Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 80

Thread: Oldest R1a M417 yet, guess where it was found.

  1. #26
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    761
    Points
    7,381
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,381, Level: 25
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 169
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: USA - Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Dov View Post
    I somehow also generalized, I'll try again. It seems that nothing has changed much. Apart from, that primary expansion of the Sredniy Stog was from the East, from the Don region.

    -All existing and historically fixed Indo-Europeans and their languages ​​come from Corded Ware and Bell Beaker. For now, with the exception of the Hittites, but about them a separate conversation.

    -This extension and decay of their languages ​​came from one point.

    - In CW and in BB is present: corded pattern, similar genetics and admixture of farmers, burial on the side. All this leads us to the Derievka. Where the admixture of farmers is obtained from Trypillian women as well as probably burial on the side.

    - It is well seen how Corded Ware hypothetically appears from Derievka, and begins expansion to the north, into the forest zone. This is how Middle Dnepr culture emerges. All this can be associated with R1a expansion.

    -The question of how the expansion of R1b occurs is still open and incomprehensible. Archaeologically it is difficult to say something. But nevertheless, by indirect evidence (includind archelogical), it still happened. We will be helped only by paleogenetics.

    It is also interesting, why they split with the predominance of R1a and R1b in different populations. Probably there were some preconditions.
    Great summary.

  2. #27
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,230
    Points
    41,054
    Level
    62
    Points: 41,054, Level: 62
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 596
    Overall activity: 40.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Dov View Post
    Similar to the Corded ornament (which is typical for CW and BB) was in the Volga area. Also, Sredniy Stog begins its expansion from the Don and replace old populations. And Don is pretty close to the Volga.
    This explains the similarity of the Sredniy Stog and Khvalynsk. And also the explain secret of their horse breeding, which probably originated in the Volga region.
    the Y-DNA tells a different story

    Mesolithic Ukraine, Mariupol and Sredny Stog Y-DNA is R1b1a-L754xP297 and I2a2a1b1-L701,L702, not the PIE Y-DNA.
    The PIE Y-DNA is R1b-P297 which is Baltic in origin (mesolithic Latvia and Narva) till it gets replaced by Combed Ware R1a1-YP1272 over there.
    That seems to be the moment when R1b-P297 starts moving south.

    Maybe in Ukraine or in the Volga or Don area these R1b-P297 developped a common language with some R1b1a-L754xP297 who subsequently crossed the Caucasus and became herders (more specific R1b1a2-V88). That would make these R1b1a-L754xP297 the possible forefathers of the Hittites.
    We do have R1b1a1b-CTS3187 (L389xP297) in Kura-Araxes.

  3. #28
    Elite member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Fire Haired14's Avatar
    Join Date
    20-04-14
    Posts
    2,194
    Points
    28,146
    Level
    51
    Points: 28,146, Level: 51
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 504
    Overall activity: 31.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b DF27*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2b1

    Country: USA - Illinois



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    the Y-DNA tells a different story

    Mesolithic Ukraine, Mariupol and Sredny Stog Y-DNA is R1b1a-L754xP297 and I2a2a1b1-L701,L702, not the PIE Y-DNA.
    And the R1a M417 Sredny Stog guy obviously has a different origin than the other Sredny Stog people who look like earlier Neolithic/Mesolithic Ukrainians. So, was he really of Sredny Stog origin or from another people? And therefore does Sredny Stog really have anything to with PIE or did PIE orignate somewhere further east?

    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    The PIE Y-DNA is R1b-P297 which is Baltic in origin (mesolithic Latvia and Narva) till it gets replaced by Combed Ware R1a1-YP1272 over there.
    That seems to be the moment when R1b-P297 starts moving south.
    Samara_HG who dates 8,000 years old also belonged to R1b1a1-P297. I support a Western Steppe origin for M269, L23, Z2103, and L151. The Baltic HGs, like the Ukraine HGs and Balkan HGs, went the way of the do do bird. It's fascinating they had so much R1b1a before the R1b L23 expansions but all their R1b1a disappeared.

  4. #29
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,230
    Points
    41,054
    Level
    62
    Points: 41,054, Level: 62
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 596
    Overall activity: 40.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired14 View Post

    Samara_HG who dates 8,000 years old also belonged to R1b1a1-P297. I support a Western Steppe origin for M269, L23, Z2103, and L151. The Baltic HGs, like the Ukraine HGs and Balkan HGs, went the way of the do do bird. It's fascinating they had so much R1b1a before the R1b L23 expansions but all their R1b1a disappeared.
    this is the DNA from the Samara area


    Russia Sok River, Samara [I0124/SVP 44] M 5650-5555 BC R1b1a M343+, L278+, [P297 equivalent PF6513+], M478-, [M478 equivalent Y13872+, Y13866- (The presence of positive and negative markers in the M478 node can reflect an intermediate stage of its formation.)], M478-, M269- U5a1d Haak 2015; Sergey Malyshev; Mathieson 2015
    Samara Eneolithic Russia Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara [I0122 / SVP 35] M 5200-4000 BCE R1b1 M415 H2a1 Mathieson 2015; Lazaridis 2016
    Samara Eneolithic Russia Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara [I0433 / SVP 46] M 5200-4000 BCE R1a1 M459 U5a1i Mathieson 2015
    Samara Eneolithic Russia Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara [I0434 / SVP 47] M 5200-4000 BC Q1a F2676 U4a2 or U4d Mathieson 2015


    the HG was M73+,M478-, so away from both M478 and M269, and this branch was not found in later Khvalynsk

