World Families Forums - Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family

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)
| | |-+  Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 24 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family  (Read 148313 times)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #225 on: August 30, 2012, 12:03:35 PM »

.... Renfrew is no longer so much the early agricultural Anatolian advocate as  (edit:Renfrew now is) the mounted warrior kurganist opposition.

Not my reading of it, having seen him lecture. He keeps gleefully dragging in the old Gimbutas vision from which Mallory and Anthony have been at pains to distance themselves, because he know people hate it. Tarring the opposition. In the lecture I saw, he pretended to have forgotten the title of Anthony's book, so that he could pretend to misremember it as "horse-riders conquering Europe."

That's exactly my point. Alan said earlier that Renfrew was more open in his position.  From my interpretation, Alan may be right, but Renfrew's main purpose seems to be to knock any "mounted warrior" aspect of a IE expansion from the Steppes.

I always thought the Gimbutas perspective sounded a bit crazy so I never delved into it.  However, is Renfrew using the Gimbutas mounted warrior vision as his strawman target, keeping Mallory and Anthony busy deflecting that while distracting the audience emotionally?

If Anthony has separated himself from Gimbutas, Renfrew is fighting the last battle, maybe because he can't win the current one.

Alan, help... or whoever will defend Renfrew. I'm beginning to not think so well of him.  I'm not following where Renfrew is going for shades of gray in terms of periods later than the early Neolithic. I mainly just hear Renfrew attacking mounted warriors, the horse and such. This latest paper on PIE with an early agricultural expansion seems to have Renfrew's full support. It's clearly an early Neolithic hypothesis.

May be Renfrew is right, but I'd like to see his arguments about why secondary products, metals, etc. words are in PIE.  The only argument I've seen from him there is that glottochronology doesn't work and he cites the Latin word for cafe or something. If glottochronology and the language tree concept don't work then Renfrew should not support this latest paper timing language development.

Okay, I'll be a bit harsh, but Renfrew is well esteemed and use to facing criticism. I'm just hoping to inspire a better defense of his position.... but it's like he is fighting the windmills (the mounted warriors) but he has a problem because they really are dragons (the PIE lexicon.)

I'm not saying Anthony is 100% correct, BTW, I'm just trying to figure out why PIE didn't expand with the secondary products or later.

To be honest although I am a fence sitter on the IE thing, I have never been impressed by Renfrew.  I think some sort of case could be put far better than Renfrew has done.  Even his seminal book was not a great read.  I actually hated it at the time and was an arch Kurganist lol.  I am by no means a convinced pre-Kurganist now either.  I really lack confidence in concluding on this one personally.  Both models have massive elements that are hard to swallow when we are talking about the establishement of a huge language spread. My gut feeling is that BOTH steppes and farming people of the east Balkans AND steppe people simply had to be involved in the PIE linguistic and cultural ethnogenesis. The crucial interface is clearly from the east Balkans/west shore of the Black Sea through along the steppes.  However, in that zone there was a lot of waxing and waning and giving and taking etc and I am just not 100%. They all probably knew about the late Neolithic objects and secondary products etc and had words for them because they were so intertwined.  I just am not sure if the language and words for these things we took away was originally the language of the Kurgan people or the farmers (and remember they waxed, mained and overlapped). 

So, I think i agree with the general time and the general place where PIE as reconstructed may have finally formed (the east European farmer-hunter/steppe nomad interface) but I am not sure which element spoke it first.  I also do not believe we can distingish between a word spoken among PIEs before they dispersed and a word that spread post-dispersal among early dispersed IEs after dispersal.  The period when this is impossible to distinguise between a genetic PIE word and a later invovation spread among dispersed IEs could be a long one if the IEs continued to have close interaction networks with each other after dispersal, slowing down divergence. So, I think we cant nail it down as close to a date as we would like IMO.  Maybe to within a 1000 years or so but I am not buying the idea that we know enough about how long it took the divergence from PIE into distinct languages.  There are so many factors that could affect that. That is why I sit on the fence getting splinters in my derriere on this issue. 
Logged
IALEM
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #226 on: August 30, 2012, 04:01:12 PM »

It is very significant that Hittite specialist pay very little regard to the anatolian origin of PIE. Most hold that Hittites are foreigners to anatolia, having arrived in the 3rd millenium.
Logged

Y-DNA L21+


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

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #227 on: August 30, 2012, 11:28:03 PM »

.... My gut feeling is that BOTH steppes and farming people of the east Balkans AND steppe people simply had to be involved in the PIE linguistic and cultural ethnogenesis. The crucial interface is clearly from the east Balkans/west shore of the Black Sea through along the steppes.  However, in that zone there was a lot of waxing and waning and giving and taking etc and I am just not 100%. They all probably knew about the late Neolithic objects and secondary products etc and had words for them because they were so intertwined.  I just am not sure if the language and words for these things we took away was originally the language of the Kurgan people or the farmers (and remember they waxed, mained and overlapped).  

Alan, I'm with you on this, but I lose confidence in the crucial interface being in the "east Balkans/west shore of the Black Sea."  I'd like to think that, but I have to ask if I'm being Euro-centric.

Objectively, my understanding of the the PIE language tree is Jack Lynch's from Rutgers.
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/language.html

If there is something wrong with Lynch's tree, please let me know. I think linguists generally agree with this.

The part that causes the hitch in my "SE Europe/Steppes/West Anatolia" interface origin is the Indo-Iranian branch.  How in the world did a Western Black Sea oriented group of folks provide the same basic word set for the Indo-Iranian group?  

I may be missing Anatolian relationships with Northern Iran and some connection across the south of the Black and Caspian Seas. Am I?

