Meet The Proto-Indo-Europeans

Also, with this being Eupedia, I must ask the obligatory question: what are the consequences of this on the genetics side? In that scenario we can firmly rule out both R1a and R1b as the original Haplogroups of the Indo-Europeans. Perhaps Haplogroup G2? We know that it was widespread in the Neolithic in Europe. In the case we let things slide there, we'd have to argue that the people of Treilles and Derenburg along with Ötzi were Indo-Europeans. You see where this is going...


And Ossetians (G2a) are supposed to have Scythians ancestors who are themselves supposed to have been R1a. Hitler, the Wright brother, Napoleon and Louis XVI had neither R1b nor R1a. Does it make them non IE. Also I think that one shouldn't draw any conclusion based on ancient dna until we have at least a sample size of 100 individuals tested. but that's not my point.

Did the semitic word for wine travelled with semitic people? I don't think so because the word can travel as a product of trade like gold and copper in Neolithic europe. I already said that I wasn't talking about wheel but about metallurgy. Archaic metallurgy existed in Neolithic europe and there was extensive trade for Tin and copper at that time.
 
Also, with this being Eupedia, I must ask the obligatory question: what are the consequences of this on the genetics side? In that scenario we can firmly rule out both R1a and R1b as the original Haplogroups of the Indo-Europeans. Perhaps Haplogroup G2? We know that it was widespread in the Neolithic in Europe. In the case we let things slide there, we'd have to argue that the people of Treilles and Derenburg along with Ötzi were Indo-Europeans. You see where this is going...

As Maciamo said, most of G2a found in Europe are probably there since the Bronze age.
 
And Ossetians (G2a) are supposed to have Scythians ancestors who are themselves supposed to have been R1a, but that's not my point.

As I said, playing devil's advocate...

Did the semitic word for wine travelled with semitic people? I don't think so because the word can travel as a product of trade like gold and copper in Neolithic europe. I already said that I wasn't talking about wheel but about metallurgy. Archaic metallurgy existed in Neolithic europe and there was extensive trade for Tin and copper and that time.

The reason why the word "wine" is perhaps the wanderwort par excellence is because it isn't restricted to IE or Semitic, but also for instance found in Kartvelic (Georgian). It is also peculiar because for instance it's clear that the word was introduced in both Germanic and Slavic because both the Proto-Germanic and Proto-Slavic people lived in areas where wine couldn't grow, so they clearly only knew wine as an imported product.

Technically though, you can't be talking about "Neolithic" anymore in the strictest sense when you have metallurgy and copper/tin.
 
I don't see why common words in IE languages for golds, silver and metal should discount the Anatolian hypothesis (which I don't advocate) since neolithic europe cultures had archaic metallurgy for gold, copper and silver. What if the proto IE had borrowed those words from Neolithic cultures of the Balkans since it is known that Cucuteni Trypolje had extensions in the Steppes.

That is the difference, and the argue,
the Eurasian Steppe is saying that IEans were from south urals Siberia or Nort East caucas and expand (major R1a) (scythian primary)
while Anatolian Gives south west Caucas and split to East as Indo-Iranian families and West to Europeans (Hettit primary)
the 1rst say that IE came from Asian steppes, the second that passed to Balkans from minor Asia (major R1b or J2)
Goga is Supposing that Anatolian starting point is not South west Caucas but midlle east mountains of Kurdistan, (Medes primary)

Taranis in the above post puts the question correct,
Seems like Germanic Slavic Scythian are very well explained by the Steppe Hypothesis,
while Greek Iranian etc from Anatolian Hypothesis



The steppe case is saying that IE was a NORTH and East Caucas or Siberian Language that moved west and learned the Kurgan tripolye etc culture, and East and Create Sanshqrit tocharian etc
1 branch the Hettits moved SOUTH from Georgia to minor-Asia and create the Greco-Aryan (Greek Armenian Kurdish etc)

The Anatolian on the other hand is saying that primary IE was South Georgia and from there spread to east creating Indo-Iranian and to west giving celtic Greek etc
so Tripolye Cucuteni etc was a culture that went North from South of Aimos and minor Asia

the difference is that Steppe hypothesis is making older Germanic Slavic Baltic scythian as IE
the Anatolian is making primary Greek Avestan Sanshqrit Latin Celtic etc

Genetically the steppe one brings R1a while anatolian R1b and J2
 
Strange!?!

