Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 19 of 25 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 475 of 604

Thread: Ancient genomes from Caucasus inc. Maykop

  1. #451
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    16,483
    Points
    356,616
    Level
    100
    Points: 356,616, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    Why is Greek the possible exception?
    Mycenaeans from the east as a possibility was raised in the paper on the Mycenaeans, yes?

    Drews is interesting in this regard.


    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

  2. #452
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    529
    Points
    5,522
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,522, Level: 21
    Level completed: 95%, Points required for next Level: 28
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Country: Greece



    1 members found this post helpful.

    Post

    Nakh languages have some similarities with IE. Concerning Chechen, for example.

    The ergative of the 1.SG pronoun is /ʔəs/ and we have nominative 'es' / 'as' in many IE languages. (like Lithuanian, Armenian)

    The 1.PL pronoun is /vəɪ/, fairly close to how it is reconstructed for IE by Beekes and Sihler *uei / *wei

    The genitives of the pronouns have an -n (sən, ʜən, vəɪn, txʰən, ʃun). An -n exists in the reconstruction of the genitive of the IE first person pronoun (*mene, h₁méne) and Uralic first and second pronouns (*mun, *mina 'I'/me, *tun, *tina 'you')

    The 3.SG singular personal pronoun is ɪ, ɪzə, which can be related to IE demonstratives or pronouns. For example a Latin/proto-Italic equivalent is *is from an IE pronoun reconstructed as*éy.

    The plural is often formed by adding suffixes -ii or -ash which are at least reminiscent of IE suffixes.
    k'ant (boy) - k'entii (boys)
    ph'āgal (rabbit) - ph'āgalash (rabbits)

    Example:
    Latin lupus - lupī but for example dux - duces
    Attic lukos - lukoi but fore example rhetor - rhetores
    Sanskrit vṛka - vṛkas, OCS vlьcŭ- vlьci, Lithuanian vil̃kas - vilkaĩ etc

    Although both Nakh and Dagestanian are considered NEC languages, the relationship is considered distant despite the geographical proximity. Either way, I don't claim there is a close relationship with IE or even that I can prove that any relationship exist (or even that I want or plan to do it, I don't have the necessary free time and motivation)

    Either way, I believe that might be explained with the following scenario
    -pre-proto-Indoeuropean possibly in Catal-Hoyuk (something Diakonoff had considered but it is an assumption with 'no necessary validity' as he had said)
    -a movement of a pre-IE / para-IE group to North Caucacus (Maykop), responsible at least for the similarities between IE and North West Caucasian (Adyghe, Abkhaz)
    -late Indoeuropean possibly in the Balkans, Hungary, West Ukraine.
    -late PIE expansions towards east
    1) first wave with Globula Amphora like ancestry
    2) second wave with Steppe MLBA like ancestry (Sanskrit speakers could have followed a southern route, though. I don't consider the conclusion of the S. Asian study necessarily valid)
    -proto-Uralic languages developed in proximity to two IE languages, a Baltic one spoken in Fatyanovo and an early Indo-Iranian that had influenced Abashevo culture and it expanded mostly the last 4.000 years.


  3. #453
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    05-01-18
    Posts
    246
    Points
    2,012
    Level
    12
    Points: 2,012, Level: 12
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 138
    Overall activity: 9.0%


    Ethnic group
    Irish/British
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    Why is Greek the possible exception?
    Arnold connects the Mycenaean shaft-graves with the early Western Catacomb culture in southeast Europe. He sees Greek along with Phrygian and Armenian forming an early branch off from PIE, which preceded the later Yamnaya migration (The Horse, The Wheel, and Language, p. 368-369).

  4. #454
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    05-01-18
    Posts
    246
    Points
    2,012
    Level
    12
    Points: 2,012, Level: 12
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 138
    Overall activity: 9.0%


    Ethnic group
    Irish/British
    Country: United States



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Mycenaeans from the east as a possibility was raised in the paper on the Mycenaeans, yes?

    Drews is interesting in this regard.
    Mycenaeans and Hittites arrive on the scene at about the same time (1700-1600 BCE), and their empires also collapse about the same time (1300-1200 BCE). (The Hyksos, a Semitic people, also invaded the Nile Delta around 1650 BCE.) The first was attacked and destroyed by the Dorians and the second by the Phrygians and the "Ahhiyawa" (Achaeans?), part of the overall movement of peoples called "the Sea Peoples". Both periods are denoted by mass migrations, warfare, raiding/piracy, droughts/climate change, famine, plague(?), etc.