  5. #30
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    10-06-16
    Posts
    141
    Points
    1,996
    Level
    12
    Points: 1,996, Level: 12
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 154
    Overall activity: 23.0%


    Country: Russian Federation



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    the Y-DNA tells a different story

    Mesolithic Ukraine, Mariupol and Sredny Stog Y-DNA is R1b1a-L754xP297 and I2a2a1b1-L701,L702, not the PIE Y-DNA.
    The PIE Y-DNA is R1b-P297 which is Baltic in origin (mesolithic Latvia and Narva) till it gets replaced by Combed Ware R1a1-YP1272 over there.
    That seems to be the moment when R1b-P297 starts moving south.

    Maybe in Ukraine or in the Volga or Don area these R1b-P297 developped a common language with some R1b1a-L754xP297 who subsequently crossed the Caucasus and became herders (more specific R1b1a2-V88). That would make these R1b1a-L754xP297 the possible forefathers of the Hittites.
    We do have R1b1a1b-CTS3187 (L389xP297) in Kura-Araxes.
    Why different? These Y or very early or generally probably not the Sredniy Stog. But rather old burials of the Neolithic Ukraine from old Derievka which is estimated at 5500-4800 BCE, while the Sredniy Stog is 5300-4250 BCE (Klein). And this was replaced by pupulation of actual Sredniy Stog (as noticed by Fire Haired about R1a from Alexandria 5000-3500 BCE) It is already a different population, which probably came from the Lower Don culture, and where horse breeding was already developed. But their graves did not survive in the mass, just few. But we also can to test the actual Sredniy Stog. Maybe there is something interesting for us.

    Also note, we generally still do not know anything about the Western European R1b and we can not somehow connect them with archeology(only indirectly), while the genesis of Corded Ware and R1a is probably understandable.
    Last edited by Dov; 23-09-17 at 15:10.

  6. #31
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,230
    Points
    41,054
    Level
    62
    Points: 41,054, Level: 62
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 596
    Overall activity: 40.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dov View Post
    Why different? These Y or very early or generally probably not the Sredniy Stog. But rather old burials of the Neolithic Ukraine from old Derievka which is estimated at 5500-4800 BCE, while the Sredniy Stog is 5300-4250 BCE (Klein). And this was replaced by pupulation of actual Sredniy Stog (as noticed by Fire Haired about R1a from Alexandria 5000-3500 BCE) It is already a different population, which probably came from the Lower Don culture, and where horse breeding was already developed. But their graves did not survive in the mass, just few. But we also can to test the actual Sredniy Stog. Maybe there is something interesting for us.

    Also note, we generally still do not know anything about the Western European R1b and we can not somehow connect them with archeology(only indirectly), while the genesis of Corded Ware and R1a is probably understandable.
    Sredny Stog Ukraine Dereivka I [S5893.E1.L1 / Grave 93] M 5500-4800 BCE R1b1 R1b1:PF6250:8439542G->A; R1:CTS3321:14829196C->T; R:F370:16856357T->C U5a2a Mathieson 2017
    Sredny Stog Ukraine Dereivka I [S5892.E1.L1 / Grave 33] M 5500-4800 BCE R1b1a R1b1a:PF6249:8214827C->T; R:M799:23134896C->T U4a1 Mathieson 2017
    Sredny Stog Ukraine Dereivka I [S5891.E1.L1 / Grave 18] M 5500-4800 BCE R R:M651:9889199G->A U4d Mathieson 2017
    Sredny Stog Ukraine Dereivka I [S5890.E1.L1 / Grave 87] M 5500-4800 BCE R1b1a (xR1b1a1a, xR1b1a1a2) R1b1a:A702:10038192G->A; R1b1a:FGC41:7900883C->A; R1b1a:L754:22889018G->A; R1b1:CTS2229:14226692T->A; R1b:M343:2887824C->A; R1:CTS2565:14366723C->T; R1:CTS5611:16394489T->G; R:CTS7876:17722802G->A; etc U5a1b Mathieson 2017
    Sredny Stog Ukraine Dereivka I [S5886.E1.L1 / Grave 12] M 5500-4800 BCE I I:CTS2387:14286853T->C; I:CTS7502:17511797A->G; I:CTS7831:17692855T->A; I:FGC2412:21689728A->G; I:FGC2416:7642823G->T; I:PF3817:21939618G->A U4a Mathieson 2017
    Sredny Stog Ukraine Dereivka I [S5885.E1.L1 / Grave 84] F 5500-4800 BCE