Well are we discussing here the Indo-Europeans? It's a great fact and all Indo-European speakers should know that the Medes were the first that put Indo-Europeans on the map. Later came the Persians and the Roman Empire (also all very hg. J2a heavy folks) , but the Medes were the first and every Indo-European speaker from Sweden to India should know that. That's a fact, isn't it? The Medes put Indo-Europeans on the map.

The Medes is a exonym Given by the Greeks after Medea,
Medea was from Colchis came to Greece and then went east and became priest of a tribe that spoke more closely the language of her father than the Greeks, the MEDES,
so that means that Colchis spoke also IE same time,
Genetically Colchis fits better as starting point of Anatolian Hypothesis than Medea,
 
The Medes is a exonym Given by the Greeks after Medea,
Medea was from Colchis came to Greece and then went east and became priest of a tribe that spoke more closely the language of her father than the Greeks, the MEDES,
so that means that Colchis spoke also IE same time,
Genetically Colchis fits better as starting point of Anatolian Hypothesis than Medea,
Taranis banned me for 10 days.

I'm not saying that the Medes are proto-Indo-Europeans. PIE-ans are much and much older than that.But I do believe that area which is nowadays dominated by the modern Iranic speaking Kurds was the homeland of Proto-Iranic folks.

But it's true that I do believe that PIE is from a place somewhere where the ancient Colchis lived.
But they moved to the Balkans and a new languaged (Proto-Indo-European) was born. According to me it's possible that the very first proto-Indo-European language (a hybrid between native European and Native Caucasian) was spoken somewhere between the Balkans and Greece.


So I will wait 10 days until my ban is expired
 
so to clarify all this speculation, we are saying that the only european haplotype is I and that G2 came via caucus and or kurdistan assyrian lands. I did discover the raeti came to the alps via assyria and they have G2.

J1 is from the levant and E from eastern anatolia

N1 from Finland and baltic areas

R1a from steppes

R1b from central anatolia

does this seem correct

what about J2 is this a balkan european type
 
so to clarify all this speculation, we are saying that the only european haplotype is I and that G2 came via caucus and or kurdistan assyrian lands. I did discover the raeti came to the alps via assyria and they have G2.

J1 is from the levant and E from eastern anatolia

N1 from Finland and baltic areas

R1a from steppes

R1b from central anatolia

does this seem correct

what about J2 is this a balkan european type

that is the problem there are some kind of J2b that exist from south France to India, but not in North, and that is why is rejected as primary IE in Steppe model, while it can be primary in the Anatolian one
 
The Anatolian hypothesis simply does not work. Common words for horse, wheel/wagon, and metals have been reconstructed for Proto-Indo-Europeans, and the first farmers that entered Europe (which are supposed to have spoken PIE according to the Anatolian hypothesis) had none of that. It is thus pretty clear that these farmers cannot have been speakers of Proto-Indo-European.

When talking about a refuted hypothesis, it might be also worth mentioning the Out-Of-India hypothesis which struggles with similar problems. The main problem with it that there are Dravidian loanwords in the Indic languages which are found in no other branch of Indo-European. If PIE originated in India, one would expect all branches of IE to show these Dravidian loanwords. So, it's pretty clear that this one does not work out, either.

The Anatolian hypothesis works if we assume that the J2 farmers brought agriculture and language from the fertile crescent, but no horses or wheels or metals from there. These were imported by a second wave of IndoEuropeans who had migrated in the Pontic steppes and developed the wheel which was very useful in the vast plains there (unlike modern Turkey or the Balkans - don't forget that the wheel was not applied independently in South America either, because the landscape was not good for using it, although they did have toys with wheels) and also domesticated the horse and begun dealing with metallurgy as well - and then they used their inventions to wreck havoc in Europe, and then build their own civilizations.

