PDA

View Full Version : Is it possible to combine the Anatolian and Steppes model of IE?



alan
12-15-2013, 08:39 PM
I know this is a big nutty but always like a side bet on a non-favourite and it would be interesting to consider how a model linked to the spread of dairy farming might work

Something like:

Anatolian in NW Anatolia 5500BC or older - basically native to the area

SE Balkans c. 5500-4500BC - Anatolian morphing towards PIE

Penetration into Sredny Srog in the steppe interface c. 4800-4200bc probably also in PIE form. Sredny Stog is the big networking steppe culture with settlement as far as the Don and beyond and influence as far as the Urals.

PIE forming around 4500BC

Big sudden long distance offshoot of dairying through central Europe, the Alps and the north and to the north-west c. 4500-4000BC (pre-Celto-Italic and pre-Germanic? split)

Other groups who remained behind in the Balkans and western steppe become involved in a complex situation with reflux waves back into the Balkans that would be very difficult to entangle c. 4000-3000BC but probably involved a mix of Palaeo-Balkan dialects.

Wheel and other innovation vocab spread by secondary massive cultural networks like late TRB, corded ware, Yamnaya etc.

Doesnt seem impossible to me that some sort of combination of the Anatolian and steppe models like that could work.

Generalissimo
12-18-2013, 07:46 AM
No, it's not. The Anatolian branch entered Anatolia from the north very early, and didn't move back into Europe.

Andrew Lancaster
12-18-2013, 10:37 AM
I think it is not unreasonable at all to say that both Anatolia and the Steppe played a role in the development of PIE.
But then the Balkans and the Caucasus should probably be added to that list?

Andrew

Jean M
12-18-2013, 10:50 AM
Alan - This just seems to be the Revised Renfrew model, which has been dismissed as firmly by linguists as his original version.

PIE was not native to Anatolia. The non-IE Hattic language was spoken in Central to north Anatolia before the arrival of IE-speakers and may be related to the Kaskian language of NE Anatolia and perhaps the NW Caucasian language Abkhaz. Significantly the name Hatti was retained by IE speakers after they took over Hattusa from Hattic kings - it was the familiar name for the territory and clearly indicates that IE speakers were not its original inhabitants.

The IE-speakers that we call Hittites called their own language Nešili, meaning "the language of Neša" or Kanesh, the site of which has been excavated at Kültepe. This trading town was an Assyrian outpost 1798 BC - 1740 BC, then destroyed by fire. When it was rebuilt, it was no longer Assyrian, but early Hittite. Interestingly the Assyrian merchants there before the town was razed had contact with Hittites. Hittite names and two pre-Hittite loanwords (words for "contract" and "nightwatchman") appear in their texts.

Here's the crucial point. Hittite adopted words from Hatti. But PIE did not. There is no indication of PIE being in contact with any of the languages of Anatolia. More follows, with references.

1074

Map of the languages of Ancient Anatolia from Calvert Watkins 2001, including the non-IE languages of Hattic and Hurrian.

Jean M
12-18-2013, 11:01 AM
Petra M. Goedegebuure, Central Anatolian languages and language communities in the colony period : a Luwian-Hattian symbiosis and the independent Hittites, In: J. G. Dercksen (ed.), Anatolia and the Jazira during the Old Assyrian period (Old Assyrian Archives, Studies, Volume 3. (PIHANS 111) (The Netherlands Institute for the Near East: Leiden 2008), pp. 137-180.


Hittite and the other Anatolian Indo-European languages were spoken in an area that also hosted languages from other language families, such as Hattian and Hurrian. Since the populations using those languages did not live in isolation, we may expect that these languages influenced one another to a certain degree, depending on the nature and intensity of contact....

Watkins* explains the three syntactic isoglosses which set the Anatolian languages apart from the other Indo-European languages, —the split ergative system, the use of enclitic pronouns and particle chains after the first accented word of the sentence, and the nearly obligatory use of sentence connectives—, as the result of diffusional convergence in Hittite, Hattian and Hurrian (2001: 54). Given Watkins’ dating of these innovations between 2200 and 1900 BCE (or 1700 BCE at the latest) (2001: 55), these innovations are probably not the result of the Hittite conquests of Pitana and Anitta. We may infer from this time frame that they are the side-effects of the rather peaceful and unifying contacts in the Assyrian Colony period, with its elaborate trade network, that is, if Watkins’ views are correct ...