    Historically the steppes have served as a migration engine. Any drought, I assume, would hit the drier eastern steppes first, impelling people and their herds westward in search of water and greener grass. Wet cycles would cause populations (people and herds) to expand, with thus severe dry cycles putting everybody in motion, like balls on a billiard table. Agricultural civilizations, which used irrigation, dams, dikes, and canals to move water from rivers to fields were better able to withstand drought cycles in place, unless attacked by "barbarians" (in search of surplus grain) and brought down.

  5. #455
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,424
    Points
    6,763
    Level
    24
    Points: 6,763, Level: 24
    Level completed: 43%, Points required for next Level: 287
    Overall activity: 21.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Does anybody knows when this paper and the one of central / south asia gonna have their final conclusions and rectifications ?

  6. #456
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,424
    Points
    6,763
    Level
    24
    Points: 6,763, Level: 24
    Level completed: 43%, Points required for next Level: 287
    Overall activity: 21.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post
    Nakh languages have some similarities with IE. Concerning Chechen, for example.

    The ergative of the 1.SG pronoun is /ʔəs/ and we have nominative 'es' / 'as' in many IE languages. (like Lithuanian, Armenian)

    The 1.PL pronoun is /vəɪ/, fairly close to how it is reconstructed for IE by Beekes and Sihler *uei / *wei

    The genitives of the pronouns have an -n (sən, ʜən, vəɪn, txʰən, ʃun). An -n exists in the reconstruction of the genitive of the IE first person pronoun (*mene, h₁méne) and Uralic first and second pronouns (*mun, *mina 'I'/me, *tun, *tina 'you')

    The 3.SG singular personal pronoun is ɪ, ɪzə, which can be related to IE demonstratives or pronouns. For example a Latin/proto-Italic equivalent is *is from an IE pronoun reconstructed as*éy.

    The plural is often formed by adding suffixes -ii or -ash which are at least reminiscent of IE suffixes.
    k'ant (boy) - k'entii (boys)
    ph'āgal (rabbit) - ph'āgalash (rabbits)

    Example:
    Latin lupus - lupī but for example dux - duces
    Attic lukos - lukoi but fore example rhetor - rhetores
    Sanskrit vṛka - vṛkas, OCS vlьcŭ- vlьci, Lithuanian vil̃kas - vilkaĩ etc

    Although both Nakh and Dagestanian are considered NEC languages, the relationship is considered distant despite the geographical proximity. Either way, I don't claim there is a close relationship with IE or even that I can prove that any relationship exist (or even that I want or plan to do it, I don't have the necessary free time and motivation)

    Either way, I believe that might be explained with the following scenario
    -pre-proto-Indoeuropean possibly in Catal-Hoyuk (something Diakonoff had considered but it is an assumption with 'no necessary validity' as he had said)
    -a movement of a pre-IE / para-IE group to North Caucacus (Maykop), responsible at least for the similarities between IE and North West Caucasian (Adyghe, Abkhaz)
    -late Indoeuropean possibly in the Balkans, Hungary, West Ukraine.
    -late PIE expansions towards east
    1) first wave with Globula Amphora like ancestry
    2) second wave with Steppe MLBA like ancestry (Sanskrit speakers could have followed a southern route, though. I don't consider the conclusion of the S. Asian study necessarily valid)
    -proto-Uralic languages developed in proximity to two IE languages, a Baltic one spoken in Fatyanovo and an early Indo-Iranian that had influenced Abashevo culture and it expanded mostly the last 4.000 years.

    I'm sorry and you probably gonna explain to me but, how actually " yeah so there was those R1b guys in Armenia, they roamed from armenia to the caucasus and the pontic steppe, they didn't change the native Caucasus lineage and languages, they were very hurried to go in eastern europe " makes more sense than " yeah so there was those pontic steppe R1b guys and they roamed west and east " ? I mean everybody have failed until now to present a coherent hypothesis for PIE and eventually R1b coming at one point from south of the caucasus. If the final point is " there is CHG but not EHG " well what a waste of money.