    U5b2b Mathieson 2017
    Sredny Stog Ukraine Dereivka I [S5883.E1.L1 / Grave 39] M 5500-4800 BCE R1b1a (xR1b1a1a, xR1b1a1a2) R1b1a:CTS4244:15510064T->G; R1b1a:FGC35:18407611C->T; R:CTS7876:17722802G->A; R:F459:18017528G->T; R:M651:9889199G->A; R:M734:18066156C->T U4a Mathieson 2017
    Sredny Stog Ukraine Dereivka I [S5881.E1.L1 / Grave 20] M 5500-4800 BCE R1 R1:CTS997:7132713G->A; R1:L875:16742224A->G; R:CTS207:2810583A->G U5a1b Mathieson 2017
    Sredny Stog Ukraine Dereivka I [S5876.E1.L1 / Grave 142] M 5500-4800 BCE R1a R1a:L62:17891241A->G; R1a:L146:23473201T->A; R1:CTS997:7132713G->A; R1:CTS2565:14366723C->T; R1:CTS3321:14829196C->T; R1:CTS5611:16394489T->G; R1:CTS8116:17839981G->A; R1:P231:9989615A->G; R1:P238:7771131G->A; R1:P286:17716251C->T; R:CTS3622:15078469C->G; etc U5a2a Mathieson 2017
    Sredny Stog Ukraine Dereivka I [S5875.E1.L1 / Grave 53] M 5500-4800 BCE I2a2a1b I2a2a1b:CTS10100:19255890G->A; I2a2a1:CTS9183:18732197A->G; I2a2:L37:17516123T->C; I:CTS1800:14073053G->A; I:CTS2387:14286853T->C; etc U4a1 Mathieson 2017
    Sredny Stog Ukraine Dereivka I [I4114 / Grave 103] M 5500-4800 BCE R1b1a R1b1a:A702:10038192G->A; R1b1a:CTS3063:14637352T->C; R1b1a:FGC36:13822833G->T; R1b1a:L1345:21558298G->T; R1b1a:PF6271:23984056G->A; R1b1:CTS2134:14193384G->A; R1b1:CTS2229:14226692T->A; R1b1:L278:18914441C->T; R1b1:L1349:22722580T->C; R1:CTS5611:16394489T->G; R1:L875:16742224A->G; R1:P294:7570822G->C; R:CTS3622:15078469C->G; etc. U5a1 Mathieson 2017
    Sredny Stog Ukraine Dereivka I [I4112 / Grave 1] M 5500-4800 BCE R R:M734:18066156C->T; U5a2a Mathieson 2017
    Sredny Stog Ukraine Dereivka I [I4111 / Grave 123] F 5500-4800 BCE

    U4d Mathieson 2017
    Sredny Stog Ukraine Dereivka I [I4110 / Grave 73] M 5500-4800 BCE R1b1a (xR1b1a1a, xR1b1a1a2) R1b1a:A702:10038192G->A; R1b1a:FGC36:13822833G->T; R1b1a:FGC41:7900883C->A; R1b1a:L754:22889018G->A; R1b1a:L761:16773870A->G; R1b1a:L1345:21558298G->T; R1b1a:PF6271:23984056G->A; R1b1:L1349:22722580T->C; R1b:M343:2887824C->A; R1:CTS4075:15377120A->G; R1:CTS5611:16394489T->G; R1:F102:7854412A->G; R1:L875:16742224A->G; R1:P238:7771131G->A; etc
    Mathieson 2017
    Sredny Stog Ukraine Dereivka I [I3717 / Grave 42] M 5500-4800 BCE I2a2a1b1 I2a2a1b1:L702:7629205C->T; I2a2a1:CTS9183:18732197A->G; I2a2a:P221:8353707C->A; I2a2:L37:17516123T->C; I2a2:L181:19077754G->T; I2a2:P218:17493630T->G; I2a:L460:7879415A->C; I:CTS88:2723755G->A; I:CTS674:6943522C->T; etc U5a2a Mathieson 2017
    Eneolithic (Stog/Post-Stog) Ukraine Revova, kurgan 3 [R3.19a] M 4274 ± 93 BC

    U4 Nikitin 2017
    Ukraine Alexandria : contact zone between Sredny Stog and others 5000-3500 BCE R1a1a1-M417 H2a1a Mathieson 2017


    these are indeed Dereivka 5500-4800 BC and they look like a continuation of the mesolithic and Mariupol populations

    nevertheless it looks like R1b1a-L754xP297 was in southern Russia, Ukraine and the Iron Gates
    while R1b-P297 was more northern prior to the arrival of combed ware

  7. #32
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    10-06-16
    Posts
    141
    Points
    1,996
    Level
    12
    Points: 1,996, Level: 12
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 154
    Overall activity: 23.0%


    Country: Russian Federation



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    these are indeed Dereivka 5500-4800 BC and they look like a continuation of the mesolithic and Mariupol populations
    Yes, its true. Neolithic Dereivka still has old populations. But I want to remind to avoid confusion that Dereivka is a large burial ground and there are burials from different times (as in Zvejnieki). When we talk about Dereivka as pre-IE, we have in mind the later Eneolithic layers.
    Here a little about this culture:
    https://translate.google.ru/translat...312&edit-text=

  8. #33
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    10-06-16
    Posts
    141
    Points
    1,996
    Level
    12
    Points: 1,996, Level: 12
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 154
    Overall activity: 23.0%


    Country: Russian Federation



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    There is also confusion due to the fact that the Early pre-corded Sredniy Stog (Old Neolthic Ukraine population) is a different culture with different roots than the late corded Sredniy Stog II (Eneolithic). Now sometimes the later Sredniy Stog II is distinguished in the Dereivka culture (link above).