https://www.academia.edu/350837/Central_Anatolian_languages_and_language_communiti es_in_the_Colony_period_The_Luwian_substrate_of_Ha ttian_and_the_independent_Hittites

Watkins, C. 2001: “An Indo-European Linguistic Area and its Characteristics: Ancient Anatolia. Areal Diffusion as a Challenge to the Comparative method?”, in: A. Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative
Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 44-63. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sPGe7aBSkpkC&pg=PA44#v=onepage&q&f=false

Jean M
12-18-2013, 11:08 AM
Bill J. Darden, On the question of the Anatolian origin of Indo-Hittite, in Robert Drews (ed.), Greater Anatolia and the Indo-Hittite Language Family (2001)
http://humstatic.uchicago.edu/slavic/archived/papers/darden-anatolia.pdf

evaluates the various proposals for an origin in Anatolia for Proto-Indo-Hittite and disposes of them.

Jean M
12-18-2013, 12:05 PM
Possibly the most recent look at the topic is F Josephson, Transfer of morphemes and grammatical structure in ancient Anatolia, in Copies Versus Cognates in Bound Morphology, 2012, pp. 337-354. He cites Watkins 2001 on the theory that rapid linguistic change in the Anatolian branch of IE was due to intensive language contact. http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=kguu3QqagegC&oi=fnd&pg=PA338#v=onepage&q&f=false

He discusses specific contacts between IE Anatolian languagues and Hurrian and Hattic on p. 350. http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=kguu3QqagegC&oi=fnd&pg=PA350#v=onepage&q&f=false

alan
12-18-2013, 12:48 PM
Jean thanks for all that information. I just thought it was worth a further chew over but I will read that stuff you linked to and have a think.

The more important point than any Anatolian link per se is the flurry of interaction and at least limited movement between the Balkans, some cranial evidence of Stredy Stog groups having a farming element, and the steppe reverse flow in the Suvorovo period and then some return migration of the latter to the Dnieper. That broadly speaking falls within the period 5000-4000BC, arguably before full PIE had emerged from archaic IE. So, a fairly wide area was interacting and involved in the phase prior to full PIE and its pretty complex. I would think a fairly complex mix was involved in the period between archaic and full PIE.

So what I was saying to Polako on the other thread is I think genetically there is some evidence of mixing among the Sredny Stog groups in what would traditionally be seen as the archaic IE/Anatolian language phase. They were settled at least from the Dnieper to the Don and influenced right to the Volga. So, whatever they were in terms of yDNA their mix may have been spread across the western steppe before 4000BC. Therefore it is not entirely rational IMO to see a mono-yDNA picture in the western steppe at the time PIE proper emerged.

If one sees PIE as only emerging with the wheel c. 3500BC or after then we can add that Maykop elements were also in the mix to at least a limited degree. So, while I think certain y lines may have dominated (and this would have varied with geography) I do think there was a mix in the western steppe in both archaic PIE and full PIE times and it think its wrong to see PIE as the language of a single lineage which tends to be pushed by some posters. I know you dont think that but it does get pushed by some posters.

I see PIE as a broad western steppe thing probably with Sredny Stog as the group most capable of transmitting a more unified archaic PIE dialect. Otherwise their pre-wheel, pre-true mobile pastoralism, period of existence with groups separated by relatively empty areas between rivers would surely have been one of linguistic divergence rather than a single archaic head of the tree dialect. I think Sredny Stog were the only pre-Yamnaya steppe group capable of spreading a dialect or promoting linguistic convergence across the western steppe.

alan
12-18-2013, 01:15 PM
When you say very early, I believe there is little or no evidence of a very early move into Anatolia from the north. I am not saying it didnt happen but the best I have heard was about a stelae like stone in Troy and it wasnt especially early. I, and some other posters, have problems seeing how wheel vocab could have been avoided by any group who remained in the Balkans after its invention c. 3500BC. Knowledge of it seems very widespread soon after invention so its hard to picture how Anatolian could have reached Anatolia without that knowledge unless it arrived pre-3500BC in Anatolia. Even if the less likely alternative that it passed into Anatolia via the Caucasus is considered then its still problematic as the Caucasus appear to have had the wheel very early, apparently before it was known on the steppe.