  7. #457
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    529
    Points
    5,522
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,522, Level: 21
    Level completed: 95%, Points required for next Level: 28
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    I'm sorry and you probably gonna explain to me but, how actually " yeah so there was those R1b guys in Armenia, they roamed from armenia to the caucasus and the pontic steppe, they didn't change the native Caucasus lineage and languages, they were very hurried to go in eastern europe " makes more sense than " yeah so there was those pontic steppe R1b guys and they roamed west and east " ? I mean everybody have failed until now to present a coherent hypothesis for PIE and eventually R1b coming at one point from south of the caucasus. If the final point is " there is CHG but not EHG " well what a waste of money.
    I am not sure I understand. I don't connect Early IE to R1b, or any haplogroup. If people with R1b subclades had expanded west, east, south, north etc already in the Bronze Age and earlier, they could have reexpanded with other groups, IE or not IE. That is true about any haplogroup.

    I have said also though that the fact that, for example, R1b isn't found in Megalithic sites doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't exist around them. For example Bell Beaker people can be more 'native' than it is assumed. They just appear in archaeology when they acquired the technology to do so.

  8. #458
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    03-04-18
    Posts
    48
    Points
    1,258
    Level
    9
    Points: 1,258, Level: 9
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 92
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Germany



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    Does anybody knows when this paper and the one of central / south asia gonna have their final conclusions and rectifications ?
    Yes i also posted about this a while ago, it seems people dont reply to these questions...
    For the South Central Asia paper a revised paper was promised to come out, but still nothing.
    For the Caucasus study, more samples were promised, but no news about this yet.
    As for the Damgaard paper, they didnt even publish the Y-SNP haplogroups of all samples they have. Even the Open Genomes volunteer(?) person did a lot of work to determine the haplogroups of more samples.

    I dont get it actually, what is being waited for? Is there some kind of special agenda behind this?

  9. #459
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,424
    Points
    6,763
    Level
    24
    Points: 6,763, Level: 24
    Level completed: 43%, Points required for next Level: 287
    Overall activity: 21.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post
    I am not sure I understand. I don't connect Early IE to R1b, or any haplogroup. If people with R1b subclades had expanded west, east, south, north etc already in the Bronze Age and earlier, they could have reexpanded with other groups, IE or not IE. That is true about any haplogroup.

    I have said also though that the fact that, for example, R1b isn't found in Megalithic sites doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't exist around them. For example Bell Beaker people can be more 'native' than it is assumed. They just appear in archaeology when they acquired the technology to do so.
    What do you link with a southern origin for PIE then ?

  10. #460
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,424
    Points
    6,763
    Level
    24
    Points: 6,763, Level: 24
    Level completed: 43%, Points required for next Level: 287
    Overall activity: 21.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by suyindik View Post
    Yes i also posted about this a while ago, it seems people dont reply to these questions...
    For the South Central Asia paper a revised paper was promised to come out, but still nothing.
    For the Caucasus study, more samples were promised, but no news about this yet.
    As for the Damgaard paper, they didnt even publish the Y-SNP haplogroups of all samples they have. Even the Open Genomes volunteer(?) person did a lot of work to determine the haplogroups of more samples.

    I dont get it actually, what is being waited for? Is there some kind of special agenda behind this?
    I'm not sure about the Caucasus study, but the Willerslev team also work on some Maikop samples i do believe, that might be what you are referencing. As for the agenda, it pretty much doesn't care, at the end of the day. You can't fake Genetic, Anthropology and Linguistic to create a coherent false. Eventually you could manipulate the mass that doesn't know at all about all those studies, but there always gonna be some knowledgeable people that gonna question results. Like just look how some people from western countries feel the right to viciously criticize pioneer eastern anthropologists like Gimbutas or Telegin only because the Pontic Steppe hypothesis doesn't fit their idealized world of love. But sincerely, i dont believe their can be an agenda. Just imagine if Harvard turns into a shitstorm of critics for being bigoted.

