History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedProto Indo-European

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Maju View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6571
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Aug-2005 at 16:01
Originally posted by Anonym Anonym wrote:

Originally posted by Phallanx Phallanx wrote:

They've introduced a theory of an allegedly homogenous
We could continue with alleged roots like, '
su'= 'to be born' that they connected to 'uios'= son
'n' = 'not (from one letter!!!) connected to 'agnwstos' = unknown


Okay, that "n" thing just made me laugh.Clap


But actually all IE languages I know of (but Greek) have a monosyllabe no/not/non/ne/njet for NO, and simmilar words for NOR. It's obvious there's a connection and it's better represented by *n, being the vowel and the final -t more variable. We can't know wether the original word was no, ne, na or ni or nu... but there was one and it's common denominator is *n.

That's why it's just a reconstructed hypothetical proto-languange and not a true known historical root-language, which is lost.

Here you can find a list of numerals in the different IE tongues, all very clearly connected this way.


NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Anonym View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 28-Jul-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anonym Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Aug-2005 at 11:28
Originally posted by Maju Maju wrote:

[QUOTE=Anonym]

[QUOTE=Phallanx]

But actually all IE languages I know of (but Greek) have a monosyllabe no/not/non/ne/njet for NO, and simmilar words for NOR. It's obvious there's a connection and it's better represented by *n, being the vowel and the final -t more variable. We can't know wether the original word was no, ne, na or ni or nu... but there was one and it's common denominator is *n.

That's why it's just a reconstructed hypothetical proto-languange and not a true known historical root-language, which is lost.

Here you can find a list of numerals in the different IE tongues, all very clearly connected this way.

 

I think that you are missing the point.  what has been pointed out here is that there are clearly some compelling IE word groups that appear to support the theory BUT, if you dismissed the IE theory you can find, at least within Greek, a self-contained system that supports an autonomous, non-IE, history.  The same puzzle-pieces lead to a different picture. 

It reminds me of this fellow, whose name escapes me now, who had this theory that that animal colorations were environmental and meant to provide camoflouge.  It was a popularly embraced theory and this acceptance encouraged him so much that he began to force fit this narrow theory into a global solution and proposed that flamingos were pink in order to hide in the setting/rising sun!  He even produced paintings to demonstrate how it was so.  That is an example of a succesful theory taken too far.

Taking it back to our discussion the point being brought up is the lack of IE consistancy one is confronted with once you pass a couple of easy examples like "one".  Also, how one needs to dismiss archeological evidence of human habitation that predates any supposed IE invasion.

Look, I am no subject matter expert on IE, but it appears to me that the IE theory is accepted a little too glibly and people discount any facts that do no fit the mold.  Any theory that requires cutting out facts or declarig them exceptions and where the exceptions begin to outnumber the "rule", well, then, I become suspect.

Some critisism I may find acceptable is that the non-IE theory is an effort at nationalist history, to declare a non-invasion history to suit a chauvanism.  But the same can be said of IE itself, a theory to suit a national narrative that became very popular in Germany and India and may not have been adequately challanged because it suits northern European, N. American and Asian sensibilities. 

The other critisism I may have of IE challenges posted here is that they are too hellino-centric and like exceptions should be demonstrated in other "IE" languages.  But that too is a weak critisism.  Perhaps it is too narrow a survey but if IE is truly the global theory it declares itself to be than it should be able to comfortably address the questions put forward here, even if it centers only on the Greek language. 

In a nutshell, I would like those of you that know more about IE than me form a coherent defense, which would include explaining why the alternate solution would not work not just repeating the dogma and glossing over the points made.

Back to the "n" thing, it does seem to be a bit of a force-fit to go from "n" to agnosto.  Not even Grimm's laws would cover that.

Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6571
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Aug-2005 at 12:24
As my personal contribution to this debate, this is my main working hypotheis, expressed graphically:

1) Gloto-chronological tree of Cavalli-Sforza et al. (with my own suggested datations):



2) This is my own reconstruction of the expansion of IE languages, blending this tree and archaeological evidence of the expansion and evolution of the so called Kurgan cultures (over a map of modern distribution of IE tongues):



I've obviated the Albanian and Armenian branches for which I don't have any good explanation so far.



NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6571
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Aug-2005 at 12:35
An alternative for the Cavalli-Sforza tree is the following (whose authorship I can't recall). Yet, even if this one would be right, the dates ((BP=before present) are too early for what I can understand, what makes me think that they should be reviewed forward by at least 1500 years.



The most significative differences between this and the previous tree are:
  • Greek is separated from the Western IE subfamily and placed apart with Armenian
  • Celtic is placed much more closer to the Italo-Germanic group, actually creating a Celto-Italo-Germanic group
  • Albanian is placed inside the Eastern IE subfamily

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Phallanx View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended
Avatar

Joined: 07-Feb-2005
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 1283
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Phallanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Aug-2005 at 19:16
If I remeber the paper correctly the tree you posted actually supports the Anatolian farmer theory and not the Kurgan expansion you present in your map above.
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6571
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Aug-2005 at 21:11
Originally posted by Phallanx Phallanx wrote:

If I remeber the paper correctly the tree you posted actually supports the Anatolian farmer theory and not the Kurgan expansion you present in your map above.


