PDA

View Full Version : Links between Mesopotamia, Maykop etc.



alan
05-23-2013, 12:53 AM
This is yet another paper that outlines the importance of south-north movement on the creation of Maykop and other cultures and confirms that Kurgans etc are older in Maykop than on the steppe

http://www.science.org.ge/moambe/6-2/153-161%20Pitskhelauri.pdf

This movement has also been linked to the sudden eary appearance of the Circumpontic Metallugical Provence traditions in Maykop in an area with very little in the way of metallurgical traditions before this.

Dienekes has a new thread on this. Unfortunately no DNA discussion but it is certainly not impossible for this to have a connection with early R1b given its presence in places like NW Iran, Anatolia and the Caucasus although there are clearly other options.

PS- can someone fix my type for Mesopotamia

AJL
05-23-2013, 01:37 AM
It's fixed! :)

ADW_1981
05-23-2013, 03:04 AM
This is yet another paper that outlines the importance of south-north movement on the creation of Maykop and other cultures and confirms that Kurgans etc are older in Maykop than on the steppe

http://www.science.org.ge/moambe/6-2/153-161%20Pitskhelauri.pdf

This movement has also been linked to the sudden eary appearance of the Circumpontic Metallugical Provence traditions in Maykop in an area with very little in the way of metallurgical traditions before this.

Dienekes has a new thread on this. Unfortunately no DNA discussion but it is certainly not impossible for this to have a connection with early R1b given its presence in places like NW Iran, Anatolia and the Caucasus although there are clearly other options.

PS- can someone fix my type for Mesopotamia

My mind immediately goes to J2a subclades, J1, and G2a subclades. R1b doesn't even come into the picture IMHO. It might also explain why there are so many distinct subclades of G2a and J2a within the mountains, since they spread over a long period of time and were very successful from a genetic stand point. I believe the article implies these were related to the Mesopotamian cultures.

If that's the case, the "Other" guys in and around the Caucasus mountains would probably be R1b and R1a. My thought is that these would be non-Mesopotamians, whether they arrived from the west, east or from the north - I believe Mesopotamia is out of the question.

alan
05-23-2013, 01:12 PM
My mind immediately goes to J2a subclades, J1, and G2a subclades. R1b doesn't even come into the picture IMHO. It might also explain why there are so many distinct subclades of G2a and J2a within the mountains, since they spread over a long period of time and were very successful from a genetic stand point. I believe the article implies these were related to the Mesopotamian cultures.

If that's the case, the "Other" guys in and around the Caucasus mountains would probably be R1b and R1a. My thought is that these would be non-Mesopotamians, whether they arrived from the west, east or from the north - I believe Mesopotamia is out of the question.

The main thing this paper rules out (and it is one of several doing this in the last few years) is a steppe origin for kurgans. The idea of Kurgans along with the CMP metallurgical traditions seems to have reached the steppe from the Caucasus with an older origin even further south.

I agree though its hard to know where and even if R1b has any connection with this. Its almost impossible to say. R1b's lack of any significant pre-5000BC (or even 4000BC) branches in the middle east would tend to indicate that it was peripheral to early farming areas like Mesopotamia. However, aridity in the middle east culminating in the 5.9 kiloyear event coincided roughly with Ubaid-Uruk transformation in Mesopotamia and this phase could this phase could have both killed off/bottlenecked many lineages and set people on the move. The final modern patterns of yDNA location may be full of paradox.

alan
05-23-2013, 01:53 PM
I am more and more thinking the terribly arid phase that hit the whole of eastern Europe and SW Asia c. 4000BC is the most significant event in the history of the R1 peoples. It created an incredible shake up of human settlement in that area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event

TigerMW
05-23-2013, 10:28 PM
Alan, perhaps the posts about your digging into metallurgy and the Circumpontic Metallurgy Province (CMP) caught a little attention... the "is metallurgy the smoking gun for R1b?" posts I mean.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/uruk-migrants-in-caucasus.html

I don't really see his Dienekes commentary yet so I posted something just to see if he'd respond with his analysis.

"Uruk Migrants in the Caucasus" by Pitskhelauri, 2012.

At the end of the 5th and in the 4th millennia B.C. large masses of Uruk migrants had settled in the South, and later in the North Caucasus. Assimilation of cultures of the newcomers and residents, as a result, caused their “explosive” development paving the way to the formation of the Maikop culture in the North Caucasus and the Kura-Araxes culture in the South Caucasus.
http://www.science.org.ge/moambe/6-2/153-161%20Pitskhelauri.pdf

There are some nice correlations between R1b-M269xL23 being found in the Near East, R1b-V88 (which is x297) apparently emanating from the Near East into Africa. At the same time we have R1b-L23xL51/Z2103/Z2015 in the Caucasus and Anatolia in the hotbed of the advanced metallurgy - the Circumpontic Metallurgy Province (CMP). We have also have R1b-L23xL51/Z2103/Z2015 to the west along the Black Sea (what the Romans called the Pontic Sea) and then eventually we have Bell Beaker folks with their advanced metallurgy all across Europe where R1b-L51 people eventually show up.

I know it is not as simple as all of that but there are some nice correlations, not even bringing up that they Mallory/Anthony PIE homeland lies just to the north of the Maykops and the pre/early branch of IE that is called Anatolian. Well, I guess we should cite that Renfrew has PIE as an Anatolian homeland.

alan
05-24-2013, 12:32 AM
Alan, perhaps the posts about your digging into metallurgy and the Circumpontic Metallurgy Province (CMP) caught a little attention... the "is metallurgy the smoking gun for R1b?" posts I mean.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/uruk-migrants-in-caucasus.html

I don't really see his Dienekes commentary yet so I posted something just to see if he'd respond with his analysis.

"Uruk Migrants in the Caucasus" by Pitskhelauri, 2012.

http://www.science.org.ge/moambe/6-2/153-161%20Pitskhelauri.pdf

There are some nice correlations between R1b-M269xL23 being found in the Near East, R1b-V88 (which is x297) apparently emanating from the Near East into Africa. At the same time we have R1b-L23xL51/Z2103/Z2015 in the Caucasus and Anatolia in the hotbed of the advanced metallurgy - the Circumpontic Metallurgy Province (CMP). We have also have R1b-L23xL51/Z2103/Z2015 to the west along the Black Sea (what the Romans called the Pontic Sea) and then eventually we have Bell Beaker folks with their advanced metallurgy all across Europe where R1b-L51 people eventually show up.

I know it is not as simple as all of that but there are some nice correlations, not even bringing up that they Mallory/Anthony PIE homeland lies just to the north of the Maykops and the pre/early branch of IE that is called Anatolian. Well, I guess we should cite that Renfrew has PIE as an Anatolian homeland.


Mike- I saw that yesterday. Its an obvious possibility for R1b's history c. 4000BC. I started a new thread becuase I couldnt find the old smoking gun one on this site. I agree an awful lot ties together if there is a link. As I have posted several times, although probably controlled by early Yamnaya clans, the metallurgy (although not the ore type) of the Caucasus appears along with the Kargaly mines in the Urals c. 3300BC or so. The knowledge was not known to the steppe peoples and simply must have involved some CMP lineages moving into exploit the Urals even if they were a minority in partnership with local steppe peoples The Bashkir Turkic people who actually sold the Kargaly mine to the Russian state in recent history are high in R1b which they must have absorbed from earlier peoples as it is vastly older than the appearance of Turks in the area.

Around the same time the CMP experienced the far offshoot to the east of the Afanasievo culture who possessed the Kargaly type metals and who must have been interested in the ore sources of Altai. I think again this was so early that it must have been a partnership that involved CMP elements from the Caucasus as well as the steppe tribes. For that reason I have wondered if R1b had a role as metallurgical specialists within the Afanasievo. I know Nuada and others seems to have some very similar ideas. I think L23's cousin M73 may have spread east in this way too.

If the ultimate origin of the L23 and M73 in the Caucasus and beyond was down to the Uruk expansion that would also nicely tie in with the high L23 among the ethnic group who describe themselves as Assyrians now and have a link back to Mesopotamians. There is also a connection with NW Iran and its metallurgy in this model. The most recent stuff I have read reiterates that there is no evidence of an origin for the CMP linking to the Carpatho-Balkans Provence and an origin in northern Mesopotamia for this traditions seems likely

Also one really wonders about the Euphratic theory of an IE substrate or at least very strong influence on Sumerian, the major southern Mesopotamian language attested from c 3100BC AFTER the Uruk expansion. I am skeptical about it actually being a substate language but the linguistic remains are highly trade orientated and its known that the same trade system and accounting etc ran all the way to the north Caucasus in this period, an area of piedmont which is basically open to the steppes. There was so much contact and influence running to the steppes via the Caucasus by the mid 4th millenium BC and that not only includes the CMP metallurgy but the concept of Kurgans (now known to be earlier in the Caucasus than the steppes). Indeed even the wheel and other crucial aspects may have made their way to the steppes by this route.

All in all its highly suggestive although its very easy to have a bundle of seemingly connected things and end up with egg on one's face.

TigerMW
05-24-2013, 10:29 PM
Here was Dienekes response.

If my hypothesis is correct, both Bell Beaker and Corded Ware will be found to have a "West Asian" element lacking in previous Europeans, marking the final major episode of dispersal from the Neolithic "womb of nations".

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/07/bronze-age-indo-european-invasion-of.html

"One could very well call this boreal population Ancestral Northwest Eurasians (ANWEA) and parallelize it with the Ancestral South Indians (ASI). These Paleolithic substrata frame the Eurasian landmass on opposite latitudinal ends, and were the receptacles of the great chain of migrations which began in the Neolithic womb of nations. One of the final episodes of this process was the dispersal of the Indo-European languages during the Copper and Bronze Ages."
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/07/bronze-age-indo-european-invasion-of.html

alan
05-25-2013, 11:59 AM
The papers Dienekes posted on IE by Grigoriev in the last few days are well worth a read They are a little out of date but one thing that they and other papers I have posted demonstrate is the incredible complexity of contact and movement between the steppes and SW Asia in the Neolithic, copper and bronze ages. Anyone who thinks its a simple divide between R1a steppe peoples who have been there since the Ice Age and SW Asian farmers to the south really is really showing the danger of a little knowledge. There seem to have been many intermittent movements between SW Asia and the steppes in the period 7000-3500BC leading up to PIE. I have posted a paper www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-UARUOLB0/98491aa4.../PDF on this too and one just has to read Grigoriev stuff to see its complex too http://islandvera.academia.edu/StanislavGrigoriev I am not saying Grigoriev's interpretation is correct but what the three links to his work do show is how complex things are, something that I think tends to get lost in popular publications.

ADW_1981
05-26-2013, 02:21 AM
Along these same lines, about 4-5 new R1b North Ossetians have joined the R1b gateway as well as the Ossetian project

From the results the 3 most common haplogroups from the project's results so far are G2a + subclades, J2a + subclades, and R1b of the L23* variety.

If the Trans-Caucasian/Kura-Araxes cultures are related to the Mesopotamian cultures from an archaeological and possibly linguistic connection, I would still suspect R1b has a different origin. Maybe only ancient DNA holds the answer.

alan
05-26-2013, 12:31 PM
This is of course just one possibility and we dont really know the location R1b could have joined in any Uruk-Maykop link As has been said, R1b could have been a local element who got involved with Uruk settlers. Once that link was estalished there could even have been a two way flow of genes.

Anyway a couple of other aspects raised by this possible link:

1. Assyrians (Assyric Christians) who have a strong claim to be representative of the ancient Mesopotamians and are unusually high in L23*. They have had a terrible history of displacement, massacre and genocide which has left them scattered away from their original location.

2. Euphratic. Now it is certainly controversial but maybe would be less so if he had argued for IE elements rather than an entire pre-Sumerian substrate in Mesopotamia. A link running from the Caucasus/steppe interface right to southern Mesopotamia that involved trade certainly creates the sort of scenario where contact with IE would be possible. Maykop was of course in turn highly influencial on the steppes in terms of the CMP, metal supplyin the Ukraine steppes and even the Kurgan concept seems to be significantly older in Maykop than Yamnaya. So at the very least there was a heck of a lot of possibilities for language contacts in the period 4000-3000BC

3. The need to explain not only M269* and L23XL51 but also V88 and (dont forget) M73. I notice VV old post does suggest its real date was also roughly similar to that of M269 and V88.

alan
05-26-2013, 12:31 PM
This is of course just one possibility and we dont really know the location R1b could have joined in any Uruk-Maykop link As has been said, R1b could have been a local element who got involved with Uruk settlers. Once that link was estalished there could even have been a two way flow of genes.

Anyway a couple of other aspects raised by this possible link:

1. Assyrians (Assyric Christians) who have a strong claim to be representative of the ancient Mesopotamians and are unusually high in L23*. They have had a terrible history of displacement, massacre and genocide which has left them scattered away from their original location.

2. Euphratic. Now it is certainly controversial but maybe would be less so if he had argued for IE elements rather than an entire pre-Sumerian substrate in Mesopotamia. A link running from the Caucasus/steppe interface right to southern Mesopotamia that involved trade certainly creates the sort of scenario where contact with IE would be possible. Maykop was of course in turn highly influencial on the steppes in terms of the CMP, metal supplyin the Ukraine steppes and even the Kurgan concept seems to be significantly older in Maykop than Yamnaya. So at the very least there was a heck of a lot of possibilities for language contacts in the period 4000-3000BC

3. The need to explain not only M269* and L23XL51 but also V88 and (dont forget) M73. I notice VV old post does suggest its real date was also roughly similar to that of M269 and V88.

alan
05-26-2013, 04:13 PM
This seems to be the most recent Whittaker offering on Eurphratic. Notice he now calls it a superstrate rather than a substrate.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vm2SugMy8C0C&pg=PA577&lpg=PA577&dq=euphratic+language&source=bl&ots=5AmeTTeJwH&sig=oor2oy6RiHpisy7XDCd7ZHKwtt4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0RqiUZqcO-Wv0QWJqoCACQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=euphratic%20language&f=false

alan
05-30-2013, 10:46 PM
Interesting new theory on Maykop's appearance pointing more to the Iranian plateau and central Asia

http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/origins-of-maykop-phenomenon.html

Again that doesnt seem incompatible with R1b being a driver in this or IE contact

TigerMW
05-30-2013, 10:54 PM
Interesting new theory on Maykop's appearance pointing more to the Iranian plateau and central Asia

http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/origins-of-maykop-phenomenon.html

Again that doesnt seem incompatible with R1b being a driver in this or IE contact

Dienekes is complaining he can't read German, but maybe Richard S can translate it.

alan
05-30-2013, 10:58 PM
This is the abstract:

Graves and settlements of the 5th millennium BC in North Caucasus attest to a material culture that was related to contemporaneous archaeological complexes in the northern and western Black Sea region. Yet it was replaced, suddenly as it seems, around the middle of the 4th millennium BC by a “high culture” whose origin is still quite unclear. This archaeological culture named after the great Maikop kurgan showed innovations in all areas which have no local archetypes and which cannot be assigned to the tradition of the Balkan-Anatolian Copper Age. The favoured theory of Russian researchers is a migration from the south originating in the Syro-Anatolian area, which is often mentioned in connection with the socalled “Uruk expansion”. However, serious doubts have arisen about a connection between Maikop and the Syro-Anatolian region. The foreign objects in the North Caucasus reveal no connection to the upper reaches of the Euphrates and Tigris or to the floodplains of Mesopotamia, but rather seem to have ties to the Iranian plateau and to South Central Asia. Recent excavations in the Southwest Caspian Sea region are enabling a new perspective about the interactions between the “Orient” and Continental Europe. On the one hand, it is becoming gradually apparent that a gigantic area of interaction evolved already in the early 4th millennium BC which extended far beyond Mesopotamia; on the other hand, these findings relativise the traditional importance given to Mesopotamia, because innovations originating in Iran and Central Asia obviously spread throughout the Syro-Anatolian region independently thereof.

alan
05-30-2013, 11:04 PM
The paper

http://www.academia.edu/2543571/Kaukasus_und_Orient_Die_Entstehung_des_Maikop-_Phanomens_im_4._Jt._v._Chr

TigerMW
05-30-2013, 11:11 PM
The foreign objects in the North Caucasus reveal no connection to the upper reaches of the Euphrates and Tigris or to the floodplains of Mesopotamia, but rather seem to have ties to the Iranian plateau and to South Central Asia.
They aren't finding the blue stone, lapsis lazuli, in the North Caucasus, are they? Remember, that is part of the connection Anatole is trying to make between the Bactrians and the Sumerians as part of his R1b theories and speculations.


Trade in the stone is ancient enough for lapis jewelry to have been found at Predynastic Egyptian and ancient Sumerian sites, and as lapis beads at neolithic burials in Mehrgarh, the Caucasus, and even as far from Afghanistan as Mauritania
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapis_lazuli

If you are bored you can have a drink and watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgZbHX955ng

alan
05-30-2013, 11:30 PM
Its rather scary that someone is ripping up the Uruk expansion Maykop model after so much pushing for it in recent papers. I suppose at least a lot of people are brainstorming about Maykop.

alan
05-30-2013, 11:33 PM
I wonder how this will tie in with the autosomal clusters like West Asian etc that Dienekes sees as appearing after the early farmers.

alan
05-31-2013, 11:20 AM
was thinking the new paper Dienekes just posted wwhich argues that Maykop originated in south central Asia and the Iran plateau could in theory make it easier to understand the relationship of the two P297 subclades M73 and M269. After all M73 and L23XL51 do have a presence in central Asia. This new proposed origin point is perhaps a more comfortable central location for those two clades. Again it is important to note that these two clades are far closer related (perhaps common ancestor c. 8000BC) than either are to V88 where a common ancestor is not shared until we are back in the Palaeolithic. The paper also apparently (I cannot read German sufficiently to be sure) argues that Maykop was part of a much wider phenomenon that spread from the Iran plateau/south central Asia across a vast area and would perhaps make it more easy to explain early R1b's spread in its three clades covering central Asia, Maykop and Mesopotamia and beyond. The dates around 4000BC apparently being suggested are not far from the dates previously suggested for the take off of the three main subclades - L23, M73 and V88 too. An awful lot seems to make sense if this paper is correct. Now what I am going to do is see if its possible to read up a bit about the archaeology of this area in slighly earlier times.

alan
05-31-2013, 11:40 AM
Here are papers on Neolithic of the Iranian plateau


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440312001197

http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3547/1/Missing_Links.pdf?DDD6+


http://www.academia.edu/3506433/Recent_Excavations_at_Tapeh_Baluch_Baluch_Mound_a_ Neolithic_Site_in_Neyshabur_Plain_NE_Iran

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=n0V-xi2wAwUC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=neolithic+of+iranian+plateau&source=bl&ots=I2C7BoWDIw&sig=UT3LAkWIvMvFEM_aasHD5yCrAx4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1YyoUa_hM8OsPJOMgbAH&ved=0CDEQ6AEwATge#v=onepage&q=neolithic%20of%20iranian%20plateau&f=false

More generally on Neolithic Iran

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Archaeology/Pre-History/neolithic_Iran.htm

http://www.dainst.org/medien/de/Helwing%202005.pdf


There appears to be a ton of stuff on the Iran plateau prehistory online and this is just a selection of the more recent stuff. Its well outside my comfort zone and I havent read any of these papers yet but I will over the weekend.

alan
05-31-2013, 12:57 PM
The thesis (2nd link) is very very comprehensive 'everything you ever wanted to know about Neolithic Iran but were afraid to ask' style. The follwing amount of quotes may seen OTT but its a huge piece of work, the quotes probably represent about 1% of the text and I am saving people from having to read through it. So here is the first interesting quote from it

The temporal and spatial distribution of the Neolithic sites of Iran and
neighbouring regions, as revealed by the earliest date from each site for
which 14C dates are available, exhibits distinct regional clustering. The earliest
Neolithic occupation of Iran is represented by the occupation of Asiab and
Sheikh-e Abad, in the Central Zagros, ca. 9000-8000 BC. In the subsequent
period, ca. 8000-7000 BC, there is an increase in the number of Central
Zagros sites, as attested by the occupation of Tepe Abdul Hosein, Ganj Dareh
Tepe and Tepe Guran. It is also during this period that the first southwestern
lowland sites were occupied, i.e. Ali Kosh and Chogha Bonut. During the
period ca. 9000-7000 BC, then, the Neolithic occupation of Iran was restricted
to central western and southwestern Iran. In the following period, ca. 7000-
6000 BC, Neolithic settlements expanded further into southwestern Iran, were
they are represented at Tal-e Jari B, Tal-e Mushki and Tol-e Basi, Fars
Province. The site of Jeitun, southwestern Turkmenistan, for which the
precedent(s) are unknown, was also founded during this period. The period
ca. 6000-5000 BC witnessed an efflorescence of settlement, with as well as
the aforementioned regions, settlements also appearing for the first time in the
Ushnu-Solduz Valley of northwestern Iran, a pattern which continued into the
period 5000-4000 BC.

It appears, then, that various regions of Iran were occupied at different
periods of time during the Neolithic, with the central Zagros Mountains and
southwestern lowlands occupied first, followed by lowland Fars and
southwestern Turkmenistan, and subsequently northwestern Iran. This distribution pattern is not what would be expected if farming had spread by a
Wave of Advance, and is more in keeping with zonal models for the dispersal
of early farmers, such as those of Sherratt (1980; 2007) and van Andel and
Runnels (1995), where distinct locations were targeted by early farmers,
whilst others were deliberately ignored.
In light of the temporal and geographical distribution of the Neolithic sites,
some refinements need to be made to the chronology for the Neolithic of Iran,
which was proposed in Chapter Three (see p. 86). It was suggested, on the
bases of the material assemblages, that the following periods should be
recognized: the Early Neolithic (ca. 8000-6500 BC), characterized by the
absence of pottery; the Middle Neolithic (ca. 6500-6200 BC), marked by the
introduction of chaff-tempered software; and the Late Neolithic (ca. 6200-5500
BC), which was a period of increasing trade networks and complexity in
anticipation of the development of metallurgy Reviewing the definitions of
these periods in respect to the 14C evidence, it is apparent that the Early
Neolithic period needs to be proceeded by a proto-Neolithic or Neolithic
transitory stage from ca. 9000-8000 BC, as evidenced at Asiab, Sheikh-e
Abad and possibly Tang-i Bolaghi, and that the Late Neolithic period should
be expanded to 6200-5000 BC, to incorporate a transitory period between the
Late Neolithic and the Early Chalcolithic.
As is evident from the maps of the earliest 14C dates for sites in Iran, the
Central Iranian Plateau represents a large lacuna in our knowledge of the
Neolithic of Iran. To date, no Early Neolithic sites are known in the region.
This is either because the Early Neolithic sites have been buried by alluvial
deposition (Brookes 1982; Brookes et al. 1982), which is well attested in the
area (Gillmore et al. 2007); or because there was no Early Neolithic
occupation of the Central Plateau, due to the inhospitableness of the region.
The Central Plateau has witnessed relatively little archaeological attention
compared to other regions of Iran, and using the available published material
neither explanation can be ruled out. Consequently, in the next chapter new
archaeological research from the Tehran, Qazvin and Kashan Plains, of whichI was part, is reviewed in order to establish the pattern of Neolithic settlement
on the Central Plateau MORE TO FOLLOW

alan
05-31-2013, 01:09 PM
I was wondering about the geography of the Iranian plateau and the thesis contains a thorough summary:

[I]As discussed in Chapter 2, the Central Plateau covers nearly one third of Iran,
measuring some 3200 kilometres in length, and forms a distinct geographic
entity, bounded to the north, south and southwest by the high peaks of the
Alburz and Zagros Mountains (Bobek 1968: 280; Fazeli 2001: 8). This entity,
however, is far from uniform, ranging in elevation from 2500 to 5000 metres
above sea level, and encompassing mountains and foothills, other hills, lake
basins and several alluvial plains (Fisher 1968: 90–1). It can be divided into
four major geomorphological units: the high plateau of northwest-central Iran
(including the Urmia basin), at 1200–2500 metres elevation; the Isfahan-
Saidabad basin at 1000–1200 metres elevation; the salt desert basin
(Masileh-Kavir) at 600–1000 metres elevation; and the Lut desert basin
(Dasht-i Lut) at 500–600 metres elevation (Dewan & Famouri 1968: 22-3).
These basins are dissected; surrounded and partly subdivided by mountain
ranges along which extend large outwash fans, and alluvial plains grading into
the desert proper (ibid.: 23).
The term ‘plateau’ is applied in a general way by several American and British
writers to the whole upland mass; whereas French and German geographers
consider the term to cover the inner central basin of Iran only, and regard the
surrounding highland ring as a distinctive, somewhat separate mountain zone.
However, such purely physical descriptions can be unhelpful due to their
disregard of modern political boundaries, and W.B. Fisher restricts the use of
the term ‘Central Plateau’ to the upland area, actually territorially within the
boundaries of the present state of Iran (Fisher 1968: 5). It is his definition that
is used in this thesis.
In terms of geology, a great tectonic line separates the Central Plateau from
the geological deposits to the south (Dewan & Famouri 1968: 26). In the
Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary Periods, eruptive rocks, such as andesite,
were formed in different places on this tectonic line. Along this line there are
many springs which have caused deposition of travertine – a form of
limestone – and sediments of Palaeozoic, Mesozoic and Tertiary are also
320
present (ibid.). The gypsiferous and saline series of Eocene to Miocene age
characterize this unit, and are made up of salt, gypsum, clays, mudstones,
siltstones and sandstones. Much of the present area of the Central Plateau
was once occupied by large lakes, but today only the lowest parts of the
plateau are occupied by residential salt lakes (kavirs) or marshes (Fisher
1968: 92).
The plateau can be broadly divided into three geographical regions: the
mountains, the plain proper and desert. The Zagros Mountain chain flanks the
north–west to south–east of the plateau for nearly 1000 kilometres, measuring
over 190 kilometres in width at its broadest, and rising 1000–1700 metres
above sea level (Ghirshman 1954: 21). The Zagros are extremely rich in
mineral resources, and enclose valleys that “are well suited to small scale
agriculture and/or large-scale pastoral lifestyles” (Thornton 2009: 306). The
Alburz Mountains encircle the northern edge of the Central Plateau, flanking
the Caspian Sea littoral and continuing eastwards to the northern highlands
(Kopet Dagh) (Fisher 1968: 38). They are currently undergoing uplift and
denudation, ensuring an abundant supply of gravels and sands to the alluvial
fans of the rivers which drain them. This has created a highly unstable
geomorphological environment, where “river channels are in constant flux and
episodes of sedimentation and erosion are highly variable” (Gillmore et al.
2011: 51). The mountains bordering the Central Plateau are completed by the
southern chain, the Makran, which is pierced by two passes: the Bander
Abbas on the Gulf of Oman; and the other leading east to Baluchistan and
Quetta (Ghirshman 1954: 23).
The plain itself is covered by water-transported alluvial sediment, and it
appears that the shifting of river systems over time may have had a
considerable effect on the fluctuation of human settlement patterns since
prehistory (Tehrani-Mogaddam 1996 [in Persian] in Fazeli 2001: 14). It also
contains a number of inter-montane areas and small kavirs which can be
divided into different micro-environmental zones (Fazeli 2001: 14). Important
in the context of this research, are the alluvial fans, the presence of which
Brookes describes as “ubiquitous and extensive” (Brookes 1989: 20). Alluvial
321
fans are fan-shaped deposits formed where a fast-flowing stream flattens,
slows and spreads, typically at the exit of a canyon or valley onto a flatter
plain. They are the main site of deposition in an erosional-deposition system,
in which mountains tend slowly to wear away, and basins to fill with sediment,
through geological time (Wilkinson 2003). On the Central Plateau, they range
in size from less than 1-kilometre squared, to massive fans such as the Jaj
Rud which measure over 2500-kilometres squared (Beaumont 1972: 251). At
the base of alluvial fans occurs a seepage zone, where groundwater
approaches the soil surface and sometimes forms springs. The hydraulic
conductivity of alluvial fans is high. For example, the Garmsar alluvial fan,
located on the southern fringe of the Alburz Mountains, 120 km southwest of
Tehran, discharges water at a rate of at least 10-metres-per day (Oosterbann
2000: 4). Consequently, alluvial fans, particularly in arid and semiarid regions,
are often the principle groundwater source for farming and the sustenance of
life. They also contain rich soils, suitable for agriculture (ibid.).
The exact phasing of alluvial fan sedimentation on the Central Plateau is not
clear, although sedimentological and geomorphological evidence (e.g.
gullying, fan-head trenching, the occurrence of large areas of desert varnish)
suggests that for at least the last 750 years, the fans have been relatively relatively
stable (Beaumont 1972: 258, 267; Gillmore et al. 2011: 51). The optimum
conditions for fan formation are thought to have occurred mainly during the
glacial phases of the Pleistocene, and two major phases of alluvial deposition
in Iran are recognized (Vita-Finzi 1968: 951; Beaumont 1972: 269). An earlier
phase, which began no more than 50,000 years ago and probably, had ended
by the fourth millennium BC; and a second phase of deposition that occurred
during the Middle Ages. The thickness of the alluvial fans is difficult to
determine, due to a lack of data, but limited boring on the Jaj Rud fan, at a
point 19-kilometres south of Veramin, revealed up to 275 metres of deposits,
but greater thickness than this might occur elsewhere (Beaumont 1972: 255-
6). Such findings have important implications for the visibility of archaeological
sites from the surface, particularly those from the earlier periods (cf. Brookes
et al. 1982; Coningham et al. 2004; 2006).
322

alan
05-31-2013, 01:20 PM
CONTINUED (too big to paste in one)

