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 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 24 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family  (Read 148104 times)
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #250 on: September 04, 2012, 03:22:59 PM »

The date which Gray and Atkinson want to wish away is not negotiable. The fact that they keep arguing that it is negotiable suggests that they started out to prove Renfrew right and have fed into their model parameters which will produce the desired result.

If anyone is still interested, Hans Holm says they did exactly that.

Quote
And they in fact on the one hand openly (in the main article!) admit that the (prejudiced) root has then been intentionally inserted in the middle between Hittite and its split-off point, subsequently telling their audience that this has been the outcome of their computations. This alone is sufficient to reject the whole approach!
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4142#comment-237029
« Last Edit: September 04, 2012, 05:56:35 PM by Jean M » Logged
Arch Y.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


« Reply #251 on: September 04, 2012, 04:51:10 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.

You make an excellent argument about how more difficult it is to excavate in Iran. There is something about the Zagros Mountain range that needs consideration too; the birth of drinking alcohol as well the domestication of goats. The biggest one I think is the alcohol and perhaps following domestication of the pig (wherever that may have been). I think wherever pork and alcohol is concerned, there tends to be an R1b and IE association with it. Also, I think its too easy to get wrapped up at Gobekli Tepe when there are older sites to the east towards the lower Caucasus. Southern Armenia (Syunik) is also a treasure trove of iron and other minerals; so is the Zagros. I really wished we had more studies of the Zagros and Lower Caucasus.

Arch
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #252 on: September 04, 2012, 05:09:52 PM »

The date which Gray and Atkinson want to wish away is not negotiable. The fact that they keep arguing that it is negotiable suggests that they started out to prove Renfrew right and have fed into their model parameters which will produce the desired result.

It anyone is still interested, Hans Holm says they did exactly that.

Quote
And they in fact on the one hand openly (in the main article!) admit that the (prejudiced) root has then been intentionally inserted in the middle between Hittite and its split-off point, subsequently telling their audience that this has been the outcome of their computations. This alone is sufficient to reject the whole approach!
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4142#comment-237029

I'm interested.

I just don't feel good about Colin Renfrew's approach to this.  David Anthony may be wrong, but his approach sounds thorough and logical and he seems to follow the trail, wherever it leads.

The reason I'm interested, is that if the PIE basic lexicon is correct, that restricts a PIE homeland significantly and apparently both out of the way of the early Neolithic kick-offs and central enough that it could spread at a late time both all the way to China and India as well as all the way to the Atlantic.

If the concept of PIE is true, then R-M269 must have:
1) been in the PIE homeland but only restricted areas that didn't go east
2) been in the PIE homeland but evacuated early to the west while parts of its brothers or some catastrophic situation caused it to be decimated in the home land before the other members of PIE expanded east. In this case R1a and maybe others were raising cain.
3) been on the first stop west of the PIE train going out of town due west. It apparently took over the train at the first stop. R1a must have gotten mugged at this point.

I kind of think alternative #3 is actually the most difficult - the complete take-over at the first stop.

There were plenty of catastrophes and violence in the region to go around so alternatives 1 and 2 make a lot of sense.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2012, 05:21:48 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #253 on: September 04, 2012, 05:44:55 PM »

One thing that I think we can now all agree on on the basis of ancient DNA there was clearly a major population change post the first wave of farmers.  That seems  very clear now although it was not considered likely until very recently based purely on archaeological evicence. I have not a hard and fast opinion on the details of the linguistic element of it.  However, IMO Kurgans are just one element in the major shake up and general upheaval and shunt of populations and I am not convinced they were the main element of the waves of population shift in a westward direction.  As always, R1b and its somewhat mysterious story above L51 would seem to hold the key to the IE-isation of much of Europe.  