  9. #34
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    761
    Points
    7,381
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,381, Level: 25
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 169
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: USA - Washington



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dov View Post
    Yes, its true. Neolithic Dereivka still has old populations. But I want to remind to avoid confusion that Dereivka is a large burial ground and there are burials from different times (as in Zvejnieki). When we talk about Dereivka as pre-IE, we have in mind the later Eneolithic layers.
    Here a little about this culture:
    https://translate.google.ru/translat...312&edit-text=
    Good read. Went in to a little more detail than the source I had gone off of.

    This is sort of like the problem with the big bang in that it's difficult to talk about the big bang at it' beginning (or prior), but it makes perfect sense to talk about moments following.

    We're looking for this perfect beginning of PIE, but it couldn't have really happened like that. All of these populations were speaking something prior to the time frame for PIE that wasn't PIE, as defined, up to a period where PIE formed, then differentiated and dispersed. It would have been very fluid and complex. PIE may never even have existed as we think of it, or as it's reconstructed.

    We can circumvent this problem if we talk about a pre-PIE, but this has no real definition. I guess what I'm getting at is that PIE could not have existed without a fully developed understanding of farming culture. And this is clearly not happening with Samara HGs, so even if the genes are clearly radiating out of the mesolithic Volga/(Baltic Y-lines), they could not have been speaking Indo-European until they contacted farmers. The language is a farming language. This is one of the problems with the steppe origin.

    I don't think we'll ever be able to deduce a "homeland" because it never really existed in the way most people are thinking. And I honestly think that the mixing of the steppe and Balkan complexes is the most plausible mechanism at this point. But then of course we have this influx of Caucasian that some people are trying to ascribe a quasi-Mesopotamian identity which would have brought the farming lexicon through the mountains. I think the latter is less likely, but I'm getting pissed that we have no real Maykop genomes yet. I believe we got some mtDNA though.

    I also need to keep reminding people that most Scythian samples (and ANI) had little to no Anatolian farmer in them. This strongly suggests that Yamnaya (at its Eastern fringes, at the very least) was already differentiated into Indo-Iranian.

  10. #35
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    10-06-16
    Posts
    141
    Points
    1,996
    Level
    12
    Points: 1,996, Level: 12
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 154
    Overall activity: 23.0%


    Country: Russian Federation



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by holderlin View Post

    This is sort of like the problem with the big bang in that it's difficult to talk about the big bang at it' beginning (or prior), but it makes perfect sense to talk about moments following.

    We're looking for this perfect beginning of PIE, but it couldn't have really happened like that. All of these populations were speaking something prior to the time frame for PIE that wasn't PIE, as defined, up to a period where PIE formed, then differentiated and dispersed. It would have been very fluid and complex. PIE may never even have existed as we think of it, or as it's reconstructed.
    And it seems to me the opposite. Paleogenetics will gradually put everything in its place and tell us more, where archeology is powerless. For example. Not so long ago it was almost axiomatically considered, Dnepro-Donetsk -> Sredny Stog -> different Indo-European cultures (opinions were different in fact, but it was one of mainstream) Now paleogenetics told us that the population of Dnepro-Donetsk and Sredny Stog (early) simply died out and was replaced by another population, and can not be ancestral for IE. We just removed the excess. And this question became a little closer to the truth.

    But yes, I agree that many of these cultures were not speak IE, but I think something like IE. Also they were all culturally and genetical similar.
    But we received our specific IE language only from one cultural group of people.

    Quote Originally Posted by holderlin View Post
    We can circumvent this problem if we talk about a pre-PIE, but this has no real definition. I guess what I'm getting at is that PIE could not have existed without a fully developed understanding of farming culture. And this is clearly not happening with Samara HGs, so even if the genes are clearly radiating out of the mesolithic Volga/(Baltic Y-lines), they could not have been speaking Indo-European until they contacted farmers. The language is a farming language. This is one of the problems with the steppe origin.