I don't now what paper did you read. The first tree, that of Cavalli-Sforza and others, that is the one that I believe you are talking about is copied from the book Genes, peoples and tongues (1996, L.L. Cavalli-Sforza). He says:

The first quantitative and complete modern analysis of the simmilitudes between Indo-European tonges was made in 1992 by the estadistician Kruskal and the linguists Dyen and Black. They measured the frequence of common origin words among all possible couples in about six dozens of Indo-European tongues, using the standard glotochronologic list of 200 words. Aplying two modern methods of tree reconstruction, we have obtained trees (...) that are very simmilar to that of Schleicher (...). In this analysis extint tongues (as Hititte or Tocharian) are not included. We have obtained the same tree with the two reconstruction methods (UPGMA and NJ) (...)

This coincidence in result using the two methods of tree reconstruction is significative: it means that mixing has not influenced significatively the evolution of IE tongues, else the two trees would be different, as happens in population genetics.

He then speculates on the possible historical solutions to this tree and he does seem to have some kind of weakness for the Anatolian origin theory but nowhere is that supported with any kind of evidence or even significative indication.

He continues:

One possibility is that the isolated tongues, like Albanian and (with less evidence) Greek could have originated in the first wave, starting from Turkey and that their position in the tree is due to their antiquity in relation with the other branches. They are also the languages closer geographically to Turkey.

And then he concedes Kurgan origin for the rest of the branches - though he makes a disgression regading Indo-Iranian tongues and seems to believe that Kurgans originated in the Don basin (as Gimbutas suggested), what is actually contradictory with the most modern archaeological knowledge that I have read about, which places their origins in Central Asia, east of the Volga. What can be originated in the Don basin is the western branch of IE tongues, after a confuse and complex proccess of Indoeuropization of Eastern European natives, reflected in the culture of Serednij-Stog II (c. 3500-3000 BCE).

I have thought myself that maybe some of the Blacanic IE tongues, most notably Albanian, could have come in an earlier wave, with the invasion of the black and beige pottery peoples (Dimini-Vinca culture), c. 5000. But you have argumented pretty solidly in another topic against thist hypothetical invasion, so I have more doubts now. For this and other reasons, I have cautionarily avoided to locate the isolated Albanian and Armenian branches in my reconstructive map, which focuses only in the main part of the tree, since the division of Eastern and Western subfamlies.



Edited by Maju

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Aug-2005 at 02:51
Hmmm.   Its refreshing to know someone else champions the Pontic-Caspian origin of IE just as I had in the past in these forums.   The Sredny Stog Culture itself dates from about 4500-3500 BC and it, along with the Novodanilovka, Lower Mikhaylovka, and Khvalynsk Cultures, gave rise to the Yamnaya Complex (c. 3600-2200 BC). 
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6571
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Aug-2005 at 14:49
Originally posted by Sharrukin Sharrukin wrote:

Hmmm.   Its refreshing to know someone else champions the Pontic-Caspian origin of IE just as I had in the past in these forums.   The Sredny Stog Culture itself dates from about 4500-3500 BC and it, along with the Novodanilovka, Lower Mikhaylovka, and Khvalynsk Cultures, gave rise to the Yamnaya Complex (c. 3600-2200 BC). 


Hmmm...

Not the data I have, nope.

According to my own notes, the nord-Pontic region belonged basically to the Dniepr-Don culture between c. 5500-3500 BCE, while the Jamanaja Kultura, started east of Volga in the first half of the 4th milennium (originated in Kel'teminar), being the first to use tumuli (kurgans) to bury their people. It's thought that the Dniepr-Don people first domesticated the horse (if we ignore some Paleolithic indications of SW Europe).

For what I've read the Serednij-Stog complex (c. 3500-3000) is a difficult mixture of sites some more related to Dniepr-Don and some more to Jamnaja (kurgans). At the end of its rather brief existence, two kurgan groups sprang from it:
  • Baalberge culture in Eastern Germany (later extended to other areas)
  • Cernavoda I culture in the lower Danube, with isolated kurgans in other areas of the Eastern Balcans. Probably these later found refuge in the mountains forming the Cotofeni culture (since c. 3000 BCE).
Other Dniepr-Don related group migrates to the Baltic and Scandinavia (but I believe these didn't speak IE but native Eastern IE tongues - Caucasic?). Finally the Thracian (geographically speaking) culture of Ezero (since c. 3000 BCE) seems also to include many Dniepr-Don traits.

The Serednij-Stog complex was overriden by Jamnajans (surely proto-Scythians, the true original IEs in my understanding) c. 3000 as well. Though around 2500 BCE, they were again displaced to their homeland east of Volga by a new group (Eastern culture of Catacombs) that formed the (proto-)Cymmerian nation, as it's rather well attested archaeologically.

Detailed maps of the earlier IE Expansion in Europe (always in my understanding):


Between 3250-3000 BCE. First wave of IE peoples to Nord-Central Europe and SE Europe. (Eastern IEs are pure blue and western IEs are purple,  magenta and pink).

Note: it's not TRBK-A but TRBK-C! My error.



Just after 3000 BCE. Boleraz-Baden starts restoring the Danubian status quo, while the expansion of Eastern IEs, into the Nord-Pontic area dries up the source of Western IEs. Eastern IEs represented in pure blue, Western IEs in magenta and pink.