If the Satem languages have the same base PIE word set and if they are a little younger then I just don't see a connection across the south of the Black Sea/Caspian line. The Satem PIE derived languages probably came from north/east of the Caspian Sea. That's what I understand, anyway.

If so, the PIE homeland would have a hard time being placed on the west side of the Black Sea.

I have to come back to Transcaucasia from Northern Iran up to the Sea of Azov. I don't understand the ethnicities and waxing and waning of agriculturalists and pastoralists in this region but my gut feel is that this area is at least as complex as SE Europe on the west side of the Black Sea.

The mix of peoples and languages in Transcaucasia might also account for such things as Basque language.  The people of Transcaucasia might also account for the higher R1b-L23* diversity... that from what I can see is from Armenians. The Bosphorus up through the Sea of Asov, or maybe it is the other way around, may have been a transportation route for people interfacing and/or intermixing with both old style agriculturalists and nomadic herders.

I wish we had aDNA from the Maykop culture and related cultures both north and south.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2012, 11:36:11 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #228 on: August 31, 2012, 02:35:32 PM »

.... My gut feeling is that BOTH steppes and farming people of the east Balkans AND steppe people simply had to be involved in the PIE linguistic and cultural ethnogenesis. The crucial interface is clearly from the east Balkans/west shore of the Black Sea through along the steppes.  However, in that zone there was a lot of waxing and waning and giving and taking etc and I am just not 100%. They all probably knew about the late Neolithic objects and secondary products etc and had words for them because they were so intertwined.  I just am not sure if the language and words for these things we took away was originally the language of the Kurgan people or the farmers (and remember they waxed, mained and overlapped).  

Alan, I'm with you on this, but I lose confidence in the crucial interface being in the "east Balkans/west shore of the Black Sea."  I'd like to think that, but I have to ask if I'm being Euro-centric.

Objectively, my understanding of the the PIE language tree is Jack Lynch's from Rutgers.
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/language.html

If there is something wrong with Lynch's tree, please let me know. I think linguists generally agree with this.

The part that causes the hitch in my "SE Europe/Steppes/West Anatolia" interface origin is the Indo-Iranian branch.  How in the world did a Western Black Sea oriented group of folks provide the same basic word set for the Indo-Iranian group?  

I may be missing Anatolian relationships with Northern Iran and some connection across the south of the Black and Caspian Seas. Am I?

If the Satem languages have the same base PIE word set and if they are a little younger then I just don't see a connection across the south of the Black Sea/Caspian line. The Satem PIE derived languages probably came from north/east of the Caspian Sea. That's what I understand, anyway.

If so, the PIE homeland would have a hard time being placed on the west side of the Black Sea.

I have to come back to Transcaucasia from Northern Iran up to the Sea of Azov. I don't understand the ethnicities and waxing and waning of agriculturalists and pastoralists in this region but my gut feel is that this area is at least as complex as SE Europe on the west side of the Black Sea.

The mix of peoples and languages in Transcaucasia might also account for such things as Basque language.  The people of Transcaucasia might also account for the higher R1b-L23* diversity... that from what I can see is from Armenians. The Bosphorus up through the Sea of Asov, or maybe it is the other way around, may have been a transportation route for people interfacing and/or intermixing with both old style agriculturalists and nomadic herders.

I wish we had aDNA from the Maykop culture and related cultures both north and south.


Mike-what I really mean is that the farming-hunter/steppe pastoralist interface waced and waned.  The farmers overrun part of Ukraine leading to the dissapearance of the Bug-Dneister culture which itself had taken on a lot of farming aspects.  Wiki:

At about 5800 BC they began to make a native pottery, mainly jars, flat-bottomed or pointed-bottomed, decorated in patterns of wavy lines. Influence from the Starcevo struck the native culture changing it drastically. Pottery suddenly became like that of the Starcevo culture and the wild grass was abandoned in favor of einkorn, emmer and spelt, already popular in south Europe.
 
At some time after 5500 BC, the Starcevo lost its influence in favor of one from the LBK (Linear Pottery culture). LBK people probably did enter the region from the upper Dniester and overran it as far south as the lower Danube. The pottery became like the LBK. Native stone subterranean houses were replaced by long houses.
 
The LBK that overran this region was a specific phase. At around 5270 BC calibrated, at the most populous peak of the LBK, judging from the number of dates obtained as a rough guideline, the pottery in eastern Austria acquired a new decorative style, termed Notenkopfkeramik by its German discoverers. In English it means "Notehead Pottery." Notehead is a good English word also but a little obscure. Most use "musical note" to translate Notenkopf.
 
In this style the incised broken line, one or two incisions wide, replaces the convolute bands of the early LBK. The lines may wander, as did the convolute bands, forming square maeanders, or they may go around the pot in zig-zag motifs, resembling bars of music. At the intersection of every broken line is a double or single deep puncture, the "notehead." An unbroken but punctured ring of one or more lines circle(s) the top of the piece. The style appears to be a modification of the LBK bands.
 
The style quickly spread into Poland through Slovakia, where it found the Western Bug. Moving along this corridor, they entered Ukraine and Romania along the Dneister and Prut. It is not known further west.
 
This specific culture acquired a very dense population, which in later times became the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture.
 