[I]The third geographical region, the desert or kavir, is an inhospitable region,
parts of which are completely inhabitable (Fazeli 2001: 19). The topography is
characterized by a landform assemblage of bare, steep, rugged mountains,
with debris-strewn pediments, compound fans, and basin floors underlined by
mud, salt crusts or marshlands (Brookes 1982: 192). Salt crusts cover areas
of mud, which conceal deep subterranean channels, and the fragile structure
of the surface is extremely dangerous. These render cultivation impossible,
indeed, in places even travel is hazardous (Fazeli 2001: 19). Some surfaces
of the desert are nearly 10-centimetres thick and are covered by a salty
viscous mud. Summer is often cloudless, and consequently temperatures are
very high during the day (over 50°C); while the winter temperature can drop
below freezing. Because of the lack of cloud, the elevation, and the dryness of
the air, there is a rapid radiation of heat from the surface at night leading to
temperature extremes (Fisher 1968: 93). Although the region is generally unfit
for human habitation, it is favourable for wildlife, especially seasonal birds,
which migrate from Siberia during the winter, and the Iranian zebra, which
look like wild ass, and live on the edge of the central desert (Fazeli 2001: 20).
The climate of the Central Plateau is heavily influenced by the Zagros and
Alburz Mountain systems, which form climatic barriers separating it from the
warm, moist Mediterranean weather systems to the west, and the coastal
weather system of the Caspian Sea to the north. As a result, the Central
Plateau is characterized by a semi-arid/arid climate, which becomes highly
arid in its large and depressed centre (Bobek 1968: 280). Summers are often
virtually cloudless, and consequently temperatures are very high during the
day, though there is wide diurnal variation due to the high elevations, dryness
of air, and lack of clouds (Ganji 1968: 220). In winter, temperatures are
generally low. For example, temperatures as low as -16ºC have been
reported from Tehran for January, the coldest month of the year (Ganji 1968:
table 1). From February onwards, the land begins to warm up, and
temperatures as high as 36ºC have been recorded in July and August (ibid.:
table 2). Precipitation is limited, averaging ca. 25–150 mm annually, with an
incidence sharply confined to the winter months (Fisher 1968: 91); and
323
decreases from north (average rainfall over 200 mm per annum) to south
(average less than 120 mm per annum) (Dewan & Famouri 1968: 250)
(Tables 6.0–6.2).
The history of vegetation and climate change in the Near East is poorly
understood, and only a few palaeoclimate proxy data exist for the Holocene in
Iran (Djamali, Beaulieu et al. 2008: 413; Schmidt et al. 2011: 587). These are
mainly from studies located in the Zagros Mountains (Wright 1966; van Zeist
1967; van Zeist & Wright 1963; van Zeist & Bottema 1977; Bottema 1986;
1993; Djamali, Beaulieu et al. 2008), and more proxy information and
geochronological data are needed for other areas, particularly central and
southern Iran (Kehl 2009: 2).
The best proxies for the Central Plateau come from lake cores from Lake
Urmia and Lake Zeribar which are located in the Zagros Mountains,
approximately 300 kilometres apart. Both pollen and sedimentological studies
have been published from Lake Urmia (Bottema 1986; Kelts & Shahrabi 1986)
and proxy palaeoclimate records are available from Lake Zeribar, based on
sediment chemistry (Hutchinson & Cowgill 1963), pollen (van Zeist & Wright
1963; van Zeist & Bottema 1977), palaeoliminological indicators (Griffiths et
al. 2001; Wasylikowa et al. 2006), diatoms (Snyder et al. 2001) and stable
isotope patterns (Stevens et al. 2001; 2006). These studies generally suggest
that during the Late Glacial-Early Holocene transitional period, an increase in
temperature enabled the establishment of a grass-dominated savannah, with
few oak trees and varying pistachio abundance (Stevens et al. 2001: 451-2;
Kohl 2009: 10; Schmidt et al. 2011: 587). (Pistachio is more drought resistant
than oak, the main limiting factor of which is total moisture availability;
Schmidt et al. 2011: 588.) This was followed by a period of temperature and
aridity amelioration throughout the Early to Mid Holocene, which had resulted
in a marked decrease in pistachio by ca. 6200 yr BC, and a gradual, then
sharp, increase in oak (Wright et al. 1967: 441; Smith et al. 2001: 453;
Schmidt et al. 2011: 587). At Lake Zeribar, oak forests reached their greatest
distribution at 4750 BC, and then steadily declined from 4450 BC to enter a
pronounced depression in 2550 BC; while at Lake Mirabad, oak pollen rose
324
later and more slowly, only reaching the levels of Lake Zeribar at 4000 BC
(Schmidt et al. 2011: 588). By the early fourth millennium BC, modern climatic
conditions had been established (Wright et al. 1967: 441; Vita-Fenzi 1968:
967; Smith et al. 2001: 453; Djamali, Beaulieu et al. 2008: 128; Kehl 2009:
10).
The seasonality of the climate of the Zagros Mountains is determined by the
interactions of rain-bearing westerlies from the Mediterranean, the Siberian
high in winter that blocks their progress, and hot winds which emanate from
the Central Plateau in summer and deflect the westerlies along the western
foothills and mountain range (Schmidt et al. 2011: 588; Stevens et al. 2006).
Due to this the palynological analysis from Lake Zeribar, which lies along a
track of westerlies to the north of the Zagros, is more relevant for the Central
Plateau than Lake Mirabad, which is located in the southwest flanks of the
Zagros Mountains (Schmidt et al. 2011: 588). When the palynological record
from Lake Zeribar is compared with the archaeological chronology of the
Central Plateau, the onset of the Transitional Chalcolithic (ca. 5000 BC)
generally coincides with an increase in oak pollen, and by proxy moisture,
after ca. 5500 BC (ibid.).
Lake cores also allow for the reconstruction of past vegetation patterns.
Pollen analysis of cores from Lake Zeribar and Lake Mirabad (also in the
Zagros Mountains), suggests that at the beginning of the Holocene, the
catchment area of both lakes was dominated by an Artemisia steppe (Wright
et al. 1967: 441). Around 9500 BC, the climate became warmer and wetter,
allowing for the expansion of oak-pistachio savannah, and by ca. 3500 yr BC
this had thickened to become the oak woodland that still prevails in the region
today (Wright et al. 1967: 441; Vita-Fenzi 1968: 967; Kehl 2009: 10). In
northeastern Iran the analysis of cores from Lake Urmia indicates a similar
pattern (Bottema 1986: 241; Djamali, Kürschner et al. 2008: 68). Until around
7000 BC the area around Lake Urmia was dominated by Artemisia steppe;
between 7000–6000 BC the steppe vegetation was gradually succeeded by
forest-steppe; and by ca. 5000 BC this had developed into open forest
(Bottema 1986: 241, 256; Djamali, Beaulieu et al. 2008: 419).
325
Bobek (1968: 288) broadly divides the modern vegetational cover on the
Central Plateau into two groups: that within the 250-300 mm precipitation
isohyet (the minimum for rainfed agriculture; Oates & Oates 1976: 111); and
that in areas which receive less than 250 mm precipitation annually. Within
the 250-300 mm precipitation isohyet, two main groups of associations can be
distinguished: : tragacanthic or astragaleta types, with spiny bushes or
brushwood of tragacanthic or other astragalus and acantholimon species,
together with other dwarf bushes and many grasses and herbaceous types;
and artemisieta-type associations, which include scrub composed
predominantly of worm wood (Artemisia, mostly Herba alba) (Bobek 1968:
288-9). Outside the limits of potential rainfed agriculture, the steppe thins out,
without greatly changing composition. There is an intermediate zone, the
‘desert-steppe’, where patches of bare-ground become considerable, before
finally the true desert (largely confined to depressions below 1000 metres), in
which bare ground predominates.
In terms of the fauna, carnivores include: wolves, hyenas, various foxes and
ichneumon, cats, leopards and lynxes (Misonne 1968: 295). Ungulates
include Iranian onager, which live on the edge of the central desert, fellow
deer, gazelles, wild boar, wild goat and red sheep. There is a wide variety of
lagomorpha and rodents. The great majority of rodents (ca. 90%) are jirds and
gerbils, while other rodents are of small numerical importance (ibid.: 296).
Insectivora have been poorly studied, but include several species of
hedgehog and bat (ibid.: 300). Domesticated species include Iranian saddle
horses, numerous donkeys, cattle, sheep, goat, dromedaries and dogs (ibid.:
301-2). It is of interest to note, in regards to the origins and spread of
agriculture, that domesticated cattle on the Central Plateau are generally large
and without a hump, while those found on the Caspian Sea Plain are of a
smaller stature, and have a hump like Zebu cattle, suggesting the possibility
of two different origins.
There is a lack of perennial, and even seasonal streams, on parts of the
Central Plateau, and the availability of water, both surface and underground,
has always been a major defining feature in human activity (

alan
05-31-2013, 01:21 PM
FINAL PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND

Dewan & Famouri
326
1964: 40; Oberlander 1968: 265; Goldsmith 1984; Fazeli 2001: 11). Roland
Ghirshman writes, for example, that “at all times on the Plateau, the question
of water has been vital”, arguing that “despite the extremes of climate, intense
cold in winter and heat in summer, the ground yields abundantly wherever
man can bring water” (Ghirshman 1954: 25). Annual surpluses of water and
seasonal surpluses occur in the Zagros and Alburz mountains (Oberlander
1968: 265). Their perennial rivers are maintained throughout the rainless
summers and early autumn by snowmelt, which also contributes to seasonal
springs. Major permanent rivers of the region include the Karaj, Talegan,
Abhor, Kan, Solequn, Qazvin and Shour, of which the Karaj, which flows
through the Alburz Mountain range, is the longest (Fazeli 2001: 11).
The limitation of available agricultural land in combination with annual rainfall
and topography, has significantly affected the distribution of modern
settlement, which is largely confined to the plain, although particular areas of
the mountains, intermountain valleys and desert are also important (Fazeli
2001: 8, 13). For example, the highland valleys receive more rain than the
plain, and provide excellent vegetation for pasturage during the summer
months, and this may have facilitated seasonal movements of the earliest
pastoral communities of the plain (ibid.: 13). Like many settlements in Iran
(both past & present), those on the Central Plateau are generally situated on
active alluvial fans, which pose flood and sediment inundation hazards, but
provide fertile soil for agriculture (Schmidt et al. 2011: 585).
Historically, there have existed two main types of pastoral groups on the
plateau, defined by their migratory activity (Fazeli 2001: 14). One type inhabit
a permanent village in the winter, with members from the group migrating in
the summer up to higher pastures in the Alburz Mountains to pastoral camps
at considerable distances (up to 25 km away) from the village. The other type
followed a traditional route of vertical migration from the north to the south of
the plains during the autumn and spring. Nowadays, both types of movement
have greatly declined (ibid.).
327

alan
05-31-2013, 01:30 PM
Of interest in terms of this area in light of the lack of R1b take off pre-5000BC is this summary in the thesis

The current level of information does not indicate the presence of Early
Neolithic (ca. 8000-6500 BC) or Middle Neolithic (ca. 6500-6200 BC) period
settlements on the Central Plateau (Coningham et al. 2004; 2006; Fazeli et al.
2004; 2005; 2009; Malek Shahmirzadi 2002; 2003; 2004; 2006a; 2006b). The
earliest recorded settlements are Late Neolithic (ca. 6200–5500 BC) in origin,
and include Cheshmeh-Ali, Sadeghabadi and Tepe Pardis on the Tehran
Plain; Chahar-Boneh and Ebrahim Abad on the Qazvin Plain; and Tepe Sialk
and Ghabristan on the Kashan Plain.
Following the Late Neolithic, a ‘Transitional Chalcolithic’ period (ca. 5500-
4700 BC) is recognized on the Central Plateau (Fazeli 2001; Coningham et
al. 2004; 2006; Fazeli et al. 2004). The Transitional Chalcolithic is defined
primarily by the presence of Cheshmeh Ali Ware. It was a period of both
continuity and change, which was not restricted to ceramic production, but
included general transformations within the lithic industry, inter-site and intrasite
patterns and long-distance contact (Fazeli 2001; Fazeli et al. 2001; 2002;
2004). It was also marked by a substantial increase in the number of sites,
which is attributed to “an increasing human population and economic
achievements” (Fazeli 2001: 42). Transitional Chalcolithic settlements include:
Cheshmeh-Ali, Tepe Chouqali, Tepe Sadeghabadi, Tepe Pardis, Mehdikani,
Kara Tepe Sharyae, Fakrabad, Mafinabad, Poeinak, Tepe Mortezagerd,
Ismailabad and Ozbaki on the Tehran Plain; Zagheh, Cheshmeh Bolbol and
Akbarabad on the Qazvin Plain; and Sialk on the Kashan Plain. The Early
Chalcolithic period (ca. 4700–4000 BC) settlements on the Tehran Plain
comprise: Cheshmeh-Ali, Tepe Pardis, Mehdikani, Mafinabad, Fakrabad,
Tepe Sadeghabadi, Tepe Chouqali, Kara Tepe Sharyar, Mortezagerd and
329
Poeinak on the Tehran Plain; Zagheh on the Qazvin Plain; and Tepe Sialk on
the Kashan Plain

alan
05-31-2013, 01:34 PM
THEN THIS SUMMARY

The most striking outcome of the recent archaeological investigations on the
Central Plateau is the continued failure to recover any evidence of Early
Neolithic (ca. 8000-6500 BC) settlements. Traditional explanations for the
dearth of sites have emphasised the active alluvial regime on the plateau, and
suggested that prehistoric sites may exist, but are buried beneath the present
plain surface (Brookes et al. 1982). However, despite digging sites on the
Tehran, Qazvin and Kashan plains down to virgin bedrock, transect survey,
and qanat survey, specifically designed to avoid the problems associated with
archaeological visibility on alluvial plains, no evidence of Early Neolithic
settlement has been recovered. It appears, then, that the lack of Early
Neolithic settlement on the Central Plateau represents a real absence of sites,
rather than being an issue of site visibility, and that permanent agricultural
settlement did not become established in the region until the Middle-Late
Neolithic period (ca. 6500-5500 BC).
When settlements do appear, their pattern and distribution varies regionally.
While on the Tehran Plain there was a cycle of rapid growth in settlement
number during the Transitional–Early Chalcolithic, followed by a period of
decline during the Middle to Late Chalcolithic, on the Qazvin Plain the
number of sites remains relatively unchanged during the Late Neolithic–
Transitional Chalcolithic, after which there actually occurred a decrease in the
number of sites with Zagheh the only Early Chalcolithic site known, (Zagheh is
377
followed by an absence of settlement altogether in the Middle Chalcolithic,
until the occupation of Ghabristan in the Late Chalcolithic. In contrast, on the
Kashan Plain the Late Neolithic to Chalcolithic period occupation is restricted
almost entirely to a massive agglomeration of Sialk. There is possible
evidence of an earlier settlement at Tepe Shurabeh, but this is unconfirmed,
and one ephemeral Late Neolithic site and a couple of potential Transitional
Chalcolithic sites are known, but this is it.
One plausible explanation for the concentration of people at one site on the
Kashan Plain, compared to the more dispersed Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic
period settlement patterns evidenced on the Qazvin and Tehran plains, is the
smaller size of the Kashan alluvial plain compared to the latter. This would
have seriously limited the potential agricultural land in the region, and may
have been a contributory factor in leading people to congregate at Sialk.
Trade may also have played a role in encouraging people to move to and stay
at Sialk, as the site occupies an important nodal position on both north–south
and east–west trade routes across Iran. Social choices can also not be
excluded.

alan
05-31-2013, 01:48 PM
Regarding metallugy the thesis interesting notes

Parallel to the development and specialization of the ceramic industry on the
Central Plateau, was the emergence and spread of metallurgy (Thornton
2009). The earliest evidence of metal use in Iran comes from Ali Kosh, where
a rolled bead of native copper has been dated to the late eighth/early seventh
millennium BC (Hole 2000: 13), and isolated finds of native copper from late
seventh/early sixth millennium contexts at Mehrgarh (Moulherat et al. 2002:
1393) suggest that native copper may have been manipulated in eastern Iran
by the mid-late seventh millennium BC (Thornton 2009: 310). However, the
true adoption of copper is not evidenced until the early-mid sixth millennium BC, when native copper artefacts were utilized consistently in various parts of
the Central Plateau (Thornton 2009: 308). Chris Thornton suggests that
although there exist important synchronisms between the development of
metallurgy in the Central Plateau and the Levant, “there are also significant
chronological and technological differences” (2009: 318), leading him to
conclude that the “Iranian Plateau served as one of the early ‘heartlands’ of
metallurgy” (2009: 318; author’s original emphasis).
Fazeli and colleagues (Fazeli 2001; Fazeli et al. 2005; 2007; 2010) argue that
population growth and increasing social complexity during the Late Neolithic-
Chalcolithic period is also evidenced by the increase in social ranking, as
reflected in mortuary practices, ritual activities and “ideological domination”
(Fazeli et al. 2007: 7). The most tangent archaeological evidence of this is the
presence of the ‘Painted Building’ at Zagheh (Neghaban 1974; 1979; Fazeli et
al. 2005). The ‘Painted Building’ is a large, roughly rectangular structure
measuring some 11 by 7 metres, containing a small annex room, surrounded

alan
05-31-2013, 02:23 PM
Add the location, the late appearance of farming, the early development of metallurgy etc to the suggestion that Maykop was part of a wider horizon spreading from the Iran central plateau in the German paper Dienekes posted and you do get a picture that is very very compatible with R1b. As I posted before, I wonder if there is also some link with the various mysterious autosomal inputs post-dating the earliest farmers that seem to come from this general area and have been highlighted by Dienekes.

One important loose end that I have to look into is this (and this thesis provides plenty of site names to look into further): OK farming appeared late on the Iran Plateau and adjacent areas BUT where did it appear from. The thesis questions a simple wave of advance. Anyway I need now to read the other papers I posted. Nevertheless this is fascinating.

alan
05-31-2013, 03:49 PM
Here are papers on Neolithic of the Iranian plateau


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440312001197

http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3547/1/Missing_Links.pdf?DDD6+


http://www.academia.edu/3506433/Recent_Excavations_at_Tapeh_Baluch_Baluch_Mound_a_ Neolithic_Site_in_Neyshabur_Plain_NE_Iran

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=n0V-xi2wAwUC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=neolithic+of+iranian+plateau&source=bl&ots=I2C7BoWDIw&sig=UT3LAkWIvMvFEM_aasHD5yCrAx4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1YyoUa_hM8OsPJOMgbAH&ved=0CDEQ6AEwATge#v=onepage&q=neolithic%20of%20iranian%20plateau&f=false

More generally on Neolithic Iran

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Archaeology/Pre-History/neolithic_Iran.htm

http://www.dainst.org/medien/de/Helwing%202005.pdf


There appears to be a ton of stuff on the Iran plateau prehistory online and this is just a selection of the more recent stuff. Its well outside my comfort zone and I havent read any of these papers yet but I will over the weekend.

As well as the 2nd link (the thesis) the 4fh link to a book on the origins of agriculture in west central asia looks very interesting but will take a bit of time for me to get through. The Mesolithic cultures around the southern Caspian catch my eye as does the Neolithic Jeitun culture and the Neolithic hunter-gather culture Keltiminar culture to the north. Unfortunatley only the part of the book is available. The 1st and 3rd link are not quite so interesting.

alan
05-31-2013, 08:04 PM
Although I am guessing somewhat I think the final linked paper may be connected to the ideas in the German paper that Dienekes posted, albeit this was focussed on MaykopL

The 5th to 3rd mill. B.C. can be characterized as a period of increasing social complexity, with the
development of specialized industries and the establishment of long distance trade contacts. This long-established fact has, however, gainedeven more importance since recent research hasrevealed new evidence on the strong local dynamics
behind this process120.While the Late Neolithic was characterized by fairly large sedentary villages situated in environmentally favorable locations, the following Chalcolithic seems to have developed new and innovative
living strategies. As the data from the Qomrud and Arisma¯n survey demonstrate, the degree of settlement continuity between both periods is low and most settlements of the Sialk III period are newly founded, such as the Tappe Sialk South Mound. The same pattern is evident in southern Iran, where the Ba¯kun period brings a wealth of newly founded sites. From the beginning of the Chalcolithic in the 5th mill. B.C., however, there is evidence for a specialization in handicrafts, attested, for instance, in pottery kilns such as have been excavated in Tappe Sialk, period III,1121 and Tal-e Ba¯kun A122, as well as
recently in Tappe Rahmata¯ba¯d and in the Darre-ye Bola¯g¯i Ba¯kun sites. This large-scale pottery production links the cultural development in Iran with the Mesopotamian Ubaid, where equally large pottery production sites have been documented123. Besides pottery production on a larger scale, systematic experiments with new materials, especially
with copper and silver, seem to have taken place during the Chalcolithic. During the first half of the 4th mill. B.C., copper melting and the casting of artifacts is documented in individual buildings of the settlements124 but also in small
independent sites. Individual smelting places scattered on the edge of the desert were recorded during the Arisma¯n survey that do not seem to be associated with any permanent settlement. The extraction of silver from lead is regularly
practized in the larger sites and is attestednow at Arisma¯n and at Tappe Sialk. This developing metal industry must be understood within the framework of a growing supra-regional network: artifacts produced in the highland sites
were distributed to Susa and other lowland sites. Trade contacts between the lowlands and the 4th mill. B.C. communities in the highlands is reflected vice versa in the distribution of specific pottery types that are thought to originate in the Uruk culture, such as nose lug jars, spouted jars and beveled rim bowls that appear regularly in Sialk III assemblages. They do not, however, appear as separate assemblages alongside indigenous ones, such as has been described for the
Godin VI/V complex125, but are part of the regular pottery inventory, and most probably of local production

alan
06-01-2013, 02:32 AM
These papers deal with the issue of the copper age in Iran

http://www.academia.edu/1214225/On_the_Importance_of_Iran_in_the_Study_of_Prehisto ric_Copper-base_Metallurgy

www.bergbaumuseum.de/web/dl887‎

alan
06-01-2013, 03:17 PM
Having read through a number of papers on this subject, the main conclusions I have about the Iranian plateau are

1. The arrival of the Neolithic was very late in the area, c. 6000BC.

2. This was probably the result of the need for water management of this arid area and development of the need for manmade manipulation of the rivers and alluvial fans and basic irrigation methods.

3. I havent really seen a statement on who the first Neolithic people of the Iran plateau were, whether they were outsiders etc. I imagine they probably were at least partly.

4. The area was along with the Balkans a zone of early metallurgy and has incredible natural metal resources.

5. The end of the Neolithic anc copper age saw the farmers in this area become involved in metallurgy and become part of a wide interconnected network of trade and contact.

6. This area or adjacent might be the origin of Maykop and its advanced metallurgy - papers clearly state it was not at all connected with the Balkans group.

7. The position and time of the arrival of farming do seem a good match for the rise of the three main early R1b lineagesand the geography also is rather good as it is more central to all three lineages distributions. Previous models placed M73 off on a limb whereas this would be a good central point for M269/L23, V88 and M73. Metallurgical networks sould have spread in several directions from this area - into the Caucasus/Maykop, Mesopotamia and into the steppes.

Its just another possibility for R1b and it is essentially a variation of the general Maykop-Uruk model. Its a maybe but I would not rule out other areas like the steppes, Anatolia (dairy farmers) or the east Balkans.

newtoboard
06-01-2013, 10:08 PM
Having read through a number of papers on this subject, the main conclusions I have about the Iranian plateau are

1. The arrival of the Neolithic was very late in the area, c. 6000BC.

2. This was probably the result of the need for water management of this arid area and development of the need for manmade manipulation of the rivers and alluvial fans and basic irrigation methods.

3. I havent really seen a statement on who the first Neolithic people of the Iran plateau were, whether they were outsiders etc. I imagine they probably were at least partly.

4. The area was along with the Balkans a zone of early metallurgy and has incredible natural metal resources.

5. The end of the Neolithic anc copper age saw the farmers in this area become involved in metallurgy and become part of a wide interconnected network of trade and contact.

6. This area or adjacent might be the origin of Maykop and its advanced metallurgy - papers clearly state it was not at all connected with the Balkans group.

7. The position and time of the arrival of farming do seem a good match for the rise of the three main early R1b lineagesand the geography also is rather good as it is more central to all three lineages distributions. Previous models placed M73 off on a limb whereas this would be a good central point for M269/L23, V88 and M73. Metallurgical networks sould have spread in several directions from this area - into the Caucasus/Maykop, Mesopotamia and into the steppes.

Its just another possibility for R1b and it is essentially a variation of the general Maykop-Uruk model. Its a maybe but I would not rule out other areas like the steppes, Anatolia (dairy farmers) or the east Balkans.

How does no 1 make sense given part of Iran is part of the Fertile crescent unless you are taking the view that the mountains of the West are not part of the plateau?

TigerMW
06-01-2013, 10:32 PM
How does no 1 make sense given part of Iran is part of the Fertile crescent unless you are taking the view that the mountains of the West are not part of the plateau?

I think this is the standard view of the Fertile Crescent with Iraq as the core, not Iran.
http://mrkash.com/activities/images/mesopotamiamap.jpg

The Iranian Plateau is lightly shaded. It pretty much covers Iran.
http://mapsof.net/map/persian-plateau-topo-en#.Uap1S5xNT6A

It pretty much looks like the Zagros Mountains is the dividing line with the foot hills and lowlands to the west being in the Crescent while the mountain ranges and highlands to the east are the Iranian Plateau.

alan
06-01-2013, 10:34 PM
How does no 1 make sense given part of Iran is part of the Fertile crescent unless you are taking the view that the mountains of the West are not part of the plateau?

The Iranian plateau as defined in the thesis I posted a link to is a more restricted area that doesnt include the SE, west, the western or northern mountains etc. The thesis was using that more restrictive defininition of the plateau. However, I see (and the thesis touches on this) that the term Iranian Plateau has different meanings, one that is specific as used in the thesis and another more all encompasing one which includes a wider area and most of Iran. Actually its timely that you pointed this out because I can see now that the German report Dienekes linked to (which was making my eyes bleed trying to read - why is French far easier to read when English is meant to be Germanic!!) was using the wider meaning of the plateau.

So, between between deep-ending on archaeology of this region, the variable nature of what people are referring to when they talk about the Iranian Plateau, a lack of geographical knowledge of the area and papers in a language I cannot read...its more of a case of getting some discussion going on this rather than having any answers.

newtoboard
06-01-2013, 10:58 PM
The Iranian plateau as defined in the thesis I posted a link to is a more restricted area that doesnt include the SE, west, the western or northern mountains etc. The thesis was using that more restrictive defininition of the plateau. However, I see (and the thesis touches on this) that the term Iranian Plateau has different meanings, one that is specific as used in the thesis and another more all encompasing one which includes a wider area and most of Iran. Actually its timely that you pointed this out because I can see now that the German report Dienekes linked to (which was making my eyes bleed trying to read - why is French far easier to read when English is meant to be Germanic!!) was using the wider meaning of the plateau.

So, between between deep-ending on archaeology of this region, the variable nature of what people are referring to when they talk about the Iranian Plateau, a lack of geographical knowledge of the area and papers in a language I cannot read...its more of a case of getting some discussion going on this rather than having any answers.


There is some ambiguity to how the Fertile Crescent is defined imo. Some maps include the Southern Zagros and the Khuzestan lowlands while others exclude both and some include just the Khuzestan lowlands but exclude the Southern Zagros as belonging to the Hillly flanks. Yes and it seems that some people do believe in that agriculture originated in the Hilly Flanks surrounding the Fertile Crescent. The Hilly flanks roughly seems to correspond to the Eastern Taurus /Anti-Taurus and Zagros ranges and inhabited toady by Iranic speakers. I thought the conventional definition of the plateau was most of Iran minus the Khuzestan lowlands. I consider that to be part of the fertile crescent.

I believe the agriculture of the Zagros is similar to that of the Middle East while the plateau , if we use it in your sense, has a system of qanat and oasis farming similar to what is found in Afghanistan, Central Asia and the Tarim.

alan
06-01-2013, 11:01 PM
I think this is the standard view of the Fertile Crescent with Iraq as the core, not Iran.
http://mrkash.com/activities/images/mesopotamiamap.jpg

The Iranian Plateau is lightly shaded. It pretty much covers Iran.
http://mapsof.net/map/persian-plateau-topo-en#.Uap1S5xNT6A

It pretty much looks like the Zagros Mountains is the dividing line with the lowlands to the west being in the Crescent while the mountain ranges and highlands are the Iranian Plateau.

In the thesis I posted the Zagros mountains (except their eastern piedmont) and the Caspian area mountains are excluded along with the low near Mesopotamian area on the west of the Zagros and SE Iran. A more expansive take on it probably takes in a slightly wider area. Its not the first time I have seen a dual meaning in a geographical term like this. Rather confusing! The thesis pointed to the plateau in a restricted sense as pretty well looking like it wasnt settled by farmers until around 6000BC despite the early farming in the Zagros to the west etc. Regardless of the actual date of farming, the thesis touches on broadly the same theme as the German paper about the richness of early metallurgy and raw material in the Iran plateau. The difference is that the German paper clearly includes NW Iran near the Caspian in this phenomenon while this was essentially out of the geographical scope covered by the thesis I posted. Nevertheless both touch on what seems to be basically the same copper age phenomenon in Iran and south central Asia.

Regarding Maykop being part of this, it is important to remember that the Maykop area did feature steppe type groups before the Maykop phenomenon. So the north Caucasus was a meeting point of this copper phenomenon emerging from Iran and south central Asia and steppe peoples and the latter were the substrate in the Maykop area as well as the neighbours to the north. The German paper doesnt change the fact that Maykop was very influential on the steppe cultures and the source of metal for the steppe groups north of the Black Sea, the source of CMP know-how for the restof the western steppe and may have even brought the idea of the Kurgan to the steppes. Whatever may one looks at it the steppe peoples and this interesting metallurgical spread from around Iran met in the northern piedmont of Caucasus. A lot of what we think of as PIE society may never have happened if it wasnt for that meeting.

TigerMW
06-03-2013, 01:01 AM
...Regarding Maykop being part of this, it is important to remember that the Maykop area did feature steppe type groups before the Maykop phenomenon. So the north Caucasus was a meeting point of this copper phenomenon emerging from Iran and south central Asia and steppe peoples and the latter were the substrate in the Maykop area as well as the neighbours to the north. The German paper doesnt change the fact that Maykop was very influential on the steppe cultures and the source of metal for the steppe groups north of the Black Sea, the source of CMP know-how for the restof the western steppe and may have even brought the idea of the Kurgan to the steppes. Whatever may one looks at it the steppe peoples and this interesting metallurgical spread from around Iran met in the northern piedmont of Caucasus. A lot of what we think of as PIE society may never have happened if it wasnt for that meeting.

Something that has puzzled me is that Maykop is generally not considered Indo-European. However, it is right on the southern edge of the Mallory/Anthony PIE homeland and it is on the northern side of the Renfrew/Gray/Atkinson PIE homeland. Being in between doesn't make it the homeland but this is close at least for horseshoes and hand grenades.

Maykop has the kurgans and may have actually originated them. They have the metals and may have brought metallurgy to the Pontic Steppes.

What is about Maykop that kicks it out of IE consideration?

alan
06-03-2013, 02:22 PM
Something that has puzzled me is that Maykop is generally not considered Indo-European. However, it is right on the southern edge of the Mallory/Anthony PIE homeland and it is on the northern side of the Renfrew/Gray/Atkinson PIE homeland. Being in between doesn't make it the homeland but this is close at least for horseshoes and hand grenades.

Maykop has the kurgans and may have actually originated them. They have the metals and may have brought metallurgy to the Pontic Steppes.

What is about Maykop that kicks it out of IE consideration?

