The big bubble: Indoeuropean Yamnayans

berun

Regular Member
Messages
1,084
Reaction score
183
Points
0
I received a suggestion to read Anthony's book "The horse, the wheel and language" as to understand the spread of IE languages from an archaeological point of view. I would like to share my astonishment as how such "theory" could have the general acceptance that receives as it doesn't stand much stronger than per example any Atlantis-Pyramids relation book... (which usualy I prefer to don't take into account).

The Usatovo culture appeared about 3300–3200 BCE in the steppes around the mouth of the Dniester River, a strategic corridor that reached northwest into southern Poland. The rainfall–farming zone in the Dniester valley had been densely occupied by Cucuteni–Tripolye communities for millennia, but they never established settlements in the steppes. Kurgans had overlooked the Dniester estuary in the steppes since the Suvorovo migration about 4000 BCE; these are assigned to various groups including Mikhailovka I and the Cernavoda I–III cultures. Usatovo represented the rapid evolution of a new level of social and political integration between lowland steppe and upland farming communities. The steppe element used Tripolye material culture but clearly declared its greater prestige, wealth, and military power. The upland farmers who lived on the border itself adopted the steppe custom of inhumation burial in a cemetery, but they did not erect kurgans or take weapons to their graves. This integrated culture appeared in the Dniester valley just after the abandonment of all the Tripolye C1 towns in the South Bug valley on one side and the final Cucuteni B2 towns in southern Romania on the other. The chaos caused by the dissolution of hundreds of Cucuteni–Tripolye farming communities probably convinced the Tripolye townspeople of the middle Dniester valley to accept the status of clients. Explicit patronage defined the Usatovo culture.

mixed culture, being moreover the supposed IE steppe herders a minority

Tripolye clients of the Usatovo chiefs could have been the agents through which the Usatovo language spread northward into central Europe. After a few generations of clientage, the people of the upper Dniester might have wanted to acquire their own clients.

If I had to hazard a guess I would say that this was how the Proto–Indo–European dialects that would ultimately form the root of Pre–Germanic first became established in central Europe: they spread up the Dniester from the Usatovo culture through a nested series of patrons and clients, and eventually were spoken in some of the late TRB communities between the Dniester and the Vistula. These late TRB communities later evolved into early Corded Ware communities, and it was the Corded Ware horizon (see below) that provided the medium through which the Pre–Germanic dialects spread over a wider area.

from a mixed culture it's supposed that their supposed IE language spread over Central Europe by cultural contact only; now we know by ancient DNA that there was a migration which was in the base of the Corded Ware Culture, so the Usatovo theory is simply a flaw, and even more, Yamnayists DON'T PROVIDE archaeological evidences linking the steppes with Central Europe, otherwise they wouldn't need to recall Usatovo...

The people whose dialects would separate to become the root speech communities for the northwestern Indo–European language branches (Pre–Germanic, Pre–Baltic, and Pre–Slavic) probably moved initially toward the northwest. That would mean moving through or into Late Tripolye territory if it happened between 3300 and 2600 BCE, the time span of the final, staggering C2 phase of the Tripolye culture, after which all Tripolye traditions disappeared entirely.

so a minoritary mixed culture supposedly speaking IE was traveling though non-IE territory to teach their language to their northerner clients without stablishing there.... wow

The widely separated pockets of Yamnaya settlement in the lower Danube valley and the Balkans established speakers of late Proto–Indo–European dialects in scattered islands where, if they remained isolated from one another, they could have differentiated over centuries into various Indo–European languages.

A fine but flawed explanation for Greek, Thracian, Illyrian... but no proof at all.

The many thousands of Yamnaya kurgans in eastern Hungary suggest a more continuous occupation of the landscape by a larger population of immigrants, one that could have acquired power and prestige partly just through its numerical weight. This regional group could have spawned both pre–Italic and pre–Celtic. Bell Beaker sites of the Csepel type around Budapest, west of the Yamnaya settlement region, are dated about 2800–2600 BCE. They could have been a bridge between Yamnaya on their east and Austria/Southern Germany to their west, through which Yamnaya dialects spread from Hungary into Austria and Bavaria, where they later developed into Proto–Celtic.31 Pre–Italic could have developed among the dialects that remained in Hungary, ultimately spreading into Italy through the Urnfield and Villanovan cultures.

so Celtic and Italic is supposed to have spread from a culture that was not related to Yamnaya... but learnt their language and spread it westwards... OMG!! (no archaeological evidence also). Instead, the area where proto-Celtic developed (the north Alpine arch) was peopled once by CW.