[edit] External links


Over and above that I posted a paper earlier in this thread which explained the complexity and extremely long duration of farming influence and intrusion into the steppes going right back to the pre-pottery Neolithic.  The siituation with farmers and forgagers in the genesis of the steppes cultures of the copper age is extremly complex and appears to have involved both.  There were so many groups there its extremely hard to conclude much.  There was also very complex upheavals caused by environmental variations.  The very recent paper I posted above on this shows that it is a lot harder to understand the forager-farmer interaction in the steppes than you would think from the way it is usually presented. 
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #229 on: August 31, 2012, 06:11:46 PM »

  Mike-what I really mean is that the farming-hunter/steppe pastoralist interface waced and waned.  The farmers overrun part of Ukraine leading to the dissapearance of the Bug-Dneister culture which itself had taken on a lot of farming aspects.  Wiki:

At about 5800 BC they began to make a native pottery, mainly jars, flat-bottomed or pointed-bottomed, decorated in patterns of wavy lines. Influence from the Starcevo struck the native culture changing it drastically. Pottery suddenly became like that of the Starcevo culture and the wild grass was abandoned in favor of einkorn, emmer and spelt, already popular in south Europe.
 
At some time after 5500 BC, the Starcevo lost its influence in favor of one from the LBK (Linear Pottery culture). LBK people probably did enter the region from the upper Dniester and overran it as far south as the lower Danube. The pottery became like the LBK. Native stone subterranean houses were replaced by long houses.
 
The LBK that overran this region was a specific phase. At around 5270 BC calibrated, at the most populous peak of the LBK, judging from the number of dates obtained as a rough guideline, the pottery in eastern Austria acquired a new decorative style, termed Notenkopfkeramik by its German discoverers. In English it means "Notehead Pottery." Notehead is a good English word also but a little obscure. Most use "musical note" to translate Notenkopf.
 
In this style the incised broken line, one or two incisions wide, replaces the convolute bands of the early LBK. The lines may wander, as did the convolute bands, forming square maeanders, or they may go around the pot in zig-zag motifs, resembling bars of music. At the intersection of every broken line is a double or single deep puncture, the "notehead." An unbroken but punctured ring of one or more lines circle(s) the top of the piece. The style appears to be a modification of the LBK bands.
 
The style quickly spread into Poland through Slovakia, where it found the Western Bug. Moving along this corridor, they entered Ukraine and Romania along the Dneister and Prut. It is not known further west.
 
This specific culture acquired a very dense population, which in later times became the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture.
 
[edit] External links


Over and above that I posted a paper earlier in this thread which explained the complexity and extremely long duration of farming influence and intrusion into the steppes going right back to the pre-pottery Neolithic.  The siituation with farmers and forgagers in the genesis of the steppes cultures of the copper age is extremly complex and appears to have involved both.  There were so many groups there its extremely hard to conclude much.  There was also very complex upheavals caused by environmental variations.  The very recent paper I posted above on this shows that it is a lot harder to understand the forager-farmer interaction in the steppes than you would think from the way it is usually presented. 

Thanks, Alan. I think I'm beginning to understand your vision a little better of the waxing and waning.  This was going on for quite a period of time it looks like. 

I remember that Anthony said the Cucuteni-Tripolye farming people struggled with Usatovo steppes for some time with the final result being an integrated culture that actually expanded eastward after the integration, although I think he felt like the Usatovo had the upper hand.

What do you think about the Usatovo Culture?

Quote from: Wikipedia
Usatovo culture, 3500—3000 BC, an archaeological culture facing the Black sea between the mouths of the Bug River and the Danube in present-day Romania, Moldavia, and southern Ukraine.

It is seen as a hybrid, with roots in both the Cernavodă and the Tripolye cultures, overlain by an intrusive steppe-derived element of the perhaps Indo-European-speaking Kurgan culture.

Metal artefacts are connected to contacts with the distant Caucasus.

It is seen as part of the "Balkan-Danubian complex" that stretched from Troy, the Danube valley up into the Elbe.

Usotov seems very suspicious if if was seen across the Danube Valley and over to the Elbe while also touching the Caucasus and Troy.

Where did metallurgy start?  Not really on the Steppes themselves, I see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Metallurgical_diffusion.png
Logged

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

Posts: 523


« Reply #230 on: August 31, 2012, 06:41:07 PM »


Where did metallurgy start?  Not really on the Steppes themselves, I see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Metallurgical_diffusion.png


Anatolia followed by Serbia.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #231 on: August 31, 2012, 07:13:57 PM »

Anatolia followed by Serbia.

Not exactly. From about 10,000 BC copper and malachite were worked cold into beads and ornaments in the heartland of the Neolithic where Anatolia meets the Levant. By 8000 BC some within that core area had discovered that heat (annealing) made copper-working easier. Then around 5000 BC smelting and cast-copper objects appeared both east and west of the heartland: at Tal-i Iblis in Iran and Belovode in Serbia. This simultaneous surge of the same technology makes a single locus of invention likely, probably in eastern Anatolia, the centre of the range of early smelting.

See Roberts, Thornton and Pigott 2009; Roberts 2008.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2012, 07:15:55 PM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #232 on: August 31, 2012, 07:23:05 PM »

By the way - I strongly suspect that the importance of Iran in both the Neolithic and Copper Age has been under-rated, simply because it has been more difficult to excavate there.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2012, 07:46:44 PM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #233 on: August 31, 2012, 08:46:18 PM »

  Mike-what I really mean is that the farming-hunter/steppe pastoralist interface waced and waned.  The farmers overrun part of Ukraine leading to the dissapearance of the Bug-Dneister culture which itself had taken on a lot of farming aspects.  Wiki:

At about 5800 BC they began to make a native pottery, mainly jars, flat-bottomed or pointed-bottomed, decorated in patterns of wavy lines. Influence from the Starcevo struck the native culture changing it drastically. Pottery suddenly became like that of the Starcevo culture and the wild grass was abandoned in favor of einkorn, emmer and spelt, already popular in south Europe.
 
