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 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 12 Go Down Print
Author Topic: An IE Thread That Began on 03 April 2012  (Read 58790 times)
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #125 on: April 07, 2012, 03:16:20 PM »

@ razyn

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

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

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

Posts: 1253


« Reply #126 on: April 07, 2012, 03:27:51 PM »

That's not it at all. Whittaker wasn't claiming IE-speakers invented writing

He cites Oppenheim

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

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

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

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

« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 03:33:10 PM by Jean M » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #127 on: April 07, 2012, 04:12:55 PM »

That doesn't matter, Jean. If Euphratic existed, it doesn't matter whether those who spoke it had a form of writing or some rudimentary civilization or not. What is important is its existence, its nature, and where it was found.

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

« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 04:13:18 PM by rms2 » Logged

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #128 on: April 07, 2012, 04:35:52 PM »

@ rms2

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

It is such a waste of time arguing over the archaeological and linguistic evidence for the spread of IE. That is an argument that was won decades ago. Periodically someone comes up with a fresh idea. You couldn't stop them with ready money. It is too tempting a target. Then someone else will do another survey of the evidence and conclude that the European steppe IE homeland still makes the best sense. That's the pursuit of knowledge in action. If a new idea survives the process of criticism and actually better explains the evidence than the old theory, then the new one will be adopted. There is no conspiracy of silence going on. Quite the reverse. :)
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 05:01:09 PM by Jean M » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #129 on: April 07, 2012, 05:41:00 PM »

Fine, Jean.

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

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

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

Logged

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #130 on: April 07, 2012, 06:55:20 PM »

The argument has been won by the kurganists in your mind...

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

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

You of course will plough your own furrow. There is no compulsion to follow the consensus, thank goodness. And certainly no requirement to agree with me.  
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 06:57:53 PM by Jean M » Logged
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #131 on: April 07, 2012, 07:21:37 PM »

The argument has been won by the kurganists in your mind...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #132 on: April 07, 2012, 08:17:22 PM »

@ NealtheRed

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

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

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

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

My online text is visible to all.  It was converted at the end of last year into pdf to facilitate commentary by academics, which I have sought from the start. Naturally the process of exchange with academics has been invisible to people who have seen me just soliciting comment from DNA Forums users. I understand your concern that I'm not giving myself the opportunity to be savaged by my peers. Not to worry. I am in good hands - professors of archaeology mainly.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 09:49:42 PM by Jean M » Logged
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #133 on: April 07, 2012, 10:44:37 PM »

@ NealtheRed

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

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

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

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

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


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

Nevertheless, growing evidence that questions R1a's affinities with PIE will not be censored and will continue to be posted here, much to your chagrin, and to the dismay of many others who may or may not be R1a.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 10:46:13 PM by NealtheRed » Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #134 on: April 07, 2012, 11:26:15 PM »

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

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

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

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

I don't know how IE languages made it all the way to the Atlantic but there are migrations that could support this.  Just because we can't concretely link those migrations to all Western European languages, Italic, Germanic, Celtic and integrate Euskara into the outcome doesn't mean PIE wasn't real or that PIE didn't originate in the steppes. David Anthony does make an attempt to link PIE to archeologically documented expansions/migrations that link Western IE languages. He admits he is speculating but even if he is wrong on some of these linkages they do not negate, IMO, the high degree of likelihood that PIE was real and PIE's homeland was in the steppes.  I don't know if that is the general consensus, but if it is as Jean says it is, it's just the natural outcome of evidence and logic that are effective.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2012, 12:00:36 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Humanist
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 121


« Reply #135 on: April 08, 2012, 01:51:48 AM »


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

marru : spade , shovel

rā'i immeri : a shepherd

Arabic

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

Sureth (Assyrian-Aramaic vernacular)
mâṛiya: pasture place

mâṛiyana: grazer, pasturer

maṛa: metal spade

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

marta: mistress, lady

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phoenician
jbr: warrior. Pronounced "jabbur."

Sureth
gabbara: hero; Orion.

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

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

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

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

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

And, this:

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

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

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

Wikipedia:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And finally, this:

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

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

Sureth
Beth Nahrain (ܒܝܬ ܢܗܪ̈ܝܢ) : home country
« Last Edit: April 08, 2012, 01:54:02 AM by Humanist » Logged

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #136 on: April 08, 2012, 03:32:55 AM »


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

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

You of course are free to post whatever you like, wherever you like. I can't see any of the bosses here censoring you or anyone else.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2012, 03:52:37 AM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #137 on: April 08, 2012, 07:40:12 AM »

The argument has been won by the kurganists in your mind...