  11. #461
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    781
    Points
    11,252
    Level
    32
    Points: 11,252, Level: 32
    Level completed: 1%, Points required for next Level: 698
    Overall activity: 8.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I'm not so impressed with the Damgard paper, or the other Caucasus paper as well. The quality went down in the Reich Lab paper on South Asia as well. Not all papers are equal, and perhaps due to competition and thus a rushing of the analysis, or the quality of the post docs taking the lead, the general quality of the analysis has gone down in those papers imo: too much of the conclusions not even flowing from the data presented.
    Why?

    If you're asking about eurogenes and his "merry" band of followers, I've had enough of reading "headlines" based on biased interpretations, a fact which becomes clear if you're willing to wade through a disorganized mish mash of opinions, many of them by denizens of Stormfront, it sounds like.
    Maybe you should stop this. You called me a nordicist and an anti-semite. I try to keep the my huge amusement [1] on this to myself in order to keep this a normal discussion but it is getting increasingly difficult to do so. I don't know what David's political opinions are, and I don't care. He doesn't express them. I do know, though, that Nick Patterson every now and then reacts on his blog.

    It's a total waste of time imo, time which I don't have in infinite quantities. I do have other interests, unlike the people on there, although on days like today it may not seem like it. :) I'm feeling guilty as I type!
    [1] I am really, really tempted to do a Peter Sellers imitation everytime I'm being called a Nazi. With exactly the same speech.

  12. #462
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    16,483
    Points
    356,616
    Level
    100
    Points: 356,616, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    Why?



    Maybe you should stop this. You called me a nordicist and an anti-semite. I try to keep the my huge amusement [1] on this to myself in order to keep this a normal discussion but it is getting increasingly difficult to do so. I don't know what David's political opinions are, and I don't care. He doesn't express them. I do know, though, that Nick Patterson every now and then reacts on his blog.



    [1] I am really, really tempted to do a Peter Sellers imitation everytime I'm being called a Nazi. With exactly the same speech.
    Epoch, not everything is about you, although I know we all have the tendency to think that way. Don't take all of this stuff so very personally. Sorry if I got under your skin a while back, but since then, and in this particular case I wasn't thinking of you at all. Fwiw I consider you one of the sane posters on eurogenes, the few times I've actually seen you post there. As I said, I've given up hoping to find anything I think of value there and go there very infrequently. That's my prerogative, surely?

    I frankly don't see the point in going through each of my reservations about any of this material with you, as you don't seem to have an open mind about any of it. You seem to me to have a position and then you interpret every single piece of data in a way that will support that position. You've already stated your very unflattering view of what you think are my thought processes. :)

    I've said this before, but I'll say this again: I don't have a position on this issue. I don't know how it happened, and, as I've said often, I don't particularly care, other than as a matter of intellectual curiosity. What on earth difference does it make if the earliest forms of the language were spoken in or south or the Caucasus or just north of it on the steppe? On a personal level I have absolutely no emotional attachment to one side of the debate or the other. Also, frankly, I'm beyond bored with it. How many times can people say the same things over and over again. Hopefully, we'll get more ancient dna and it will become clearer. If it doesn't, my life will go on regardless, and happily, I might add. :)

    The other and more important factor in all of these cases is that all of my professional training and years of work have led me to examine every issue from all possible sides, probing for every weakness of fact or logic, and not having any emotional stake in either "side" or position. That's part and parcel of not being able to choose your "side". In some cases, indeed, you have to argue vehemently a "side" you don't particularly like or even know to be "unjust". It can be acutely uncomfortable emotionally sometimes, but it's a great intellectual exercise.

  13. #463
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,793
    Points
    32,065
    Level
    55
    Points: 32,065, Level: 55
    Level completed: 11%, Points required for next Level: 985
    Overall activity: 28.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey View Post
    Most of the other Indo-European languages stemmed from the Yamnaya culture (Greek being a possible exception), while the Anatolian IE languages are theorized, by Mallory/Anthony, to have stemmed from the Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog cultures, which may have not carried the same "steppe signature" as the Yamnayas. The Khvalynsk culture started around 4,200 BCE, well before the Yamnayas brought the CHG admixture onto the steppes.