One possibility I raised is that perhaps Anatolians did have knowledge of the wheel before Yamnaya and therefore didnt need to borrow their standard terminology. You wouldnt borrow a suite of terminology from a group who had the wheel after you already had it. I would suggest that the standard wheel suite of terminology may have appeared on the steppe around 3300BC but that some archaic PIE groups on the fringes may have already had their own terminology and didnt need to borrow it from Yamnaya type groups. Yamnaya type groups after all only appear to have expanded west of the Black Sea and into the Caucasus around 3000BC or after, perhaps 500 years after the wheel would have been known outside the steppe in the Balkans, Caucasus etc. I suspect the Yamnaya suite of terms were created by the first fully mobile wagon pastoralists but their influence and spread outside the steppes long post-dates both the likely spread of archaic IE into the Balkans before 4000BC and also post-dates by c. 500 years the knowledge of the wheel which would have come to areas like the Balkans and Caucasus long before Yamnaya influences did.

Also if the standard Yamnaya type suite of wheel terminology evolved around wagon dwelling groups which emerged around 3300BC then this suite may not have been appropriate for less mobile groups off-steppe who already knew the wheel and who didnt follow that lifestyle. The pre-Yamnaya steppe groups may have been traders on horses but they pre-dated that wagon lifestyle - something that probably made them less 'alien' to Balkan farmers who had had long periods of contact with them anyway before their intrusion.


No, it's not. The Anatolian branch entered Anatolia from the north very early, and didn't move back into Europe.

Jean M
12-18-2013, 01:34 PM
When you say very early, I believe there is little or no evidence of a very early move into Anatolia from the north.

I think that David was just sketching the story - early departure of the ancestors of the Anatolian branch from the PIE homeland, which lay to the north of Anatolia.

Probably David is busy with Christmas preparations, just as I am. So this is not really the ideal time to chew this particular topic over yet again. In my posts above, I had time only to summarise some of the linguistic points. I did not enter into the archaeology, which indeed shows that the entry point into Anatolia was from the west, not via the Caucasus, and took place probably c. 3000 BC. The staging post in between departure from the steppe and entry into Anatolia would seem to have been the Balkans, to judge from Balkan material of Ezero and similar type in Troy I, along with the notable anthropomorphic stele.

I should also quibble that people speaking languages of the Anatolian branch did enter Europe. They were Carians and Luwians in the Greek islands. But David's basic point is that PIE did not enter Europe from Anatolia.

alan
12-18-2013, 01:37 PM
Alan - This just seems to be the Revised Renfrew model, which has been dismissed as firmly by linguists as his original version.

PIE was not native to Anatolia. The non-IE Hattic language was spoken in Central to north Anatolia before the arrival of IE-speakers and may be related to the Kaskian language of NE Anatolia and perhaps the NW Caucasian language Abkhaz. Significantly the name Hatti was retained by IE speakers after they took over Hattusa from Hattic kings - it was the familiar name for the territory and clearly indicates that IE speakers were not its original inhabitants.

The IE-speakers that we call Hittites called their own language Nešili, meaning "the language of Neša" or Kanesh, the site of which has been excavated at Kültepe. This trading town was an Assyrian outpost 1798 BC - 1740 BC, then destroyed by fire. When it was rebuilt, it was no longer Assyrian, but early Hittite. Interestingly the Assyrian merchants there before the town was razed had contact with Hittites. Hittite names and two pre-Hittite loanwords (words for "contract" and "nightwatchman") appear in their texts.

Here's the crucial point. Hittite adopted words from Hatti. But PIE did not. There is no indication of PIE being in contact with any of the languages of Anatolia. More follows, with references.


1074

Map of the languages of Ancient Anatolia from Calvert Watkins 2001, including the non-IE languages of Hattic and Hurrian.

Anatolia is of course a big place - almost a little continent. I would think the main possible wriggle room would be a specific NW Anatolian location rather than a wider Anatolian one. Hittite and its initial location may not relate much to what was happening over 3000 years earlier across the continent in NW Anatolia. I would also say there has got to be doubt about the origins and relative positioning of all language groups in Anatolia c. 5500BC and most of the evidence is far later. The positions may not date back to that period. Who knows for instance what effect the massive non-IE Kura-Araxes network had on the languages of eastern Anatolia.

The fact that there are not Hattic words in PIE could be explained by an offshoot of Anatolian crossing the Bosphorus before that contact was made c. 5500BC long before Hittite-Hatti contact.

The NW Anatolian Neolithic does have peculiarities - lateness, a potentially significant local hunter substrate visible in one of the two types of settlement type and flint technology, very early dairy farming etc.