    I don't think we'll ever be able to deduce a "homeland" because it never really existed in the way most people are thinking. And I honestly think that the mixing of the steppe and Balkan complexes is the most plausible mechanism at this point. But then of course we have this influx of Caucasian that some people are trying to ascribe a quasi-Mesopotamian identity which would have brought the farming lexicon through the mountains. I think the latter is less likely, but I'm getting pissed that we have no real Maykop genomes yet. I believe we got some mtDNA though.
    In my opinion, the hypothetical migration of the proto-IE population from the Lower Don to the Eneolithic Dereivka region is a pretty beautiful solution to all the problems you have named.
    By the way look opinion of a professional. Here, really everything converges and is explained:

    The localization in the steppes and forest-steppes between the Dniester, the Lower Don and the Kuban of the first pastoral shepherds is in good agreement with the three main directions of the pre-Indo-European linguistic contacts. In the west, they directly bordered on the carriers of agricultural vocabulary of Middle Eastern origin (Trypillians), in the north-east - the Finno-Ugric, and to the southeast - the Kartvelian lexicon of the Caucasus
    (c)Zaliznyak

  11. #36
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    761
    Points
    7,381
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,381, Level: 25
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 169
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: USA - Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Dov View Post
    And it seems to me the opposite. Paleogenetics will gradually put everything in its place and tell us more, where archeology is powerless. For example. Not so long ago it was almost axiomatically considered, Dnepro-Donetsk -> Sredny Stog -> different Indo-European cultures (opinions were different in fact, but it was one of mainstream) Now paleogenetics told us that the population of Dnepro-Donetsk and Sredny Stog (early) simply died out and was replaced by another population, and can not be ancestral for IE. We just removed the excess. And this question became a little closer to the truth.

    But yes, I agree that many of these cultures were not speak IE, but I think something like IE. Also they were all culturally and genetical similar.
    But we received our specific IE language only from one cultural group of people.



    In my opinion, the hypothetical migration of the proto-IE population from the Lower Don to the Eneolithic Dereivka region is a pretty beautiful solution to all the problems you have named.
    By the way look opinion of a professional. Here, really everything converges and is explained:
    I don't disagree with much of what you say.

    I do think you're putting too much in the genetics. There's Yamnaya burials in Bulgaria that are 40% EEF, and, archaeologically, Dneiper Donets still looks nearly identical to Samara whereas the genetics disagree.

    Sure, we probably have a pre-farming IE in Samara and or the Baltic from which early dispersals radiate. But what exactly is the mechanism?

    Essentially what you're saying is that latter Srendy Stog = Western Khvalynsk, which I can buy, but Khvalynsk is way less farmer than Sredny Stog and PIE is very very farmer.

  12. #37
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    10-06-16
    Posts
    141
    Points
    1,996
    Level
    12
    Points: 1,996, Level: 12
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 154
    Overall activity: 23.0%


    Country: Russian Federation



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by holderlin View Post
    I don't disagree with much of what you say.

    I do think you're putting too much in the genetics. There's Yamnaya burials in Bulgaria that are 40% EEF, and, archaeologically, Dneiper Donets still looks nearly identical to Samara whereas the genetics disagree.
    And you imagine 15-20 years ago all these archaeological cultures. There it is not clear who came from and when, only very roughly speaking (There even genesis of Andronovo was very weird, and not from CW). And now we have a lot of logical constructions due to paleogenetics. As in criminalistics, dna made a revolution in archeology.

    Quote Originally Posted by holderlin View Post
    Essentially what you're saying is that latter Srendy Stog = Western Khvalynsk, which I can buy, but Khvalynsk is way less farmer than Sredny Stog and PIE is very very farmer.
    The basic view is that the main lexicon of the IE is pastoral, or even supposedly "mesolithic". (which is exactly happened in western Khvalynsk)
    Then they came to Dereivka, and began to contact with Trypillians and borrowed their neolithic vocabulary for the agriculture. It seems that everything is logical to me.

  13. #38
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,297
    Points
    34,236
    Level
    56
    Points: 34,236, Level: 56
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 14
    Overall activity: 20.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    @[email protected]
    Very interesting posts, trying to put some light into this intricated successions of cultures.
    Languages comparisons could put languages close or far according to lexicon as opposed to grammar, both as as opposed to phonetic trends.
    I lack knowledge about the ties between agricultural and pastoral vocabularies of diverse linguistic groups; a deep study about this could help here, I think. A possibility could be that a language spoken in Steppes gained strength about the 5000/4000 BC and borrowed agricultural lexicon from Tripolye influenced cultures of West Steppes; what would not exclude some other loans from other cultures (South Caucasus? or else?);
    A good "fusion" in Steppes could have produced a partly new language rather homogenous NOW (after loans) before radiation/diffusion under the form of an homogenous enough "PIE", creating the impression of a cool history without any tribulation in the language? At those times these loanwords borrowed through the same filter on a short enough period would show provisory homogeneity and after that would undergo the same phonetic evolutionS than "genuine" PIE words among the "daughters" languages.
    Maybe sometime archeology and genetics will find an agreement? Without more data I guess that a lot of the agricultural vocabulary came from Tripolye culture; Catacombs seemed more agricultural than Yamnaya and physically more akin to East-Central Europe, at least the western Catacombs. But where came Catacombs from? Maybe a melting pot? In fact its physical heterogeneity between subgroups (same for mt DNA between West and East?) and the case of western types and DNA in later eastern Steppes cultures point towards a brewing West/East-East/West spanning a long enough time, I think. But if what I say is sensible (loanwords in a short enough time) we can consider that the agricultural package was obtained from West for the most, soon enough, and transmitted only after to East, where by the way, stoke breeding seemed stronger than plants culture. The 'satem' trend, as said by forumers here and there, could have been born early enough, perhaps as soon as CWC, during some language transmission to unkown groups of North-East or East.
    &:I was said that the PIE agricultural lexicon was not so developped as believed at first. In accord with what Dov wrote.
    &&: this doesn't say us too precisely from where came the pre-agricultural PIE.