I think what Mallory meant is simply that Maykop always looked different from the steppe groups and some sort of exotic origin or at least element has long been suspected but never nailed down. He also was influenced by the presence of nonIE peoples in this area today. Its important to realise when it comes to Maykop there has been a lot of rethinking and re-dating of it in just the last few years so Anthony and Mallory wont have taken this into account. The realisation that Maykop, its CMP metallugy and its Kurgans are older than Yamnaya etc has ruled out some of the old north to south ideas about Kurgans etc and has shown the main flow of ideas and perhaps people was more south to north as far as Maykop's relations to Yamnaya and other steppe cultures is concerned. The detail of the origins of Maykop are clearly still being teased out although a strong element that relates to Iran, east Anatolia etc seems to be agreed even if the detail clearly isnt. I guess this takes us back to models of the PIE homeland. Lets say for simplicities sake that the steppe model is correct. Even if that is so the influence of Maykop on the steppes groups, the CMP metallurgy etc indicates to me that Maykop people were speaking to steppe peoples fairly extensively and some bilingual element had to exist for this to work. So one way or another I am convinced Maykop people spoke PIE even if it was a 2nd language. That said, I dont think the steppe PIE theory as currently presented is a completely done deal. The CMP was the big network in the period before and after the rise of Yamnaya but the driving force of CMP was Maykop. Metallugists have commented that the CMP is far far too specific in its aspects to have just been a spread of ideas and must have involved some people. These people must have spoken some sort of common language across this network (a network which straddled both steppe and farmer areas). Could this have been PIE? I think it may have been. As far as I am aware words for metals and metallugy in PIE are not all borrowed from another language. I think if this Maykop-driven CMP was non-IE it would show up in the metal vocab in PIE. HAs anyone looked into this?

alan
06-03-2013, 02:30 PM
This is an interesting page about IE. Some sort of record for superconcentrating so much into a short space!
http://www.suduva.com/virdainas/proto.htm

alan
06-04-2013, 04:32 PM
I did not realise there was a thread on this site that discusses the complex geography of Iran

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?706-Geography-of-Iran

newtoboard
06-04-2013, 07:15 PM
Wouldn't Maykop being PIE make J1, J2 and G2 the IE markers? Doesn't make sense to me.

alan
06-04-2013, 09:14 PM
Wouldn't Maykop being PIE make J1, J2 and G2 the IE markers? Doesn't make sense to me.

Problem is the area seems to have been a retreat zone for so many peoples from the south that I dont think its at all clear what order they arrived in or when. G2 for example seems to have once been positioned in such a way somewhere further west like the Levant and Anatolia to explain its movement into Europe with the first farmers. It may not have arrived in the Caucasus until considerably later. I still dont really feel sure where R1b was hiding pre-5-4000BC but it doesnt seem to really have established lines from the Neolithic that survived so that does not suggest it was in an early farming area like Mesopotamia, eastern Anatolia, Iraq, the Zagros, the Levant etc where farming took off thousands of years before that. I think it must have taken been located in an area to the north of this where farming was later or weaker. Obviously the steppe has a later takeup of full farming. However, there is also the area in between the early farming zone and the steppe i.e. parts of northern Iran and the Caucasus and central Asia where farming arrived on the late side.

alan
06-04-2013, 09:19 PM
Wouldn't Maykop being PIE make J1, J2 and G2 the IE markers? Doesn't make sense to me.

Maykop may not have been IE originally but its influence may have been absolutely crucial in creating PIE society as reconstructed.

TigerMW
06-05-2013, 01:38 AM
Wouldn't Maykop being PIE make J1, J2 and G2 the IE markers? Doesn't make sense to me.

Do we think we know what haplogroups were in the Maykops? That'd be great ancient DNA to have fully tested.

There are more than 50 ethnic groups living in the region (Caucasus).

This looks like one of the difficulties. How do we know which people today are descendants of the Maykops?

TigerMW
06-05-2013, 02:55 AM
Something that has puzzled me is that Maykop is generally not considered Indo-European. However, it is right on the southern edge of the Mallory/Anthony PIE homeland and it is on the northern side of the Renfrew/Gray/Atkinson PIE homeland. Being in between doesn't make it the homeland but this is close at least for horseshoes and hand grenades.
....
What is about Maykop that kicks it out of IE consideration?


...
I guess this takes us back to models of the PIE homeland. Lets say for simplicities sake that the steppe model is correct. Even if that is so the influence of Maykop on the steppes groups, the CMP metallurgy etc indicates to me that Maykop people were speaking to steppe peoples fairly extensively and some bilingual element had to exist for this to work. So one way or another I am convinced Maykop people spoke PIE even if it was a 2nd language. That said, I dont think the steppe PIE theory as currently presented is a completely done deal. The CMP was the big network in the period before and after the rise of Yamnaya but the driving force of CMP was Maykop. Metallugists have commented that the CMP is far far too specific in its aspects to have just been a spread of ideas and must have involved some people. These people must have spoken some sort of common language across this network (a network which straddled both steppe and farmer areas). Could this have been PIE? I think it may have been. As far as I am aware words for metals and metallugy in PIE are not all borrowed from another language. I think if this Maykop-driven CMP was non-IE it would show up in the metal vocab in PIE. HAs anyone looked into this?I think what Mallory meant is simply that Maykop always looked different from the steppe groups and some sort of exotic origin or at least element has long been suspected but never nailed down. He also was influenced by the presence of nonIE peoples in this area today. Its important to realise when it comes to Maykop there has been a lot of rethinking and re-dating of it in just the last few years so Anthony and Mallory wont have taken this into account. The realisation that Maykop, its CMP metallugy and its Kurgans are older than Yamnaya etc has ruled out some of the old north to south ideas about Kurgans etc and has shown the main flow of ideas and perhaps people was more south to north as far as Maykop's relations to Yamnaya and other steppe cultures is concerned. The detail of the origins of Maykop are clearly still being teased out although a strong element that relates to Iran, east Anatolia etc seems to be agreed even if the detail clearly isnt. I guess this takes us back to models of the PIE homeland. Lets say for simplicities sake that the steppe model is correct. Even if that is so the influence of Maykop on the steppes groups, the CMP metallurgy etc indicates to me that Maykop people were speaking to steppe peoples fairly extensively and some bilingual element had to exist for this to work. So one way or another I am convinced Maykop people spoke PIE even if it was a 2nd language. That said, I dont think the steppe PIE theory as currently presented is a completely done deal. The CMP was the big network in the period before and after the rise of Yamnaya but the driving force of CMP was Maykop. Metallugists have commented that the CMP is far far too specific in its aspects to have just been a spread of ideas and must have involved some people. These people must have spoken some sort of common language across this network (a network which straddled both steppe and farmer areas). Could this have been PIE? I think it may have been. As far as I am aware words for metals and metallugy in PIE are not all borrowed from another language. I think if this Maykop-driven CMP was non-IE it would show up in the metal vocab in PIE. HAs anyone looked into this?

Those are some interesting thoughts. It seems clear that Maykop was a leading influence on the steppes as evidenced by metallurgy and the kurgans themselves. It does seem a bit ironic, since we can still read that Maykop was "kurganized", but the Maykops had them first - they were Kurgan 0, so to speak.

The (Maykop) culture has been described as, at the very least, a "kurganized" local culture with strong ethnic and linguistic links to the descendants of the Proto-Indo-Europeans.

I've always focused on Mallory/Steppes versus Renfrew/Anatolia but I guess there is a third way that combines aspects of both. I've ignored it but I'm starting to see the value in it.

Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, whose views are somewhat controversial, suggest that the Maykop culture (or its ancestor) may have been a way-station for Indo-Europeans migrating from the South Caucasus and/or eastern Anatolia to a secondary Urheimat on the steppe. This would essentially place the Anatolian stock in Anatolia from the beginning, and at least in this instance, agrees with Colin Renfrew's Anatolian hypothesis...
However, most linguists and archaeologists consider this hypothesis highly unlikely, and prefer the Eurasian steppes as the genuine IE Urheimat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maykop_culture

I think a problem (genetically and linguistically) has always been that there are so many pockets of different historically known groups in the Caucasus that's hard to figure who (if any) might have ancestors there during the time of the Maykops and PIE. I can see why the steppes seem better for the PIE homeland, but there are some facets that had to be imported. As Alan pointed out, PIE has the word for "ore" and but they certainly didn't invent that out on the plains. The PIE steppes people don't even appear to have invented their namesake kurgans.... my, my.

Anatolian is considered pre-PIE in the strict sense, right? Perhaps somewhere (or where's) along from the North Caucasus to the Central Iranian Plateau an ancestral language or contributing language to PIE was spoken. I would never say that those were the only predecessor contributors to PIE, but they could have been significant.

TigerMW
06-05-2013, 03:09 AM
Having read through a number of papers on this subject, the main conclusions I have about the Iranian plateau are
....
4. The area was along with the Balkans a zone of early metallurgy and has incredible natural metal resources.

5. The end of the Neolithic anc copper age saw the farmers in this area become involved in metallurgy and become part of a wide interconnected network of trade and contact.

6. This area or adjacent might be the origin of Maykop and its advanced metallurgy - papers clearly state it was not at all connected with the Balkans group.

7. The position and time of the arrival of farming do seem a good match for the rise of the three main early R1b lineages and the geography also is rather good as it is more central to all three lineages distributions. Previous models placed M73 off on a limb whereas this would be a good central point for M269/L23, V88 and M73. Metallurgical networks sould have spread in several directions from this area - into the Caucasus/Maykop, Mesopotamia and into the steppes.
....

Alan, on item #6, does there seem to be much evidence that metallurgy in the Iranian Plateau was of the CMP (Cirmcumpontic Metallurgy Province) or was predecessor-like?

You earlier pointed out that Chris Thornton suggests that although there exist important synchronisms between the development of metallurgy in the Central Plateau and the Levant,
"there are also significant chronological and technological differences ... Iranian Plateau served as one of the early ‘heartlands’ of metallurgy"

On item #7 and the early branching of R1b, that reminds me of Vince Vizachero's simple geographic diagram which is maintained at the R1bxP297 project background screen.
http://vizachero.com/R1b1/R-Map.png

Rathna
06-05-2013, 09:19 AM
You know that I contrasted Vizachero’s ideas from when I began to write in the forums. Vizachero’s diagram aimed above all to link R-M269* and R-V88 to Middle East to explain the huge presence of these haplogroups amongst the Jewish pool and you know how the truth had to fight to spring up, in spite of the fact that already many years ago many papers published on peer reviews had demonstrated that R-M269* is practically absent on the Middle Eastern coasts and esteemed very unlikely that it were in the past. The fact that finally the “ht 35 FTDNA Project” has formed this new cluster where is all the Jewish R-M269* pool, with many Balkan people linked and above all with these 3 Sardinian SNPs (PF7558, PF7562, PF7563), could be another proof against that Vizachero’s diagram, and this is probably strengthened by the same discourse we may do (and I am doing from many years) about also R1b1*. Of course we are waiting for next developments and above all to understand who took the Y from whom.

DMXX
06-05-2013, 09:28 AM
The principle problem with much of the assertions made on various forums and literature is the presumption that certain languages originated in a particular place based on historical location.

One can only project historical data so far back before it enters the realm of speculation. We know various non-IE languages existed across the Near-East and Europe. Are we going to simply presume that, relative to Indo-European, they simply remained static as various splinters off the Indo-European urheimat took place? What necessitates such as presumption other than maintaining the relevance of potentially over-simplistic model?



I've always focused on Mallory/Steppes versus Renfrew/Anatolia but I guess there is a third way that combines aspects of both. I've ignored it but I'm starting to see the value in it.


This brings to mind a quote by Dr. Spencer Wells concerning the PC steppe vs. Anatolian urheimat:


"While we see substantial genetic and archaeological evidence for an Indo-European migration originating in the southern Russian steppes, there is little evidence for a similarly massive Indo-European migration from the Middle East to Europe. One possibility is that, as a much earlier migration (8,000 years old, as opposed to 4,000), the genetic signals carried by Indo-European-speaking farmers may simply have dispersed over the years. There is clearly some genetic evidence for migration from the Middle East, as Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues showed, but the signal is not strong enough for us to trace the distribution of Neolithic languages throughout the entirety of Indo-European-speaking Europe."


You know that I contrasted Vizachero’s ideas from when I began to write in the forums and very likely he was one of the responsible of my banishments. Vizachero’s diagram aimed above all to link R-M269* and R-V88 to Middle East to explain the huge presence of these haplogroups amongst the Jewish pool and you know how the truth had to fight to spring up, in spite of the fact that already many years ago many papers published on peer reviews had demonstrated that R-M269* is practically absent on the Middle Eastern coasts and esteemed very unlikely that it were in the past. The fact that finally the “ht 35 FTDNA Project” has formed this new cluster where is all the Jewish R-M269* pool, with many Balkan people linked and above all with these 3 Sardinian SNPs (PF7558, PF7562, PF7563), could be another proof against that Vizachero’s diagram, and this is probably strengthened by the same discourse we may do (and I am doing from many years) about also R1b1*. Of course we are waiting for next developments and above all to understand who took the Y from who.

Jewish populations in the Middle-East are not the only ones with R1b paragroups. They are an informative, diverse and interesting set of populations from a population genetics POV, but they're not particularly relevant in this context. Look anywhere across Turkey, Armenia, Iran and even Afghanistan to find examples of R1b-L23* for instance.

Rathna
06-05-2013, 10:26 AM
Jewish populations in the Middle-East are not the only ones with R1b paragroups. They are an informative, diverse and interesting set of populations from a population genetics POV, but they're not particularly relevant in this context. Look anywhere across Turkey, Armenia, Iran and even Afghanistan to find examples of R1b-L23* for instance.

I have written a lot about this, and my idea is that the Eastern R1b1 with YCAII=21-23 or 23-23 aren't the ancestors of the subclades but the Western European ones with YCAII=18-23 or 18-22 (found in Italy: Demao and Toniolo).

TigerMW
06-05-2013, 10:42 AM
You know that I contrasted Vizachero’s ideas from when I began to write in the forums and very likely he was one of the responsible persons of my banishments. Vizachero’s diagram aimed above all to link R-M269* and R-V88 to Middle East to explain the huge presence of these haplogroups amongst the Jewish pool and you know how the truth had to fight to spring up, in spite of the fact that already many years ago many papers published on peer reviews had demonstrated that R-M269* is practically absent on the Middle Eastern coasts and esteemed very unlikely that it were in the past. The fact that finally the “ht 35 FTDNA Project” has formed this new cluster where is all the Jewish R-M269* pool, with many Balkan people linked and above all with these 3 Sardinian SNPs (PF7558, PF7562, PF7563), could be another proof against that Vizachero’s diagram, and this is probably strengthened by the same discourse we may do (and I am doing from many years) about also R1b1*. Of course we are waiting for next developments and above all to understand who took the Y from whom.

[[[ Mikewww/Moderator on 06/06/2013: Rathna, disagreeing and arguing with Vizachero's diagram is fine but it is not right to impune his integrity with rumour and innuendo by saying "very likely he was one of the responsible persons of my banishments." At best case, your comment is a distraction from the topic. It is perfectly fine to disagree with Vizachero, but please use logic and evidence and stay on topic with the thread. ]]]

Rathna
06-05-2013, 01:21 PM
I have written a lot about this, and my idea is that the Eastern R1b1 with YCAII=21-23 or 23-23 aren't the ancestors of the subclades but the Western European ones with YCAII=18-23 or 18-22 (found in Italy: Demao and Toniolo).

Both R1b1* and R-M269* have in the R1b1 and in the ht 35 FTDNA Project a huge presence of Jews who belong the Western European clades (R1b1 with YCAII=18-23 and R-M269*/L150+/PF7558/PF7562/PF7563: if it is European or not we will see next as other samples will be tested). If someone thinks that they derive from a Middle Eastern pool, they may think that Middle East could be the origin of these haplogroups, but if we may demonstrate that their Y is introgressed from the European pool, the probability of an European origin becomes more reliable.
So far we haven’t found in Asia neither R-M420 (some samples in Iran probably came from the Russian Plane) nor R1b1/L388/L389 with YCAII=18-23 or 18-22.
This last sample of Raza, from Varanasi (India), demonstrates that this is an upstream subclade which hasn’t the mutation to R1b1* neither YSC0000224. The same for R-M269*: the Jewish cluster has the three Sardinian SNPs which aren’t present in the subclades. If we find this cluster in Europe and also the others, the possibility that Western Europe is at the origin of this haplogroup do increase.
As to R-L23, it is true that Western Asia have a huge presence of this haplogroup, but:
1) they are above all of Armenian origin and we should know where Armenians came from. They speak an IE language I think come from the Balkans
2) the Eastern R-L23-s are frequently L584+ (and also L277+) or have probably other mutations from Z2106 to Z2110 (already in the Balkans with the Italian Varipapa but of Arbereshe origin who is R-Z2110+). So far Western Europe is above all R-Z2105+ (like me) and no subclade. Of course we hope to find some R-L23* like some R-P297* to see where they were in the past and where the origin probably was.

TigerMW
06-05-2013, 01:24 PM
I have written a lot about this, and my idea is that the Eastern R1b1 with YCAII=21-23 or 23-23 aren't the ancestors of the subclades but the Western European ones with YCAII=18-23 or 18-22 (found in Italy: Demao and Toniolo).
I don't understand how that demonstrates what you are saying, but that area of discussion is more closely related to the "Rathna assessment of the early R1b subclades" so I'll ask you questions about this over on that thread.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?927-Rathna-s-assessment-on-the-early-branches-of-R1b

TigerMW
06-05-2013, 01:59 PM
....
This brings to mind a quote by Dr. Spencer Wells concerning the PC steppe vs. Anatolian urheimat:


"While we see substantial genetic and archaeological evidence for an Indo-European migration originating in the southern Russian steppes, there is little evidence for a similarly massive Indo-European migration from the Middle East to Europe. One possibility is that, as a much earlier migration (8,000 years old, as opposed to 4,000), the genetic signals carried by Indo-European-speaking farmers may simply have dispersed over the years. There is clearly some genetic evidence for migration from the Middle East, as Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues showed, but the signal is not strong enough for us to trace the distribution of Neolithic languages throughout the entirety of Indo-European-speaking Europe."

The geographies described as possible launch points and homelands are interwined and sometimes ambiguously defined.

I think the launch points for the Neolithic are considered to be in the Fertile Crescent. There are large parts of the Anatolian Peninsula and Transcaucasia that are not in the Fertile Crescent.

On the other hand, there appears to be some integration, influence and exchange between sides of the Black Sea. the Pontic Steppes, the Caucasus, Northern Anatolia, the Bosphorous and the eastern side of the Balkans/SE Europe. There probably was multiple languages spoken in these areas, I don't see why PIE wasn't among them before its broad dispersal. At some point this becomes a quibble over when and what was true PIE. PIE may be a pastoralist/nomadic language primarily but that does not mean outside influences like metallurgy, kurgans and farming were not part of the formation of PIE. If so, the boundaries of the full PIE homeland may not be hard lines on a map but grayish, patchy borders that could encompass more geography around the Black Sea.

newtoboard
06-05-2013, 02:31 PM
Do we think we know what haplogroups were in the Maykops? That'd be great ancient DNA to have fully tested.


This looks like one of the difficulties. How do we know which people today are descendants of the Maykops?


I just made a gues because R1a seems to be intrusive to the Caucasus and likely came from the steepe or Iran. And R1b in the cacusus is strongest in the South.

newtoboard
06-05-2013, 02:38 PM
Thwe bulk of Armenian ancestry likely doesn't come from the Balkans and wouldn't explain the Iranian/Assyrian/Ossetian/Azeri/Levantine/Kurdish/Georgian R1b anyways.

Silesian
06-05-2013, 02:51 PM
I just made a gues because R1a seems to be intrusive to the Caucasus and likely came from the steepe or Iran. And R1b in the cacusus is strongest in the South.

You can see this in the area being low in the B gene which is found in the Corded Ware region and to the East into India.


they are above all of Armenian origin and we should know where Armenians came from. They speak an IE language I think come from the Balkans

A.E Mourant on different markers [ABO]
^ Mourant AE, Kopec AC, Domaniewska-Sobczak K. The distribution of the human blood groups and others polymorphisms. London: Oxford University Press, 1976.


The marked contrast, with respect to most genes, between the Armenians and their neighbours, and the resemblance, especially in ABO frequencies, between them
and the Anatolian Turks and the Bulgarians, is in accord with what is known of their history. According to Kherumian the Armenians are mainly descended from Phrygian invaders who came from the Balkan region about the year 1200 B.C.





However, if we consider only the broad distribution of A in the world as a whole and disregard minor details, it becomes obvious that a high frequency of A is something especially European. The high A people may have come into Europe from the east in late prehistoric times, but if so, they do not appear to have left any extensive roots behind, for nowhere in Asia, except Anatolia and Armenia, do we find any large populations with A frequencies as high as in parts of Europe. In north Africa, which lies on another route for early man into western Europe, frequencies of A are notably low

alan
06-05-2013, 04:37 PM
There are no "Indo-European haplogroups"

Indo-European = Linguistic classification.

I tend to agree. Early language development is much more plastic than people realise. In the forming of PIE culture as reconstructed I would also make a distinction between language and culture formation. It is possible (although not certain) that PIE developed on the steppe but it is also true that PIE culture as reconstructed really did require influence of surrounding peoples in the Balkans and Caucasus etc to move first from hunters to farmer-hunter groups and then to the sort of hierachical society of later steppe groups like Yamnaya. It has only really been established in the last few years that Maykop and other groups to its south were earlier in terms of Kurgans etc than the steppes. The development on the steppes into hierachical groups using Kurgans seems to coincide with the arrival of the Maykop CMP type metalurgical knowledge in the western steppe and urals. I personally think it may have even triggered mobile pastoralism and that the control of metals and trade may have been a major driver in this. The timing is very suggestive of this. Prior to this steppe peoples were really passive recipients of Carpatho-Balkans metalwork arriving via Cucuteni-Trypole groups. It was only c. 3300BC that suddenly the south-west steppes gets Maykop (CMP) metal and then CMP type mining and local (pure copper) versions of CMP metalwork arrives at the Urals/Cargaly around the very time and are that Yamanaya appears (and the related eastern off-shoot Afansievo - which has been again re-dated to c. 3300BC). So, whether or not Maykop was originally IE speaking, it was vital in creating PIE society. Without its influence the steppes people may have remained non-hierachical hunter-farmers. It also seems virtually certain to me that Maykop people simply had to be able to speak to the steppe groups they were trading with and influencing and the language was surely PIE even if that was a 2nd language to Maykop people. Who knows for sure though? I do not think the steppes model is 100% certain.

alan
06-05-2013, 05:02 PM
Those are some interesting thoughts. It seems clear that Maykop was a leading influence on the steppes as evidenced by metallurgy and the kurgans themselves. It does seem a bit ironic, since we can still read that Maykop was "kurganized", but the Maykops had them first - they were Kurgan 0, so to speak.


I've always focused on Mallory/Steppes versus Renfrew/Anatolia but I guess there is a third way that combines aspects of both. I've ignored it but I'm starting to see the value in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maykop_culture

I think a problem (genetically and linguistically) has always been that there are so many pockets of different historically known groups in the Caucasus that's hard to figure who (if any) might have ancestors there during the time of the Maykops and PIE. I can see why the steppes seem better for the PIE homeland, but there are some facets that had to be imported. As Alan pointed out, PIE has the word for "ore" and but they certainly didn't invent that out on the plains. The PIE steppes people don't even appear to have invented their namesake kurgans.... my, my.

Anatolian is considered pre-PIE in the strict sense, right? Perhaps somewhere (or where's) along from the North Caucasus to the Central Iranian Plateau an ancestral language or contributing language to PIE was spoken. I would never say that those were the only predecessor contributors to PIE, but they could have been significant.

Mike - I certainly think the term Kurgan culture and PIE will need to be considered separately in light of the dating. Or at least it has to be accepted now that the Kurgan aspect of steppe society is almost certainly a Maykop influence on Yamnaya.

That is not to say some form of expansive steppe elements didnt exist before the Maykop influence. The major climatic downturn that drove Suvoravo west appears to pre-date Maykop and CMP influence. IF they really were pre-PIEs/Anatolian branch speakers then that would place pre-PIE groups on the steppes before Maykop/CMP influences but of course none of this can be proven. I must admit I am a little confused about this because Kurgans in the Caucasus have been shown to be pre-Yamnaya but did Suvoravo people not have some sort of small Kurgans?

I found this paper on the C-Tryp culture. Its not closely related to this but is indirectly

http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf38/38_29.pdf

newtoboard
06-05-2013, 05:33 PM
You can see this in the area being low in the B gene which is found in the Corded Ware region and to the East into India.



A.E Mourant on different markers [ABO]


I don't get this association. Of all the populations in Asia Armenians likely have less European admixture than most of them. Even in their region North Caucasians, North Iranians, Azeris, Kurds and Georgians have more European admixture.

The bulk of Armenian ancestry is not from the Balkans imo.

newtoboard
06-05-2013, 05:36 PM
And I thought the Kurgan theory placed the PIE homeland in the Russian forest steepe. The Samara culture would be more likely to be PIE than Yamanaya under that model then. This would also be in line with Jean's theories about R1a entering Europe via the Caspian.

Silesian
06-05-2013, 06:02 PM
I don't get this association. Of all the populations in Asia Armenians likely have less European admixture than most of them. Even in their region North Caucasians, North Iranians, Azeris, Kurds and Georgians have more European admixture.

The bulk of Armenian ancestry is not from the Balkans imo.

I don't know what European Admixture is. Perhaps you can define the snps which clearly show they are not from the Balkans[ like cDe]. For example if I go to a hospital and need a blood transfusion do I tell them my European admixture, or blood type? You have not addressed the scientific findings of A/B/O relationship found by A.E. Mourant published in 1976; which demonstrate a relationship with Balkans but as you say that is my imo.

alan
06-05-2013, 06:14 PM
Those are some interesting thoughts. It seems clear that Maykop was a leading influence on the steppes as evidenced by metallurgy and the kurgans themselves. It does seem a bit ironic, since we can still read that Maykop was "kurganized", but the Maykops had them first - they were Kurgan 0, so to speak.


I've always focused on Mallory/Steppes versus Renfrew/Anatolia but I guess there is a third way that combines aspects of both. I've ignored it but I'm starting to see the value in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maykop_culture

I think a problem (genetically and linguistically) has always been that there are so many pockets of different historically known groups in the Caucasus that's hard to figure who (if any) might have ancestors there during the time of the Maykops and PIE. I can see why the steppes seem better for the PIE homeland, but there are some facets that had to be imported. As Alan pointed out, PIE has the word for "ore" and but they certainly didn't invent that out on the plains. The PIE steppes people don't even appear to have invented their namesake kurgans.... my, my.

Anatolian is considered pre-PIE in the strict sense, right? Perhaps somewhere (or where's) along from the North Caucasus to the Central Iranian Plateau an ancestral language or contributing language to PIE was spoken. I would never say that those were the only predecessor contributors to PIE, but they could have been significant.

Mike I think the old 'first farmers' model of Renfrews original book of about 25 years ago has become a straw man for the steppe model to knock down. I pretty well now agree that PIE emerged in the circumpontic zone for want of a better vague term and that this probably was around 4000BC or so. In fact I think we need to show a little flexibility with that date as early diffusion of a new invention among already partially dispersed IEs who were still in contact may not be distinguishable from words that actually were present during an initial dispersion of IEs. I wouldnt stretch that point too far but there must have been a fairly substantial period when most IEs had not formed strongly defined dialects and still spoke something close to PIE and the spread of a word from one IE group to the other would be hard to distinguish from PIE pre-dispersal time. How long that period was I dont think anyone knows but you would have to think quite a few centuries. Also in some areas wheels actually spread before any suspected steppe/IE cultures arrived in the area i.e. late TRB while other steppe groups like Suvorovo may have spread out of the steppes before the wheel existed. I wouldnt stretch that arguement back far enough to go back to a first-farmers type model but I wouldnt rule out stretching the PIE back into the pre-wheel era. BTW, I imagine the wheel is yet another thing that only arrived on the steppe as a result of Maykop/CMP contacts. Without it one of the major planks of steppe lifestyle could not develop. So, even if the root language of some sort of Anatolia or pre-Anatolian type branch was on the steppes originally, so much of what we think of as PIE society owes something to the influences of Maykop or Maykop as an intermediary - Kurgans, metallurgy, wheels (mobility) etc that they have to be seen as a major shareholder in the creation of PIE society regardless of their language.

newtoboard
06-05-2013, 06:19 PM
I don't know what European Admixture is. Perhaps you can define the snps which clearly show they are not from the Balkans[ like cDe]. For example if I go to a hospital and need a blood transfusion do I tell them my European admixture, or blood type? You have not addressed the scientific findings of A/B/O relationship found by A.E. Mourant published in 1976; which demonstrate a relationship with Balkans but as you say that is my imo.


Could you prove that this extra A frequency has anything to do with coming from the Balkans? I'm saying I don't find any value in using blood type frequencies to assign a Balkan origin to Armenians. Their autosomal and ydna is typical of West Asians. The populations they are closest to are Assyrians, Azeris, Georgians and Iranians. Do you have any plots where they cluster in the Balkans? All the links say that their lingustic ancestors are from the Balkans. By this logic Indians should cluster with Poles. And the B frequency supports this relationship with Poland right?

Does having more A blood type actually mean anything with regards to autosomal admixture?

Silesian
06-05-2013, 06:31 PM
Could you prove that this extra A frequency has anything to do with coming from the Balkans? I'm saying I don't find any value in using blood type frequencies to assign a Balkan origin to Armenians. Their autosomal and ydna is typical of West Asians. The populations they are closest to are Assyrians, Azeris, Georgians and Iranians. Do you have any plots where they cluster in the Balkans? All the links say that their lingustic ancestors are from the Balkans. By this logic Indians should cluster with Poles. And the B frequency supports this relationship with Poland right?

Yes it's your worst nightmare, because it is such a simple marker it cannot be manipulated un-llike autosomal admixture which depending on what assumptions you make can grossly effect the results one way or another, I have witnessed this with Tomatoes. Yes Poles do share B with Indians; and the Saami have the least B and the most A2. Showing the whole Corded Ware region with elevated B while the Caucasus the opposite is true.


Does having more A blood type actually mean anything with regards to autosomal admixture?

Yes it is a component in admixture.

[[[ Mikewww/Moderator on 6/5/2013: It appears like we are going deeper into the sub-topic of blood types and autosomal DNA. If you want to go deeper into that, please go over to the "Correlation of R1b with ..... DNA" thread where all of these kinds of things are discussed:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?803-Correlation-of-R1b-with-mt-DNA-H-autosomal-DNA
If you can directly relate back to the Maykop/Mesopotamia discussion let's be sure to relate back to that. ]]]

alan
06-05-2013, 07:38 PM
Alan, on item #6, does there seem to be much evidence that metallurgy in the Iranian Plateau was of the CMP (Cirmcumpontic Metallurgy Province) or was predecessor-like?

You earlier pointed out that Chris Thornton suggests that although there exist important synchronisms between the development of metallurgy in the Central Plateau and the Levant,

On item #7 and the early branching of R1b, that reminds me of Vince Vizachero's simple geographic diagram which is maintained at the R1bxP297 project background screen.
http://vizachero.com/R1b1/R-Map.png

I suppose some sort of model involving north Iran in the roots of Maykop would require adjustment. I suppose as well we need to take into account the sort of date c. 4000BC give or take a few centuries depending on how one looks at it. That date does rather nicely fit the sort of takeoff of the three main lineages. What does seem clear is a trade network was established that included north Iran, parts of Mesopotamia and the Levant and extended into the steppe via Maykop. This network seems to be touched on by the recent German paper and this kind of thing has already been touched on in papers by Chernynkh and Amzallag and several others although clearly the details changes with new data and the analysis of this is in a major state of flux (usually a good thing) and there is much disagreement. Despite that I think the general concept of the CMP remains valid and it is to be noted that it does extend to take in the Levant etc.