The dairy pastoralism I think needs to be seen as a potentially very important innovation almost universal in temperate Europe, Anatolia and the steppes after its spread c. 5500-4000BC. If it is seen as a potential phenomenon that might have a genetic trail in farming Europe as a secondary wave I would feel this also has to be considered as potentially the same in the adoption of dairy farming in at least the westernmost parts of the steppe too where the farming influences were stronger and from the Balkans direction. The situation of farming adoption further east in the western steppes may be different of course and some sort of dual influence has been suggested.

If there was such a thing as a yDNA impact with the spread of dairying then it could be argued that some of this could have been 'on scene' in the western steppes before full PIE arose. In general I notice that while western archaeologists tend to see the steppes more in a nativist way with interest focused on movement out of the steppes, Ukrainian archaeologists tend to emphasis the impact of neighbouring farming groups.

Jean M
12-18-2013, 01:43 PM
Genetically we can bet that Neolithic Anatolia was dominated by Y-DNA G and J, like the people of the Caucasus, who seem to be of the same stock. It may have plenty of R1b now, but there is no evidence that any R1b was there in the Neolithic.

We are not going to be able to resolve the tantalising question of how R1b got onto the steppe without aDNA. We have talked our way around this topic for years and another round of talking won't make things any clearer. We just cannot be sure.

alan
12-18-2013, 01:58 PM
Jean - fair enough I dont have time either to get too much into this. My only complaint in IE studies is that often what seems like certainty is pushed when I think the evidence of languages is almost always too late to be certain about much. I feel there is still a lot of uncertainty and that the steppe-farming world is not quite the barrier it later became when we rewind back to the 5th millenium BC. The interaction was strong and the general direction until the collapse of Old Europe was very much a case of influence and ideas (and almost certainly some genes) going west to east at that interface. I think that period is fascinating in terms of potential gene flow into the steppes but tends of only be strongly focused on in the papers of Ukrainian archaeologists in particular. That was the meeting of vastly more advanced cultures with very primitive steppe groups and normally in a situation like that linguistic shift would be expected to come from the advanced group. The Sredny Stog groups sat on the steppe side of that interface and were the most capable group of the period of spreading changes. As I posted there is evidence that male farming people were actually in their mix. I think the possibilities of the Stedny Stog network as a language and genes spreading vehicle and the implications of its strong farming contacts needs further discussion.

Michał
12-18-2013, 03:18 PM
The Anatolian branch entered Anatolia from the north very early, and didn't move back into Europe.
When exactly could this have happened in your opinion? Would you have any suggestions regarding the most likely archaeologically-recordable migration and the most likely Y-DNA composition for that intruding population?

alan
12-18-2013, 03:47 PM
Certainly Anatolia has just as bad problems in convincingly demonstrating an archaeological spread horizon fro the steppe as most of Europe beyond the east. No matter how we frame it, it takes an awful lot of imagination and complex models for the steppe model to work outside a steppe-like environment. That is the main reason why all IE spread models are in a sense not very satisfactory archaeologically and why the debate will not go away. The one advantage of the dairy pastoralism model is it at least is something tangible that did reach into most if not all the necessary areas and is verifiable archaeologically. I do tend to get the impression that the farming world impact on the steppes is played down by western archaeologists or rather its not what they are primarily interested in. If you read Yuri Rassamikin's many works in this field, including some very recent ones, he emphasises the very strong influence from the farming world on the steppes before the fall of Old Europe. For some reason the cultural-linguistic-genetic aspect of this kind of gets brushed over in the west where we are more interested in outspillings for the steppe.


When exactly could this have happened in your opinion? Would you have any suggestions regarding the most likely archaeologically-recordable migration and the most likely Y-DNA composition for that intruding population?

Michał
12-18-2013, 04:34 PM
I did not enter into the archaeology, which indeed shows that the entry point into Anatolia was from the west, not via the Caucasus, and took place probably c. 3000 BC. The staging post in between departure from the steppe and entry into Anatolia would seem to have been the Balkans, to judge from Balkan material of Ezero and similar type in Troy I, along with the notable anthropomorphic stele.
3000 BC is more or less when Yamna burials appear in the Balkans, reaching the territory of the Ezero culture. Since you assign this particular wave of the Yamna-derived migrants to people speaking Pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic, they couldn't have been Pre-Anatolian speakers. Even when assigning the Pre-Anatolians to a much earlier steppe-derived migration associated not only with Suvorovo-Cernavoda-Ezero but also with Baden, Cotofeni and Kostelac (all of them subsequently contributing to a large Balkan-Danubian Early Bronze Complex), we should expect a much stronger impact of the Anatolian-speaking people in Central Europe and Balkans than in Anatolia, which doesn't seem to be the case. Also, you have never tried to suggest which particular Y-DNA haplogroups/subclades (originating from the steppe) could have been associated with that very early migration of the Pre-Anatolian speakers, which makes your hypothesis hardly verifiable.