Since all of the cultures that they would have encountered, would not know of either horse or wheel or metallurgy, all of these cultures would adopt the words from those invaders, more or less.

The last question would be, how did the IndoEuropean languages virtually dissapear from their cradle? Well, the same way Arabic and Turkish took over in there after the rise of Islam...

First, it's really the combination of common words for metals, horse and wheel of the PIE "package" that narrows down the scenario. Second, you have to consider what the Anatolian Hypothesis actually states: that the first farmers of Europe spread agriculture to Europe would have been speakers of PIE. In that scenario, Neolithic cultures like Linear Pottery (LBK) and Printed Cardium Pottery are supposed to have already been Indo-European. And well, LBK certainly had no horses, no wheel, and no metal-working.

In regard for borrowings, that's certainly viable (I mean, there's borrowings in absolutely every language), the critical question is: how can you borrow a word into most or all branches of a language family after it is already diversified, and it still conforms to the sound laws of the respective daughter language?

First of all, we are talking about scenarios about what the languages sounded back then, we have no written evidence. Beyond that it is very probable that the invaders from the Pontic steppes did impose their own IndoEuropean language in Europe, but only AFTER they had been forced to adopt an IndoEuropean language by previous invaders from the south (who used agriculture to expand)

If the invaders from the Pontic steppes were the originators of the IndoEuropean language, one would expect plenty of Non IndoEuropean agricultural terms to have survived in areas which had agriculture before the invasion. This is far from unusual, the protoIndoEuropean word for sea is mare/more, but in Greek we say "Thalassa" (probably from "Thesis Alos" = place of salt) thus there are IndoEuropean words in Greek which have actually survived the Pontic invasion, until today...
 
I am not sure why you are bringing up Haplogroup J2 because thus far, we are lacking any ancient samples of it. If the Anatolian Hypothesis is correct, then it is pretty obvious that Haplogroup G2 must be "the" original Indo-European Y-Haplogroup: it has been consistently found in Neolithic sites in Europe and must be assumed as the dominant Y-Haplogroup of the European Neolithic. Note that this does not necessarily rule out J2 from entering Europe alongside G2 as an accessory Haplogroup, but I do not think so. Also, what do you make of Haplogroups R1a and R1b in this scenario, which both dominate Europe today? How do you explain that the linguistic landscape of Europe apparently changed so little after the Neolithic whereas the genetic landscape of Europe changed so much?

The problem I have with this "secondary wave from the steppe" model is that it's essentially just recapitulating the Kurgan Hypothesis. To me, I have to admit, this also sounds a bit like a "surrender" by the Anatolianists onto the obviously unsolvable problems associated by their hypothesis. They cannot explain how the terminology in question could have arrived from the first farmers, so they assume a secondary spread, along the lines of the Kurgan hypothesis (steppe expansion). But this occurs thousands of years later: we would expect the various branches of Indo-European to already have diversified, and we thus should see evidence of borrowing in these "steppe words" because they should not apply to some early sound laws in the respective branches.

In summary, it makes much more sense to assume that the Anatolian Hypothesis is wrong.

By the way, you might want to check out this thread as well.
 
I don't agree that haplogroup G2 must be something akin to the original Indo-European. Do you really think that during the Neolithic when lots of G2a have been sampled Indo-European languages were already spoken? It's pretty hard to say, but at least I don't think they were dominant. Not to mention that some G in Europe could be even from the late Mesolithic.

Haplogroup J simply could have entered Europe during the Bronze Age (maybe late bronze age?), but the fact is we don't know anything right now. If the finding of the Bulgarian sample is finally confirmed to be Sardinian like, we'll probably have to reconsider what we've been saying about R1b (which at least appeared in the late Neolithic, don't forget). Concerning R1a it's not clear...some of it could also be very old in Europe, but I'll keep cautious.
 