If I had to link R1b with this, I would start off with the assumption that the P297 and probably the P297 negative clades were located somewhere in the circumpontic zone c. 5000BC. I would suggest that it was not in the area of rapid early farming take off in the Levant, Mesopotamia or Anatolia though based on its lack of Neolithic branching or presence in European Neolithic remains. That would tend me to think it reached those places from somewhere in the north or east of that zone. The new data sees the steppes as the reciever not donator of most inovations in the period 5000-4000BC. The flow seems to be being redefined as a south to north thing based on new work and dating. So, I would think if R1b was linked to the earliest phases of the CMP we need to look to areas like north-west Iran perhaps with movement spreading out from there along the networks to the Caucasus, Anatolia, the Balkans and the steppes. Its complicated though because although the three R1b megaclades would seem to have taken off in the same broad time period, M269 and M73 were by then perhaps 3-4000 years from their common early Neolithic P297 ancestor while both of them didnt share a common ancestor with V88 since the Palaeolithic. So could all the R1b clades have remained in the same area until 5000BC or so despite this? I think its possible given the similar timeframe of the take off of the three mega-clades regardless of the large depth of time to their common ancestor. Ignoring some of Amazallag's findings but looking at his maps does show the basic trade network and it is interesting to speculate that R1b followed this with some clades going one way and others another way. Northern Iran is a fairly good centrepoint for three clades. Perhaps V88 followed the links south to Mesopotamia and the Levant along with a minortiy of M269, L23* etc while most L23* went into the Maykop and adjacent areas. Perhap M73 headed east of the Caspian into central Asia using the Silk Road or it maybe was simply a lineage that headed for the Urals from the Caucasus headed east from the Urals. It all seems reasonably plausible if there was some sort of R1b refugium in the south Caspian.

Alternatively it is possible that the three R1b megaclades or rather their ancestral lineages were already widely separated. They had many thousands of years of separation to do that, especially V88 whose common ancestor with the P297 lineages was before the Younger Dryas. Still, I do not see evidence for significant take off of any of these lineages before 5000BC so is it realistic to place any of them in the early farming zone?

Finally as I have commented a few times, there is also the arid spells centred on 6200BC and 3900BC that could have caused lineage termination and displacement from any dry areas and could have led to the three megaclade pattern we see today. The latter even was especially bad.

Of course this could be completely wrong about R1b associations with any of this but we have to speculate.

alan
06-05-2013, 11:49 PM
This is a nice pretty up to date summary of the history of copper working with a good bibliography

http://armchairprehistory.com/2010/07/07/a-primer-on-old-world-metals-before-the-copper-age/

alan
06-06-2013, 10:10 AM
This is a nice pretty up to date summary of the history of Eurasian copper working with a good bibliography

http://armchairprehistory.com/2010/07/07/a-primer-on-old-world-metals-before-the-copper-age/

This gives a handy summary of copper and bronze techology in iran

http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/30478/InTech-Bronze_in_archaeology_a_review_of_the_archaeometal lurgy_of_bronze_in_ancient_iran.pdf

I see Amzallag tried to rebutt the rebuttal of his work by Thornton!

http://www.ajaonline.org/sites/default/files/AJA1142Amzallag.pdf

Here is a paper suggesting Afansievo has an eastern origin (but with rebuttals after it by Anthony etc)

http://jsarf.free.fr/anthropology/663692.pdf

TigerMW
06-06-2013, 12:32 PM
This is a nice pretty up to date summary of the history of copper working with a good bibliography

http://armchairprehistory.com/2010/07/07/a-primer-on-old-world-metals-before-the-copper-age/

I think that the development and transfer of the smelting process is critical, which a key point Amzallag has been making. The skills/knowledge go with advances in the processing of the metals, not necessarily mine locations. The productive and advantageous use of metals depends on the advancement of processing the ores.

In "Armchair History" Pegler says,
"The smelting of copper has long been assumed to have started in one place, either in Turkey, Iran or Iraq. ... Of course, the history of technology is always only as old as the oldest evidence found so far. The people of the Balkans may have, for all sorts of reasons, buried their copper when people in the Middle East didn’t. However, there seems to be a peak in Balkan cultures during the early fifth millennium which is not matched by the cultures of either Anatolia or Iran. Indeed, some comment on the decline in Anatolian cultures during the fifth millennium. ... Whatever, it is important to test if Anatolia really could have been the first to smelt copper."

I find it interesting that
1) the conventional wisdom has been Turkey, Iran or Irag (eastern points) led in the smelting of copper.
2) the smelting in the Balkans advanced in the 5th millenium BC while Anatolia declined.
3) then according to Amzallag, this reversed in the 4th millenium BC as the Circum-Pontic Metallurgy Province (CMP) advanced and the Carpatho-Balkans (CBMP) declined.

I wonder what happened? Were there climate changes that would have affected this? Or is the CMP that advanced over the CBMP?


P.S. I'm going to start using quotes ("), italics and the INDENT in brackets function when quoting articles and papers, the DMXX does. This way the quotes are carried forward in future replies if desired and it is clear what is a blogger reply versus a quote from an authoritative source. Also please note that I add emphasis in bold frequently to highlight an excerpt but that does not mean the original author intended that. So please note that my default is all emboldening is added by me unless I say the original author did it.

Jean M
06-06-2013, 01:11 PM
I wonder what happened? Were there climate changes that would have affected this? Or is the CMP that advanced over the CBMP?


It seems to have been mainly climate change that caused the cultural and population crash in the Balkans. If you have a copy of David Anthony, The Horse, The Wheel and Language by you, he covers that topic pretty well.

Jean M
06-06-2013, 01:23 PM
I find it interesting that .. the conventional wisdom has been Turkey, Iran or Iraq (eastern points) led in the smelting of copper.


Actually eastern Turkey/Iraq is central within the spread of early copper smelting. Since the technology is found simultaneously as far apart as south-eastern Iran and eastern Serbia, the logical deduction is that it was invented at one point somewhere between and was rapidly carried east and west. As I say in my brief introduction to the topic online: http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/metal.shtml


Where did copper smelting start? Bewilderingly, the technique crops up at around 5,000 BC in places far from the cradle of the Neolithic, but equally blessed with seams of copper ore. Early copper smelting sites have been found at Tal-i Iblis in south-eastern Iran and at Belovode in eastern Serbia. Given the difficulty of acquiring the technology, and its arrival in multiple places at roughly the same time, it seems likely that the knowledge of copper-working was passed on within a family or clan. We may picture them initially trading the worked objects that appear quite widely, and then members of the clan perhaps settling in societies wealthy enough to support specialists. The home of smelting was probably in Anatolia, where copper had already been exploited for so long. But in Iran copper alloys were gradually developed. The Zagros Mountains are rich in mineral resources, so metal-workers could mix copper with arsenic or iron to harden it. The technique of making arsenical copper bronze spread to the copper-rich Caucasus by 3,700 BC. True bronze (a copper-tin alloy) did not appear until around 3000 BC.

461

Jean M
06-06-2013, 01:34 PM
So if we assume for the sake of argument that I'm right that R1b sprang up somewhere in Iran, it seems possible that M73 arrived on the steppe with metal-workers via Maykop/Maikop. That would be one explanation for its more easterly spread than its brother branch. But this can only be speculation.

alan
06-06-2013, 02:34 PM
I think we can see from the flurry of papers and disagreements just how specialist and in flux the whole metallurgy, Makop etc area is. I think though even when a paper may be wrong it often had a lot of background info that helps increase understanding.

BTW I hope its OK for me to post potentially interesting papers as I find them becoming available on the web. If this is annoying anyone or not what the mods think should be occupying the site space let me know. I would rather post the papers because often they are so specialised usually that I think its better people make their own minds up rather than take my steering too much. Noone is an expert on everything, everywhere, every period so when dabbling in middle eastern Neolithic or whatever it is way outside my comfort zone! It seems to me that there has been a real explosion in archaeological papers being availble on the web in the last year. Maybe that is an illusion but seems that way to me. I wonder if Thornton will rebut the rebuttal of his rebuttal of Amzallag :0) They better not run into each other in a bar after a few too many ales lol

alan
06-06-2013, 03:10 PM
So if we assume for the sake of argument that I'm right that R1b sprang up somewhere in Iran, it seems possible that M73 arrived on the steppe with metal-workers via Maykop/Maikop. That would be one explanation for its more easterly spread than its brother branch. But this can only be speculation.

Its definately a reasonable option. What about the Iran end of the Silk Road heading east? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Transasia_trade_routes_1stC_CE_gr2.png

Could in the copper/bronze age routss towards China have had two groups trying to dominate them - an L23*/M73* rich group commecing along the southern route from Iran etc and an R1a-rich group commencing at the Urals then both converging further east round Bactria. It could explain somewhething of the R1b/R1a patterns in Asia. I am not sure if there is any good evidence of this. The paper I posted on the possible multiple origins of steep pastoralism that discussed alternatives for Afanasievo looked interesting (although it looked well rebutted by Anthony). Is the book Prehistory of the Silk Road worth buying? I think you once said you bought it. A small sample only is available on google books http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5FzANyya1BEC&pg=PR7&lpg=PR7&dq=prehistory+of+the+silk+road&source=bl&ots=s18wLGt72q&sig=iUWcXgvRTLdCkgUL6wKwKiwPe2E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1aGwUdDtLMaSOOXqgfgN&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBA

TigerMW
06-06-2013, 03:16 PM
...
BTW I hope its OK for me to post potentially interesting papers as I find them becoming available on the web. ...
I enjoy them and am glad someone is digging into this stuff with a bit of background in the whole field. I'm glad you are L21+ and have the general interest in R1b as well. Thank you.

We probably just need to be sure we post new information in the right threads or create new threads as appropriate.

newtoboard
06-06-2013, 03:22 PM
I think we can see from the flurry of papers and disagreements just how specialist and in flux the whole metallurgy, Makop etc area is. I think though even when a paper may be wrong it often had a lot of background info that helps increase understanding.

BTW I hope its OK for me to post potentially interesting papers as I find them becoming available on the web. If this is annoying anyone or not what the mods think should be occupying the site space let me know. I would rather post the papers because often they are so specialised usually that I think its better people make their own minds up rather than take my steering too much. Noone is an expert on everything, everywhere, every period so when dabbling in middle eastern Neolithic or whatever it is way outside my comfort zone! It seems to me that there has been a real explosion in archaeological papers being availble on the web in the last year. Maybe that is an illusion but seems that way to me. I wonder if Thornton will rebut the rebuttal of his rebuttal of Amzallag :0) They better not run into each other in a bar after a few too many ales lol

The information is good. Too much work on Anatolia and the steepes and not enough about Central Asia, Iran and the Caucasus.

Silesian
06-06-2013, 04:32 PM
Why is it my worst nightmare?

As per request of Mod carried over to

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?803-Correlation-of-R1b-with-mt-DNA-H-autosomal-DNA

alan
06-06-2013, 04:51 PM
The paper I posted above 'Multiregional Emergence of Mobile Pastoralism and Nonuniform Institutional Complexity across Eurasia' by Michael Frachetti which suggests a non-western steppe origin for Afanasievo (suggesting a link with the mountains of inner Asia) seems to be pretty well demolished in the rebuttal by Anthony and others at the end of the paper. There is a pretty horrible band of desert land separating these mountains and the steppe. I learned a bit about the geography of this zone reading this paper however.

The metallurgy and trade si a totally different issue but it is interesting though that Franchetti quotes Chernynkh as saying Afansievo didnt have CMP metallurgy. That contradicts other papers I have read that treat it as an offshoot of CMP which Anthony appears to support.

alan
06-06-2013, 05:06 PM
The information is good. Too much work on Anatolia and the steepes and not enough about Central Asia, Iran and the Caucasus.


Well hopefully a few of the papers are helping sort that imbalance. There seems to be a lot of papers touching on Iran out there on the web. The main things lacking are actual BOOKS in English giving overviews.

Jean M
06-06-2013, 05:21 PM
Its definitely a reasonable option. What about the Iran end of the Silk Road heading east?


That's a better idea in some ways, but not others. The puzzle for me was the lack of it in India and Iran. But being comparatively rare makes it more difficult to track.


an L23*/M73* rich group

But L23* (in fact almost all is Z2105) and M73 have completely different distributions. M73 goes east on the steppe along with R1a1a. Z2105 is western, only ending up in Iran with Armenians and others from further west.

alan
06-06-2013, 05:32 PM
Having had a small dabble in the whole aspect of the inner Asian mountains, Silk Road etc it still seems a lot easier to see R1b's overall early clade distribution as pointing to an origin somewhere in the circumpontic zone (generously defined as including north Iran, Caucasus, the Pontic steppes, Anatolia and SE Europe. Dabbling much east of that area when looking at where R1b was 'hiding' before 5000BC just does not convince IMO. There is a major desert barrier east of the Caspian and south and east of that the inner Asian mountains seem not R1b (more R1a) associated. It just makes we think again that the two P297 superclades originated somewhere not far from the Black Sea. I would be very surprised if the term circumpontic didnt cover it.

I am less sure about V88 as its link with the other two is incredibly distant (Palaeoilithic) according to interclades and phylogeny. There is no real reason for expecting that lineage to be near to the P297 ones after that depth of time and major climate upheavals.

rms2
06-06-2013, 05:51 PM
Having had a small dabble in the whole aspect of the inner Asian mountains, Silk Road etc it still seems a lot easier to see R1b's overall early clade distribution as pointing to an origin somewhere in the circumpontic zone (generously defined as including north Iran, Caucasus, the Pontic steppes, Anatolia and SE Europe. Dabbling much east of that area when looking at where R1b was 'hiding' before 5000BC just does not convince IMO. There is a major desert barrier east of the Caspian and south and east of that the inner Asian mountains seem not R1b (more R1a) associated. It just makes we think again that the two P297 superclades originated somewhere not far from the Black Sea. I would be very surprised if the term circumpontic didnt cover it.

I am less sure about V88 as its link with the other two is incredibly distant (Palaeoilithic) according to interclades and phylogeny. There is no real reason for expecting that lineage to be near to the P297 ones after that depth of time and major climate upheavals.

I wonder at the prevalence of the Eurasian lactase persistence SNP C/T13910 among the V88 Fulani of Mali: 37%, which is exceptional for Africa.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21235777

Apparently the V88 (which is a lot of cylinders! ;)) already carried the LP gene when they made the trek from Asia to Africa.

alan
06-06-2013, 06:23 PM
I wonder at the prevalence of the Eurasian lactase persistence SNP C/T13910 among the V88 Fulani of Mali: 37%, which is exceptional for Africa.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21235777

Apparently the V88 (which is a lot of cylinders! ;)) already carried the LP gene when they made the trek from Asia to Africa.

I know he isnt a source everyone is always happy with but Anatole made an interesting observation that African V88 is far younger than V88 as a whole. He also said that African V88 STRs are similar to the African-specific V69 clade. His conclusion that V88 in Africa was a fairly late intrusion of a subset of V88 seems to make sense to me. I think be dated V88 as a whole to about 5000BC but African V88 more like 2500BC (or in that ballpark).

alan
06-06-2013, 07:27 PM
That's a better idea in some ways, but not others. The puzzle for me was the lack of it in India and Iran. But being comparatively rare makes it more difficult to track.



But L23* (in fact almost all is Z2105) and M73 have completely different distributions. M73 goes east on the steppe along with R1a1a. Z2105 is western, only ending up in Iran with Armenians and others from further west.

My geography is a bit challenged in the area! Bashkirs around the Urals are interesting though with having high L23XL51 and M73.

What do you think of the issue that the Ukraine steppe population (Tatars) were very systematically removed and replaced until a portion returned very recently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatars

They were moved into more marginal land further east. I suspected that any obviously non-eastern yDNA in that displaced population could be about as good a picture of the population of the Ukraine steppes before about 200 years ago or so. They would have to be from the Crimean Khanate which included the Ukraine steppes rather than Tatars from anywhere in order to use this method of looking at what the pre-Tatar population was like. Unfortunately what I found was a mix of Tatars from all over (so not necessarily telling us much about the substrate in the Ukraine steppes) but I must say I was absolutely amazed at the Tatar yDNA in general

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Tatarstan/default.aspx?section=yresults

Incredibly diverse and and not too much looks like it originated in the ultimate far east homeland. Not much R1b though but as I said its really just Crimea Khanate Tatars that is needed. What it does seems to show is the hunch that the Tatars have hoovered up a lot of originally non-Tatar blood was spectacularly correct. I am pretty stunned by the amount of European and SW Asian yDNA that appears to be there.

razyn
06-06-2013, 07:50 PM
I wonder at the prevalence of the Eurasian lactase persistence SNP C/T13910 among the V88 Fulani of Mali

I was just reading about apparent cheese-making with cow's milk that was (I think) earlier than lactase persistence. Anyway, I ran across it here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121212134044.htm

The link to that was posted in another thread here by Historyofthings.

newtoboard
06-06-2013, 08:02 PM
My geography is a bit challenged in the area! Bashkirs around the Urals are interesting though with having high L23XL51 and M73.

What do you think of the issue that the Ukraine steppe population (Tatars) were very systematically removed and replaced until a portion returned very recently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatars

They were moved into more marginal land further east. I suspected that any obviously non-eastern yDNA in that displaced population could be about as good a picture of the population of the Ukraine steppes before about 200 years ago or so. They would have to be from the Crimean Khanate which included the Ukraine steppes rather than Tatars from anywhere in order to use this method of looking at what the pre-Tatar population was like. Unfortunately what I found was a mix of Tatars from all over (so not necessarily telling us much about the substrate in the Ukraine steppes) but I must say I was absolutely amazed at the Tatar yDNA in general

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Tatarstan/default.aspx?section=yresults

Incredibly diverse and and not too much looks like it originated in the ultimate far east homeland. Not much R1b though but as I said its really just Crimea Khanate Tatars that is needed. What it does seems to show is the hunch that the Tatars have hoovered up a lot of originally non-Tatar blood was spectacularly correct. I am pretty stunned by the amount of European and SW Asian yDNA that appears to be there.

I think its been mentioned that most of the Bashkir R1b is a U152 clade which seems to be a recent and foreign introduction to their gene pool that has underwent a founder effect.

alan
06-06-2013, 08:48 PM
I think its been mentioned that most of the Bashkir R1b is a U152 clade which seems to be a recent and foreign introduction to their gene pool that has underwent a founder effect.

U152 is only a small bit of Bashkir R1b DNA. They have a lot of L23* and M73. They even have a bit of M269*. It varies from area to area among the Bashkirs but they seem to have an awful lot of R1b. I have no idea why but I suspect its got something to do with the Urals and groups interested in the mines there. Their lands included the old Kargaly copper age mine and I wonder if they absorbed some lineages associated with this who were there long before the Bashkirs. The Tatars on the other hand seem to have an incredible variety of yDNA, really incredible like they generally absorbed the ordinary populations rather than drove them out. Apparently most Tatars do look Caucasian. What I am really interested in is where did the Tatars pick up all these European and SW Asian type lineages?

TigerMW
06-06-2013, 10:28 PM
... I see Amzallag tried to rebutt the rebuttal of his work by Thornton!
http://www.ajaonline.org/sites/default/files/AJA1142Amzallag.pdf


This one is quite fun, if you like a good argument. ... the rebuttal to the rebuttal. It's almost like we had the "Empire Strikes Back" and now Amzallag is the "Return of the Jeddi".

I'm beginning to really like Amzallag. At first, after reading Roberts, Thornton, etc. I thought Amzallag might have gone off the deep end a bit. However, he gets right into the logic and data behind his thinking. It's not a bunch hearsay and bloviating, but has some sharpness that one can chuckle at.

In "Return to the Dark Ages?", Amzallag says,
three fundamental principles of the synthetic theory:
(1) the external heating of crucible,
(2) the incompatiability between crucible and furnace smelting, and
(3) the central importance of Canaan in the emergence of furnace metallurgy.

In "Vistas of a Distant Past", Jean M says,
Where did copper smelting start? Bewilderingly, the technique crops up at around 5,000 BC in places far from the cradle of the Neolithic, but equally blessed with seams of copper ore. Early copper smelting sites have been found at Tal-i Iblis in south-eastern Iran and at Belovode in eastern Serbia. Given the difficulty of acquiring the technology, and its arrival in multiple places at roughly the same time, it seems likely that the knowledge of copper-working was passed on within a family or clan. We may picture them initially trading the worked objects that appear quite widely, and then members of the clan perhaps settling in societies wealthy enough to support specialists. The home of smelting was probably in Anatolia, where copper had already been exploited for so long. But in Iran copper alloys were gradually developed. The Zagros Mountains are rich in mineral resources, so metal-workers could mix copper with arsenic or iron to harden it. The technique of making arsenical copper bronze spread to the copper-rich Caucasus by 3,700 BC. True bronze (a copper-tin alloy) did not appear until around 3000 BC.

I don't know know about Amzallag's third point about the central importance of the Southern Levant, but he I think he is really on to something about differentiating smelting technologies and furnace smelting looks to be an important advance.

After reading Amzallag, Roberts, Thorton and the other papers, I am becoming convinced that
1) Eastern Anatolia, the Levant and Iran are the primary candidates for the establishment of the new copper metallurgies (not the Carpathians or Balkans) that would
2) become integral to the CMP (Circumpontic Metallurgy Province), and the
3) Maykops became leading purveyors of the CMP and the
3) CMP is the predecessor to the metallurgy that became a component of the new Pan-European networks.

I don't know if the Yamnaya that received CMP from the Maykops and then were the primary link in moving it across Europe or if there were multiple cultural groups who received CMP and moved it westward. Of course, it may not have required a lot of people movement in the process.

alan
06-06-2013, 11:46 PM
This is one quite fun, if you like a good argument. ... the rebuttal to the rebuttal. It's almost like we had the "Empire Strikes Back" and now Amzallag is the "Return of the Jeddi".

I'm beginning to really like Amzallag. At first, after reading Roberts, Thornton, etc. I thought Amzallag might have gone off the deep end a bit. However, he gets right into the logic and data behind his thinking. It's not a bunch hearsay and bloviating, but has some sharpness that one can chuckle at.

In "Return to the Dark Ages?", Amzallag says,
three fundamental principles of the synthetic theory:
(1) the external heating of crucible,
(2) the incompatiability between crucible and furnace smelting, and
(3) the central importance of Canaan in the emergence of furnace metallurgy.

In "Vistas of a Distant Past", Jean M says,
Where did copper smelting start? Bewilderingly, the technique crops up at around 5,000 BC in places far from the cradle of the Neolithic, but equally blessed with seams of copper ore. Early copper smelting sites have been found at Tal-i Iblis in south-eastern Iran and at Belovode in eastern Serbia. Given the difficulty of acquiring the technology, and its arrival in multiple places at roughly the same time, it seems likely that the knowledge of copper-working was passed on within a family or clan. We may picture them initially trading the worked objects that appear quite widely, and then members of the clan perhaps settling in societies wealthy enough to support specialists. The home of smelting was probably in Anatolia, where copper had already been exploited for so long. But in Iran copper alloys were gradually developed. The Zagros Mountains are rich in mineral resources, so metal-workers could mix copper with arsenic or iron to harden it. The technique of making arsenical copper bronze spread to the copper-rich Caucasus by 3,700 BC. True bronze (a copper-tin alloy) did not appear until around 3000 BC.

I don't know know about Amzallag's third point about the central importance of the Southern Levant, but he I think he is really on to something about differentiating smelting technologies and furnace smelting looks to be an important advance.

After reading Amzallag, Roberts, Thorton and the other papers, I am becoming convinced that
1) Eastern Anatolia, the Levant and Iran are the primary candidates for the establishment of the new copper metallurgies (not the Carpathians or Balkans) that would
2) become integral to the CMP (Circumpontic Metallurgy Province), and the
3) Maykops became leading purveyors of the CMP and the
3) CMP is the predecessor to the metallurgy that a component of the new Pan-European networks.

I don't know if the Yamnaya that received CMP from the Maykops and then were the primary link in moving it across Europe or if there were multiple cultural groups who received CMP and moved it westward. Of course, it may not have required a lot of people movement in the process.

Yes I have read enough now into this subject (of which I knew very little a year ago) to feel confident that the CMP was totally unconnected to Carpatho-Balkans provence. One was not the offshoot of the other. Maybe they both aquired knowledge of copper further back from some source in Anatolia but they are clearly separate. The only connection I see between them is that the CMP starts to form at the very time the Carpatho-Balkans network goes into sharp decline. The CMP groups probably took advantage of that or filled the vacuum.

Interestingly thoough the Carpatho-Balkans group during its period of power had never had any influence on the likely CMP core zone in the Caucasus/NW Iran/north Mesopotamia zone. Its penetration eastwards seems to have been north-east into the Cuc-Tryp area and via them weakly east into the western steppe zone where there was no native metallurgy. It network never did a further southern thrust from the steppes through the Caucasus or a direct marine connection from the Balkans across the Black Sea in that direction. I suppose that market may have been sewn up alread or maybe we shouldnt overestimate the marine networks of the time - the Black Sea is huge from east to west. The south shore of the Black Sea is mostly very steep with mountains rising from the sea and not ideal for trade ports. I suspect (as with the later Greeks) there could have been trading posts (even farming enclaves) from the Balkans on the north Black Sea shore but almost all of that has dissapeared under the Black Sea except the high land in the Crimea.

alan
06-07-2013, 12:40 AM
This is one quite fun, if you like a good argument. ... the rebuttal to the rebuttal. It's almost like we had the "Empire Strikes Back" and now Amzallag is the "Return of the Jeddi".

I'm beginning to really like Amzallag. At first, after reading Roberts, Thornton, etc. I thought Amzallag might have gone off the deep end a bit. However, he gets right into the logic and data behind his thinking. It's not a bunch hearsay and bloviating, but has some sharpness that one can chuckle at.

In "Return to the Dark Ages?", Amzallag says,
three fundamental principles of the synthetic theory:
(1) the external heating of crucible,
(2) the incompatiability between crucible and furnace smelting, and
(3) the central importance of Canaan in the emergence of furnace metallurgy.

In "Vistas of a Distant Past", Jean M says,
Where did copper smelting start? Bewilderingly, the technique crops up at around 5,000 BC in places far from the cradle of the Neolithic, but equally blessed with seams of copper ore. Early copper smelting sites have been found at Tal-i Iblis in south-eastern Iran and at Belovode in eastern Serbia. Given the difficulty of acquiring the technology, and its arrival in multiple places at roughly the same time, it seems likely that the knowledge of copper-working was passed on within a family or clan. We may picture them initially trading the worked objects that appear quite widely, and then members of the clan perhaps settling in societies wealthy enough to support specialists. The home of smelting was probably in Anatolia, where copper had already been exploited for so long. But in Iran copper alloys were gradually developed. The Zagros Mountains are rich in mineral resources, so metal-workers could mix copper with arsenic or iron to harden it. The technique of making arsenical copper bronze spread to the copper-rich Caucasus by 3,700 BC. True bronze (a copper-tin alloy) did not appear until around 3000 BC.

I don't know know about Amzallag's third point about the central importance of the Southern Levant, but he I think he is really on to something about differentiating smelting technologies and furnace smelting looks to be an important advance.

After reading Amzallag, Roberts, Thorton and the other papers, I am becoming convinced that
1) Eastern Anatolia, the Levant and Iran are the primary candidates for the establishment of the new copper metallurgies (not the Carpathians or Balkans) that would
2) become integral to the CMP (Circumpontic Metallurgy Province), and the
3) Maykops became leading purveyors of the CMP and the
3) CMP is the predecessor to the metallurgy that a component of the new Pan-European networks.

I don't know if the Yamnaya that received CMP from the Maykops and then were the primary link in moving it across Europe or if there were multiple cultural groups who received CMP and moved it westward. Of course, it may not have required a lot of people movement in the process.

I have to say Amzallag really did give as good as he got. There is a 'Childe-ish' and contradictory aspect to the criticism of his work.

Jean M
06-07-2013, 09:09 AM
There is a 'Childe-ish' and contradictory aspect to the criticism of his work.

How is Childe contradictory on the topic of the origins of metallurgy? He was the first to talk in terms of a single, Near Eastern, origin for metallurgy in the Old World being most likely, because of the complexity of the technology, and the wandering metallurgist spreading the technology.

This concept did not suit anti-migrationist philosophy and was dropped from the 1970s onwards in favour of multiple origins. Renfrew argued for the independent origin of bronze-making in Greece. That was highly unlikely as it has no copper or tin, and is now disproved. The technology came from Troy. Similarly there have been arguments in favour of independent origin in Iberia and the Balkans, neither of which make sense. The technology arrived there fully-formed. There is no evidence of experimentation. Ben Roberts of the British Museum, in collaboration in some cases with other experts in metallurgy, has gone in to bat for a return to Childean logic in paper after paper in recent years. I'd put my money on them, rather than efforts by local archaeologists to prove the vital importance of their own national turf. I tend to look on all the latter with a jaundiced eye. ;)

alan
06-07-2013, 02:13 PM
How is Childe contradictory on the topic of the origins of metallurgy? He was the first to talk in terms of a single, Near Eastern, origin for metallurgy in the Old World being most likely, because of the complexity of the technology, and the wandering metallurgist spreading the technology.

This concept did not suit anti-migrationist philosophy and was dropped from the 1970s onwards in favour of multiple origins. Renfrew argued for the independent origin of bronze-making in Greece. That was highly unlikely as it has no copper or tin, and is now disproved. The technology came from Troy. Similarly there have been arguments in favour of independent origin in Iberia and the Balkans, neither of which make sense. The technology arrived there fully-formed. There is no evidence of experimentation. Ben Roberts of the British Museum, in collaboration in some cases with other experts in metallurgy, has gone in to bat for a return to Childean logic in paper after paper in recent years. I'd put my money on them, rather than efforts by local archaeologists to prove the vital importance of their own national turf. I tend to look on all the latter with a jaundiced eye. ;)

I was only using Childe-ish as a pun. In fact both sides of this debate have diffusionist aspects to their overall views. I dont know who is right and they probably both are in different aspects. It was fair enough though for Amzallag to point out weaknesses or contraditions in their rebuttal when they had done the same to him. Its very specialist and as I said its very sensative to overturning by a single site. Personally I doubt the Levant was the origin of the use of furnaces for copper working but that is just a hunch. I agree about suspicions when people attach importance to their own people. That is of course horribly rife in this hobby too.