Michał
12-18-2013, 04:48 PM
For some reason the cultural-linguistic-genetic aspect of this kind of gets brushed over in the west where we are more interested in outspillings for the steppe.
I would say that the main reason for rejecting the Anatolian hypothesis (apart from some linguistic problems that were explained by Jean) is that it is supposed to be associated with the spreading of early farming. Thus, it is not only inconsistent with the modern distribution of different Y-DNA haplogroups but, most importantly, it finds no support in ancient DNA data, while the Kurgan hypothesis still awaits this kind of "definite" verification (so people may still hope that deriving PIE from the steppe is a correct presumption).

Jean M
12-18-2013, 05:04 PM
3000 BC is more or less when Yamna burials appear in the Balkans, reaching the territory of the Ezero culture. Since you assign this particular wave of the Yamna-derived migrants to people speaking Pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic, they couldn't have been Pre-Anatolian speakers.

As you know, David Anthony's theory is that the ancestors of the Anatolian speakers broke away c. 4000 BC. He sees them arriving in the Danube delta around then and moving into the Balkans. It is perfectly possible that some of this group was absorbed by the stream up the Danube a thousand years later, but obviously not all of them.

It is possible that this later stream up the Danube dislodged some of the descendants of the presumed Pre-Proto-Anatolian speakers and drove them into Anatolia, but the more likely scenario I think would be pressure from the ancestors of the Greeks, Thracians, Phrygians, Armenians etc.

I suspect that there was already a route created by trading before Troy was founded. http://www.cerhas.uc.edu/troy/troy_i_video.html

alan
12-18-2013, 05:04 PM
I agree the first farmers hypothesis is dead. However, NW Anatolia itself was susprisingly late to farming c. 6000BC and it is now not thought that the Balkans or Cardial waves who took farmingg into Europe for the first time came from NW Anatolia.

What I am wondering about is the spread of advanced dairying which appears to track from Marmara in NW Anatolia c. 6000BC to the west side of the Black Sea from c. 5500BC and then may have made its way through some east-central European farming cultures to appear in TRB and the isles Neolithic in the centuries on either side of 4000BC where there is non-pre-dairy farming phase due to the late arrival of farming. It is also known to have reached the Alps probably in a similar period and we can probably assume it spread across all of temperate Europe including the steppes from 5500-3500BC initially passing through areas where farmers were already present before this but with an especially dramatic leap into late hunter territories around 4000BC.

So, this is quite different from a first farmers model. It falls into the middle ground between first farmers and the commencing of steppe influences. I admit though it is a leap to say dairying had to be spread by migration where farmers already existed there are strong cultural links between Anatolia and the east Balkans in the correct period so it is possible.

In the end though it will come down to dating of DNA. It sounds like the SNP counting with a few ancient DNA samples included will finally produce a sound date framework for yDNA and give some solid ground.


I would say that the main reason for rejecting the Anatolian hypothesis (apart from some linguistic problems that were explained by Jean) is that it is supposed to be associated with the spreading of early farming. Thus, it is not only inconsistent with the modern distribution of different Y-DNA haplogroups but, most importantly, it finds no support in ancient DNA data, while the Kurgan hypothesis still awaits this kind of "definite" verification (so people may still hope that deriving PIE from the steppe is a correct presumption).

alan
12-18-2013, 05:09 PM
That is a serious monotone voice on that video lol.


As you know, David Anthony's theory is that the ancestors of the Anatolian speakers broke away c. 4000 BC. He sees them arriving in the Danube delta around then and moving into the Balkans. It is perfectly possible that some of this group was absorbed by the stream up the Danube a thousand years later, but obviously not all of them. It is possible that this later stream up the Danube dislodged some of the descendants of the presumed Pre-Proto-Anatolian speakers and drove them into Anatolia, but I suspect that there was already a route created by trading before Troy was founded. http://www.cerhas.uc.edu/troy/troy_i_video.html

Jean M
12-18-2013, 05:24 PM
That is a serious monotone voice on that video lol.