At some time after 5500 BC, the Starcevo lost its influence in favor of one from the LBK (Linear Pottery culture). LBK people probably did enter the region from the upper Dniester and overran it as far south as the lower Danube. The pottery became like the LBK. Native stone subterranean houses were replaced by long houses.
 
The LBK that overran this region was a specific phase. At around 5270 BC calibrated, at the most populous peak of the LBK, judging from the number of dates obtained as a rough guideline, the pottery in eastern Austria acquired a new decorative style, termed Notenkopfkeramik by its German discoverers. In English it means "Notehead Pottery." Notehead is a good English word also but a little obscure. Most use "musical note" to translate Notenkopf.
 
In this style the incised broken line, one or two incisions wide, replaces the convolute bands of the early LBK. The lines may wander, as did the convolute bands, forming square maeanders, or they may go around the pot in zig-zag motifs, resembling bars of music. At the intersection of every broken line is a double or single deep puncture, the "notehead." An unbroken but punctured ring of one or more lines circle(s) the top of the piece. The style appears to be a modification of the LBK bands.
 
The style quickly spread into Poland through Slovakia, where it found the Western Bug. Moving along this corridor, they entered Ukraine and Romania along the Dneister and Prut. It is not known further west.
 
This specific culture acquired a very dense population, which in later times became the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture.
 
[edit] External links


Over and above that I posted a paper earlier in this thread which explained the complexity and extremely long duration of farming influence and intrusion into the steppes going right back to the pre-pottery Neolithic.  The siituation with farmers and forgagers in the genesis of the steppes cultures of the copper age is extremly complex and appears to have involved both.  There were so many groups there its extremely hard to conclude much.  There was also very complex upheavals caused by environmental variations.  The very recent paper I posted above on this shows that it is a lot harder to understand the forager-farmer interaction in the steppes than you would think from the way it is usually presented. 

Thanks, Alan. I think I'm beginning to understand your vision a little better of the waxing and waning.  This was going on for quite a period of time it looks like. 

I remember that Anthony said the Cucuteni-Tripolye farming people struggled with Usatovo steppes for some time with the final result being an integrated culture that actually expanded eastward after the integration, although I think he felt like the Usatovo had the upper hand.

What do you think about the Usatovo Culture?

Quote from: Wikipedia
Usatovo culture, 3500—3000 BC, an archaeological culture facing the Black sea between the mouths of the Bug River and the Danube in present-day Romania, Moldavia, and southern Ukraine.

It is seen as a hybrid, with roots in both the Cernavodă and the Tripolye cultures, overlain by an intrusive steppe-derived element of the perhaps Indo-European-speaking Kurgan culture.

Metal artefacts are connected to contacts with the distant Caucasus.

It is seen as part of the "Balkan-Danubian complex" that stretched from Troy, the Danube valley up into the Elbe.

Usotov seems very suspicious if if was seen across the Danube Valley and over to the Elbe while also touching the Caucasus and Troy.

Where did metallurgy start?  Not really on the Steppes themselves, I see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Metallurgical_diffusion.png


lol vision is not what I would call it.  Maybe very blurred vision.  All I am doing is poking about at the ideas relating to the contact zone between and within the steppes and SE Europe.  All sorts of elements could have been on the steppes.  Again, I would urge anyone who wants to understand how much more complicated it was should read this paper

http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf36/36_10.pdf
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #234 on: September 01, 2012, 12:16:07 PM »

ut at the ideas relating to the contact zone between and within the steppes and SE Europe.  All sorts of elements could have been on the steppes.  Again, I would urge anyone who wants to understand how much more complicated it was should read this paper

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

One aspect of this paper is that it shows how elements kept being internally displaced and moved within the steppes depending on climatic changes.  One thing I would strongly feel from that is that there were probably a very mixed bunch on the steppes and the very high levels of more recent R1a clades is not representative of the Neolithic there.  If you think about it, the   high levels of R1b in western Europe is not at all representative of the earlier Neolithic there.  So this could also be true of the R1a area.  Clearly we need to improve our understanding of the more upstream forms of R1a and R1b that pre-dates say 5000BC.  The lesson of R1b should be learned i.e. looking at unsorted unresolved R1b (mainly consisting of downstream forms) and their frequency was utterly misleading and pointed us to the completely wrong end of Europe.  I am sure the same danger exists for R1a.   
Logged
Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #235 on: September 01, 2012, 04:53:57 PM »

ut at the ideas relating to the contact zone between and within the steppes and SE Europe.  All sorts of elements could have been on the steppes.  Again, I would urge anyone who wants to understand how much more complicated it was should read this paper

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

One aspect of this paper is that it shows how elements kept being internally displaced and moved within the steppes depending on climatic changes.  One thing I would strongly feel from that is that there were probably a very mixed bunch on the steppes and the very high levels of more recent R1a clades is not representative of the Neolithic there.  If you think about it, the   high levels of R1b in western Europe is not at all representative of the earlier Neolithic there.  So this could also be true of the R1a area.  Clearly we need to improve our understanding of the more upstream forms of R1a and R1b that pre-dates say 5000BC.  The lesson of R1b should be learned i.e. looking at unsorted unresolved R1b (mainly consisting of downstream forms) and their frequency was utterly misleading and pointed us to the completely wrong end of Europe.  I am sure the same danger exists for R1a.   
[/quote]

Alan,
This is a good paper. I enjoyed reading it.
I can understand that horse domistication possibly originated on the steppes, but I believe pigs, goats and cattle came from Anatolia and the Levent. It is possible that due to over farming the Anatolian farmers moved to The Balkens and on to The Steppes, bringing their farming culture with them. I have a hard time dealing with the concept of a sudden swap of languages from the R1a to R1b people's.
Logged