The Middle Dnieper and Fatyanovo migrations probably established the populations that spoke pre-Baltic dialects in the Upper Volga basin. Pre-Slavic probably developed between the middle Dnieper and upper Dniester among the populations that stayed behind.

Right, such cultures were CW branches sharing also the same R1a clade... but no cultural relation with the steppes is demonstrated again.

The Sintashta-Potapovka-Filatovka complex probably is the archaeological manifestation of the Indo-Iranian language group.

A Fatyonovo/Abashevo branch, both CW and Sintashta being R1a, as is usual among carriers of Baltic, Slavic, proto-Germanic, Iranian, Indian... and how Sintashta and Andronovo got their EEF genes other than by CW (Yamnayans were devoid of them)?

Near Nalchik, in the center of the North Caucasus piedmont, was a cemetery containing 147 graves with contracted skeletons lying on their sides in red ochre—stained pits in groups of two or three under stone cairns. Females lay in a contracted pose on the left side and males on their right.30 A few copper ornaments, beads made of deer and cattle teeth, and polished stone bracelets (like those found in grave 108 at Khvalynsk and at Krivoluchie) accompanied them. One grave yielded a date on human bone of 5000–4800 BCE (possibly too old by a hundred to five hundred years, if the dated sample was contaminated by old carbon in fish). Five graves in the same region at Staronizhesteblievsk were provided with boars-tusk plaques of the DDII Mariupol type, animal-tooth beads, and flint blades that seem at home in the Early Eneolithic.31 An undated cave occupation in the Kuban valley at Kamennomost Cave, level 2, which could be of the same date, has yielded sheep/goat and cattle bones stratified beneath a later level with Maikop-culture materials. Carved stone bracelets and ornamental stones from the Caucasus—black jet, rock crystal, and porphyry—were traded into Khvalynsk and Dnieper-Donets II sites, perhaps from people like those at Nal’chik and Kamennomost Cave 2. The Nalchik-era sites clearly represent a community that had at least a few domesticated cattle and sheep/goats, and was in contact with Khvalynsk. They probably got their domesticated animals from the Dnieper, as the Khvalynsk people did.

so kurgans two thousand years before Yamnaya? is that the Nalchik provided culture and herds to Samara? also the R1b DNA? were Caucasian colonizers? that explains the Nelithic-Iran DNA there?

Wagons probably appeared in the steppes between about 3500 and 3300 BCE, possibly from the west through Europe, or possibly through the late Maikop-Novosvobodnaya culture, from Mesopotamia. .... Again, contact with people from the late Maikop-Novosvobodnaya culture, such as the makers of the kurgan at Evdik on the lower Volga, might have stimulated the change from late Khvalynsk to early Yamnaya. One of the stimuli introduced from the North Caucasus might have been wagons and wagon-making skills.

The A1 or Repin style was made earliest in the middle Don–middle Volga region. Repin pottery is stratified beneath Yamnaya pottery at Cherkassky on the middle Don and is dated between 3950 and 3600 BCE at an antelope hunters’ camp on the lower Volga at Kyzyl-Khak. The earliest Repin pottery was somewhat similar in form and decoration to the late Sredni Stog–Konstantinovka types on the lower Don, and it is now thought that contact with the late Maikop-Novosvobodnaya culture on the lower Don at places like Konstantinovka stimulated the emergence and spread of the early Repin culture and, through Repin, early Yamnaya. The metal-tanged daggers and sleeved axes of the early Yamnaya horizon certainly were copied after Maikop-Novosvobodnaya types.

Yamnaya is debt to Caucasian wagons, daggers, kurgans, herds, DNA...

So we have Caucasian DNA and culture in Yamnaya, but no Yamnaya culture in Corded Ware, but Caucasian DNA in Corded Ware; then the Caucasians might have reached northerner areas.
 
Yamnaya is debt to Caucasian wagons, daggers, kurgans, herds, DNA...

So we have Caucasian DNA and culture in Yamnaya, but no Yamnaya culture in Corded Ware, but Caucasian DNA in Corded Ware; then the Caucasians might have reached northerner areas.