I don't agree that haplogroup G2 must be something akin to the original Indo-European. Do you really think that during the Neolithic when lots of G2a have been sampled Indo-European languages were already spoken? It's pretty hard to say, but at least I don't think they were dominant. Not to mention that some G in Europe could be even from the late Mesolithic.

I didn't say that G2 must be originally Indo-European (actually I don't think it is), but in my opinion, it's only a logical consequence if the Anatolian Hypothesis is correct. I mean, the hypothesis basically states that Proto-Indo-European was spread into Europe by the advent of agriculture. The consequence of that is, that Western Europe's Neolithic communities were early speakers of Indo-European languages. In turn, the consequence of that is, because Haplogroup G2 clearly was the dominant European Neolithic Y-Haplogroup, that it also must be associated with the Proto-Indo-Europeans. One thing is merely the consequence of the other here, that's all.

Haplogroup J simply could have entered Europe during the Bronze Age (maybe late bronze age?), but the fact is we don't know anything right now. If the finding of the Bulgarian sample is finally confirmed to be Sardinian like, we'll probably have to reconsider what we've been saying about R1b (which at least appeared in the late Neolithic, don't forget). Concerning R1a it's not clear...some of it could also be very old in Europe, but I'll keep cautious.

I agree that we don't know much about J2 as of the moment. Thing is, both R1b and R1a (from the current perspective) fit much better with a Kurgan-like model.
 
Ok I see now what you meant, sorry Taranis.
 
First of all, even if I'd prefered things being simpler : HGs are old enough to have been separated in more than a single population - heir bearers can have known more than a culture -
surely Y-J2 has taken part in more than a movement : I suppose 1 in Neolithic agricultural times and 1 or more after (Bronze, in Aegean area) – Y-G2 do'nt appear as a late male elite ruler in its distribution in Europe (more in highlands and islands refugiums than in strategic places) and knew more than a event (Neolithic, maritime and continental, maybe associated with Y-E1b-V78 for continental « danubian » - Sarmatians-Alani mercenaries and after invaders during the Great Invasions) – as a whole, for a male marker (marker of the « war winner »), it is very scarce in N & W Europe – I recall that Y-G among Ossetes is not the proof that it was the dominant HG among steppes people like Sarmatians and Alani.
So, I see neither Y-G nor Y-J2 as witnesses of a direct I-Eization of Europe through W-Anatolia, even if the Renfrew hypothesis based on economic and organisational skill is tempting – We can consider the tiny possibility of I-Eization of steppes tribes (future core of the satem tribes) by Anatolians ; in this case and only in this case (I have no religion for the moment) I should consider that it was made by the Cucuteni-Tripolje mediation : it is not proved, it is not completely disproved because ir seams that the previous I-Eans was more argicultors than half nomads and that they changed their way of living only after, in the steppes (according to my vulgarisating readings.
&: I recall that first « farmers » was not already metallurgists, that pottery seams appeared among hunters-gatherers in C-W Asia if what I red is true -
&& : a very old loan word at the daybreak of I-E, even after P-I-E end, could have underwent the most of the phonetic evolutions of every branch of I-E so an old common word among I-Eans is not in itself a proof of I-E ultime origin – but when a lot of words tied to a way of living and technics seam old in the family of languages and when these words roots lack in other languages, we can infer an inside origin... I 'm not a specialist, I try only to put things in their places... But i don't discard a « metis » origin of first I-E cultures and languages around Caucasus-Caspian region where one of the partners take the strong side demographically speaking (very often it is the less evolved population that shows the stronger reproductive power, apart when a warrior elite take the power and impose is Y-DNA but not its other genes) – this hypothesis is not the same as the Cucuteni one, that has for it the heavy presence of Y-I2a1 in W-Ukraina region... I don't think these Y-I2a1 are direct I-E descendants of Y-I2* from Kurdistan ; I see in them a previous hunter-gatherer populations accultured by farmers - here I have no magic answer, helas ! Shall we have one one day ?
 