I have been pondering for a while that the Bug-Dniester culture could have been where R1b was hiding for much of the Neolithic.  There is a lot to commend this possibility IMO in terms of Geography, the timing of the take off of R1b, the high variance of L23* nearby in Romania, the lack of a true take off demographically until rather late indicated by the structure above L23 being suggestive of a late or slow take up of farming, being a substrate in an area where the population is known to have grown huge in the C-Tyrp period and dramtically dispersed in the early 3000s, a position that makes some sort of IE connection possible.  By the way, one thing I dont give much credence to is anthropological evidence of robustness etc.  It seems pretty clear across human history that changes in  can radically alter skeletal form.  
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #254 on: September 04, 2012, 06:00:15 PM »

There is something about the Zagros Mountain range that needs consideration too; the birth of drinking alcohol ....

Are you positive about that? Wine came quite late to the party. There is mead and beer before that.  In China, where rice-cultivation developed independently of the Near Eastern Neolithic, a type of mead was brewed as early as 7,000 BC with rice, honey, and fruit. This is the earliest evidence of man-made alcohol so far found in the world. (P. E. McGovern et al., Fermented beverages of pre- and proto-historicChina, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol. 101 no. 51 (December 21, 2004), pp. 17593-17598.)
« Last Edit: September 04, 2012, 06:02:03 PM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #255 on: September 04, 2012, 07:12:49 PM »

The date which Gray and Atkinson want to wish away is not negotiable. The fact that they keep arguing that it is negotiable suggests that they started out to prove Renfrew right and have fed into their model parameters which will produce the desired result.

It anyone is still interested, Hans Holm says they did exactly that.

Quote
And they in fact on the one hand openly (in the main article!) admit that the (prejudiced) root has then been intentionally inserted in the middle between Hittite and its split-off point, subsequently telling their audience that this has been the outcome of their computations. This alone is sufficient to reject the whole approach!
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4142#comment-237029

I'm interested.

I just don't feel good about Colin Renfrew's approach to this.  David Anthony may be wrong, but his approach sounds thorough and logical and he seems to follow the trail, wherever it leads.

The reason I'm interested, is that if the PIE basic lexicon is correct, that restricts a PIE homeland significantly and apparently both out of the way of the early Neolithic kick-offs and central enough that it could spread at a late time both all the way to China and India as well as all the way to the Atlantic.

If the concept of PIE is true, then R-M269 must have:
1) been in the PIE homeland but only restricted areas that didn't go east
2) been in the PIE homeland but evacuated early to the west while parts of its brothers or some catastrophic situation caused it to be decimated in the home land before the other members of PIE expanded east. In this case R1a and maybe others were raising cain.
3) been on the first stop west of the PIE train going out of town due west. It apparently took over the train at the first stop. R1a must have gotten mugged at this point.

I kind of think alternative #3 is actually the most difficult - the complete take-over at the first stop.

There were plenty of catastrophes and violence in the region to go around so alternatives 1 and 2 make a lot of sense.

Sometimes the simplest points are the best and I think you make a very good point there about the improbability of the R1a master race simply fading out in eastern Europe and heading into the waste of the eastern steppes and leaving all the prime developed lands to R1b.  I would contend a good solution might be that R1b and R1a were located next door to each other but that R1b had take in a lot more farming culture from their neighbours while R1a was to the east, less developed and perhaps seeking to continue a similar steppe lifestyle.  They may have had a tendency to seek out different land types and run society in different ways.  The simplest solution to the evidence would place R1b at the steppe-farming interface zone c. 6000-4000BC with R1b to the east (which is indeed where Yamnaya arose I believe).  R1b also shares the lack of take off with R1a in the earlier Neolithic so it makes sense to have them both peripheral to farming until rather late.  The difference may simply be that R1b was a western steppe element that was more farming adapted while R1a was less so.  The archaeology of the steppes tends to show this trend, even within a single culture.  I think too we should look again at Cuc-Tyrp's origins.  The archaeology of this is not the simple conquest of the old Bug-Dniester population.  It was a very long drawn out process indeed with no sharp horizon.  There is plenty of room to see an incorporation of the steppes population into Bug-Dniester.  I am highly suspicious of interpretation of skeletal evidence when  seems to cause such a change (even in recent history).  When I read up about the Bug-Dniester/Cuc-Tryp transformation going back purely to archaeology it really does not read anything like it tends to get interpreted in the DNA hobby. I imagine they were are complex mix of mt and yDNA of hunters and farmers.  The timing and geography seems to fit quite well and there is of course a huge dispersal horizon as the worst hit farming group in the arid phase c. 3200BC. 