Childe is actually an archaeological hero to me. Whether he was right or wrong on some things (he had a lot less data to work with) doesnt detract from what an incredible mind he had and how he made archaeology fascinating and tacked the big picture stuff head on. He is up there with Mallory as the two archaeologists whose books really got me interested in archaeology through the big questions of prehistory.

alan
06-07-2013, 07:31 PM
I think I have looked into the idea of R1b originating in some sort of Iran-east Anatolia-Caucasus sort of angle to death now. While its interesting and cannot be ruled out I think the lack of any archaeological evidence for a move from that area to the L23*/M269* areas in the Balkans via Anatolia c. 4000BC or so means that this looks like a dead end. This is in sharp contrast to the mountain of evidence for moves at that very period into the Balkans from the steppe and Bronze Age moves of Balkan Anatolian and other Balkans IE groups into Anatolia, the Caucasus and adjacent. No mater what detail is looked into this fact is not going away. It far easier to see a steppe-Balkans-Anatolia-Caucasus etc sequence than to reverse that. I think I have been overinfluenced by the high Anatolian variance and that could simply be down to Anatolia having featured a variety of potentially L23* rich groups (with some M269*) with suggested origins in the Balkans - Luwians, Hittites, Armenians, Greeks, Phrygians etc. So, I feel like I have tried to test the alternative to a fairly detailed degree and havent convinced myself.

newtoboard
06-07-2013, 07:47 PM
I think I have looked into the idea of R1b originating in some sort of Iran-east Anatolia-Caucasus sort of angle to death now. While its interesting and cannot be ruled out I think the lack of any archaeological evidence for a move from that area to the L23*/M269* areas in the Balkans via Anatolia c. 4000BC or so means that this looks like a dead end. This is in sharp contrast to the mountain of evidence for moves at that very period into the Balkans from the steppe and Bronze Age moves of Balkan Anatolian and other Balkans IE groups into Anatolia, the Caucasus and adjacent. No mater what detail is looked into this fact is not going away. It far easier to see a steppe-Balkans-Anatolia-Caucasus etc sequence than to reverse that. I think I have been overinfluenced by the high Anatolian variance and that could simply be down to Anatolia having featured a variety of potentially L23* rich groups (with some M269*) with suggested origins in the Balkans - Luwians, Hittites, Armenians, Greeks, Phrygians etc. So, I feel like I have tried to test the alternative to a fairly detailed degree and havent convinced myself.

None of those movements explains R1b among Assyrians and Iranians. Both of those groups have historically dominated Armenians and other Anatolian IE speakers not the other way around so I find it hard to believe that this R1b among them is from the Balkans.

alan
06-08-2013, 12:13 AM
None of those movements explains R1b among Assyrians and Iranians. Both of those groups have historically dominated Armenians and other Anatolian IE speakers not the other way around so I find it hard to believe that this R1b among them is from the Balkans.

The problem I see with L23* in the Anatolia/north Mesopotamia/Caucasus/NW Iran is it looks geographical rather than ethnic so its impossible to understand how it is spread over so many ethnicities. I notice in Iran its largely located in tje NW corner where the people have a very complex history indeed of multiple layers. One thing I wouldnt rule out is L23* or M269* originating on the western steppes and passing both west into the Balkans and south through the Caucasus. A lot depends on the mix among Maykop. It may well have been a mix of western steppe and SW Asians. It had a link with Iran and Uruk so some sort of geneflow is possible. I understand though that contrary to some maps the variance is not high in the Caucasus which would perhaps go against that connection. Believe me I have tried very very hard to look at an origin from south of the steppes but it doesnt really link very well in terms of suggested date and known archaeological cultures with the Balkans group which does have high variance around Romania/Bulgaria. There is also high variance in the steppe although small numbers. What cannot be ruled out totally is that there was a complex almost full circle anticlockwise movement from the Caucasus/NW Iran into the steppes with Maykop, then absorbed into steppe groups wjo then brought it back west with steppe groups to the Balkans before entering back through Anatolia as far as the Caucasus etc with Hittites, Armenians etc. Its not impossible although it does seem very complex. Its the ultimate circumpontic model. It seems far fetched but a steppe model that brings IEs from the steppes to the east Balkans before entering Anatolia and the Caucasus is actually a mainstream one for Hittites, Armenians etc and its nearly as compex although not quite completing the circumpontic circle. However, I see no evidence for R1b entering Europe from Anatolia in the correct timeframe. Wherever it initially existed I think L23* and M269* passed into Europe from the steppes to the east Balkans originally.

newtoboard
06-08-2013, 02:19 PM
The problem I see with L23* in the Anatolia/north Mesopotamia/Caucasus/NW Iran is it looks geographical rather than ethnic so its impossible to understand how it is spread over so many ethnicities. I notice in Iran its largely located in tje NW corner where the people have a very complex history indeed of multiple layers. One thing I wouldnt rule out is L23* or M269* originating on the western steppes and passing both west into the Balkans and south through the Caucasus. A lot depends on the mix among Maykop. It may well have been a mix of western steppe and SW Asians. It had a link with Iran and Uruk so some sort of geneflow is possible. I understand though that contrary to some maps the variance is not high in the Caucasus which would perhaps go against that connection. Believe me I have tried very very hard to look at an origin from south of the steppes but it doesnt really link very well in terms of suggested date and known archaeological cultures with the Balkans group which does have high variance around Romania/Bulgaria. There is also high variance in the steppe although small numbers. What cannot be ruled out totally is that there was a complex almost full circle anticlockwise movement from the Caucasus/NW Iran into the steppes with Maykop, then absorbed into steppe groups wjo then brought it back west with steppe groups to the Balkans before entering back through Anatolia as far as the Caucasus etc with Hittites, Armenians etc. Its not impossible although it does seem very complex. Its the ultimate circumpontic model. It seems far fetched but a steppe model that brings IEs from the steppes to the east Balkans before entering Anatolia and the Caucasus is actually a mainstream one for Hittites, Armenians etc and its nearly as compex although not quite completing the circumpontic circle. However, I see no evidence for R1b entering Europe from Anatolia in the correct timeframe. Wherever it initially existed I think L23* and M269* passed into Europe from the steppes to the east Balkans originally.


I believe the Lurs also have some L23*(correct me if I'm wrong this) and they occupy the SW corner of Iran. I wasn't ruling out anything from the Balkans. I just think if there was a movement from the Balkans like you proposed it had very little to do with the movement of Balkans people. A R1b refuguim in the SW Caspian and a movement to the Balkans maybe followed by a back migration?

Silesian
06-08-2013, 03:03 PM
The problem I see with L23* in the Anatolia/north Mesopotamia/Caucasus/NW Iran........ Balkans group which does have high variance around Romania/Bulgaria. There is also high variance in the steppe although small numbers.


As for the distribution of haplogroup R1b-L23 (xM412), it is frequent in the north-western area of the country, whereas its incidence rapidly declines southwards from Lorestan. Differently, higher levels of heterogeneity are revealed in entrance or transit areas such as, for example, those observed in the populations living around the Caspian Sea, a situation that could be ascribed to population movements from and to Europe.

Interesting this would fit in with A.E Mourants work.


The overall scenario seems to indicate an autochthonous non-homogeneous ancient Y-chromosome gene pool, mainly composed by J2a sub-clades that was further shaped and enriched by the arrival of different populations during and after the Neolithic period. Western Eurasian contribution (mainly represented by R1b-L23, and at a lesser extent, by haplogroup sub-lineages I-M423 and J2-M241) is frequent in North-West Iran;

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041252

Viola Grugni also worked on the Romanian/Bulgarian/ Circum-ponitc L23x51 samples.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0056779

alan
06-08-2013, 03:24 PM
I believe the Lurs also have some L23*(correct me if I'm wrong this) and they occupy the SW corner of Iran. I wasn't ruling out anything from the Balkans. I just think if there was a movement from the Balkans like you proposed it had very little to do with the movement of Balkans people. A R1b refuguim in the SW Caspian and a movement to the Balkans maybe followed by a back migration?

Anything is possible. I do think though R1b was not in any sort of very productive farming area capable of growing a population in the Neolithic judging by its very poor performance pre-4 or 5000BC anywhere. It was also not swept into Europe in the Neolithic according to ancient DNA. So, I think that makes a position in Mesopotamia, Levant and Anatolia unlikely. G is common in Neolithic Europe of both LBK and Cardial cultures and is also common in the Caucasus suggesting it was once common in Neolithic north Mesopotamia and east Anatolia. I feel there is indirect evidence that north Mesopotamia was G dominated in the Neolithic and that R1b was either north or east of that. I would also rule out a lot of Iran (although not all) because the Neolithic was very early in some of Iran including the Zagros. East of Iran seems very unlikley to me with those huge deserts and mountains of inner Asia (and lack of R1b). That doesnt leave a lot of scope for a south-of-steppes origin for R1b except perhaps in areas of the Caucasus that were not in the farming zone until late. Maykop is complex and its not clear how much of a steppe-farmer hybrid it was. For all we know it was maybe heavily influences from Iran and Uruk but was essentially run by a native group or a mix of both. R1b could have been a native group there I suppose. As A last through of the dice for R1b outside the steppes I will look into the Caucasus Neolithic. I think the main thing is R1b doesnt look like a Neolithic migrant to the Caucasus from Mesopotamia or Anatolia. If it was it would have expanded 2 or 3000 years earlier in those areas before reaching the Caucasus. If on the other hand there were Neolithic cultures that appear to have arisen from local Caucasus hunterers adopting farming rather late c. 4 or 5000BC then that would be a more plausible match for the date and branching structure (or lack of it) of M269, L23 etc. I have found a paper on the subject. Its rather old and focussed on the southern Caucasus but its a start and I will dig about to find more up to date stuff.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=e1PNO7urjHQC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=Neolithic+Caucasus&source=bl&ots=Y-EsHTdlXm&sig=8x1scD2q1xKX5ZvpTIj3SN20p94&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mEOzUfeBD8jF0QWenIG4BQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Neolithic%20Caucasus&f=false

alan
06-08-2013, 04:39 PM
I have to say that the case for R1b to have passed through the Caucasus is not good based on this old map.

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/caucasus-y-chromosomes.png

And its also clear that we cannot blame R1a for the lack of R1b in the north Caucasus as its R1a is also rare. In fact the overall patter in the Caucasus seems to be that R1a and R1b often seem to have a good or bad representation in the same areas almost like there was a mixed R1a/R1b group. So it could be argued the north Caucasus represents a break in the not-quite circumpontic distirbution of elevated L23*/M269 that runs from at least Moldova through the Balkans and to the south Caucasus. The drop off seems to correspond with the Russian border but interestingly on this map it seems that the phenomenon applies to non-Russian groups.

That suggests to me that the throught the Caucasus idea (either direction) has problems and the real connection runs from the south Caucasus through Anatolia and into non-steppe eastern Europe. We have also seen before in a number of calculations that the Caucasus is lower in variance for L23* than Anatolia, the east Balkans and the steppes. That being the case it looks to me that a steppe-SE Europe-Anatolia-Caucasus or a SE Europe to the steppes and Anatolia then Caucasus from Anatolia route is more likely. Essentially in the sort of period we are talking about -the Bronze Age there is a lack of any evidence for an Anatolia-the other areas but there is plenty of suggestions of movement into Anatolia and Caucasus by IE peoples. Its interesting that M269* does well in both the Balkans and Armenians which is the suggested origin and destination of Armenians by many scholars. The peak of M269* and L23* in the Balkans is now in the west but the Albanians, Kosovars, Greeks etc there are thought to have come from further east in the Balkans as do Hittites, Armenians etc who are now in Anatolia and the Caucasus. It just seems to me that the first fall of M269* and L23* in non-steppe Europe looks likely to have been the eastern Balkans, perhaps around the Danube mouth. The lack of the P297 branch of R1b doing much before M269* and M73* would fit better if it had been in a non-farming area prior to c. 4000BC. If it had been in the the very successful Balkans Neolithic before that it would surely have branched 2000 years or more earlier.

MJost
06-08-2013, 04:50 PM
Interesting this would fit in with A.E Mourants work.



http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041252

Viola Grugni also worked on the Romanian/Bulgarian/ Circum-ponitc L23x51 samples.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0056779

What is the affect of 5% L23's when the statement is made: "On the whole, in light of the most recent historical studies, which indicate a substantial proto-Bulgarian input to the contemporary Bulgarian people, our data suggest that a common paternal ancestry between the proto-Bulgarians and the Altaic and Central Asian Turkic-speaking populations either did not exist or was negligible"

MJost

DMXX
06-08-2013, 05:21 PM
I have to say that the case for R1b to have passed through the Caucasus is not good based on this old map.

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/caucasus-y-chromosomes.png


That diagram is from a Nasidze et al. study which showed >10% of Iranian Y-Chromosomes from Tehran belonged to Haplogroup I. Earlier studies did not reflect this result and later ones with thousands more samples showed the frequency of Y-DNA I in Iran barely exceeds 1%. If that is anything to go by, I am uncertain how reliable the rest of their data is.

newtoboard
06-08-2013, 06:14 PM
That diagram is from a Nasidze et al. study which showed >10% of Iranian Y-Chromosomes from Tehran belonged to Haplogroup I. Earlier studies did not reflect this result and later ones with thousands more samples showed the frequency of Y-DNA I in Iran barely exceeds 1%. If that is anything to go by, I am uncertain how reliable the rest of their data is.

They were pretty much all G right? Really bad source.

I'm also not understanding the logic of invoking Hitties and Armenians coming from the Balkans in this thread. There is no evidence they were R1b carriers and likely had multiple haplogroups anyways if they carried R1b. Plus there is no evidence that the majority Anatolians and Armenian ancestry is derived from these people who were probably a really small minority that got absorbed into the native gene pool of these regions. I think the frequency of Armenian R1b vs other lineages typical of the Balkans in Armenians speaks to the point that the majority of Armenian R1b isn't from the Balkans.

alan
06-09-2013, 01:28 AM
They were pretty much all G right? Really bad source.

I'm also not understanding the logic of invoking Hitties and Armenians coming from the Balkans in this thread. There is no evidence they were R1b carriers and likely had multiple haplogroups anyways if they carried R1b. Plus there is no evidence that the majority Anatolians and Armenian ancestry is derived from these people who were probably a really small minority that got absorbed into the native gene pool of these regions. I think the frequency of Armenian R1b vs other lineages typical of the Balkans in Armenians speaks to the point that the majority of Armenian R1b isn't from the Balkans.

Problem is that almost all the IE peoples of Anatolia and the Caucasus were said by early historians to came from the Balkans while none are said to have gone the other way. There is always some doubt about ancient historians ideas of earlier times but the pattern of Balkans to Anatolia origins suggested by them for Armenians, Greeks, Phyrgians, Hittites, Luwians etc is almost absolute with absolutely nothing suggested for the other direction. All of these peoples are suggested to have come from the same general area where L23* is elevated and/or of high variance. That just seems far to much of a coincidence. Also R1b looks absent in Neolithic Europe and has a structure and clade ages that seem to confirm it was doing very little before 4000BC. The period commencing then is one where the big story was the death of Old Europe and the appearance of steppe peoples in the Balkans. There is no known flow of cultures coming from Anatolia at this time. Indeed the Old Balkans cultures which were more Anatolia-connected were starting to collapse at the time R1b was apparently appearing in the area and taking off.

Andrew Lancaster
06-09-2013, 04:30 AM
One thing to be cautious about in this line of reasoning is reliance upon frequency as a sign of a place of origins.

For example, if we find a mountainous region with many languages and many haplotypes, we will tend to think it might preserve some ancient diversity. By definition such a place will not have the same high frequency groups which dispersed in outside areas very successfully. But that does not mean that those high frequency groups were not from such a low frequency area.

Another issue, especially with Y DNA, is that very successful haplogroups wipe each other out in large areas. In the Middle East and Caucasus one apparently relatively recent example is J1. Who knows how much R1 was in the areas where J1 is now most common.

alan
06-09-2013, 01:57 PM
This fairly new paper is interesting in terms of R1b in Iran

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041252

1. The very rare root R-M343* has a better representation than normal in Iran. It rises to a spectacular 4.3% among the ethnic Pesians of Yazd a little north of centre and and 3.2 among Azeri of Azerbaijan in the north-west. It also shows among the Gilaks of Gilan in the extreme north, the Persians of Khorasan in the north-east and the Kurds of Kurdestan in the north-west in lower numbers. That is very much a northern distribution - a very distinctive pattern. The ethnicities - Persians, Kurds, Azeri and Gilaks all seem to be Iranian speakers. I am going to make a thread on this in the early clades section too.

2. M269* is only known at noise livels of 0.50-2% in Iran except among Zoroastrians of Tehran who have 15.4%. Wiki says Prophet Zoroaster and his first followers have been the proto-Indo-Iranians that lived between the Bronze Age and Iron Age (est. 1400-1200BC).[ I suppose they may have preserved lineages of pre-Islamic Iran.

3. L23* in incredibly variable but is high among IE Armenians, Iranian speaking Gilaks of Gilan in northern Iran, Iranian speaking (but with other substrates) Lurs of Lorestan as well as the non IE Assyrians and Afro-Iranians of Hormozgan. That is a complex and confusing mix of original languages but IE languages predominate.

It is very low among Turkic Turkmen of Golistan in the extreme north-east, the Afro-Iranian Bandari of Hormozgan in the extreme south of Iran, Arabs of Khuzestan in the extreme south-west, Persians of Khorasan in the north-east, Iranian speaking Mazandani of Mazandan on the Caspian and the Zoroasterians of Yadz just north of centre (and Tehran). Its a mixed bag but it is noticable that the non-IE Turkic, Arabic and Afro-Iranians are in this list although it does included some Iranian speaking areas too. Overall I think there is a moderate but singificant pattern that L23* is in general more lacking in non-IE groups and less common among non-IE ones but history has been complex in this area.

newtoboard
06-09-2013, 02:36 PM
Problem is that almost all the IE peoples of Anatolia and the Caucasus were said by early historians to came from the Balkans while none are said to have gone the other way. There is always some doubt about ancient historians ideas of earlier times but the pattern of Balkans to Anatolia origins suggested by them for Armenians, Greeks, Phyrgians, Hittites, Luwians etc is almost absolute with absolutely nothing suggested for the other direction. All of these peoples are suggested to have come from the same general area where L23* is elevated and/or of high variance. That just seems far to much of a coincidence. Also R1b looks absent in Neolithic Europe and has a structure and clade ages that seem to confirm it was doing very little before 4000BC. The period commencing then is one where the big story was the death of Old Europe and the appearance of steppe peoples in the Balkans. There is no known flow of cultures coming from Anatolia at this time. Indeed the Old Balkans cultures which were more Anatolia-connected were starting to collapse at the time R1b was apparently appearing in the area and taking off.

Which IE people of the Caucasus? Besides Armenians the majority of IE languages spoken in the Caucasus were Indo-Iranian (Cimmerian, Alanic, Scythian from the North followed by Kurdish, Tat, Judeo-Tat and Talysh from the South).

So these R1b proto Armenians and Hitties from the Balkans contributed more to the NW Iranian gene pool than the R1a Indo-Iranians? Like I said it would explain some amount of Armenian and Anatolian R1b. Try again with explaining the Assyrian, Ossetian, Georgian, Iranian, Azeri and Kurdish R1b. These people were historically dominated by Iranians and Assyrians and not the other way around. Gene flow especially on the Y-DNA was likely the other way around. Just because there were known migrations doesn't mean anything unless you can prove that they brought R1b. If you think the steepes are a good source of R1b whey couldn't R1b have been a fellow traveler through Central Asia by that logic? And why don't Armenians have other typical Balkan lineages at high frequencies?

alan
06-09-2013, 05:10 PM
Which IE people of the Caucasus? Besides Armenians the majority of IE languages spoken in the Caucasus were Indo-Iranian (Cimmerian, Alanic, Scythian from the North followed by Kurdish, Tat, Judeo-Tat and Talysh from the South).

So these R1b proto Armenians and Hitties from the Balkans contributed more to the NW Iranian gene pool than the R1a Indo-Iranians? Like I said it would explain some amount of Armenian and Anatolian R1b. Try again with explaining the Assyrian, Ossetian, Georgian, Iranian, Azeri and Kurdish R1b. These people were historically dominated by Iranians and Assyrians and not the other way around. Gene flow especially on the Y-DNA was likely the other way around. Just because there were known migrations doesn't mean anything unless you can prove that they brought R1b. If you think the steepes are a good source of R1b whey couldn't R1b have been a fellow traveler through Central Asia by that logic? And why don't Armenians have other typical Balkan lineages at high frequencies?

What I am saying is that I do not believe the steppic groups were R1b-free, including Iranian speakers. I have suggested that M269 may have originated on the steppe and had its main landfall into the farming zone in the east Balkans around 4000-3000BC. I am not ruling out that some went in another direction from the western steppes and passed through the Caucasus or down the Caspian with Iranian intrusions. I dont believe Iranic speakers or any steppe group was all R1a. Royal houses and clans may have been a single line but not entire populations. Look at a later example. Tatars whose ultimate origins were in the far east absorbed enormous amounts of an amazing variety of western steppe and SW Asian y lines by the time the reached the end of the western steppes. The Tataristan (not sure if I spelled that correctly) project shows the Tatars were unbelievable yDNA magpies and there was far more west Eurasian yDNA than far eastern among them. There is no reason to believe that IE steppe groups before them were not too. In fact the Tatars of the steppes indirectly show that the population they absorbed as they passed along the steppe was by no means some sort of pure R1a population. R1a was a significant chunk but totally outnumbered by the non-R1a lineages. They indirectly show that the R1a domination of areas like Ukraine and Volga steppe today is as much a result of Slavic penetration into the actual steppes in the last 300 years as it is of what was there in the deep past. History has not recorded many population displacements as systematic and thorough as that of the Tatar Ukrainian steppe groups from the former Crimea Khanate. As I have said, although they were speaking an Asiatic language the yDNA was extremely ecclectic and had a huge component of SW Asian and eastern European DNA. In fact I understand the Tatars on the whole looked Caucasoid rather than Asiatic despite their ultimate roots in the far east. Such was the absorption of other groups. Again I emphasis that these non-Asiatic groups absorbed by the Tatars consist of a huge variety with R1a just one element. I think the Kurgans may be fooling us. They probably represent the graves of elite lineages. If everyone on the steppes had been buried in a Kurgan there would be millions of them.

As for Armenians not having other Balkans y lines or autosomal DNA, perhaps this was really just the transfer of L23* elite lineages of warriors etc. They may have imposed their language but simply dominated largely L23* locals. I think the combination of a lineage well known in the Balkans, a language linked to other Balkans groups and Greeks but lack of European autosomal dna fits a male directed modest population movement followed by elite dominance and language change model well.

Humanist
06-09-2013, 06:00 PM
[B]ut history has been complex in this area.

That is certainly something to keep in mind.

alan
06-09-2013, 11:18 PM
This old article appears to make what seems most likely to be R1b much higher in the north Turkic speaking (lowlands) of Daghestan among the Nogai and Kumik people than in other (largely highland and Caucasian speaking) parts of that country. Its a very striking pattern that cannot be chance.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2156-9-47.pdf

I wonder what this means? It is interesting that where the native Caucasian languages weaken relative to Turkic that R1b would seem likely to greatly increase (I am assuming its not R2). I am not a believer in the crazy fringe theory that R1b was originally Turkic. Nevertheless it is interesting if it absorbed R1b on its travels west. It is indirect evidence of R1b in the steppe in pre-Turkic times.

alan
06-10-2013, 12:43 AM
this recent study of the caucasus

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/1/359.full.pdf+html

included the following yDNA table 3

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/suppl/2011/09/02/msr221.DC1/msr221supp_tables_corr.pdf

This showed elevated M269 clades (undefined) among the Bagvalals (Dagestan Caucasian speakers), Kumyks (north Dagestan Caspian Sea Turkic speakers),Tabasarans (Dagestan Caucasian speakers), Kuban Nogays (Black Sea Russia Turkic speakers), Lezgins (Caucasian speakers near the Caspian on the Dagestan-Azerbaijan border) and Armenians (IE speakers). Sample shows that R1b is low among Georgians.


M73 only looks significant among Kara (Dagestan) Nogays, the Balkars of the Russia (Russian-Georgian border area just NW of Osseta) and to a lesser degree Karachays (also of the Russia near the Black Sea end of the border with Georgia), all being Turkic speakers. At least there is some consistency there that it is northern and Turkic associated. However, M73 and M269 coalece around 8000BC so this must have been absorbed by the Turks in this area or (more likely IMO) picked up on the steppes and swept along by the Turks as they moved west as it does appear in a few Turkic populations.

I notice the Turkic Nogays/Nogais are odd in that the Kuban ones have lots of M269 and no M73 while the Kara ones are the reverse of that.

The main geographical pattern I can see is that M269 apart from Armenia actually is far stronger in the northern part of the Caucasus within or butting the Russian border between the north Caspian and NE Black Sea and weakest in Georgia

alan
06-10-2013, 01:42 AM
Mind bendingly unclear !!

ADW_1981
06-10-2013, 02:38 AM
I just made a gues because R1a seems to be intrusive to the Caucasus and likely came from the steepe or Iran. And R1b in the cacusus is strongest in the South.

Your point about R1b is not correct. J2a, G2a, and J1 are common in the south. R1b and R1a are common in the north. The former three groups line up at least with Trans-Caucasian farming groups who spread north over a period of several thousands of years with the spread of agriculture.

alan
06-10-2013, 03:03 AM
Your point about R1b is not correct. J2a, G2a, and J1 are common in the south. R1b and R1a are common in the north. The former three groups line up at least with Trans-Caucasian farming groups who spread north over a period of several thousands of years with the spread of agriculture.

I have just finished an ongoing update to my post just above and concluded the exact same thing. R1b is far stronger in the northern part of the Caucasus in south Russia and Dagestan than it is in the south. To add to the detail, the other article I posted above on Dagestan showed that R1b is far stronger in its northern half.

Armenia is an exception to this rule. Georgia would seem to have very little R1b in this study. I am very glad I took the time to look at the table, work out who the peoples are, where these areas are etc. It took a couple of hours but once I finished, the pattern is very clear. Clear in terms of geography anyway but very very unclear in terms of ethnicity and language with its Caucasian-Turkic-IE mix. Iran also has this northern concentration too. It seems to me there is a band of higher L23* running diagonally from a little south of the NE corner of the Black Sea to the south shore of the Caspian in Iran. This actually has closed another part of the gap in the circumpontic distribution of L23 and means it is essentially almost only the Ukraine steppes than spoils a complete loop from south Russia at the Caucasus through Anatolia, through the Balkans and round to the Moldova-Ukraine border. As I have commented before this remaining gap corresponds exactly to the Ukraine steppe where one of the most ruthless and thorough clearances of an existing (Tatar) population took in history took place over the last 3 centuries so its worthless for population study. My feeling is that L23 had a truly circumpontic area of elevated frequency at one stage but 3000 years or so of population movement has wiped this out.

alan
06-10-2013, 03:15 AM
Your point about R1b is not correct. J2a, G2a, and J1 are common in the south. R1b and R1a are common in the north. The former three groups line up at least with Trans-Caucasian farming groups who spread north over a period of several thousands of years with the spread of agriculture.

The M269 distibution in the Caucasus really is important. Given the landscape etc it is suggestive to me that M269 might have arrived in the Caucasus from both the north and the west, perhaps at different times. That in turn would support an original location of M269 in the western steppes before spilling both west into the Balkans (and Anatolia/Armenia from there) and also heading into the the Caucasus direct from the western steppes. Alternatively there is an almost unbelievably good match for the elevated L23 areas of the Caucasus (other than Armenia) and Maykop.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/Maykop_culture-en.svg/400px-Maykop_culture-en.svg.png

If I drew a map of the elevated R1b area of the Caucasus (excluding Armenia) it would look virtually identical to the Maykop map at an incredible level of detail This all proves that L23 in the Caucasus, like Maykop, was in the north Caucasus piedmont with no barrier between it and the steppes. Seems like too much of a coincidence. Its just too identical.

alan
06-10-2013, 03:34 AM
You know this is the first time I think I really think this works. Here is what could be the story:

1. R1b regugium in Caspian area.

2. R1b is on the edge of farming expansion and doesnt join in until late Neolithic-either based in Caucasus area or north Iran. The lack of take off of P297 R1b prior to the rise of M269 and M73 c. 4 or 5 thousand BC would make it very likely it was based in a late farming arival area like the Caucasus or similar area of north Iran rather than to the south. The people involved are either local Caucasus-steppe interface farmers, migrants from north Iran or a blend of both.

3. Maykop copper age wonder culture starts c. 4000BC in the north Caucasus. It is linked to by network to northern Iran and also Uruk to the south (this could explain both L23 Assyrians and the suggested IE Eurphratic aspect in Sumerian). Everything would point to M269/L23 being involved and probably M73 too. The Maykop people may have been bilingual located as they are (were?) on an interface between Caucasian and PIE due to their position at the northern piedmont of the Caucasus and facing the steppes. They may even have needed to know a bit of Sumerian too.

4. Maykop is highly influencial on the western steppe peoples introducing developed metallurgy, the idea of Kurgans, social complexity and possibly even things like the wheel etc that were crucial for mobility. M269 and M73 becomes a part of the steppe population c. 3500BC.

5. c. 4000-3000BC various maves of steppes peoples arrive in the Balkans. Some of these include M269 and L23.

6. Over time L23 steppe elements move up from the Lower Danube to the Alps giving birth to L51 around Austria.

7. Other L23 elements in the Balkans head into Anatolia and the southern Caucasus in waves in the Bronze Age -Hittites, Greeks, Amenians, Phyrigians etc. This essentially completes the circle of the Black Sea that L23 had carried out. This model has the circle being completed at the Caucasus. This could explain why Armenian variance is not that high while steppe, east Balkan and Anatolian is higher.

8. It is possible that some of the groups of Maykop/CMP people more set in from the steppes were more Caucasian speaking. It is not impossible that the wave of new apparenty CMP derived copper working that swepped as far as Italy by 3400BC and Iberia by 3000BC could have included elements in the Vanguard who had left when the Maykop-steppe cultue interaction was barely starting and could have been primarily NE Caucasian speakers. That could potentially explain why some see a Basque-Caucasian linguistic link.

The full circle of the Black Sea idea has been coming to me for a few weeks but for the first time I think it really does beautifully fit the evidence.

alan
06-10-2013, 04:27 PM
I decided to look at the groups that have very low R1b in the north Caucasus to see if it in anyway contrasts with the groups with higher R1b in the same area.

Mountain Jew, ingush, dargins Chamalals chechens, abazins, to be continued

alan
06-11-2013, 10:26 AM
I have started reading the recent German paper on Maykop by Ivanova

http://www.academia.edu/2543571/Kaukasus_und_Orient_Die_Entstehung_des_Maikop-_Phanomens_im_4._Jt._v._Chr

by copying and pasting it a bit of a time through google translator. It painstaikng and the translation is only partial but its worth it. its very convincing so far. Very thorough.

alan
06-11-2013, 08:55 PM
I have started reading the recent German paper on Maykop by Ivanova

http://www.academia.edu/2543571/Kaukasus_und_Orient_Die_Entstehung_des_Maikop-_Phanomens_im_4._Jt._v._Chr

by copying and pasting it a bit of a time through google translator. It painstaikng and the translation is only partial but its worth it. its very convincing so far. Very thorough.

It does make a strong case for a north Iran-Maykop connection. Its hard to know if this is related to M269 in the Caucasus or not but it provides another angle. Maykop could have included Neolithic Caucasus natives, Iranian elements and steppe elements. The strong tendency for higher levels of R1b to be in the northern Caucasus (other than Armenians) would suggest it arrived there either from Iran or the steppes. Several papers say it was not connected with the Balkans and the Black Sea and Great Caucasus make a westerly or southerly origin seem less likely. So it would seem to point to north Caucasus M269 coming from either Iran or the steppe to the north. Either is possible in the archaeological record.

alan
06-12-2013, 01:37 PM
I think its been mentioned that most of the Bashkir R1b is a U152 clade which seems to be a recent and foreign introduction to their gene pool that has underwent a founder effect.