Note: Deeply Printed Pottery culture could be IE as well. I'm not sure about that. If so, it could be at the origin of the Celtic branch.

Hope this helps to understand my viewpoint.


Edited by Maju

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Aug-2005 at 02:13

Hmmm, I think you have old data.  The latest archaeological data I've gathered goes like this:

c. 6500-5000 BC - Dniester-Bug Culture begun by local hunter and fisher groups already inhabiting the region since Mesolithic times.  Beginning of experimental agriculture and cattle and pigs were domesticated, but principle mode of economy was still hunting and fishing.  Later gained contacts with Starcevo (Cris) and LBK agriculturalists.  To the east of the Dniester-Bug culture was the Sursko-Dnieper of similiar hunter-fisher origin.

c. 5500-4500 BC -  The full Neolithic Dnieper-Donets Culture superceded the Sursko-Dnieper Culture.  To the east of the Dnieper-Donets was the Neolithic Seroglasovo Culture of the region of the Volga, based on hunting-fishing and stockbreeding.  Seroglasovo was eventually succeeded by both Samara (displaying Dnieper-Donets characteristics)and Pre-Caspian Cultures

c. 4800-3500 BC - The Neolithic Cucuteni  (Tripolye) Culture formed from Moldavian Boian and LBK agrcultural elements reached the region of the former Dniester-Bug Culture by about 4500 BC.

c. 4500-3500 BC - The Eneolithic Sredny Stog Culture superceded the Dnieper-Donets Culture and becomes the eastern neighbor of Cucuteni-Tripolye.  It was based on stock-breeding, agriculture, hunting and fishing.  Eastern cultures with similar cultural traits included the Novodanilovka,and the Lower Mikhaylovka Culture.  Still further east the Khvalynsk Culture succeeded the Samara and Pre-Caspian Cultures and which displayed characteristics of stock-breeding, agriculture, hunting and fishing like the Ukrainian cultures.  Earliest evidence of domesticated horse, c. 4500 BC (horse-riding).  Compared to the west, the transition from Dnieper-Donets influenced cultures to the Khvalynsk Culture was a more gradual one, which may indicate cultural priority compared to the very similar Sredny Stog Culture in the west whose economy was almost radically different from that of preceding Balkan-origin economies. 

c. 4400-4300 BC Kurgan Wave I originated from Sredny Stog Culture.  The region of the northern Balkan Cucuteni Culture experienced dislocations but survived the onslought but now Kurgan peoples remained present with the cultural region of Cucuteni without amalgamation.  The Karanovo-Gumelita culture was destroyed.  Its population moved further west.  The Salcuta Culture was nearly destroyed.  Pockets of its population survived on in caves and islands for another four or five hundred years.  The region of the Vinca Culture witnessed dislocations of populations which moved further west.  End of Vinca Culture, c. 4300 BC.  Same situation with the Lengyel Culture.  Within the LBK Culture, a hybrid culture emerged known as Rossen.

c. 4000 BC  The Varna Culture of the Black Sea coast was replaced by the Kurganish Cernavoda Culture. 

c. 3900 BC  The Kurganish Baalberge Group emerged in the region of the Elbe and Saale.

c. 3600-2200 BC The Eneolithic Yamnaya Complex superceded the Sredny Stog-Khvalynsk Horizon, extending from the Danube Delta to beyond east of the middle Ural River, divided up into some nine cultural variants.  Both stock-breeding and agriculture were practiced.  First evidence of wheeled cart. 

c. 3500-3400 BC Kurgan Wave II.  Cucuteni which survived the First Wave was hybridized.  The result was the Usatovo Complex.  Further north elements of the Cucuteni, TRB, and Pontic cultures became the Globular Amphora Culture.  New hybrid cultures emerged in the Balkans such as the Baden-Vucedol and Ezero groups.  Ezero penetrated into western Anatolia.  Cotofeni, in the northcentral Balkans retained much of the Old European cultural tradition.

c. 3200-2300 BC Corded Ware Culture developed in northern Europe.  Its immediate antecedent was the Globular Amphora Culture of which it shared many characteristics but also showed characteristics similar to Yamnaya, including stock-breeding.  Like Yamnaya, it was expansive.  Its eastern variants are known as Battle-Axe cultures. 

c. 3000-2900 BC Kurgan Wave III.  The whole of the eastern Danube region disrupted and taken over by Yamnaya.  Vucedol migrated to the northwest and south into Dalmatia, western Bosnia, and Albania.  Vucedol succeeded by Vinkovci--Samogyvar Culture.  Evidence of Yamnaya penetration into Greece in Early Helladic II and III (c. 2900-2250 BC). 

Back to Top
Phallanx View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended
Avatar

Joined: 07-Feb-2005
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 1283
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Phallanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Aug-2005 at 02:55
Interesting theories guys, how about posting some archeologic finds that could connect all these cultures together and prove that they were the IE that influenced culture and language.
And while you're at it explain the lack of existance of common agricultural, domesticated animal and marinal terms. (I did notice a reference to all these above)
And why is there no reference to the finds in the Balkan area or to be exact in Hellas that predate every single date mentioned above???