    As to R1b having been "far too common in Anatolia to have arrived with a later group such as the Turks", you're ignoring the Phrygians who (with others) overthrew the Hittite Empire around 1,200 BCE. The Dorians who overthrew the Mycenaeans (mostly R1a) around the same time were also apparently primarily R1b.
    CHG wasn't brought onto the steppes by Yamnaya. It was probably present there since the Neolithic. We now know it was already present in significant proportions at least as early as in the Eneolithic steppe circa 4200-4300 BC, when Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk were still in their early stages (this Caucasus study demonstrated that). Besides, Yamnaya doesn't seem to have come from elsewhere (it's rather a continuous development from previous steppe cultures), nor to have had a lot of extra CHG or broadly Caucasian influence in relation to the earlier Late Khvalynsk/Repin or to Sredny Stog II.

  14. #464
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    781
    Points
    11,252
    Level
    32
    Points: 11,252, Level: 32
    Level completed: 1%, Points required for next Level: 698
    Overall activity: 8.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Epoch, not everything is about you, although I know we all have the tendency to think that way. Don't take all of this stuff so very personally. Sorry if I got under your skin a while back, but since then, and in this particular case I wasn't thinking of you at all. Fwiw I consider you one of the sane posters on eurogenes, the few times I've actually seen you post there. As I said, I've given up hoping to find anything I think of value there and go there very infrequently. That's my prerogative, surely?

    I frankly don't see the point in going through each of my reservations about any of this material with you, as you don't seem to have an open mind about any of it. You seem to me to have a position and then you interpret every single piece of data in a way that will support that position.
    I am an amateur. But I know the gist of what was proposed by the Linguistic evidence and the substantial minority of archaeologists that supported them. It is called the steppe theory.

    What I argue isn't so much as a position. I am far to low in the tree to even consider "taking a position". That is a weakness, but also a strength as it permits me the position of looker on. And all I see is that there is not a shred of evidence that refutes the Pontic Steppe Hypothesis.

    You've already stated your very unflattering view of what you think are my thought processes. :)
    Are you seriously going to say that you didn't laugh at the Youtube piece?

    I've said this before, but I'll say this again: I don't have a position on this issue. I don't know how it happened, and, as I've said often, I don't particularly care, other than as a matter of intellectual curiosity. What on earth difference does it make if the earliest forms of the language were spoken in or south or the Caucasus or just north of it on the steppe? On a personal level I have absolutely no emotional attachment to one side of the debate or the other.
    Unlike most others I haven't tested my DNA.

    Also, frankly, I'm beyond bored with it.
    The interesting and revolutionary part of this is that it reinstates old archaeological and linguistic models to the exclusion of the modern ones. It wipes the "innovating" waves of archaeology off the table. THAT makes this to such an important debate.

    How many times can people say the same things over and over again. Hopefully, we'll get more ancient dna and it will become clearer. If it doesn't, my life will go on regardless, and happily, I might add. :)
    As obviously does mine.

    The other and more important factor in all of these cases is that all of my professional training and years of work have led me to examine every issue from all possible sides, probing for every weakness of fact or logic, and not having any emotional stake in either "side" or position. That's part and parcel of not being able to choose your "side". In some cases, indeed, you have to argue vehemently a "side" you don't particularly like or even know to be "unjust". It can be acutely uncomfortable emotionally sometimes, but it's a great intellectual exercise.

  15. #465
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,793
    Points
    32,065
    Level
    55
    Points: 32,065, Level: 55
    Level completed: 11%, Points required for next Level: 985
    Overall activity: 28.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey View Post
    Arnold connects the Mycenaean shaft-graves with the early Western Catacomb culture in southeast Europe. He sees Greek along with Phrygian and Armenian forming an early branch off from PIE, which preceded the later Yamnaya migration (The Horse, The Wheel, and Language, p. 368-369).
    I don't think I understood this point. The Catacomb culture postdates the Yamnaya and is mostly a derivation of it along with other external influences and internal changes. A split from the Catacomb culture would necessarily be later than the Yamnaya migrations and would probably be, through the Catacomb people, related to the earlier Yamnaya too. What I think was really proposed by some authors in the past was that Greek, probably together with Phrygian, Armenian and Indo-Iranian, left the steppes much later than other IE branches (after the Yamnaya expansion) and probably derived from the dialects of the latest stage of the PIE language that remained in its Pontic-Caspian homeland.