I like it though. I'm always urging my students to think about why particular places were selected to build on, and I think they did a good job on that front, but explained so simply that it is ideal for schools.

Michał
12-18-2013, 05:28 PM
As you know, David Anthony's theory is that the ancestors of the Anatolian speakers broke away c. 4000 BC. He sees them arriving in the Danube delta around then and moving into the Balkans. It is perfectly possible that some of this group was absorbed by the stream up the Danube a thousand years later, but obviously not all of them.

The major problem is that while we have a lot of data indicating that this group expanded west along the Danube (towards Central Europe) and towards the Western Balkans and Northern Italy, there is no such data for any comparable expansion to Anatolia, so suggesting that the Suvorovo-Cernavoda-Ezero people were Pre-Anatolian speakers finds little (if any) support in the archaeological, linguistic and genetic material. I don't say we can rule this out, but I simply find this scenario one of the least likely options that are available to us.

Jean M
12-18-2013, 05:41 PM
The major problem is that while we have a lot of data indicating that this group expanded west along the Danube (towards Central Europe) and towards the Western Balkans and Northern Italy..

Evidence that the Suvorovo-Cernavoda-Ezero people expanded into Central Europe and Italy? What evidence is that?

vettor
12-18-2013, 06:13 PM
Evidence that the Suvorovo-Cernavoda-Ezero people expanded into Central Europe and Italy? What evidence is that?

starts with this early paper

http://www.academia.edu/4831344/RE-EXAMINING_LATE_CHALCOLITHIC_CULTURAL_COLLAPSE_IN_S OUTH-EAST_EUROPE

and basically ends will L11 mutating into L2 in the central and eastern alps............not my opinion/ideas

Jean M
12-18-2013, 06:35 PM
I think we may have some confusion. Here is a map by David Anthony. I have added colour. The red arrows represent the Yamnaya movement up the Danube into the Carpathian Basin which is generally taken to represent the spread of Pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic. (Pre-Proto-Illyrian presumably branched off that trail.)

The blue arrows represent movement towards Thrace. It is that latter movement which I take to represent the ancestor of the "Balkan group" of languages: Thracian, Greek, Armenian, etc. I think it possible that the blue movement may have put pressure on an earlier wave of IE speakers (Pre-Proto-Anatolian), who moved to Anatolia. Could this be the start of the famed Greek vs Trojan enmity?

1075

Michał
12-19-2013, 12:33 AM
Evidence that the Suvorovo-Cernavoda-Ezero people expanded into Central Europe and Italy? What evidence is that?
The evidence is not extremely strong, but still stronger than in the case of a putative expansion of Cernavoda-Ezero to Central and Eastern Anatolia. The Balkan-Danubian Early Bronze Complex seems to be strongly rooted in a series of Pre-Yamna cultures that include Cernavoda, Boleraz-Baden, Cotofeni, Kostelac-Vucedol and Ezero.

Let me just cite Anthony:
"By about 3600 BCE the Cernavoda I culture developed into Cernavoda III. Cernavoda III was, in turn, connected with one of the largest and most influential cultural horizons of eastern Europe, the Baden-Boleraz horizon, centered in the middle Danube (Hungary) and dated about 3600–3200 BCE. Drinking cups of this culture featured very high strap handles and were made in burnished grey-black fabrics with channeled flutes decorating their shoulders. Somewhat similar drinking sets were made from eastern Austria and Moravia to the mouth of the Danube and south to the Aegean coast (Dikili Tash IIIA–Sitagroi IV). Horse bones appeared almost everywhere, with larger sheep interpreted as wool sheep."

And here is an appropriate citation from Mallory:
"The Ezero culture shares numerous similarities in fine ceramics, plastic art and metallurgy with other emergent Early Bronze Age cultures throughout Southeast Europe, particularly with the Baden culture of the Danubian region and the Cotofeni culture of Romania. This new Balkan-Danubian complex of related cultures was not confined to Southeast Europe but now extended across into northwest Anatolia and the Troy culture."

Honestly speaking, I am not convinced that Baden, Cotofeni and Kostolac were indeed strongly associated with some R1b-rich intruders who spoke some kind of a PIE dialect, but I must admit that the evidence for such early expansion of some SE Balkan PIE speakers to Anatolia is even less convincing.