Edited by Phallanx
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6571
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Aug-2005 at 03:20
Wow! You have a lot of data as well. I think my source (I would need to go back to the library to check) is of the 90s, so it's not truly old but in Archaeology new goes at times so fast. Another possibility is that we are following simply diferent opinions, something that also happens. My source is an strictly archaeological book and fitting all the pieces into those maps was my own job. The author basically held no opinions on how cultures related unless it was quite evident.

You mention Seredny-Stog culture but actually this is confusing because Seredny-Stog I belongs to Dnieper-Don and it is only Seredny-Stog II which belongs to a new complex and gives name to it. An unadverted author could have merged the two strata in the same culture, when they belong to diferent ones. This would explain your early datation for Seredny-Stog, calling eneolithic (chalcolithic) a culture that was obviously still purely neolithic.

But still, this would not explain why almost all your datations are about 1000 earlier than mine. This puzzles me a lot.

You talk of Karanovo-Gumelnita being destroyed 1000 before I think it happened, 500 years before it even formed and then you talk of a Varna culture (that is obviously the monarchic facet of Karanovo-Gumelnita itself) as something separated. You also talk indiscrimintely about a Cernavoda culture that actually is three cultures: Cernavoda I (Kurgan), II (minor Danubian style) and III (simmilar to Vinca - !!!)

You speak of Rössen as if it was an hybrid culture (of IEs + locals, I guess) when Rössen (c. 4000-3500, later considered epi-Rössen) is the earliest independent Danubian culture of Germany, the Low Countries, Switzerland and northern France!

But curiously enough, the locality of Rössen that gives name to that western Danubian culture is precisely in the very heart of that Elbe-Saale region that you say it's almost inemdiately occupied by the IEs of Baalberge. How can this be? Also you say that Rössen is posterior to Lengyel, when they are contemporary: Lengyel is the Danubian branch in the original Danubian core homeland and Rössen is that in the western regions.

If you are right, I need to learn a lot of new data that I haven't got access to but I have the presentment that you are not right, at least not fully right. Basically you are saying that Danubian Neolithic never consolidated and that it was all the time under pessure from more advanced "eneolithic" peoples from the east. Though it's clear that the overall scheme is the same, your datations bring kurgan invasions ahead in time about 1000 years, and, in any case, saying that Rössen is anything different from a regionalization of Danubian is just too much.

Anyhow, chronologies differ sometimes. It should not happen, as for these periods C-14 is very very accurate but misteriously it happens. I think there's not enough contrast nor publicity in archaeological work. The overall kurganish scheme is the same for both, that's the most important thing. The misterious discrepancies will disappear with time.

If you can give me good links, I'll tank you.


NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6571
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Aug-2005 at 03:34
Originally posted by Phallanx Phallanx wrote:

Interesting theories guys, how about posting some archeologic finds that could connect all these cultures together and prove that they were the IE that influenced culture and language.


I haven't found many Internet sites with good stuff about all this. Much less with primary archaeological data.

Quote And while you're at it explain the lack of existance of common agricultural, domesticated animal and marinal terms. (I did notice a reference to all these above)


That was my post: I think that European IEs were strongly aculturized - by Danubians mostly. All their agropecuarian terminology could come from Danubian, Eastern native (Caucasic?) or even Western native cultures. Anyhow, it just seems that those words  (unlike small numbers and pronouns) change a lot. Sea could come, maybe, from Itsaso (or some simmilar word), while Mar could come from Mediterranean substrate (just thinking fast). The most interesting word to trace could be horse. How is horse in Greek?

Quote And why is there no reference to the finds in the Balkan area or to be exact in Hellas that predate every single date mentioned above???


I simplified the maps in order to focus in IE expansion and only named the most extended cultural groups. Also I have doubts about how to group/name Greek cultures that do not belong (or maybe do belong after all) to the Dimini-Vinca cultural family.


NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2005 at 04:37

Quote Interesting theories guys, how about posting some archeologic finds that could connect all these cultures together and prove that they were the IE that influenced culture and language.

Well, if and when we find pictures we'll present them.  The descriptions of the cultures by the various authors indicate a pattern which they saw was not ignorable.  They go on to list as many patterns as they were able to see.  For them, there are no inconsistency.  The cultural traits of the newer cultures cannot have come from the local cultures but from somewhere else, and that somewhere else ends on the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

Quote while you're at it explain the lack of existance of common agricultural, domesticated animal and marinal terms. (I did notice a reference to all these above)

But of course there was common agricultural, and domesticated animal terms.  As the archaeology of the Pontic-Caspian region has revealed, there was in fact, agriculturalism.  Perhaps not in the same degree as that of the Balkans, but nevertheless it was there, along with stockbreeding.  The reality was that true pastoralism was of later date. 

Quote And why is there no reference to the finds in the Balkan area or to be exact in Hellas that predate every single date mentioned above???

What do you mean?  The way I'm understanding your question, is that the reason why there is no reference to the finds in the Balkan area and specifically Hellas before the above mentioned dates is because they weren't there yet.  They were, before, only in the Pontic-Caspian region.

Quote Wow! You have a lot of data as well. I think my source (I would need to go back to the library to check) is of the 90s, so it's not truly old but in Archaeology new goes at times so fast.

My sources are nineties as well, including Gimbutas.

Quote Another possibility is that we are following simply diferent opinions, something that also happens. My source is an strictly archaeological book and fitting all the pieces into those maps was my own job. The author basically held no opinions on how cultures related unless it was quite evident.