Gimbutas linked the Globular Amphora culture, from whence Corded ware derived, directly to the Maykop culture

J.P.Mallory - Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture p.339

It is also at this time that there are major cultural changes in central and northern Europe with the expansion of the Globular Amphora culture over the earlier territory of the TRB culture. Gimbutas argues that this latter culture, which marks a shift to increasing pastoralism and less permanent settlement, derives ultimately from influences from the Maykop and Lower Mikhaylovka cultures of the north Caucasus and Ukraine (hence her use of the term "Maykop culture" for all of these different cultures). The connections between the Globular Amphora and Maykop cultures, she argues, is especially to be seen in ceramic forms and the use of stone in the construction of mortuary chamber.
 
Rather than picking apart the numerous fallacies and misunderstandings of material as I've done previously, I would like to cut to the chase and simply ask...berun, what is your theory regarding the spread of IE languages/genetics, and what do you base it on?

"Something else I can't articulate" is not an appropriate response, and "red alarms that are always dismissed as frivolous and that I'll never get published because they're demonstrated as false with a bare modicum of effort and education" is not a sound basis.

I'm not trying to be a dick, but this is getting ridiculous. You're behaving as if everyone but you and a couple of fringe bloggers stuck around circa 2006 are just imbeciles, but you never present your own ideas for consideration; you simply attempt to quibble with everyone else and call them stupid ("Atlantean pyramids" and such).

Put up or shut up.
 
@Cato, interesting track to follow... let's check DNA when available also.

@Athiudisc, this week sermon is Matthew 7:6.
 
Calling me a pig is nice and all, but now you've backed yourself into another corner: is everyone here but you swine?

If not, present your theories. If such is your opinion, why bother posting "I'm smarter than all of you, nyah nyah!" over and over at all?
 
Last edited:
You are thinking that i say stupid or swine. You don't get nothing. I wish to don't waste my time with you. Do you prefer a more direct request to undesrtand me?
 
Assuming that gobbledygook parses as "no, I still have no actual theory to offer, just an adamant insistence everyone else is somehow wrong," I suppose we're done once more. :LOL:
 
Ok, go with your lollipop if it makes you happy... but please don't try to trol posts or waste my time in empty discussions.
 
A simple presentation of your secret theory, without the constant attempts at mockery of other posters, would make me very happy.

Barring that, mere civility would be acceptable.

I already said we could be done. Move on.
 
Anthony discusses in some detail the archaeological evidence from the steppes, and how it can be interpreted in light of his suggested historical-linguistic framework. But, in a review, Philip L. Kohl suggests that at times Anthony's linguistic model may guide "the archaeological interpretation rather than the reverse."[5][6]
Also Kohl cautions about Anthony's proposal that horseback riding developed very early: in Eneolithic times in the proto-Indo-European homeland. According to Kohl, horseback riding was in fact almost invisible in the Ancient Near Eastern pictorial record until practically the end of the third millennium BCE.[6]
Nevertheless, Kohl endorses the book as a "gifted reconstruction of the archaeological record",

I am not an expert in archeological or linguistic interpretations but I tend to agree with that.
The book was written before any anciant DNA from the steppe was known, neither the time of arrival of haplogroups R1a and R1b in Europe.
The Anatolian hypothesis was widely accepted then.

The book says Yamna people were ousted from the Pontic steppe by Sintashta people.
Anciant DNA of Yamna, Sintashta and Srubnaya has proven that correct.
It also describes different intrusions from the Pontic steppe into the Balkans. There is little doubt that they actually happened.
The arrival and expansions of haplogroups R1a and R1b into Europe happen in exactly within the timeframe mentioned in the book.
The book does not describe in any detail the spread of IE people further into Europe, the author mentions only a few of his conjectures.
But that IE spread into Europe is beyond any doubt.
The author does give more details about the spread of Indo-Iranian people.
The little anciant DNA we have uptill now fits the story.

If you have a more valid theory you can back up with facts, let me know.
 
No, the Anatolian theory was fierly combated by steppists and even i backed the steppist side by then.

Of course the book explains true changes in culture but if you look at them you will see that such changes are related to R1a / Corded Ware / daughter cultures, being the Abashevo - Sintashta - Andronovo - Iranian the best example... but Yamnayans are not playing nothing here (again), they were a dead end.

Then if the author is getting linguistic suppositions with no real archaeological evidences (Usatovo per example)... well, it's like changing Atlantis for steppes and pyramids for kurgans, I could write a lot of crazy theories, isn't?

I'm not suggesting other dates for IE expansion or other latitudes, but suggesting that all is pointing to the CW. Sorry if i can't give a better alternative, but the unique that I can say is that Yamna is not IE and that Earth is not flat.
 