Heber


 
R1b1a2a1a1b4  L459+ L21+ DF21+ DF13+ U198- U106- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L48- L44- L4- L226- L2- L196- L195- L193- L192.1- L176.2- L165- L159.2- L148- L144- L130- L1-
Paternal L21* DF21


Maternal H1C1



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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #236 on: September 01, 2012, 07:29:26 PM »

ut at the ideas relating to the contact zone between and within the steppes and SE Europe.  All sorts of elements could have been on the steppes.  Again, I would urge anyone who wants to understand how much more complicated it was should read this paper

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

One aspect of this paper is that it shows how elements kept being internally displaced and moved within the steppes depending on climatic changes.  One thing I would strongly feel from that is that there were probably a very mixed bunch on the steppes and the very high levels of more recent R1a clades is not representative of the Neolithic there.  If you think about it, the   high levels of R1b in western Europe is not at all representative of the earlier Neolithic there.  So this could also be true of the R1a area.  Clearly we need to improve our understanding of the more upstream forms of R1a and R1b that pre-dates say 5000BC.  The lesson of R1b should be learned i.e. looking at unsorted unresolved R1b (mainly consisting of downstream forms) and their frequency was utterly misleading and pointed us to the completely wrong end of Europe.  I am sure the same danger exists for R1a.   

Alan,
This is a good paper. I enjoyed reading it.
I can understand that horse domistication possibly originated on the steppes, but I believe pigs, goats and cattle came from Anatolia and the Levent. It is possible that due to over farming the Anatolian farmers moved to The Balkens and on to The Steppes, bringing their farming culture with them. I have a hard time dealing with the concept of a sudden swap of languages from the R1a to R1b people's.
[/quote]

So do I.  I find it very hard to understand any model that puts either R1a or R1b outside the PIE homeland wherever that is.  I am not a linguist but it does not seem to me that either the IE languages in the mainly R1a zone or in the mainly R1b zone have been shown to show the sort of structural contrast that would suggest one was the doner and the other the receiver.  I would like to think that that is the sort of thing that would leave traces that linguists could detect.  One possibility to explain that is the possibility that PIE had been established among both steppe groups and adjacent and intermingled farming elements prior to the climatic driven demographic upheavals that moved both the steppes peoples and the adjacent farmers.  In fact maybe that is the very moment in time of the scattering of PIE and its breakup.  It would make sense if the PIE language evolved in the steppe-farmer interface and straddled both sides prior to the break up.  That way then both the Kurgan movement and the scattering of the huge adjacent SE European farming population would have been involved. 

The way I see it is late Neolithic words for new innovations may ruin the early farmer dispersal theory but it does not help separate late farming populations on the west shore of the Black Sea from the Kurgan populations.  They were in adjacent areas at the same time after all, would have both known of the various late Neolithic/Copper Age innovations and would have had words for them in their languages.  It is also true that the words for objects and innovations we find in PIE do not necessarily have to be in the language of the inventors.  PIE is a snapshot in time of the state of things at the time of the dual Kurgan-SE European farmer dispersal caused by climatic decline. 
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #237 on: September 02, 2012, 07:27:46 AM »

Or to put it another way, you could have a situation such as we saw in France where a group of outsiders (the Germanic Franks) came in but their language didnt prevail and there genetic impact was limited.  Perhaps the Kurgan peoples who intermingled with the farmer groups in SE Europe did bring innovations and a more militaristic aspect but their genes and language did not prevail.  I would have thought that prior to the collapse of the farming groups in the face of the arid period c. 3200BC, the farmers must have had numbers that were a quantum leap higher than the steppe nomads.  Some of their settlements were of the order of 20 or 30 thousand.  I have a feeling one way or another that that group (probably a group that had mixed elements) when they were dispersed by climatic disaster give a very potent demographic possibility for dispersal through Europe of languages and genes.  I must admit I am a little suspicious that the sudden dramatic appearance a little before 3000BC of cultures like Globular Amphora and Corded Ware is related to this as the timing and the locations are suggestive of this. 
« Last Edit: September 02, 2012, 07:34:25 AM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #238 on: September 02, 2012, 11:30:06 AM »

Perhaps the Kurgan peoples who intermingled with the farmer groups in SE Europe did bring innovations and a more militaristic aspect but their genes and language did not prevail.

It is natural that you should want to think your own way through the evidence. Jim Mallory would be the first to urge you to do so. Let us start with the genetics.

  • MtDNA from the European Mesolithic: U5, U4
  • MtDNA from an Ust-Tartas group in Russia, east of the Urals: A, C, D, U2e, U4, U5a1, Z. This is a mixture of European and Central Asian Mesolithic haplogroups, plus U2e which was probably roaming around the Urals
  • MtDNA from the Dnieper-Donets farmers 5616–5482 BC: C, C4a2 plus the Neolithic U3, T, H. Mixing had been going on even this early.
  • MtDNA from Cucuteni-Trypillia c. 3500-3000 BC: H, R0, T2a1b1.
  • MtDNA from Andronovo: H6, K2b, T1, T2a1b1, U2e, U4, U5a1, Z1.
  • MtDNA from Bell Beaker: I1, K1, T1a, U2e,  U4, U5a1, W5a

So we can see the origins of the mixture in Andronovo. Andronovo was not 100% descended from hunter-gatherers of the Urals. Neither was it 100% descended from Cucuteni-Trypillian villagers. This is important because the Y-DNA of Andronovo was R1a1a in the main, which we can then trace through subsequent cultures to people that we know spoke Indo-European languages in Asia. It also appears alongside R1b in Corded Ware, so there is no reason to imagine any different story in Europe.