Yes, even Pontic-Caspian theorists have variant theories.  In the 70's it was the fashion to describe the Kurgan expansion as one wave occuring between 2300 and 2200 BC, and to describe subsequent Kurgan cultures, especially those of the Balkans and central Europe as subsequent.  My sources are primarily archaeological with the latest in archaeological carbon-14 calibrated dating for all sights involved.

Quote You mention Seredny-Stog culture but actually this is confusing because Seredny-Stog I belongs to Dnieper-Don and it is only Seredny-Stog II which belongs to a new complex and gives name to it. An unadverted author could have merged the two strata in the same culture, when they belong to diferent ones. This would explain your early datation for Seredny-Stog, calling eneolithic (chalcolithic) a culture that was obviously still purely neolithic.

You may be referring to the stratification of the Sredny Stog site.  As you say, Sredny Stog I may be Dnieper-Don, but the Sredny Stog Culture itself is Sredny Stog II, and dates from about 4500 to 3500 BC.  In Russian literature the Sredny Stog and Maikop stages are referred to as Early Yamna, while the Yamnaya Horizon itself (c. 3600-2200 BC) is called Late Yamna.  It may simply be a matter of terminology.

Quote But still, this would not explain why almost all your datations are about 1000 earlier than mine. This puzzles me a lot.

My datings are based on the latest in calibrated carbon-14 dates. 

Quote You talk of Karanovo-Gumelnita being destroyed 1000 before I think it happened, 500 years before it even formed...

The floruit of Karanovo-Gumelnita was from c. 5500-4200 BC with survivals at Sitagroi to about 3800 BC.

Quote .....and then you talk of a Varna culture (that is obviously the monarchic facet of Karanovo-Gumelnita itself) as something separated.

Varna was part of the Hamangia Culture (c. 5500-4700 BC), whose pottery was similar to Starcevo-Cris.  Hamangia was succeeded by the short-lived Varna Culture (c. 4700-4000 BC) which was genetically related to the latter and thus was still distinct from Karanovo-Gumelnita.

Quote You also talk indiscrimintely about a Cernavoda culture that actually is three cultures: Cernavoda I (Kurgan), II (minor Danubian style) and III (simmilar to Vinca - !!!)

Oops.  Yes, "Cernavoda" should have been "Cernavoda I".  I stand corrected at least on that. 

Quote You speak of Rössen as if it was an hybrid culture (of IEs + locals, I guess) when Rössen (c. 4000-3500, later considered epi-Rössen) is the earliest independent Danubian culture of Germany, the Low Countries, Switzerland and northern France!

Rossen was originally within the LBK Culture, c. 5600-4300 BC (originally known as Danubian I), and mainly derived from Starcevo-Koros.  It was succeeded by Rossen (c. 4300-3900 BC) and then by Epi-Rossen in that particular region.  The literature was actually vague in describing Rossen, but you are correct in that it was a Danubian culture ("an LBK culture 'with oriental elements'"), but is also called a "mixed culture".   The accompaning carbon-dating tables describe Rossen "with Kurgan I elements".  What these "oriental elements" were, are not otherwise explained.

Quote But curiously enough, the locality of Rössen that gives name to that western Danubian culture is precisely in the very heart of that Elbe-Saale region that you say it's almost inemdiately occupied by the IEs of Baalberge. How can this be?
.

Rossen is older than Baalberge.  Baalberge emerges in about 3900 BC.

Quote Also you say that Rössen is posterior to Lengyel, when they are contemporary: Lengyel is the Danubian branch in the original Danubian core homeland and Rössen is that in the western regions.

Actually Rossen is contemporary to the latest phase of Lengyel.  While it is true that Lengyel developed in an LBK (Danubian) region, its cultural tradition was not LBK, but rather from Starcevo.  It flourished from c. 5000 to about 3700 BC divided into five phases. 

Quote If you are right, I need to learn a lot of new data that I haven't got access to but I have the presentment that you are not right, at least not fully right.

I recommend to you from your library Civlization of the Goddess, by Marija Gimbutas.  It will provide a wealth of cultural information and a huge resource on chronology.

Quote Basically you are saying that Danubian Neolithic never consolidated and that it was all the time under pessure from more advanced "eneolithic" peoples from the east.

No.  The issue of the Danubian Neolithic was never even addressed.  What I've only related was how the Danubian Neolithic was affected by the Kurgans.  As I've mentioned before, the expansive LBK culture was the earliest Danubian Neolithic culture.  It was much later when it differentiated into various cultures including Rossen and Stroked Pottery.

Quote Though it's clear that the overall scheme is the same, your datations bring kurgan invasions ahead in time about 1000 years, and, in any case, saying that Rössen is anything different from a regionalization of Danubian is just too much.

I hope I clarified Rossen for you.

Quote Anyhow, chronologies differ sometimes. It should not happen, as for these periods C-14 is very very accurate but misteriously it happens. I think there's not enough contrast nor publicity in archaeological work. The overall kurganish scheme is the same for both, that's the most important thing. The misterious discrepancies will disappear with time.

Please refer to Gimbutas's book.  In the back of the book she exhaustively lists the results of carbon-14 dating on various sites grouped by culture.  This is a resource you don't want to overlook.

Quote If you can give me good links, I'll tank you.

Sadly I have none.  Try the book.