At a guess I would suggest a possibility that U152 could have got there with the Celtic Tectosages tribe branch (a branch of the Volcae) that may have ended up in central Asia. This paper mentions this:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=b3gOdaiXNKkC&pg=PA463&dq=celtic+iranian+contact&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9na4UeunNMnUPKupgPAF&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=celtic%20iranian%20contact&f=false

However,this is only an explanation for U152.

R.Rocca
06-12-2013, 05:01 PM
At a guess I would suggest a possibility that U152 could have got there with the Celtic Tectosages tribe branch (a branch of the Volcae) that may have ended up in central Asia. This paper mentions this:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=b3gOdaiXNKkC&pg=PA463&dq=celtic+iranian+contact&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9na4UeunNMnUPKupgPAF&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=celtic%20iranian%20contact&f=false

However,this is only an explanation for U152.

There is something wrong with the Bashkir data that Myres (2010) published. They list eight U152+ samples in their STR spreadsheet, but all of them had the same exact STRs value, so therefore their variance is zero. Here is the Myres data:

N. Bashkir = 71.4% out of 70 U152+ (meaning 50 out of 70 men would be U152+)
S. Bashkir = 1.3% out of 79 (1 out of 79)
SE. Bashkirs = 0.06% out of 329 (2 out of 329)

As you can see, there would need to be 53 samples that were U152+, but they only list 8 in their STR spreadsheet. That 50 men out of 70 would be U152+ and of the same exact STR haplotype is a near impossibility unless one guy in the last 100-200 years is the great-grandfather of all of them and therefore of almost the entire North Bashkir male population.

Myres actually republished their paper and removed the Bashkir sample from their U152 frequency map and added the following comment:

"Data concerning the strong U152 founder effect signal with identical haplotypes in Northern Bashkirs is excluded from the plots."

Needless to say, including the U152 Bashkirs in any discussion about ancient migrations is probably not valid.

TigerMW
06-12-2013, 07:13 PM
... Needless to say, including the U152 Bashkirs in any discussion about ancient migrations is probably not valid.

You are probably right, but I would not close the door completely on some origination for U152 east of the Alps.

"It's a long way to Tipperary" and or in this case, Bashkortostan. They did make it there and it was before planes, trains and automobiles. ;)

TigerMW
06-16-2013, 01:11 AM
I have started reading the recent German paper on Maykop by Ivanova

http://www.academia.edu/2543571/Kaukasus_und_Orient_Die_Entstehung_des_Maikop-_Phanomens_im_4._Jt._v._Chr

by copying and pasting it a bit of a time through google translator. It painstaikng and the translation is only partial but its worth it. its very convincing so far. Very thorough.

Thanks, Alan. I went through and looked up the rest of the German words which wouldn't convert and tryed to figure them out in context. I think I have the general thrust of the paper.

You are right. Ivanova is convincing and gets into the details to show exactly how the people connecting the Uruks are looking at limited data from the excavations.

At least as of now, I am convinced there were connections between the North Cauasus and North Iran during the Maykop timeframe. The Maykops look like a new, disruptive culture to the North Caucasus. I don't think it is certain where their predecessor capabilities came from, but I have to agree with Ivanova's perspective that it was the NW Iran influence (rather than a Southern Levant) that helped form the Maykop form in the North Caucasus.

It also appears that the Maykops became the centerpiece of the CMP (Cirmcumpontic Metallurgy Province) that eventually would prevail westward into Europe as the CBMP (Carpo-Balkans MP) failed.

I'm not sure if it is important, but my curiosity is peaked about lapsi lazuli, the blue stone from Afghanistan. Not only did the Sumerians have but so did the Maykops. Lapsi Lazuli was part of the connection Klyosov was trying to make with Sumer.

alan
06-16-2013, 11:03 AM
Thanks, Alan. I went through and looked up the rest of the German words which wouldn't convert and tryed to figure them out in context. I think I have the general thrust of the paper.

You are right. Ivanova is convincing and gets into the details to show exactly how the people connecting the Uruks are looking at limited data from the excavations.

At least as of now, I am convinced there were connections between the North Cauasus and North Iran during the Maykop timeframe. The Maykops look like a new, disruptive culture to the North Caucasus. I don't think it is certain where their predecessor capabilities came from, but I have to agree with Ivanova's perspective that it was the NW Iran influence (rather than a Southern Levant) that helped form the Maykop form in the North Caucasus.

It also appears that the Maykops became the centerpiece of the CMP (Cirmcumpontic Metallurgy Province) that eventually would prevail westward into Europe as the CBMP (Carpo-Balkans MP) failed.

I'm not sure if it is important, but my curiosity is peaked about lapsi lazuli, the blue stone from Afghanistan. Not only did the Sumerians have but so did the Maykops. Lapsi Lazuli was part of the connection Klyosov was trying to make with Sumer.

Your a better man than me Mike! Google translator didnt do a great job and to some extent I have to guess what they were saying.

Another thing that is important is that Maykop is some kind of hybrid. There were farmers and steppe type settlements there as well before and during Maykop. The reason for the wealth does seem to be that they connected into a massive network via Iran, which was really the natural route into the north Caucasus when you look at maps. With hindsight movement direct into the north Caucasus area via the south Caucasus seems unlikely. Maykop remains earlier in date that the south Caucasus Kura-Araxes type groups for a start. The great Caucasus passes are almost all impassible for half the year anyway and it would be a terribly dangerous way to take goods when you consider the history of areas controlled by mountain clans. It would be safe for south Caucasus mountain people themselves to have passed into the north Caucasus (as perhaps the pre-Maykop farmers did) as there was noone between them and the passes but its a different story for an outsider to pass through that area. So, the new paper linking Maykop's predominant 'in' being NW Iran bypassing the Great Caucasus barrier makes a whole lot of sense.

The question of how much intrusion remains open but I dont think its down to just alliance marriages etc. I am not a believer in the blood and guts version of history. Yes it happened from time to time but they tend to distort history because they stand out as shocking rare events while 99% of the time it probably wasnt like this. We are the same species today and by and large most of us dont want to risk our lives unless its absolutely necessary. Its far easier to not risk your neck and to establish modest colonies in alliance with locals because you bring something new/miche that benefits them too and give them a cut. The Maykop phenomenon seems to have been about middlemen (there is not a lot of evidence of mining in the area) who linked into this network and wished to supply a demand for metal in the steppe area when the Carpatho-Balkans system collapsed. Its also easier to trade through a chain of settlements relay style than go on enormous round trips. Its much easier to do this over vast open spaces in alliance with locals than make every trip a battle and an epic round trip. In fact I think that would be impossible.

So, without going in too deep I think Maykop was a hybrid of traders from NW Iran, the farming element who have arrived (late in farming terms) c. 5000BC or a little earlier and steppe type hunter-fisher-herders. It would seem crazy for them not to cut deals with the fishing peoples of places like Azov and rivers leading into the steppe. Further evidence of this is the hybrid cultures on the steppe with Maykop and steppe mixes that have been identified by Rassmikin and others. There are a number of Maykop settlements now. They are not of the SW Asian tell type and mud brick type some are very short lived. I need to read a little more into this to compare the Maykop settlements to the pre-Maykop settlements in the same area and the Maykop period settlements in NW Iran to confirm this but I would think it will provide evidence that there was a strong local element in Maykop too.

alan
06-16-2013, 06:59 PM
This seems to be the most recent Whittaker offering on Eurphratic. Notice he now calls it a superstrate rather than a substrate.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vm2SugMy8C0C&pg=PA577&lpg=PA577&dq=euphratic+language&source=bl&ots=5AmeTTeJwH&sig=oor2oy6RiHpisy7XDCd7ZHKwtt4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0RqiUZqcO-Wv0QWJqoCACQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=euphratic%20language&f=false

If this evidence is accepted (which many do not) this is evidence for contacts between Mesopotamia and early IE c. 3500BC. I was thinking that the suggestion that Maykop only connected with Mesopotamia via northern Iran would suggest that Iran was the intermediary source of the linguistic contact. Why would IE words have passed into Sumerian if their contact with Maykop was indirect via Iran? It would only make sense if some early IE was being used by elements in NW Iran and transfered to some degree both Maykop and Mesopotamia from there. Its curious that Whittaker believes many of the Sumerian cuniform symbol values only make sense in IE and it is also true that the development of use as actual writing began in the Uruk phase, a period of expansion when contacts with Iran and via them with Maykop. I wonder if there is something to do with the original values reflecting a trading system that included early IEs. If it was, that is very interesting because there is no evidence of trade with the steppes beyond the north Caucasus in this period and it would place IE speakers in Iran or in Maykop. Why would symbols with IE sound values be used to write Sumerian?

Humanist
06-16-2013, 07:56 PM
Why would symbols with IE sound values be used to write Sumerian?

The Assyriologist Simo Parpola's views on the origin of the Sumerians could possibly explain that.


The Sumerians thus came to Mesopotamia from the north, where the Uralic language family is located (Fig. 11), and by studying the lexical evidence and the grammatical features which Sumerian shares with individual Uralic languages, it is possible to make additional inferences about their origins. The closest affinities of Sumerian within the Uralic family are with the Volgaic and Finnic languages, particularly the latter, with which it shares a number of significant phonological, morphological and lexical isoglosses. The latter include, among other things, a common word for "sea, ocean" (Sumerian ab or a-ab-ba, Finnic aava, aappa), and common words for cereals, sowing and harvesting, domestic animals, wheeled vehicles, and the harness of draught animals (Fig. 12). A number of these words also have counterparts in Indo-European, particularly Germanic languages. These data taken together suggest that the Sumerians originated in the Pontic-Caspian region between the mouth of the Volga and the Black Sea, north of the Caucasus Mountains, where they had been living a sedentary life in contact with Indo-European tribes. I would not exclude the possibility that their homeland is to be identified with the Majkop culture of the North Caucasus, which flourished between 3700 and 2900 BC and had trade contacts with the late Uruk culture (Fig. 13). Placing the Sumerian homeland in this area would help explain the non-Uralic features of Sumerian, for the Kartvelian languages spoken just south of it are ergative and have a system of verbal prefixes resembling the Sumerian one. The Sumerian words for wheel and the harness of draft animals that it shares with Uralic show that its separation from Uralic took place after the invention of wheeled vehicles, which were known in the Majkop culture since about 3500 BC.

About 3500 BC, the Indo-European Yamnaya culture that had emerged between the Danube and the Don began to expand dynamically to the east, reaching the Caucasian foreland by about 3300 BC. This expansion is likely to have triggered the Sumerian migration to Mesopotamia. It would have proceeded through the Caucasus and the Diyala Valley, and since wheeled transport was available, could easily have been completed before the end of the Late Uruk period (c. 3100 BC). The arrival of the Sumerians would thus coincide with the destruction of the Eanna temple precinct at the end of the Uruk IVa period.

The lexical parallels between Sumerian and Uralic thus open up not only completely new possibilities for the study of Sumerian, but also a chance to identify the original homeland of the Sumerians and date their arrival in Mesopotamia. In addition, they provide a medium through which it becomes possible to penetrate into the prehistory of the Finno-Ugric peoples with the help of very ancient linguistic data. Of course, it is clear that the relevant evidence must first pass the test of verification or falsification before any part of it can be generally accepted and exploited.

alan
06-16-2013, 10:44 PM
The Assyriologist Simo Parpola's views on the origin of the Sumerians could possibly explain that.

I read that not so long ago. I find it exceptionally difficult to correlate with archaeology though. Also the recent realisation that Maykop is the original kurgan culture, is older than Yamnaya and expanded into the steppes needs to be factored in. The flow seems to have been from Maykop to the steppes in terms of many of the characteristics of kurgan culture. The old idea of the flow being in the opposite direction has basically been abandoned. Also the realisation (which makes geographic sense) that north Iran was the link between Maykop and the wider SW Asia network needs to be factored in.

There are really not enough fixed points on language distribution early enough to be confident about much. A lot of questions spring to mind - what was the language of north Mesopotamia in 4000BC? What was the language in northern Iran? What was the language in the south Caucasus? What was the language in the north Caucasus? I am not convinced about IE originating in the Volga Urals. The more data that emerges the less that is convincing. Also, if Uralic can be argued to have extended to the north Caucasus then its also reasonable to suggest a model where Uralic was in the western steppe while PIE was in Maykop. In such a model a PIE origin in the Maykop area (which included steppe lands) would put it in contact with both Uralic and Caucasian. Its a minor shift in the model but it better fits the primacy of the Maykop culture that is emerging in terms of many of the aspects of the 'Kurgan culture' and the predominance of a flow of influences and settlement from rather than too Maykop relative to the steppes.

I cannor say I find it easy to believe the Uralic-Sumerian theory but if I had to work with that theory I would wonder if there any possibility that Uralic could have been known in Iran? Some models place it's Urheimat around the Volga/Urals/north Caspian area. The Caspian Sea links that area and Iran. The shores of that sea just would seem the most direct route for Uralic to reach SW Asia. That is just based on geography. I cannot see any archaeological evidence for this.

alan
06-17-2013, 08:47 AM
This is a very up to date summary of Uralic.

http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust258/sust258_janhunen.pdf

There is still much doubts about it but it throws up interesting stuff like there may have been a widespead para-Uralic group before proto-Uralic and that Uralic had already split before PIE influences. It is interesting that it thinks the initial phase of IE contact could have been in the Anatolian type pre-PIE period. In terms of its later spread, I think its very very tempting to see the Seima-Turbino phenomenon as related. It was very important in bringing more advanced technology and possibly more social networks through a swath of the Uralic and forrest zone world as far as Finland etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seima-Turbino_Phenomenon

The distribution bears a strong resemblance to N1c.

The interesting thing is Seima-Turbino originated in an area where the Uralic peoples may have encountered Tocharian type peoples some time earlier at any point from 3500BC. That would provide a scenario for the contact between Uralic and one of the earliest IE dialects to the east with a reflux movement back on a forrest/forrest steppe trajectory all the way to Finland.

TigerMW
06-18-2013, 12:48 PM
This is a very up to date summary of Uralic.

http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust258/sust258_janhunen.pdf

There is still much doubts about it but it throws up interesting stuff like there may have been a widespead para-Uralic group before proto-Uralic and that Uralic had already split before PIE influences. It is interesting that it thinks the initial phase of IE contact could have been in the Anatolian type pre-PIE period. In terms of its later spread, I think its very very tempting to see the Seima-Turbino phenomenon as related. It was very important in bringing more advanced technology and possibly more social networks through a swath of the Uralic and forrest zone world as far as Finland etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seima-Turbino_Phenomenon

The distribution bears a strong resemblance to N1c.

The interesting thing is Seima-Turbino originated in an area where the Uralic peoples may have encountered Tocharian type peoples some time earlier at any point from 3500BC. That would provide a scenario for the contact between Uralic and one of the earliest IE dialects to the east with a reflux movement back on a forrest/forrest steppe trajectory all the way to Finland.

I thought this was interesting. The Turkic languages are also part of a the greater "Mitian" languages at least according to some theories. Looks like a general Central Asian connection. Alan, earlier you asked "What was the language in northern Iran?" Would one of these Mitian languages be likely?

In "Proto-Uralic—what, where, and when?", Janhunen writes,
"It has to be pointed out that there are also areal and typological parallels that link Uralic and its non-Ural-Altaic neighbours, especially Indo-European. Most importantly, both Uralic and Indo-European, together with Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Yukaghiric, Amuric (Ghilyak), and Kamchukotic, belong to the so-called Mitian languages"

If PIE has has Uralic influence that does pull the PIE homeland in a northern and eastern direction to meet up with Uralic somewhere.

In "Proto-Uralic—what, where, and when?", Janhunen writes,
"The structure of the language family, as well as the available palaeolinguistic evidence, suggests that its original homeland was located relatively far to the north, probably within the boreal zone or, at least adjacent to it, and relatively far to the east, probably on the Asiatic side of the Urals.
...
The very fact that the branchings of Uralic seem to become chronologically shallower the farther west we proceed suggests that the main direction of expansion has been systematically from east to west."

Do we know if the Uralic influences on PIE can be associated with Uralic as it was before its westward branching or from one of its westward branches? I would think that could be ascertained.

alan
06-19-2013, 03:04 PM
I thought this was interesting. The Turkic languages are also part of a the greater "Mitian" languages at least according to some theories. Looks like a general Central Asian connection. Alan, earlier you asked "What was the language in northern Iran?" Would one of these Mitian languages be likely?

In "Proto-Uralic—what, where, and when?", Janhunen writes,
"It has to be pointed out that there are also areal and typological parallels that link Uralic and its non-Ural-Altaic neighbours, especially Indo-European. Most importantly, both Uralic and Indo-European, together with Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Yukaghiric, Amuric (Ghilyak), and Kamchukotic, belong to the so-called Mitian languages"

If PIE has has Uralic influence that does pull the PIE homeland in a northern and eastern direction to meet up with Uralic somewhere.

In "Proto-Uralic—what, where, and when?", Janhunen writes,
"The structure of the language family, as well as the available palaeolinguistic evidence, suggests that its original homeland was located relatively far to the north, probably within the boreal zone or, at least adjacent to it, and relatively far to the east, probably on the Asiatic side of the Urals.
...
The very fact that the branchings of Uralic seem to become chronologically shallower the farther west we proceed suggests that the main direction of expansion has been systematically from east to west."

Do we know if the Uralic influences on PIE can be associated with Uralic as it was before its westward branching or from one of its westward branches? I would think that could be ascertained.

A general pattern of movement from west to east of Europeans followed by the reverse Seima-Turbino phenomenon could have really confused things if it dragged eastern Uralics west back through the forrest zone. You may have ended up with easternmost Uralics to the west of western Uralics in some places.

alan
06-21-2013, 07:36 PM
More Maykop stuff on Dienekes

http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/

Nothing new though. The book he quotes is a few year old and has been quoted before.

alan
06-22-2013, 09:03 PM
This book review is very detailed and gives insight into recent thinking on the steppes in the Neolithic and copper age. A lot of old concepts are being challenged.

http://www.szabir.com/blog/late-prehistoric-exploitation-of-the-eurasian-steppe/

Jean M
06-22-2013, 09:17 PM
@ Alan. That book was published in 1999. You have access to more recent material, including a volume edited by Jeannine Davis-Kimball, who wrote that review.

Jean M
06-22-2013, 09:19 PM
@ Alan. That book was published in 1999. You have access to more recent material, including a volume edited by Jeannine Davis-Kimball, who wrote that review, and a number of papers on horse domestication.

alan
06-22-2013, 09:57 PM
Jean-sorry I thought that was 2009 that book! I was just digging around for anything that involves Rassamakin. I broke my own year of posting only articles from the last 5 years if at all possible. Big time! I admire Rassamakin and his work on the Black Sea steppes.

alan
06-22-2013, 10:00 PM
Here is something a lot more recent by Rassamakin

http://www.academia.edu/1870168/Rassamakin_Y.Y._2011._Eneolithic_Burial_Mounds_in_ the_Black_Sea_Steppe_From_the_First_Burial_Symbols _to_Monumental_Ritual_Architecture._In_S._Muller-Celka_ed._._Ancestral_Landscapes._TMO_61_Maison_de _lOrient_et_la_Mediterranee_Lyon_293-306

alan
06-22-2013, 10:21 PM
Jean - you may have seen this on Hungarian Kurgans but its only a year or two old and looks very interesting

http://www.archeo.mta.hu/hun/munkatars/horvathtunde/bar_2011_horvath.pdf

Also recent and although about Kura Araxes it touches on the whole period

http://kura-arax.tau.ac.il/system/files/Kohl.pdf

Jean M
06-22-2013, 10:28 PM
@ Alan - [Re Rassamakin] interesting. I thought the Maikop kurgans were the earliest.

alan
06-22-2013, 11:12 PM
@ Alan - interesting. I thought the Maikop kurgans were the earliest.

I have noticed in a few recent papers that a lot depends on what is defined as a Kurgan.

There have even been pre-Maykop Kurgans discovered in the Maykop core area. I have not heard of an absolute date but they must be very early indeed.

alan
06-22-2013, 11:30 PM
I notice for Hungarian possibly Maykop inspired Kurgans he sees a late arrival:

In Period IV/(and V?) the intercultural connections with local cultures inside the Carpathian Basin strengthened and broadened out in a way that the cultural identity of the originally Catacomb-influenced late Pit–Grave groups diluted, thus it is even more problematic to reconstruct their route than in the earlier periods. The base of this wave would be the, Maikop-inspired Zhivotilovo–Volchansk Group, the origin of which rooted in the Eneolithic, originally settled in the Prut–Don interfluve
region (also transmitting the techniques of wheel/wagon,weaving/spinning/woolly sheep, and the preparation of
the deads’ face from the Maikop/Novosvobodnaja culture), which experienced Tripolye colonization. The direct route of this even farther living group, on which arrived into Central Europe is probably different from the previous periods: another road along the Danube seems to be dominating and interweaving the whole Carpathian Basin by using the wheel and wagon (Plačidol), and a developed metal production based on arsenic bronze raw materials. The main cause for this large-scale migration is in all probability was the drastic change in ecological circumstances caused by a drier climate and overgrazing
the meadows (Shishlina 2000).

I must admit I find this late arrival of Maykop inspired cultures in Hungary a bit weird but just because Maykop is pre-Yamnaya in some areas doesnt mean it is in all areas.

I have to say too that overall it seems that the Hungarian evidence is catastrophic in terms of absolute dating and that has in the past led to very bad misinterpretations. So I have low confidence in the over big picture Hungarian Kurgan chronology/models.

alan
06-22-2013, 11:43 PM
Jean - you may have seen this on Hungarian Kurgans but its only a year or two old and looks very interesting

http://www.archeo.mta.hu/hun/munkatars/horvathtunde/bar_2011_horvath.pdf

Also recent and although about Kura Araxes it touches on the whole period

http://kura-arax.tau.ac.il/system/files/Kohl.pdf

As I hoped the 2nd paper did make some interesting observations in Maykop:

Kurgan burials are not characteristic of northern Mesopotamia, but at least eight
Chalcolithic and presumably pre-Maikop kurgans have been excavated in the central
northern Caucasus (work of Korenevskii, cited in Munchaev 1994: 178–179) and in the
Kuban area (Nekhaev 1990). Early kurgans with Maikop or Maikop-related materials also
appear on the Middle and Lower Don on sites of the so-called Konstantinovka culture,
some materials of which, such as characteristic asymmetric flint arrowheads, show clear
parallels with Maikop remains (Rassamakin 1999: 117–122). Two early pre-Pit-Grave kurgan burials with the actual remains of wooden wheels have been found respectively in the Lower Don (Koldyri, burial 7, kurgan 14) and Kuban (Starokorsun, burial 18, kurgan 2) areas. Rassamakin (2002: 53) believes that their appearance in these latter areas was due to “the migration or re-settlement of groups from the agricultural population” farther west. The latter burial, which also contained the remains of a wagon with wooden wheels (ca. 60 cm in diameter), has been attributed to the “early Novosvobodnaya” phase of the Maikop culture (Munchaev 1994: 180, Table 44, No. 3), and the partial remains of a similar wheeled cart were found in a kurgan at Tsagan-nur in Kalmykia to the northeast that also apparently contained Maikop-related materials (ibid.: 187). Such vehicles are among the earliest known examples of wheeledtransport (for further discussion, cf. Kohl 2007: 84–86


Maikop-related peoples may also have moved into northwestern Iran. Six of eleven
surveyed kurgans, collectively referred to as Sé Girdan, which were excavated in 1968
and 1970, were laid out in a straight row running northwest to southeast and situated
roughly west–southwest of the southwestern corner of Lake Urmia in northwestern
Iran. They have been redated to the second half of the 4th millennium on parallels with
Maikop remains from the northwestern Caucasus. Muscarella (2003: 126–130), who
originally excavated them, now tentatively suggests that Maikop-related peoples from
the northwestern Caucasus entered northwestern Iran during the second half of the 4th
millennium BCE or essentially prior to the expansion of Early Transcaucasian/Kura-Araxes
peoples into northwestern Iran towards the end of the 4th millennium. The parallels cited
include aspects of the construction of the kurgans, such as the off-centre location of the
principal tomb, pebble floors and outer encircling stone revetments, and close similarities
in arsenical copper/bronze artefacts, characteristic of the Caucasian Early Bronze Age, such
as socketed axes with bent butts and blades with curved bases, some of which resemble
those from the original ‘royal’ Maikop kurgan, excavated by Vesolovskii in 1897, and
from the Jrashen (or Priyerevanskii) hoard, which was discovered in 1973 near Yerevan,
Armenia (Fig. 2).

This latter collection of heavily worn and new metal tools, including pickaxes and
adzes, may document the long-distance exchange of finished arsenical copper/bronzes with
high nickel content

The comments on the NW Iran link are interesting in light of the very recent paper suggesting that NW Iran was the main link with the greater middle eastern influences.

alan
06-23-2013, 12:53 AM
I would also add that the Kura-Araxes paper makes very interesting reading in terms of that culture. It seems that an early north Caucasus/steppe fringe interaction zone with NW Iran once existed but that a slightly later transcaucasus (southern caucasus) Kura-Araxes massive expansion across Anatolia and NW Iran overlaid that link with Iran by 3000BC although it didnt intrude into the Maykop area.

The Kura-Araxes seem to have formed their own network that was totally distinct (as well as somewhat later than) from that of Maykop. Another world really. It was a vast network across the middle east. I must have some lingusitic significance. I strongly suspect that this is the origin of the Caucasian language spread which left a language of that type in NW Iran. I cannot help but think that the Hurrians etc were a remnant of that network. It is important to remember that the CMP had subzones and probably the main divide was between the Maykop controlled areas north of the Caucasus and into the steppes zand another massive southern network focussed on Kura-Araxes. They seem to have avoided each other's spheres for a long period with the exception of NW Iran where Kura-Araxes seem to have stolen that link from Maykop. I am fairly convinced the Maykop and Kura-Araxes networks represent two different major linguistic blocks. I suspect K-A was probably some sort of para-Caucasian block. The K-A people seems to have been very much into far flung settling in SW Asia and possibly even Med. Europe. There seems to have been a very sharp boundary at the Great Caucasus in the period 4000-3000BC and I suspect that was a linguistic barrier too. There may now be Caucasian languages on both sides of the Great Caucasus but I am not sure that was always the case. Clearly the historical situation where groups like the Ossetians were spread on both sides of this divide is unlikely to be an ancient one judging by the major cultural barrier that was present there in the copper age.

alan
06-23-2013, 01:31 AM
This book has interesting observations on Maykop, including its striking lack of contacts with Kura-Araxes.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zqQofdcZAGoC&pg=PA673&lpg=PA673&dq=kohl+maikop&source=bl&ots=EluBrxwKYx&sig=RzHmWcl1gWvgz2ZYyABjnBPnf3w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=U03GUazFD-St0QX-0YCoCg&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=kohl%20maikop&f=false

I think the oddity of the southern Caucasus essentially as a barrier to contact with the middle east has been resolved in the recent paper which links the Maykop phenomenon with contacts with NW Iran. That makes basic geographic sense for a start and get around the problem of Kura-Araxes intervening.

alan
06-23-2013, 10:54 AM
This book has interesting observations on Maykop, including its striking lack of contacts with Kura-Araxes.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zqQofdcZAGoC&pg=PA673&lpg=PA673&dq=kohl+maikop&source=bl&ots=EluBrxwKYx&sig=RzHmWcl1gWvgz2ZYyABjnBPnf3w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=U03GUazFD-St0QX-0YCoCg&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=kohl%20maikop&f=false

I think the oddity of the southern Caucasus essentially as a barrier to contact with the middle east has been resolved in the recent paper which links the Maykop phenomenon with contacts with NW Iran. That makes basic geographic sense for a start and get around the problem of Kura-Araxes intervening.

I was looking through this and thinking this is a fantastic book and I want to buy it until I looked it up on Amazon and found it costs $385.00/£230.00!!!!!

Jean M
06-23-2013, 12:25 PM
I must admit I find this late arrival of Maykop inspired cultures in Hungary a bit weird

Not really. Maikop influence did not spread far initially, but when Maikop disintegrated, some of its people seem to have moved onto the steppe. That is what Horvath is talking about.

alan
06-23-2013, 12:57 PM
This book has interesting observations on Maykop, including its striking lack of contacts with Kura-Araxes.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zqQofdcZAGoC&pg=PA673&lpg=PA673&dq=kohl+maikop&source=bl&ots=EluBrxwKYx&sig=RzHmWcl1gWvgz2ZYyABjnBPnf3w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=U03GUazFD-St0QX-0YCoCg&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=kohl%20maikop&f=false

I think the oddity of the southern Caucasus essentially as a barrier to contact with the middle east has been resolved in the recent paper which links the Maykop phenomenon with contacts with NW Iran. That makes basic geographic sense for a start and get around the problem of Kura-Araxes intervening.

This book is an extremely interesting readL

1. Like the recent paper in German, it says that the evidence for Maykop-Mesopotamian direct contacts is very poor.

2. It makes the obvious but seldom stated observation that people tend to ignore the huge and rugged barier of the great Caucasus and the southern Caucasus (where Maykop did not exist and where Kura-Araxes is significantly later).

3. It also makes the important observation that there is very little evidence of contact between Maykop and Kura-Araxes, despite the long chronological overlap and relative proximity. It is clear they were different worlds who had very separate spheres of interaction and zones of expansion.

4. It makes the, with hindsight obvious, but rarely explicetely stated observation that Maykop and Kura-Araxes, despite sharing similar high level metallurgical techniques, appear to represent very different society types. Maykop had a society of very showing wealth, very rich chiefs, inequality, physical mobility etc combined with fairly rough and ready dwelling. In a sense it looks very like an early super-wealthy version of the steppe cultures that came a few centuries later. Kura-Araxes was the opposite with far more sophisticated settlements and very little evidence for the sort of very steep social hierarchy ot Maykop. While the case for Mesopotamian contacts in Maykop are very poor, Kura-Araxes was very strongly networked into the whole middle east. The Great Caucasus peaks seems to have been a profound barrier in the period 4000-2500BC.

5. This pattern basically continued up to 2500BC. Maykop got a little less super-wealthy and less and less distinguiseable from Catacomb cultures just north of it. Kura-Araxes only seems to have unravelled to some degree c. 2400BC onwards when the sort of Kurgan display, wheel imagery and demise of sophisticated settlements suggest a move to a more north Caucasus-steppe type mobile militaristic pastoralism. Whether that is down to a slow social change, influence from the north or external migration is not clear. I personally suspect it was not hugely migratory given the language situation that prevailed in the south Caucasus and adjacent when records throw light on this.