I ask simply does this fit R1b?

1.  Big Dniester Hunter gatherer group on western fringes of steppes
2. Very slow incremental partial take up of farming c. 5000BC (give or take) under Cris-Koros then eastern LBK influences.
3. Same zone develops a full blown farming culture c. 4800BC covering Ukraine, Moravia and Romania. 
4. Major expansion and growth c. 4000-3500BC followed by massive collapse and dispersal. 

Some of this to me sounds a very plausible match for R1b.  I think too that the idea that this is an Old European conquest of the Bug-Dniester population is being overstated.  The archaeological evidence reads absolutely nothing like that.  R1b appears to have not been in an early farming group if the variance ages being presented and the shape of the R1b tree above L23 is anything to go by.  It seems unlikely to me that if it was in C-Tryp that it was the intrusive element but more likely the native element in that area that had been absorbed in Cuc-Tryp - Bug Dniester. 

I think there is an awful lot to be said for matching this with R1b's pre-3000BC history. 
Logged
Bren123
Guest
« Reply #256 on: September 04, 2012, 07:36:02 PM »

This has been written on “Dienekes’ Anthropology blog” by someone who has a better knowledge of English than me, but the ideas are the same, only I used more sarcasm as usual:

The map shown in the blog post here, and the podcast timeline evolving map both suffer from the defect of being ahistorical.
For example, neither indicates any presence if Celtic languages in Iberia or Gaul, which in fact, the Celtic languages of the British Isles are very likely derivatives of earlier Celtic language populations in Iberia and Gaul.
The map shows Tocharian languages in places where they were spoken from ca. 2000 BCE to 600 CE, but where they didn't even exist when the Romance languages were born from Latin.
Likewise, the podcast video map series fails to reflect the fact that while the Balkan languages may be relatively old, that Slavic language expansion mostly occurred in the middle of the first Millennium C.E.
The podcast video map seems to have the known direction of Indo-Iranian language expansion backward - West to East across Iran, rather than the other way around.
One of the whole points of using Bayesian statistical methods over Frequentist statistical approaches is to give weight to what you already know. We know quite a bit. We have fairly decent dates, source locations and paths of expansion for a variety of archaeological cultures. We know that languages change at a much more rapid pace at moments of language differentiation and language contact (e.g. via substrate influences and elements of creolization) than they do in "midlife" when they are in isolation. We have fairly good dates for moments like (1) the transition from Minoan (non-IE) to Mycenaean (IE) Greek in Crete, (2)decent dates for a similar earlier transition in mainland Greece, (3) the date of the Hattic (non-IE)-Hittite (IE) transition in Anatolia and more generally the dates of Hittite expansion, (4) the appearance of an Indo-Aryan Mittani dialect in far eastern Anatolia, (5) the presence and general location of group of non-IE Kassites east of Mespotamia, (6) the times and places where non-IE Sumerian and Akkadian and all subsequent Mesopotamian languages were spoken, (7) the time and places where Tocharian was spoken and the plausible possible origins of those peoples, and (8) the dates when Celtic cultures appear in various places. There is good reason to think that the pre-Bronze Age IE world was very small - regardless of where within that world the actual urheimat was located - large swaths of Europe and South Asia and Iran had never encountered an IE language at that point, and quite a bit of IE expansion in Western Europe was an Iron Age phenomena.
The study's methods seem to implicitly assume a slow gradualist diffusion model when the reality was probably much more dramatic and punctuated. The archaeological record shows long periods of continuity interrupted by disruption followed by rapid expansion of new cultures often lots of places at once.
There are also points we don't know and have to guess on, with some guesses being more certain than others. We don't have any direct evidence of the linguistic affiliations of Megalithic, Corded Ware, Urnfield, BMAC or Bell Beaker archaeological cultures - although we do have when information about the when, where and to some extent, the from whence of these cultures. We don't know to what extent relatively new IE language families (e.g. Romance and Slavic) replaced IE v. non-IE predecessors in particular places and that is particularly difficult to discern in Anatolia. A useful model would focus on assigning linguistic affiliation probabilities to particular archaeological cultures on the theory that an archaelogical culture is likely to share a linguistic family affinity. Usually, there are just two or three plausible first IE language in the region candidates in any given place, and often one or two of them are far more likely than any other.
Bottom line: this is a crude toy model not a serious effort to really get at the truth using all available data. Saturday, August 25, 2012 3:10:00 AM