  16. #466
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran50000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,511
    Points
    52,569
    Level
    71
    Points: 52,569, Level: 71
    Level completed: 2%, Points required for next Level: 1,481
    Overall activity: 44.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    I don't think I understood this point. The Catacomb culture postdates the Yamnaya and is mostly a derivation of it along with other external influences and internal changes. A split from the Catacomb culture would necessarily be later than the Yamnaya migrations and would probably be, through the Catacomb people, related to the earlier Yamnaya too. What I think was really proposed by some authors in the past was that Greek, probably together with Phrygian, Armenian and Indo-Iranian, left the steppes much later than other IE branches (after the Yamnaya expansion) and probably derived from the dialects of the latest stage of the PIE language that remained in its Pontic-Caspian homeland.
    if I understand well from the Olalde study, the West-European IE languages (Celtic & Italic) started to spread ca 4.5 ka - maybe even a few centuries earlier - from Central Europe or the Carpathian Basin

    Yamna culture lasted till 4.6 ka and then lingered on in Catacomb culture
    by the time the Sintashta-related (R1a-Z93) Srubnaya arrived in the northern Pontic steppe ca 3.8 ka, most of the Pontic steppe was already desterted due to the 4.2 ka climate change
    could it be that those Yamna-related tribes that left the Pontice steppe late (ca 4.2 ka?) were ancestral to Greek, Armenian and Albanian?
    and these herding tribes may have left the Pontic steppe through different routes and at different times

  17. #467
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    30-08-17
    Posts
    176
    Points
    3,539
    Level
    17
    Points: 3,539, Level: 17
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 311
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey View Post
    Mycenaeans and Hittites arrive on the scene at about the same time (1700-1600 BCE), and their empires also collapse about the same time (1300-1200 BCE). (The Hyksos, a Semitic people, also invaded the Nile Delta around 1650 BCE.) The first was attacked and destroyed by the Dorians and the second by the Phrygians and the "Ahhiyawa" (Achaeans?), part of the overall movement of peoples called "the Sea Peoples". Both periods are denoted by mass migrations, warfare, raiding/piracy, droughts/climate change, famine, plague(?), etc.

    Historically the steppes have served as a migration engine. Any drought, I assume, would hit the drier eastern steppes first, impelling people and their herds westward in search of water and greener grass. Wet cycles would cause populations (people and herds) to expand, with thus severe dry cycles putting everybody in motion, like balls on a billiard table. Agricultural civilizations, which used irrigation, dams, dikes, and canals to move water from rivers to fields were better able to withstand drought cycles in place, unless attacked by "barbarians" (in search of surplus grain) and brought down.
    No, no please let us be more precise to avoid confusion. The Mycenaeans enter on the scene in the 15th century bc with their attack on Crete, the Hittites at least 2 centuries earlier. They do not collapse in 1300-1200 bc, that century saw the construction of some of the most iconic monuments of both civilizations such as the Tomb of Agamemnon, the Lions' gate and Tyrins' gallery in Mycenaean Greece and the cyclopean galleries at Hattusash along with many iconic stone reliefs. The Mycenaeans fell slightly before the Hittites around the end of that century, and the theory of a "Dorian invasion" is pretty outdated, there is no evidence for an external invasion, and both Mycenaeans and Dorians were Greek speakers. The Hittites fell around 1180 bc, a few decades after the Mycenaeans, and it was not because of the Ahhyawa, who were likely the Mycenaeans by the way, but likely because of the civil war that had been going on for 70 years along with a massive drought that had hit all the Mediterranean, the Kaska invaders in the North might have also played a part, but the last enemies that the Hittites faced were an unnamed force coming from Alashiya (Cyprus) and the Lukka (Lycians), the Lycians had been known for several centuries by the Hittites. Since you named the Ahhyawa, they were mentioned by the Hittite texts since the early 14th century bc, they were at one point ruled by a king and had Greek names, they also were located West of Western Anatolia, likely somewhere in Greece, there is no doubt anymore that they were Mycenaean Greeks, Achaeans, and while they sometimes supported the West Anatolian kings against the Hittites they were never mentioned as a major threat by the Hittites. As for the Phrygians, they are not mentioned even once by the Hittites and likely migrated to central Anatolia sometime after the collapse of the Hittite empire, not before.