Anyway in summary Maykop and Kura-Araxes seem to have been on either side of a profound societal and network boundary along the Great Caucasus line. This contrast along that border apparently existed from at least 4000-2500BC. The only common point is that both (at different times separated by centuries) had links with NW Iran - Maykop c. 4000BC and Kura-Araxes c. 3000BC. Other than that they seem to have been totally contrasting societies. Despite Caucasian languages being spread on both sides of this barrier today I stronly suspect that was not the case in this period and is probably a much later thing. The north Caucasus had only really just seen farming arrive shortly before Maykop. This was then followed by an archaeological record that shows total contast between the two halfs of the Caucasus for at least 1500 years with one side linked into the middle eastern world and the other side linked into the steppes. Two very different networks and two very different societies. That must have once been a sharp language barrier. It is also interesting that the Kura-Araxes expansion area into NW Iran c. 3000BC was into an area where a Caucasian language apparently existed.

Now if Caucasian was originally south of the Caucasus. This has important implications for PIE. There are Caucasian links to PIE. How would they have got into PIE if Maykop was blocking contact? I think one possibility is that Maykop was from the outset a major player in the genesis of PIE rather than placing it in a confided one-location Volga-Ural location. It is fairly unthinkable that the north Caucasus and south Caucasus were both speaking the same language back in the period 4000-2400BC because there was a lack of contact and they were tied into completely different networks.

Another thing that has emerged by recent redating is that Maykop was essentially an immediate response to the collapse of the Balko-Carpathian supply that had formerly (weakly) supplied the steppe and the north Caucasus. It to me looks like a mixture of steppe fringe local pastoralists and Iranian contacts that filled a vacuum. Maykop seems to have been incrediby important to what we think of as later Kurgan culture in the steppes, being the first strongly stratified society, the metalwork hub, the originators of true mega-Kurgans, probably the introducer of the wheel, developed use of wool etc. If its was so hugely influential in the development of what we think of as PIE society would it not seem very odd if it was not also involved in the genesis of the language? I just feel that the evidence is pointing to Maykop as the prime mover in so much and the other steppe cultures of this and later periods as the recievers of so much that it seems almost wrong headed not seriously consider it the originator of the PIE dialect or at least having a major role in its creation. It has also to be remembered that several cultures across the western steppes seem directly Maykop derived as well as a wider group who were great influenced by Maykop. Indeed the Ukraine steppe remained very closely tied into the Maykop metal network for a long period even when other parts of the steppe were being supplied by the pure copper of the Kargaly mine. That sort of continuing close networking must have lingusitic implications at least at the dialect level.

newtoboard
06-23-2013, 03:02 PM
I would also add that the Kura-Araxes paper makes very interesting reading in terms of that culture. It seems that an early north Caucasus/steppe fringe interaction zone with NW Iran once existed but that a slightly later transcaucasus (southern caucasus) Kura-Araxes massive expansion across Anatolia and NW Iran overlaid that link with Iran by 3000BC although it didnt intrude into the Maykop area.

The Kura-Araxes seem to have formed their own network that was totally distinct (as well as somewhat later than) from that of Maykop. Another world really. It was a vast network across the middle east. I must have some lingusitic significance. I strongly suspect that this is the origin of the Caucasian language spread which left a language of that type in NW Iran. I cannot help but think that the Hurrians etc were a remnant of that network. It is important to remember that the CMP had subzones and probably the main divide was between the Maykop controlled areas north of the Caucasus and into the steppes zand another massive southern network focussed on Kura-Araxes. They seem to have avoided each other's spheres for a long period with the exception of NW Iran where Kura-Araxes seem to have stolen that link from Maykop. I am fairly convinced the Maykop and Kura-Araxes networks represent two different major linguistic blocks. I suspect K-A was probably some sort of para-Caucasian block. The K-A people seems to have been very much into far flung settling in SW Asia and possibly even Med. Europe. There seems to have been a very sharp boundary at the Great Caucasus in the period 4000-3000BC and I suspect that was a linguistic barrier too. There may now be Caucasian languages on both sides of the Great Caucasus but I am not sure that was always the case. Clearly the historical situation where groups like the Ossetians were spread on both sides of this divide is unlikely to be an ancient one judging by the major cultural barrier that was present there in the copper age.

The Ossetians are a special case because they live in the part of the Caucasus where it isn't that hard to cross from the South Caucasus to the North Caucasus. So I disagree that both sides couldn't have had the same languages. Depeds on the place. I think they did where the other side was accessible. I think both North and South Ossetia were Nakh speaking in ancient times. The only other place where this sort of situation exists in the Caucasus is getting from Southern Dagestan to Northern portion of the Republic of Azerbaijan since I believe you can use the coastal plains that stretch from Baku to Derbent. Not surprisingly the Lezgian people are found in both countries and I believe both north and south of the Caucasus.

More info:


Nakh peoples are a group of historical and modern ethnic groups speaking (or historically speaking) Nakh languages and sharing certain cultural traits. In modern days, they reside almost completely in the North Caucasus, but historically large areas of the South Caucasus may have also been Nakh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakh_peoples

alan
06-23-2013, 05:54 PM
The Ossetians are a special case because they live in the part of the Caucasus where it isn't that hard to cross from the South Caucasus to the North Caucasus. So I disagree that both sides couldn't have had the same languages. Depeds on the place. I think they did where the other side was accessible. I think both North and South Ossetia were Nakh speaking in ancient times. The only other place where this sort of situation exists in the Caucasus is getting from Southern Dagestan to Northern portion of the Republic of Azerbaijan since I believe you can use the coastal plains that stretch from Baku to Derbent. Not surprisingly the Lezgian people are found in both countries and I believe both north and south of the Caucasus.

More info:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakh_peoples

Certainly though through much of prehistory up to at least 2400BC there is a very sharp difference in archaeological cultures including settlement, burial norms and the wider network/expansion areas they were involved in. That very sharp contrast in archaeology is about as close as we can get to inferring language networks in the past. I think its important not to back project the linguistic patterns of today into the copper and bronze ages because that fails almost everywhere. I think the evidence (as far as it can be interpreted) is for a much sharper divide than modern linguistic patterns would suggest. The cultures of the two areas were just far too strongly contrasting and networked into different zones to have a similar language IMO. Another reason to wonder if north Caucasian languages were actually originally located in the north Caucasus is the PIE Proto-Katvelian connections. I have seen it stated that Kartvelian is closer to IE than it is to north Caucasian. That is why I suspect the north Caucasian languages are some sort of later intrusion into their recent locatins as their present distribution intervenes between the PIE world and the Kartvelian world. Clearly there has been some sort of shake up and present distributions do not look likely to be those of the PIE-Proto-Kartvelian period. It would make more sense if we see Maykop as part of the PIE genesis and Kartvellian as a former neighbour.

alan
06-23-2013, 06:32 PM
Interestingly the preface of this

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3B1ryOyFPFkC&pg=PR12&lpg=PR12&dq=Johanna+Nichols+kartvelian&source=bl&ots=fePHNcJzbQ&sig=5pZK4p9M8dA952MOPYJAH2EVszA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fTfHUc2xCsXtO8rfgLgH&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Johanna%20Nichols%20kartvelian&f=false

Suggests that Kartvellian originated in the 4th-3rd millenium further east than its present distribution (somewhere in the great and middle of the little Caucasus mountains) before an expansion west and NW about 1000 years later that overlaid and displaced NW Caucasian languages. Now that would help tidy up the weird geography of the PIE-Proto-Kartvelian connectivity. Now that sort of area back in the mid-late 4th millenium was within the Kura-Araxes culture (which western Georgia wasnt). It would also place NW Caucasian languages in this period in the west of the south Caucasus. That would make a lot more sense in terms of Kartvelian-PIE connections. Interestingly the range for common Kartvelian is vague enough to also include a period of shift from Kura-Araxes type culture to a more Maykop-Catacomb type society with mobile groups. I wonder if this marked the period when Kartvelians close to the north Caucasus were influenced or even mixed with PIE's to the north. Anyway the idea that north Caucasian speakers were tucked away somewhere in the western south Caucasus before being displaced north is crucial. It means that Maykop and Kartvellians (surely Kuro-Araxes) were neighbours on either side of the Great Caucasus c. 3500BC.

alan
06-23-2013, 10:59 PM
I read a 2011 paper 'Bioarchaeological Analysis Mutual Relations of Populations Armenian Highlands and Eurasia Using Craniological and Dental Nonmetric Traits' by Anahit Yu. Khudaverdyan. In general the paper throws up completely geographically improbable connections that make no sense and suggest that this is not a fruitful path to understanding human prehistory. The English is bad too. However it was interesting to noted the statement 'The Catacomb culture samples from the Ukraine and Dnieper are identified as the steppe samples with closest affinities samples from Northern Caucasus (Chalcolithic, Bronze)' That is not hugely surprising as this group seem to have remained closely linked the north Caucasus cultures

Another 2010 paper basically says Maykop people were craniologically not really closely paralleled anywhere.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1563011010000516

R.Rocca
06-24-2013, 02:27 AM
I read a 2011 paper 'Bioarchaeological Analysis Mutual Relations of Populations Armenian Highlands and Eurasia Using Craniological and Dental Nonmetric Traits' by Anahit Yu. Khudaverdyan. In general the paper throws up completely geographically improbable connections that make no sense and suggest that this is not a fruitful path to understanding human prehistory. The English is bad too. However it was interesting to noted the statement 'The Catacomb culture samples from the Ukraine and Dnieper are identified as the steppe samples with closest affinities samples from Northern Caucasus (Chalcolithic, Bronze)' That is not hugely surprising as this group seem to have remained closely linked the north Caucasus cultures

Another 2010 paper basically says Maykop people were craniologically not really closely paralleled anywhere.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1563011010000516

Funny, from an upcoming paper comes this:

"Genetic DNA analysis of populations revealed an increasing genetic distance between these cultures from the late Copper Age to the Middle Bronze Age. The biggest genetic distance is between Copper Age and Catacomb culture, and they are much more pronounced compared to early Copper Age and Yamna culture."

I posted a brief here: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?97-Genetic-Genealogy-and-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News&p=8470&viewfull=1#post8470

alan
06-24-2013, 11:02 AM
The discussion about Ossetians and them living at a rare point where the Great Caucasus can be breached got me thinking and I looked at this paper http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3355373/


It noted

R1a*-M198(xM458) has an average frequency in the Caucasus as low as 5%, but was found in 20% of the Circassians and 22% of the Dargins, two populations that occupy opposite parts of the Caucasus. STR haplotypes from these Circassian and Dargins samples formed distinct clusters in a network (Supplementary Figure 1). Similarly, two different haplotype clusters within R1b1b2-M269 (Supplementary Figure 1) were found in the Lezghins (30%) and in Ossets-Digor (16%). These concentrations of (presumably European) haplogroups R1a*-M198(xM458), R1a1a7-M458 and R1b1b2-M269 found in few locations in the Caucasus might indicate independent migrations from Europe that were too small to make any significant impact on Caucasus populations

What I found interesting is that R1 is pretty rare in general except in a few places and I do notice R1b occurs at a decent level at two groups who live where the Caucasus can be passed through or bypassed to the east. I think that is significant. The other Caucasus paper posted in this thread showed that, while always a minority (and even absent among some of the groups in the other study), the north Caucasus has a much stronger representation of R1b than the south (Other than Armenians). I think there is a hint here. It looks far more like a geographical thing than a cultural/linguistic thing in terms of modern peoples as it doesnt have an especially strong correlation that way - the R1b peaks are an IE group and a Caucasian group while the two R1a peaks are among Caucasians. I think the overall picture suggests that this is an absorbtion of clades rather than crucial to Caucasian speaking.

Looking at the archaeology the first penetration of Maykop-Catacomb influences across the prevailing cultural, lifestyle and social structure barrier was apparently c. 2400BC. I doubt it was more than elements rather than some sort of replacement but the ultimate effect was that Kura-Araxes type society became very much more like that in the north Caucasus-southern steppes for a time.

The alternative of a much later spread from the north could be cited for the Ossetian who are suggested to descend from steppe Iranian speakers such as the Alans. However, the R1b-Iranian link is generally weak (as is an R1b-Caucasian link) and I think one way or another this is probably more likely absorbtion and down to geography. Regardless I am pretty convinced that R1b has moved from north to south at some time and was likely not present at any significant level in the Kura-Araxes culture. I think its limited presence among the Kartvellians is strong evidence of this as is the other Caucasus paper in this thread which confirms it is far stronger (albeit still a minority) on the north side of this divide.

All in all, although the evidence seems at first confusing (and in general R1 is not common in most Caucasian speakers) there is a pattern suggestive that R1b only penetrated into the south Caucasus, especially the Kartvelians, as a secondary thing. Archaeology suggests that some north to south breaching of this prevailing cultural boundary only happened c. 2500BC. Overall the evidence seems to support the idea of an R1b-Maykop link and a lack of importance in general of R1b in Caucasian speakers. A similar observation can almost certainly be made about R1a in the area - I just didnt look into that very closely.

One interesting aspect of all of this is the extreme east end of the Great Caucasus where they can be bypassed at the Caspian and where it has recently been suggested that Maykop aquired links with NW Iran. This is complicated because Maykop (much earlier) had links with that area but later Kura-Araxes seems to have strongly expanded in that direction, presumably altering the earlier pattern and affecting/usurping Maykops relationships with that area. So NW Iran was sucked into a different cultural zone. This was one of the only commonalities between Maykop and Kura-Araxes albeit chronologically staggered. Its also likely the ultimate root of the metallurgy that first Maykop then Kura-Araxes were involved in (broadly CMP) and which which was one of the only commonalities between the two cultures. I will have a dig about regarding NW Iran.

TigerMW
06-24-2013, 11:22 AM
Funny, from an upcoming paper comes this:

"Genetic DNA analysis of populations revealed an increasing genetic distance between these cultures from the late Copper Age to the Middle Bronze Age. The biggest genetic distance is between Copper Age and Catacomb culture, and they are much more pronounced compared to early Copper Age and Yamna culture."

I posted a brief here: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?97-Genetic-Genealogy-and-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News&p=8470&viewfull=1#post8470

Am I reading this correctly? During the timeframe from the Chalcolithic through the Early Bronze Age to the Middle Bronze Age a significant turnover of people occurred in the Eurasian Steppes. The Catacomb culture is a candidate for producing the change ???

Wikipedia says, The Catacomb culture, ca. 2800–2200 BC, refers to an early Bronze Age culture occupying essentially what is present-day Ukraine. It is seen more as a term covering several smaller related archaeological cultures.
...
The culture was the first to introduce corded pottery decorations into the steppes and shows a profuse use of the polished battle axe, providing a link to the West. Parallels with the Afanasevo culture, including provoked cranial deformations, provide a link to the East. It was preceded by the Yamna culture. The Catacomb culture in the Pontic steppe was succeeded by the Srubna culture from ca the 17th century BC. The economy was essentially stock-breeding, although traces of grain have been found. There seem to have been skilled specialists, particularly metal-workers.
...
The origin of the Catacomb Culture is disputed. Jan Lichardus enumerates three possibilities: a local development departing from the previous Yamna Culture only, a migration from Central Europe, or an oriental origin.

Richard, does this leave a archaeological path for R1b-L23 to split from Central Europe?

Jean M
06-24-2013, 12:05 PM
Am I reading this correctly? During the timeframe from the Chalcolithic through the Early Bronze Age to the Middle Bronze Age a significant turnover of people occurred in the Eurasian Steppes. The Catacomb culture is a candidate for producing the change ???

The study has only looked at mtDNA. They ruled out an immigration from the Central Asian steppe, since all of the studied populations on the Pontic steppe came up with mtDNA typical of European (i.e. Western Eurasian) populations, with none typical of Central Asia. So the change in the Catacomb period is more likely to reflect people moving south from the forest-steppe to take over areas vacated by departing Yamnaya (not that they say so, but we can use deduction).

R.Rocca
06-24-2013, 12:25 PM
Am I reading this correctly? During the timeframe from the Chalcolithic through the Early Bronze Age to the Middle Bronze Age a significant turnover of people occurred in the Eurasian Steppes. The Catacomb culture is a candidate for producing the change ???

Wikipedia says, The Catacomb culture, ca. 2800–2200 BC, refers to an early Bronze Age culture occupying essentially what is present-day Ukraine. It is seen more as a term covering several smaller related archaeological cultures.
...
The culture was the first to introduce corded pottery decorations into the steppes and shows a profuse use of the polished battle axe, providing a link to the West. Parallels with the Afanasevo culture, including provoked cranial deformations, provide a link to the East. It was preceded by the Yamna culture. The Catacomb culture in the Pontic steppe was succeeded by the Srubna culture from ca the 17th century BC. The economy was essentially stock-breeding, although traces of grain have been found. There seem to have been skilled specialists, particularly metal-workers.
...
The origin of the Catacomb Culture is disputed. Jan Lichardus enumerates three possibilities: a local development departing from the previous Yamna Culture only, a migration from Central Europe, or an oriental origin.

Richard, does this leave a archaeological path for R1b-L23 to split from Central Europe?

It is very difficult to say. It could be that these are R1a folks or even different subclades of R1a entering the area. Or, it could be R1a replacing R1b. Or, as we have seen in Corded Ware, R1a replacing E and probable I. The real intrigue is that the change occurs at the same time as the rise of Bell Beaker and Corded Ware.

Hopefully someone fluent in German will post the proper translation.

Jean M
06-24-2013, 12:34 PM
I am not fluent in German, but I have tidied up a Google translation of the whole item to the best of my ability.


Steps in a vast space: New Views on civilizations of the Eurasian steppe

From the end of the 4th millennium BC basic cultural and economic changes occurred in the Eurasian steppes. This is reflected in innovations such as vehicles with disc wheels and draft animal utilization in the northern Black Sea region and the emergence of nomadic horsemen in the first millennium BC. The surviving materials alone can [should this be can't?] often show whether such changes changes were triggered by cultural or demographic changes. The underlying population biological processes are now being studied in the project "Eurasian steppe" for the first time using the latest sequencing (NGS) of ancient DNA together with archaeological evidence. In addition, climate change has been studied as a possible cause of these changes.

The composite study was divided into three sub-projects with different spatio-temporal focus: 1 Northern Pontic steppe, 2 Eastern Kazakhstan / southern Siberia, 3 southern steppe belt.

The first sub-project looked at the copper and Bronze Age cultures of the steppe west and north of the Black Sea (Fig. 1). In the Late Copper Age (around 3000 BC) the highly mobile Yamnaya culture developed here. The population and radius of influence - as the investigations showed - apparently expanded at the same time. With the Yamnaya culture spread a uniform burial rite in pit graves under the so-called kurgans (grave mound). These semi-nomadic habits also created strong trading relationships across the steppe. Around 2500 BC, they were replaced by the less mobile Catacomb-grave culture whose region of spread was significantly smaller.

Population genetic analyzes of DNA from the Late Copper to the Middle Bronze Age indicates a steadily increasing genetic distance between those cultures. Between the Copper Age and the period of the Catacomb-grave culture is the greatest genetic distance. Here the differences are much more pronounced than between early Chalcolithic cultures and Yamnaya population. This population genetic change could be an indication of discontinuity and population change by migration. One archaeological site was of suspected immigration from eastern steppe areas, but this had hardly taken place at least on the female side, for DNA lines typical of Central Asia do not occur in the studied populations. Despite the genetic differences within the groups studied, they can be designated unequivocally as European. DNA markers with known phenotype suggest a continuity between the North Pontic area of 4/3 millennium BC and today's Europeans. For example, all individuals examined were of a light pigmentation, such as is prevalent in Europe today. Only the eye color was darker compared to today.

In addition to palaeo-genetic evaluation at Mainz, the Free University of Berlin took geo-archaeological sample data from the region between the Urals and Carpathians. 160 climate archives (e.g. lake sediments and bogs) were first examined in summary for this area. They indicate for the climate between the 5th and 1 millennium BC a striking change between 3000-2500 BC, from warm and humid to dry-warm climate in the West Eurasian forest-steppe - in parallel to the spread of the Yamnaya culture. A connection is likely between such distinctive climatic changes, the economic innovations and increased mobility.

The groups studied are from the areas of eastern Kazakhstan, Altai mountains, Minusinsk Basin and Tuva. They all consist of a mixture of DNA lines, some of which are found today in Central and East Asia and others in Europe. Because of this background, the populations have a remarkably high level of genetic diversity, still found in people of the Altai. The project could now demonstrate that, despite this commonality, there are significant genetic differences among the analyzed Scythian groups.

The Tagar Culture (Minusinsk Basin) shows the greatest genetic - but also cultural - distance from all other groups. Although it is chronologically equivalent (5th-3rd century BC) to the Pazyryk culture of the Altai , there seems to be genetic isolation here. Between the Pazyryk culture and the much older finds from Tuva (7 / 6th century BC), however, is a very low genetic distance in spite of the time interval. Amazingly, the Pazyryk culture has also within its range a geographic substructure: divided into Kazakh Altai, and Cuja Ukok plateau region, show the nomadic horsemen of Cuja region in relation to the other two groups increased genetic distance.

The third sub-project examined the domestication of the two-humped Bactrian camel ([I]Camelus bactrianus) in the southern steppe belt. This is a crucial stage of development of the local prehistoric civilizations. Ancient DNA from prehistoric domesticated camels was compared with today's domesticated and wild specimens from Mongolia and China. It turned out that the modern wild Bactrian camels are genetically far removed from both the present and the prehistoric domesticated animals. So modern and prehistoric-domesticated camels are not descended from that wild animal population. Prehistoric and modern animals, however, are largely similar genetically, so for them a common domestication from a small founder population is assumed. Unlike previously thought, this is no longer to be sought in the East, but in the southwestern steppes.

Results and Outlook
The project led to four particular findings. First, small-scale archaeological hypotheses can be checked using ancient DNA. Second, the analysis of phenotypic markers substantially complements historical interpretations. Thirdly, DNA can be obtained from previously inaccessible biomolecular arid zones. Fourth, geo-archaeology gives a better understanding of the role of climate as background to cultural history and population genetic processes at the beginning of the Bronze and Iron Ages. By applying the latest sequencing technologies prehistoric DNA data sets were generated by 20-fold over traditional techniques. Thus increasing the complexity of data exchange evaluation makes a collaboration between humanities and science more important.

R.Rocca
06-24-2013, 12:34 PM
The study has only looked at mtDNA. They ruled out an immigration from the Central Asian steppe, since all of the studied populations on the Pontic steppe came up with mtDNA typical of European (i.e. Western Eurasian) populations, with none typical of Central Asia. So the change in the Catacomb period is more likely to reflect people moving south from the forest-steppe to take over areas vacated by departing Yamnaya (not that they say so, but we can use deduction).

Since Joachim Burger is leading the project, and his team has tested ancient Y-DNA, the hope is that they will test Y-DNA in these samples at some point.

Jean M
06-24-2013, 01:03 PM
Since Joachim Burger is leading the project, and his team has tested ancient Y-DNA, the hope is that they will test Y-DNA in these samples at some point.

I can't see what would stop them. They are using Next Generation sequencing, and already in that 2012 work-in-progress news item they report some autosomal findings on pigmentation.

alan
06-24-2013, 05:38 PM
It is very difficult to say. It could be that these are R1a folks or even different subclades of R1a entering the area. Or, it could be R1a replacing R1b. Or, as we have seen in Corded Ware, R1a replacing E and probable I. The real intrigue is that the change occurs at the same time as the rise of Bell Beaker and Corded Ware.

Hopefully someone fluent in German will post the proper translation.

Basically there is just too much going on in the area at the time. The timeframe could have some link with the shifting south of some late Maykop-Catacomb influences c. 2400BC into the south Caucasus. Could be some sort of shunting effect on those peoples. Late Maykop itself became more Catacomb-like. Its too late to be of interest to PIE though and is really of interest to internal history of the western steppes. So many of these steppe studies are 500-1000 years too late to throw clear light on the PIE period.

alan
06-24-2013, 11:07 PM
Been trying to get Ivanovs original book on the IEs.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/77557570/Indo-European-and-the-Indo-Europeans-A-Reconstruction-and-Historical-Analysis-of-a-Proto-Language-and-a-Proto-Culture-by-Th-V-Gamkrelidze-V-V-Ivan

alan
06-25-2013, 12:16 AM
Some interesting stuff on IE in this extremely interesting paper. http://www.jolr.ru/article.php?id=110

I dont really agree with the model in the article but I found interesting the reference to Hittite and Luwain being very different Anatolian-IE dialects already shortly after 2000BC very interesting and having contrasting centum and satem features.

I keep thinking that NW Iran could be important in PIE. It was at different times a link between Maykop and Mesopotamia and Kura-Araxes and Mesopotamia. It is sort of a common point of contact that could link all three of Caucausian (and possibly related extinct east Anatolian languages), IE and Sumerian. It strikes me as a point where all three could meet and loans could be transferred via NW Iran to and from any of these languages.

alan
06-25-2013, 10:10 AM
You know the more I read about the complex interactions around the steppes around 3500BC the more I think that even a large amount of DNA testing is never going to establish a ground zero for PIE. In fact I think that is a wrong headed concept. No language has a ground zero like that. All that has been reconstructed is a stage it reached around 3500BC what with wheels etc appearing. Ultimately DNA can only show what DNA a culture was carrying not what it was speaking. It is unlikely to 100% resolve the linguistic issue ever. I think even Anthony has a model that makes more sense that the ancestor of PIE was spread over a wider area of the western steppes and its fringes. If that was so a something like the wheel is being used to distinguise the transformation to PIE from Anatolian type dialects then it strikes me as a bit absurd to make a big deal of it other than as a chronological marker. If there was a much wider zone than Yamnaya speaking pre-proto-IE archaic dialects then they are of course simply going to insert a word for a new invention once it arrives.

Many suggest the wheel first appeared on the steppe edge in Maykop and I dont know if its at all significant regarding the word for wheel but Maykop did apparently know the slow potters wheel and you would think a similar word may have been used. You would think if they were not speaking some sort of wider pre-proto-IE at the time then this would have appeared in PIE as an identifiable non-IE loan word from another language. I dont really get the logic of putting too much emphasis on Yamnaya if other steppe groups were speaking some sort of Anatolian type stage language when the wheel arrived c. 3500BC give or take. I actually think the concept of a wider western steppe IE evolution is already to some extent in Anthony's model but I do not really understand his logic in seeing the addition of the wheel and word of it as putting Yamnaya so much centre stage. Surely all 'Anatolian' groups still located in the area who have added the word in slightly pre-Yamnaya times when the wheel appeared? Only those who had exited stage west very early like the Suvoravo groups would have not gained that word. Its an important chronological marker but surely all Anatolian type speaking pre-PIE groups would have simply added the word to their vocab, not just Yamnaya and Afansievo and essentially became IE speakers with the wheel as part of their vocab. Maykop influences and possibly the wheel spread in immediate pre-Yamnaya times into a wider range of the western steppes and well beyond than the Ural-Voga area. I just think even within a steppe model that there is too much emphasis on Yamnaya. I see it as part of the story but almost certainly not the only or first IEs with the word for the wheel. Other groups in the continoum between the Anatolian and PIE linguistic stage probably gained the wheel slightly before Yamnaya.

TigerMW
06-25-2013, 01:10 PM
.. I actually think the concept of a wider western steppe IE evolution is already to some extent in Anthony's model ..

The Mallory*/Anthony depiction of a PIE homeland is large area of steppes lands. There are generally not strong geophysical boundaries other than perhaps on the south but I'm not so sure we should view a sea as a strong boundary. It may have been a good transportation path.

I've heard Mallory lecture that these cultural boundaries were not clear lines. They were "patchy". We know Anthony is emphatic that the Yamnaya were not of a single culture but preferred to describe the situation as a "horizon". We can also add another complication. People can be bi-lingual.

The result is not a pure and well-defined society and people. Everything is in the cloud (computing) now days anyway. Perhaps the depiction of a PIE homeland should be a patchy, variously shaded cloud that changed shades, size and shape over the relevant time frame. That's the real world.

However, languages can still be useful puzzle pieces though. We should not ever expect the puzzle to be absolutely clear as it fills in. There will always be fuzziness.

[[[ Mikewww/Moderator: I guess I should criticize myself. That was pretty well devoid content, at least new data. :) ]]]]

[* EDIT on 06/24: I meant Mallory not Renfrew]

alan
06-25-2013, 03:33 PM
Some interesting stuff on IE in this extremely interesting paper. http://www.jolr.ru/article.php?id=110

I dont really agree with the model in the article but I found interesting the reference to Hittite and Luwain being very different Anatolian-IE dialects already shortly after 2000BC very interesting and having contrasting centum and satem features.

I keep thinking that NW Iran could be important in PIE. It was at different times a link between Maykop and Mesopotamia and Kura-Araxes and Mesopotamia. It is sort of a common point of contact that could link all three of Caucausian (and possibly related extinct east Anatolian languages), IE and Sumerian. It strikes me as a point where all three could meet and loans could be transferred via NW Iran to and from any of these languages.


The contrasting aspects of Luwian and Hittite presumably indicate chonological and/or geographical differences in their back stories. I dont think though that an IE language of pre-wheel age is likely at all to have come through the Caucasus from the north. That area had the wheel first and there is no evidence for strong northern influences passing through the south Caucasus until 2400BC and by then they knew the wheel for over 1000 years and can hardly be expected to have hung around the north Caucasus and southern steppe in the earliest wheel zone and not have had a word for it. In a steppe model it just seems likely that Anatolian IE branch came via the Balkans.

TigerMW
06-25-2013, 03:46 PM
The contrasting aspects of Luwian and Hittite presumably indicate chonological and/or geographical differences in their back stories. I dont think though that an IE language of pre-wheel age is likely at all to have come through the Caucasus from the north. That area had the wheel first and there is no evidence for strong northern influences passing through the south Caucasus until 2400BC and by then they knew the wheel for over 1000 years and can hardly be expected to have hung around the north Caucasus and southern steppe in the earliest wheel zone and not have had a word for it. In a steppe model it just seems likely that Anatolian IE branch came via the Balkans.

Couldn't it be that IE and early-IE reached Anatolia via two routes?

The early route was over and around the mountains and be your Anatolian languages.

A second route would have have followed your Circum-pontic anti-clockwise proposal and would have come later. It had time to pick up some Satemization as an Hellenic branch (per Warnow's tree) and brought people who would be the Greeks and people who would be the Armenians.

Of course, per my earlier posted perspective, I don't necessarily think of a PIE homeland with hard-core boundaries, but more patchy and fuzzy. If so, PIE or the pre-PIE base could have been found in some patches in the mountains or perhaps along the Caspian coasts all the way to Iran.

Do we know if the Anatolian branches had a word for that Asiatic hunting cat showing up in the Maykop decorations? I'm not saying that was a PIE word, but it would be interesting if Anatolian branches may have had a word for them.

R.Rocca
06-25-2013, 04:15 PM
The Renfrew/Anthony depiction of a PIE homeland is large area of steppes lands. There are generally not strong geophysical boundaries other than perhaps on the south but I'm not so sure we should view a sea as a strong boundary. It may have been a good transportation path.

I've heard Renfrew lecture that these cultural boundaries were not clear lines. They were "patchy". We know Anthony is emphatic that the Yamnaya were not of a single culture but preferred to describe the situation as a "horizon". We can also add another complication. People can be bi-lingual.