Then we have R1b in Bell Beaker along with some of the same mtDNA haplogroups as in Andronovo. Again this group was not 100% descended from hunter-gatherers of the Urals. Neither was it 100% descended from Cucuteni-Trypillian villagers. Patrilocal mixing had gone on.  
« Last Edit: September 04, 2012, 03:25:22 PM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #239 on: September 02, 2012, 02:03:12 PM »

Perhaps the Kurgan peoples who intermingled with the farmer groups in SE Europe did bring innovations and a more militaristic aspect but their genes and language did not prevail.

It is natural that you should want to think your own way through the evidence. Jim Mallory would be the first to urge you to do so. Let us start with the genetics.

  • MtDNA from the European Mesolithic: U5, U4
  • MtDNA from an Ust-Tartas group in Russia, east of the Urals: A, C, D, U2e, U4, U5a1, Z. This is a mixture of European and Central Asian Mesolithic haplogroups, plus U2e which was probably roaming around the Urals
  • MtDNA from the Dnieper-Donets farmers 5616–5482 BC: C, C4a2 plus the Neolithic U3, T, H. Mixing had been going on even this early.
  • MtDNA from Cucuteni-Trypillia c. 3500-3000 BC: H, R0, T2a1b1.
  • MtDNA from Andronovo: H6, K2b, T1, T2a1b1, U2e, U4, U5a1, Z1.
  • MtDNA from Bell Beaker: I1, K1, T1a, U2e,  U4, U5a1, W5a

So we can see the origins of the mixture in Andronovo. Andronovo was not 100% descended from hunter-gatherers of the Urals. Neither was it 100% descended from Cucuteni-Trypillian villagers. This is important because the Y-DNA of Andronovo was R1a1a in the main, which we can then trace through subsequent cultures to people that we know spoke Indo-European languages in Asia. It also appears alongside R1b in Corded Ware, so there is no reason to imagine any different story in Europe.

Then we have R1b in Bell Beaker along with some of the same mtDNA haplogroups as in Andronovo. Again this group was not 100% descended from hunter-gatherers of the Urals. Neither was it 100% descended from Cucuteni-Trypillian villagers. Patrilocal mixing had gone on.  


Thanks Jean.  That is a handy summary of mtDNA.  What about Corded Ware and Globular Amphora?   Do we have mtDNA from there?  I am curious about them because they seem to have appeared about the time of the climatic collapse and of course elements of the steppes have been suggested as well as Neolithic continuity,  One possibility (leaving linguistics aside for simplicities sake) is that the appearance of these groups owes something to the Kurganised Neolithic farmers of SE Europe.  There is some coincidence of dates of the appearance of those with the crisis among the farmers and perhaps the taking on on Kurgan features so that perhaps the generalised Kurgan element in those cultures was moved via Kurganised farmers of SE/eastern Europe who underwent a massive collapse and perhaps dispersal at the time.I remain uncertain if the Kurgan driven social changes meant the imposition of their language or whether the new innovations were taken on by local farmers and then spread by them when the climate disaster happened.  Clearly as you note its complex and the populations had mixed both by farming elements entering the steppes and by steppe elements entering the farming zone.  Perhaps the problem is people seek a black and white winner and losers answer when in fact the farmer -steppe interface was complex for 3500 years or more prior to the big climatically driven demographic upheaval c. 3200BC.  As you note the mtDNA situation is complex.  I suspect too that the 3500 years or so of farmer-steppes interaction may have made the yDNA aspect complex, maybe patterned too.    We could of course have the answers right now if only enough ancient yDNA studies had been done and there were not huge gaps in the times, locations and cultures which have been subject to such testing.  Just a matter of time I suppose.   
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #240 on: September 02, 2012, 02:40:42 PM »

Quote from: alan trowel hands.

What about Corded Ware and Globular Amphora?   Do we have mtDNA from there?    

You can see for yourself what has been published in my collated table of Ancient Western Eurasian DNA.

Corded Ware: mtDNA H, I, K1a2, K1b, U5b and X2, together with Y-DNA R1a.



« Last Edit: September 02, 2012, 02:43:39 PM by Jean M » Logged
gtc
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 239


« Reply #241 on: September 02, 2012, 05:29:48 PM »

Quote from: alan trowel hands.

What about Corded Ware and Globular Amphora?   Do we have mtDNA from there?    

You can see for yourself what has been published in my collated table of Ancient Western Eurasian DNA.

Corded Ware: mtDNA H, I, K1a2, K1b, U5b and X2, together with Y-DNA R1a.

What a fantastic resource!

Logged

Y-DNA: R1b-Z12* (R1b1a2a1a1a3b2b1a1a1) GGG-GF Ireland (roots reportedly Anglo-Norman)
mtDNA: I3b (FMS) Maternal lines Irish
Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #242 on: September 03, 2012, 04:23:36 PM »

Interesting article on the origin of PIE and Gobekli Tepe. While I don't agree with everything they say or the slant of the journal, it gives an interesting view point.

"Indo European Language Distribution Ca. 9500 BCE.
Gobekli Tepe — and its apparent rapid or sudden demise around the year 8000 BCE — now comes into startling contrast with another artifact of our past that has just been re-evaluated in a new way. The Indo-European language, long thought to have taken shape in the steppes of what is now southern Ukraine around the year 6000 BCE, may in fact be older and may also have originated from Anatolia (modern Turkey), in approximately the same region or very close to it where Gobekli Tepe (and perhaps similar communities waiting to be found) was located.

