with the spread of IE?  

I have been assuming that it spread east along the Silk Road sometime after the collapse of Andronovo, because it does not appear to be part of the movement into India and Iran. Its appearance in Europe could reflect the flight of the Cimmerians, or later movements west by Scythians etc.

[Added 16 April] The Baskirs - a Turkic people of Russia - are particularly interesting:

35% R1b-M269
26% R1a
17% N1c
13% R1b -M73
(Source Lobov 2009)
« Last Edit: April 16, 2012, 06:43:19 AM by Jean M » Logged
IALEM
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #171 on: April 16, 2012, 06:04:31 AM »




However, Anatolian is seem as, if not being the root of PIE, then at least being an early split away of pre-PIE.  That would place pre-PIE in SE Europe at the point of the move to Anatolia.  The presence of pre-PIE in SE Europe would need to be explained.  That would first of all push the date of any move from the Balkans to Anatolia to at least the 4th millenium BC if not earlier.  
Yes, it is an early split, but the move to Anatolia doesn´t have to coincide with the split. The earliest record of Hittites is from 1900 BC, they could have moved some centuries earlier c.2300. An early movement directly from Maykop through the Caucasus seems even more improbable, Hittites then would have been living for 2.000 years unrecorded in their historical location.
If you look at the map, the route through the Caucasus put the Hittites at the end of a number of non IE peoples ion that route, long separated from their origin, while the route from the West put them at the end of a continuous of IE peoples, and it is only natural that being the earliest split they would be at the head of that movement west to east. It is a much more logical explanation.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2012, 06:05:52 AM by IALEM » Logged

Y-DNA L21+


MDKA Lope de Arriçabalaga, born c. 1390 in Azcoitia, Basque Country

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #172 on: April 16, 2012, 06:46:45 AM »

Yes, it is an early split, but the move to Anatolia doesn´t have to coincide with the split.

Anthony sees this early split from the linguistic parent expressed archaeologically by herder settlements of the Suvorovo group appearing in the Danube valley about 4,200 BC. One group moved into the Transylvanian plateau and then down the Mureş river valley into eastern Hungary. Others remained around the mouth of the Danube. Anthony suggests that groups from this culture entered Anatolia around 3,000 BC, perhaps founding Troy I; those left behind seem to fuse with local populations to emerge into history as Thracians.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2012, 06:47:30 AM by Jean M » Logged
IALEM
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #173 on: April 16, 2012, 12:18:27 PM »

Yes, it is an early split, but the move to Anatolia doesn´t have to coincide with the split.

Anthony sees this early split from the linguistic parent expressed archaeologically by herder settlements of the Suvorovo group appearing in the Danube valley about 4,200 BC. One group moved into the Transylvanian plateau and then down the Mureş river valley into eastern Hungary. Others remained around the mouth of the Danube. Anthony suggests that groups from this culture entered Anatolia around 3,000 BC, perhaps founding Troy I; those left behind seem to fuse with local populations to emerge into history as Thracians.
Yes, something along that line is the general line of reasoning in what I have read about Hittites, and their origin. The early arrival to the Balkans also explain the high diversity of ancient IE languages in the region
Logged

Y-DNA L21+


MDKA Lope de Arriçabalaga, born c. 1390 in Azcoitia, Basque Country

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #174 on: April 16, 2012, 01:00:08 PM »

@ Alan - Yes I thought that you would like the Maikop = PIE idea. I don't buy it,  for reasons I gave on another thread and will repeat here as a more appropriate place.

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

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


One thing I liked about Kristiansen's paper is that he explains the sudden movement of peoples (which he clearly considered quite large scale in places) as due to the vast concentrated population of late Cucuteni being forced to disperse and adopt elements of the steppe as a result of the onset of an arid phase which made their previous economic model unsustainable.  The crux of his arguement is a move to the less settled dispersed dairying model means that each person needs far more land to support them and an end to the old methods would have induced a massive outpouring of the populations to less arid areas.  He also hints this happened in the west too and the major nucleated settlements presumably also couldnt be sustained and a parallel outpouring occurred from the west.
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 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 0.14 seconds with 17 queries.