Back to Top
Kuu-ukko View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Dec-2004
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 204
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kuu-ukko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2005 at 05:35
Hiya guys! I would like to ask answers to a couple of things I need clarification about:

According to you, when was the proto-Indo-European language dispersed? How does the Tocharian fit in this all?

What about proto-Uralic? Isn't it suspected, that proto-Uralic dispersed much earlier than proto-Indo-European, seeing that there are proto-IE loanwords all across Uralic languages, but they were borrowed separately.

Thank you and goodbye.
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6571
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2005 at 06:07
Gimbutas is a little old... though she is no doubt the mother of the Kurgan theory of IE expansion, most of her work is older than my sources. The book you mention is her last work (1991) and while I'll be delighted having a look at it when I can, I suspect that my sources, more strictly archaeological are more precise and modern. I will try to visit the library as soon as I can, get that book and quote my source, so you can have a look (it's from a German archaeologist and, as I mentioned, it is purely archaeological, no theories - all reconstruction is mine).

In my knowledge, Starcevo-Koros-Cris (or just Starcevo), that belongs to the Balcanic stage of European Neolithic (since c. 6000 BCE), gives birth to the Eastern and Western Linear Pottery cultures (via proto-Linear Pottery in Upper Tisza). Only Western Linear Pottery is considered Danubian, while Eastern Linear Pottery falls almost fully in the Balcanic group. This transition happens c. 5000. During the 5th milennium, the Western Linear Pottery culture (Danubian I) expands to all Central Europe and parts of Eastern Europe (giving birth to Boian in Vallachia), reaching the Seine basin by the west also. As it expands it starts diversifying in subcultures that eventually give birth to several cultures already in the 4th milennium:
  • Rössen in most of Germany and other western regions
  • Lengyel in the mid-Danube
  • Stroked Pottery in Bohemia, Poland and parts of Eastern Germany too
  • Pre-Cucuteni in Moldavia and Western Ukraine
  • Boian-Maritza in Vallachia and Bulgaria
Since c. 3500 this structure witnesses some changes, some of them linked maybe to direct and indirect effects of IE (and Eastern native) migrations. Most relevant are the formation of Karanovo-Gumelnita (from Boian-Maritza, overriding Hamangia) that is possibly the oldest European monarchy/state, the formation of Michelsberg in northern Germany (Danubian but kind of dissident).

During the second half of this 3rd milennium BCE we see the first IE settlements in Eastern Germany first (Baalberge, which expands to other areas) and in the lower Danub later (Cernavoda I), these would spring, quite clearly from Seredny-Stog II (yes, it refers to local stratigraphy but it's the name I have for that culture anyhow).

My source says that Jamnaja Kultura (or what he calls with that name) is a culture form beyond the Volga that is the first one to develope kurgans (tumuli) and other typical features of the so-called kurgan cultures. They are earlier than 3500 BCE, conventional date for the start of Serednij-Stog II. Seredny-Stog II is described as a complex culture that in some settlements seems kurganish in others seems Dniepr-Don and others finally seems mixed. This would imply an infiltration/invasion from Jamnayans (IEs) and a dynamic mixture/conflict with locals. The fact that cultures with clear Dniepr-Don elements (but not kurganish yet) are located in the Baltic (Pitted Ware) and Scandinavia (TRBK-A) at this time could reflect the migration of exiled tribes from the nord-Pontic region.

Anyhow, the Jamnaya Kultura expands over Dniepr-Don c. 3000 and then recedes before a new arrival (Catacombs) c. 2500 BCE. My own research in other sources seems to link quite clearly Jamnaya with Scythians (and other eastern IEs probably) and Catacombs with Cymmerians.

The expansion of the culture of Catacombs reaches areas of Poland, influencing Globular Amphores and helping somehow in the creation of Corded Ware (Battle Axe people) c. 2400 BCE.

So you see, the problem seems to be that we are founding our schemes in different datations, specially for kurganish cultures. This is a problem and I hope to see it solved satisfactorily at some time.

Still, the overall scheme is the same. The main difference would be wether IEs come from Ukraine and southern Russia (your version) or from Kazakhstan and western Siberia (my version). And also in the dates of their actual invasion of Central Europe.

One question: in your version of the theory, how does Serednij-Stog II evolves from Dniepr-Don. Dniepr-Don is not kurganish, so, in my system, the foreign intervention of eastern peoples already using such paraphernalia would explain it very well.



NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2005 at 02:17

Yes the general outlines of what you describe match what I know regarding the pre-Kurgan Balkans and central Europe, with some obvious exceptions.  Its with the chronology with the Kurgan expansion that seems to be different.

Quote In my knowledge, Starcevo-Koros-Cris (or just Starcevo), that belongs to the Balcanic stage of European Neolithic (since c. 6000 BCE),...

This is the Starcevo Complex (c. 6300-5000 BC) derived from more southerly Sesklo (c. 6500-5500 BC)

Quote ....[Starcevo] gives birth to the Eastern and Western Linear Pottery cultures (via proto-Linear Pottery in Upper Tisza).

This is the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) Culture (c. 5500-3500 BC).

Quote Only Western Linear Pottery is considered Danubian, while Eastern Linear Pottery falls almost fully in the Balcanic group.