Do you have a link for this?
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #257 on: September 04, 2012, 08:12:46 PM »

Jean - do you have anything on the Verteba Cave rare Cuc-Tryp large burial site in the Ukraine? 
Logged
Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #258 on: September 05, 2012, 04:28:57 AM »

This could be a trace of the early route from Anatolia to the Steppes.


"Archaeologists working on the route of the new Sibiu – Orastie highway in Romania have made what looks to be a once in a lifetime discovery of a Stone Age settlement. The site, located in Sibiu county, is believed to be around 8,000 years old, but this, although remarkable in itself, is perhaps less exciting than the discovery that the people who lived in the settlement were Neolithic farmers using technology from the Near East.
 
If confirmed, the find will provide material evidence of the migration of people from Eastern Anatolia bringing farming to Europe. “Why is this important? I have discovered something that everyone considered hypothetical, at least in Romania; the first phase, the oldest phase, of people from Eastern Anatolia carrying Neolithic technologies beginning to colonize an area previously occupied by hunters and fishermen, following a major climate change,” said Sabin Luca, director of the  Brukenthal Museum in Sibiu.
 



The site has provided evidence of religion and ritual among these earliest of migrant to Romania’s territory. The archeologists have found what they believe to be a cemetery and a shrine or sanctuary, which contained pottery with apparently ritual significance.
 
On the central axis of the sanctuary area a vessel was found, which, according to Luca, is unique, the first example of its kind ever found. Analysis of the vessel revealed evidence of the world’s oldest paint. Other important finds are a mask, which Sabin Luca believes will prove to be at least the oldest in Europe, and the oldest known pot with two mouths. The mask shows similarities with examples found in Anatolia, displaying the same ‘coffee bean eyes.’ Polished stone tools and the fine clay used for pottery provide further evidence that this was a ‘hi-tech’ stone age society.
 
The site is four meters underground and another unique feature is the absence of later settlements on top of the Neolithic site. According to the archeologists, the site was abandoned during the Neolithic era, probably because of a conflict, and has remained undisturbed for the last 8,000 years."


http://www.romania-insider.com/discovery-of-8000-year-old-settlement-in-romania-provides-evidence-of-first-neolithic-farmers-in-the-region/62909/
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



Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #259 on: September 05, 2012, 09:09:18 AM »

Jean - do you have anything on the Verteba Cave rare Cuc-Tryp large burial site in the Ukraine? 

Yes Alan. As you can see from my online table, the mtDNA that I posted above as Cucuteni-Trypillia was from there. All the details and reference are in the table.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #260 on: September 05, 2012, 09:31:31 AM »

I think too that the idea that this is an Old European conquest of the Bug-Dniester population is being overstated. 

Who has suggested an Old European conquest of Bug-Dniester? Are you reading Wikipedia again?
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #261 on: September 05, 2012, 09:34:11 AM »

Jean - do you have anything on the Verteba Cave rare Cuc-Tryp large burial site in the Ukraine?  

Yes Alan. As you can see from my online table, the mtDNA that I posted above as Cucuteni-Trypillia was from there. All the details and reference are in the table.