  18. #468
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    05-01-18
    Posts
    246
    Points
    2,012
    Level
    12
    Points: 2,012, Level: 12
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 138
    Overall activity: 9.0%


    Ethnic group
    Irish/British
    Country: United States



    Because there is no literary/historical reference to the Mycenaeans prior to their invasion of Crete does not mean there isn't archaeological evidence for their presence in Greece long before that, dating back to the shaft graves at Mycenae (late 17th century?).

  19. #469
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    05-01-18
    Posts
    246
    Points
    2,012
    Level
    12
    Points: 2,012, Level: 12
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 138
    Overall activity: 9.0%


    Ethnic group
    Irish/British
    Country: United States



    As to the Catacomb culture link:

    At the beginning of the 20th century V. A. Gorodtsov proposed a culture proposed a cultural-chronological scheme for the Early Bronze Age in the East European steppes with three succeeding periods. Based on observations of burial constructions and their positions in the burial mound, Gorodtsov placed the Catacomb culture, which is characterized by graves with catacomb constructions, between the Yamnaya and Sryubnaya cultures. Today, however, radiocarbon dates have revealed that the late Yamnaya and the Early Catacomb cultures coexisted for some time. The overlap of several hundred years with the preceding Yamnaya culture pushed the beginning of the Catacomb culture several hundred years earlier than originally suggested by Gorodtsov.
    -- Claudia Gerling, Prehistoric Mobility and Diet in the West Eurasian Steppes 3500 to 300 BC (2015)

    https://books.google.com/books?id=M4...scheme&f=false

  20. #470
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,793
    Points
    32,065
    Level
    55
    Points: 32,065, Level: 55
    Level completed: 11%, Points required for next Level: 985
    Overall activity: 28.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey View Post
    As to the Catacomb culture link:



    -- Claudia Gerling, Prehistoric Mobility and Diet in the West Eurasian Steppes 3500 to 300 BC (2015)

    https://books.google.com/books?id=M4...scheme&f=false
    Thanks, I didn't know that. But how could that supposed Catacomb migration that would've given birth to Greek and Armenian have preceded the Yamnaya migrations? The same source you linked states this right after your quote (and it reinforces that Catacomb coexisted with the late phase of Yamnaya and seems to have sprung continously, without ruptures, from Yamnaya, not that it precedes it), referring to dates that are certainly centuries later than the appearance of Yamnaya and also later than the usually accepted estimates (around or before 3000 BC) for the initial divergence of such probably Yamnaya-related branches from PIE, as Celtic, Italic, Germanic and Tocharian. In my opinion, the Catacomb culture (and its possible IE proto-languages, like Greek and Armenian) was an organic and in situ continuation of the Yamnaya, with some novelties and innovations that spread from the southeast (near the sea of Azov).

    "The beginning of the Catacomb culture in the area between the river Don and the northern Caucasus Mountains can be absolutely dated to the early 3rd millennium BC, more precisely to 2800/2700 cal BC, and comes to an end around 2000 cal BC (Table 2.2). Similar dates are given for the North Pontic region, where the Early Catacomb culture is thought to have emerged about 2800/2700 to 2500 BC, coexisting with the Yamnaya culture and followed by the developed phase of the Catacomb culture that lasted until 2000/1900 BC."
    There is no doubt in recent research about a continuous development from the Yamnaya to the Catacomb culture and a coexistence of Yamnaya and Early Catacomb culture for several hundred years. [...] Other scholars believe the Catacomb culture originated from intense interactions between the Yamnaya and contemporaneous cultural groups in the Caucasus. Bratchenko (2001), for example, regards the Catacomb culture as a product of interactions between the Precaucasus region and the steppe cultures.

  21. #471
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    05-01-18
    Posts
    246
    Points
    2,012
    Level
    12
    Points: 2,012, Level: 12
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 138
    Overall activity: 9.0%


    Ethnic group
    Irish/British
    Country: United States



    Regardless, the Catacomb culture could have been a parallel development or a product of an interaction with the Yamnayas. The hypothesis is that the speakers of the language (proto-Balkan?) that became Greek, Phrygian, and Armenian was an offshoot of the "western" Catacomb culture, splitting off from PIE before the later Yamnaya migrations. After a period in the Balkans, they split off from each other, with Greek speakers migrating into Greece and Armenian and Phrygian speakers migrating into Anatolia. The language of the Linear B script is Greek, not proto-Greek.