Michał
12-19-2013, 12:35 AM
I think we may have some confusion. Here is a map by David Anthony. I have added colour. [..]
Jean, there is indeed some confusion, as you seem to focus exclusively on the Yamna-derived migrations every time we are talking about much earlier (Pre-Yamna) migrations that were probably derived from the same North Pontic steppe. Let me remind you that you have previously stated that the Cotofeni culture was very likely associated with some early IE speakers (more specifically with the Greco-Armenian branch of IE, according to your scenario). Yet it is obvious that the early Cotofeni sites predated the Yamna expansion to the Balkans by nearly 500 years, and this particular culture was actually much more strongly associated with Baden than with Yamna.

Jean M
12-19-2013, 12:58 AM
.. Let me just cite Anthony:
"By about 3600 BCE the Cernavoda I culture developed into Cernavoda III. Cernavoda III was, in turn, connected with one of the largest and most influential cultural horizons of eastern Europe, the Baden-Boleraz horizon, centered in the middle Danube (Hungary) and dated about 3600–3200 BCE. Drinking cups of this culture featured very high strap handles and were made in burnished grey-black fabrics with channeled flutes decorating their shoulders. Somewhat similar drinking sets were made from eastern Austria and Moravia to the mouth of the Danube and south to the Aegean coast (Dikili Tash IIIA–Sitagroi IV). Horse bones appeared almost everywhere, with larger sheep interpreted as wool sheep." ..


Yes that's all OK, but it is (as you say) earlier than the Yamnaya flow up the Danube c. 3000 BC. It is the latter flow which has been associated with Pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic, and to which you referred in your earlier post:


3000 BC is more or less when Yamna burials appear in the Balkans, reaching the territory of the Ezero culture. Since you assign this particular wave of the Yamna-derived migrants to people speaking Pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic, they couldn't have been Pre-Anatolian speakers.

Baden could well have carried a PIE dialect that was overlaid by the later PIE flow in the same direction. In the same way an early PIE dialect flow into Thrace could have been overlaid by the next IE movement in that direction which can be calculated at around 3000 BC. But if that later flow pushed a group of earlier IE speakers into Anatolia, then we can see how an archaic dialect of PIE could survive to breed daughter languages in Anatolia.

the SUN child
12-19-2013, 01:10 AM
Huh, i thought that the Steppes model was dead a long time ago?

For about last 5 years all the proves from renowned academics coming out all point to the Anatolian model

Even according to the Russian academia PIE is from West Asia.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0FflO5j-TI&feature=player_embedded


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKlGCc0xhv8&feature=player_embedded


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh1OzBsqZtk&feature=player_embedded

Michał
12-19-2013, 01:43 AM
Yes that's all OK, but it is (as you say) earlier than the Yamnaya flow up the Danube c. 3000 BC. It is the latter flow which has been associated with Pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic, and to which you referred in your earlier post
I was actually referring to both those steppe-derived waves in my earlier post, although you have commented (and cited) only the first part (related to Yamna and the Proto-Italo-Celts).



Baden could well have carried a PIE dialect that was overlaid by the later PIE flow in the same direction. In the same way an early PIE dialect flow into Thrace could have been overlaid by the next IE movement in that direction which can be calculated at around 3000 BC. But if that later flow pushed a group of earlier IE speakers into Anatolia, then we can see how an archaic dialect of PIE could survive to breed daughter languages in Anatolia.
If people from Baden, Cotofeni and Kostolac spoke an extinct PIE dialect related to Anatolian, I would expect finding some relatively strong Anatolian-like substrate in Italo-Celtic and some Balkan-associated languages, which has never been documented, AFAIK. Also, the Yamna burials are extremely rare west of Danube, so there is nothing in the archaeological material that would suggest that Baden and Kostolac-Vucedol were "overlaid" by the next IE movement while Ezero was not overlaid but pushed south and east instead. Is this putative movement of Ezero-derived people to Central Anatolia and further east visible in any archaeological material?

Jean M
12-19-2013, 01:58 AM
If people from Baden, Cotofeni and Kostolac spoke an extinct PIE dialect related to Anatolian, I would expect finding some relatively strong Anatolian-like substrate in Italo-Celtic and some Balkan-associated languages..

I wouldn't. The Anatolian branch developed into a form unlike other IE branches apparently as a result of language contact in Anatolia. The dialect that originally broke away from archaic PIE and lurked in the Balkans was presumably much less differentiated. It could have been swallowed up by the Centum wave leaving next to nothing behind to mark its passing.