However, the genetic data isn't that right now. I don't think. I think Jean's point makes sense. T2a1b is the mtDNA that is both on the western edge of they hypothesized homeland and on the east is T2a1b. Wouldn't this make it more likely that it was steppes R1a that integrated with farmers to form the final integrated phases of Cucuteni-Trypolae people?

We don't see T2a1b in Bell Beakers yet, where R1b is found.


I know it seems like if R1b was on the first train stop due west from the PIE homeland, the Cucuteni-Tripillian integration of Old European farmers with Steppes PIE people is the likely suspect.

  • 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
 

If R1b was at a first stop for PIE going west, it must have been further south than Cucutenci-Trypillian peoples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cucuteni-Tripol%27ye_Culture_Outline_Map.png

Remember, David Anthony proposes that a second group of Steppes people passed by the integrated (PIE/farmer) Cucuteni-Trypillian people down to the lower Danube Valley. It is this group that he proposes were pre-Italo-Celtic IE dialect speakers. He does refer to this group, which he says makes it to the Hungarian Plains, as a "true folk movement".  He did not speak of the same kind of integration that took place in Cucuteni-Tripolye. I don't know. It seems like a mystery that these guys "passed" through/by the Cucuteni-Tryipolye. However, the placement closer to the Danube is also closer to Anatolia and to the dairy herding core, right?
« Last Edit: September 05, 2012, 09:40:55 AM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 1253


« Reply #262 on: September 05, 2012, 01:48:11 PM »

@ Mikewww

You put your finger right on the tricky question. What was going on around the Sea of Azov? The anthropomorphic stelae start from the Crimea and just north of it. The Kemi-Oba culture developed there from Mikhailovka I people, who seem to have intermarried with people from Tripolye towns, but also had contacts with Maikop and Sredni Stog, according to Anthony 2007, pp. 268-271.  Logically there had to be some R1b there.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2012, 01:50:25 PM by Jean M » Logged
princenuadha
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #263 on: September 05, 2012, 03:07:21 PM »

Jean, are you able to get the following paper? 

http://m.hol.sagepub.com/content/15/2/263.abstract

"Holocene environmental change in southwestern Crimea (Ukraine) in pollen and soil records

I'm thinking it would give us a detailed and comprehensive description of Ukraine's climate and botany for the time period relevant to PIE.

I've collected all the arboreal terms from the PIE lexicon site you linked early and now I want to see if I can tie them to the steppe over anatolia.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #264 on: September 05, 2012, 03:42:05 PM »

I think too that the idea that this is an Old European conquest of the Bug-Dniester population is being overstated.

Who has suggested an Old European conquest of Bug-Dniester? Are you reading Wikipedia again?

I only commented because I think some posters tend to think that way and see Cuc-Tryp as a Balkans farmers intrusion and therefore starkly distinct from the steppes elements to the east.  I dont think that at all computes with the archaeology.  What is your take on the whole B-D to C-T transformation Jean?  I was reading through a few papers including those in Europe's First Farmers.  I know archaeologists became too anti-invasionist but there is a lot of gradualistic change in both the Bug-Dniester and the C-T culture as well as east-west divisions within both. I just think we have to be careful not to overreact to the anti-invasionists.  Reading through the data and characteristics of each phase even within  the C-T culture doesnt arrive as a completely formed horizon from somewhere else. If C-T encorporated a significant amount of B-D people into it then the late timing of true ontake of farming, the location and the subsequent know dispersal could fit nicely into the idea of a B-D R1b substrate in C-T (maybe more than a substrate).  I havent read up on C-T for a while but re-reading didnt change my opinion that it has a lot to suggest a gradual change rather than a sharp one.   Burial sites are so scarce that I wouldnt want to generalise anything about their genetic origins  although what little we have is interesting.  
« Last Edit: September 05, 2012, 03:48:15 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #265 on: September 05, 2012, 04:05:10 PM »

@ Mikewww

You put your finger right on the tricky question. What was going on around the Sea of Azov? The anthropomorphic stelae start from the Crimea and just north of it. The Kemi-Oba culture developed there from Mikhailovka I people, who seem to have intermarried with people from Tripolye towns, but also had contacts with Maikop and Sredni Stog, according to Anthony 2007, pp. 268-271.  Logically there had to be some R1b there.