The idea that Indo-European (or whatever gave rise to what we think of as Indo-European) may be 10,000 years old (or older) suddenly forces us to look at Anatolia as possibly the cradle of the Neolithic Age (or the Western Neolithic Age), perhaps the source of all modern human agricultural culture. If the region was fertile enough to support a permanent population that had learned how to cook wild Einkorn wheat, agriculture may have arisen as a consequence of simply gradually harvesting more and more Einkorn and not as a product of radical experimentation."

"After Gobekli Tepe was abandoned people began settling the islands in the Mediterranean Sea, colonizing the British Isles, expanding agriculture to other plants, and we find the appearance of domestic dogs in Europe. It was also during this time that the English Channel was formed (Circa. 6600 BCE), the Black Sea (until then a fresh water lake) was enlarged, and the Persian Gulf was formed when these areas were inundated by their neighboring seas (Circa. 6000 BCE). These inundation events may have given rise to the stories of world-wide floods. The flooding of the Black Sea may further have forced the migration north of some of the Anatolian peoples who were speaking Indo European."

http://history.sf-fandom.com/2012/08/24/new-evidence-challenges-old-assumptions/
« Last Edit: September 03, 2012, 04:49:31 PM by Heber » Logged

Heber


 
R1b1a2a1a1b4  L459+ L21+ DF21+ DF13+ U198- U106- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L48- L44- L4- L226- L2- L196- L195- L193- L192.1- L176.2- L165- L159.2- L148- L144- L130- L1-
Paternal L21* DF21


Maternal H1C1



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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #243 on: September 03, 2012, 05:03:37 PM »

Perhaps the Kurgan peoples who intermingled with the farmer groups in SE Europe did bring innovations and a more militaristic aspect but their genes and language did not prevail.

It is natural that you should want to think your own way through the evidence. Jim Mallory would be the first to urge you to do so. Let us start with the genetics.

  • MtDNA from the European Mesolithic: U5, U4
  • MtDNA from an Ust-Tartas group in Russia, east of the Urals: A, C, D, U2e, U4, U5a1, Z. This is a mixture of European and Central Asian Mesolithic haplogroups, plus U2e which was probably roaming around the Urals
  • MtDNA from the Dnieper-Donets farmers 5616–5482 BC: C, C4a2 plus the Neolithic U3, T, H. Mixing had been going on even this early.
  • MtDNA from Cucuteni-Trypillia c. 3500-3000 BC: H, R0, T2a1b1.
  • MtDNA from Andronovo: H6, K2b, T1, T2a1b1, U2e, U4, U5a1, Z1.
  • MtDNA from Bell Beaker: I1, K1, T1a, U2e,  U4, U5a1, W5a

So we can see the origins of the mixture in Andronovo. Andronovo was not 100% descended from hunter-gatherers of the Urals. Neither was it 100% descended from Cucuteni-Trypillian villagers. This is important because the Y-DNA of Andronovo was R1a1a in the main, which we can then trace through subsequent cultures to people that we know spoke Indo-European languages in Asia. It also appears alongside R1b in Corded Ware, so there is no reason to imagine any different story in Europe.

Then we have R1b in Bell Beaker along with some of the same mtDNA haplogroups as in Andronovo. Again this group was not 100% descended from hunter-gatherers of the Urals. Neither was it 100% descended from Cucuteni-Trypillian villagers. Patrilocal mixing had gone on.  


Hi Jean.  What I am pocking about with at the moment is the hetrogeniety of the farming groups is Europe and the sheer number of different roots they have.  I am kind of trying to get people to move away from the idea of 'the farmers' as a block which tends to be the way they get treated in this hobby.  I suspect that timing, origin point and later interaction networks indicates that there could have been 3 or 4 different linguistic groups among the farmers even in SE Europe.  That interests me in terms of language and population dispersal when the Old European cultures of eastern Europe collapsed, whether or not it relates to IE.    
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #244 on: September 03, 2012, 05:20:25 PM »

I suspect that ...  there could have been 3 or 4 different linguistic groups among the farmers even in SE Europe.  

I have just said something similar in an email, though not specifically about SE Europe. I feel that there is a common failure to recognise that there would have been many non-IE languages spoken in Europe that did not survive to be written down. As you know, I feel that we have evidence for several farming waves into SE Europe:

  • Early aceramic. Not much evidence, but seems to have happened.
  • Refugees of 6200 BC climate shift - island hopping.
  • Dairy farming via Anatolia.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #245 on: September 03, 2012, 06:21:05 PM »

Perhaps the Kurgan peoples who intermingled with the farmer groups in SE Europe did bring innovations and a more militaristic aspect but their genes and language did not prevail.

It is natural that you should want to think your own way through the evidence. Jim Mallory would be the first to urge you to do so. Let us start with the genetics.

  • MtDNA from the European Mesolithic: U5, U4
  • MtDNA from an Ust-Tartas group in Russia, east of the Urals: A, C, D, U2e, U4, U5a1, Z. This is a mixture of European and Central Asian Mesolithic haplogroups, plus U2e which was probably roaming around the Urals
  • MtDNA from the Dnieper-Donets farmers 5616–5482 BC: C, C4a2 plus the Neolithic U3, T, H. Mixing had been going on even this early.
  • MtDNA from Cucuteni-Trypillia c. 3500-3000 BC: H, R0, T2a1b1.
  • MtDNA from Andronovo: H6, K2b, T1, T2a1b1, U2e, U4, U5a1, Z1.
  • MtDNA from Bell Beaker: I1, K1, T1a, U2e,  U4, U5a1, W5a

So we can see the origins of the mixture in Andronovo. Andronovo was not 100% descended from hunter-gatherers of the Urals. Neither was it 100% descended from Cucuteni-Trypillian villagers. This is important because the Y-DNA of Andronovo was R1a1a in the main, which we can then trace through subsequent cultures to people that we know spoke Indo-European languages in Asia. It also appears alongside R1b in Corded Ware, so there is no reason to imagine any different story in Europe.