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

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

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

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

Posts: 1253


« Reply #138 on: April 08, 2012, 07:53:07 AM »

Oh Alan! I was hoping to take a rest from this. I have a book to read, remember. :)

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

Yes indeed. Same goes for later cases where IE speakers came up against literate societies. They learned and eventually overtook/absorbed. I discuss this pattern in The Indo-European family: Herders to Hellenes.

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

There are plenty of parallels with non-IE people though, like the Mongol dynasty in China.  
« Last Edit: April 08, 2012, 08:20:45 AM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #139 on: April 08, 2012, 08:22:58 AM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #140 on: April 08, 2012, 08:26:10 AM »

I do wish these debates would be a bit more convivial.  This IE question seems to raise people's blood pressure.  I think some sort of yoga breathing hyperlink is needed on threads about IE, Celtic etc :0).  Anyway, happy Easter folks. 
Logged
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #141 on: April 08, 2012, 10:09:14 AM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well said, Alan. Happy Easter to you too!
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #142 on: April 08, 2012, 04:21:06 PM »

I do wish these debates would be a bit more convivial.  This IE question seems to raise people's blood pressure.  I think some sort of yoga breathing hyperlink is needed on threads about IE, Celtic etc :0).  Anyway, happy Easter folks. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #143 on: April 08, 2012, 11:36:18 PM »

....  I just find it very very hard to imagine the language change flowing in the opposite direction.  You would have thought these hunters morphing into nomadic pastoralists would have been in complete awe of Cucutene-Trypole culture for instance.  They were just light years ahead of the steppes peoples in so many ways.    
I think the same could be said of the Minoans. Weren't they so far ahead of the Mycenaeans?  .. but what happened?  The Greeks are IE and they are Mcyenaean. The Minoans culture was diminished and subordinated as it turns out.

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

Alan, do you dispute what David Anthony writes about the archaeology of the situation? His conclusion of the changes is that the "steppe herders got the upper hand on the upland farmers."
« Last Edit: April 08, 2012, 11:47:39 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #144 on: April 08, 2012, 11:45:11 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for the steppe hunters I tend to think they were Uralic. 
PIE is apparently shows a heavy Uralic influence, right?
« Last Edit: April 09, 2012, 12:08:40 AM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 1253


« Reply #145 on: April 09, 2012, 05:25:54 AM »

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

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

There is more than one connection between PU and PIE:

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

« Last Edit: April 09, 2012, 10:57:23 PM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #146 on: April 09, 2012, 05:42:10 AM »

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

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

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


« Last Edit: April 09, 2012, 06:18:45 AM by Jean M » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #147 on: April 09, 2012, 07:51:22 AM »

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

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

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

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

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #148 on: April 09, 2012, 08:00:57 AM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike

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

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

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #149 on: April 09, 2012, 08:33:21 AM »

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

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

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

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

A very recent paper has indicated that the idea that the Portuguese dates for beaker are oldest is not safe and that there are new dates from Holland that are just as early.  The same paper suggests that if RC dating cant at present define the beaker origin point then we need to fall back on typology and that supports the old idea of beaker arising on the western edge of the single grave/corded ware complex, perhaps in Holland.  I have always had doubts about the Portugal origin idea simply because beaker culture looks so much more like it relates to the pottery and cultures of the single grave/corded ware zones.  So, I think from this article that the Iberia origin thing may be about to be replaced by a 'we dont know' conclusion.  Seems that beaker just spread too fast for RC dating to sort out.  If the people who saw beaker from the periphery of corded ware are correct then that could create a cultural trail going from  beaker-corded ware-TRB (Funnel Beaker), a trail that leads back to Poland.  TRB in seen as an outcome of the late Lengyel in Poland.  Lengyel in turn is perhaps a culture created by a mix of LBK and other new dairy pastoralist elements.   Wiki notes Lengyel pottery was found in western Hungary, the Czech and Slovak Republics, Austria, Poland, and in the Sopot culture of the northern parts of Former Yugoslavia. That takes us back closer to the whole upstream of L11 zone.  The way I look at it is people are prepared to see IE influences in Corded Ware and even late TRB so why not in early TRB or even Lengyel?  Its not a huge leap in time.  I think if people are prepared to see IE in late TRB/early Corded Ware c. 3200BC or earlier then its not much of a leap to see it in TRB or Lengyel c. 4200BC.  I am not sure that either linguists or variance calculations are capable of distinguishing between 5200 years ago and 6200 years ago. 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 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 0.152 seconds with 18 queries.