Jean M
12-19-2013, 02:15 AM
.. the Yamna burials are extremely rare west of Danube, so there is nothing in the archaeological material that would suggest that Baden and Kostolac-Vucedol were "overlaid"

Vučedol starts c. 3000 BC and has been associated with the ancestors of Illyrian speakers.


while Ezero was not overlaid but pushed south and east instead.

As Anthony says, cultures do not migrate, people do. I am not suggesting that the Ezero culture packed its bags and moved to Anatolia. The group that built Troy was relatively small. The ancestors of the Hittites seem to have been all but invisible until they gathered strength enough to rebuild Kanesh and then take over Hatti.

Michał
12-19-2013, 02:39 AM
I wouldn't. The Anatolian branch developed into a form unlike other IE branches apparently as a result of language contact in Anatolia.
I really doubt so. For example, the original PIE vowel system, substantially modified in the remaining IE languages, is nearly perfectly preserved in Anatolian. The same is frequently suggested for the original animate and inanimate genders, while the three gender system is supposed to have been developed in Late PIE (in the steppe?). Also, can you provide any linguistic work that would prove that all (or most) of the fundamental innovations characteristic for Anatolian were in fact taken over from some local languages in Asia Minor?

Michał
12-19-2013, 02:58 AM
Vučedol starts c. 3000 BC and has been associated with the ancestors of Illyrian speakers.
And it is quite commonly suggested that Vucedol is deeply rooted in the Pre-Yamna Baden and Kostolac cultures, while the Yamna burials, very common east of the Vucedol territory, are rarely seen west of the Danube.



As Anthony says, cultures do not migrate, people do. I am not suggesting that the Ezero culture packed its bags and moved to Anatolia. The group that built Troy was relatively small. The ancestors of the Hittites seem to have been all but invisible until they gathered strength enough to rebuild Kanesh and then take over Hatti.
The distance between Troy and Kanesh is quite significant, and there is practically nothing that would connect these two cities separated by a relatively large territory occupied by some non-Anatolian speakers. Importantly, there is also nothing in the Hittite documents (including their mythology) that would suggest their western or north-western origin.

Jean M
12-19-2013, 10:28 AM
@ Michał

If this was easy and obvious, it would all have been sorted out decades ago. :biggrin1:

What we are left with is the difficult stuff. You keep demanding that I explain things that you know have not been fully worked out by anyone. Then you don't like my explanation, because I cannot prove it with the kind of uncontrovertable evidence in writing that would have resolved the issues of IE spread to everyone's satisfaction long ago.

Not that this is any different from the way I am usually treated. I joked years ago that I was going to leave a message on my answerphone "The impossible I do immediately. Miracles Thursday week." :\

Jean M
12-19-2013, 10:44 AM
The distance between Troy and Kanesh is quite significant, and there is practically nothing that would connect these two cities separated by a relatively large territory occupied by some non-Anatolian speakers. Importantly, there is also nothing in the Hittite documents (including their mythology) that would suggest their western or north-western origin.

Let us start by accepting that uncontrovertable evidence in writing of the entry point of Pre-Proto-Anatolian into Anatolia is unlikely to turn up any time soon. The closest that we have is a tiny scrap in Luwian in a later level of Troy. As for Hittite - the earliest scraps, as you know, come to us courtesy of Assyrian merchants in Kanesh.

So those scraps have to be put together with the archaeological evidence of Ezero-like material and an anthropomorphic stele in Troy I. If we accept that all the Anatolian languages had a common origin in Proto-Anatolian, then that must have been spoken by a linguistic community in constant contact, either in Anatolia or outside it prior to launching themselves into Anatolia. So there is no reason to suppose that the ancestors of the Hittites entered Anatolia from a radically different direction than the ancestors of the Luwians. Logic dictates that we assume the same (or a similar) entry point for all the ancestors of speakers of Anatolian, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans (1989), pp. 28-29 lays out the case for entry from the North-West. There are two types of evidence:


That for population movement, destruction and abandonment c. 2700-2600 BC beginning in western Anatolia.
New ceramics which take their origin from NW Anatolia (Troy) spread rapidly eastwards, along with the megaron, a classic type of status or ritual architecture. It appears at Troy and Beycesultan and then in central Anatolia at sites such as Kanesh (Kultepe).