@Bicileur,
Yes, I think the analysis of horse domestication, and the role it played in the Indo-European expansions is the weakest part of Anthony's work.

For the rest, it's not his scholarship that is the issue, it's the oversimplification of his work or sometimes even the outright distortions that are the issue.

That said, I'm actually still keeping an open mind about the "Anatolian" branch. It may have moved into Anatolia the way he describes, but there's almost no archaeological evidence that I can find supporting that.


@Berun,

I suggest you read Anthony again. Corded Ware adopted all the "IE" innovations from Yamnaya. In addition, I don't know anything more recent that contradicts the fact that Corded Ware is genetically 75% "Yamnaya like." I'd also be wary of all these "Yamnaya is a dead end" statements. We know very little of the western steppe as of yet.

It might also help you come up with specific examples of where Anthony is wrong and you are right. Until then, this is getting us nowhere.
 
I have read the book recently and even I have taken notes... so please provide if possible the pages where such info is given because I have taken notes from almost all cultures characterized, so you may have a better memory? For the genetical relation Yamna / CW, other than dates or populations implied are problematic (appearing in the same century or being steppe people a bunch to change all Central Europe), with the aracheological and genetic data in hand there are other options left more reliable as CW > Yamna, or X > Yamna and X > CW (same effects on autosomal). I don't provide examples where i'm right because i'm not proposing any theory but i work with an hypothesis, for Anthonys' wrong examples I have provided in the first post some examples on how without any archaeological / real proof is trying to force the origin of IE languages from the steppe, and that is what is getting us nowhere.
 
The genetics information is obviously not in Anthony.

It is clear from the recent genetics papers that the "Caucasus" like admixture entered from the south and spread northward from there. It goes from steppe to forest steppe.

That's the same direction in which the technology moves, or from the "Old Europe" settlements to their west. If you didn't get that then you didn't understand what you were reading.

Corded Ware came later to a lot of the "Indo-European" advancements. Their first settlements don't even have much copper at all, and no Bronze until much,much later.

You're the one challenging Anthony. Prove where he's wrong with papers, facts, something, or give it up.
 
Another empty discussion. I need to proof now that Santa is not real? I need to provide also papers demonstrating that Egyptian pyramids and Mayan pyramids aren't related by Atlantis survivors? And whatelse? If you can't see or try to check that Anthony is not providing proofs for the Steppe theory what I can't do better?

You also don't provide even the pages requested. What a way to treat science.
 
For genes, after the Caucasian flux (when it take place?), they are going from north to south/steppe, evident in Sintashta and Poltavka:

"In any case, it's clear enough that Poltavka outlier was the result of mixture between Yamnaya-related western steppe pastoralists and the descendants of Middle Neolithic Europeans with a high ratio of WHG ancestry. Where this admixture actually took place and which archaeological cultures were involved will have to be resolved with further sampling of ancient remains from Central and Eastern Europe."

So are CW yamnayans or Yamna received CW genes...? But as everybody sticks with the steppe everybody gives an automatic answer, no further thinking is necessary, let's do science and hocus pocus together.
 
IMO Corded Ware was probably not derived directly from Yamnaya, but rather they are both of them were descended from a common earlier ancestral population, which is why they shared in 75% similar autosomal DNA. Here is the chronological sequence of major cultural horizons in the Steppe:

- Khvalynsk (ca. 5200-4200 BC)
- Sredni Stog (ca. 4200-3300 BC)
- Yamnaya A (ca. 3300-2900 BC)
- Yamnaya B (ca. 2900-2600 BC)

Corded Ware culture appeared at least around 3200 BC (the oldest branch of CW was probably the Middle Dnieper culture) so it is almost as old as Yamnaya and therefore it is probably descended from Late Sredni Stog (as is Yamnaya - but from another part of Sredni Stog horizon), not directly from Yamnaya. Also the Anatolian branch of Indo-European languages is not descended from Yamnaya, because Proto-Anatolian is associated with Cernavodă culture, which emerged around 4000 BC - so it had to be descended from Sredni Stog (as Yamnaya had not yet existed). Therefore Yamnaya cannot be considered a PIE culture because PIE languages started to differentiate long before Yamnaya emerged (with Proto-Anatolian speakers splitting away from the rest of PIE-speakers first, around 4000 BC). Yamnaya could be IE-speakers, but not PIE - rather just one of several IE branches existing at that time.
 