Perhaps a later development of terminology?  When the term Danubian was first coined, it applied to all of LBK.   The literature I have does not distinguish a Western and Eastern variant.  In the east, LBK merges with Dniester-Bug and contributed to the formation of Cucuteni. 

Quote This transition happens c. 5000. During the 5th milennium, the Western Linear Pottery culture (Danubian I) expands to all Central Europe and parts of Eastern Europe (giving birth to Boian in Vallachia), reaching the Seine basin by the west also.

The Boian Culture, beginning about 5000 BC was the result of the migration of LBK farmers into Moldova, Muntenia, and Transylvania which merged with the local Early Vinca people of those regions for form this hybrid culture.   Boian absorbed Hamangia Culture in c. 4700 BC

Quote As it expands it starts diversifying in subcultures that eventually give birth to several cultures already in the 4th milennium:

  • Rössen in most of Germany and other western regions
  • Lengyel in the mid-Danube

Lengyel (c. 5000-3600 BC) was derived from a Starcevo core in Slavonia, Syrmia, and Pannonia and it was related to Butmir and Danilo Cultures, both also derived from Starcevo.   It was displaced by Kurgan Wave I, c. 4200 BC but had survivals until about 3600 BC. 

Quote

  • Stroked Pottery in Bohemia, Poland and parts of Eastern Germany too

The carbon-14 data on this group range from 4787 to 4469 BC (calibrated dates)

Quote

  • Pre-Cucuteni in Moldavia and Western Ukraine

The term Pre-Cucuteni is now defunct.  It is now Early Cucuteni.  The Cucuteni Culture (c. 4800-3500 BC) developed from a merger of  eastern LBK settlers with Boian colonists.  It was a hybrid culture.

Quote

  • Boian-Maritza in Vallachia and Bulgaria

See above.

Quote Since c. 3500 this structure witnesses some changes, some of them linked maybe to direct and indirect effects of IE (and Eastern native) migrations. Most relevant are the formation of Karanovo-Gumelnita (from Boian-Maritza, overriding Hamangia) that is possibly the oldest European monarchy/state, the formation of Michelsberg in northern Germany (Danubian but kind of dissident).

Karanovo-Gumelnita dates from between about 5500 and about 4200 BC.  It did not survive Kurgan Wave I.   I don't have specific dates for Michelsburg, except for a very general dating in the 4th millennium.  A beginning date of about 4000 BC would not be out of the question.

Quote During the second half of this 3rd milennium BCE we see the first IE settlements in Eastern Germany first (Baalberge, which expands to other areas) and in the lower Danub later (Cernavoda I), these would spring, quite clearly from Seredny-Stog II (yes, it refers to local stratigraphy but it's the name I have for that culture anyhow).

Baalberge Culture dates from between 4000 and 3400 BC and was the result of circumstances beginning with Kurgan Wave I (Sredny Stog).  Cernavoda I began about the same time as Baalberge, and also was created after the effects of Kurgan Wave I.

Quote My source says that Jamnaja Kultura (or what he calls with that name) is a culture form beyond the Volga that is the first one to develope kurgans (tumuli) and other typical features of the so-called kurgan cultures. They are earlier than 3500 BCE, conventional date for the start of Serednij-Stog II.

My source says that the earliest kurgans were from the Khvalynsk Culture of the the Middle Volga, which were earlier than 4500 BC, the conventional date for the start of Sredny-Stog Culture.

Quote Seredny-Stog II is described as a complex culture that in some settlements seems kurganish in others seems Dniepr-Don and others finally seems mixed. This would imply an infiltration/invasion from Jamnayans (IEs) and a dynamic mixture/conflict with locals. The fact that cultures with clear Dniepr-Don elements (but not kurganish yet) are located in the Baltic (Pitted Ware) and Scandinavia (TRBK-A) at this time could reflect the migration of exiled tribes from the nord-Pontic region.

I would at least agree that the Sredny Stog Culture displays a variety of economic forms depending on specific regions within the boundaries of the culture.

Quote Anyhow, the Jamnaya Kultura expands over Dniepr-Don c. 3000 and then recedes before a new arrival (Catacombs) c. 2500 BCE.

Sredny Stog supercedes Dnieper-Donets, c. 4500 BC and then becomes Yamnaya, c. 3500 BC which then becomes Catacomb-Grave, c. 2200 BC on the Ukrainian steppe. 

Quote My own research in other sources seems to link quite clearly Jamnaya with Scythians (and other eastern IEs probably) and Catacombs with Cymmerians.

My research makes a western variant of Yamnaya into Catacomb-Grave (proto-Cimmerians?) a central variant into Timber-Grave (proto-Scythians?) and an eastern variant into Andronovo (other proto-Iranians)

Quote The expansion of the culture of Catacombs reaches areas of Poland, influencing Globular Amphores and helping somehow in the creation of Corded Ware (Battle Axe people) c. 2400 BCE.

The Globular Amphora Culture dates from c. 3500 to c. 2800 BC, inspired by Kurgan Wave II.  The Corded Ware Complex dates from c. 3200 to c. 2300 BC.  Catacomb-Grave Culture was an offshoot of Yamnaya and dates from c. 2200 BC - too late for the inspiration of Globular Amphora.

Quote Still, the overall scheme is the same. The main difference would be wether IEs come from Ukraine and southern Russia (your version) or from Kazakhstan and western Siberia (my version). And also in the dates of their actual invasion of Central Europe.