  14. #39
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    761
    Points
    7,381
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,381, Level: 25
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 169
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: USA - Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Dov View Post
    And you imagine 15-20 years ago all these archaeological cultures. There it is not clear who came from and when, only very roughly speaking (There even genesis of Andronovo was very weird, and not from CW). And now we have a lot of logical constructions due to paleogenetics. As in criminalistics, dna made a revolution in archeology.



    The basic view is that the main lexicon of the IE is pastoral, or even supposedly "mesolithic". (which is exactly happened in western Khvalynsk)
    Then they came to Dereivka, and began to contact with Trypillians and borrowed their neolithic vocabulary for the agriculture. It seems that everything is logical to me.
    I understand the archaeology doesn't allow a high resolution picture, but there are some things that you can't dismiss. Things like copper coming from the Balkans, and contemporaneous Dnieper-Donets and Samara layers possessing very similar material culture.

    I don't disagree necessarily with a pre-farming-PIE in Samara, but it has no real linguistic definition. Also, Yamnaya has no Anatolian farmer, and yet you require the farming lexicon to come from mixing with the Balkans. It also sounds like you would need to see this in the genetics. This is problematic.

    And I don't think we can say the the "main lexicon" is pastoral.

  15. #40
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    761
    Points
    7,381
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,381, Level: 25
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 169
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: USA - Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    @[email protected]
    Very interesting posts, trying to put some light into this intricated successions of cultures.
    Languages comparisons could put languages close or far according to lexicon as opposed to grammar, both as as opposed to phonetic trends.
    I lack knowledge about the ties between agricultural and pastoral vocabularies of diverse linguistic groups; a deep study about this could help here, I think. A possibility could be that a language spoken in Steppes gained strength about the 5000/4000 BC and borrowed agricultural lexicon from Tripolye influenced cultures of West Steppes; what would not exclude some other loans from other cultures (South Caucasus? or else?);
    A good "fusion" in Steppes could have produced a partly new language rather homogenous NOW (after loans) before radiation/diffusion under the form of an homogenous enough "PIE", creating the impression of a cool history without any tribulation in the language? At those times these loanwords borrowed through the same filter on a short enough period would show provisory homogeneity and after that would undergo the same phonetic evolutionS than "genuine" PIE words among the "daughters" languages.
    Maybe sometime archeology and genetics will find an agreement? Without more data I guess that a lot of the agricultural vocabulary came from Tripolye culture; Catacombs seemed more agricultural than Yamnaya and physically more akin to East-Central Europe, at least the western Catacombs. But where came Catacombs from? Maybe a melting pot? In fact its physical heterogeneity between subgroups (same for mt DNA between West and East?) and the case of western types and DNA in later eastern Steppes cultures point towards a brewing West/East-East/West spanning a long enough time, I think. But if what I say is sensible (loanwords in a short enough time) we can consider that the agricultural package was obtained from West for the most, soon enough, and transmitted only after to East, where by the way, stoke breeding seemed stronger than plants culture. The 'satem' trend, as said by forumers here and there, could have been born early enough, perhaps as soon as CWC, during some language transmission to unkown groups of North-East or East.
    &:I was said that the PIE agricultural lexicon was not so developped as believed at first. In accord with what Dov wrote.
    &&: this doesn't say us too precisely from where came the pre-agricultural PIE.
    Your mechanism of PIE formation is something like what I imagine.

    It's hard to divorce PIE from farming. The Anatolian hypothesis exists for a reason.

  16. #41
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    10-06-16
    Posts
    141
    Points
    1,996
    Level
    12
    Points: 1,996, Level: 12
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 154
    Overall activity: 23.0%


    Country: Russian Federation



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by holderlin View Post
    I understand the archaeology doesn't allow a high resolution picture, but there are some things that you can't dismiss. Things like copper coming from the Balkans, and contemporaneous Dnieper-Donets and Samara layers possessing very similar material culture.

    I don't disagree necessarily with a pre-farming-PIE in Samara, but it has no real linguistic definition. Also, Yamnaya has no Anatolian farmer, and yet you require the farming lexicon to come from mixing with the Balkans. It also sounds like you would need to see this in the genetics. This is problematic.

    And I don't think we can say the the "main lexicon" is pastoral.
    Many of their agricultural terms are borrowed from the Middle East languages. These words like the type of activity were alien to them and obviously borrowed from outside.