The result is not a pure and well-defined society and people. Everything is in the cloud (computing) now days anyway. Perhaps the depiction of a PIE homeland should be a patchy, variously shaded cloud that changed shades, size and shape over the relevant time frame. That's the real world.

However, languages can still be useful puzzle pieces though. We should not ever expect the puzzle to be absolutely clear as it fills in. There will always be fuzziness.



I don't know that it changes much, but I think bi-lingual speech was extremely rare during the time periods we are discussing here. That's not to say that two different languages within close proximity of one another did not produce hybrid languages. These hybrid languages exist in Europe even today.

TigerMW
06-25-2013, 06:33 PM
I don't know that it changes much, but I think bi-lingual speech was extremely rare during the time periods we are discussing here. That's not to say that two different languages within close proximity of one another did not produce hybrid languages. These hybrid languages exist in Europe even today.

I would agree that in ancient times that inward from the edges of a single culture, at the core, without modern media, I would think that everything will coalesce to a single language.

However, almost by definition, traders and travelers and people on the edges of cultures would have to have some rudimentry skills in a foreign language. Of course, that may eventually evolve into a lingua franca.

Also, since the Yamnaya were not a single, monolithic group, I don't think we can expect they spoke a single, pure language across the group, at least not until full PIE was evolved. Even then, there had to be a lot of patchiness in the dialects. There were no TV's or easy ways for standardization to occur and be maintained :) ***

Note: I updated a prior post but I meant the "Mallory/Anthony" depiction not the "Renfrew/Anthony" depiction. What was I thinking?

*** To throw in an analogy and for fun. The Yamnaya horizon looks to be as wide as the Old South of the US. The Emancipation Proclamation went into effect on Jan 1st, 1863. In Texas, we celebrate "Juneteenth Day" to celebrate when the folks in Galveston received the word/reality. The date was June 19th, 1865, over two years later.

alan
06-25-2013, 06:55 PM
Couldn't it be that IE and early-IE reached Anatolia via two routes?

The early route was over and around the mountains and be your Anatolian languages.

A second route would have have followed your Circum-pontic anti-clockwise proposal and would have come later. It had time to pick up some Satemization as an Hellenic branch (per Warnow's tree) and brought people who would be the Greeks and people who would be the Armenians.

Of course, per my earlier posted perspective, I don't necessarily think of a PIE homeland with hard-core boundaries, but more patchy and fuzzy. If so, PIE or the pre-PIE base could have been found in some patches in the mountains or perhaps along the Caspian coasts all the way to Iran.

Do we know if the Anatolian branches had a word for that Asiatic hunting cat showing up in the Maykop decorations? I'm not saying that was a PIE word, but it would be interesting if Anatolian branches may have had a word for them.


All the evidence for a north-south movement from the steppes through the Caucasus before 2400BC has evaporated. There is no evidence for it at all. Quite the contrary. The Great Caucasus ridge seems to have been a formidable barrier culturally etc. Anyone passing through that way from 3500BC if not a few centuries earlier would have been the first to know about the wheel. Bottom line is there is no evidence at all that it happened. So I think that route for an Anatolian phase migration is probably dead. The wheel spread quick to non-steppe east-central Europe too so there is only a narrow window for steppe groups spreading west (in the phase where it is attested) to have avoided both the early knowledge of the wheel in the Maykop area and also avoid the spread of that knowledge west of the steppes (which seems likely to have preceeded the Yamnaya period). So, if a Kurgan model is followed, Anthony is probably right that Anatolians must have been early break offs from the steppes prior 3500BC and prior to both Yamnaya coming into existence of Maykops extension into the steppes. The period 4200BC-3500BC and a route west to the Balkans seems to fit the evidence. After 3500BC (and maybe a little before that) the wheel would have first been known by people derived from or in contact with Maykop in the Ukraine then Yamnaya. So Anthony's Suvoravo etc model seems likely. However I wouldnt make too much significance out of this. Anatolians (in a steppe model) are basically IEs who left a then generally pre-wheel Anatolian zone and we have no idea how big that zone was. There could have been a whole para-Anatolian zone back in 4000BC. That there are geographical as well as chronological considerations and we cannot assume that Suvoravo etc =Anatolian. Any steppe group heading west up to 3500BC or even a little later were likely have been ignorant of the wheel, possibly even a century or so later if they were very peripheral. Basically to avoid a word for wheel Anatolians had to move west before 3500BC.

TigerMW
06-26-2013, 10:00 PM
... The wheel spread quick to non-steppe east-central Europe too so there is only a narrow window for steppe groups spreading west (in the phase where it is attested) to have avoided both the early knowledge of the wheel in the Maykop area and also avoid the spread of that knowledge west of the steppes (which seems likely to have preceeded the Yamnaya period). So, if a Kurgan model is followed, Anthony is probably right that Anatolians must have been early break offs from the steppes prior 3500BC and prior to both Yamnaya coming into existence of Maykops extension into the steppes. The period 4200BC-3500BC and a route west to the Balkans seems to fit the evidence. After 3500BC (and maybe a little before that) the wheel would have first been known by people derived from or in contact with Maykop in the Ukraine then Yamnaya. So Anthony's Suvoravo etc model seems likely....
Basically to avoid a word for wheel Anatolians had to move west before 3500BC.

Okay, so you are sticking full bore with the anti-clockwise Circumpontic movement. Suvorovo is in a Varna this comes back to our potential L23xL51 guys in Bulgaria along the south side of the mouth of the Danube.

I wonder what is meant by an "elite sector" of the Sredni-Stog? the horsemen aspect of their society?


Suvorovo-Novodanilovka Incursion

• The decline of Old Europe and the increasing presence of steppe culture artifacts in the Balkans is connected with an event called the Suvorovo-Novodanilovka Incursion or Migration, c. 4200.

• Possibly an elite sector of the Sredni-Stog culture, who consolidated status through cattle-wealth in times of crop failure, alliance building through feast- and gift-giving

• Attracted to Danube Valley for cattle raiding and copper ornaments

• Rode domesticated horses which facilitated long-distance raiding.

• Anthony proposes that these people were speakers of pre-Anatolian, who later migrated to western Anatolia via Thessaly http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~rnoyer/courses/51/Ling512011PIENeolithic.pdf

It would appear that if Suvorovo-Novodanilovka spun west and south out of Sredny Stog then it would have moved out during Phase I of Sredny Stog.


"The expert Dmytro Telegin has divided the chronology of Sredny Stog into two distinct phases. Phase II (ca. 4000–3500 BC) used corded ware pottery which may have originated there, and stone battle-axes of the type later associated with expanding Indo-European cultures to the West" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sredny_Stog_culture

I guess this is just all of the fuzziness of PIE/pre-PIE/adjoining to PIE. It appears there was a good sized area outside of the early Yamnaya boundaries that spoke something quite close to PIE. What is the key discernment for calling something Yamnaya? Is it widespread use of wheel on top of the horse-riding/livestock herding, etc.?

R.Rocca
06-26-2013, 11:53 PM
Okay, so you are sticking full bore with the anti-clockwise Circumpontic movement. Suvorovo is in a Varna this comes back to our potential L23xL51 guys in Bulgaria along the south side of the mouth of the Danube.

I wonder what is meant by an "elite sector" of the Sredni-Stog? the horsemen aspect of their society?


Suvorovo-Novodanilovka Incursion

• The decline of Old Europe and the increasing presence of steppe culture artifacts in the Balkans is connected with an event called the Suvorovo-Novodanilovka Incursion or Migration, c. 4200.

• Possibly an elite sector of the Sredni-Stog culture, who consolidated status through cattle-wealth in times of crop failure, alliance building through feast- and gift-giving

• Attracted to Danube Valley for cattle raiding and copper ornaments

• Rode domesticated horses which facilitated long-distance raiding.

• Anthony proposes that these people were speakers of pre-Anatolian, who later migrated to western Anatolia via Thessaly http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~rnoyer/courses/51/Ling512011PIENeolithic.pdf

It would appear that if Suvorovo-Novodanilovka spun west and south out of Sredny Stog then it would have moved out during Phase I of Sredny Stog.


"The expert Dmytro Telegin has divided the chronology of Sredny Stog into two distinct phases. Phase II (ca. 4000–3500 BC) used corded ware pottery which may have originated there, and stone battle-axes of the type later associated with expanding Indo-European cultures to the West" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sredny_Stog_culture

I guess this is just all of the fuzziness of PIE/pre-PIE/adjoining to PIE. It appears there was a good sized area outside of the early Yamnaya boundaries that spoke something quite close to PIE. What is the key discernment for calling something Yamnaya? Is it widespread use of wheel on top of the horse-riding/livestock herding, etc.?

There is a gap of 600 years from 3500 BC to the start of Corded Ware which is dated no earlier than 2900 BC.

R.Rocca
06-27-2013, 01:21 PM
Dienekes seems to have taken an interest in Maikop of late. From today's blog entry:

Analysis of Maikop crania (Kazarnitsky et al. 2010)

Abstract: Measurements of crania of people associated with the Early Bronze Age Maikop culture of the Northern Caucasus are analyzed. Data on Maikop males, new and previously published, were compared with those concerning chronologically and geographically related people using the canonical variate analysis. The Maikop series turned out to be isolated and no close parallels to it were found among the Bronze Age groups, either from the steppe and forest-steppe zones of Eastern Europe or from the Caucasus and Southwestern Central Asia. While certain parallels seem to point to the Near East, they are too few to warrant definite conclusions.

Conclusions: In sum, the results of the multivariate analysis suggest that Maikop people are distinct from all the contemporary and later Eastern European groups of the steppe and forest-steppe zones. This provides an additional argument in favor of the hypothesis that Maikop burials in Kalmykia attest not merely to the cultural impact of the Maikop community on the steppe tribes (Munchaev, 1994: 168); rather, they were left by a separate group which was unrelated to the local Pit Grave population by origin. The Southern Caucasoid trait combination revealed by the Maikop series is somewhat similar to that shown by the contemporaneous groups of the Northern Caucasus and southern Turkmenia. Clearly, this does not imply a direct connection with any of these regions.
The Near Eastern parallels are no less suggestive (Bunak, 1947: 77). Thus, a small series from Al-Ubaid in southern Mesopotamia, dating from the 4th millennium BC, is characterized by dolichocrany (cranial index, 72.6), a high face, medium wide, high and sharply protruding nose, and wide palate (Keith, 1931: 239–241). Regrettably, the number of measurements is too small to warrant a reliable comparison with the Maikop series. However, the isolated position of the Maikop group in Eastern Europe, its vague resemblance to the Southern Caucasoids of the Caucasus and Southwestern Central Asia, and the Near Eastern cultural affinities of Maikop and Novosvobodnaya (Munchaev, 1994: 170) indirectly point to Near Eastern provenance.

newtoboard
06-27-2013, 01:33 PM
The R1b maykop theory is in good company as Eupedia agrees with the theory of superior R1b people giving culture and language to those inferior R1a people. They caused a shift in the R1a people from Uralic languages. In fact those superior R1b people were dominant in West Asia and were responsible for things like Gobekli Tepe. The downfall of the Middle East came when those inferior J1/J2 people replaced the R1b super beings.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28632-More-evidence-that-the-PIE-R1b-people-originated-in-the-Maykop-culture

TigerMW
06-27-2013, 01:38 PM
There is a gap of 600 years from 3500 BC to the start of Corded Ware which is dated no earlier than 2900 BC.

What I was thinking was some remnants (not the migrants to Suvorovo/Varna) of the Sredny-Stog Culture may have stayed behind, but participated in Corded Ware later. Are you saying that due to the 600 year gap we can not expect that would happen? I don't know it was just a thought. There are metallurgical practice commonalities between Corded Ware and Bell Beakers. I am on the look out for that as I'm not yet convinced that U106 was derived out of some L11* Beaker type. However, I think L11 and U106 were too late, at least for early Corded Ware. I haven't really focused on it, but it is interesting that we have some L23* in higher percentages in Poland and L23 may be better placed age wise.

I see there is some thought that Corded Ware is first found in Southern Poland about 3000 BC. That cuts the gap a little bit but it is a different location far to the west of Sredny-Stog so I don't know what to make of Corded Ware.

Wikipedia has,
"The Corded Ware culture (in Middle Europe c. 2900 – 2450/2350 cal. BC), alternatively characterized as the Battle Axe culture or Single Grave culture, is an enormous European archaeological horizon that begins in the late Neolithic (Stone Age), flourishes through the Copper Age and culminates in the early Bronze Age.
...
The earliest radiocarbon dates for Corded Ware come from Kujavia and Małopolska in central and southern Poland and point to the period around 3000 BC. (It must be noted that this study is limited to Middle Europe.) Carbon-14 dating of the remaining central European regions shows that Corded Ware appeared after 2880 BC.
...
Around 2400 BC the people of the Corded Ware replaced their predecessors and expanded to Danubian and Nordic areas of western Germany."

I see Corded Ware is also considered an horizon rather than a single culture. We may have to be more specific with these horizons, i.e. Beakers, Yamnaya, and Corded Ware. They are quite large and may (probably) have expanded with quite varied mixes of demic and cultural diffusion. Hence, in some locations we may see a lot of changes in the genes and in other places very little. I would imagine that as a culture grows in power and prestige that some of its areas of expansion may be very much just acculturation.

alan
07-01-2013, 11:50 PM
@newtoboard. Even though that other site is following a similar r1b maykop idea I would like to think I am just exploring it and not glory hunting on R1bs behalf. I post most of what I read for others to make their own minds up.

No one really knows what r1b and r1a were doing in 3000, 4000 or 6000 BC. We don't have samples old enough from the right places. Even if we did we will probably never be able to say who spoke PIE first. Even ancient DNA will never show this. It will still end up a case of tracing back from far later cultures linked later IE dialects and trying to infer backwards.

Knowing their DNA wont change that hugely. We will likely never be able to know the details of how PIE came to form and whether it was a small area or a big network.

All we know is the result not the process. In the end balto-Slavic and indo-Iranian were R1a associated while Celtic, Italic look likely to be R1b linked. Other groups don't have such strong R1 links but they could probably be divided up as being stronger in one or another.

The point is an exclusivist model that states only R1a or R1b had an early role leaves one half or the other half learning ( apparently very well) PIE from a tiny sometimes alnost absent minority. There is no need for us to play the R1a vs R1b children's game of some other forums.

There is a mixture of cultures pressing into each other in the period 4500-3500BC. Between the Danube, the Volga and the north Caucasus. Unlike some of the simplified versions out there they all moved widely across the western streppes creating hybrids etc. noone has any idea of the DNA of the handful of cultural strands involved and only a clueless person who really hadn't read very deep into the archaeology would ever see any possibility of a mono haplogroup culture in that huge melting pot.

PIE could have evolved across a broad area of this cultural melting pot. I personally feel that maykop was the source of the social change seen In the difference between Anatolian and PIE linguistic phases. I think there is little doubt now that maykop was the originator of much of what created the distinctive yamaya kurgan culture. Maykop was certainly very important as radiocarbon dating clearly show it is earlier than yamnaya.

However that doesn't mean that the predecessor to PIE, Anatolian was originally Maykop associated. Certainly some of the earliest steppe cultures that Anthony associates with Anatolian spilled out of the steppes to the Danube before mayko influence would have been felt in the steppes in ore/wheel times. So it is possible that PIE language has a steppe base but that what we think of as kurgan culture owed much to maykop. It is possible that we have to credit one with the root language and another with moulding the society. If that maykop-steppe hybrid translates into an R1a-R1a divide then a lot makes sense with the PIE language fully forming at the time if maximum blending of maykop, steppe and cuc/tryp elements c3500BC and spreading out through the morphing into new cultures and spreading out we see c3500BC to 3000BC or so.

The recasting of multiple elements into a new language- culture group and spreading out in a variety of new cultures is far more likely IMO than some sort of dreadful yamnaya action movie that starts with one tribe getting wagons with block wheels dragged by oxen several centuries after their neighbours and mysteriously suddenly being able to conquer Europe.

Like I say new evidence does not support the latter model.

TigerMW
07-01-2013, 11:58 PM
The R1b maykop theory is in good company as Eupedia agrees with the theory of superior R1b people giving culture and language to those inferior R1a people. They caused a shift in the R1a people from Uralic languages. In fact those superior R1b people were dominant in West Asia and were responsible for things like Gobekli Tepe. The downfall of the Middle East came when those inferior J1/J2 people replaced the R1b super beings.

Newtobard, if you'd like to invite a poster from Eupedia to join this forum to represent the views you would like to discuss that is fine.

I pesonally would not characterize R1b male lineages as inferior or superior, nor any other male lineages for that matter. I haven't really seen any one claiming that R1b descendants are superior on this forum. If you get someone to transfer over here that wants espouse that, I'll be glad to support you in any arguments that no haplogroup is inherently superior. Ultimately, I don't think such conversations will end in a productive result.

That is not to say that some cultures did not have advantages that may helped their population grow or just plain survive. I just don't think many cultures were pure of any one haplogroup though, including the Maykops. The Y chromosome itself is small part of our DNA.

razyn
07-02-2013, 05:47 PM
Since nobody has mentioned Khvalynsk for about a year (and it wasn't on this forum, when somebody did), I think I'll link the relevant thread from WorldFamilies last year. About half the people posting on this thread participated in that one, too. Anyway I consider it a dropped stitch -- mostly of interest (so far) to speakers of Russian and French -- but possibly relevant to Alan's musings about how (and whence) the circumpontic metallurgical province took off for the far west.

http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10580.msg131237#msg131237

I have no specific interest in arguing about the nice distinctions between pots with pointed bases and those with flat ones. The broader cultural and diffusion issues remain, whether Khvalynsk pottery does or does not have anything to do with (the rest of) Corded Ware or Bell Beaker pottery. Just a little grist for everybody's mill, here.

alan
07-03-2013, 01:21 AM
I really cannot understand the r1a vs r1b childish rivallry. Really anyone who thinks like that is not mature enough to contribute.

rms2
07-03-2013, 12:48 PM
I really cannot understand the r1a vs r1b childish rivallry. Really anyone who thinks like that is not mature enough to contribute.

But that goes on a lot and is what has driven me out of these sorts of discussions - that, and the sort of dogmatic belief that all of this is settled and done.

TigerMW
07-03-2013, 03:46 PM
But that goes on a lot and is what has driven me out of these sorts of discussions - that, and the sort of dogmatic belief that all of this is settled and done.

Agreed, there are some other forums that seem to trend to or at least flirt with the line of what I would consider racially construed thinking. I can't be associated with that.

I'm an individualist*. Everyone is an individual and should be viewed with respect and expected responsibility. Those qualities should only be reconsidered depending on individual behavior.

As far a haplogroup false pride, or whatever we call it, no one seems to have a monopoly on that. Between the desired glories of Cro-Magnon, Hunter-gatherer natives, Vikings, Gaels and of course Normans its a bit crazy. I find the Normans most amusing. Almost any one can claim that and they might be right! It doesn't really matter. What is is.


* I put the asterisk by individualist because I fancy that more as a rugged individualist. I'm just saying I have no problems with a good argument. That's fun. I just don't like things that go off-track or into emotionalistic themes.


Speaking of being on-track, what do you think of the paper that Richard R quoted below:

Kazarnistky wrote,

the results of the multivariate analysis suggest that Maikop people are distinct from all the contemporary and later Eastern European groups of the steppe and forest-steppe zones. This provides an additional argument in favor of the hypothesis that Maikop burials in Kalmykia attest not merely to the cultural impact of the Maikop community on the steppe tribes
...
the isolated position of the Maikop group in Eastern Europe, its vague resemblance to the Southern Caucasoids of the Caucasus and Southwestern Central Asia, and the Near Eastern cultural affinities of Maikop and Novosvobodnaya (Munchaev, 1994: 170) indirectly point to Near Eastern provenance.

In the spirit of avoiding false pride, I in no way am saying Maykop was all or even part R1b, although they are suspects for R1b carriers.

alan
07-04-2013, 01:01 AM
Mike
I noticed dienekes spun this by ignoring the conclusion of the report of uniqueness of maykop people and instead discussing other older perhaps less reliable studies that pointed to a west Asia link.

DMXX
07-05-2013, 09:37 AM
Speaking of Dienekes, he has just shared a recent review of the Kura-Araxes culture which ties in with the Maikop discussion:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/07/origin-of-early-transcaucasian-culture.html



The new high dating of the Maikop culture essentially signifies that there is no chronological hiatus separating the collapse of the Chalcolithic Balkan centre of metallurgical production and the appearance of Maikop and the sudden explosion of Caucasian metallurgical production and use of arsenical copper/bronzes. More than forty calibrated radiocarbon dates on Maikop and related materials now support this high chronology; and the revised dating for the Maikop culture means that the earliest kurgans occur in the northwestern and southern Caucasus and precede by several centuries those of the Pit-Grave (Yamnaya) cultures of the western Eurasian steppes (cf. Chernykh and Orlovskaya 2004a and b). The calibrated radiocarbon dates suggest that the Maikop ‘culture’ seems to have had a formative influence on steppe kurgan burial rituals and what now appears to be the later development of the Pit-Grave (Yamnaya) culture on the Eurasian steppes (Chernykh and Orlovskaya 2004a: 97).
...
In other words, sometime around the middle of the 4th millennium BCE or slightly subsequent to the initial appearance of the Maikop culture of the NW Caucasus, settlements containing proto-Kura-Araxes or early Kura-Araxes materials first appear across a broad area that stretches from the Caspian littoral of the northeastern Caucasus in the north to the Erzurum region of the Anatolian Plateau in the west. For simplicity’s sake these roughly simultaneous developments across this broad area will be considered as representing the beginnings of the Early Bronze Age or the initial stages of development of the KuraAraxes/Early Transcaucasian culture.


More quotes can be read in the above link.

R.Rocca
07-05-2013, 12:16 PM
Speaking of Dienekes, he has just shared a recent review of the Kura-Araxes culture which ties in with the Maikop discussion:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/07/origin-of-early-transcaucasian-culture.html

More quotes can be read in the above link.

Alan had mentioned that the "distribution of R1b-richer peoples of the Caucasus is a near carbon copy of the map of the Maykop culture". I am having a hard time seeing that fit. Based on the Yunusbayev paper, the distribution of the Kura-Araxes Culture, which stretched from "the Caspian littoral of the northeastern Caucasus in the north to the Erzurum region of the Anatolian Plateau in the west", is a much better fit for R1b's distribution. I have calculated the R1b frequencies based on the Yunusbayev paper here:

http://r1b.org/imgs/Yunusbayev_2012.png

TigerMW
07-05-2013, 01:45 PM
Alan had mentioned that the "distribution of R1b-richer peoples of the Caucasus is a near carbon copy of the map of the Maykop culture". I am having a hard time seeing that fit. Based on the Yunusbayev paper, the distribution of the Kura-Araxes Culture, which stretched from "the Caspian littoral of the northeastern Caucasus in the north to the Erzurum region of the Anatolian Plateau in the west", is a much better fit for R1b's distribution. I have calculated the R1b frequencies based on the Yunusbayev paper ...

Thank you, Richard. I think it is important to look at the distribution at the highest geographic resolution possible. In this case that gets into particular ethnic groups. What do those tell us? The higher frequencies are among the Bagvalais, Kumyks, Lezgins, Tabsarans, Kuban Nogays, Adyghe and, of course, the Armenians.

Perhaps it is just as important to know where R1b is zero or near zero; among the Ingush, Mountain Jews, Chamalais, Chechens, South Ossetians.

TigerMW
07-05-2013, 01:48 PM
Mike
I noticed dienekes spun this by ignoring the conclusion of the report of uniqueness of maykop people and instead discussing other older perhaps less reliable studies that pointed to a west Asia link.

I enjoy Dienekes' research and analysis. I'm glad he is out there. I do have to concede sometimes he tries to bend the data a certain way. I suppose that's hard not to do when you have a firm hypothesis, so we must remain on the look out for that. Then again, maybe he is right. Actually it's all good, we just need to be sure to separate fact from opinion.

newtoboard
07-05-2013, 07:59 PM
Alan had mentioned that the "distribution of R1b-richer peoples of the Caucasus is a near carbon copy of the map of the Maykop culture". I am having a hard time seeing that fit. Based on the Yunusbayev paper, the distribution of the Kura-Araxes Culture, which stretched from "the Caspian littoral of the northeastern Caucasus in the north to the Erzurum region of the Anatolian Plateau in the west", is a much better fit for R1b's distribution. I have calculated the R1b frequencies based on the Yunusbayev paper here:

http://r1b.org/imgs/Yunusbayev_2012.png

Yea I never understood that either. The R1b in that region seems to concentrated in Dagestan, Armenia and NW Iran. The Maykop area is probably more rich in R1a if anything. Of course the correlation of Kura-Araxes to R1b is largely dependent on including the regions where Armenians lived which is incompatible with tying Armenian R1b to the Balkans.

alan
07-06-2013, 01:31 AM
Sorry but there is a thread on the Caucasus R1b distribution and the pattern was clear that the Armenians are the exception to the generally much lower R1b count in the south of the Caucasus. I went to considerable trouble to look into that and bust the myth about R1b distribution in the caucuses. I don't have to go over that all again. The pattern is very clear and it's geographically determined. The main feature is the great Caucasus line and this meant that the north Caucasus were naturally strongly segregated from the south and more naturally connected to north Iran than the South Caucasus. Anyway it's all In the relevant thread, broken down and I am not going to revisit all that again because the keep R1b as far away from the steppes gang prefer myths.

newtoboard
07-06-2013, 02:17 PM
Sorry but there is a thread on the Caucasus R1b distribution and the pattern was clear that the Armenians are the exception to the generally much lower R1b count in the south of the Caucasus. I went to considerable trouble to look into that and bust the myth about R1b distribution in the caucuses. I don't have to go over that all again. The pattern is very clear and it's geographically determined. The main feature is the great Caucasus line and this meant that the north Caucasus were naturally strongly segregated from the south and more naturally connected to north Iran than the South Caucasus. Anyway it's all In the relevant thread, broken down and I am not going to revisit all that again because the keep R1b as far away from the steppes gang prefer myths.

Your exception (why is it ok to make that exception anyways-because it suits your ideas?) removes most of the R1b from that Caucasus in general. The distribution of Maykop doesn't fit R1b in that area. Kura-Araxes does as does the distribution of Armenian and Iranian empires. Because the main groups that carry R1b in that part of the world are Iranians, Kurds, Dagestanis and Armenians. I bet they outnumber all the R1b carrier in the North Caucasus by 2-3x. The removal of Armenians from Turkey has skewed the R1b distribution in West Asia. And there is no evidence that the R1b in East Caucasus is ancient and not of recent Iranian origins. After all we know the Sassanids kept Persian colonies there and Iran ruled portions of Dagetsan up till the Qajars. Nobody needs to keep R1b away from the steepes because its existence in the steepes is in your mind alone. As well your invention of a PIE homeland in the Western steepes. No ancient evidence for it existing and no ethnic groups there carry it. And you can mention population replacements by Slavs all you wants because the groups they replaced also carried R1a (just of the Z93+ variety).

TigerMW
07-06-2013, 02:48 PM
... And there is no evidence that the R1b in East Caucasus is ancient and not of recent Iranian origins...

We do find some unusual "early" branching subclades of R1b so what you are saying is not quite true.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R_Asia_dispersal_map_by_Vizachero_2011.png

TigerMW
07-06-2013, 02:51 PM
Your exception (why is it ok to make that exception anyways-because it suits your ideas?) removes most of the R1b from that Caucasus in general. .
The reasons why Armenians might be consider aside, as an exception, legitimately, is because they have a history of coming from the west side of the Black Sea across the Bosphorus into Anatolia. We don't necessarily expect Armenians to be the most ancient R1b in Anatolia. They could be, but it is also legitimate to consider them separately.

TigerMW
07-06-2013, 02:55 PM
... Nobody needs to keep R1b away from the steepes because its existence in the steepes is in your mind alone. As well your invention of a PIE homeland in the Western steepes....

[[[ Moderator/Mikewww on 7/6/2013: You may be right and Alan may be wrong. That's okay, but let's try to stay on the evidence and logic and not personal as far as criticism or sarcasm goes. No problems, but this is just a reminder/request to ask that we stay on the logic and evidence. Opinions are most welcome and speculations are expected. ]]]

alan
07-11-2013, 06:47 PM
Found another book review relating to Maykop dating to 2007

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/paleo_0153-9345_2007_num_33_2_5227_t10_0166_0000_5

Nothing that other recent articles have not already mentioned but it is interesting that one contributor draws attention to the pre-Maykop area having been part of the south-eastern extremity of the steppe part of the Carpatho-Balkans network (via the Skelya culture) as seen by an artificact in the pre-Maykop Svobodnoe site. Anthony again discusses the steppe links of Svobodnoe pre-Maykop culture and when he states links to the Suvorovo elements this is probably the equivalent to the links noted to the Carpatho-Balkans/Skelya network. Kohl sees this as a bit flimsy based on a single find as it is but Anthony does expand on these contacts and shows its based on more than one find.

I think it would be wrong not to consider the linguistic aspect of this early metallurgical network while taking the CMP and much later beakers etc seriously. I notice too that there is a comment on the similarity of pre-Maykop houses in the north-west Caucasus with the earlier C-Typ ones. So there could have been at least an element of influence and influx coming from the C-Tryp zone on top of the various steppe, local pastoralist, Iran and Uruk connections that have been suggested for the pre-Maykop and Maykop period here. Its clearly been an interesting interface area between the steppe, the Balkan farming world, Iran etc which makes it rather unusual.

Disclaimer-I am not trying to revive a Balkans PIE urheimet.

alan
07-11-2013, 07:40 PM
Another paper by Kohl


http://kura-arax.tau.ac.il/system/files/Kohl.pdf

alan
07-14-2013, 12:30 PM
I may have posted this already but just for completeness

http://academia.edu/2543641/The_chronology_of_the_Maikop_culture_in_the_Northe rn_Caucasus_changing_perspectives

The author tends to emphasis that Maykop was built on groups with cultures you would expect at a steppe-very late farming interface area.

alan
07-20-2013, 12:22 AM
Another paper by Kohl


http://kura-arax.tau.ac.il/system/files/Kohl.pdf

Although I believe in a more northerly history for P297, I believe a subset of P25 passed south perhaps around 10000BC or so when this became possible again with the closing off of the black sea-caspian channel, possibly into northern Iran initially where it may well have a raised concentration according to a recent paper. From this sort of position it could have given rise to V88 around 4000BC at the time the neolithic arrives in northern Iran plateau and then could have been encorporated into the kura-araxes network c. 3500bc or so. The report above shows an offshoot of this culture headed down the east Med to Israel and adajcent. I think there are a number of echoes of kura-araxes in the V88 distribution outside Africa. This sort of date for its passing down the east Med. would agree with the younger age that is arrived at when African V88 is looked at alone.

alan
07-20-2013, 03:14 PM
This is behind a paywall. Pity because it could throw little on the P25* era of R1b

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618212003035

alan
07-30-2013, 12:35 PM
Interesting new paper on Tyrol metal working behind paywall

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00334-012-0379-6#