Then we have R1b in Bell Beaker along with some of the same mtDNA haplogroups as in Andronovo. Again this group was not 100% descended from hunter-gatherers of the Urals. Neither was it 100% descended from Cucuteni-Trypillian villagers. Patrilocal mixing had gone on.  


Hi Jean.  What I am pondering with at the moment is the hetrogeniety of the farming groups is Europe and the sheer number of different roots they have.  I am kind of trying to get people to move away from the idea of 'the farmers' as a block which tends to be the way they get treated in this hobby.  I suspect that timing, origin point and later interaction networks indicates that there could have been 3 or 4 different linguistic groups among the farmers even in SE Europe.  That interests me in terms of language and population dispersal when the Old European cultures of eastern Europe collapsed, whether or not it relates to IE.   It seems a major demographic horizon but I would like to understand this in more detail looking more at the farmer element rather than the Kurgan element.  That is not to say I am going down the road of an old European IE model.  However, it is very interesting that the demographic collapse at one end of Europe seems to coincide with huge rises elsewhere which do not seem to be accompanied by Kurgan transfer in a direct way.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #246 on: September 04, 2012, 04:31:21 AM »

That interests me in terms of language and population dispersal when the Old European cultures of eastern Europe collapsed, whether or not it relates to IE.   .... it is very interesting that the demographic collapse at one end of Europe seems to coincide with huge rises elsewhere which do not seem to be accompanied by Kurgan transfer in a direct way.

Later movements have mainly obscured what might have been happening linguistically c. 4000 BC. The TRB seems to have been a direct result of farmers fleeing the Balkan collapse. But then it is overlain by Corded Ware etc. However the Basques and Paleo-Sardinian may provide clues to languages exported from the Balkans at this time. A Copper Age culture arrived in Sardinia c. 4000 BC. I ended up playing safe on this one though. Though there are similarities to Cucuteni, there are also similarities to items in the Cyclades, which were being populated at this time from Anatolia as well as the Balkans, probably also as a result of climate change.

There is a book out claiming that Paleo-Sardinian is related to Basque, but I am not sure how this is evaluated by linguists.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2012, 04:37:48 AM by Jean M » Logged
Maliclavelli
Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2189


« Reply #247 on: September 04, 2012, 05:06:16 AM »

I have written this in the past. Nothing I have to change now, only to underline the link of a Sardinian word with Caucasic, that for what I know I have been the first to do: I thank you for having posted the link to this paper, very interesting. Of course I think that the link between Basque and North-East Caucasian languages is demonstrated, and from more than a century, from when Alfredo Trombetti published “Delle relazioni delle lingue caucasiche con le lingue camitosemitiche e con altri gruppi linguistici” (1902-1903) and then with the fundamental “Le origini della lingua basca” (1923-1925). Trombetti saw the “origini della lingua basca” in his wider theory of the monogenesis of the language. Of course we don’t know where the Caucasian languages were spoken 10000 years ago, and probably the Caucasus has been a refugium from other regions nearby, and we don’t know which path has had the Basque language for arriving to Pyrenees. Someone thinks that similar languages were diffused overall in Western Europe and is trying to find some vestigial of them. And we don’t know where IE languages formed etc etc. and we don’t know where Etruscan language (and similar) formed: you all are repeating slavishly its origin from Aegean sea, which is undemonstrated and not in line with the last archaeological studies. Etruscan languages is a language of ancient Italy with Rhaetian and Camun and Trombetti thought it was intermediate between Caucasian and IE languages. We don’t know which language was spoken in Sardinia or Corsica, but makes me think the possible link of Basque *čori “bird” with Tindi č’uri-GaGa “quail” and Sardinian (from substrate) thiligugu “owl”. I interpreted in the past similar words (see also thilighelta “lizard”) like Berber-wise ones, but probably they are linked to the Caucasian ones in a wider link of the first ancient linguistic groups. If we still hold what archaeology has demonstrated: 1) 7500 years ago agriculturalists from Italy colonized Iberia. We don’t know which language they spoke and if they were autochthonous or came from East. They could speak a Caucasian language, the ancestor of the Basque, the only one survived. We don’t know which hg. they were, but they could be mostly hg. G, that we have found at Treilles and in all the ancient findings. But I wouldn’t exclude that also R-L51* was amongst them, if we look at the RRocca’s map and the presence of this haplogroup exactly in the places that they colonized: Valencia region and Portugal. 2) The link between Ligurian and Lusitanian, probably the ancestor of all the Celt languages which expanded to Central-North Europe from Iberia with the BB, should be later, but we don’t know another period with a colonization of Iberia from Italy before the Roman Empire, and we shouldn’t think that an unique language was spoken in Italy then. There could be many different languages like in every other place of Europe. 3) Of course I still hold my conviction that R1b1* with YCAII=18-22 and 18-23, the intermediate haplogroup between R1b1* and R1b1a2* (Mangino/Mancini), R-L23+/150-, my R-L23/L150*, R-L51*, and why not R-P312* (not found so far) but R-DF27* yes etc. are “cosa nostra”.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-Z2110


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #248 on: September 04, 2012, 07:51:55 AM »

No more arguing about Indo-Europeans for me, at least for awhile. I have filed them away in my mind in the same category in which I store things like unicorns and griffins.
Logged

Maliclavelli
Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2189


« Reply #249 on: September 04, 2012, 08:01:13 AM »

I have filed them away in my mind in the same category in which I store things like unicorns and griffins.
You could add also "thiligugu".
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-Z2110


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 24 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 0.224 seconds with 18 queries.