I am not sure why you are bringing up Haplogroup J2 because thus far, we are lacking any ancient samples of it. If the Anatolian Hypothesis is correct, then it is pretty obvious that Haplogroup G2 must be "the" original Indo-European Y-Haplogroup: it has been consistently found in Neolithic sites in Europe and must be assumed as the dominant Y-Haplogroup of the European Neolithic. Note that this does not necessarily rule out J2 from entering Europe alongside G2 as an accessory Haplogroup, but I do not think so. Also, what do you make of Haplogroups R1a and R1b in this scenario, which both dominate Europe today? How do you explain that the linguistic landscape of Europe apparently changed so little after the Neolithic whereas the genetic landscape of Europe changed so much?

The problem I have with this "secondary wave from the steppe" model is that it's essentially just recapitulating the Kurgan Hypothesis. To me, I have to admit, this also sounds a bit like a "surrender" by the Anatolianists onto the obviously unsolvable problems associated by their hypothesis. They cannot explain how the terminology in question could have arrived from the first farmers, so they assume a secondary spread, along the lines of the Kurgan hypothesis (steppe expansion). But this occurs thousands of years later: we would expect the various branches of Indo-European to already have diversified, and we thus should see evidence of borrowing in these "steppe words" because they should not apply to some early sound laws in the respective branches.

In summary, it makes much more sense to assume that the Anatolian Hypothesis is wrong.

By the way, you might want to check out this thread as well.

the problem of kurgans supporters is the Akkadian vocabulary that exist in IE languages

the most good example is the word Asia East germ Aus

in Akkadian we find he word assu means sping out and East
also later we find the assawa league (outer league)
from that sound Greeks name the land Asia and the east Eos
So I ask if Akkadian is older than Hettit by 1000 years, how come Akkadian had same vocabulary with IE except if IE existed at minor Asia before hettit?

that is the question where all kurgans never answer,
why even North IE have simmilar sounds in their vocabulary with Ancient Akkadians.

another question also where arsenic bronze and tin Bronze meet,
and when and where tin bronze was first done?

and my final question
what aboiut if Maykop spoke IE and was colony of Leyla teppe.
does that mean that IE were a Gedrosian and not Caucasian language?
(in that case Macciamo is right of R1b and seems R1a got IEnised)

and a question i have done in another post,
in Gibutas theory we see that IE had a tomb system from steppe
why that tomb system is only in Europe and minor Asia and not in Asia,
why steppe people in Asia leave their deads at top of the mountains like 'ice mummies'
a custom that still exist,

here are some videos

http://www.youtube.com/v/ZgHzY0sB-N4&fs=1&source=uds&autoplay=1

http://www.youtube.com/v/PO4jJMGenNo&fs=1&source=uds&autoplay=1

Zoroastrian is considered the most relative with ancient Iranian religion
the towers of silence are its cemeteries

leaving dead at top of mountains or in rocks we see in all Asia from steppe to India, so why IE if steppe bring tumulus in Europe and not in Asia?

the above we see scythians burry their dead also in top of mountains or high lands, but we do not see this in lower parallels of geographical width,
so if IE like scythians had Kurgans, why they did not transfer them when they moved to India Iran etc,
All ice maiden, ice horseman, female ice, seems to have burial system but all are milleniums older than the Kurgans in Europe, so why steppe people had kurgans in Europe and not in Asia?
 
Last edited:
I feel that language is related to culture and not to Haplogroup. J2 is very old and spread to many places and it is close to areas of I.E. language. J2 was in Elam, Greece, Italy, Iran, India, Arabia. J2 might have had a hand as well as R1a in developing the I.E. language near the Black and Caspian Sea area. A good example would be the Mughals who conquored northwest India. They learned Sanskrit and came up with their version called Hindi with a lot of Arabic, Persian and Turkic words. It is the culture not the people.
 