    L. Zaliznyak: (although there are some controversial terms, such as borrowing a horse, as for me)
    The well-known linguist V. Illich-Svitych (1964) noted that a certain part of the agrarian and cattle-breeding vocabulary was borrowed from the prasemites and Sumerians. As an example of prasemitic borrowings, the researcher named the words: tauro - bull, gait - goat, agno - lamb, bar - grain, cereals, dehno - bread, grain, kern - millstone, medu - honey, sweet, sekur - ax, nahu - vessel , ship, haster - star, septm - seven, klau - key, etc. According to V. Illich-Svitych, from the language of Sumerians, u borrowed the words: kou - cow, reud - ore, auesk - gold, akro - field, duer - doors, hkor - mountains, etc. (Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, pp. 272-276).

    However, especially a lot of agricultural and livestock terminology, names of food products, household items and-e borrowed from the Prahattans and the Prakhurites, whose ancestral home is localized in Anatolia and in the upper reaches of the Tigris and the Euphrates. SA Starostin (1988, pp. 112-163) believes that the roots of klau, medu, akgho, bar and some others are not Primamitic or Sumerian, but Hatto-Khuritic ones, cited by V. Illich-Svitych. In addition, he suggests numerous examples of Hutto-Khuritic vocabulary in i-e languages. Here are just some of them: ekuo - horse, kago - goat, porko - pig, hvelena - wave, ouig - oats, hag - berry, rughio - rye, lino - lion, kulo - count, list, gueran - millstone, sel - village, dholo - valley, arho - open space, area, tuer - cottage cheese, sur - cheese, bhar - barley, penkue - five and many others. An analysis of these linguistic borrowings shows that they occurred in the process of direct contacts of the Pra-Indo-Europeans with the more developed Prahutto-Khurites not later than the V millennium BC. (Starostin, 1988, pp. 112-113, 152-154).
    By the time this coincides with the contacts Eneolithic Dereivka culture with Tripolye.
    And this why agrarian cultures, including Anatolia, hardly can be considered as IE. Because many agricultural terms for In PIE have non Indo-European roots.

    A main lexicon IE can be even north-Mesolithic. All this flora and fauna (elks and birches), as well as the names of different tools.

    And Samara and Dnepro-Donets are similar, why not. All these cultures have common Mesolithic roots.

  17. #42
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    10-06-16
    Posts
    141
    Points
    1,996
    Level
    12
    Points: 1,996, Level: 12
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 154
    Overall activity: 23.0%


    Country: Russian Federation



    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    @[email protected]
    Very interesting posts, trying to put some light into this intricated successions of cultures.
    Languages comparisons could put languages close or far according to lexicon as opposed to grammar, both as as opposed to phonetic trends.
    I lack knowledge about the ties between agricultural and pastoral vocabularies of diverse linguistic groups; a deep study about this could help here, I think. A possibility could be that a language spoken in Steppes gained strength about the 5000/4000 BC and borrowed agricultural lexicon from Tripolye influenced cultures of West Steppes; what would not exclude some other loans from other cultures (South Caucasus? or else?);
    A good "fusion" in Steppes could have produced a partly new language rather homogenous NOW (after loans) before radiation/diffusion under the form of an homogenous enough "PIE", creating the impression of a cool history without any tribulation in the language? At those times these loanwords borrowed through the same filter on a short enough period would show provisory homogeneity and after that would undergo the same phonetic evolutionS than "genuine" PIE words among the "daughters" languages.
    Maybe sometime archeology and genetics will find an agreement? Without more data I guess that a lot of the agricultural vocabulary came from Tripolye culture; Catacombs seemed more agricultural than Yamnaya and physically more akin to East-Central Europe, at least the western Catacombs. But where came Catacombs from? Maybe a melting pot? In fact its physical heterogeneity between subgroups (same for mt DNA between West and East?) and the case of western types and DNA in later eastern Steppes cultures point towards a brewing West/East-East/West spanning a long enough time, I think. But if what I say is sensible (loanwords in a short enough time) we can consider that the agricultural package was obtained from West for the most, soon enough, and transmitted only after to East, where by the way, stoke breeding seemed stronger than plants culture. The 'satem' trend, as said by forumers here and there, could have been born early enough, perhaps as soon as CWC, during some language transmission to unkown groups of North-East or East.
    &:I was said that the PIE agricultural lexicon was not so developped as believed at first. In accord with what Dov wrote.
    &&: this doesn't say us too precisely from where came the pre-agricultural PIE.
    Thanks for the interesting comment.

    I'll try to describe my vision.
    - Pastoralists, with a domesticated horse from the Don region, with a basic shepherd's vocabulary, could theoretically contact the Caucasian languages in those places.
    - Further, they moved to the west, to the area of modern Derevika. With a corded ornamentation and horse breeding.
    - In those places they began to borrow Middle Eastern agricultural vocabulary from the Trypillians, and at the same time linguistically contact with the Pit-Comb Ware culture (Uralics) in the north.

    At the expense of Satem is still incomprehensible. Maybe it was just a territorial feature of CW, maybe because of contacts with someone (Pit-Comb Ware?) I have never seen any specifics on this issue. All this is very vague and not definite.