I agree they are interesting.  I think in general the shape of R1b, the variance calculations and its later dispersal point to incorportation of a non-farming group located on or adjacent to the western edge of the steppes into a farming economy in the 5th millenium BC at some point and then an initial dispersal phase somewhere in the L23XL51 era, mainly west and south, perhaps in the 4th millenium. That is my best guest based on modern geographical patterns, variance, phylogeny, the shape of the R1b tree etc.  It would make a whole lot of sense in terms of the patterning of R1a and R1b if R1b was a sister group of R1a who had taken on farming to a more sophisticated degree than the steppe nomads.  The anti-anti-invasionist angles that I have got used to in this hobby had clouded this for me for a while and it had become a state of mind.  However, looking back over the last week or two through the phases and characteristics of the farming groups in SE Europe not only reminded me of their diverse origins but also reminded me that in some cases there is a good case that farming at times involved native pre-farming elements (perhaps dominant), something that DNA does demonstrate to some degree.  Even in the Balkans some of the major cultures developments do read rather like a major, maybe dominant native element was involved. Others look more dominantly intrusive. I would put the C-Tryp culture in the category of one where it is as easy to interpret it as having a major, maybe dominant local element.  I have just had a read through all the papers and books I can put my hands on in hard copy or the web (no Wiki involved :0) but that would very much be my opinion.  
« Last Edit: September 05, 2012, 04:09:17 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #266 on: September 05, 2012, 04:18:08 PM »

I am not sure where looking at the possibility of C-Tryp as a Bug-Dniester substrate-heavy culture, possibly R1b) would leave us in terms of language.  Lets say for a moment this idea is correct (it may well not be).  Can we envisage the Bug-Dniester people as speaking a similar language to steppe elements to the east and later the Yamnaya etc.  That would avoid the need to see one group as the orign and doner and the other as the recipient, something that surely would have left linguistic traces. 

   
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #267 on: September 05, 2012, 05:47:54 PM »

@ Mikewww

You put your finger right on the tricky question. What was going on around the Sea of Azov? The anthropomorphic stelae start from the Crimea and just north of it. The Kemi-Oba culture developed there from Mikhailovka I people, who seem to have intermarried with people from Tripolye towns, but also had contacts with Maikop and Sredni Stog, according to Anthony 2007, pp. 268-271.  Logically there had to be some R1b there.

The Sea of Azov is supposed to be very shallow. I would think it would not be that rough to cross. Is there any very early archaeology of maritime vessels and related cultures?  If you learned maritime skills and were successful in a safe place, you might have been able to advance to controlling parts of the Black Sea.  I guess people from the Sea of Azov area could have colonized along on the mouth of the Danube without having to pass through Cucuteni-Trypillian lands.

For that matter, they may have been colonizing along the western and southern coasts of the Black Sea for a long time. Is there evidence of commonality in among coastal settlements?

Good maritime skills? Good enough to get to Iberia quickly?  Where did the Bell Beakers become good maritime people?  Don't forget the early hyphothesis that U106 folks were "river" Celts. Some sects of R1b might have taken to the seas. Just speculation but the Black Sea may have been an excellent place for travel. Perhaps the PIE homeland should be considered as much Pontic coastal/mountains as Pontic steppes.   Any linguists who know if pre-Italo-Celtic had a lot of words related to maritime travel?

Early copper mining wasn't actually on the steppes, was it? It was mountainous regions.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2012, 06:52:08 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #268 on: September 05, 2012, 05:49:56 PM »

Jean - do you have anything on the Verteba Cave rare Cuc-Tryp large burial site in the Ukraine? 

Yes Alan. As you can see from my online table, the mtDNA that I posted above as Cucuteni-Trypillia was from there. All the details and reference are in the table.