I feel that language is related to culture and not to Haplogroup. J2 is very old and spread to many places and it is close to areas of I.E. language. J2 was in Elam, Greece, Italy, Iran, India, Arabia. J2 might have had a hand as well as R1a in developing the I.E. language near the Black and Caspian Sea area. A good example would be the Mughals who conquored northwest India. They learned Sanskrit and came up with their version called Hindi with a lot of Arabic, Persian and Turkic words. It is the culture not the people.


just! Y-J2 is found in too many places and in to scarce numbers to prove an I-E core origin - I see only, as others, a possible tight link with agriculture
 
the problem of kurgans supporters is the Akkadian vocabulary that exist in IE languages

the most good example is the word Asia East germ Aus

in Akkadian we find he word assu means sping out and East
also later we find the assawa league (outer league)
from that sound Greeks name the land Asia and the east Eos
So I ask if Akkadian is older than Hettit by 1000 years, how come Akkadian had same vocabulary with IE except if IE existed at minor Asia before hettit?

some words travel - (in romance languages, people took the germanic forms for orientation and leave latin ones, or better, keep the latin ones as alternative words: 'ouest'-'ponant'-'couchant' >< 'est'-'levant'...
I-E was not born from nothing, was it? here I can find some accord with you: proto-I-E could have been born in Anatolia, or some branch of it being get down to Anatolia and become in touch with Akkadian? or yet : be born south the Capsian?
difficult to be sure of anything: some wordsare not sufficient to prove anything...
 
the problem of kurgans supporters is the Akkadian vocabulary that exist in IE languages

the most good example is the word Asia East germ Aus

in Akkadian we find he word assu means sping out and East
also later we find the assawa league (outer league)
from that sound Greeks name the land Asia and the east Eos
So I ask if Akkadian is older than Hettit by 1000 years, how come Akkadian had same vocabulary with IE except if IE existed at minor Asia before hettit?

some words travel - (in romance languages, people took the germanic forms for orientation and leave latin ones, or better, keep the latin ones as alternative words: 'ouest'-'ponant'-'couchant' >< 'est'-'levant'...
I-E was not born from nothing, was it? here I can find some accord with you: proto-I-E could have been born in Anatolia, or some branch of it being get down to Anatolia and become in touch with Akkadian? or yet : be born south the Capsian?
difficult to be sure of anything: some wordsare not sufficient to prove anything...

the common root vocabulary among IE and Akkadian shows us 2 things and 1 impossible

1)Akkadian and IE once were together in another area away from minor Asia (Caucasus maybe), or
2) Akkadian and IE once were together in minor Asia,
3) the whole Europe and India spoke Akkadian before IE (impossible for me)

the case of Akkadian borrow words from IE Hettits is impossible since Hettits enter minor Asia 1 millenium after Akkadians.
so we have 3 solutions
Both Akkadian and IE were spoken probably around Caucas and split at Chalkolithic era (Akkadian to south and IE to North)
Both Akkadian and IE were nearby in minor Asia (IE origin is Anatolia)
and a third which agricultural revolt and copper were Akkadian expand all over Europe and India (Otzi spoke Akkadian) and IE came after at Bronze age so in modern IE we find Akkadian vocabulary, But I find it impossible cause the same word survived in most of modern IE languages is devil's coinsidence
 
the common root vocabulary among IE and Akkadian shows us 2 things and 1 impossible

1)Akkadian and IE once were together in another area away from minor Asia (Caucasus maybe), or
2) Akkadian and IE once were together in minor Asia,
3) the whole Europe and India spoke Akkadian before IE (impossible for me)

the case of Akkadian borrow words from IE Hettits is impossible since Hettits enter minor Asia 1 millenium after Akkadians.
so we have 3 solutions
Both Akkadian and IE were spoken probably around Caucas and split at Chalkolithic era (Akkadian to south and IE to North)
Both Akkadian and IE were nearby in minor Asia (IE origin is Anatolia)
and a third which agricultural revolt and copper were Akkadian expand all over Europe and India (Otzi spoke Akkadian) and IE came after at Bronze age so in modern IE we find Akkadian vocabulary, But I find it impossible cause the same word survived in most of modern IE languages is devil's coinsidence

all that make sense if we have a lot of common basic words shared by I-E (the most of them) and Akkadian (a semitic language, I guess?): I confess my ignorance on the matter;could you give us some of the more striking examples? thanks
 

This thread has been viewed 53326 times.

Back
Top