Angela,

Copper working, bronze working, etc. (in general advancements in metallurgy) were NOT Proto-Indo-European inventions.

The oldest evidence of copper-working in the world is from the Vinča culture, which emerged around 5700 BC in the Balkans in what is now Serbia. The oldest copper-made item found so far is a copper axe dated to 5500 BC, found near Prokuplje in Serbia. It was made by people of the Vinča culture, but nobody associates that culture with Indo-Europeans. From the Balkans, the knowledge of metallurgy spread both to the Middle East (where the oldest evidence of metal-working is ca. 500-800 years younger than in the Balkans), to the Caucasus, and to the Pontic-Caspian Steppe.

Another Balkan-based culture with advanced early bronze metallurgy was the Varna culture, which emerged ca. 4400 BC.

====================

The world's oldest evidence of the Copper Age is from this archaeological site near Prokuplje:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plo%C4%8Dnik_(archaeological_site)

In 2008, a copper axe was found at Pločnik that when dated pushed back the start of the Copper Age by 500 years.

By 500 years, to year 5500 BC. The second oldest evidence of the Copper Age is also from Serbia, dated to 5000 BC:

site of Belovode on the Rudnik mountain in Serbia contains the world's oldest securely dated evidence of copper smelting at high temperature, from 5,000 BCE.


 
If accepting that the origin source for CW and Yamna would be the Sredni Stog, how could be done that an steppic population of let say 100000 would replace some 5000000 inhabitants in Central Europe as to provide the aDNA that CW displays? I can't figure out mass killings of such level. I have not ancient historical records about a similar butchering. Even the Eurasian diseases were not able to erase the Quechuan and Aymaran population of South America.

Even so it would be good to have some archaeological facts about this possible origin.

To me it would make more sense if pionner Caucasian migrants (maybe like the American trappers in the Pacific NW) settled somewhere in the forest-steppe or forest among PIE EHG and mixed half/half, increasing population enough there as to populate thereafter Central Europe and overwhelming the native people.
 
Globular Amphora Culture ca. 3400–2800 BC looks very much Indo-European. Their culture corresponds to the IE vocabulary which Robert Beekes has reconstructed in his book "Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An introduction". Such words include many agricultural words and in particular words for cow, ox, bull, yoke and a verb for pulling a wagon.

Kuznetsov and Khokhlov write in "ETHNOCULTURAL RELATIONS OF THE STEPPE HABITANTS OF EASTERN EUROPE IN THE EARLY BRONZE AGE" that "The initial period of the Bronze Age is represented by Yamna cultural and historic community. Comparison of radiocarbon dates of the two main areas of this community, the western (territory of Ukraine) and the eastern (the Volga River and Ural regions), confirms the hypothesis about the eastern origin of Yamna culture. The western area of Yamna cultural and historic community covers the period from 3000 to 2300 BC, while the eastern one covers the period from 3500 to 2900 BC. The eastern origin and the further expansion to the west of the bearers of Yamnaya culture is also confirmed by the data on funeral customs and inventory."
Yamnaya Samara yDNA is mainly R1b-Z2103 and one R1b-L23. R1b-Z2103 is not typical for IE speakers but is distributed mostly in modern Turkic speakers and Caucasians.

R1bL23xL51.PNG

Globular Amphora Culture starts in Kujawy Region Poland 3400 BC (with only a difference of 100 years to Yamnaya samara), and c. 2900 BC it transforms into Corded Ware "in a number of "centers" which subsequently formed their own local networks" (Wikipedia.) It is not possible that Yamnaya people turned into Globular Amphora people as they are contemporaneous and the distance between them is 2650 km.

Tomenable, what is your linguistic evidence for Khvalynsk Culture to be IE?

If Globular amphorae is the western branch of IE, what branch was spoken in Yamnaya Samara? The earliest split is between Hittite, Tocharian and the rest, but the Hittite kingdom was not close to Samara. As for Tocharian which was spoken in Northwest China, Tocharian inscriptions date only to 600-800 AD. Moreover, we know that Bronze Age yDNA in Xiaohe, Xinjiang is R1a1 and not the Yamnaya y line.

The highest proportion of Yamnaya ancestry is found in Uralic speaking Udmurts and Mordovians, Turkic-speaking Bashkirs and Tatars and IE-speaking Russians and Lithuanians. Therefore, one cannot claim that Yamnaya ancestry must be of IE origin. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...E4wJk3NsTuyY/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=1448840466
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 48203 times.

Back
Top