  22. #472
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    71
    Posts
    4,482
    Points
    44,583
    Level
    65
    Points: 44,583, Level: 65
    Level completed: 26%, Points required for next Level: 967
    Overall activity: 5.0%

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

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Catacombs: some possible clues: the earlier ones show metrically more ressemblances with Western,Northern and Central Europe people of the LN than Yamnaya (so among diverse inputs, rather an EEF input than a strong CHG or "iranian" input; and they seem having been more depending on agriculture than were Yamnaya people (picked in some readings)... all the way an imput of non typically steppic pops, rather from a post-Cucuteni-Tripolye culture, in Western Ukraina, or maybe people of Eastern Balkans or Eastern Carpathians - why not a mix of Old Europe and early Steppics occurred there with a kind of return to the Steppes? here we need the competences of archeologists - it seems the Late Catacombs show more Steppic or at least "eastern" elements, principally through females? New osmosis after this return?

  23. #473
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    04-09-16
    Posts
    491
    Points
    1,935
    Level
    12
    Points: 1,935, Level: 12
    Level completed: 29%, Points required for next Level: 215
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Portugal



    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    Catacombs: some possible clues: the earlier ones show metrically more ressemblances with Western,Northern and Central Europe people of the LN than Yamnaya (so among diverse inputs, rather an EEF input than a strong CHG or "iranian" input; and they seem having been more depending on agriculture than were Yamnaya people (picked in some readings)... all the way an imput of non typically steppic pops, rather from a post-Cucuteni-Tripolye culture, in Western Ukraina, or maybe people of Eastern Balkans or Eastern Carpathians - why not a mix of Old Europe and early Steppics occurred there with a kind of return to the Steppes? here we need the competences of archeologists - it seems the Late Catacombs show more Steppic or at least "eastern" elements, principally through females? New osmosis after this return?
    Moesan,
    Because its not a mix of early steppist with anything.
    What you say makes lots of sense but it does not need steppe for any purpose.
    In reality is a mix of old europe with 5000 bc newly arrival to balkans coming from south caucasus as we already know was a movement of CHG loaded people into west.
    Boian, gulmenita, etc was rabidly mixing with old europe and is best seen in what is known as pre-cucuteni.
    This mix moved to east into steppe as well as steppe moved into west. People really moved around. All not just steppe.

  24. #474
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    71
    Posts
    4,482
    Points
    44,583
    Level
    65
    Points: 44,583, Level: 65
    Level completed: 26%, Points required for next Level: 967
    Overall activity: 5.0%

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

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    1 members found this post helpful.
    I cited some nude facts, and after that, an hypothesis (among other possibilities I did not propose then). I have no certainty or agenda as you surely know.
    By the way, it seems the CHG input was rather weak among Trypillia people; I have an admixture table where i'm not sure of the value of the orange colour : 'steppe' or 'CHG'. On another side, I looked on CH and BA in Iberia, and it seems the HG element were very more EHG than WHG compared to precedent periods in Iberia...

  25. #475
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    04-09-16
    Posts
    491
    Points
    1,935
    Level
    12
    Points: 1,935, Level: 12
    Level completed: 29%, Points required for next Level: 215
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Portugal



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    I cited some nude facts, and after that, an hypothesis (among other possibilities I did not propose then). I have no certainty or agenda as you surely know.
    By the way, it seems the CHG input was rather weak among Trypillia people; I have an admixture table where i'm not sure of the value of the orange colour : 'steppe' or 'CHG'. On another side, I looked on CH and BA in Iberia, and it seems the HG element were very more EHG than WHG compared to precedent periods in Iberia...
    Yes. and all caveats need to be in place. 4000bc was a time when new groups were starting to form.
    Trypillia might not be as close to Cucuteni as one expects and even less to pre-cucuteni.
    archaeologically one has Hamangia (what was their admix?) mixing with Boian (what was their admix?) and Gulmenita ((what was their admix?)) and rapidly going to encounter "old Europe" remains of starcevo-Cris.
    Nobody expects this large amount of people to immediately inter breed and become homogenous, do we?
    At this point (4000bc-3500bc) I would imagine that even ingroup, same culture, several differences in admix should really be apparent dependent on the site one gets the samples.

Page 19 of 25 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... 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
  •