Jean for some reason that is weird when I opened it.  You posted a table of all ancient DNA a day or so ago on world families.  I cant find it now.  I am really looking for the reference to the Verteba cave site.  Is there a paper in your library on this? cheers
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #269 on: September 05, 2012, 05:50:58 PM »

Jean, are you able to get the following paper? 

A pleasure. It is now in Climate and Population > Steppe.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #270 on: September 05, 2012, 05:55:03 PM »

I am really looking for the reference to the Verteba cave site.  Is there a paper in your library on this?

Yes. Nikitin, A. et al. (2010), Comprehensive site chronology and Ancient Mitochondrial DNA analysis from Verteba Cave – a Trypillian Culture site of Eneolithic Ukraine, Interdisciplinaria archaeologica: Natural Sciences in Archaeology, vol. 1, nos.1-2, pp. 9-18.

It is in Population Genetics > aDNA > East Europe. Next time you should be able to find papers either via the index by primary author in root, or by using Google's search function in documents.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #271 on: September 05, 2012, 06:09:27 PM »

I am really looking for the reference to the Verteba cave site.  Is there a paper in your library on this?

Yes. Nikitin, A. et al. (2010), Comprehensive site chronology and Ancient Mitochondrial DNA analysis from Verteba Cave – a Trypillian Culture site of Eneolithic Ukraine, Interdisciplinaria archaeologica: Natural Sciences in Archaeology, vol. 1, nos.1-2, pp. 9-18.

It is in Population Genetics > aDNA > East Europe. Next time you should be able to find papers either via the index by primary author in root, or by using Google's search function in documents.

cheers Jean
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #272 on: September 05, 2012, 06:47:07 PM »

I only commented because I think some posters tend to think that way and see Cuc-Tryp as a Balkans farmers intrusion and therefore starkly distinct from the steppes elements to the east.  I dont think that at all computes with the archaeology.  What is your take on the whole B-D to C-T transformation Jean?  

Anthony is your man for all this Alan. I have before me his table 8.1 in the 2007 book. The last dates there for Bug-Dniester are 5870-5500 BC. According to Anthony, Bug-Dniester was clearly a local Mesolithic group which fairly rapidly took up farming when Cris farmers made their way over the Carpathians to become their neighbours. These farmers were descendants of the wave that entered Greece c. 6200 BC, so they would be mixed farmers. They had cattle, but went in for arable farming as well.

As I deduce, Cucuteni-Tripolye people were descended from a later wave of dairy farmers from around the Sea of Marmara, moving north from around the mouth of the Danube via the Hamangia culture. They had massive cattle herds. They expanded gradually eastwards. From about 4300-4000 BC they increase in settlement density, perhaps taking in refugees from the tell settlements to the west. There is also widespread evidence of contact with steppe cultures. Presumably with the colder climate, the arable farmers were suffering, while pastoralists could survive.  
« Last Edit: September 05, 2012, 06:54:04 PM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #273 on: September 05, 2012, 07:11:04 PM »

(no Wiki involved :0)  

Only wondered because Wikipedia was making strange statements re B-D. I fixed it. I wouldn't use the word "conquest" about events at that date myself.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2012, 07:15:27 PM by Jean M » Logged
Arch Y.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


« Reply #274 on: September 06, 2012, 10:45:01 PM »

There is something about the Zagros Mountain range that needs consideration too; the birth of drinking alcohol ....

Are you positive about that? Wine came quite late to the party. There is mead and beer before that.  In China, where rice-cultivation developed independently of the Near Eastern Neolithic, a type of mead was brewed as early as 7,000 BC with rice, honey, and fruit. This is the earliest evidence of man-made alcohol so far found in the world. (P. E. McGovern et al., Fermented beverages of pre- and proto-historicChina, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol. 101 no. 51 (December 21, 2004), pp. 17593-17598.)

Thanks Jean. I'm aware of it. The event in China is too distant and far back in time to have any influence on Western culture or that of a nascent IE in the Caucasus or emerging R1b in the Zagros.

Arch
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 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 0.176 seconds with 18 queries.