That "main difference" may not even be that different.  True, my sources say that the impetus of kurganization of the west was from the Sredny Stog Culture, but even Sredny Stog must have come from somewhere else, and the most likely candidate for that would be Khvalynsk Culture of the middle Volga region, which seems to be of slightly more ancient date than Sredny Stog. 

Quote One question: in your version of the theory, how does Serednij-Stog II evolves from Dniepr-Don. Dniepr-Don is not kurganish, so, in my system, the foreign intervention of eastern peoples already using such paraphernalia would explain it very well.

I've touched on this in my previous post, but to reiterate, Sredny Stog Culture does not evolve from Dnieper-Donets.  It seemed to have evolved from Khvalynsk Culture which itself evolved from cultures derived from Dnieper-Donets. 

 

 

 

 

Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2005 at 02:52

Quote According to you, when was the proto-Indo-European language dispersed?

According to J.P. Mallory in In Search of the Indo-Europeans, the range of the formation of IE (or PIE) was between 4500 and 2500 BC.  The earliest evidence of dispersal at least archaeologically was about 4300 BC, followed by subsequent dispersals.

Quote How does the Tocharian fit in this all?

There was a culture which originated in the Pontic-Caspian named the Afanasievo Culture (c. 3200-2000 BC) which made its home in the region of the Minusinsk Basin and the Altai.  Not only are the cultural origins well known but also the physical type of the Europids can be traced to the Pontic-Caspian region.  When the Okunevo people (of eastern origin) superceded Afanasievo, the evidence shows migration southwards into the Tarim Basin, where the earliest mummies of the region (and where Tocharian was spoken), appear by 2000 BC. 

Quote What about proto-Uralic? Isn't it suspected, that proto-Uralic dispersed much earlier than proto-Indo-European, seeing that there are proto-IE loanwords all across Uralic languages, but they were borrowed separately.

I haven't heard about that.  The only thing I can relate is that PIE displays loan-words from Uralic, testifying to further evidence of the original home of PIE on the Pontic-Caspian, obviously near speakers of Uralic languages.

Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6571
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2005 at 03:37
Sharrukin: excellent comments. I will try to find out which datations are more accurate: yours or mine. It's just about when did IEs irrupted in Europe, 1000 years up or down, as the rest of the chronology is pretty simmilar.

My own notes say also that Timber Graves are proto-Scytians and Andronovo proto-Aryans. But this comes from a different and older source, as my main source is focused in Europe only.

What I meant that Catacombs culture did was affecting Globular Amphoras more or less at the time when it becomse Corded Ware (of course that only works with my data, as would happen c. 2500 - I have 2600 for earliest Catacombs and Globular Amphoras, 2400 for Corded Ware)

I would say that Danilo and Butmir are Mediterranean, derived from Cardium (also Cardium-Printed) pottery and not from Starcevo. I would also say that neither Lengyel nor the Eastern LBK (of the Tisza basin and Transylvania, Boian and Cucuteni are "western" LBK, as this division is made at the origins) are any more Starcevo than what their common origins as LBK mean. True that Vinca (different from Starcevo according to my source) influences the areas of those cultures, sepcially Eastern LBK but this is not very relevant in the overall picture, anyhow.

Btw, do you think that the Dimini-Vinca complex (since c. 5000) was caused by an earlier invasion or it was just a local evolution?


NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Hrodger View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 14-Nov-2004
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 61
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hrodger Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2005 at 09:04
Originally posted by hugoestr hugoestr wrote:

... from the wikipedia entry on indo-european.
...
The language group was briefly referred to as "Indo-Germanic", until it became apparent that the group included most of the other languages of Europe, as well. "Indo-European", the term now current in English, was coined in 1813 by the British scholar Sir Thomas Young. Franz Bopp performed extensive comparative work.
...

Just a note:

William Jones (1746-94) was probably the first one who named it the (mosaic) name "Hamitic language" in 1786.

AFAIK, Thomas Young was the first one to use the term Indo-European (Fr. indo-européenne) in 1813. Julius von Klapstock introduced later (in 1823s) the term Indo-Germanic (Ge. Indogermanische). This naming became quite popular, especially in (nationalistic) Germany.

Other titles include Indo-Celtic, Teutonic, Thracian, Schytic, Caucasic, Wiros, Aryan, Celto-Slavo-Teutonic. These name attracted few scholars besides those ones who coined them.
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2005 at 16:17

Commenting on Danilo Culture, my source says it didn't derive from the local Impresso pottery culture (your Cardium pottery) describing the Danilo pottery as of a different tradition.  My source theorized that it must have come from further south on the coast, perhaps from Albania, where the archaeology of the region is virtually a blank for this time period.

Quote Btw, do you think that the Dimini-Vinca complex (since c. 5000) was caused by an earlier invasion or it was just a local evolution?

I have never read about the Dimini (c. 5300-4000 BC) and Vinca (c. 5400-4300 BC) Cultures described as a complex.  Very interesting.  I've examined the descriptions of the two cultures and one of the common denominators was the use of black-burnished wares in both cultures, although these seemed to have originated in Karanovo regions.  None of the literature I've come across describes "invasion" (or any similiar language), but rather "adoption"  or diffusion of this style of pottery. 

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.