  18. #43
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,297
    Points
    34,236
    Level
    56
    Points: 34,236, Level: 56
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 14
    Overall activity: 20.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Dov, I don't disagree as a whole (ATW I only do hypothesis of amateur)
    I guess CWC had an early IE on way to satemization they imported to Scandinavia before other IE tribes input. for the most palatalization is a phonetic palatalizing process; I think in East Europe the languages showing the strongest this trend are Russian(s) - plus some finnic trends? - Polish and Czechoslovakian ones, more than the South Slavic languages which ("learned slavics"?). Turkic languages show all of them some palatalization, but it seems the Volga turkic ones would show the strongest tendancy on the matter, not only for consonnants but also for vowels. I know convergences exist but here I wonder if the trend did not come from this area or close areas a bit further East??? The "neutral" or central PIE localization before radiatin towards every direction could have been more western so again around Ukraine. Only guesses.

  19. #44
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    761
    Points
    7,381
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,381, Level: 25
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 169
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: USA - Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    Dov, I don't disagree as a whole (ATW I only do hypothesis of amateur)
    I guess CWC had an early IE on way to satemization they imported to Scandinavia before other IE tribes input. for the most palatalization is a phonetic palatalizing process; I think in East Europe the languages showing the strongest this trend are Russian(s) - plus some finnic trends? - Polish and Czechoslovakian ones, more than the South Slavic languages which ("learned slavics"?). Turkic languages show all of them some palatalization, but it seems the Volga turkic ones would show the strongest tendancy on the matter, not only for consonnants but also for vowels. I know convergences exist but here I wonder if the trend did not come from this area or close areas a bit further East??? The "neutral" or central PIE localization before radiatin towards every direction could have been more western so again around Ukraine. Only guesses.
    This is another reason. Well said.

    Centum languages, roughly speaking, also seem to show more archaisms in comparison to Satem languages, which would be consistent with early departure at the interface with the Balkan complexes.

  20. #45
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    761
    Points
    7,381
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,381, Level: 25
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 169
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: USA - Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Dov View Post
    Many of their agricultural terms are borrowed from the Middle East languages. These words like the type of activity were alien to them and obviously borrowed from outside.

    L. Zaliznyak: (although there are some controversial terms, such as borrowing a horse, as for me)


    By the time this coincides with the contacts Eneolithic Dereivka culture with Tripolye.
    And this why agrarian cultures, including Anatolia, hardly can be considered as IE. Because many agricultural terms for In PIE have non Indo-European roots.

    A main lexicon IE can be even north-Mesolithic. All this flora and fauna (elks and birches), as well as the names of different tools.

    And Samara and Dnepro-Donets are similar, why not. All these cultures have common Mesolithic roots.
    If you think that DD had a similar language to Samara, then you would also have to presume that when this language first mixed with farmers we would have PIE. This would have occured in the West in Ukraine.

    Maybe it is just Samara hegemony interacting with the Caucuses, which is essentially a Mesopotamian proxy. It's possible. I just don't think it's as likely as PIE at contact with Balkans.

  21. #46
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation Second ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,464
    Points
    56,687
    Level
    73
    Points: 56,687, Level: 73
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 363
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    The oldest R1a in general, the oldest R1a-M417, and the oldest R1a-Z93:

    http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...=1#post1318959

    https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Je9MSxLd1..._The_Beast.png




  22. #47
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,700
    Points
    241,103
    Level
    100
    Points: 241,103, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Yes, indeed, we need the perspective of bizarre you-tubers dedicated to Nordic paganism. This stuff is going to rot your brain, Tomenable.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  23. #48
    Princess Achievements:
    Overdrive10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    davef's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-06-16
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,186
    Points
    10,278
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,278, Level: 30
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 272
    Overall activity: 26.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italian, Irish, Jewish
    Country: USA - New York



    No, he speaks the truth. They were forged by Odin in the mountains of Norway, were 8 feet tall, and blonde. They brought civilization to the cannibalistic farmer tribes by establishing institutions where they learned how to read, as well as basic math skills.

    Fun fact: their societies were completely matrialinic and allowed women to serve in their militaries. The Amazonian tribes as spoken of by the ancient Greeks consisted of 7 ft tall Nordic female Viking warriors.
    mmmmmmmmmm doughnuuuuutz

  24. #49
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    IronSide's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-10-16
    Age
    24
    Posts
    883
    Points
    8,064
    Level
    26
    Points: 8,064, Level: 26
    Level completed: 86%, Points required for next Level: 86
    Overall activity: 71.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2c2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2e1

    Country: United Arab Emirates



    Quote Originally Posted by davef View Post
    No, he speaks the truth. They were forged by Odin in the mountains of Norway, were 8 feet tall, and blonde. They brought civilization to the cannibalistic farmer tribes by establishing institutions where they learned how to read, as well as basic math skills.

    Fun fact: their societies were completely matrialinic and allowed women to serve in their militaries. The Amazonian tribes as spoken of by the ancient Greeks consisted of 7 ft tall Nordic female Viking warriors.
    Ancient cannibals established civilization .. it is known .. it is known.


  25. #50
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation Second ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,464
    Points
    56,687
    Level
    73
    Points: 56,687, Level: 73
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 363
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    Map showing the location of Alexandria within the Pontic-Caspian Steppe:

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/57/33...37db3a83ab.jpg


Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •