PDA

View Full Version : Where did the Anatolian branch of Indo-European originate?



Pages : [1] 2

berun
09-05-18, 22:38
Moderation note: This thread was split from 137 ancient human genomes from across the Eurasian steppes (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/36102-137-ancient-human-genomes-from-across-the-Eurasian-steppes).

---------------------------------------------------------------


Our results also suggest distinct migrations bringing West Eurasian ancestry into South Asia before and after but not at the time of Yamnaya culture. We find no evidence of steppe ancestry in Bronze Age Anatolia from when Indo-European languages are attested there. Thus, in contrast to Europe, Early Bronze Age Yamnaya-related migrations had limited direct genetic impact in Asia

They disprove any involvement of Yamnaya in major IE migrations but they stick with it. Realy I'm considering if steppitis is a real illness.

Angela
09-05-18, 23:22
Can people stop with the exaggeration?

They found one Hittite sample.* You can't disprove an entire theory on one sample, although I admit it's suggestive that no EHG like material has yet been found anywhere in Bronze Age Anatolia. Indo-European speakers were all over the place.

Even if the Proto-PIE developed in Anatolia and then moved north to the steppe where the other PIE languages developed, it doesn't invalidate the tie between the Indo-European languages and the steppe.

I've been the first one to say that a lot of the analysis was like "IE for dummies", but that there is some tie is undeniable. It's just not how people have been describing it.

*It appears to be G-M406, yes?

I can't vouch for the accuracy of the below information. If it started moving 2000 BC into southern Europe I don't know why the harping on the Phoenicians, especially as from the analysis they're quoting the similarities are to Turkish and Armenian sub-clades. Whether they got into Italy directly or via Greece I have no idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_G-M406

"The sharing of common ancestors much farther back in time (perhaps 3,500 years ago) among some of these samples does not provide information so useful because the migration westward could have occurred anytime in the earlier period. The finding of likely G-M406 samples in the ancient isolated highlands of Sardinia, however, suggests the arrival of G-M406 in that island prior to the arrival of the Phoenicians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicians). The latter began a Sardinian coastal presence about 3,000 years ago.
There is currently no information to explain the dispersion of G-M406 to the southern Indian area."

Ed. A few Hittite samples.

Johane Derite
10-05-18, 00:00
Lol this is what one commenter over on anthrogenica posted:

"OOEET is dead, the Hittite samples are out, just a mixture of CHG and Anatolian farmers, zero EHG. For the people who have been insisting EHG has anything to do with Indoeuropeans it's over. They're also J2 and G2, as I've been saying all the south Caucasus Y-DNA like J2, R1b-L23, G2, T, etc. have very similar distribution in Europe, example:

https://i.imgur.com/E4ZCp0f.jpg

It came with Indoeuropeans, it wasn't there before. IE moved westwards from the south Caucasus homeland into Anatolia then southeast Europe then south France, where the R1b founder effect that gave birth to Bell Beaker happened. From that point on Centum languages were spread to northern Europe only with R1b instead of the full spectrum of IE Y-DNA.

A. Papadimitriou
10-05-18, 00:05
If all the non-Anatolian IE languages expanded from the 'steppe', then we can talk about 'a tie between the Indo-European languages and the steppe'.
But, that isn't proven and it is likely false.

Expredel
10-05-18, 02:04
They disprove any involvement of Yamnaya in major IE migrations but they stick with it. Realy I'm considering if steppitis is a real illness.
IE probably moved out of the Steppe into the Middle East 6000 years ago, so if they focused on 6000-5000 years ago they're going to find cold adapted Asian lineages that moved in during a little ice age.

I haven't closely looked at the study, no Y-DNA? Weird.

holderlin
10-05-18, 06:10
I think no steppe in a bronze age Anatolian sample isn't a surprise at this point. Not sure what this says about PIE though.

@Angela Looks like the first evidence of domestic horses is in Northern Anatolia around 2700BC, associated with Bulgarian cultures, dare I say Anatolian IE speakers? I really really want to see who these people were. They need to sample the people now. Someone get on the phone.

Maciamo
10-05-18, 07:50
Lol this is what one commenter over on anthrogenica posted:

"OOEET is dead, the Hittite samples are out, just a mixture of CHG and Anatolian farmers, zero EHG. For the people who have been insisting EHG has anything to do with Indoeuropeans it's over. They're also J2 and G2, as I've been saying all the south Caucasus Y-DNA like J2, R1b-L23, G2, T, etc. have very similar distribution in Europe, example:

https://i.imgur.com/E4ZCp0f.jpg

It came with Indoeuropeans, it wasn't there before. IE moved westwards from the south Caucasus homeland into Anatolia then southeast Europe then south France, where the R1b founder effect that gave birth to Bell Beaker happened. From that point on Centum languages were spread to northern Europe only with R1b instead of the full spectrum of IE Y-DNA.

There is indeed a link in the spread of G2a-M406, J1-Z1828, J2a1-PF5116 and T1a-P77 (and perhaps some R1b-L23), but that wasn't with the Indo-Europeans. It was the contemporary Kura-Araxes culture that spread these lineages, as I have explained in my haplogroup pages (for each of these haplogroups) for a few years now. The more detailed the Y-DNA phylogeny becomes, the more it corroborates this theory.

Maciamo
10-05-18, 08:15
Can people stop with the exaggeration?

They found one Hittite sample.* You can't disprove an entire theory on one sample, although I admit it's suggestive that no EHG like material has yet been found anywhere in Bronze Age Anatolia. Indo-European speakers were all over the place.

Even if the Proto-PIE developed in Anatolia and then moved north to the steppe where the other PIE languages developed, it doesn't invalidate the tie between the Indo-European languages and the steppe.

I've been the first one to say that a lot of the analysis was like "IE for dummies", but that there is some tie is undeniable. It's just not how people have been describing it.

*It appears to be G-M406, yes?

I can't vouch for the accuracy of the below information. If it started moving 2000 BC into southern Europe I don't know why the harping on the Phoenicians, especially as from the analysis they're quoting the similarities are to Turkish and Armenian sub-clades. Whether they got into Italy directly or via Greece I have no idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_G-M406

"The sharing of common ancestors much farther back in time (perhaps 3,500 years ago) among some of these samples does not provide information so useful because the migration westward could have occurred anytime in the earlier period. The finding of likely G-M406 samples in the ancient isolated highlands of Sardinia, however, suggests the arrival of G-M406 in that island prior to the arrival of the Phoenicians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicians). The latter began a Sardinian coastal presence about 3,000 years ago.
There is currently no information to explain the dispersion of G-M406 to the southern Indian area."

Ed. A few Hittite samples.

I am not sure where you found that that Hittite sample was G-M406 as I couldn't find it in the supplementary data. But if it is, G-M406 is an Anatolian lineage peaking in central and northeastern Anatolia. I have theorised (https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_G2a_Y-DNA.shtml#Kura-Araxes) that it spread with the Kura-Araxes culture to the Greek islands (and with the Greeks to southern Italy), as the Minoans almost certainly descended from a Kura-Araxes expansion.

If the other Hittite sample is J2a (I also couldn't find it), it would be from anywhere in the northern Middle East.

However the fact that these samples possessed Anatolian and Iranian farmers admixture with EHG and that they do not have any Y-DNA associated with Yamna or any other Bronze Age IE culture (R1a, R1b-L23, I2a2a-L701, E-V13, G2a-U1, G2a-Z1816, J2b2a-L283) is a good indication that these samples were in fact local Anatolian people assimilated by the Hittite invaders, and not Hittite themselves. Contrarily to what happened in Europe between 3000 and 1500 BCE, Indo-European migrations to Anatolia must have had a much more minor genetic impact, because Anatolian cultures had the time were more advanced and more densely populated than Europe (esp. Western and Northern Europe). The Hittites were merely a small ruling class, like the Goths in Italy and Spain. I doubt that they represented more than 5% of the population (or overall DNA in the gene pool after they mixed with locals) of their empire.

Additionally the Hittites arrived very late (1650 BCE) and were just an offshoot of other Anatolian IE speakers from Western Anatolian (Trojans, Luwians, Lydians, Lycians), who might have been in Anatolia for centuries, and before that in the Balkans, perhaps since c. 4000 BCE, giving them over two millennia to mix with Neolithic Anatolian/Balkanic populations. So it's hardly surprising if we find little Steppe DNA among the Hittites. In fact, there should be less of it than among Indo-Aryans in India (10-20%) because the Proto-Anatolians clearly left the Steppe much earlier (around 4000 BCE) than the Proto-Indo-Iranians (around 2000 BCE), yet the Hittites appear c. 1650 BCE, exactly at the same time as the Indo-Aryans in northern Pakistan and NW India!

What is going to be interesting is to see if the Anatolian IE tribes until the days of the Hittites also practised some sort of endogamy. I doubt it considering how all other Indo-European people freely mixed with conquered populations. We will know it once they find R1b-L23 (or other potential PIE) lineages among Hittite samples. If they have anything more than 5% of Steppe DNA, then endogamy might have been practised at least for a few centuries. If there is substantial Steppe DNA (say over 30%) then endogamy would have started very early after the Proto-Anatolians left the Steppe. But again, I very much doubt it.

The bottom line is that the two "Hittite" samples have non-IE Y-DNA and therefore can be expected to be assimilated indigenes.

halfalp
10-05-18, 09:06
Lol this is what one commenter over on anthrogenica posted:

"OOEET is dead, the Hittite samples are out, just a mixture of CHG and Anatolian farmers, zero EHG. For the people who have been insisting EHG has anything to do with Indoeuropeans it's over. They're also J2 and G2, as I've been saying all the south Caucasus Y-DNA like J2, R1b-L23, G2, T, etc. have very similar distribution in Europe, example:

https://i.imgur.com/E4ZCp0f.jpg

It came with Indoeuropeans, it wasn't there before. IE moved westwards from the south Caucasus homeland into Anatolia then southeast Europe then south France, where the R1b founder effect that gave birth to Bell Beaker happened. From that point on Centum languages were spread to northern Europe only with R1b instead of the full spectrum of IE Y-DNA.
Lol Olympus Mons...

Pygmalion
10-05-18, 09:41
Can people stop with the exaggeration?

They found one Hittite sample.* You can't disprove an entire theory on one sample, although I admit it's suggestive that no EHG like material has yet been found anywhere in Bronze Age Anatolia. Indo-European speakers were all over the place.

Even if the Proto-PIE developed in Anatolia and then moved north to the steppe where the other PIE languages developed, it doesn't invalidate the tie between the Indo-European languages and the steppe.

I've been the first one to say that a lot of the analysis was like "IE for dummies", but that there is some tie is undeniable. It's just not how people have been describing it.

*It appears to be G-M406, yes?

I can't vouch for the accuracy of the below information. If it started moving 2000 BC into southern Europe I don't know why the harping on the Phoenicians, especially as from the analysis they're quoting the similarities are to Turkish and Armenian sub-clades. Whether they got into Italy directly or via Greece I have no idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_G-M406

"The sharing of common ancestors much farther back in time (perhaps 3,500 years ago) among some of these samples does not provide information so useful because the migration westward could have occurred anytime in the earlier period. The finding of likely G-M406 samples in the ancient isolated highlands of Sardinia, however, suggests the arrival of G-M406 in that island prior to the arrival of the Phoenicians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicians). The latter began a Sardinian coastal presence about 3,000 years ago.
There is currently no information to explain the dispersion of G-M406 to the southern Indian area."

Ed. A few Hittite samples.

Sardinians were in Crete around the 14-13th century bc (Kommos) and in Cyprus (Pyla Kokkinokremos) around 1230-1170 bc, Cretans and Cypriots were also present in Sardinia around that time (Antigori, San Sperate, etc). To get an idea of how intense the exchange between Sardinia and the Eastern Mediterranean was during the late bronze age look for instance at the distribution of Cypriot oxhide ingots. And around that same period Sardinians learned the lost wax technique and iron smelting likely from Cyprus and adopted a lot of new Cypriot tools and technologies which the other Central Mediterranean peoples didn't adopt.

Johane Derite
10-05-18, 10:01
There is indeed a link in the spread of G2a-M406, J1-Z1828, J2a1-PF5116 and T1a-P77 (and perhaps some R1b-L23), but that wasn't with the Indo-Europeans. It was the contemporary Kura-Araxes culture that spread these lineages, as I have explained in my haplogroup pages (for each of these haplogroups) for a few years now. The more detailed the Y-DNA phylogeny becomes, the more it corroborates this theory.

Interesting.

On a tangentially related note, I have read your haplogroup page on R1b and i'm curious about PF7562. For PF7562 you theorize that it may be either an early Steppe migration to the Balkans dating from the Sredny Stog period or related to the Hittites.

I'm a bit perplexed as to its balkan distribution and what it means:

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-g0bw35BUsac/Wr-3lEPrhaI/AAAAAAAAEww/KZy6UwLIPj4TdzrBU-5hjAXZU3oCsP6NQCLcBGAs/s1600/R1b-PF7562.JPG

Source: http://r1b-pf7562.blogspot.fr/

holderlin
10-05-18, 17:08
If all the non-Anatolian IE languages expanded from the 'steppe', then we can talk about 'a tie between the Indo-European languages and the steppe'.
But, that isn't proven and it is likely false.

It's actually the opposite, in that it's very likely that all Non-Anatolian IE languages expanded from the steppe. And in fact Anatolian likely came from the steppe as well.

Anatolian is the possible exception that has made this question ever more complicated.

Cpluskx
10-05-18, 18:03
As i said earlier, David Reich's whiteboard had no movements towards Anatolia and they have much more data than anyone else, which they have not shared yet.

holderlin
10-05-18, 18:21
Lol this is what one commenter over on anthrogenica posted:

"OOEET is dead, the Hittite samples are out, just a mixture of CHG and Anatolian farmers, zero EHG. For the people who have been insisting EHG has anything to do with Indoeuropeans it's over. They're also J2 and G2, as I've been saying all the south Caucasus Y-DNA like J2, R1b-L23, G2, T, etc. have very similar distribution in Europe, example:

https://i.imgur.com/E4ZCp0f.jpg

It came with Indoeuropeans, it wasn't there before. IE moved westwards from the south Caucasus homeland into Anatolia then southeast Europe then south France, where the R1b founder effect that gave birth to Bell Beaker happened. From that point on Centum languages were spread to northern Europe only with R1b instead of the full spectrum of IE Y-DNA.

The ONLY evidence of this so far is the recent Z2103 findings. Modern day distributions have been proven to show little correlation to ancient distributions, this being more true the further back we go.

There is Caucasian admixture on the Steppe well before any evidence of contact with the Caucuses. It increased at the beginning of the Bronze Age, but every population in the Old World began to admix significantly as we moved toward the Bronze Age. This fact combined with the unassailable continuity of the material culture on the steppe through the Bronze Age leaves me unconvinced that this increase in Caucasian signals a linguistic shift. It's possible, but it's less likely in comparison to known examples.

Nearly everywhere we see a linguistic change in pre-industrial populations, e.g. Anglo Saxon migrations to Britain, Roman introduced Latin in France, Germanic into Central Europe etc. (there are countless examples), the cultural changes are extremely emphatic. A more contemporaneous example of a massive cultural imposition would be the Anatolian Farmers into Europe. Of course we can't prove anything linguistic one way or another in this case, but it still exemplifies a far more drastic cultural imposition in a pre-historic context that can be used as an example of what we'd like to see on the steppe if IE speakers were imposing there language with a Caucasian population. Language imposition is a big deal. All this hand waving about South Caucuses PIE, is just that.

I don't know if we have enough Anatolian DNA to use that as evidence of a Non-steppe origin of the IE Anatolian Languages, nor do I know how exactly to interpret this given what we know about the Hittites. I'm willing to say that "so far Anatolia looks to have nothing to do with Steppe IE during the period where we'd expect IE to have been spoken," but there are historical Mesopotamian records of non-IE Anatolian languages. They are plain as day. We see nothing about Hittites or otherwise Anatolian IE speakers until Hittites arrive on the historical scene later. They appear to be intrusive to the region in the historical records.

I think it's possible and I'm becoming more willing to entertain the notion of a South Caucuses PIE, but it's still big massive speculative project at this point.

holderlin
10-05-18, 18:51
There is indeed a link in the spread of G2a-M406, J1-Z1828, J2a1-PF5116 and T1a-P77 (and perhaps some R1b-L23), but that wasn't with the Indo-Europeans. It was the contemporary Kura-Araxes culture that spread these lineages, as I have explained in my haplogroup pages (for each of these haplogroups) for a few years now. The more detailed the Y-DNA phylogeny becomes, the more it corroborates this theory.

Exactly. It's strange that people are willing to completely dismiss the emergence of Caucasian languages, so that they can force a speculative PIE in the Caucuses.

holderlin
10-05-18, 19:00
I am not sure where you found that that Hittite sample was G-M406 as I couldn't find it in the supplementary data. But if it is, G-M406 is an Anatolian lineage peaking in central and northeastern Anatolia. I have theorised (https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_G2a_Y-DNA.shtml#Kura-Araxes) that it spread with the Kura-Araxes culture to the Greek islands (and with the Greeks to southern Italy), as the Minoans almost certainly descended from a Kura-Araxes expansion.

If the other Hittite sample is J2a (I also couldn't find it), it would be from anywhere in the northern Middle East.

However the fact that these samples possessed Anatolian and Iranian farmers admixture with EHG and that they do not have any Y-DNA associated with Yamna or any other Bronze Age IE culture (R1a, R1b-L23, I2a2a-L701, E-V13, G2a-U1, G2a-Z1816, J2b2a-L283) is a good indication that these samples were in fact local Anatolian people assimilated by the Hittite invaders, and not Hittite themselves. Contrarily to what happened in Europe between 3000 and 1500 BCE, Indo-European migrations to Anatolia must have had a much more minor genetic impact, because Anatolian cultures had the time were more advanced and more densely populated than Europe (esp. Western and Northern Europe). The Hittites were merely a small ruling class, like the Goths in Italy and Spain. I doubt that they represented more than 5% of the population (or overall DNA in the gene pool after they mixed with locals) of their empire.

Additionally the Hittites arrived very late (1650 BCE) and were just an offshoot of other Anatolian IE speakers from Western Anatolian (Trojans, Luwians, Lydians, Lycians), who might have been in Anatolia for centuries, and before that in the Balkans, perhaps since c. 4000 BCE, giving them over two millennia to mix with Neolithic Anatolian/Balkanic populations. So it's hardly surprising if we find little Steppe DNA among the Hittites. In fact, there should be less of it than among Indo-Aryans in India (10-20%) because the Proto-Anatolians clearly left the Steppe much earlier (around 4000 BCE) than the Proto-Indo-Iranians (around 2000 BCE), yet the Hittites appear c. 1650 BCE, exactly at the same time as the Indo-Aryans in northern Pakistan and NW India!

What is going to be interesting is to see if the Anatolian IE tribes until the days of the Hittites also practised some sort of endogamy. I doubt it considering how all other Indo-European people freely mixed with conquered populations. We will know it once they find R1b-L23 (or other potential PIE) lineages among Hittite samples. If they have anything more than 5% of Steppe DNA, then endogamy might have been practised at least for a few centuries. If there is substantial Steppe DNA (say over 30%) then endogamy would have started very early after the Proto-Anatolians left the Steppe. But again, I very much doubt it.

The bottom line is that the two "Hittite" samples have non-IE Y-DNA and therefore can be expected to be assimilated indigenes.

Well said. We already have a Yamnaya grave in the Balkans that is like 50% Anatolian Farmer and that is pretty much right on the steppe interface. Why would we expect Anatolian speakers to have any more? With the right samples we should see some, but there's no reason to expect a significant portion, nor to expect that it was widespread in Anatolia during the era in question.

And the Hittites themselves were known to absorb the gods of their conquered subjects. It was a fundamental part of their identity, which is consistent with the notion that they mixed ALOT with anyone they encountered. They were called the people of 1000 gods for a reason.

Ygorcs
10-05-18, 19:55
Lol this is what one commenter over on anthrogenica posted:

"OOEET is dead, the Hittite samples are out, just a mixture of CHG and Anatolian farmers, zero EHG. For the people who have been insisting EHG has anything to do with Indoeuropeans it's over. They're also J2 and G2, as I've been saying all the south Caucasus Y-DNA like J2, R1b-L23, G2, T, etc. have very similar distribution in Europe, example:

https://i.imgur.com/E4ZCp0f.jpg

It came with Indoeuropeans, it wasn't there before. IE moved westwards from the south Caucasus homeland into Anatolia then southeast Europe then south France, where the R1b founder effect that gave birth to Bell Beaker happened. From that point on Centum languages were spread to northern Europe only with R1b instead of the full spectrum of IE Y-DNA.

Linguistically it does not make a lot of sense to associate the spread of Italo-Celtic, Germanic and other European IE branches with the supposed (if the lack of EHG in any part of Hittite or Luwian-inhabited Bronze Age Anatolia comes to be confirmed) expansion of the Anatolian branch. If those non-steppic/northern IE branches were demonstrably closer to Anatolian than to the steppic/northern IE branches like Indo-Iranian or Balto-Slavic, that could even be argued, but what has been demonstrated is exactly the opposite. If anything, from a linguistic point of view, that only reinforces the hypothesis of a "two stages" development of PIE, with its earliest existence in a region different from its latest homeland and focus of wider expansion. The southern homeland wouldn't have been as successful in the long term outside of the northern portions of West Asia, whereas the northern and later homeland (which wasn't necessarily centered only in one region and could've actually been very substructured) would've been responsible for the vast majority of the IE expansion. That fits the pattern of IE divergence better than assuming that the Indo-Europeanization of Western & Central Europe came directly from the Caucasus/West Asia, in which case we'd expect those languages to be much more apart from the "other", northern IE families, because their origins would've been very early on before the "proto-PIE" people separated in different waves of migration.

Sile
10-05-18, 20:13
It is pointless in using modern haplogroup maps to talk about ancient migration!
why not do maps of ancient samples found , we can do the range from roman empire to back from there

Angela
10-05-18, 21:07
Scientists don't work from fixed ideas and then reject anything that doesn't comport with those ideas.

If samples from Royal Hittite tombs are tested and there is no or extremely low steppe, then Hittite is autochthonous, not an import from the steppe via the Balkans.

You work from hypotheses, and follow the evidence. You don't start with the conclusion and do tons of special pleading to reduce the significance of the evidence that you have.

All of that said, two samples do not answer the question, so we have to wait.

As for the Huns, no need to speculate any longer. There are lots of admixture analyses for them, as there are for the various Scythian groups. It pays to read the paper and the supplementary materials as well.

Angela
10-05-18, 21:25
From Iosif Lazaridis:

Iosif Lazaridis‏ @iosif_lazaridis (https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis) May 6 (https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/993290339107696641)More



- The steppe hypothesis predicts some genetic input from eastern Europe (EHG) to Anatolia.- Bronze Age Anatolians (Lazaridis et al. 2017) from historically IE-speaking Pisidia lack EHG; more samples obviously needed


Iosif Lazaridis‏ @iosif_lazaridis (https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis) May 6 (https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/993290437984247808)More



Possibilities:1- Additional Anatolian samples will have EHG: consistent with steppe PIE2- Additional Anatolian samples will not have EHG, then either:



More



If additional Anatolian samples lack EHG, then either:1- Steppe not PIE homeland2- Steppe PIE homeland but linguistic impact in Anatolia vastly greater than genetic impact


Iosif Lazaridis‏ @iosif_lazaridis (https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis) May 6 (https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/993290953782972416)More



Tentative steppe->Anatolia movements reach Balkans early (Mathieson et al. 2018) and Armenia (some EHG in Lazaridis et al. 2016). But not the last leg to Anatolia_ChL (Lazaridis et al. 2016) or Anatolia_BA (Lazaridis et al. 2017).



More



If Anatolians consistently don't have EHG, steppe PIE is very difficult to affirm; Near Eastern alternative likely (contributing CHG/Iran_N-related ancestry to both western Anatolia/steppe)If Anatolians have EHG, one could further investigate by what route they got it.


In addition, why all this emphasis only on Hittites. Indo-European was spoken all over Anatolia. Where the heck are the samples with steppe?

Johane Derite
10-05-18, 21:41
Also its false to assert some sort of linguistic consensus as if this issue is entirely resolved and that this new data is totally not corroborating linguistic evidence. Check the discrepancies between these:

https://i.imgur.com/Zn2WKt8.png
https://i.imgur.com/p3Wi5Xj.png

https://i.imgur.com/pbh5N8m.png
https://i.imgur.com/N2x1s80.png
https://i.imgur.com/pu9Ej4T.png
And about the so called reconstructions of words for geography here is another clear example with a word as central as "Sea"

From the book "The Indo-European Controversy" :

"Another controversial PIE reconstruction is the root *mori, which presumably
means ‘sea’. If this term is indeed traceable all the way back to PIE, then
by the logic of linguistic paleontology one might assume that the speakers of
PIE must have lived near a large body of water of some type. Note, however,
that the relevant cognates come from the northwestern Indo-European
languages: Lithuanian māres, Old Church Slavonic morje, Latin mare, Old
Irish muir, Gothic marei. No relevant cognates are found in the Anatolian,
Tocharian, Greek, Armenian, Albanian, or even Indo-Iranian branches of the
family. The Greek word thalassa ‘sea’, for example, almost certainly comes
from a pre-Indo-European substrate. As a result of such absences, the root
*mori cannot be reliably reconstructed all the way back to PIE. It is possible
that the Indo-European branches that lack a word for ‘sea’ once had it but later
lost it, perhaps by acquiring it from the local substratum language, as has been
proposed for the Greek thalassa (as discussed in Chapter 7). Alternatively, it is
possible that the root *mori ‘sea’ was coined by – or borrowed into – the
common ancestor of a particular branch of the Indo-European family.
As it turns out, determining whether a word that is absent in many descendant
languages stems from PIE is often a difficult matter. In the case of ‘sea’, the issue
is further complicated by the fact that even in the Germanic and Celtic languages
we find other roots meaning the same thing, as evident in the English word sea
itself. Moreover, some of the roots for ‘sea’ can also refer to other types of water
bodies. For example, the German cognate of the English sea, See can refer to
either ‘lake’ or ‘sea’, whereas German Meer refers to either ‘sea’ or ‘ocean’
while the Dutch word meer generally means ‘lake’. Scottish Gaelic loch refers to
either ‘fresh-water lake’ or ‘salt-water sea inlet’. Similarly, Russian more, just
like its English counterpart sea, can also refer to a large landlocked body of
water, such as the Aral Sea, the Caspian Sea, the Dead Sea, or the Sea of Galilee.
Thus, it is possible that PIE speakers were familiar not with the sea in the sense
of the ocean, but rather with a large interior body of water"

Promenade
10-05-18, 21:46
Scientists don't work from fixed ideas and then reject anything that doesn't comport with those ideas.

If samples from Royal Hittite tombs are tested and there is no or extremely low steppe, then Hittite is autochthonous, not an import from the steppe via the Balkans.

You work from hypotheses, and follow the evidence. You don't start with the conclusion and do tons of special pleading to reduce the significance of the evidence that you have.

All of that said, two samples do not answer the question, so we have to wait.

As for the Huns, no need to speculate any longer. There are lots of admixture analyses for them, as there are for the various Scythian groups. It pays to read the paper and the supplementary materials as well.

Not autochthonous, but most likely from the Caucasus. If they were authochthonous then they wouldn't have been subjugating the Hattic people there before them and using all their place names for the area. The paper mentions the problems with this that I'm sure everyone else is thinking about

"We cannot at this point reject a scenario in which the introduction of the Anatolian IE languages into Anatolia was coupled with the CHG-derived admixture prior to 3700 BCE, but note that this is contrary to the standard view that PIE arose in the steppe north of the Caucasus (4 (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2018/05/08/science.aar7711.full#ref-4)) and that CHG ancestry is also associated with several non-IE-speaking groups, historical and current. Indeed, our data are also consistent with the first speakers of Anatolian IE coming to the region by way of commercial contacts and small-scale movement during the Bronze Age."

"Among comparative linguists, a Balkan route for the introduction of Anatolian IE is generally considered more likely than a passage through the Caucasus, due, for example, to greater Anatolian IE presence and language diversity in the west"

I do agree though, it would probably be more constructive to get DNA from Luwian speakers further west from before the Hittite empire.

Cpluskx
10-05-18, 21:48
In addition, why all this emphasis only on Hittites. Indo-European was spoken all over Anatolia. Where the heck are the samples with steppe?

https://s9.postimg.cc/i3g9h52zz/k6xpucn.jpg

Only starts to be seen at Iron Age Anatolia. Way too late.

Angela
10-05-18, 22:12
From Iosif Lazaridis:

Iosif Lazaridis‏ @iosif_lazaridis (https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis) May 6 (https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/993290339107696641)More



- The steppe hypothesis predicts some genetic input from eastern Europe (EHG) to Anatolia.- Bronze Age Anatolians (Lazaridis et al. 2017) from historically IE-speaking Pisidia lack EHG; more samples obviously needed


Iosif Lazaridis‏ @iosif_lazaridis (https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis) May 6 (https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/993290437984247808)More



Possibilities:1- Additional Anatolian samples will have EHG: consistent with steppe PIE2- Additional Anatolian samples will not have EHG, then either:



More



If additional Anatolian samples lack EHG, then either:1- Steppe not PIE homeland2- Steppe PIE homeland but linguistic impact in Anatolia vastly greater than genetic impact


Iosif Lazaridis‏ @iosif_lazaridis (https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis) May 6 (https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/993290953782972416)More



Tentative steppe->Anatolia movements reach Balkans early (Mathieson et al. 2018) and Armenia (some EHG in Lazaridis et al. 2016). But not the last leg to Anatolia_ChL (Lazaridis et al. 2016) or Anatolia_BA (Lazaridis et al. 2017).



More



If Anatolians consistently don't have EHG, steppe PIE is very difficult to affirm; Near Eastern alternative likely (contributing CHG/Iran_N-related ancestry to both western Anatolia/steppe)If Anatolians have EHG, one could further investigate by what route they got it.

That's how scientists approach problems like this, for anyone who is interested.

In addition, why all this emphasis only on Hittites. Indo-European was spoken all over Anatolia. Where the heck are the samples with steppe?

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4720f140e8b8b898ecac677f2d174a9d-c

holderlin
10-05-18, 22:29
In addition, why all this emphasis only on Hittites. Indo-European was spoken all over Anatolia. Where the heck are the samples with steppe?

It wasn't spoken all over Anatolia until classical times.

LABERIA
10-05-18, 22:32
Also its false to assert some sort of linguistic consensus as if this issue is entirely resolved and that this new data is totally not corroborating linguistic evidence. Check the discrepancies between these:

https://i.imgur.com/Zn2WKt8.png
https://i.imgur.com/p3Wi5Xj.png

https://i.imgur.com/pbh5N8m.png
https://i.imgur.com/N2x1s80.png
https://i.imgur.com/pu9Ej4T.png
And about the so called reconstructions of words for geography here is another clear example with a word as central as "Sea"

From the book "The Indo-European Controversy" :

"Another controversial PIE reconstruction is the root *mori, which presumably
means ‘sea’. If this term is indeed traceable all the way back to PIE, then
by the logic of linguistic paleontology one might assume that the speakers of
PIE must have lived near a large body of water of some type. Note, however,
that the relevant cognates come from the northwestern Indo-European
languages: Lithuanian māres, Old Church Slavonic morje, Latin mare, Old
Irish muir, Gothic marei. No relevant cognates are found in the Anatolian,
Tocharian, Greek, Armenian, Albanian, or even Indo-Iranian branches of the
family. The Greek word thalassa ‘sea’, for example, almost certainly comes
from a pre-Indo-European substrate. As a result of such absences, the root
*mori cannot be reliably reconstructed all the way back to PIE. It is possible
that the Indo-European branches that lack a word for ‘sea’ once had it but later
lost it, perhaps by acquiring it from the local substratum language, as has been
proposed for the Greek thalassa (as discussed in Chapter 7). Alternatively, it is
possible that the root *mori ‘sea’ was coined by – or borrowed into – the
common ancestor of a particular branch of the Indo-European family.
As it turns out, determining whether a word that is absent in many descendant
languages stems from PIE is often a difficult matter. In the case of ‘sea’, the issue
is further complicated by the fact that even in the Germanic and Celtic languages
we find other roots meaning the same thing, as evident in the English word sea
itself. Moreover, some of the roots for ‘sea’ can also refer to other types of water
bodies. For example, the German cognate of the English sea, See can refer to
either ‘lake’ or ‘sea’, whereas German Meer refers to either ‘sea’ or ‘ocean’
while the Dutch word meer generally means ‘lake’. Scottish Gaelic loch refers to
either ‘fresh-water lake’ or ‘salt-water sea inlet’. Similarly, Russian more, just
like its English counterpart sea, can also refer to a large landlocked body of
water, such as the Aral Sea, the Caspian Sea, the Dead Sea, or the Sea of Galilee.
Thus, it is possible that PIE speakers were familiar not with the sea in the sense
of the ocean, but rather with a large interior body of water"
I want to quote an Albanian linguist, Xhevat Lloshi, one of the best here in Albania, from his last study:
Periudhat historike të shqipes
Historical periods of Albanian language

Fjalët e gjuhëve i.e. dëshmojnë për zonat e përhapjes dhe kushtet e jetesës. Kanë fjalë të përbashkëta për dimrin, por jo përdetin (domethënë nuk janë formuar në treva bregdetare), për drurët (ahu, dru) dhe kafshët (ariu, ujku), që dëshmojnë për zona pyjore; dinin të numëronin të paktën deri në njëqind dhe emërtimi i numrit 100 shërben për dallimin centum(lat.) – satem (avestisht), i cili ndodhi me ndarjen e tyre. Kishin nisur të bënin jetë të ngulur, rrisnin grurin, mbanin bagëti, endnin leshin, përdornin harkun e shigjetën. Para se të ndaheshin e njihnin pak punimin e metaleve, duke filluar me bakrin. Kishin kaluar në familjen patriarkale, siç e dëshmojnë termat e farefisnisë, njihnin prijësa, besonin në hyjni dhe kishin disa përfytyrime etike.

Sorry for the Gg translation:

The words of the IE languages testify to the areas of distribution and living conditions. They had in common words for the winter, but not for the sea (i.e. they are not formed in the shores), for trees (beech, wood) and animals (bear, wolf) that testify to forest areas; they knew to count at least until one hundred and the denomination of number 100 serves to distinguish centum (lat.) - satem (avestan), which occurred with their separation. They had started to do a sedentary life, grow wheat, keep cattle, woven the wool, use the bow and arrow. Before they were separated, they knew little metal work, starting with copper. They had passed into the patriarchal family, as the terms of kinship testify, knew leaders, believed in divinity, and had some ethical imaginations.

Johane, you can read the entire study here in Albanian:
https://www.academia.edu/5700700/Periudhat_historike_t%C3%AB_shqipes

Cpluskx
10-05-18, 22:33
Game over for steppe homeland of PIE?
https://ibb.co/cRsTfd

source:https://zenodo.org/record/1240524#.WvSquqSFNaS

Promenade
10-05-18, 22:50
Game over for steppe homeland of PIE?
https://ibb.co/cRsTfd

source:https://zenodo.org/record/1240524#.WvSquqSFNaS

"The EHG ancestry detected in individuals associated with Yamnaya (3000-2400 BCE) and the Maykop Culture (3700-3000 BCE) (in prep.) is absent from our Anatolian specimens"

Wow finally dna from Maykop... also they reaffirm Namazga introduced EHG to South Asia before later steppe migrations, but they are unlikely to have been Indo-European speakers.

It says "Anatolian languages established themselves in Anatolia by gradual infiltration and cultural assimilation" but from where? It seems like they're hinting from contact with Maykop, but at the same time they're saying "late Maykop" is not old enough.

Angela
10-05-18, 23:12
It wasn't spoken all over Anatolia until classical times.

There you go again. First of all, attestation is not "age" of a language. Second of all, some of them were attested in Hittite texts. Perhaps you should do some reading on the topic.

https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Anatolian_languages.html

johen
10-05-18, 23:38
Again, I hope next time they use the samples of old anthro research.


Senyurek (1951d, pp. 614-15) concludes that "the majority of the Chalcolithic and Copper Age inhabitants of Anatolia were dolichocephals of mainly Eurafrican and Mediterranean types, and that the brachycephals, probably representing the invaders, were rare in these periods. This study has further supported the conclusion that the earliest inhabitants of Anatolia were longheaded, and that the brachycephals came in subsequently. "The craniological evidence indicates that an invasion of brachycephals into Anatolia took place during the Chalcolithic period and that it was followed by a second invasion, bringing in the brachycephalic elements to Alaca Huyuk and other Copper Age sites, probably at about the middle of the Copper Age. The next invasion of brachycephals, which was more important and extensive than the previous ones, occurred at about 2000 B.C. This was made by the Hittites who were predominantly of the classical Alpine type."

Silesian
10-05-18, 23:51
Funny- no one made a fuss- about Bell Beaker with 0% steppe and one Bell Beaker with the highest steppe reading in szigetszentmiklos burials.
(I2787 R1b-Z2103+)----[I2741-I2]
http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.ca/2017/07/szigetszentmiklos-cemetery-santas-six.html

Ygorcs
11-05-18, 00:36
Also its false to assert some sort of linguistic consensus as if this issue is entirely resolved and that this new data is totally not corroborating linguistic evidence. Check the discrepancies between these:

https://i.imgur.com/Zn2WKt8.png
https://i.imgur.com/p3Wi5Xj.png

https://i.imgur.com/pbh5N8m.png
https://i.imgur.com/N2x1s80.png
https://i.imgur.com/pu9Ej4T.png
And about the so called reconstructions of words for geography here is another clear example with a word as central as "Sea"

From the book "The Indo-European Controversy" :

"Another controversial PIE reconstruction is the root *mori, which presumably
means ‘sea’. If this term is indeed traceable all the way back to PIE, then
by the logic of linguistic paleontology one might assume that the speakers of
PIE must have lived near a large body of water of some type. Note, however,
that the relevant cognates come from the northwestern Indo-European
languages: Lithuanian māres, Old Church Slavonic morje, Latin mare, Old
Irish muir, Gothic marei. No relevant cognates are found in the Anatolian,
Tocharian, Greek, Armenian, Albanian, or even Indo-Iranian branches of the
family. The Greek word thalassa ‘sea’, for example, almost certainly comes
from a pre-Indo-European substrate. As a result of such absences, the root
*mori cannot be reliably reconstructed all the way back to PIE. It is possible
that the Indo-European branches that lack a word for ‘sea’ once had it but later
lost it, perhaps by acquiring it from the local substratum language, as has been
proposed for the Greek thalassa (as discussed in Chapter 7). Alternatively, it is
possible that the root *mori ‘sea’ was coined by – or borrowed into – the
common ancestor of a particular branch of the Indo-European family.
As it turns out, determining whether a word that is absent in many descendant
languages stems from PIE is often a difficult matter. In the case of ‘sea’, the issue
is further complicated by the fact that even in the Germanic and Celtic languages
we find other roots meaning the same thing, as evident in the English word sea
itself. Moreover, some of the roots for ‘sea’ can also refer to other types of water
bodies. For example, the German cognate of the English sea, See can refer to
either ‘lake’ or ‘sea’, whereas German Meer refers to either ‘sea’ or ‘ocean’
while the Dutch word meer generally means ‘lake’. Scottish Gaelic loch refers to
either ‘fresh-water lake’ or ‘salt-water sea inlet’. Similarly, Russian more, just
like its English counterpart sea, can also refer to a large landlocked body of
water, such as the Aral Sea, the Caspian Sea, the Dead Sea, or the Sea of Galilee.
Thus, it is possible that PIE speakers were familiar not with the sea in the sense
of the ocean, but rather with a large interior body of water"

As far as I can see, the only - but relevant - consensus in all those hypothetical trees of the divergence of PIE is that Anatolian split first and/or in any case is not particularly closely related to any other attested IE branch. And that observation, virtually consensual among linguists, does matter now that we're discussing a possible "dual" nature (not only in terms of geography/homeland, but also possibly of chronology) of the IE family.

Ygorcs
11-05-18, 01:55
"Among comparative linguists, a Balkan route for the introduction of Anatolian IE is generally considered more likely than a passage through the Caucasus, due, for example, to greater Anatolian IE presence and language diversity in the west"

I don't think this reason is particularly strong, though it is certainly plausible. That's mainly because in the very same region, present-day Turkey, the historically documented Turkic-speaking immigration also affected the western part of Anatolia much more intensely than the eastern part of Anatolia or Transcaucasia, even though we know for a fact that the Seljuk Turks came from the east and entered Anatolia from present-day Azerbaijan and Iran, mostly bypassing eastern Anatolia to concentrate much more heavily in Western/Central Anatolia and, especially after they defeated the Byzantines for good, the southwestern Aegean provinces. That historic movement of people into Anatolia shows that not necessarily migrations difuse gradually and evenly through the territory as they move westward, they often bypass entire regions or are kicked out from areas nearer to their original focus of dispersal.

Johane Derite
11-05-18, 02:09
As far as I can see, the only - but relevant - consensus in all those hypothetical trees of the divergence of PIE is that Anatolian split first and/or in any case is not particularly closely related to any other attested IE branch. And that observation, virtually consensual among linguists, does matter now that we're discussing a possible "dual" nature (not only in terms of geography/homeland, but also possibly of chronology) of the IE family.

Accidently disliked your comment

Angela
11-05-18, 03:41
Game over for steppe homeland of PIE?
https://ibb.co/cRsTfd

source:https://zenodo.org/record/1240524#.WvSquqSFNaS

I think everyone should read this very carefully, both to review the linguistics part of this debate (and refresh what is known about the Anatolian languages), and to see how this Willerslev group (which also includes Allentoft), is leaning. We already know how Krause is leaning.

holderlin
11-05-18, 04:18
There you go again. First of all, attestation is not "age" of a language. Second of all, some of them were attested in Hittite texts. Perhaps you should do some reading on the topic.

https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Anatolian_languages.html

OK, so saying that it was "all over Anatolia" means something very specific, and I don't think you can say that in 2500BC. Could be true, but as far as I can tell it's likely not.

The evidence strongly suggests IE intrusion into Anatolia over pre-existing Hatti speaking groups that were attested at least by around 2500BC, then Hittites absorb these people 1000 years later. 1000 years.

holderlin
11-05-18, 04:22
As far as I can see, the only - but relevant - consensus in all those hypothetical trees of the divergence of PIE is that Anatolian split first and/or in any case is not particularly closely related to any other attested IE branch. And that observation, virtually consensual among linguists, does matter now that we're discussing a possible "dual" nature (not only in terms of geography/homeland, but also possibly of chronology) of the IE family.

I was going to say the same thing. Most of those tree are complete BS, and they do not accurately represent the current dispute among academics.

Angela
11-05-18, 04:46
OK, so saying that it was "all over Anatolia" means something very specific, and I don't think you can say that in 2500BC. Could be true, but as far as I can tell it's likely not.

The evidence strongly suggests IE intrusion into Anatolia over pre-existing Hatti speaking groups that were attested at least by around 2500BC, then Hittites absorb these people 1000 years later. 1000 years.

For goodness' sakes that's absolute bunk, pulled out of your own imagination. You have no way of knowing that's what happened.

You need to read about the Anatolian languages and about the Hittites. Start by reading the article from some of the contributors to this paper. All of these "Anatolian" languages probably differentiated in place.
https://zenodo.org/record/1240524#.WvUE-4gvzIX

All Indo-European migrants eventually admixed to some degree with the "locals". Still, the way that arrival is tracked is by the presence of "steppe" in the autosome, whether it's Europe or Central Asia or India. Isn't that what all the analysis is about? What do you think we've all been tracking for the last couple of years?

Only with Anatolia we don't need to find any trace of steppe? This takes special pleading and biased reasoning to a whole new level.

We may find that steppe in royal Hittite samples or elsewhere. I don't care one way or another, but if it's not found anywhere in Bronze Age Anatolian samples it's game over. Period.

bicicleur
11-05-18, 07:19
There you go again. First of all, attestation is not "age" of a language. Second of all, some of them were attested in Hittite texts. Perhaps you should do some reading on the topic.
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Anatolian_languages.html

fact is that Hittite was insignificant till they conquered the Hatti ca 1900 BC

and the 'Hittite' samples, nobody knows whether they are actualy Hittite or Hatti, but autosomal they probably had mixed

holderlin
11-05-18, 07:33
For goodness' sakes that's absolute bunk, pulled out of your own imagination. You have no way of knowing that's what happened.

You need to read about the Anatolian languages and about the Hittites. Start by reading the article from some of the contributors to this paper. All of these "Anatolian" languages probably differentiated in place.
https://zenodo.org/record/1240524#.WvUE-4gvzIX

All Indo-European migrants eventually admixed to some degree with the "locals". Still, the way that arrival is tracked is by the presence of "steppe" in the autosome, whether it's Europe or Central Asia or India. Isn't that what all the analysis is about? What do you think we've all been tracking for the last couple of years?

Well it's far less bunk than a South Caucuses PIE, that's for sure. What part exactly?

I thought you weren't talking to me anymore.

I've done a lot of reading on this, including that paper, which by the way is hardly a comprehensive review. I actually found the Tocharian section more interesting.

The evidence cited isn't antithetical to what I'm saying, in fact it may even support it. The Kanes records are only a few hundred years earlier than attested Hittite, which I'm fine with, and the Elba records with the IE names from 2500BC are very sparse. Hardly evidence of being "all over Anatolia" such that any bronze age sample will likely be speaking Anatolian. And Hittite doesn't envelope the region until around 1500 BC, which is in fact 1000 years after these initial records of what seem to be mostly Hattic words, or indecipherable.

As to their other conclusions, like Proto-Anatolian needing to have differentiated by 3500-3000BC in Anatolia, they have made some leaps on the way to this. I understand why they're saying this, and I think it could easily be the case, but It could have certainly started to differentiate outside of Anatolia as well.

The intrusive nature of Hittite has wide acceptance, and I've read the papers and I can see why. It's not just me making up stuff. The Hattians show every sign of being seated in Anatolia, and I even think their pantheon is firmly rooted in 8000 year old Anatolian farmers evidenced by figure representations of known Hattian gods, which is amazing.

And yes I understand the search for steppe genes in all of this, but this particular bit of it didn't really need reference to steppe anything. I'm only saying that it looks like Anatolian is intrusive to Anatolia, and that we can't say that it was so common and widespread by 2500BC that we were likely to draw an Anatolian speaking sample. The evidence suggests the opposite.


Only with Anatolia we don't need to find any trace of steppe? This takes special pleading and biased reasoning to a whole new level.

No, we would still like to see some steppe, but Anatolian does seem to exemplify an exception to a model that has been cross verified 6 ways from Sunday for all other IE languages, especially Indo-Iranian. So you're absolutely right that it deserves special consideration, but there's nothing biased or pleading about it. Just because this special consideration isn't suddenly throwing out the steppe model entirely doesn't mean that it's any more wrong than the South Caucuses speculation. At least with what we currently know.

And, I keep going back to that Yamnaya grave with 50% Anatolian Farmer. If a proper Yamnaya grave can have 50% EEF, then I'm not so sure we need Steppe in Anatolian speakers.


We may find that steppe in royal Hittite samples or elsewhere. I don't care one way or another, but if it's not found anywhere in Bronze Age Anatolian samples it's game over. Period.

What on earth do you mean "game over"? I'm not competing in whatever weird thing you've gotten caught up in. None of this is anything but interesting to me.


I don't care one way or another

Oh I think you do

IronSide
11-05-18, 10:47
I am person X, I hold the following belief:

Hittites will have higher EHG than Anatolia Chalcolithic and Bronze Age, if a future sample doesn't have that, then it is a Hatti person, not Hittite, as long as we don't find EHG, we don't find the Hittites.

My position is unfalsifiable. because I believe ...

A. Papadimitriou
11-05-18, 11:52
It wasn't spoken all over Anatolia until classical times.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/AnatolieLimits.jpg

If Anatolia is that then there were IE languages all over it or at least that is a position that can be supported.
In the North East there were Hattian speakers and Colchians east of Trabzon towards Georgia but at least in Hattian regions there were IE speakers too. (And nothing is known about the language of Colchians, although Georgians claim them)

halfalp
11-05-18, 14:48
I think that rather than search EHG in anatolia we should try to found the ancestral population of the anatolian samples that we have, or with wich it get the most closer. If anatolians samples for exemple match with anatolian neolithic, so they can't be IE's by deduction. If they match with something CHG, are they more Kura-Araxes or another culture ? Anatolia was full of hurrians a non related indo-european nation, so if every anatolian samples from chalcolithic or bronze age anatolia have the same origin, once more by deduction it can be IE's. Or are we gonna start to say that every CHG-like populations had different languages from different families ?

A. Papadimitriou
11-05-18, 15:13
I think that rather than search EHG in anatolia we should try to found the ancestral population of the anatolian samples that we have, or with wich it get the most closer. If anatolians samples for exemple match with anatolian neolithic, so they can't be IE's by deduction. If they match with something CHG, are they more Kura-Araxes or another culture ? Anatolia was full of hurrians a non related indo-european nation, so if every anatolian samples from chalcolithic or bronze age anatolia have the same origin, once more by deduction it can be IE's. Or are we gonna start to say that every CHG-like populations had different languages from different families ?

That is not true.


I am person X, I hold the following belief:
Hittites will have higher EHG than Anatolia Chalcolithic and Bronze Age, if a future sample doesn't have that, then it is a Hatti person, not Hittite, as long as we don't find EHG, we don't find the Hittites.
My position is unfalsifiable. because I believe ...

Yes. I think I will do the opposite. If they find a sample with EHG or R1-something I will say it is a Hattian.
Inverting their unfalsifiable claims is a little funny.

Cpluskx
11-05-18, 15:41
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7a/b4/e3/7ab4e3529a666e28b97cf209e161492e.png

Location of Armi where Indo European was discovered at 2500 BC.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c1cc8ba57adb6bd87ec0baa513348ffc-c

And these are the location of Anatolian languages later in Anatolia. Slow expansion from North Syria to the southern coast of Anatolia?

Ailchu
11-05-18, 17:23
from wiki.
"The scholar Petra Goedegebuure has proposed that before the conquest of the Hittites, an Indo-European language, probably Luwian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luwian_language), had already been spoken alongside the Hattic language for a long time."

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Luwian_Language_de.svg/220px-Luwian_Language_de.svg.png
disribution of luwian inscriptions from 2000 to 1000bc.

Angela
11-05-18, 17:48
Well it's far less bunk than a South Caucuses PIE, that's for sure. What part exactly?

I thought you weren't talking to me anymore.

I've done a lot of reading on this, including that paper, which by the way is hardly a comprehensive review. I actually found the Tocharian section more interesting.

The evidence cited isn't antithetical to what I'm saying, in fact it may even support it. The Kanes records are only a few hundred years earlier than attested Hittite, which I'm fine with, and the Elba records with the IE names from 2500BC are very sparse. Hardly evidence of being "all over Anatolia" such that any bronze age sample will likely be speaking Anatolian. And Hittite doesn't envelope the region until around 1500 BC, which is in fact 1000 years after these initial records of what seem to be mostly Hattic words, or indecipherable.

As to their other conclusions, like Proto-Anatolian needing to have differentiated by 3500-3000BC in Anatolia, they have made some leaps on the way to this. I understand why they're saying this, and I think it could easily be the case, but It could have certainly started to differentiate outside of Anatolia as well.

The intrusive nature of Hittite has wide acceptance, and I've read the papers and I can see why. It's not just me making up stuff. The Hattians show every sign of being seated in Anatolia, and I even think their pantheon is firmly rooted in 8000 year old Anatolian farmers evidenced by figure representations of known Hattian gods, which is amazing.

And yes I understand the search for steppe genes in all of this, but this particular bit of it didn't really need reference to steppe anything. I'm only saying that it looks like Anatolian is intrusive to Anatolia, and that we can't say that it was so common and widespread by 2500BC that we were likely to draw an Anatolian speaking sample. The evidence suggests the opposite.



No, we would still like to see some steppe, but Anatolian does seem to exemplify an exception to a model that has been cross verified 6 ways from Sunday for all other IE languages, especially Indo-Iranian. So you're absolutely right that it deserves special consideration, but there's nothing biased or pleading about it. Just because this special consideration isn't suddenly throwing out the steppe model entirely doesn't mean that it's any more wrong than the South Caucuses speculation. At least with what we currently know.

And, I keep going back to that Yamnaya grave with 50% Anatolian Farmer. If a proper Yamnaya grave can have 50% EEF, then I'm not so sure we need Steppe in Anatolian speakers.



What on earth do you mean "game over"? I'm not competing in whatever weird thing you've gotten caught up in. None of this is anything but interesting to me.



Oh I think you do

Now you're a mind reader.

OK, have it your way, the spread of IE languages to Anatolia is the only situation in which we're not going to track "steppe" ancestry to prove it. Why? Because that would falsify the "proto-IE had to start on the steppe, it can't owe anything to any other place." It's clearly not enough that all the later languages spread from the steppe.

And, we don't even know that steppe won't show up. Perfectly fine with me if it does. However, IF IT DOESN"T, it falsifies that part of the "kurgan" theory. Only people like you think that's such a biggie.

This is precisely why I don't participate as much in these kinds of discussions (steppe, PIE etc.) as I used to, and let so many stupid, unsupported posts slide: it's boring and irritating in equal measure to debate "true believers" on EITHER side. It's like a freaking religion. On some sites you get crap like "Oh, no, you got me wrong: my HEART is with the steppe theory." Your HEART? Freaking get a life, people.

berun
11-05-18, 20:18
I need time to look better, but discussing if BA Anatolian samples were locals or true Hittites is losing time if IA Anatolian has truly 0 steppe watermark.

Sile
11-05-18, 20:56
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/AnatolieLimits.jpg

If Anatolia is that then there were IE languages all over it or at least that is a position that can be supported.
In the North East there were Hattian speakers and Colchians east of Trabzon towards Georgia but at least in Hattian regions there were IE speakers too. (And nothing is known about the language of Colchians, although Georgians claim them)

https://s20.postimg.cc/pjyfxu5bx/anatolianlang.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

The anatolian IE languages before the green and yellow semitic language push

The euboen alphabet came from north levant prior to west-semitic change

The white in the direction of NW are thraci/phygian languages

holderlin
11-05-18, 20:58
Now you're a mind reader.

OK, have it your way, the spread of IE languages to Anatolia is the only situation in which we're not going to track "steppe" ancestry to prove it. Why? Because that would falsify the "proto-IE had to start on the steppe, it can't owe anything to any other place." It's clearly not enough that all the later languages spread from the steppe.

And, we don't even know that steppe won't show up. Perfectly fine with me if it does. However, IF IT DOESN"T, it falsifies that part of the "kurgan" theory.

I have no emotional attachment to any of this. I'm just very familiar with all of the evidence, and it's annoying when people ignore it for the sake of a conjured theory based on a VERY small amount of supporting data in comparison.

I do agree that these Anatolian genomes are supportive of a non-EHG mediated movement into Anatolia. Definitely. It's plain as day. I'm not ignoring anything. I'm just not sure that it's enough to mean what everyone's trying to claim. That's all.


This is precisely why I don't participate as much in these kinds of discussions (steppe, PIE etc.) as I used to, and let so many stupid, unsupported posts slide: it's boring and irritating in equal measure to debate "true believers" on EITHER side. It's like a freaking religion. On some sites you get crap like "Oh, no, you got me wrong: my HEART is with the steppe theory." Your HEART? Freaking get a life, people.

Yes I agree. Do not mistake me for these types.

Here's the genomes by the way. I don't think anyone's posted them yet.

https://i.imgur.com/AeQYPfe.png




And the relevant PCA

https://i.imgur.com/BGcWOCx.png

holderlin
11-05-18, 21:19
I need time to look better, but discussing if BA Anatolian samples were locals or true Hittites is losing time if IA Anatolian has truly 0 steppe watermark.

No there's Steppe in Iron Age

https://i.imgur.com/GxroANG.png

And wait, hold the phone. There appears to be some steppe in one of the MLBA Anatolian samples. Hmmmm.

Please everyone don't jump down my throat. I'm not claiming there's steppe, but what do we make of this? I've bracketed what looks like some steppe in one or two of the samples.

https://i.imgur.com/h1JFWsX.png

Below are the steppe samples. The ...._EBA are Yamnaya/Afanasievo
https://i.imgur.com/G4jDgpa.png



Here's the whole run again.


https://i.imgur.com/AeQYPfe.png

raspberry
11-05-18, 21:23
So, finally the absurd steppes hypothesis is burried. David Reich, the Max Planck institute and other renowned institutes now support the PIE-homeland south of the Caucasus. The absurd theory that primitive Steppe pastoralists passed the Balkans to Anatolia and lead to the much more advanced Hittite and other IE cultures in Anatolia is dead, especially seeing now that even early Hittite samples do not show any steppes related ancestry. I can't understand people after such burying facts, first Hajji Firuz pre-BA and now this, that ignorant people still hold to their phantasms of riding R1 nomads who expand their "virus" to the whole world.

The Iron Age samples have no relevance, since they are from a time when the Hittite civilization was destroyed by Semites and what not. At one point Steppes related ancestry indeed entered the Near East, but that was relatively "recent".

IronSide
11-05-18, 22:23
So, finally the absurd steppes hypothesis is burried. David Reich, the Max Planck institute and other renowned institutes now support the PIE-homeland south of the Caucasus. The absurd theory that primitive Steppe pastoralists passed the Balkans to Anatolia and lead to the much more advanced Hittite and other IE cultures in Anatolia is dead, especially seeing now that even early Hittite samples do not show any steppes related ancestry. I can't understand people after such burying facts, first Hajji Firuz pre-BA and now this, that ignorant people still hold to their phantasms of riding R1 nomads who expand their "virus" to the whole world.

The Iron Age samples have no relevance, since they are from a time when the Hittite civilization was destroyed by Semites and what not. At one point Steppes related ancestry indeed entered the Near East, but that was relatively "recent".

Steppe people weren't primitive, they were a very creative culture.

R1 nomads spreading their virus ? dude, you're an R1.

Ygorcs
11-05-18, 22:31
There is Caucasian admixture on the Steppe well before any evidence of contact with the Caucuses. It increased at the beginning of the Bronze Age, but every population in the Old World began to admix significantly as we moved toward the Bronze Age. This fact combined with the unassailable continuity of the material culture on the steppe through the Bronze Age leaves me unconvinced that this increase in Caucasian signals a linguistic shift. It's possible, but it's less likely in comparison to known examples..

As for the South Caucasus hypothesis, I don't think they're necessarily (or even at all) proposing anything related to the Bronze Age, about which you talk about the cultural continuity in the steppes. The CHG admixture seems to have increased significantly in the Mid-Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic, and there was profound economic and cultural transformations in that period roughly between 5000 and 3500 BCE.

Also, if Anatolian split first and the non-Anatolian IE developed with all its peculiar characteristics in the steppes, then we're certainly talking about a linguistic shift, probably coupled with cultural and genetic ones, around 4000 BC or even earlier. That first IE expansion would not have been a Bronze Age phenomenon.

holderlin
11-05-18, 23:40
As for the South Caucasus hypothesis, I don't think they're necessarily (or even at all) proposing anything related to the Bronze Age, about which you talk about the cultural continuity in the steppes. The CHG admixture seems to have increased significantly in the Mid-Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic, and there was profound economic and cultural transformations in that period roughly between 5000 and 3500 BCE.

No, there wasn't. Most of the influence is coming from the Balkans, especially before the Bronze Age.


Also, if Anatolian split first and the non-Anatolian IE developed with all its peculiar characteristics in the steppes, then we're certainly talking about a linguistic shift, probably coupled with cultural and genetic ones, around 4000 BC or even earlier. That first IE expansion would not have been a Bronze Age phenomenon.

Yes of course. If.

Look, if we can trace IE back to the Old Old world I think that would be amazing. Why would I have some irrational aversion to this? I don't post on those forums full of 30 year old virgin white males. I just think there's MASSIVE leaps being made in this conclusion considering everything we know.

We have a nice set of bronze age Anatolian samples, but compared to Europe it's very small, and look how much we learned about Europe in the South East European paper and the Baltic paper. A ton.

*EDIT* And I'm pretty goddam sure there's steppe in one of the Anatolia_MLBA samples. What's going on? Can someone comment on this without attacking me. Thanks.

holderlin
11-05-18, 23:41
Steppe people weren't primitive, they were a very creative culture.

R1 nomads spreading their virus ? dude, you're an R1.

He's tr0lling

Pygmalion
11-05-18, 23:50
I'm not surprised about the steppe admixture in the early iron age samples. The Phrygians migrated to Central Anatolia from the Balkans during the very end of the bronze age.

raspberry
11-05-18, 23:57
Steppe people weren't primitive, they were a very creative culture.

R1 nomads spreading their virus ? dude, you're an R1.
If you compare the Anatolian Indo-European cultures with those in the steppes, then you can call the steppe cultures primitive. My point is: how should those "creatives" of the steppes lead to such an "organized" (advanced) culture in Anatolia? And do not start with "elite dominance" and what not.

I wanted to edit the word virus because I knew that someone will misunderstand it. What I wanted to say is that many steppes-hypothesis supporters want the hypothesis to be true because it fulfills their phantasms of "great" IE people spreading their language ("virus", not meant literally, so do not think I am using that term in a judging way) to all parts of the world, including the Near East.

Yes, you say it I am R1(b-V1636). R1b evolved in the Near East and is present there since at least the Epipaleolithic. Especially in my case, I belong to a very old branch of R1b (according to yfull formed 15600 ybp) and this clade is pre-M269 (all European/Steppes and even most Near Eastern R1b branches belong to a subbranch of M269). When then a British R1b person tells me without any clue that my branch "is "an early split from the Steppes to the Near East", I really wonder what phantasms he is living in his head. Also my clade of V1636 has nothing in common with Kura-Araxes V1636, I wanted to say this too, that Kura-Araxes V1636 clade is extinct.

Below "creativity" (as IronSide called it) of the Yamnaya-Steppe pastoralists:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/49/a4/fd/49a4fd8568d93067d17a77527fd85b2e.jpg
And compared to the Indo-European Hittite culture of Anatolia:
https://www.realmofhistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/10-facts-hittite-warriors-bronze-age_1.jpg

I am not arguing who was greater and such stuff. The point is how should a culture as above (Steppes) lead to a culture like below (Hittites). Even the idea of Steppe pastoralists passing from the Balkans to Anatolia is absurd, which now is proved to be wrong. All IE cultures/languages (namely the Anatolian and steppe branches) derive from a Proto culture south of the Caucasus and developed completely independent from each other.

Ygorcs
12-05-18, 00:02
No, there wasn't. Most of the influence is coming from the Balkans, especially before the Bronze Age.

Well, I'd bet Khvalynsk and later Repin weren't simply autochthonous developments without any foreign influence, and they were far enough from the Balkans and close enough to the Caucasus to allow us to believe that the "rapid" Neolithization of the entire region from Ukraine to the Caspian wasn't exclusively Balkan-influenced. Also, the first characteristic kurgans do not seem to have appeared in the steppes, but in Transcaucasia. But of course I'm not sure. I'll just say that the Mesolithic and early Neolithic samples from Ukraine have a different autosomal makeup with much much less CHG/Iran_Neo related ancestry. I doubt that came from a generally more technologically advanced region without any cultural impact at all, even if the language of the natives didn't necessarily change.

Ygorcs
12-05-18, 00:12
If you compare the Anatolian Indo-European cultures with those in the steppes, then you can call the steppe cultures primitive. My point is: how should those "creatives" of steppes lead to such an "organized" (advanced) culture in Anatolia? And do not start with "elite dominance" and what not.

Well, that kind of thing happened multiple times in History (and Pre-History): "barbarians" come, conquer, rule, but end up being extremely inflluenced (and changed) or even absorbed into the local more advanced civilizations they infiltrated into. That happened with the Amorites, Persians, Medes, Franks, Muslim Arabians, steppe Turks (into Central Asia and Iranian Plateau), Mongols, Manchus and dozens of other peoples who originally came from more primitive lands but managed to become advanced as they mixed with civilizations they conquered.

Why would you think the Anatolian IEs were necessarily any different? That's a pretty repetitive pattern in history, if that happened it wouldn't be surprising in the least, especially if you consider that all that advance you know and talk of is an artifact of the mid-late Bronze Age (Hittite Empire, which existed roughly 1,000 years after even the latest phase of the Yamnaya culture), and the origins of Proto-Anatolian, a still undivided IE subfamily, are much older than that, certainly with more than one milennium for all kinds of cultural transformations to happen, including, you know, learning things from your neighbors, because cultures aren't stumbling blocks that do not mix with each other. In the case of Hittite, that interaction and intermixing is especially noticeable because they, even during their most glorious period, effectively had a bilingual empire (non-IE Hattic and Hittite) and used the pre-IE local language in much of their liturgy and religion.

Maciamo
12-05-18, 00:25
I don't really understand why there is such a heated argument about the origins of the Anatolian branch. Some people seem to think that it is important to determine whether PIE originated in the Steppe or in the South Caucasus. But that's a false dichotomy. I have been saying for nearly 10 years, without needing to adjust my discourse as all ancient DNA evidence have always confirmed my proposed scenario, that R1b-M269 (and L23, which was not yet discovered when I started writing my R1b history in early 2009) originated in the South Caucasus (or Eastern Anatolia, which is almost the same thing) and that this R1b branch were cattle herders who crossed the Caucasus between 6000 and 5000 BCE. They mixed with the local population (I2a, R1a and, to my surprise also older branches of R1b like L388 and P297), and only then around the time of the Late Khvalynsk/Sredny Stog or Early Yamna/Maykop can we say that a common lingua franca had appeared in the Pontic Steppe that included vocabulary for horses (domesticated c. 4000 BCE), carts/wagons and metallurgy.

I have explained here (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/35776-Central-and-South-Asian-DNA-Paper/page2?p=537157&viewfull=1#post537157) and here (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/35776-Central-and-South-Asian-DNA-Paper/page3?p=537258&viewfull=1#post537258) why it is nonsensical to think of the Hittites and other Anatolian IE as not having a Steppe origin. They had Steppe vocabulary and even possessed Steppe technology. There is no way these people were descendants from the R1b-L23 who stayed in the South Caucasus. Since PIE is estimated to be approximately 6000 years old (4000 BCE), it is equally ludicrous to believe that the Anatolian branch could have split from other IE languages 8000 years ago. Yet one cannot say that the Anatolian branch remained in the Caucasus without asserting all this by the same occasion.

As for the CHG admixture in Bronze Age Anatolia, most of it would have been brought by the Kura-Araxes expansion (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34158-Kura-Araxes-Expansion-and-the-Y-lines-that-can-be-associated-with-them), which was contemporaneous to the Yamna expansion, but from the South Caucasus to Anatolia, Aegean Greece, Cyprus, the Fertile Crescent, Iran, Bactria-Margiana and as far as the Indus. The Hurrians, Hattians, Minoans, and possibly also the Akkadians, Assyrians and Elamites descend at least partly from the Kura-Araxes people. The Kura-Araxes haplogroups included J2a1 (M319, Z7671, F3133, Z6046, L581, etc.), J1-Z1828, G2a-L293 and T1a-P77.

But the bottom line is that R1b-L23 is the principal original lineage of PIE, as R1b-L23 did originated in the South Caucasus, but PIE as a language did not develop until c. 4000 BCE over 1000 to 2000 years after R1b-L23 settled in the Pontic Steppe.

So genetically, the paternal line of Indo-European is from the South Caucasus, but PIE people and language are a hybrid of South Caucasian and Steppe people. There is no point arguing beyond that.

raspberry
12-05-18, 00:26
Well, that kind of thing happened multiple times in History (and Pre-History): "barbarians" come, conquer, rule, but end up being extremely inflluenced (and changed) or even absorbed into the local more advanced civilizations they infiltrated into. That happened with the Amorites, Persians, Medes, Franks, Muslim Arabians, steppe Turks (into Central Asia and Iranian Plateau), Mongols, Manchus and dozens of other peoples who originally came from more primitive lands but managed to become advanced as they mixed with civilizations they conquered. Why would you think the Anatolian IEs were necessarily any different? That's a pretty repetitive pattern in history, if that happened it wouldn't be surprising in the least, especially if you consider that all that advance you know and talk of is an artifact of the mid-late Bronze Age (Hittite Empire), and the origins of Proto-Anatolian, a still undivided IE subfamily, are much older than that, certainly with more than 1000 years for all kinds of cultural transformations to happen.
I knew that this will come as an answer. How about looking at the Hittite samples then, do they show to have steppes related ancestry? No, end of the story, there was no migration nor invasion of Steppes people from the Balkan to Anatolia, in your mentioned examples always admixture spread with themselves, how not in this case? Anyway, if the steppes make you sleep then so it should be.

If the next Hittite samples have steppes ancestry, then I will withdraw my claim, but for now I am confirmed by these 3 new Hittite samples.

Ailchu
12-05-18, 00:39
I don't really understand why there is such a heated argument about the origins of the Anatolian branch. Some people seem to think that it is important to determine whether PIE originated in the Steppe or in the South Caucasus. But that's a false dichotomy. I have been saying for nearly 10 years, without needing to adjust my discourse as all ancient DNA evidence have always confirmed my proposed scenario, that R1b-M269 (and L23, which was not yet discovered when I started writing my R1b history in early 2009) originated in the South Caucasus (or Eastern Anatolia, which is almost the same thing) and that this R1b branch were cattle herders who crossed the Caucasus between 6000 and 5000 BCE. They mixed with the local population (I2a, R1a and, to my surprise also older branches of R1b like L388 and P297), and only then around the time of the Late Khvalynsk/Sredny Stog or Early Yamna/Maykop can we say that a common lingua franca had appeared in the Pontic Steppe that included vocabulary for horses (domesticated c. 4000 BCE), carts/wagons and metallurgy.

I have explained here (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/35776-Central-and-South-Asian-DNA-Paper/page2?p=537157&viewfull=1#post537157) and here (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/35776-Central-and-South-Asian-DNA-Paper/page3?p=537258&viewfull=1#post537258) why it is nonsensical to think of the Hittites and other Anatolian IE as not having a Steppe origin. They had Steppe vocabulary and even possessed Steppe technology. There is no way these people were descendants from the R1b-L23 who stayed in the South Caucasus. Since PIE is estimated to be approximately 6000 years old (4000 BCE), it is equally ludicrous to believe that the Anatolian branch could have split from other IE languages 8000 years ago. Yet one cannot say that the Anatolian branch remained in the Caucasus without asserting all this by the same occasion.

But the bottom line is that R1b-L23 is the principal original lineage of PIE, as R1b-L23 did originated in the South Caucasus, but PIE as a language did not develop until c. 4000 BCE over 1000 to 2000 years after R1b-L23 settled in the Pontic Steppe.

So genetically, the paternal line of Indo-European is from the South Caucasus, but PIE people and language are a hybrid of South Caucasian and Steppe people. There is no point arguing beyond that.

what does lazardis mean when he says that no steppe in anatolian populations falsifies the steppe theory? isn't he actually playing with the thought that the anatolian branch was spread by people who were missing EHG?

Alan
12-05-18, 03:53
Not autochthonous, but most likely from the Caucasus. If they were authochthonous then they wouldn't have been subjugating the Hattic people there before them and using all their place names for the area. The paper mentions the problems with this that I'm sure everyone else is thinking about

"We cannot at this point reject a scenario in which the introduction of the Anatolian IE languages into Anatolia was coupled with the CHG-derived admixture prior to 3700 BCE, but note that this is contrary to the standard view that PIE arose in the steppe north of the Caucasus (4 (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2018/05/08/science.aar7711.full#ref-4)) and that CHG ancestry is also associated with several non-IE-speaking groups, historical and current. Indeed, our data are also consistent with the first speakers of Anatolian IE coming to the region by way of commercial contacts and small-scale movement during the Bronze Age."

"Among comparative linguists, a Balkan route for the introduction of Anatolian IE is generally considered more likely than a passage through the Caucasus, due, for example, to greater Anatolian IE presence and language diversity in the west"

I do agree though, it would probably be more constructive to get DNA from Luwian speakers further west from before the Hittite empire.

What I dislike is that they talk about there being non-IE-speaking populations associated with CHG as if All EHG is associated with is IE. Finno_Ugrics?

Alan
12-05-18, 03:57
Again, I hope next time they use the samples of old anthro research.
Johen the earliest inhabitants of Anatolia were Early_Anatolian Farmers/EEF. Hittites seems to be a mix of CHG and Ana_Neo.

Alan
12-05-18, 04:03
All Indo-European migrants eventually admixed to some degree with the "locals". Still, the way that arrival is tracked is by the presence of "steppe" in the autosome, whether it's Europe or Central Asia or India. Isn't that what all the analysis is about? What do you think we've all been tracking for the last couple of years?

Only with Anatolia we don't need to find any trace of steppe? This takes special pleading and biased reasoning to a whole new level.



Even finding a little EHG admixture in the region is not a strong argument imo. It's like we could guarante that EHG admixture never reached the South before the Indo Europeans. As we can read from the paper. They seem to have found some EHG even in Maykop. What if there is some in Leyla Tepe too?

But there being a lack of EHG in Hittite samples is indeed a very strong argument against Steppes being their homeland. Indeed I have heard many times that Hittite is so different from the other Indo European groups that it could even be considered it's own branch. Almost like a sister language to Indo European.

holderlin
12-05-18, 04:47
Well, I'd bet Khvalynsk and later Repin weren't simply autochthonous developments without any foreign influence, and they were far enough from the Balkans and close enough to the Caucasus to allow us to believe that the "rapid" Neolithization of the entire region from Ukraine to the Caspian wasn't exclusively Balkan-influenced. Also, the first characteristic kurgans do not seem to have appeared in the steppes, but in Transcaucasia. But of course I'm not sure. I'll just say that the Mesolithic and early Neolithic samples from Ukraine have a different autosomal makeup with much much less CHG/Iran_Neo related ancestry. I doubt that came from a generally more technologically advanced region without any cultural impact at all, even if the language of the natives didn't necessarily change.

That's the funny thing. Those Khvalynsk graves are very rich for the context, and ALL of the copper was from the Balkans.

Promenade
12-05-18, 05:49
What I dislike is that they talk about there being non IE populations associated with CHG as if All EHG is associated with is IE. Finno_Ugrics?

Read it again and you'll see they're actually very cautious about this. Did you see the EHG in Namazga Chalcolithic? Before they jumped to conclusions they noted the apparent absence of CHG and decided they cannot connect it with Indo-European infiltration. And I'd say they're right, Namazga used Bactrian Camels and Oxen for transportation... what kind of Indo European arrives without his horse? We know EHG was capable of moving around on its own as well seeing a movement into the baltics.

I wonder what culture these migrants came from though, perhaps they were steppe hunter gatherers pushed out by the new Indo European EHG/CHG hybrids? It's curious they made it as far as southern Turkmenistan and that while they settled in Namazga the EHG component is absent in other BMAC settlements for another 1000 years until the WSHGs arrive.

Leandros
12-05-18, 06:15
Isnt it more natural the origins of Neolithic farmers to be the Caucasus area? They were just another migratory wave from the same source, they just moved to another direction towards Europe.

Ygorcs
12-05-18, 07:03
I knew that this will come as an answer. How about looking at the Hittite samples then, do they show to have steppes related ancestry? No, end of the story, there was no migration nor invasion of Steppes people from the Balkan to Anatolia, in your mentioned examples always admixture spread with themselves, how not in this case? Anyway, if the steppes make you sleep then so it should be.

If the next Hittite samples have steppes ancestry, then I will withdraw my claim, but for now I am confirmed by these 3 new Hittite samples.

Man, everyone will be able to take you a bit more seriously if you sound a bit less hysterical, arrogant and angry, okay? Be more respectful, am I clear? The funny thing is that, despite all of your hysteria, I also lean towards the same way you understand about the origins of Hittites and their Anatolian ancestors. So it seems you're fighting your imaginary demons.

That said, I won't simply agree with a weak and factually wrong statement of yours just because we both believe that it is perfectly plausible and even likely that the Anatolian branch of IE diverged from the non-Anatolian IE branch very early on and probably not in the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Those are two completely different matters. We can't accept some weak and false statements just because they would favor our own conclusions, that's not intellectually honest. Anatolian IE may have come as an independent offshoot from a Early PIE population, but that was not because they were more "civilized" or "creative" than the steppe tribes or other such nonsense as if Hittites had appeared out of the blue in Hattic-speaking lands - among many other reasons, obviously, for the simple fact that Anatolian vs. The Rest linguistic split would've happened very early on, in the Neolithic, when not even Sumer was a full fledged civilization.

What you cannot do is just claim - and think people will accept this uncritically - that one of the good reasons to state that is that Hittite culture was so much more advanced than that of steppe IE tribes. That proves nothing at all, especially if you are comparing late Bronze Age Hittites from around 1500-1300 BCE with Yamnaya or Corded Ware people from more than 1000 years earlier. It's just nonsense, this argument is countered by dozens of historically attested "acculturations" of barbarian tribes who became highly civilized in a matter of a few centuries. Sorry.


Now, if you want to base your arguments entirely on the genetic and archaeological evidences, that's fine for me, especially because we agree on the most plausible explanation for these BA Anatolian results.

Sile
12-05-18, 07:37
2015 BBC documentary on the hittites
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cVfIJikiMI

.
or
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTbGD1m7IE8

Maciamo
12-05-18, 09:25
If you compare the Anatolian Indo-European cultures with those in the steppes, then you can call the steppe cultures primitive. My point is: how should those "creatives" of the steppes lead to such an "organized" (advanced) culture in Anatolia? And do not start with "elite dominance" and what not.

I wanted to edit the word virus because I knew that someone will misunderstand it. What I wanted to say is that many steppes-hypothesis supporters want the hypothesis to be true because it fulfills their phantasms of "great" IE people spreading their language ("virus", not meant literally, so do not think I am using that term in a judging way) to all parts of the world, including the Near East.

Yes, you say it I am R1(b-V1635). R1b evolved in the Near East and is present there since at least the Epipaleolithic. Especially in my case, I belong to a very old branch of R1b (according to yfull formed 15600 ybp) and this clade is pre-M269 (all European/Steppes and even most Near Eastern R1b branches belong to a subbranch of M269). When then a British R1b person tells me without any clue that my branch "is "an early split from the Steppes to the Near East", I really wonder what phantasms he is living in his head. Also my clade of V1636 has nothing in common with Kura-Araxes V1636, I wanted to say this too, that Kura-Araxes V1636 clade is extinct.

Below "creativity" (as IronSide called it) of the Yamnaya-Steppe pastoralists:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/49/a4/fd/49a4fd8568d93067d17a77527fd85b2e.jpg
And compared to the Indo-European Hittite culture of Anatolia:
https://www.realmofhistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/10-facts-hittite-warriors-bronze-age_1.jpg

I am not arguing who was greater and such stuff. The point is how should a culture as above (Steppes) lead to a culture like below (Hittites). Even the idea of Steppe pastoralists passing from the Balkans to Anatolia is absurd, which now is proved to be wrong. All IE cultures/languages (namely the Anatolian and steppe branches) derive from a Proto culture south of the Caucasus and developed completely independent from each other.

Ygorcs already mentioned it, but what's the point of comparing the cultural advancement of the Yamna culture (3500-2500 BCE) to the late Hittites (1500-1200 BCE), when they are separated by 1000 to 2300 years? It would be like comparing ancient Gaul with modern Britain and saying the British culture is amazingly more advanced than the French one. :petrified: That's the height of intellectual dishonesty. If you look at other Steppe-derived cultures contemporary to the Hittites, what you find are the Celts, the Mycenaean Greeks, the Indo-Aryans of the Rig Veda... They are all much closer to the Hittites than to Yamna.

Then, as Ygorcs said, the Hittites absorbed a lot of their culture from the Hattians or other pre-IE Indo-European populations.

Maciamo
12-05-18, 09:29
what does lazardis mean when he says that no steppe in anatolian populations falsifies the steppe theory? isn't he actually playing with the thought that the anatolian branch was spread by people who were missing EHG?

I don't know but that comes from a guy who maintained for many years that IE languages spread with Neolithic farmers from Anatolia and who was sure that modern humans didn't have Neanderthal admixture - until ancient DNA proved him wrong.

berun
12-05-18, 10:51
@holderlin, the steppe signal in BA Anatolian is dubious, in fact it's a Euro HG signal, and disappears in other Admixture Ks.

By the way to find right autosomes and Y-DNA in Hittites will be so difficult as to find it in ancient India as both practiced cremation, and if I remember well under kurgans in Anatolia. Just practicing apartheid as in India with the caste system would not ease the research.

holderlin
12-05-18, 16:32
@holderlin, the steppe signal in BA Anatolian is dubious, in fact it's a Euro HG signal, and disappears in other Admixture Ks.

By the way to find right autosomes and Y-DNA in Hittites will be so difficult as to find it in ancient India as both practiced cremation, and if I remember well under kurgans in Anatolia. Just practicing apartheid as in India with the caste system would not ease the research.

Yes, dubious, but it is in a sample listed as during the time of "Old Hittite", which of course doesn't mean that it's a Hittite person, but the fact that it's not in the earlier "Assyrian" samples is showing a pull towards Europe (if not the steppe) at the very least as we move towards the Iron Age when we see the increased Euro HG in the Hellenistic samples.

halfalp
12-05-18, 16:42
But Hittite were in history in 1600 BC, CHG in the pontic steppe happenned 6000-5000 BC. So how do we explain IE languages with both EHG or CHG ?

Olympus Mons
12-05-18, 18:59
I don't know but that comes from a guy who maintained for many years that IE languages spread with Neolithic farmers from Anatolia ...

And IE did spread with Neolithic farmer from Anatolia. I mean at least VIA Anatolia.
That is becoming the elephant in the room: Assuming Krause is right, Now Reich is right and so many others (as me and you)… then it needs to be assumed, it follows, that populations we see moving via Anatolia and arriving to Balkans at 4500bc, such as Kum6 (4600bc), loaded with CHG and different farmers ancestry from Anatolia_N (8000bc) and having heavy shared ancestry with Greece Neolithic, such as Klei10, and Pal7 in Greece, a thousand years later (3500bc) and with even Otzi the Iceman (3300bc) …. They ALL SPOKE PIE/IE!

So, best put, Otzi could very well be a IE speaking person and have never even have met a Steppe person! – Lets start wrapping our minds around it!

I challenge anyone to truly fault this reasoning.

Promenade
12-05-18, 19:44
And IE did spread with Neolithic farmer from Anatolia. I mean at least VIA Anatolia.
That is becoming the elephant in the room: Assuming Krause is right, Now Reich is right and so many others (as me and you)… then it needs to be assumed, it follows, that populations we see moving via Anatolia and arriving to Balkans at 4500bc, such as Kum6 (4600bc), loaded with CHG and different farmers ancestry from Anatolia_N (8000bc) and having heavy shared ancestry with Greece Neolithic, such as Klei10, and Pal7 in Greece, a thousand years later (3500bc) and with even Otzi the Iceman (3300bc) …. They ALL SPOKE PIE/IE!

So, best put, Otzi could very well be a IE speaking person and have never even have met a Steppe person! – Lets start wrapping our minds around it!

I challenge anyone to truly fault this reasoning.

What happened to Shulaveri-Shomu, did one paper change your mind so quickly?

You should elaborate though, do you believe an Anatolian derived IE spread with EEF or later with the CHG intrusion into southern Europe? The obvious fault with this reasoning is all pre-IE languages in Europe are not IE related, Basque, Etruscan, Lemnian etc. and we don't see the archaic Anatolian influence on modern IE languages.

Azzurro
12-05-18, 20:14
And IE did spread with Neolithic farmer from Anatolia. I mean at least VIA Anatolia.
That is becoming the elephant in the room: Assuming Krause is right, Now Reich is right and so many others (as me and you)… then it needs to be assumed, it follows, that populations we see moving via Anatolia and arriving to Balkans at 4500bc, such as Kum6 (4600bc), loaded with CHG and different farmers ancestry from Anatolia_N (8000bc) and having heavy shared ancestry with Greece Neolithic, such as Klei10, and Pal7 in Greece, a thousand years later (3500bc) and with even Otzi the Iceman (3300bc) …. They ALL SPOKE PIE/IE!

So, best put, Otzi could very well be a IE speaking person and have never even have met a Steppe person! – Lets start wrapping our minds around it!

I challenge anyone to truly fault this reasoning.

Mr Snow, I am still waiting for your response at Anthrogenica, it seems as if your having a difficult time, no rush.

Angela
12-05-18, 20:35
Steppe people weren't primitive, they were a very creative culture.

R1 nomads spreading their virus ? dude, you're an R1.

Steppe peoples ORIGINALLY were indeed very primitive. They were hunter-gatherers living in yurts. How can you possibly compare them to the more civilized cultures of their day, such as the people of "Old Europe", or contemporaneous cultures of the Near East?

That's not a put down of any kind. It's just the facts.

They borrowed agriculture from other peoples, metallurgy from other peoples, it seems they may even have gotten kurgans, burial rites, and the wheel from other peoples.

Even Andronovo/Sintashta from the perspective of culture owes little to the steppe groups to the west. There is no trail of metallurgy to them from the Pontic-Caspian steppe for example, which was still more "primitive" in terms of metallurgy. Many of their advancements may have come to them from the south, by way of the Inner Asian Corridor.

What they were was excellent borrowers and adapters. That's an admirable trait in its own way. They weren't so rigid that they refused to adopt more sophisticated technology.

As for your comment about R1 nomads spreading the plague, that's also a fact, just as Genovese trade ships spread it after picking it up from steppe people in the Crimea during the Middle Ages.

Are you seriously suggesting that because men carry an R1 ydna haplogroup they should attempt to distort the historical record so their ancestors "look better" from the standpoint of history?

If you are, I'm sorry to say this is an example of everything that's wrong with the amateur population genetics community.

Angela
12-05-18, 21:05
Even finding a little EHG admixture in the region is not a strong argument imo. It's like we could guarante that EHG admixture never reached the South before the Indo Europeans. As we can read from the paper. They seem to have found some EHG even in Maykop. What if there is some in Leyla Tepe too?

But there being a lack of EHG in Hittite samples is indeed a very strong argument against Steppes being their homeland. Indeed I have heard many times that Hittite is so different from the other Indo European groups that it could even be considered it's own branch. Almost like a sister language to Indo European.

That's indeed one of the linguistic theories about Hittite.

As I've said repeatedly, I'm content to see what information comes from the Royal Hittite graves.

The way things stand now, however, all the top three population genetics groups in the world, people who know more about statistics and these programs (indeed they created them) than anyone in the population genetics amateur community, consider it a possibility: the Harvard group under David Reich and Nick Patterson, the Willerslev group, including Allentoft, and the Max Planck institute. Even Mr. Eurogenes has conceded it is possible.

None of them know what they're talking about? They're all biased Near Easterners? I don't think so.

Just follow the evidence, people, and apply the same logic to every situation.

Even if it turns out to be true that the first form of the language moved from south of the Caucasus to the steppe along with the genes, what does it matter, for goodness' sakes? The rest of the theory is more or less intact, even if far more nuanced than the pop gen amateur community would have had it.

IronSide
12-05-18, 21:10
@Angela

What are you saying ? 😀 I'm an expert on population genetics.

The gods themselves stand in awe to my wisdom.

And raspberry was just making nonsense and hating on the steppe folk. They have feelings too you know .. we have to defend the weak.

Olympus Mons
12-05-18, 21:38
Mr Snow, I am still waiting for your response at Anthrogenica, it seems as if your having a difficult time, no rush.
I can guarantee and swear I am not SNOW.
I would really like to engage him, but I am banned from Anthro.
Can you ask me, what was the question? Maybe I can help.

ToBeOrNotToBe
12-05-18, 21:46
If the Hittite racial type is representative of the culture-bearers, you’d assume they wouldn’t have come from the Steppe

Olympus Mons
12-05-18, 22:04
What happened to Shulaveri-Shomu, did one paper change your mind so quickly?


Dude!! - Shulaveri-Shomu disappearance is ...
a. Kum6 (4600bc) in Nortwestern Anatlolia --- is slightly later Boian (Marita)- Gulmelnita (4500bc). Yes as a matter of fact, we could call it Shulaveri. Little change in fact.
b. Pre-cucuteni, and Cucuteni-Trypolie it follows, was nothing else but Shulaveri (boian) and LBK (and whatever Hamangia was). those were the ones taking the blow of incoming Cernovada (steppe? Shulaveri cousins with EHG?).
c. South Boian/Marita, were seen arriving to North greece (3800bc).

So, does it make sense to keep on calling it Shulaveri?




You should elaborate though, do you believe an Anatolian derived IE spread with EEF or later with the CHG intrusion into southern Europe? The obvious fault with this reasoning is all pre-IE languages in Europe are not IE related, Basque, Etruscan, Lemnian etc. and we don't see the archaic Anatolian influence on modern IE languages.

Dude, again.
Kum6, brought IE to balkans. She was not EEF.
follow my previous words. People are not a playstation game. Give it time and the images of nice chicks and something precious and they will literally move mountains. Women just had to put up with this childish behaviour.
a. When steppe IE (which is a reality) arrived to Moldavia... they found people that spoke a IE pretty close to theirs. Wow cousins.
b. A travelling steppe dude (son of Cernovada or CWC or whatever), if it was or had been him, when he met OTZI, before putting a arrow to his back he clearly understood the "please dont" because of the shared ancestry Otzi had with the Kum6 girl that lived 1500 years before in North Anatolia, the grand mother of lots of following ancestry in balkans.

Promenade
12-05-18, 22:26
Dude!! - Shulaveri-Shomu disappearance is ...
a. Kum6 (4600bc) in Nortwestern Anatlolia --- is slightly later Boian (Marita)- Gulmelnita (4500bc). Yes as a matter of fact, we could call it Shulaveri. Little change in fact.
b. Pre-cucuteni, and Cucuteni-Trypolie it follows, was nothing else but Shulaveri (boian) and LBK (and whatever Hamangia was). those were the ones taking the blow of incoming Cernovada (steppe? Shulaveri cousins with EHG?).
c. South Boian/Marita, were seen arriving to North greece (3800bc).

So, does it make sense to keep on calling it Shulaveri?




Dude, again.
Kum6, brought IE to balkans. She was not EEF.
follow my previous words. People are not a playstation game. Give it time and the images of nice chicks and something precious and they will literally move mountains. Women just had to put up with this childish behaviour.
a. When steppe IE (which is a reality) arrived to Moldavia... they found people that spoke a IE pretty close to theirs. Wow cousins.
b. A travelling steppe dude (son of Cernovada or CWC or whatever), if it was or had been him, when he met OTZI, before putting a arrow to his back he clearly understood the "please dont" because of the shared ancestry Otzi had with the Kum6 girl that lived 1500 years before in North Anatolia, the grand mother of lots of following ancestry in balkans.

So you think it spread with CHG/EEF mix into Europe, right? Others my find you a nuisance, but I appreciate your contribution, tell me though what about Etruscan, Lemnian and Basque? How would they be explained in this model? These old European cultures remind me nothing of those of Anatolia and the Caucuses, but maybe I am wrong, convince me otherwise.

Johane Derite
12-05-18, 22:38
The user "Ryukendo" has some enlightening comments on anthrogenica such as these:

"It appears the authors of the paper do treat the discovery of Anatolian materials close to the borders of Syria in 2500BC as a major finding of the paper.

From an interview conducted by ScienceDaily (LINK: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180509185446.htm (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180509185446.htm)) :


Gojko Barjamovic, Senior Lecturer on Assyriology at Harvard University, explains:

"In Anatolia, and parts of Central Asia, which held densely settled complex urban societies, the history of language spread and genetic ancestry is better described in terms of contact and absorption than by simply a movement of population."

He adds:

"The Indo-European languages are usually said to emerge in Anatolia in the 2nd millennium BCE. However, we use evidence from the palatial archives of the ancient city of Ebla in Syria to argue that Indo-European was already spoken in modern-day Turkey in the 25th century BCE. This means that the speakers of these language must have arrived there prior to any Yamnaya expansions."

Promenade
12-05-18, 22:45
The user "Ryukendo" has some enlightening comments on anthrogenica such as these:

"It appears the authors of the paper do treat the discovery of Anatolian materials close to the borders of Syria in 2500BC as a major finding of the paper.

From an interview conducted by ScienceDaily (LINK: (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180509185446.htm)https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180509185446.htm) :


Gojko Barjamovic, Senior Lecturer on Assyriology at Harvard University, explains:

"In Anatolia, and parts of Central Asia, which held densely settled complex urban societies, the history of language spread and genetic ancestry is better described in terms of contact and absorption than by simply a movement of population."

He adds:

"The Indo-European languages are usually said to emerge in Anatolia in the 2nd millennium BCE. However, we use evidence from the palatial archives of the ancient city of Ebla in Syria to argue that Indo-European was already spoken in modern-day Turkey in the 25th century BCE. This means that the speakers of these language must have arrived there prior to any Yamnaya expansions."



Thinks make me think we should wait for the Maykop study, unless there is something else revelation to say?

Azzurro
12-05-18, 22:54
I can guarantee and swear I am not SNOW.
I would really like to engage him, but I am banned from Anthro.
Can you ask me, what was the question? Maybe I can help.

My appologizes sorry, he has many similar theories to you.

Anyways he claimed that J2 is the main IE marker, and I challenged him to find a specific branch of J2 that is conceivable with PIE timeframe that has branches in all areas where IE is spoken today.

Olympus Mons
12-05-18, 22:56
So you think it spread with CHG/EEF mix into Europe, right? Others my find you a nuisance, but I appreciate your contribution, tell me though what about Etruscan, Lemnian and Basque? How would they be explained in this model? These old European cultures remind me nothing of those of Anatolia and the Caucuses, but maybe I am wrong, convince me otherwise.

a. I think IE spread with CHG/EEF , and CHG/IRAN_N and CHG/EHG (steppe)... and God only knows how many combinations.
b. The elephant in the room is that in the 5th and 4th millennium, in eastern/southeastern Europe and in deep ukraine, many spoke a very similar IE. Many of the characteristics many think are attributed to steppe IE were actually from South balkans IE and even to unknown and unreferenced populations in central europe.
c. Now... me being me, I still think there was a population in Portugal that spoke IE, closer to PIE up until Lusitanian. Must agree low probability.

now,
about old languages. What really surprise me is the absent of many more. there should be many more because europe as many topographic enclaves. however we know that the bronze age brought bottlenecks (5.9 kiloyear event) and Iron age was a mess where some imposed. so maybe that is the reason. There should really be many Basques in europe.

Angela
12-05-18, 23:13
@Angela

What are you saying ? ������ I'm an expert on population genetics.

The gods themselves stand in awe to my wisdom.

And raspberry was just making nonsense and hating on the steppe folk. They have feelings too you know .. we have to defend the weak.

Just how was he "hating on steppe folk"? This thread has gotten very long, and I probably missed some posts.

To "hate on " any ancient people is silly, but to try to distort archaeology and linguistics to support some self-identification is also silly, and dishonest as well.

Well, at least I'll give you that you stand behind your ideas. That's better than the Promenade method of downvoting posts instead of providing academic sources for his disagreement. Oh wait, that's because my opinions ARE based on the academic sources. :)

I'm still a little confused, though. If people's opinions should be based on their ethnicity, what's your excuse for your steppe worship? You're supposed to be a Saudi, yes? One conquering nomadic people for another?

Btw, I would never call the Indo-Europeans "weak". On the other hand, strength has nothing to do with civilization. The Nazis were "strong", but they were ignorant barbarians motivated by idiot anthropology, conspiracy theories, and moronic beliefs in the occult. So, two different things.

Johane Derite
12-05-18, 23:16
Interesting.

On a tangentially related note, I have read your haplogroup page on R1b and i'm curious about PF7562. For PF7562 you theorize that it may be either an early Steppe migration to the Balkans dating from the Sredny Stog period or related to the Hittites.

I'm a bit perplexed as to its balkan distribution and what it means:

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-g0bw35BUsac/Wr-3lEPrhaI/AAAAAAAAEww/KZy6UwLIPj4TdzrBU-5hjAXZU3oCsP6NQCLcBGAs/s1600/R1b-PF7562.JPG

Source: http://r1b-pf7562.blogspot.fr/

I'm still perplexed by this mainly because I remember reading about connections on some blog between hittite and illyrian cults but i took it with a grain of salt because it was a fringe blog. When does it make sense that this pf7562 got into Balkans?

Olympus Mons
12-05-18, 23:27
My appologizes sorry, he has many similar theories to you.

Anyways he claimed that J2 is the main IE marker, and I challenged him to find a specific branch of J2 that is conceivable with PIE timeframe that has branches in all areas where IE is spoken today.

its cool.

He can be right.... For Anatolian. or even others.

Imagine this.
a. Imagine I am right about Shulaveri-Shomu and they were it. they were PIE with R1b-M269-L23. however they were not alone. Shulaveri were massive but only in a 100km area. They were 100 km from northwestern Iran (different stock). Most important: just next to them, miles way near balck sea, there were the Ansueli, paluri, etc, which I think were pure CHG with J2 as well as much of Iran neolithic was J2. Shulaveri never got truly into the fertile lowlands of the azerbaijan (strange), but the surely must have mixed with....the CHOKH cultures (caucasus mountains) had which Y dna? what autosomal composition? why couldn't they have EHG? no spillage at all of EHG from North caucasus over 3000 years?

b. So, many of the PIE speaker would really be J2. many core SS (coming from Balkans 6200bc) were R1b but by 5000bc, many PIE speakers were J2. You will even would have found large bands of the PIE speakers that were J2.

c. Don't be surprise if Hittite will be solely J2.

d. Dont be surprise if we find Chokh mixing with Shulaveri and if they had EHG already, dont be surprise to find shulaveri very Anatolian as others very CHG. 1500 after arrival very admix. in first half of 6th milenium... be careful. :) reality will be much more complex that we currently are able to make it.

ToBeOrNotToBe
12-05-18, 23:36
its cool.

He can be right.... For Anatolian. or even others.

Imagine this.
a. Imagine I am right about Shulaveri-Shomu and they were it. they were PIE with R1b-M269-L23. however they were not alone. Shulaveri were massive but only in a 100km area. They were 100km from northwestern Iran (different stock). Most important: just next to them, miles way near balck sea, there were the Ansueli, paluri, etc, which I think were pure CHG with J2 as well as much of Iran neolithic was J2. Shulaveri never got truly into the fertile lowlands of the azerbaijan (strange), but the surely must have mixed with....the CHOKH cultures has which Ydna? why couldnt they have EHG? no spillage at all of EHG from North caucasus over 3000 years?

b. So, many of the PIE speaker would really be J2. many core SS (coming from Balkans) were R1b but by 5000bc, many PIE speakers were J2. You will even would have found large bands of the PIE speakers that were J2.

c. Don't be surprise if Hittite will be solely J2.

d. Dont be surprise if we find Chokh mixing with Shulaveri and if they had EHG already, dont be surprise to find shulaveri very Anatolian as others very CHG. 1500 after arrival very admix. in first half of 6th milenium... be careful. :)

What do you see as the relationship between Shulaveri, Leyla Tepe, Halaf and Ubaid is?

Apprenty, Shulaveri shares more similarities with Halaf, whereas Leyla Tepe shares more with Ubaid. What makes you so sure Leyla Tepe was founded by Shulaveri and not Ubaid?

IronSide
12-05-18, 23:52
Just how was he "hating on steppe folk"? This thread has gotten very long, and I probably missed some posts.
To "hate on " any ancient people is silly, but to try to distort archaeology and linguistics to support some self-identification is also silly, and dishonest as well.
Well, at least I'll give you that you stand behind your ideas. That's better than the Promenade method of downvoting posts instead of providing academic sources for his disagreement. Oh wait, that's because my opinions ARE based on the academic sources. :)
I'm still a little confused, though. If people's opinions should be based on their ethnicity, what's your excuse for your steppe worship? You're supposed to be a Saudi, yes? One conquering nomadic people for another?
Btw, I would never call the Indo-Europeans "weak". On the other hand, strength has nothing to do with civilization. The Nazis were "strong", but they were ignorant barbarians motivated by idiot anthropology, conspiracy theories, and moronic beliefs in the occult. So, two different things.

Don't Steppe-shame me because I'm a Bedouin, we are a very sensitive people.

Azzurro
12-05-18, 23:55
its cool.

He can be right.... For Anatolian. or even others.

Imagine this.
a. Imagine I am right about Shulaveri-Shomu and they were it. they were PIE with R1b-M269-L23. however they were not alone. Shulaveri were massive but only in a 100km area. They were 100 km from northwestern Iran (different stock). Most important: just next to them, miles way near balck sea, there were the Ansueli, paluri, etc, which I think were pure CHG with J2 as well as much of Iran neolithic was J2. Shulaveri never got truly into the fertile lowlands of the azerbaijan (strange), but the surely must have mixed with....the CHOKH cultures (caucasus mountains) had which Y dna? what autosomal composition? why couldn't they have EHG? no spillage at all of EHG from North caucasus over 3000 years?

b. So, many of the PIE speaker would really be J2. many core SS (coming from Balkans 6200bc) were R1b but by 5000bc, many PIE speakers were J2. You will even would have found large bands of the PIE speakers that were J2.

c. Don't be surprise if Hittite will be solely J2.

d. Dont be surprise if we find Chokh mixing with Shulaveri and if they had EHG already, dont be surprise to find shulaveri very Anatolian as others very CHG. 1500 after arrival very admix. in first half of 6th milenium... be careful. :) reality will be much more complex that we currently are able to make it.

I'll write exactly what I wrote at Anthrogenica, i’m going to copy and paste the last paragraph in one of posts. It kind of answers your response, I am open to the possibility that some specific branches of J2 will be involved, with the exception of J2b-L283 which definitely was an IE marker.

Last point I want to make, now the reason why phylogenetic trees are very important for the case of J2 is because it makes J2 a very poor candidate for IE or PIE, there aren’t really any lineages in J2 (one exception) that expanded and produced so many lineages like R1b-M269 or R1a-M417 or a star like pattern expansion. People also forget that around the same time that IE was diffusing there was also the major expansion of the Kura Araxes Culture which was not IE, if people doubt this well the Hurrians are an offshoot and the current Nakh speakers (Chechens and Ingush) are descendants of them. What can be seen and fits much better is that many branches of J2a, especially under PF5116 (ex. Z467, Z6065, Z7671, Z500, etc...) start have expansion during the Kura Araxes Culture timeline. They were not restricted to Kura Araxes as J2b-M205 with Semitic speakers and J2a-F3133 and pre-Iranian civilizations of Iran (Jiroft, Elam, etx...). Also very likely to have been involved with Mesopotamian ethnogensis we’ll have to wait and see for results. Now the exception with regards to J2 and IE, as I have said for quite awhile that J2b-L283 matches and has direct ancient dna evidence to be an IE marker, and similar to how J2a-Z6048 and J2a-Z6048 are unique to be Farmer lineages, J2b-L283 is completely unique its in own aspects in the J2 tree. Now is it possible that some J2a branches could have been part of Southern and Eastern IE expansions, yes it is absolutely possible but it will be specific lineages and the ancestor of this lineage was likely a non IE speaker like Hattic, Hurrian, Minoan, etc... what do these Hittites genomes tell us, in my opinion they reaffirm the importance of Maykop in the whole ethnogensis of PIE.

holderlin
13-05-18, 00:03
The user "Ryukendo" has some enlightening comments on anthrogenica such as these:

"It appears the authors of the paper do treat the discovery of Anatolian materials close to the borders of Syria in 2500BC as a major finding of the paper.

From an interview conducted by ScienceDaily (LINK: (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180509185446.htm)https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180509185446.htm) :


Gojko Barjamovic, Senior Lecturer on Assyriology at Harvard University, explains:

"In Anatolia, and parts of Central Asia, which held densely settled complex urban societies, the history of language spread and genetic ancestry is better described in terms of contact and absorption than by simply a movement of population."

He adds:

"The Indo-European languages are usually said to emerge in Anatolia in the 2nd millennium BCE. However, we use evidence from the palatial archives of the ancient city of Ebla in Syria to argue that Indo-European was already spoken in modern-day Turkey in the 25th century BCE. This means that the speakers of these language must have arrived there prior to any Yamnaya expansions."



Are people even reading this paper? Because they should.

There are no "Anatolian materials". These are Assyrian merchant records from Ebla and Kanes.

Olympus Mons
13-05-18, 00:07
What do you see as the relationship between Shulaveri, Leyla Tepe, Halaf and Ubaid is?

Apprenty, Shulaveri shares more similarities with Halaf, whereas Leyla Tepe shares more with Ubaid. What makes you so sure Leyla Tepe was founded by Shulaveri and not Ubaid?

a. Halaf are the mystery now to me. they can turn out lots of different things. People say they were related to SSC because of a couple sherds and things like that , mostly in Aratashen/Arkanashen (armenia shulaveri)...but it might not mean nothing or they can be cousins. But still think Halaf will open a new "discovery". lets see.

b. Ubaid. the ones that attacked and "killed" the Shulaveri? that is my story in https://shulaveri2bellbeaker.blogs.sapo.pt/. My tale in there makes them the culprit. but I have lots of doubts. Ubaid were evolved, complex, psychologically developed but never came out as violent. its true that their "sons" Uruk didnt really came across as nothing but pure badass. However, Halaf-to-Ubaid, Ubaid-to-Uruk , Ubaid-to-Dalma ware... humm to much ubaid to my taste. And remember: I have the PIE and Shulaveri as people traumatized by Snakes. remember, the oldest PIE tale is the hero that kills the snake right? - Ubaid were the snake people.

c. Leyla tepe... evolved, craftsmans. cousins of Uruk (?). nothing to do with shulaveri. would imagine dumb ass Kura araxes more related to remaining Shulaveri stock than any of the more evolved Ubaid descendents.

Olympus Mons
13-05-18, 00:23
I'll write exactly what I wrote at Anthrogenica, i’m going to copy and paste the last paragraph in one of posts. It kind of answers your response, I am open to the possibility that some specific branches of J2 will be involved, with the exception of J2b-L283 which definitely was an IE marker.

Last point I want to make, now the reason why phylogenetic trees are very important for the case of J2 is because it makes J2 a very poor candidate for IE or PIE, there aren’t really any lineages in J2 (one exception) that expanded and produced so many lineages like R1b-M269 or R1a-M417 or a star like pattern expansion. People also forget that around the same time that IE was diffusing there was also the major expansion of the Kura Araxes Culture which was not IE, if people doubt this well the Hurrians are an offshoot and the current Nakh speakers (Chechens and Ingush) are descendants of them. What can be seen and fits much better is that many branches of J2a, especially under PF5116 (ex. Z467, Z6065, Z7671, Z500, etc...) start have expansion during the Kura Araxes Culture timeline. They were not restricted to Kura Araxes as J2b-M205 with Semitic speakers and J2a-F3133 and pre-Iranian civilizations of Iran (Jiroft, Elam, etx...). Also very likely to have been involved with Mesopotamian ethnogensis we’ll have to wait and see for results. Now the exception with regards to J2 and IE, as I have said for quite awhile that J2b-L283 matches and has direct ancient dna evidence to be an IE marker, and similar to how J2a-Z6048 and J2a-Z6048 are unique to be Farmer lineages, J2b-L283 is completely unique its in own aspects in the J2 tree. Now is it possible that some J2a branches could have been part of Southern and Eastern IE expansions, yes it is absolutely possible but it will be specific lineages and the ancestor of this lineage was likely a non IE speaker like Hattic, Hurrian, Minoan, etc... what do these Hittites genomes tell us, in my opinion they reaffirm the importance of Maykop in the whole ethnogensis of PIE.



Yes, makes lots of sense even if you loose me at parts. :)

Nahk speakers descendents of Kura-araxes?? - Don't get it.
Kura -araxes not IE? - possibly but difficult to assert.
Maykop important for PIE ? - not a chance.

Johane Derite
13-05-18, 00:35
Are people even reading this paper? Because they should.

There are no "Anatolian materials". These are Assyrian merchant records from Ebla and Kanes.

This is what he was referring to:

"There is an extensive linguistic supplement to the paper itself, found here:

G. Kroonen, G. Barjamovic, M. Peyrot, Linguistic supplement to Damgaard et al. 2018: Early Indo-European Languages, Anatolian, Tocharian and Indo-Iranian. 10.5281/zenodo.1240524 (9 May 2018). (https://zenodo.org/record/1240524#.WvSm0ogvw2x)

It is at least as important as the genetic paper in terms of discussion, I think.

The authors of the supplement summarise the literature on the topic:
1) There is no consensus on the Balkan or Caucasian route for the Anatolian languages, though there are arguments that lead to a preference for the Balkan route among some linguists.
2) The languages are diverged for at least a millenium before we get the written records of their varieties (Palaic, Luwian, Hittite etc)
3) The linguistic evidence does not indicate mass migration or elite conquest, because the language characteristics are relatively in line with the language area, rather it appears "diffusional".
4) New evidence is presented from the Eblaite state with personal names from "Armi" (we don't know where that is, probably a statelet under the control of Ebla) with Anatolian derivation, in the Turkey-Syria border, 500 years before the earliest attestation of the other Anatolian languages in 2500BC (which therefore push the split of the language group even further back). These personal names also appear in Assyrian records about trade with "Armi". These names occur contemporaneous with Yamnaya, so the hypothesis that even Anatolian derives from Yamnaya can be safely rejected."

Azzurro
13-05-18, 00:37
Yes, makes lots of sense even if you loose me at parts. :)

Nahk speakers descendents of Kura-araxes?? - Don't get it.
Kura -araxes not IE? - possibly but difficult to assert.
Maykop important for PIE ? - not a chance.

Thanks and I find your research in older Chalcolithic/Neolithic very important :)

Definately I have to start reading up more on Halaf, Ubaid and the rest!

The key in all this is the Hurrians, Hurrians are an offshoot of the Kura Araxes Culture and Nakh speakers are able to have a linguistic grouping with Hurro-Urartian, and since we know the Nakh languages and Hurrian are not IE, it would therefore make the Kura Araxes Culture not IE.

I think your underestimating Maykop’s importance in all this, though maybe it more crucial to IE than PIE, I guess we’ll have wait and see, apparently the Maykop paper is coming soon! ;)

Olympus Mons
13-05-18, 00:53
Thanks and I find your research in older Chalcolithic/Neolithic very important :)

Definately I have to start reading up more on Halaf, Ubaid and the rest!

The key in all this is the Hurrians, Hurrians are an offshoot of the Kura Araxes Culture and Nakh speakers are able to have a linguistic grouping with Hurro-Urartian, and since we know the Nakh languages and Hurrian are not IE, it would therefore make the Kura Araxes Culture not IE.

I think your underestimating Maykop’s importance in all this, though maybe it more crucial to IE than PIE, I guess we’ll have wait and see, apparently the Maykop paper is coming soon! ;)

Do you know of a good paper/summary for Hurro-Urartian languages? which are languages it relates to?

brick
13-05-18, 01:04
Do you know of a good paper/summary for Hurro-Urartian languages? which are languages it relates to?

Hurrian and Urartian language elements are quite probable, as are Northeast Caucasian ones. Some authors subsume Hurrians and Urartians under Northeast Caucasian as well as part of the Alarodian theory.[32] The presence of Kartvelian languages was also highly probable. Influences of Semitic languages and Indo-European languages are highly possible, though the presence of the languages on the lands of the Kura–Araxes culture is more controversial.


In the Armenian hypothesis of Indo-European origins, this culture (and perhaps that of the Maykop culture) is identified with the speakers of the Anatolian languages.[33][34][35][36][37]



The expansion of Y-DNA subclade R-Z93 (R1a1a1b2), according to Mascarenhas et al. (2015), is compatible with "the archeological records of eastward expansion of West Asian populations in the 4th millennium BCE, culminating in the socalled Kura-Araxes migrations in the post-Uruk IV period (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruk_period)."[38] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kura%E2%80%93Araxes_culture#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMascarenhas20159-38) According to Pamjav et al. (2012), "Inner and Central Asia is an overlap zone" for the R -Z280 and R -Z93 lineages, implying that an "early differentiation zone" of R-M198 "conceivably occurred somewhere within the Eurasian Steppes or the Middle East and Caucasus region as they lie between South Asia and Eastern Europe". [39] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kura%E2%80%93Araxes_culture#cite_note-FOOTNOTEPamjav2012-39) According to Underhill et al. (2014/2015), R1a1a1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a1a), the most frequent subclade of R1a, split into R-Z282 (Europe) and R-Z93 (Asia) at circa 5,800 before present,[40] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kura%E2%80%93Araxes_culture#cite_note-FOOTNOTEUnderhill2015124-40) in the vicinity of Iran and Eastern Turkey. According to Underhill et al. (2014/2015), "[t]his suggests the possibility that R1a lineages accompanied demic expansions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demic_diffusion) initiated during the Copper, Bronze, and Iron ages."[41] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kura%E2%80%93Araxes_culture#cite_note-FOOTNOTEUnderhill2015-41)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kura%E2%80%93Araxes_culture#Ethno-linguistic_makeup

Johane Derite
13-05-18, 01:07
This is what he was referring to:

"There is an extensive linguistic supplement to the paper itself, found here:

G. Kroonen, G. Barjamovic, M. Peyrot, Linguistic supplement to Damgaard et al. 2018: Early Indo-European Languages, Anatolian, Tocharian and Indo-Iranian. 10.5281/zenodo.1240524 (9 May 2018). (https://zenodo.org/record/1240524#.WvSm0ogvw2x)

It is at least as important as the genetic paper in terms of discussion, I think.

The authors of the supplement summarise the literature on the topic:
1) There is no consensus on the Balkan or Caucasian route for the Anatolian languages, though there are arguments that lead to a preference for the Balkan route among some linguists.
2) The languages are diverged for at least a millenium before we get the written records of their varieties (Palaic, Luwian, Hittite etc)
3) The linguistic evidence does not indicate mass migration or elite conquest, because the language characteristics are relatively in line with the language area, rather it appears "diffusional".
4) New evidence is presented from the Eblaite state with personal names from "Armi" (we don't know where that is, probably a statelet under the control of Ebla) with Anatolian derivation, in the Turkey-Syria border, 500 years before the earliest attestation of the other Anatolian languages in 2500BC (which therefore push the split of the language group even further back). These personal names also appear in Assyrian records about trade with "Armi". These names occur contemporaneous with Yamnaya, so the hypothesis that even Anatolian derives from Yamnaya can be safely rejected."

I will dump the rest of his commentary and quotes on this tangent because its relevant and serious:

^^ The personal names from "Armi" appear mixed together with names of Semitic origin and names of unclear derivation.

The "Assyrian colony" thing is also explained well. Interestingly the Assyrians never make a distinction between Nes and Hattics in their administration of the local population, the two groups were probably not that socially differentiated by this time.

I recommend everyone go and read the archaeological and linguistic supplements, they contain incredibly important pieces of information (I wonder why they were exiled to the supp mats??) and drop hints as to future papers (Maykop released v soon probably, "in preparation"). Also the names are also the leading lights in their fields.

The Northern European labs have really have assembled a superstar team in all respects... they seem to have moved to interdisciplinarity much faster than those from Havard have.

The authors themselves state that, since there is no "mass immigration or elite conquest" scenario for Anatolian really the hypothesis of Pontic-Caspain homeland of IE and ("EHG language") is still not ruled out, in fact they point to the dominance of this model among linguists as one reason why we should still remain unsure.

But the "Armi" thing definitely changes things quite a bit. I have to say, also, looking at the archaeological context and also the fact that all the languages are so diverged, and also that the Assyrians seem not to even be aware that an ethnic distinction between Anatolians and locals existed (but did classify people from different states, not different ethnicities) it really doesn't seem plausible that the social differentiation was as extreme as would be needed to enforce strict lack of gene flow from "Anatolian elites" and locals over more than a millenium.

the new linguistic evidence indicates that the Anatolians were not, in fact, an elite in Anatolia at their earliest attestation (from 'Armi', which is the first evidence of Anatolian speakers, ever, they were non-elite and an "ethnic" population ruled over by Semitics from the city of Ebla), and also the newest linguistic work indicates that the migration of the Anatolians themselves did not involve states or elite dominance (the linguistic evidence cited by Kroonen et al and Melchert etc. point out that it was far more of a 'folk' phenomenon) and by the time of the Assyrians there is no clear distinction between Anatolian-speaking "elites" and non-Anatolian speaking commoners, (they were referred to as a common population in Assyrian records), in fact disitinctions between states are far more relevant.

The 'endogamy' hypothesis makes very little sense, the newest evidence means that, by the time of these genomes, the Anatolians existed in Anatolia for at least 5 centuries (looking at the dating its more like 7 centuries), what is the chance that complete endogamy persisted till then?

We can agree that Anatolians may ultimately originate in the Pontic-Caspian (which the authors cautiously support) and also claim that the EHG got diluted over the 1.5 millenia that the authors give for the split between Anatolian and the rest of IE, but we cannot claim that the classical model of late Anatolian elite conquest into Turkey is in any way correct given the descriptions of the new archaeological contexts, records and the fact that the earliest attestation of Anatolians is ~5 centuries before their attestation elsewhere or as a Hittite state, and at that time they were an "ethnic" population ruled by the unambiguously Semitic city state of Ebla (meaning they probably were present "in the mass" as people in SE Anatolia at a very early date).

Well, we really need to focus less on the 'Hittite royal tombs'...

The problem now is that, because we know Anatolians existed in SE Anatolia up to 5-7 centuries before any 'Royal Hittite Tombs' could have existed, the 'Royal Hittite tombs' may not even tell us what we want to know (because they may and also may not be representatives of a recent migration from the Steppe because Anatolian speakers are attested in Turkey half a millenium before them already).

Cpluskx
13-05-18, 01:16
Clearly non-elite Anatolian names in North Syria in 2500 BC almost certainly kills the steppe homeland of PIE theory. Dienekes must be smiling right now.

Olympus Mons
13-05-18, 01:27
Hurrian and Urartian language elements are quite probable, as are Northeast Caucasian ones. Some authors subsume Hurrians and Urartians under Northeast Caucasian as well as part of the Alarodian theory.[32] The presence of Kartvelian languages was also highly probable. Influences of Semitic languages and Indo-European languages are highly possible, though the presence of the languages on the lands of the Kura–Araxes culture is more controversial.


In the Armenian hypothesis of Indo-European origins, this culture (and perhaps that of the Maykop culture) is identified with the speakers of the Anatolian languages.[33][34][35][36][37]



The expansion of Y-DNA subclade R-Z93 (R1a1a1b2), according to Mascarenhas et al. (2015), is compatible with "the archeological records of eastward expansion of West Asian populations in the 4th millennium BCE, culminating in the socalled Kura-Araxes migrations in the post-Uruk IV period (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruk_period)."[38] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kura%E2%80%93Araxes_culture#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMascarenhas20159-38) According to Pamjav et al. (2012), "Inner and Central Asia is an overlap zone" for the R -Z280 and R -Z93 lineages, implying that an "early differentiation zone" of R-M198 "conceivably occurred somewhere within the Eurasian Steppes or the Middle East and Caucasus region as they lie between South Asia and Eastern Europe". [39] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kura%E2%80%93Araxes_culture#cite_note-FOOTNOTEPamjav2012-39) According to Underhill et al. (2014/2015), R1a1a1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a1a), the most frequent subclade of R1a, split into R-Z282 (Europe) and R-Z93 (Asia) at circa 5,800 before present,[40] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kura%E2%80%93Araxes_culture#cite_note-FOOTNOTEUnderhill2015124-40) in the vicinity of Iran and Eastern Turkey. According to Underhill et al. (2014/2015), "[t]his suggests the possibility that R1a lineages accompanied demic expansions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demic_diffusion) initiated during the Copper, Bronze, and Iron ages."[41] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kura%E2%80%93Araxes_culture#cite_note-FOOTNOTEUnderhill2015-41)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kura%E2%80%93Araxes_culture#Ethno-linguistic_makeup

Thank you.
However my questions are always more ....diluted.

"Someone" came to transCaucasia in 5000bc and remove the fathers of PIE.
It was fast, it was swift. Would imagine that some of the oldest attested languages in the region might belong to those peoples and its the best option a person has to understand what scenario would fit:

a. They were local/neighbours. Meaning the local "friends" such as seen in Hajji Firuz making wine, R1bs with friends J2b. suddenly turned foe? Was
it the sudden awake and fury of Hassuna -Samarra that make all that scatter and exodus os PIE people? - weird.


b. Was instead an incoming population that arrived with a bang? Why the Kura -araxes had two L1a males? who were them? where did they came from? If it were an incoming population it will be very difficult to pinpoint them, due to the fact that, they would have come by 4900bc, so seen in the area as SIONI people for instance, but not long after, Uruk and Leilatepe (4000bc) exploded the region and initiaded a world of complexity. One option for those "earlier bad guys" would be a population coming from Inside Iran or from eastern part of caspian sea... but who?
There is not way if it was Ubaid-to-Uruk people that their languagen would not be related to Sumeriam - Is it hurro-urartian related to Sumerian? If not, then those languages are from the incoming initial "bad guys" and not Uruk. Who were they who were they.... :)

A. Papadimitriou
13-05-18, 01:27
Thanks and I find your research in older Chalcolithic/Neolithic very important :)

Definately I have to start reading up more on Halaf, Ubaid and the rest!

The key in all this is the Hurrians, Hurrians are an offshoot of the Kura Araxes Culture and Nakh speakers are able to have a linguistic grouping with Hurro-Urartian, and since we know the Nakh languages and Hurrian are not IE, it would therefore make the Kura Araxes Culture not IE.

I think your underestimating Maykop’s importance in all this, though maybe it more crucial to IE than PIE, I guess we’ll have wait and see, apparently the Maykop paper is coming soon! ;)

Can you post an academic source that claims that Hurrians are 'an offshoot' of the Kura-Araxes culture?
Actually, it is something I don't oppose (I don't know much to have an opinion about it) but it is problematic if we take something questionable for granted.

That linguistic grouping (the 'Alarodian family') isn't accepted by all linguists. Either way, I assume it is a valid family. I don't understand what makes you so certain about their haplogroups, though.

The first Kura-Araxes sample (two years ago?) was R1b1. The high frequency of J2a in Chechens can be a result of a founder effect, since the variance isn't that high as far as I know.

Olympus Mons
13-05-18, 01:37
The first Kura-Araxes sample (two years ago?) was R1b1. The high frequency of J2a in Chechens can be a result of a founder effect, since the variance isn't that high as far as I know.

The first ones , were L1a! and that is the problem I have. Would anyone expect it or has any explanation for it? - "Indian" L1a? how come?

Azzurro
13-05-18, 01:39
Do you know of a good paper/summary for Hurro-Urartian languages? which are languages it relates to?






This one is pretty good

https://archive.org/stream/SomeEffectsOfTheHurro_urartianPeopleAndTheirLangua gesUponTheEarliest/GreppinAndDiakonof1991someEffectsOfTheHurro-urartianPeopleAndTheirLanguagesUponThe_djvu.txt

The second paper involves including Etruscan as being related to this family group.

http://files.aiscience.org/journal/article/pdf/70360028.pdf

Olympus Mons
13-05-18, 01:41
This one is pretty good

https://archive.org/stream/SomeEffectsOfTheHurro_urartianPeopleAndTheirLangua gesUponTheEarliest/GreppinAndDiakonof1991someEffectsOfTheHurro-urartianPeopleAndTheirLanguagesUponThe_djvu.txt

The second paper involves including Etruscan as being related to this family group.

http://files.aiscience.org/journal/article/pdf/70360028.pdf

brutal. I might find something there. :)

Azzurro
13-05-18, 01:46
brutal. I might find something there. :)

Yeah the first one is a tough to be read but nevertheless interesting :)

Sile
13-05-18, 01:48
Clearly non-elite Anatolian names in North Syria in 2500 BC almost certainly kills the steppe homeland of PIE theory. Dienekes must be smiling right now.

Depends if you think Hurrian is related to Hatti
we know Hatti is related to Carian, Lydian, Lycian, Luwian, Palaic .................but hurrian I doubt it

Azzurro
13-05-18, 01:51
Can you post an academic source that claims that Hurrians are 'an offshoot' of the Kura-Araxes culture?
Actually, it is something I don't oppose (I don't know much to have an opinion about it) but it is problematic if we take something questionable for granted.

That linguistic grouping (the 'Alarodian family') isn't accepted by all linguists. Either way, I assume it is a valid family. I don't understand what makes you so certain about their haplogroups, though.

The first Kura-Araxes sample (two years ago?) was R1b1. The high frequency of J2a in Chechens can be a result of a founder effect, since the variance isn't that high as far as I know.

I just did, in post 109.

The Phylogenetic tree of J2 and current Y lines we see.

When we get a few more Kura Araxes genomes we will see the how this culture is important for the spread of J2a-PF5116 lineages. Yes you are absolutely correct, though Chechens don’t only belong to 1 line of J2a, the main one is J2a-Z7671>Y3260. Luckily BigY tests are proving that Chechens belong to other branches of J2a.

Sile
13-05-18, 01:55
its cool.

He can be right.... For Anatolian. or even others.

Imagine this.
a. Imagine I am right about Shulaveri-Shomu and they were it. they were PIE with R1b-M269-L23. however they were not alone. Shulaveri were massive but only in a 100km area. They were 100 km from northwestern Iran (different stock). Most important: just next to them, miles way near balck sea, there were the Ansueli, paluri, etc, which I think were pure CHG with J2 as well as much of Iran neolithic was J2. Shulaveri never got truly into the fertile lowlands of the azerbaijan (strange), but the surely must have mixed with....the CHOKH cultures (caucasus mountains) had which Y dna? what autosomal composition? why couldn't they have EHG? no spillage at all of EHG from North caucasus over 3000 years?

b. So, many of the PIE speaker would really be J2. many core SS (coming from Balkans 6200bc) were R1b but by 5000bc, many PIE speakers were J2. You will even would have found large bands of the PIE speakers that were J2.

c. Don't be surprise if Hittite will be solely J2.

d. Dont be surprise if we find Chokh mixing with Shulaveri and if they had EHG already, dont be surprise to find shulaveri very Anatolian as others very CHG. 1500 after arrival very admix. in first half of 6th milenium... be careful. :) reality will be much more complex that we currently are able to make it.

on your C ...........doubt it very much ........there are high % of R1 and G2 let alone over 15% of T in the area today, I can even see L being part of it

Olympus Mons
13-05-18, 02:06
on your C ...........doubt it very much ........there are high % of R1 and G2 let alone over 15% of T in the area today, I can even see L being part of it

Yes. Maybe. Just don't be surprised. Maybe surprised like the J2 in Myceneans.

Sile
13-05-18, 02:16
Yes. Maybe. Just don't be surprised. Maybe surprised like the J2 in Myceneans.

It would be the same haplogroups in figure 2 below......neolitihic

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3286660/

Promenade
13-05-18, 03:03
@Angela I realize you can see when someone gives a negative or positive figure, it was the belittling comment about the culture in support of someone who was contributing nothing productive and posting for the sake of causing disruption. Nothing personal because outside of this context you usually are very helpful, but IronSide was right and this guy was off his rocker.

davef
13-05-18, 03:56
@Angela I realize you can see when someone gives a negative or positive figure, it was the belittling comment about the culture in support of someone who was contributing nothing productive and posting for the sake of causing disruption. Nothing personal because outside of this context you usually are very helpful, but IronSide was right and this guy was off his rocker.
She said they were originally very primitive. Pretty much every group started that way. And she complimented on their ability to adapt to novel environments and other pressures, so she essentially said they were fast learners. @Angela, If I read you wrong, i apologize

Ygorcs
13-05-18, 03:59
And IE did spread with Neolithic farmer from Anatolia. I mean at least VIA Anatolia.
That is becoming the elephant in the room: Assuming Krause is right, Now Reich is right and so many others (as me and you)… then it needs to be assumed, it follows, that populations we see moving via Anatolia and arriving to Balkans at 4500bc, such as Kum6 (4600bc), loaded with CHG and different farmers ancestry from Anatolia_N (8000bc) and having heavy shared ancestry with Greece Neolithic, such as Klei10, and Pal7 in Greece, a thousand years later (3500bc) and with even Otzi the Iceman (3300bc) …. They ALL SPOKE PIE/IE!

So, best put, Otzi could very well be a IE speaking person and have never even have met a Steppe person! – Lets start wrapping our minds around it!

I challenge anyone to truly fault this reasoning.

I'm pretty sure neither Krause nor Reich are claiming that all CHG expansions are associated with the spread of IE languages, especially because in many such cases of CHG or CHG-related expansions we have historic attestations that IE languages were NOT brought into said territories, instead the local population most certainly spoke other languages (case in point: much of the BA Levant, Minoans etc.). You can't just "assume" - as you say - that because Krause and Reich seem to be leaning to an ultimate, first, most ancient homeland of IE in the South Caucasus then all the expansion of CHG-related admixture into Europe even before the Early Bronze Age was already about the IE expansion. I would also advise you to take linguistics at least a bit more seriously if you also want your hypotheses to be taken seriously. There is no way that IE would've expanded as far as both Anatolia and Europe (even in the Alps, in the case of Ötzi) without splitting into unintelligible languages centuries later.

So by the time of the first attestations of IE languages around 1500-1000 BCE you would have us assume that those languages had started to split apart 3000-3500 years before they were written, including one in Anatolia (Hittie), one in South Asia (Indic) and one in Greece (Mycenaean), and nevertheless the 3 still bore significant commonalities, and, in the case of Greek and Old Indic, two of them were even still remarkably similar enough to make the identification of their close common origins easy even to amateur linguists of the 18th century (who actually based their thoughts on Iron Age Sanskrit and Iron Age Classical Greek, not even the earliest texts from 1000 years earlier!).

Considering what we know of linguistic evolution and of how IE subfamilies developed and evolved after the Early Bronze Age until the medieval era (roughly 3000-3500 years too), unless you want to consider an extremely implausible "slow almost frozen evolution" of the earlier IE proto-languages, there is no way we can easily, without much stronger evidences, accept a theory of IE dispersal that is based on Early or Middle Neolithic demographic events, and not on Copper Age/Bronze Age ones.

There may have been Early PIE or maybe para-PIE speakers among those CHG people spreading to Europe and other parts of West Asia by 4500-5000 BCE, I'm sure that's possible, but THE - "THE" I reinforce - IE expansion and split into several subfamilies that are still spoken, and that we all talk about ,was just NOT that event, but certainly a much later phenomenon.

Angela
13-05-18, 04:20
@Angela I realize you can see when someone gives a negative or positive figure, it was the belittling comment about the culture in support of someone who was contributing nothing productive and posting for the sake of causing disruption. Nothing personal because outside of this context you usually are very helpful, but IronSide was right and this guy was off his rocker.

I don't know who the other poster is or what his "deal" is...

What I know is that everything I wrote is completely supported by the latest archaeological studies. I have posted many of them here over the years. There is no disputing it.

It is not belittling anyone to say that the early steppe people did not have an advanced civilization and borrowed from the more advanced peoples around them both in Europe and the Near East. That is an age old pattern, as Davef pointed out.

THESE ARE ALL FACTS.

Perhaps I over-reacted. I normally have no problems at all with your input.

It's just that I am beyond tired of people in this amateur community taking "sides" based on however they identify themselves, i.e. if they are predominantly of northern European ancestry and are therefore 50% steppe, rather than 25% steppe like Southern Europeans, then everything has to be interpreted, or rather, massaged, to somehow rebound to the credit of the steppe people.

It's ignorant, dishonest, and racist all at the same time.

As I said, I'm not including you in this group, but there's too much of it not only here but all over the internet. This is why so many academics were leery of putting their names to this kind of work: there are too many people who use it in just this way.

halfalp
13-05-18, 06:13
Just how was he "hating on steppe folk"? This thread has gotten very long, and I probably missed some posts.

To "hate on " any ancient people is silly, but to try to distort archaeology and linguistics to support some self-identification is also silly, and dishonest as well.

Well, at least I'll give you that you stand behind your ideas. That's better than the Promenade method of downvoting posts instead of providing academic sources for his disagreement. Oh wait, that's because my opinions ARE based on the academic sources. :)

I'm still a little confused, though. If people's opinions should be based on their ethnicity, what's your excuse for your steppe worship? You're supposed to be a Saudi, yes? One conquering nomadic people for another?

Btw, I would never call the Indo-Europeans "weak". On the other hand, strength has nothing to do with civilization. The Nazis were "strong", but they were ignorant barbarians motivated by idiot anthropology, conspiracy theories, and moronic beliefs in the occult. So, two different things.
Please sometimes i feel you play double standards, when something is going on a IE origin south of the caucasus you play fair, say that we have to follow the studies and in the same time baiting a little on the steppe hypothesis. When something goes for a steppe hypothesis you start to talk about nazis, davidski, white supremacist and go on. It become completely hysterical to read anything about IE's on this site looking at how much people have double standards and in reality, they are bigoted and one-sided. How want you to discuss if in a sentence you say that we have to follow studies and in the others, " steppe people were barbarians undeveloped, i can't believe anything to do with them, even if i clearly dont say it ". I think at the end, Anthrogenica happenned to be way more open-minded than Eupedia.

Ygorcs
13-05-18, 06:28
Steppe peoples ORIGINALLY were indeed very primitive. They were hunter-gatherers living in yurts. How can you possibly compare them to the more civilized cultures of their day, such as the people of "Old Europe", or contemporaneous cultures of the Near East?

That's not a put down of any kind. It's just the facts.

They borrowed agriculture from other peoples, metallurgy from other peoples, it seems they may even have gotten kurgans, burial rites, and the wheel from other peoples.

Even Andronovo/Sintashta from the perspective of culture owes little to the steppe groups to the west. There is no trail of metallurgy to them from the Pontic-Caspian steppe for example, which was still more "primitive" in terms of metallurgy. Many of their advancements may have come to them from the south, by way of the Inner Asian Corridor.

What they were was excellent borrowers and adapters. That's an admirable trait in its own way. They weren't so rigid that they refused to adopt more sophisticated technology.

As for your comment about R1 nomads spreading the plague, that's also a fact, just as Genovese trade ships spread it after picking it up from steppe people in the Crimea during the Middle Ages.

Are you seriously suggesting that because men carry an R1 ydna haplogroup they should attempt to distort the historical record so their ancestors "look better" from the standpoint of history?

If you are, I'm sorry to say this is an example of everything that's wrong with the amateur population genetics community.

That's all a very nicely explained and true observation, but only if you're referring to the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age steppes, but it seems the original comment about IE steppe tribes being "primitive" was comparing them with Hittite culture and populations of the Hittite Empire, most of which we know from findings dated to the mid-late Bronze Age. By that time, we couldn't really say that steppe and steppe-derived ethnicities were "primitive" at all, even if they had mostly borrowed, adapted and in some cases improved technologies and techniques that were not created by them (but hey Japan also did the same in the late 1800s and early-mid 1900s and nobody will deny they became very advanced by current standards). The true fact is that that comment was completely misguided, based on a chronologically undefensible comparison of a ~1500-1200 BC Hittite civilization with a ~3500-2500 BC Yamnaya steppe culture, and a very weak assumption that Hittites would have simply brought their fully complete and consolidated culture and technology from their original homeland (so they just mustn't have come from those "primitive steppe tribes"), and not evolved, changed, borrowed and exchanged ideas with the surrounding (and possibly initially more civilized) societies they found along centuries or even milennia.

Also, I think IronSide was not talking about the plague, but about the sarcastic use of the term "virus" to refer to the spread of IE languages/cultures. That comment was not about the plague or other disease, but about the sarcastically defined "steppitis" or something like that, as if everyone who argues for a steppe origin for at least most IE branches is some sort of obsessive admirer of a sick culture or whatever. Indeed, I must say that comment that IronSide complained about did sound very uncalled for and arrogant.

Ygorcs
13-05-18, 06:42
I think your underestimating Maykop’s importance in all this, though maybe it more crucial to IE than PIE, I guess we’ll have wait and see, apparently the Maykop paper is coming soon! ;)

What would this IE be if not PIE? Are you referring to the early history of already divided and independent IE subfamilies? PIE does not mean pre-IE, but proto-IE, it just means "the last common stage of Indo-European language before its dialects split into unintelligible languages".

Angela
13-05-18, 07:22
That's all a very nicely explained and true observation, but only if you're referring to the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age steppes, but it seems the original comment about IE steppe tribes being "primitive" was comparing them with Hittite culture and populations of the Hittite Empire, most of which we know from findings dated to the mid-late Bronze Age. By that time, we couldn't really say that steppe and steppe-derived ethnicities were "primitive" at all, even if they had mostly borrowed, adapted and in some cases improved technologies and techniques that were not created by them (but hey Japan also did the same in the late 1800s and early-mid 1900s and nobody will deny they became very advanced by current standards). The true fact is that that comment was completely misguided, based on a chronologically undefensible comparison of a ~1500-1200 BC Hittite civilization with a ~3500-2500 BC Yamnaya steppe culture, and a very weak assumption that Hittites would have simply brought their fully complete and consolidated culture and technology from their original homeland (so they just mustn't have come from those "primitive steppe tribes"), and not evolved, changed, borrowed and exchanged ideas with the surrounding (and possibly initially more civilized) societies they found along centuries or even milennia.

Also, I think IronSide was not talking about the plague, but about the sarcastic use of the term "virus" to refer to the spread of IE languages/cultures. That comment was not about the plague or other disease, but about the sarcastically defined "steppitis" or something like that, as if everyone who argues for a steppe origin for at least most IE branches is some sort of obsessive admirer of a sick culture or whatever. Indeed, I must say that comment that IronSide complained about did sound very uncalled for and arrogant.


What part of EARLY in MY statement did you not understand? Or CONTEMPORANEOUS cultures like "Old Europe"?

I don't give a damn about the ramblings of other people. The downvote was for MY post, which was completely accurate and correct.

Get it now?

Perhaps you would do well to read more carefully and stop addressing arguments I never made. No points for cleverness when you can't keep straight who said what.

Ygorcs
13-05-18, 07:26
What part of EARLY in MY statement did you not understand? Or CONTEMPORANEOUS cultures?

I don't give a damn about the ramblings of other people. The downvote was for MY post.

Get it now?

Perhaps you would do well to read more carefully and stop addressing arguments I never made.

Oh, I did understand your comment entirely, that's exactly why I began by saying it was correct and nicely explained, but I merely stressed it was only applicable exactly to the early development of steppe tribes, and what you correctly said couldn't be used to support what was previously discussed in this very topic about comparisons with the cultural advances of the Hittites. The rest of the comment is not about your arguments, so you shouldn't take any of that personally, they aren't even about anything you said nor about you as a person. But okay, it's all clarified to me now. Let's move on.

holderlin
13-05-18, 07:34
I'm drinking scotch

Angela
13-05-18, 07:43
Please sometimes i feel you play double standards, when something is going on a IE origin south of the caucasus you play fair, say that we have to follow the studies and in the same time baiting a little on the steppe hypothesis. When something goes for a steppe hypothesis you start to talk about nazis, davidski, white supremacist and go on. It become completely hysterical to read anything about IE's on this site looking at how much people have double standards and in reality, they are bigoted and one-sided. How want you to discuss if in a sentence you say that we have to follow studies and in the others, " steppe people were barbarians undeveloped, i can't believe anything to do with them, even if i clearly dont say it ". I think at the end, Anthrogenica happenned to be way more open-minded than Eupedia.

It's hard for me to credit this is a serious post.

Since when is it "baiting" people to discuss a topic objectively?

As for the connection between the Indo-European theory and the Nazis, how can you possibly be unaware of it? Everyone who has studied this subject should know that it was fodder for the Nazi world view, although they placed the homeland in Germany, not the steppe. The Journal of Indo-European studies was founded and supported with money from a notorious Nazi. Where have you been? David Reich says in his book that some European scholars would not sign on to his first papers because of the horrific reputation in which these studies were held. Just because you never heard of something doesn't mean it's false.

Does that mean I believe this field shouldn't be studied? No, it doesn't. In fact, I've been on record for years as saying I think the general outline about the spread of the languages is correct. What do you want? An oath in blood?

Nothing is enough for people like you.

As for Davidski, he was notorious on Stormfront and Skadi for years, as well as forumbiodiversity. There are whole treasure troves of screenshots of his racist comments. That was his doing, not mine, and he's going to have to live with the consequences of his statements, as we all have to live with ours. Nothing, for good or ill, ever goes away on the internet.

Before you post, inform yourself: read a book once in a while, or some papers. You'd be amazed what you can learn if you don't go into everything with completely preconceived notions.

@Holderlin,

What a surprise.

IronSide
13-05-18, 07:57
The map for Anatolian languages is strange

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c1cc8ba57adb6bd87ec0baa513348ffc-c

Why is it not spoken in the Northern half of Anatolia ? the answer could be in the Middle Bronze Age migration


Archaeological evidence shows that the cities of Erzerum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erzerum), Sivas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sivas), Pulur Huyuk near Baiburt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayburt), Kultepe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kultepe) near Hafik (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafik), and Maltepe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltepe,_Istanbul) near Sivas were destroyed during the Middle Bronze Age. The great trading city of Kanesh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanesh) (Level II) was also destroyed. From there in the hill country between Halys (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halys_River) the destruction layers from this time tell the same story. Karaoglan, Bitik, Polatli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polatli) and Gordion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordion) were burnt, as well as Etiyokusu and Cerkes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerkes). Further west near the Dardanelles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardanelles) the two large mounds of Korpruoren and Tavsanli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tavsanli), west of Kutahya (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kutahya), show the same signs of being destroyed.
The destruction even crossed into Europe in what is now Bulgaria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria). The migration brought an end to Bulgaria's Early Bronze Age, with archaeological evidence showing that the Yunacite, Salcutza, and Esero centers had a sudden mass desertion during this time.

Even though Melaart is the one theorizing about it, and we know he fabricated stuff.

This migration and destruction was used as evidence for the Hittites, but other evidence suggests they could be older, but the destruction is still there, and so other people migrated, perhaps IE tribes like Phrygians, Armenians, and Greeks.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Mass_migration_of_Greece_and_Turkey_in_1900BCE.svg/300px-Mass_migration_of_Greece_and_Turkey_in_1900BCE.svg .png

Ygorcs
13-05-18, 08:22
I will dump the rest of his commentary and quotes on this tangent because its relevant and serious:

^^ The personal names from "Armi" appear mixed together with names of Semitic origin and names of unclear derivation.

The "Assyrian colony" thing is also explained well. Interestingly the Assyrians never make a distinction between Nes and Hattics in their administration of the local population, the two groups were probably not that socially differentiated by this time.

I recommend everyone go and read the archaeological and linguistic supplements, they contain incredibly important pieces of information (I wonder why they were exiled to the supp mats??) and drop hints as to future papers (Maykop released v soon probably, "in preparation"). Also the names are also the leading lights in their fields.

The Northern European labs have really have assembled a superstar team in all respects... they seem to have moved to interdisciplinarity much faster than those from Havard have.

The authors themselves state that, since there is no "mass immigration or elite conquest" scenario for Anatolian really the hypothesis of Pontic-Caspain homeland of IE and ("EHG language") is still not ruled out, in fact they point to the dominance of this model among linguists as one reason why we should still remain unsure.

But the "Armi" thing definitely changes things quite a bit. I have to say, also, looking at the archaeological context and also the fact that all the languages are so diverged, and also that the Assyrians seem not to even be aware that an ethnic distinction between Anatolians and locals existed (but did classify people from different states, not different ethnicities) it really doesn't seem plausible that the social differentiation was as extreme as would be needed to enforce strict lack of gene flow from "Anatolian elites" and locals over more than a millenium.

the new linguistic evidence indicates that the Anatolians were not, in fact, an elite in Anatolia at their earliest attestation (from 'Armi', which is the first evidence of Anatolian speakers, ever, they were non-elite and an "ethnic" population ruled over by Semitics from the city of Ebla), and also the newest linguistic work indicates that the migration of the Anatolians themselves did not involve states or elite dominance (the linguistic evidence cited by Kroonen et al and Melchert etc. point out that it was far more of a 'folk' phenomenon) and by the time of the Assyrians there is no clear distinction between Anatolian-speaking "elites" and non-Anatolian speaking commoners, (they were referred to as a common population in Assyrian records), in fact disitinctions between states are far more relevant.

The 'endogamy' hypothesis makes very little sense, the newest evidence means that, by the time of these genomes, the Anatolians existed in Anatolia for at least 5 centuries (looking at the dating its more like 7 centuries), what is the chance that complete endogamy persisted till then?

We can agree that Anatolians may ultimately originate in the Pontic-Caspian (which the authors cautiously support) and also claim that the EHG got diluted over the 1.5 millenia that the authors give for the split between Anatolian and the rest of IE, but we cannot claim that the classical model of late Anatolian elite conquest into Turkey is in any way correct given the descriptions of the new archaeological contexts, records and the fact that the earliest attestation of Anatolians is ~5 centuries before their attestation elsewhere or as a Hittite state, and at that time they were an "ethnic" population ruled by the unambiguously Semitic city state of Ebla (meaning they probably were present "in the mass" as people in SE Anatolia at a very early date).

Well, we really need to focus less on the 'Hittite royal tombs'...

The problem now is that, because we know Anatolians existed in SE Anatolia up to 5-7 centuries before any 'Royal Hittite Tombs' could have existed, the 'Royal Hittite tombs' may not even tell us what we want to know (because they may and also may not be representatives of a recent migration from the Steppe because Anatolian speakers are attested in Turkey half a millenium before them already).

These observations you made above are really very interesting and relevant. Thank you. I think people should sometimes listen more to linguistic arguments and evidences provided by reknown professionals. If we are discussing the expansion of a language family, the evidences that linguistics provide should never be discounted or known only superficially. Of course they can be interpreted wrongly, but in general you can find many clues that can help the interpretation of the genetic findings more than almost anything else, among other reasons because material culture (which archaeology finda) and language do not always correlate perfectly well especially in times of huge absorption of foreign cultural and technological elements.

Ygorcs
13-05-18, 08:27
Clearly non-elite Anatolian names in North Syria in 2500 BC almost certainly kills the steppe homeland of PIE theory. Dienekes must be smiling right now.

I think Indo-Hittite hypothesis looks increasingly more promising, reviving from the abode of the dead: there was very possibly a culturally, geographically and chronologically distinct Indo-Hittite (or Early PIE, whatever it is named) period, which resulted in a relevant but minor expansion, and a later Indo-European proper period which resulted in a much larger expansion. I won't say this Indo-Hittite phase was necessarily in the South Caucasus (but it is increasingly plausible), but it probably involved a different time where a different (autosomally and culturally) population existed who were the (partial) ancestors of a later Late Common PIE that finally split into various independent IE branches only in the Bronze Age.

Johane Derite
13-05-18, 08:33
These observations you made above are really very interesting and relevant. Thank you. I think people should sometimes listen more to linguistic arguments and evidences provided by reknown professionals. If we are discussing the expansion of a language family, the evidences that linguistics provide should never be discounted or known only superficially. Of course they can be interpreted wrongly, but in general you can find many clues that can help the interpretation of the genetic findings more than almost anything else, among other reasons because material culture (which archaeology finda) and language do not always correlate perfectly well especially in times of huge absorption of foreign cultural and technological elements.

I agree with you : ) but i didnt make these observations i just dumped them here because i also thought they were interesting. They belong to user "Ryukendo" on anthrogenica.

Ygorcs
13-05-18, 08:36
Depends if you think Hurrian is related to Hatti
we know Hatti is related to Carian, Lydian, Lycian, Luwian, Palaic .................but hurrian I doubt it

Hattic is not even IE, it is not related to those Anatolian languages. It is just a substate that was the source for a lot of loanwords, and in later times there was also borrowing of words from Hurro-Urartian languages in Anatolia.

bicicleur
13-05-18, 08:45
The map for Anatolian languages is strange
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c1cc8ba57adb6bd87ec0baa513348ffc-c
Why is it not spoken in the Northern half of Anatolia ? the answer could be in the Middle Bronze Age migration
Even though Melaart is the one theorizing about it, and we know he fabricated stuff.
This migration and destruction was used as evidence for the Hittites, but other evidence suggests they could be older, but the destruction is still there, and so other people migrated, perhaps IE tribes like Phrygians, Armenians, and Greeks.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Mass_migration_of_Greece_and_Turkey_in_1900BCE.svg/300px-Mass_migration_of_Greece_and_Turkey_in_1900BCE.svg .png
to me it looks more and more like metallurgy in Iran was not developped and introduced by Iran Neo, but by CHG, and that Iran Neo expansions into Anatolia and the Levant were followed by multiple CHG expansions during chalcolithic and bronze age
that is what should be investigated now, and afterwards we can see how and whether the Anatolian branch fits in
10125
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=10125
I also see CHG correlated with haplo J

A. Papadimitriou
13-05-18, 09:00
The map for Anatolian languages is strange

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c1cc8ba57adb6bd87ec0baa513348ffc-c

Why is it not spoken in the Northern half of Anatolia ? the answer could be in the Middle Bronze Age migration



Even though Melaart is the one theorizing about it, and we know he fabricated stuff.

This migration and destruction was used as evidence for the Hittites, but other evidence suggests they could be older, but the destruction is still there, and so other people migrated, perhaps IE tribes like Phrygians, Armenians, and Greeks.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Mass_migration_of_Greece_and_Turkey_in_1900BCE.svg/300px-Mass_migration_of_Greece_and_Turkey_in_1900BCE.svg .png

There are different opinions on where Palaic speakers should be placed. (I have seen scholars support a more western or northwestern position, next to Alys river but outside the bend.
Also, some support that Lydians originated outside the ultimate Lydian homeland, in a more northern (?) position, where Phrygian speakers are found later (?) I don't remember exactly.
Also there are different opinions about when Phrygians moved to Anatolia. The traditional view was that this happened after the Trojan War but some scholars have different views.
And then there are the Trojans too. Some believe they were Luwians. I personally think they were speaking a 'non-Anatolian' IE language. Possibly a language that had similarities with one, some or all of the following: Phrygian, Thracian and Greek. Possibly partly similar to Latin too, if the myth of Aeneas was based on real events. (a language that influenced Latin without being proto-Latin itself?)


Hattic is not even IE, it is not related to those Anatolian languages. It is just a substate that was the source for a lot of loanwords, and in later times there was also borrowing of words from Hurro-Urartian languages in Anatolia.

How many are the Hattic loanwords in Anatolian languages?

Ygorcs
13-05-18, 09:12
This migration and destruction was used as evidence for the Hittites, but other evidence suggests they could be older, but the destruction is still there, and so other people migrated, perhaps IE tribes like Phrygians, Armenians, and Greeks.

Based on historic and linguistic evidences, Diakonoff posited that the earliest origins of the Armenians were as a part of some "Thraco-Phrygian" invasion of Anatolia in the late Bronze Age, possibly associated with the Bronze Age collapse, and which brought Phrygian and Proto-Armenian languages to Asia Minor. However, I'm not sure these two hypotheses can be reconciled, because if I understood you correctly you're talking about a Middle Bronze Age event before the decline of Hittites, so it seems to be about an earlier migration.

davef
13-05-18, 09:45
Please sometimes i feel you play double standards, when something is going on a IE origin south of the caucasus you play fair, say that we have to follow the studies and in the same time baiting a little on the steppe hypothesis. When something goes for a steppe hypothesis you start to talk about nazis, davidski, white supremacist and go on. It become completely hysterical to read anything about IE's on this site looking at how much people have double standards and in reality, they are bigoted and one-sided. How want you to discuss if in a sentence you say that we have to follow studies and in the others, " steppe people were barbarians undeveloped, i can't believe anything to do with them, even if i clearly dont say it ". I think at the end, Anthrogenica happenned to be way more open-minded than Eupedia.

That is not her at all. She supports the southern Caucasus idea because thats what's being suggested through academic research done by leading geneticists and anthropologists. If these same researchers change their minds and support the Steppe origins, i can never for the life of me imagine her calling them out as neo Nazis who shave their heads and read Mein Kampf to wind down after a stressful day before going to bed.

ps I really don't care where the IE's originated, if they came from the Caucasus, Norway, or a distant galaxy, I'll still be fine.

ps2: Holdrin, I was drinking vodka ;).

IronSide
13-05-18, 09:54
Let's review some history on the origin of the Hittite imperial dynasty. Before they were emperors, they were the kings of Kussara:


Kussara (Kushshar) was a kingdom of the Bronze Age in Anatolia. The kingdom, though apparently important at one time, is mostly remembered as the origin of the dynasty that would form the Old Hittite Kingdom. The Kussaran king Pithana, with his son Anitta, forerunners of the later Hittite kings, conquered Kanesh (Nesa) and its important trade centrum in roughly 1780 BC. The seat of the Kussaran dynasty was then moved to Kanesh, though Kussara appears to have retained ceremonial importance. Anitta took the title of 'Great King' when he defeated the polities of Zalpuwa and Hattum. Pithana and Anitta are the only two recorded kings of Kussara, and their exploits are known chiefly from the so-called 'Anitta Text,' one of the earliest inscriptions in the Hittite language yet discovered. A further king, Labarna I is accepted as a king of Kussara by most scholars. Hattusili I, recognized as one of the first Hittite kings, referred to himself as 'man of Kussara,' but moved his capital from there to Hattusa (from which he likely took his name). It is clear, however, that even after the capital was moved, Kussara retained some importance, as it was there that Hattusili would call a council on his own succession.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/KarumKanis.svg/576px-KarumKanis.svg.png

Kussara, bottom right, shown in the context of the Black Sea Region of modern Turkey

So they came from the south of the Hattians, not very helpful, but we can reason that the northern areas of Anatolia didn't speak Indo European languages ?

bicicleur
13-05-18, 10:09
to me it looks more and more like metallurgy in Iran was not developped and introduced by Iran Neo, but by CHG, and that Iran Neo expansions into Anatolia and the Levant were followed by multiple CHG expansions during chalcolithic and bronze age
that is what should be investigated now, and afterwards we can see how and whether the Anatolian branch fits in
10125
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=10125
I also see CHG correlated with haplo J
this is the Damgaard model for Yamna :
not Iran Chl + EHG, but CHG + ANE :
10126
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=10126
is Yamna 54 % PIE ?

according to Laziridis 2016 Armenia MLBA = Anatolia Neo + EHG + CHG
according to Damgaard there was mixing of EHG and CHG on both sides of the Caucasus

halfalp
13-05-18, 10:30
It's hard for me to credit this is a serious post.

Since when is it "baiting" people to discuss a topic objectively?

As for the connection between the Indo-European theory and the Nazis, how can you possibly be unaware of it? Everyone who has studied this subject should know that it was fodder for the Nazi world view, although they placed the homeland in Germany, not the steppe. The Journal of Indo-European studies was founded and supported with money from a notorious Nazi. Where have you been? David Reich says in his book that some European scholars would not sign on to his first papers because of the horrific reputation in which these studies were held. Just because you never heard of something doesn't mean it's false.

Does that mean I believe this field shouldn't be studied? No, it doesn't. In fact, I've been on record for years as saying I think the general outline about the spread of the languages is correct. What do you want? An oath in blood?

Nothing is enough for people like you.

As for Davidski, he was notorious on Stormfront and Skadi for years, as well as forumbiodiversity. There are whole treasure troves of screenshots of his racist comments. That was his doing, not mine, and he's going to have to live with the consequences of his statements, as we all have to live with ours. Nothing, for good or ill, ever goes away on the internet.

Before you post, inform yourself: read a book once in a while, or some papers. You'd be amazed what you can learn if you don't go into everything with completely preconceived notions.

@Holderlin,

What a surprise.
I think you dont question yourself too often, but let's fact respond to me and i'm not talking about previous post of you, but let's see, when Lazaridis and Reich gonna clearly say " PIE came from South Caucasus " your reaction about " steppisist ". " I always knew nothing could came from the north, those nazis can't win " would be the real response that never gonna come.

halfalp
13-05-18, 10:38
If we put ourself in the " South Caucasus hypothesis " CHG is a ridiculous question. CHG in Khvalynsk, but IE might be start with CHG in Maikop and Hittites were CHG IE's never came from the steppe. It means basically the steppe hypothesis from south of caucasus. So CHG linked with non-IE came very early to the steppe and 2000 years later a second CHG population came from south caucasus but with PIE or LIE and others stayed south to became Hittites, but wait ! there's more. + Hittites it looks like Iranic speakers could also be from that third CHG population. In the overall steppe dna is everywhere were IE languages are, but they are not related to IE speakers, maybe some early proto-turkish or proto-basques, they were barbarians, they could not survive. Is that make sense ? I feel like Lazaridis et all willingly complicate everything just to fit a scenario. Mathiesen doesn't do that... Hey btw do you know that the steppe origin for IE languages doesn't date from Gimbutas but already 200 years ago, indianists have intuitvely linked that dispersion with the eurasian steppe, and know people are acting like a south caucasus origin was always the natural response to the IE hypothesis. Bunch of hypocrisy and double standards if you ask me.

halfalp
13-05-18, 10:42
That is not her at all. She supports the southern Caucasus idea because thats what's being suggested through academic research done by leading geneticists and anthropologists. If these same researchers change their minds and support the Steppe origins, i can never for the life of me imagine her calling them out as neo Nazis who shave their heads and read Mein Kampf to wind down after a stressful day before going to bed.

ps I really don't care where the IE's originated, if they came from the Caucasus, Norway, or a distant galaxy, I'll still be fine.

ps2: Holdrin, I was drinking vodka ;).
Apparently we dont have the same memory, but maybe it's just me you makes things up.

epoch
13-05-18, 11:17
I am person X, I hold the following belief:

Hittites will have higher EHG than Anatolia Chalcolithic and Bronze Age, if a future sample doesn't have that, then it is a Hatti person, not Hittite, as long as we don't find EHG, we don't find the Hittites.

My position is unfalsifiable. because I believe ...

You're misrepresenting the actual position, which is: If we detect EHG ancestry at the proposed language shift you have evidence for the Steppe Hypothesis yet if you don't you don't have evidence against it. It's a form of this rule: Absence of proof isn't proof of absence.

epoch
13-05-18, 11:28
Even finding a little EHG admixture in the region is not a strong argument imo. It's like we could guarante that EHG admixture never reached the South before the Indo Europeans. As we can read from the paper. They seem to have found some EHG even in Maykop. What if there is some in Leyla Tepe too?

But there being a lack of EHG in Hittite samples is indeed a very strong argument against Steppes being their homeland. Indeed I have heard many times that Hittite is so different from the other Indo European groups that it could even be considered it's own branch. Almost like a sister language to Indo European.

Is the lack of foreign admixture in the Abusir mummies, as demonstrated by Jonathan Krause (2017), a very strong argument that the Ptolemeics in Egypt were local? Or proof of absence of Greek colonization of Egypt? Or proof that Greek originated in Alexandria?

epoch
13-05-18, 11:30
the southern Caucasus idea <snip> suggested through academic research done by leading geneticists and anthropologists.

What anthropologist studies and research has been done that suggests a southern Caucasus Urheimat?

IronSide
13-05-18, 12:04
You're misrepresenting the actual position, which is: If we detect EHG ancestry at the proposed language shift you have evidence for the Steppe Hypothesis yet if you don't you don't have evidence against it. It's a form of this rule: Absence of proof isn't proof of absence.

The beauty of Ancient DNA is the ability to tell us where ancient people came from, and how they relate to the people living today.

When asking the question of where did the Anatolian speakers like Luwians and Hittites come from, you have test samples before and after they're arrival, assuming that you know when they arrived, that's no problem if you have a logical sequence of samples throughout the archaeological record.

We know that the people who carried IE languages to Europe arrived from the Steppe because that was the difference compared to the previous era.

Where did the Steppe people come from? a mixture of two populations, EHG and a southern population from Caucasus, logically, one of them is ultimately the origin of the deepest language that's the origin of all indo European languages.

The brute force method is to test every IE speaking population in the world, but you can also use linguistics as a guide, the Anatolian branch is the most diverging and shares the least with the others, and so their DNA will solve the question.

Now we have Ancient samples, and the only difference is that they have CHG, but not EHG, so some said they are not Anatolians because they don't have EHG ? This belief of EHG = IE has not yet been established for it to be used as an argument.

We were in process of testing it, a test can fail, otherwise, you don't have a hypothesis, you have a belief.

The hypothesis that only the elites can have EHG, is still within the domain of logical possibility, but probabilistically unlikely, the cruelest and gene flow prohibitive caste system that I can think of is that of Hinduism, and even there the lowest castes have Steppe ancestry, and the highest castes have ASI ancestry, it is still detectable.

epoch
13-05-18, 12:35
The hypothesis that only the elites can have EHG, is still within the domain of logical possibility, but probabilistically unlikely, the cruelest and gene flow prohibitive caste system that I can think of is that of Hinduism, and even there the lowest castes have Steppe ancestry, and the highest castes have ASI ancestry, it is still detectable.

So, after 700 years of Ptolemeic rule every Egyptian burial should have Greek admixture? It didn't, as demonstrated by Krause 2017, which sampled Abusir from the New Kingdom up until the 5th century AD. Showing as Krause stated himself (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/05/30/dna-from-ancient-egyptian-mummies-reveals-their-ancestry/?utm_term=.f61a7e138ebe), for 1,300 years, complete genetic continuity. Yet we know that Greeks settled in Egypt. We know that Alexandria was a full blown Greek city. We know the language was spoken there, used in government. We know there were Greek rulers.

What you seem to forget is that we are pretty sure that the Hititte empire was very multicultural and we can be pretty sure its native speakers were a minority, not unlike the Greek rulers of the Middle-East after Alexander the Great. And yes, I do understand that the situation isn't completely comparable, but the analogy is clear enough.

bicicleur
13-05-18, 12:46
It's hard for me to credit this is a serious post.

Since when is it "baiting" people to discuss a topic objectively?

As for the connection between the Indo-European theory and the Nazis, how can you possibly be unaware of it? Everyone who has studied this subject should know that it was fodder for the Nazi world view, although they placed the homeland in Germany, not the steppe. The Journal of Indo-European studies was founded and supported with money from a notorious Nazi. Where have you been? David Reich says in his book that some European scholars would not sign on to his first papers because of the horrific reputation in which these studies were held. Just because you never heard of something doesn't mean it's false.

Does that mean I believe this field shouldn't be studied? No, it doesn't. In fact, I've been on record for years as saying I think the general outline about the spread of the languages is correct. What do you want? An oath in blood?

Nothing is enough for people like you.

As for Davidski, he was notorious on Stormfront and Skadi for years, as well as forumbiodiversity. There are whole treasure troves of screenshots of his racist comments. That was his doing, not mine, and he's going to have to live with the consequences of his statements, as we all have to live with ours. Nothing, for good or ill, ever goes away on the internet.

Before you post, inform yourself: read a book once in a while, or some papers. You'd be amazed what you can learn if you don't go into everything with completely preconceived notions.

@Holderlin,

What a surprise.

it is not because the Nazi's used IE theory that every stepicist is a Nazi
and I see at least as many anti-stepicists refusing to see the scientific evidence as there are stepicists trying to twist the evidence

IronSide
13-05-18, 12:57
So, after 700 years of Ptolemeic rule every Egyptian burial should have Greek admixture? It didn't, as demonstrated by Krause 2017, which sampled Abusir from the New Kingdom up until the 5th century AD. Showing as Krause stated himself (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/05/30/dna-from-ancient-egyptian-mummies-reveals-their-ancestry/?utm_term=.f61a7e138ebe), for 1,300 years, complete genetic continuity. Yet we know that Greeks settled in Egypt. We know that Alexandria was a full blown Greek city. We know the language was spoken there, used in government. We know there were Greek rulers.
What you seem to forget is that we are pretty sure that the Hititte empire was very multicultural and we can be pretty sure its native speakers were a minority, not unlike the Greek rulers of the Middle-East after Alexander the Great. And yes, I do understand that the situation isn't completely comparable, but the analogy is clear enough.

Sure, but may I introduce you to Occam's razor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor):

Occam's razor (also Ockham's razor or Ocham's razor; Latin: lex parsimoniae "law of parsimony") is the problem-solving principle that, when presented with competing hypothetical answers to a problem, one should select the answer that makes the fewest assumptions.

You have to assume they have been an Elite, they didn't enteract with people they live around (for hundreds of years), every one of the samples we have wasn't a Hittite, and they have must have carried EHG ... more than one sample didn't have EHG, I conclude that most likely the Anatolian IE didn't carry EHG.

A difference between Bronze Age Anatolia and Greek ruled Egypt is language, language in Egypt didn't change to Greek, while Anatolians spoke IE, yes yes ancient multi culturalism but ethnic Anatolians were also a majority in the west, like the Luwians, Lydians and Carians.

berun
13-05-18, 13:05
You're misrepresenting the actual position, which is: If we detect EHG ancestry at the proposed language shift you have evidence for the Steppe Hypothesis yet if you don't you don't have evidence against it. It's a form of this rule: Absence of proof isn't proof of absence.

he! good resumé

berun
13-05-18, 13:21
This is what he was referring to:

"There is an extensive linguistic supplement to the paper itself, found here:

G. Kroonen, G. Barjamovic, M. Peyrot, Linguistic supplement to Damgaard et al. 2018: Early Indo-European Languages, Anatolian, Tocharian and Indo-Iranian. 10.5281/zenodo.1240524 (9 May 2018). (https://zenodo.org/record/1240524#.WvSm0ogvw2x)

It is at least as important as the genetic paper in terms of discussion, I think.

The authors of the supplement summarise the literature on the topic:
1) There is no consensus on the Balkan or Caucasian route for the Anatolian languages, though there are arguments that lead to a preference for the Balkan route among some linguists.
2) The languages are diverged for at least a millenium before we get the written records of their varieties (Palaic, Luwian, Hittite etc)
3) The linguistic evidence does not indicate mass migration or elite conquest, because the language characteristics are relatively in line with the language area, rather it appears "diffusional".
4) New evidence is presented from the Eblaite state with personal names from "Armi" (we don't know where that is, probably a statelet under the control of Ebla) with Anatolian derivation, in the Turkey-Syria border, 500 years before the earliest attestation of the other Anatolian languages in 2500BC (which therefore push the split of the language group even further back). These personal names also appear in Assyrian records about trade with "Armi". These names occur contemporaneous with Yamnaya, so the hypothesis that even Anatolian derives from Yamnaya can be safely rejected."

This is a good example on how are working steppists: if they got a DNA proff perfect, if none, then we are dealing with cultural and low-intensity migrations. The paper goes to say:


The Afanasievo culture is currently the best archaeological proxy
for the linguistic ancestors to the speakers of the Tocharian languages.

they recognize the time span (3000 years) and the space span (2000 km) but it's not a problem... I'm amazed also how they forgot the Tarim mummies R1a which don't match too well with R1b-Z2105 Yamnayans / Afanasievans


First, the lack of genetic indications for an intrusion into Anatolia refutes the classical notion
of a Yamnaya-derived mass invasion or conquest. However, it does fit the recently developed
consensus among linguists and historians that the speakers of the Anatolian languages established
themselves in Anatolia by gradual infiltration and cultural assimilation.

the degree of bullshitting production is similar to those found among us...


However, a small group of ca. twenty names connected to Armi build on what appear to
be well-known Anatolian roots and endings, such as -(w)anda/u, -(w)aššu, -tala, and -ili/u, cf. A-lalu-
wa-du, A-li-lu-wa-da, A-li-wa-da, A-li-wa-du, A-lu-wa-da, A-lu-wa-du, Ar-zi-tá-la, Ba-mi-a-du, Ba-wia-
du, Du-du-wa-šu, Ha-áš-ti-lu, Hu-da-šu, Mi-mi-a-du, Mu-lu-wa-du, Tar5-hi-li, and Ù-la-ma-du (Archi
2011: 21–25; Bonechi 1990). The Eblaite script does not always distinguish voiced and voiceless
consonants and ignores germinates (Catagnoti 2012). This renders it difficult to establish an exact
reading of the names and makes it impossible at present to determine the language or languages
to which the names from Armi belong with any certainty, except to say that they clearly fall within
the Anatolian Indo-European family.

that is supposed to guarantee Hittite?

name without clear IE roots are now Hittite by having Hittite endings... ?!? so let's take Spanish names with diminutive -co as Juanico and say that Mexico DF is a full fledged Basque city.

bah, better to read science fiction books than DNA papers

epoch
13-05-18, 13:31
You have to assume they have been an Elite, they didn't enteract with people they live around (for hundreds of years), every one of the samples we have wasn't a Hittite, and they have must have carried EHG ... more than one sample didn't have EHG, I conclude that most likely the Anatolian IE didn't carry EHG.

The Hittites were a superstratum imposed on Hattic and Hurric people, that is the general idea from Hittitologists. The liturgy of the Hittites was in Hattic. The language carries a Hattic substrate. The history of the Hittites show how they overran Hattic and Hurric areas to form the Hittite empire.

What you call an assumption is called consensus among archaeologists.


A difference between Bronze Age Anatolia and Greek ruled Egypt is language, language in Egypt didn't change to Greek

It did in Alexandria. Remember that library?


while Anatolians spoke IE, yes yes ancient multi culturalism but ethnic Anatolians were also a majority in the west, like the Luwians, Lydians and Carians.

Yes, but that does not necessarily mean massive immigration. And we don't know enough to say if Luwians and Lydians were a majority in the West. Mind you, we are absolutely sure that Hattic was spoken in Anatolia, yet we have no indigenous trace of it apart from citations Hittite texts and some other texts. Who knows what was spoken when?

IronSide
13-05-18, 13:37
The Hittites were a superstratum imposed on Hattic and Hurric people, that is the general idea from Hittitologists. The liturgy of the Hittites was in Hattic. The language carries a Hattic substrate. The history of the Hittites show how they overran Hattic and Hurric areas to form the Hittite empire.

What you call an assumption is called consensus among archaeologists.



It did in Alexandria. Remember that library?



Yes, but that does not necessarily mean massive immigration. And we don't know enough to say if Luwians and Lydians were a majority in the West. Mind you, we are absolutely sure that Hattic was spoken in Anatolia, yet we have no indigenous trace of it apart from citations Hittite texts and some other texts. Who knows what was spoken when?

Ok, let's flip this, convince me that they must have carried EHG ? I really don't know

IronSide
13-05-18, 13:45
The Hittites were a superstratum imposed on Hattic and Hurric people, that is the general idea from Hittitologists. The liturgy of the Hittites was in Hattic. The language carries a Hattic substrate. The history of the Hittites show how they overran Hattic and Hurric areas to form the Hittite empire.

What you call an assumption is called consensus among archaeologists.



It did in Alexandria. Remember that library?



Yes, but that does not necessarily mean massive immigration. And we don't know enough to say if Luwians and Lydians were a majority in the West. Mind you, we are absolutely sure that Hattic was spoken in Anatolia, yet we have no indigenous trace of it apart from citations Hittite texts and some other texts. Who knows what was spoken when?

If the Hittites were a superstratum, are the other Anatolian languages also superstratums with few actual speakers ?

halfalp
13-05-18, 14:05
This is a good example on how are working steppists: if they got a DNA proff perfect, if none, then we are dealing with cultural and low-intensity migrations. The paper goes to say:



they recognize the time span (3000 years) and the space span (2000 km) but it's not a problem... I'm amazed also how they forgot the Tarim mummies R1a which don't match too well with R1b-Z2105 Yamnayans / Afanasievans



the degree of bullshitting production is similar to those found among us...



that is supposed to guarantee Hittite?

name without clear IE roots are now Hittite by having Hittite endings... ?!? so let's take Spanish names with diminutive -co as Juanico and say that Mexico DF is a full fledged Basque city.

bah, better to read science fiction books than DNA papersThe western cities of the tarim basin like Kashgar were scythians / iranians not tocharians. Already when Maciamo thought tarim mummies were tocharians and belong to R1a i already was dubitative because tocharian is a centum language and that ancient chinese depicted them as redhaired and green eyes. We know now that Afanasievo was R1b and tocharians were situated in Eastern, Southern tarim but mainly in the gansu corridor for wich we dont have any dna for that time. Hittite is nothing for indo-european studies, look at satem languages, at modern french, languages and especially synthetic languages evolved really fast. Listen to Hittite reconstruction on YouTube and tell me if it sounds more Celtic or more Semitic.

Cpluskx
13-05-18, 14:10
Epoch, it's possible that you will be proven right at the end but the problem is that you do not move with the data, you are trying to fit the data into your view. So discussing things with you becomes pointless at some point. I used to believe the origin of PIE was somewhere in East Europe - Siberia area before Reich, Krause etc. changed their and my opinion.

A. Papadimitriou
13-05-18, 14:11
Yes, but that does not necessarily mean massive immigration. And we don't know enough to say if Luwians and Lydians were a majority in the West. Mind you, we are absolutely sure that Hattic was spoken in Anatolia, yet we have no indigenous trace of it apart from citations Hittite texts and some other texts. Who knows what was spoken when?

Those who aren't biased usually assume that Luwians, at least, were numerous. (even if they favor a diffusion model of some short)

Hurrians were located outside Anatolia proper.

Off course, 'we don't know' what languages could have been spoken there. That is true about every region, pretty much, including the steppes.

If PIEans were a CHG-rich group, the non-IE elements could have been EEF-related and vice versa.

epoch
13-05-18, 14:16
Ok, let's flip this, convince me that they must have carried EHG ? I really don't know

So far all IE languages apart from Anatolian can be attested to Yamnaya related ancestry. Anatolian was a very old split from it. Suppose we postulate an EHG-less origin for the oldest PIE Urheimat. Maykop has EHG (as per Kroonens linguistical paper) so we need to find it south of the Caucasus. What cultures are available?

1) Shulaveri-Shomu culture. These people buried in jars. If Yamnaya and/or Maykop originated from them, why don't we see jar burials among them? Yes, burial rites change, e.g. Indo-Europeans started to cremate in Europe and India. But we see gradual change there: cremation in Unetice and even bi-ritual burials in Andronovo, inhumations and cremations in one single barrow. We see nothing, literally nothing in Yamnaya or Maykop

2) Kura Araxes. It's too young to have created Maykop, where the earliest Kurgans are found. It could be the ancestors of Yamnaya, but how could Yamnaya have originated from KA if Maykop is firmly in between it?

3) Leyla-Tepe. Jar-burials. See 1. We have a number of Kurgans in Leyla-Tepe area but these contained a zoomorphic scepter. There are far more zoomorphic scepters found in the Steppe and along the Danube, older than those Kurgans. So if anyhting those Kurgans are intrusive from the north.

Now lets see the candidates for intrusion from the steppe:

1) Bulgarian Yamnaya. They were separated from the rest of the Yamnaya horizon, took on a lot of local customs (pottery) and possibly can be related to the change to cremation.

2) Kura-Araxes/Leyla-Tepe Kurgans. As I said, it looks like the Leyla-Tepe Kurgans are intrusive, based on the zoomorphic scepter. And while Kura-Araxes is too young to be the ancestor of Maykop, it's not to be an ancestor of a Maykop expansion. Kura-Araxes's burials are vastly diverse, and it has forms of Kurgans.

3) Perhaps Suvorovo, if Kroonen is right about the split being pre-Yamnaya? Haven't looked into that. Zoomorphic scepters are found among it, though.

4) Maykop has EHG, as Guus Kroonen revealed and seems olders than Yamnaya.

There simply isn't a nice culture to associate with PIE south of the Caucasus.

halfalp
13-05-18, 14:18
Most of the comments start to become ridiculous, Maciamo and others have already say multiple times that we dont have any royal Hittite dna because they were cremated. There is litteraly any known buril, this start to be ridiculous and Lazaridis and Reich should actually take some archeology cursus before try to explain things with their ancestral components. But i'm baiting voluntary here, because i'm sure they actually are appointed with some historians and archeologists, so why is this actually still a question ? So why actually people still complain if they are not bigoted ? I think we should have some kind of group therapy where everybody explain what motives him in the way he think and why he is so obsessed with one or another hypothesis, that could be very progressive for the forum.

epoch
13-05-18, 14:18
Epoch, it's possible that you will be proven right at the end but the problem is that you do not move with the data, you are trying to fit the data into your view. So discussing things with you becomes pointless at some point. I used to believe the origin of PIE was somewhere in East Europe - Siberia area before Reich, Krause etc. changed their and my opinion.

Than tell me: Which culture south of the Caucasus was it? And what evidence do you have apart from genetics that they are the culture of the PIE Urheimat?

Cpluskx
13-05-18, 14:22
Than tell me: Which culture south of the Caucasus was it? And what evidence do you have apart from genetics that they are the culture of the PIE Urheimat?
I don't know, though i know that Reich has the Maykop data and i'm waiting for it.

epoch
13-05-18, 14:28
I don't know, though i know that Reich has the Maykop data and i'm waiting for it.

Maykop has EHG. It's in the Guus Kroonen supplement to this paper.


The EHG ancestry detected in individuals associated
with both Yamnaya (3000–2400 BCE) and the Maykop culture (3700–3000 BCE) (in prep.) is
absent from our Anatolian specimens

Boreas
13-05-18, 14:31
Hurrians were located outside Anatolia proper.


He said "Hattic", so I think he means Hatti people in Central Anatolia not Hurrians.

Before the Hittites, there were just Luwian in West, Hatti in Central, Hurrian in East.

Cpluskx
13-05-18, 14:34
Maykop has EHG. It's in the Guus Kroonen supplement to this paper.
EHG doesn't make everywhere it exists instantly IE.

epoch
13-05-18, 14:35
I don't know, though i know that Reich has the Maykop data and i'm waiting for it.

You know, I have been asking this ever since the idea came up. I haven't heard anything viable yet. Most people advocating a southern homeland simply don't answer. Olympus Mons is the only one that calls for Shulaveri-Shomu.

Cpluskx
13-05-18, 14:41
You know, I have been asking this ever since the idea came up. I haven't heard anything viable yet. Most people advocating a southern homeland simply don't answer. Olympus Mons is the only one that calls for Shulaveri-Shomu.
The culture in Pontic-Caspian changed dramatically just as the genetic structure there became 50% southern. That is the important thing. Also earliest cattle domestication, kurgans and non-elite IE language are in the area.

halfalp
13-05-18, 15:13
You know, I have been asking this ever since the idea came up. I haven't heard anything viable yet. Most people advocating a southern homeland simply don't answer. Olympus Mons is the only one that calls for Shulaveri-Shomu.
Alan calls for Leyla-Tepe.

epoch
13-05-18, 15:39
Alan calls for Leyla-Tepe.

Jar-burials. There is a Kurgan site, with Leyla-Tepe pottery but also with a zoomorphic scepter, which points to steppe. Or Maykop.

epoch
13-05-18, 15:40
The culture in Pontic-Caspian changed dramatically just as the genetic structure there became 50% southern. That is the important thing. Also earliest cattle domestication, kurgans and non-elite IE language are in the area.

But there is CHG in the preceding cultures such as Sredny Stog. Also, it didn't change to anything resembling Leyla-Tepe.

EDIT: If one excludes the Soyugbulag kurgans, that is.

IronSide
13-05-18, 15:54
So far all IE languages apart from Anatolian can be attested to Yamnaya related ancestry. Anatolian was a very old split from it. Suppose we postulate an EHG-less origin for the oldest PIE Urheimat. Maykop has EHG (as per Kroonens linguistical paper) so we need to find it south of the Caucasus. What cultures are available?

1) Shulaveri-Shomu culture. These people buried in jars. If Yamnaya and/or Maykop originated from them, why don't we see jar burials among them? Yes, burial rites change, e.g. Indo-Europeans started to cremate in Europe and India. But we see gradual change there: cremation in Unetice and even bi-ritual burials in Andronovo, inhumations and cremations in one single barrow. We see nothing, literally nothing in Yamnaya or Maykop

2) Kura Araxes. It's too young to have created Maykop, where the earliest Kurgans are found. It could be the ancestors of Yamnaya, but how could Yamnaya have originated from KA if Maykop is firmly in between it?

3) Leyla-Tepe. Jar-burials. See 1. We have a number of Kurgans in Leyla-Tepe area but these contained a zoomorphic scepter. There are far more zoomorphic scepters found in the Steppe and along the Danube, older than those Kurgans. So if anyhting those Kurgans are intrusive from the north.

Now lets see the candidates for intrusion from the steppe:

1) Bulgarian Yamnaya. They were separated from the rest of the Yamnaya horizon, took on a lot of local customs (pottery) and possibly can be related to the change to cremation.

2) Kura-Araxes/Leyla-Tepe Kurgans. As I said, it looks like the Leyla-Tepe Kurgans are intrusive, based on the zoomorphic scepter. And while Kura-Araxes is too young to be the ancestor of Maykop, it's not to be an ancestor of a Maykop expansion. Kura-Araxes's burials are vastly diverse, and it has forms of Kurgans.

3) Perhaps Suvorovo, if Kroonen is right about the split being pre-Yamnaya? Haven't looked into that. Zoomorphic scepters are found among it, though.

4) Maykop has EHG, as Guus Kroonen revealed and seems olders than Yamnaya.

There simply isn't a nice culture to associate with PIE south of the Caucasus.

Good analysis, however, even if we exclude certain cultures as being "archaelogically unfit", you need to have 2 things:

-first and foremost, EHG ancestry must exist in the future, in an Anatolian context.
-is any of the candidate cultures you proposed have any evidence of a presence in Anatolia at the right time ? or a culture that seems to be derived from them ?

Culture can change, We know for certain and beyond doubt that Yamnaya had Caucasus ancestry, and yet most of the cultures you mention as being unfit, Maykop has many similarities to Leyla Tepe, which preceded it.

Johane Derite
13-05-18, 15:57
Does anyone have an explanation against Ryukendo's arguments about the "Armi" that i linked above? I'm not seeing them being addressed.

epoch
13-05-18, 16:43
Good analysis, however, even if we exclude certain cultures as being "archaelogically unfit", you need to have 2 things:

-first and foremost, EHG ancestry must exist in the future, in an Anatolian context.
-is any of the candidate cultures you proposed have any evidence of a presence in Anatolia at the right time ? or a culture that seems to be derived from them ?

Culture can change, We know for certain and beyond doubt that Yamnaya had Caucasus ancestry, and yet most of the cultures you mention as being unfit, Maykop has many similarities to Leyla Tepe, which preceded it.

The Soyugbulag kurgans did not precede Maykop.

EDIT: They were dated first half of the fourth millenium. Maykop started about the same time.

EDIT2: Wrt the second question there is surprisingly little. IIRC that goes for any proposed culture, the origin of the Hittites was considered an archaeological problem. There seem to be kurgans in the neighbourhood that fit the bill but technically they are in Thrace, not Anatolia: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/tomb-in-istanbuls-silivri-years-biggest-archaeological-discovery--99235

Angela
13-05-18, 18:09
it is not because the Nazi's used IE theory that every stepicist is a Nazi
and I see at least as many anti-stepicists refusing to see the scientific evidence as there are stepicists trying to twist the evidence

Honestly, Bicicleur, I expected better of you. You're honestly challenging my integrity, like some of these half-wits here?

How many times have I specifically said that what disheartens me is that most people in the amateur community seem to take "sides" based on how much "steppe" ancestry they have, or other political considerations, and then massage the data, or ignore it, or change the standards for proof in favor of their "side". Didn't I decry that in Out of India types and never in Iberia types and on and on? Have you along with everyone else suddenly developed amnesia

No, obviously every supporter of the Kurgan theory is not a Nordicist or racist. For God's sake, all the major pop gen labs in the world are, in general, supporters of the Steppe theory for the dispersal of the Indo-European languages, as am I.

What, however, about people who are so committed emotionally to the fact that there can be no possible origin for the language south of the Caucasus that they have to come back here to argue that the standard used to track every other presence of Indo-European language migrations, which is by the presence of EHG, no longer matters? You find an honest application of logic in that? Or what about this smokescreen about what cultures south of the Caucasus are like the LATER one on the steppes? Have people lost all grasp of time, chronology? The movement north would have been ages before the development of the "steppe" culture of around 3500 BC, the time frame discussed by David Anthony.

You know what, forget it. This isn't a scientific endeavor any more for most people here. It's a religion, and I don't debate with true believers of any variety.

@Johane Derite,
RKs posts are often informative. He also at leasts reads archaeology and linguistics papers, which is more that you can say for a lot of people, despite claims about how much they know about the Hittites, for example. :)

This is particularly informative:
"We can agree that Anatolians may ultimately originate in the Pontic-Caspian (which the authors cautiously support) and also claim that the EHG got diluted over the 1.5 millenia that the authors give for the split between Anatolian and the rest of IE, but we cannot claim that the classical model of late Anatolian elite conquest into Turkey is in any way correct given the descriptions of the new archaeological contexts, records and the fact that the earliest attestation of Anatolians is ~5 centuries before their attestation elsewhere or as a Hittite state, and at that time they were an "ethnic" population ruled by the unambiguously Semitic city state of Ebla (meaning they probably were present "in the mass" as people in SE Anatolia at a very early date)."


@Davef,

Thank you, but all I support, like the academics, is that it is POSSIBLE that pre-proto-IE had its origin south of the Caucasus. That's it. Hopefully, some actual evidence will clarify matters.

ToBeOrNotToBe
13-05-18, 18:44
All I support, like the academics, is that it is POSSIBLE that pre-proto-IE had its origin south of the Caucasus. That's it. Hopefully, some actual evidence will clarify matters.

It is not only possible, but likely.

R1b will be probably found in Chalcolithic Mesopotamia, as per Maciamo. Swastikas in things like the Hassuna-Samarra culture and phylogeny should be a big enough give away. I personally think they came from Anatolia, and got their CHG on the way to the Steppe from CHG women. I can’t think of any other alternative, assuming the Swastika to be indicative of R1b’s presence.

ToBeOrNotToBe
13-05-18, 18:49
Also my name and photo is so gay and cringey, but I can’t be arsed to change it. So count this as my apology for the eye sore.

ROS
13-05-18, 19:01
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauburu

This symbol the swastika, which can be curvilinear or rectilinear according to the places and that appears from India to the Iberian Peninsula, has been found in the steppe?

Sile
13-05-18, 19:04
Hattic is not even IE, it is not related to those Anatolian languages. It is just a substate that was the source for a lot of loanwords, and in later times there was also borrowing of words from Hurro-Urartian languages in Anatolia.

Hattian language
Written By:

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica

See Article History
Alternative Titles: Hattic language, Khattic language, Khattish language, Proto-Hittite language

Hattian language, also called Hattic or Khattic or Khattish, non-Indo-European language of ancient Anatolia. The Hattian language appears as hattili ‘in Hattian’ in Hittite cuneiform texts. Called Proto-Hittite by some, Hattian was the language of the linguistic substratum inside the Halys River (now called the Kızıl River) bend and in more-northerly regions. It is impossible to ascertain the length of time that the Hattians had been present in Anatolia before the Indo-Europeans entered the country, but it seems certain that by the beginning of the Hittite New Empire (c. 1400–c. 1190 bce), Hattian was a dead language.

The Indo-European newcomers of Hittite stock took the same name as their predecessors. All the Hattian material preserved by Hittite scribes concerns the religious sphere of life; the texts include rituals (such as those connected with the erection of a new building), incantations, antiphons, litanies, and myths. Among the Hattian interpolations in Hittite texts, there are some to which a Hittite translation has been added. A striking feature of the grammar of Hattian is its agglutination; it has both prefixes and suffixes. There are no formal marks to distinguish nouns from verbs.

Depends on what period you want to talk about.....pre-hittite or not
We know from linguistic scholarship history that it took over 100 years to decipher hittite language because it had zero semitic even though it was written in cuneiform.
pre-hittite language was the brother of Kaska language its northern neighbour

Sile
13-05-18, 19:10
There are different opinions on where Palaic speakers should be placed. (I have seen scholars support a more western or northwestern position, next to Alys river but outside the bend.
Also, some support that Lydians originated outside the ultimate Lydian homeland, in a more northern (?) position, where Phrygian speakers are found later (?) I don't remember exactly.
Also there are different opinions about when Phrygians moved to Anatolia. The traditional view was that this happened after the Trojan War but some scholars have different views.
And then there are the Trojans too. Some believe they were Luwians. I personally think they were speaking a 'non-Anatolian' IE language. Possibly a language that had similarities with one, some or all of the following: Phrygian, Thracian and Greek. Possibly partly similar to Latin too, if the myth of Aeneas was based on real events. (a language that influenced Latin without being proto-Latin itself?)



How many are the Hattic loanwords in Anatolian languages?

on that top map the phygians sit between lydians and palaic people......they had a long war against the lydians circa 500BC.
The thracians filled the space north of these phygians.........thracian society is noted as starting around 3200BC.
.
finding one luwian tablet in the troad/troy does not indicate they spoke luwian.
.

Sile
13-05-18, 19:14
The map for Anatolian languages is strange
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c1cc8ba57adb6bd87ec0baa513348ffc-c
Why is it not spoken in the Northern half of Anatolia ? the answer could be in the Middle Bronze Age migration
Even though Melaart is the one theorizing about it, and we know he fabricated stuff.
This migration and destruction was used as evidence for the Hittites, but other evidence suggests they could be older, but the destruction is still there, and so other people migrated, perhaps IE tribes like Phrygians, Armenians, and Greeks.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Mass_migration_of_Greece_and_Turkey_in_1900BCE.svg/300px-Mass_migration_of_Greece_and_Turkey_in_1900BCE.svg .png
Palaic should reach the sea
Palaic language, one of the ancient Anatolian languages, Palaic was spoken in Palā, a land located to the northwest of Hittite territory and across the Halys (now the Kızıl) River. The resemblance of Palā to the later place-names Blaëne (Greek) and Paphlagonia (Roman) is surely not coincidental. Evidence for Palaic consists of scarcely more than a dozen ritual fragments preserved in the cuneiform archives at the Hittite capital of Hattusa (near the modern town of Boğazkale, formerly Boğazköy, Tur.) that appear as palaumnili ‘in Palaic.’ Palaic texts are contemporary with Hittite texts, including one or two manuscripts from the Old Hittite period (1650–1580 bce). The meagre evidence limits scholarly understanding of the texts and makes all generalizations about the language provisional, but the grammatical features and lexicon (vocabulary) of Palaic assure that it is an Indo-European language of the Hittite and Luwian subgroup. A unique feature is the apparent borrowing from Hattian of the /f/ sound in several loanwords.
and to their east are the kaska people of modern samsun , and to the west would be thracians, then trojans.
.
.
Kaskian (Kaskean) was a non-Indo-European language of the Kaskians of northeastern Bronze Age Anatolia, in the mountains along the Black Sea coast.
It is sometimes suspected that Kaskian was related to the pre-Hittite Hattic language, based on toponyms and personal names. There may also be connections to the Northwest Caucasian languages; the name Kaskian[1] may be cognate with an old name for Circassia,[2] and the name of one of the tribes in the Kaskian confederation, the Abešla, may be cognate with the endonym of the Abkhaz people and some Circassian people,[3] suggesting the Kaskians proper and Abešla might have been the ancestors of the Circassians and other Caucasian peoples.[4] It has also been conjectured that Kaskian might belong to the Zan family of languages, and have affinities to Megrelian or Laz.[5]

berun
13-05-18, 20:12
http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1111635/FULLTEXT01.pdf

it would be nice if archaeologists involved in the last papers about South Asia and Central Asia would made clear the problem to test ancient peoples that incinerated the deceased.

berun
13-05-18, 21:42
By the way "The first horse herders" paper is the first to point to Kievan Rus region as an important place for PIE dispersals.


Both Early Bronze Age (3000-2500 BCE) steppe pastoralists Yamnaya and Afanasievo and Late Bronze Age (2300-1200 BCE) Sintashta and Andronovo carry substantial amounts of EHG and CHG ancestry, but the latter group can be distinguished by a genetic component acquired through admixture with European Neolithic farmers during the formation of the Corded Ware complex, reflecting a secondary push from Europe to the east through the forest-steppe zone."

As a fifth choice alternative the IE could be assigned to early farmers, as this component is all over Europe and is among the new Hittite samples.

Ygorcs
14-05-18, 00:02
Hattian language
Written By:

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica

See Article History
Alternative Titles: Hattic language, Khattic language, Khattish language, Proto-Hittite language

Hattian language, also called Hattic or Khattic or Khattish, non-Indo-European language of ancient Anatolia. The Hattian language appears as hattili ‘in Hattian’ in Hittite cuneiform texts. Called Proto-Hittite by some, Hattian was the language of the linguistic substratum inside the Halys River (now called the Kızıl River) bend and in more-northerly regions. It is impossible to ascertain the length of time that the Hattians had been present in Anatolia before the Indo-Europeans entered the country, but it seems certain that by the beginning of the Hittite New Empire (c. 1400–c. 1190 bce), Hattian was a dead language.

The Indo-European newcomers of Hittite stock took the same name as their predecessors. All the Hattian material preserved by Hittite scribes concerns the religious sphere of life; the texts include rituals (such as those connected with the erection of a new building), incantations, antiphons, litanies, and myths. Among the Hattian interpolations in Hittite texts, there are some to which a Hittite translation has been added. A striking feature of the grammar of Hattian is its agglutination; it has both prefixes and suffixes. There are no formal marks to distinguish nouns from verbs.

Depends on what period you want to talk about.....pre-hittite or not
We know from linguistic scholarship history that it took over 100 years to decipher hittite language because it had zero semitic even though it was written in cuneiform.
pre-hittite language was the brother of Kaska language its northern neighbour

You're confusing the terminology. Pre-Hittite means "the language that was spoken there before Hittite", it is most definitely NOT the same thing as Proto-Hittite, which would be "the immediate mother language of Hittite". Pre-Hittite is like Pre-Indo-European: it means it was an indigenous language in the area before the later IE spread there, and it implies no relationship at all between the two languages, at best only an influence as a substrate to the later language. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your particular use of the terminology, and you're using "Anatolian languages" as a merely geographical reference, to refer to the non-IE language families that existed in Anatolia before the arrival of IE.

Alan
14-05-18, 02:56
That's indeed one of the linguistic theories about Hittite.



And that might be the reason why scientists speak of PIE and LPIE. LPIE could almost be considered it's own branch. We are indeed talking here about Hittite vs all other Indo European families.

A very possible theory
PPIE--> Steppe Indo European/Hittite

Hittite could very well have diverged from the ancestor of those known to be Steppe Indo Europeans.

Alan
14-05-18, 03:14
And remember: I have the PIE and Shulaveri as people traumatized by Snakes. remember, the oldest PIE tale is the hero that kills the snake right? - Ubaid were the snake people.



That snake thing is really sitting deep in IE cultures. The legend about the Kurdish origins goes this way, There was a blacksmith called Kawa who killed a tyranic King,who grew Snakes out of his shoulders and those snakes had to be fed with brains of young boys and girls. He brought these kids into the Zagros mountains and fed him brains of sheeps until the Kids were grown and they revolted against the King. Many Historians connect the King with the Assyrian rule.

http://www.kurdishinstitute.be/kawa-and-the-story-of-newroz/

Alan
14-05-18, 03:32
I don't understand how people can connect every expansion of genetic populations such as CHG/Iran_Meso, EHG, WHG to a single language family.
Like for real those components are as far as of mesolithic age!

That means some parts of the Near East could be full of non-IE-CHG population but still live just few hundred miles next to IE-speaking CHG folks.
The same with EHG groups. EHG could be very much the major component among Finno_Ugric, IE and god knows what else kind of people.

I have to roll with my eyes every time I hear that freakn argument "but but but, the region was full of non-IE pred. CHG populations such as Hurrians(while the origin of Hurrians is still on debate) how can CHG be PIE?" Like seriously? We are talking about Mesolithic time components, thats roughly 12000 years of time people.

Alan
14-05-18, 03:51
Is the lack of foreign admixture in the Abusir mummies, as demonstrated by Jonathan Krause (2017), a very strong argument that the Ptolemeics in Egypt were local? Or proof of absence of Greek colonization of Egypt? Or proof that Greek originated in Alexandria?


Let me answer your question with a question. Can you guarantee me that the EHG we find in Iron Age Indo European speakers comes from the Steppes and not some other source? Can you guarantee me that the EHG we find in CWC culture is not of local non Indo European Baltic H&G origin but comes from the Steppes? Can you guarantee me that the EHG we find in South_Central Asia comes from the Steppes and is not of a more local origin as we have found some samples there that do have significant EHG but lack CHG and therefore can't be from the Steppes.

Alan
14-05-18, 04:00
Maykop has EHG. It's in the Guus Kroonen supplement to this paper.


Correct but that doesn't play a role for the place of origin. As you know Yamnaya also had allot of CHG. What I am trying to explain here is, that EHG could have been widespred in some parts of West Asia already by Neolithic_Calcolthic. So Even if we find EHG in some Hittite samples that doesn't rule out the possibility it came from a culture in the Caucasus that already had some EHG themselves. Like finding CHG in CWC doesn't rule out it's Steppe origin, since Steppe had CHG already by Neolithic.

People sound like EHG is restricted to Steppes /East Europe and CHG_IranNeo to Iranian Plateau and Caucasus.

But the point is, that if we don't find any EHG in Hittite samples this completely rules out a Steppe origin for them. Like a lack of CHG_IranNeo in CWC would completely rule out a southern origin for PIE.

Alan
14-05-18, 04:06
Jar-burials. There is a Kurgan site, with Leyla-Tepe pottery but also with a zoomorphic scepter, which points to steppe. Or Maykop.

Leyla Tepe Kurgans predate Yamnaya and are contemporaneous with those from Khvalynsk or maybe a little older.

Sile
14-05-18, 07:24
You're confusing the terminology. Pre-Hittite means "the language that was spoken there before Hittite", it is most definitely NOT the same thing as Proto-Hittite, which would be "the immediate mother language of Hittite". Pre-Hittite is like Pre-Indo-European: it means it was an indigenous language in the area before the later IE spread there, and it implies no relationship at all between the two languages, at best only an influence as a substrate to the later language. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your particular use of the terminology, and you're using "Anatolian languages" as a merely geographical reference, to refer to the non-IE language families that existed in Anatolia before the arrival of IE.

Clearly then explain this non-semitic cuneiform hatti/hittite differences with cuneiform semetic, babylonian, assyrian and others ?
If linguistics took over 100 year to solve Hittite and these experts knew babylonian, assyrian etc like the back of their hands then .......
.
no point in just saying no if you have no logical answer

Pygmalion
14-05-18, 12:50
Ygorcs already mentioned it, but what's the point of comparing the cultural advancement of the Yamna culture (3500-2500 BCE) to the late Hittites (1500-1200 BCE), when they are separated by 1000 to 2300 years? It would be like comparing ancient Gaul with modern Britain and saying the British culture is amazingly more advanced than the French one. :petrified: That's the height of intellectual dishonesty. If you look at other Steppe-derived cultures contemporary to the Hittites, what you find are the Celts, the Mycenaean Greeks, the Indo-Aryans of the Rig Veda... They are all much closer to the Hittites than to Yamna.

Then, as Ygorcs said, the Hittites absorbed a lot of their culture from the Hattians or other pre-IE Indo-European populations.
Not that I disagree with your over all message but the Celts were not contemporary to the Hittites. And the earliest written documents in India date back only to the 3rd century bc and so the Rig Veda was only written down much, much later than when it supposedly originated. What was written down after thousands of years of oral tradition isn't a reliable account of life in Vedic India back in 1500 bc.

Olympus Mons
14-05-18, 15:02
That snake thing is really sitting deep in IE cultures. The legend about the Kurdish origins goes this way, There was a blacksmith called Kawa who killed a tyranic King,who grew Snakes out of his shoulders and those snakes had to be fed with brains of young boys and girls. He brought these kids into the Zagros mountains and fed him brains of sheeps until the Kids were grown and they revolted against the King. Many Historians connect the King with the Assyrian rule.

http://www.kurdishinstitute.be/kawa-and-the-story-of-newroz/

really cool. thanks

raspberry
14-05-18, 15:37
By the way "The first horse herders" paper is the first to point to Kievan Rus region as an important place for PIE dispersals.



As a fifth choice alternative the IE could be assigned to early farmers, as this component is all over Europe and is among the new Hittite samples.
That "choice alternative" was one of the earlier proposals on the origins of the IE languages (by Colin Renfrew). In this hypothesis the dispersal of the IE languages is connected to the Neolithic farmers of Anatolia. Nobody, however, seems to know why that hypothesis was suddenly "dumped". The refutal happened mostly on a linguistic base. Linguistics, however, should not be taken serious as a discipline since nothing is based on hard facts - everything is based on squishy and supposed "facts". Linguistics are more a muse than an actual scientific discipline. We can observe this for example when "linguists" create non existant connections between Uralic and the Hittite language. How can a linguist seriously claim that Hittite is closer to Uralic languages than to IE languages because of the use of enclitic possessive particles? But that is how linguists are: subjective, biased and unscientific - DNA results however are unbiased and unambigious.

Anyway, I was always (for a short time I was on the Transcaucasus train) a supporter of the so called "Armenian hypothesis" - completely absurd and misleading name - but this is the proposed PIE homeland south of the Caucasus which is burrying at the moment the Kurgan-Steppes absurdity. I was the first to propose such things openly on forums, obviously inspired by the Ivanov and Gamkrelidze. When I proclaimed this at first, I got responses like "crackpot theory".

Alan
14-05-18, 17:33
That snake thing is really sitting deep in IE cultures. The legend about the Kurdish origins goes this way,

http://www.kurdishinstitute.be/kawa-and-the-story-of-newroz/

Why the neg rating IronSide. Too much science or too much Kurdish?

IronSide
14-05-18, 19:07
Why the neg rating IronSide. Too much science or too much Kurdish?

What ? I didn't vote on your post.

It must be some kind of error, I definitely remember not downvoting anything, and c'mon man, I love science and I admire the Kurds, brave people.

It can happen, when you scroll down your finger kinda acquires it's own consciousness, and so maybe it downvoted, but I certainly didn't authorize any such strikes.

berun
14-05-18, 19:09
@raspberry, the Neolithic - IE relation is a 5th choice because it faces serious proplems in the linguistic field, true problems, no hypotheses here, like languages as Hattic, Hurrian, Minoan, Pelasgian, Etruscan, Raethian, Iberian, Basque, Tartessian, etc.

Ailchu
14-05-18, 19:31
does anyone know more about those leyla tepe kurgans? is it true that the way people were burried in yamna kurgans resembles the way of how people were burried in the yamna preceding cultures in the same region and the main difference is that there was just a kurgan on top of it?

CrazyDonkey
14-05-18, 20:22
This means that the speakers of these language must have arrived there prior to any Yamnaya expansions.

As if Yamnaya was the only IE steppe culture, when they were fairly late. It was not Yamnaya which brought down the "Old Europe" settlements on the lower Danube, but the Sredny Stog culture.

holderlin
14-05-18, 20:31
Holdrin, I was drinking vodka ;).

Nice. It was good night. I hadn't drank in like a month. Then I came on here before bed and see the carnage.

Alan
14-05-18, 20:42
What ? I didn't vote on your post.

It must be some kind of error, I definitely remember not downvoting anything, and c'mon man, I love science and I admire the Kurds, brave people.

It can happen, when you scroll down your finger kinda acquires it's own consciousness, and so maybe it downvoted, but I certainly didn't authorize any such strikes.
Thats why I asked. appeared kind of weird to me. Wanted to be sure before I make a judgement about you. That's why I called you out.

holderlin
14-05-18, 20:49
The culture in Pontic-Caspian changed dramatically just as the genetic structure there became 50% southern. That is the important thing

This simply isn't true.

Ygorcs
14-05-18, 20:50
Clearly then explain this non-semitic cuneiform hatti/hittite differences with cuneiform semetic, babylonian, assyrian and others ?
If linguistics took over 100 year to solve Hittite and these experts knew babylonian, assyrian etc like the back of their hands then .......
.
no point in just saying no if you have no logical answer

Sorry, I found your post unintelligible, so I can't give any answer, logical or otherwise. :-D

Ygorcs
14-05-18, 21:45
By the way "The first horse herders" paper is the first to point to Kievan Rus region as an important place for PIE dispersals.



As a fifth choice alternative the IE could be assigned to early farmers, as this component is all over Europe and is among the new Hittite samples.

If I understood it correctly, only the later steppe cultures (Andronovo and Sintashta) have appreciable amounts of EEF, and I also think the authors are paying too much attention at the EEF admixture in CWC while they neglect the EEF interactions and probable gradual admixture in the westernmost part of the steppes adjacent to and eventually also within Cucuteni-Tripolye territories. R1b-dominant expansions that did not involve Y-DNA haplogroups prevalent in CWC hardly came from CWC forest and forest-steppe lands. I'm also confident that the IE expansion had already begun much earlier than and possibly started even earlier than the fully mature phase of Yamnaya, so PIE can hardly be attributed to an influx of EEF that swept eastward into the steppes centuries later and only became a marked feature of western Eurasian steppe cultures near the mid Bronze Age (Sintashta, Andronovo), when Afanasievo, CWC and other steppe-related offshoots had already split from the Pontic-Caspian cultures many centuries earlier.

ThirdTerm
14-05-18, 22:43
Our results also suggest distinct migrations bringing West Eurasian ancestry into South Asia before and after but not at the time of Yamnaya culture. We find no evidence of steppe ancestry in Bronze Age Anatolia from when Indo-European languages are attested there. Thus, in contrast to Europe, Early Bronze Age Yamnaya-related migrations had limited direct genetic impact in Asia.


According to the Indo-Hittite hypothesis, the Anatolian languages may have split off a Pre-Proto-Indo-European language considerably earlier than the separation of the remaining Indo-European languages. It's likely that the ancient Hittites already spoke a Pre-Proto-Indo-European language prior to the time of Yamnaya culture and Yamnaya steppe herders were not responsible for the diffusion of IE languages to Anatolia. Tocharian has the perfect wagon vocabulary but some key words are missing in Indo-Hittite, which preserves archaism lost in other IE languages. Probably the ancient Hittites didn't develop the wagon vocabulary because they stayed behind unlike Tocharians who migrated to the Tarim Basin in western China.

https://s9.postimg.cc/pyrrmazvj/imageedit_5014_5105405848.jpg



Proponents of the Indo-Hittite hypothesis claim the separation may have preceded the spread of the remaining branches by several millennia, possibly as early as 7000 BC. In this context, the proto-language before the split of Anatolian would be called Proto-Indo-Hittite, and the proto-language of the remaining branches, before the next split, presumably of Tocharian, would be called Proto-Indo-European (PIE). This is a matter of terminology, though, as the hypothesis does not dispute the ultimate genetic relation of Anatolian with Indo-European; it just means to emphasize the assumed magnitude of temporal separation.

According to Craig Melchert, the current tendency is to suppose that Proto-Indo-European evolved, and that the "prehistoric speakers" of Anatolian became isolated "from the rest of the PIE speech community, so as not to share in some common innovations."[1] Hittite, as well as its Anatolian cousins, split off from Proto-Indo-European at an early stage, thereby preserving archaisms that were later lost in the other Indo-European languages.[2]

Cpluskx
14-05-18, 23:03
Btw Nick Patterson said this about Indo Europeans in 2014:

''Patterson said that linguistic evidence has tracked the ancestral language, called “late proto-Indo-European” to about 3,500 years ago in the Caucasus, among a people who had wheeled vehicles at a time when they were just being put into use.
Genetic evidence ruled out one likely related group in the region, the Yamnaya, because their DNA showed the group had hunter-gatherer ancestry, which is inconsistent with the fact that two Indo-European groups, Armenians and Indians, don’t share it, Patterson said. That made Patterson look south, to the Maikop civilization, which likely had significant contact with the Yamnaya, as a plausible culture where Indo-European languages originated. Samples have been obtained from Maikop burial sites, but the DNA work to test that proposal is pending, Patterson said.''

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/12/the-surprising-origins-of-europeans/

Ygorcs
14-05-18, 23:23
Btw Nick Patterson said this about Indo Europeans in 2014:

''Patterson said that linguistic evidence has tracked the ancestral language, called “late proto-Indo-European” to about 3,500 years ago in the Caucasus, among a people who had wheeled vehicles at a time when they were just being put into use.
Genetic evidence ruled out one likely related group in the region, the Yamnaya, because their DNA showed the group had hunter-gatherer ancestry, which is inconsistent with the fact that two Indo-European groups, Armenians and Indians, don’t share it, Patterson said. That made Patterson look south, to the Maikop civilization, which likely had significant contact with the Yamnaya, as a plausible culture where Indo-European languages originated. Samples have been obtained from Maikop burial sites, but the DNA work to test that proposal is pending, Patterson said.''

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/12/the-surprising-origins-of-europeans/

This is obviously very outdated, among other reasons because it states that Indians don't have any steppe-related ancestry, including its EHG (and as we know now even more clearly, not just EHG but also WSHG) component. Also, even if the South Caucasus hypothesis ends up being confirmed by the complete lack of EHG in Hittite or Luwian samples, that only tells us that Anatolian IE branched off first from an Early PIE. Late PIE and all the branches associated with this later phase of PIE with a lot of distinctions and probably innovations in relation to Anatolian IE remain totally linked to the Pontic-Caspian steppe. AFAIK no region of the world where these languages are known to have been spoken natively, by a numerous population at least since the early Iron Age, completely lacks BA Steppe-related ancestry.

The later expansion (3,500 years old? That's 1500 BC, neither Maykop nor Yamnaya existed then! I think that's a serious mistake in the text) most clearly involved the EHG+CHG particular mix of the steppes. Anatolian, clearly more archaic and perhaps a sign of a much earlier expansion, is not found anywhere but in the northern portion of West Asia, so it can't be responsible for the widespread expansion that happened only much later from Western Europe to India.

Rizla
15-05-18, 07:32
According to the Indo-Hittite hypothesis, the Anatolian languages may have split off a Pre-Proto-Indo-European language considerably earlier than the separation of the remaining Indo-European languages. It's likely that the ancient Hittites already spoke a Pre-Proto-Indo-European language prior to the time of Yamnaya culture and Yamnaya steppe herders were not responsible for the diffusion of IE languages to Anatolia. Tocharian has the perfect wagon vocabulary but some key words are missing in Indo-Hittite, which preserves archaism lost in other IE languages. Probably the ancient Hittites didn't develop the wagon vocabulary because they stayed behind unlike Tocharians who migrated to the Tarim Basin in western China.

"Proponents of the Indo-Hittite hypothesis claim the separation may have preceded the spread of the remaining branches by several millennia, possibly as early as 7000 BC. In this context, the proto-language before the split of Anatolian would be called Proto-Indo-Hittite, and the proto-language of the remaining branches, before the next split, presumably of Tocharian, would be called Proto-Indo-European (PIE). This is a matter of terminology, though, as the hypothesis does not dispute the ultimate genetic relation of Anatolian with Indo-European; it just means to emphasize the assumed magnitude of temporal separation.

According to Craig Melchert, the current tendency is to suppose that Proto-Indo-European evolved, and that the "prehistoric speakers" of Anatolian became isolated "from the rest of the PIE speech community, so as not to share in some common innovations."[1] Hittite, as well as its Anatolian cousins, split off from Proto-Indo-European at an early stage, thereby preserving archaisms that were later lost in the other Indo-European languages.[2]"



Just my thoughts. I was going to say something similar to this. Haven't linguists always been in disagreement about wether anatolian was derived from PIE, or if it was rather a sister to PIE? It makes sense to me, that the anatolian languages would have split off earlier from a pre-proto-indo-european or indo-hittite language, maybe spoken in the Caucasus. It's a good question which culture these people came from, as Epoch asks. But I think we need to remember that we are trying to solve a puzzle here, with half the pieces missing. I'm sure there's been lots of peoples, cultures and tribes through history we haven't found any trace of yet.
Considering that the reason PIE spread so far across Eurasia, was that the people of the yamnaya horizon were the first to combine horseriding with a pastoralist and nomadic lifestyle, it always occured odd to me, that some of them for unknown reasons would go through the balkans to stay in Anatolia, when they could have gone any were else.

I don't understand the people all over the internet crying that "the steppe theory is dead", scolding Willerslev and Damgaard for not abandoning a theory, that has loads of evidence for it in many different scientific fields, because of some flimsy and circumstantial evidence. I think they are too proffesional to jump at conclusions. They leave that to the laypeople who dream of their particular ancestors, and their particular ancient Y-chromosomal line, being the indo-european conquerors of Eurasia. lol.

The hittites left loads of writting in cuneiform, and one thing that is clear from these tablets is, that according to the hittites themselves, they were invaders that came from somewere else - and to be honest, the possibilities are kind of limited.

On the topic of the tocharians, or rather the earliest Tarim mummies, I don't think its' been completely settled were they came from. What I got from reading "The Tarim Mummies" by Mallory and Mair, was that the first IE people in the Tarim basin can't have come straight from the steppe, since they knew irrigation farming. They must have learned that somewere.

Sile
15-05-18, 07:38
Sorry, I found your post unintelligible, so I can't give any answer, logical or otherwise. :-D
really ..........I will send you a video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cVfIJikiMI
start at 24Mim
.
.
.
.
https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/superpowers-near-east/0/steps/19037

bicicleur
15-05-18, 07:51
This is obviously very outdated, among other reasons because it states that Indians don't have any steppe-related ancestry, including its EHG (and as we know now even more clearly, not just EHG but also WSHG) component. Also, even if the South Caucasus hypothesis ends up being confirmed by the complete lack of EHG in Hittite or Luwian samples, that only tells us that Anatolian IE branched off first from an Early PIE. Late PIE and all the branches associated with this later phase of PIE with a lot of distinctions and probably innovations in relation to Anatolian IE remain totally linked to the Pontic-Caspian steppe. AFAIK no region of the world where these languages are known to have been spoken natively, by a numerous population at least since the early Iron Age, completely lacks BA Steppe-related ancestry.

The later expansion (3,500 years old? That's 1500 BC, neither Maykop nor Yamnaya existed then! I think that's a serious mistake in the text) most clearly involved the EHG+CHG particular mix of the steppes. Anatolian, clearly more archaic and perhaps a sign of a much earlier expansion, is not found anywhere but in the northern portion of West Asia, so it can't be responsible for the widespread expansion that happened only much later from Western Europe to India.

last 2-3 years, DNA has confirmed the steppe theory except for the Anatolian branch, about which we still now very little
what also lacks is the link between the steppe and the spread into western Europe
we know Yamna was autosomal CHG + EHG and represented by Y-DNA R1b-Z2103
we know the Central European Bell Beaker spread into western Europe,
they were autosomal CHG + EHG + some additional EEF and represented by Y-DNA R1b-L151

we know a lot more in 2-3 years
I believe the origin of Anatolian will soon be solved and it is premature to speculate

FIREYWOTAN
15-05-18, 11:21
Thank you for opening to doorwar to another civilization. It's hard to imagine the depth of one and than four but what other secrets are hidden. watching the films and researching the possibilities is one more reason to keep trying to find my way in a jungle of threads. This adds more questions than answers but offers the greatest rewards.

Cpluskx
15-05-18, 12:05
This is obviously very outdated, among other reasons because it states that Indians don't have any steppe-related ancestry, including its EHG (and as we know now even more clearly, not just EHG but also WSHG) component. Also, even if the South Caucasus hypothesis ends up being confirmed by the complete lack of EHG in Hittite or Luwian samples, that only tells us that Anatolian IE branched off first from an Early PIE. Late PIE and all the branches associated with this later phase of PIE with a lot of distinctions and probably innovations in relation to Anatolian IE remain totally linked to the Pontic-Caspian steppe. AFAIK no region of the world where these languages are known to have been spoken natively, by a numerous population at least since the early Iron Age, completely lacks BA Steppe-related ancestry.

The later expansion (3,500 years old? That's 1500 BC, neither Maykop nor Yamnaya existed then! I think that's a serious mistake in the text) most clearly involved the EHG+CHG particular mix of the steppes. Anatolian, clearly more archaic and perhaps a sign of a much earlier expansion, is not found anywhere but in the northern portion of West Asia, so it can't be responsible for the widespread expansion that happened only much later from Western Europe to India.

Agree with you though i should have underlined the Maikop part. It's a very important part of this puzzle.

On the other hand what do you think of possible Balkan route to Armi 2500 BC Indo-Europeans? Pre Yamnaya steppe -> Balkans -> North Syria (at this point they are being ruled by semitic people) It doesn't look very convincing to me.

halfalp
15-05-18, 16:58
Good analysis, however, even if we exclude certain cultures as being "archaelogically unfit", you need to have 2 things:

-first and foremost, EHG ancestry must exist in the future, in an Anatolian context.
-is any of the candidate cultures you proposed have any evidence of a presence in Anatolia at the right time ? or a culture that seems to be derived from them ?

Culture can change, We know for certain and beyond doubt that Yamnaya had Caucasus ancestry, and yet most of the cultures you mention as being unfit, Maykop has many similarities to Leyla Tepe, which preceded it.
Who said that ? Globular Amphora were haplogroup I2a but mostly autosomally EEF. There is a gap time between Yamnaya and Anitta. And secondly how one people says that sample is hittite ? it's like saying every ancestral indians sample should be part EHG. Is there any EHG in ancient Tumulis Culture or Bell Beakers of Irlande ?

berun
15-05-18, 19:43
If I understood it correctly, only the later steppe cultures (Andronovo and Sintashta) have appreciable amounts of EEF, and I also think the authors are paying too much attention at the EEF admixture in CWC while they neglect the EEF interactions and probable gradual admixture in the westernmost part of the steppes adjacent to and eventually also within Cucuteni-Tripolye territories. R1b-dominant expansions that did not involve Y-DNA haplogroups prevalent in CWC hardly came from CWC forest and forest-steppe lands. I'm also confident that the IE expansion had already begun much earlier than and possibly started even earlier than the fully mature phase of Yamnaya, so PIE can hardly be attributed to an influx of EEF that swept eastward into the steppes centuries later and only became a marked feature of western Eurasian steppe cultures near the mid Bronze Age (Sintashta, Andronovo), when Afanasievo, CWC and other steppe-related offshoots had already split from the Pontic-Caspian cultures many centuries earlier.
your assumptions have an usure base, Cucuteni were mainly EEF and the steppe eastward push had also a goid WHG chunk. For R1b being IE dubious also, in Iberia it has no steppe watermark except in the BB paper, and in Central Europe it decreases the steppe signal (!). The case to link Yamnaya with IE is... a tradition more than other thing, also steppe signal expands synchronously to Ukraine, Bulgaria, CWC, Siberia...

Ygorcs
15-05-18, 20:41
your assumptions have an usure base, Cucuteni were mainly EEF and the steppe eastward push had also a goid WHG chunk. For R1b being IE dubious also, in Iberia it has no steppe watermark except in the BB paper, and in Central Europe it decreases the steppe signal (!). The case to link Yamnaya with IE is... a tradition more than other thing, also steppe signal expands synchronously to Ukraine, Bulgaria, CWC, Siberia...

Talking of R1b generically is at this time pretty fruitless. What matters is if there is a correlation (not perfect, of course, because Y-DNA and autosomal DNA can part ways very easily in just a few generations, but still trends remain) between the expansion of BA steppe admixture and the expansion of R1b-M269 and more speciffically R1b-Z2103. I see no strong reason why, if you think PIE could have come from EEF populations, you should completely discard the very well substantiated influences of Cucuteni-Tripolye on Sredny-Stog and, by extension, Yamnaya (let me add I don't believe that to be true at all, but at least it's plausible).

Also, I see no reason why we should look for the origins of a common PIE in later developments like the eastward influence of EEF in CWC and also, I should add, a bit later in the cultures descending from Yamnaya and CWC, like Srubna, Sintashta and Andronovo. Those cultures, if they were IE, were most definitely descendants of an earlier common PIE that didn't exist any longer. We now have Eblaite evidence that the Anatolian IE branch already existed in Anatolia by 2500 BC so it's basically certain that an undivided PIE dates to well before the late 4th milennium BC.

CWC, later stages of Yamnaya and subsequent cultures are certainly not the right chronological frame to look for the ultimate origins of PIE. Finally, an adoption of IE by CWC from EEF/WHG people would not fit well many of the attested expansions of IE languages, which do not correlate at all - at least not directly - with an autosomal makeup and the main Y-DNA haplogroups found in CWC.

berun
16-05-18, 07:41
as said the relation of IE with EEF is a fifth option, the last trial in fact.

the evidence for Anatolian in Ebla is so weak that I don't consider it good for debate even...

halfalp
16-05-18, 09:25
Talking of R1b generically is at this time pretty fruitless. What matters is if there is a correlation (not perfect, of course, because Y-DNA and autosomal DNA can part ways very easily in just a few generations, but still trends remain) between the expansion of BA steppe admixture and the expansion of R1b-M269 and more speciffically R1b-Z2103. I see no strong reason why, if you think PIE could have come from EEF populations, you should completely discard the very well substantiated influences of Cucuteni-Tripolye on Sredny-Stog and, by extension, Yamnaya (let me add I don't believe that to be true at all, but at least it's plausible).

Also, I see no reason why we should look for the origins of a common PIE in later developments like the eastward influence of EEF in CWC and also, I should add, a bit later in the cultures descending from Yamnaya and CWC, like Srubna, Sintashta and Andronovo. Those cultures, if they were IE, were most definitely descendants of an earlier common PIE that didn't exist any longer. We now have Eblaite evidence that the Anatolian IE branch already existed in Anatolia by 2500 BC so it's basically certain that an undivided PIE dates to well before the late 4th milennium BC.

CWC, later stages of Yamnaya and subsequent cultures are certainly not the right chronological frame to look for the ultimate origins of PIE. Finally, an adoption of IE by CWC from EEF/WHG people would not fit well many of the attested expansions of IE languages, which do not correlate at all - at least not directly - with an autosomal makeup and the main Y-DNA haplogroups found in CWC.But i wonder something, if CWC -> Sintashta -> Andronovo had EEF and we know that R1a is not originally EEF autosomaly but EHG, how do we explain that EEF part ? have R1a change from EHG to EEF regionally ? than if the case why the same rule should not be applied to Anatolians IE's ? or they had substantial maternal input from EEF-like populations and if the case why the same rule should not be applied to the CHG part in Yamnaya or the Pontic Steppe in general ?

berun
16-05-18, 13:02
good point here, it might be taken samples from core Russia, maybe there the expanding EEF farmers and CHG herders meet too many climatic difficulties to colonize this edge region and impose their language, it's an idea that makes more sense at least.

Ygorcs
16-05-18, 21:08
But i wonder something, if CWC -> Sintashta -> Andronovo had EEF and we know that R1a is not originally EEF autosomaly but EHG, how do we explain that EEF part ? have R1a change from EHG to EEF regionally ? than if the case why the same rule should not be applied to Anatolians IE's ? or they had substantial maternal input from EEF-like populations and if the case why the same rule should not be applied to the CHG part in Yamnaya or the Pontic Steppe in general ?

AFAIK the EEF ancestry in CWC is minor enough (IIRC ~25-30%) to make it not a very a surprising puzzle. The R1a-EHG/CHG correlation is still strongly there, no major replacement autosomally. I don't think there is, in such processes of genetic formation of a new population structure, many "rules" to follow. Many scenarios are possible, we need to follow what the data indicate, because hypothetically anything is possible and could be explained sooner or later. As for the CHG part in Yamnaya or the Pontic-Caspian cultures in general, I think it's possible that it was mostly female-biased, but if we keep finding R1b-Z2103 or R1b-M269 south of the Caucasus then we'll have to rethink that scheme.

My own positions have been changing (and hopefully improving) continuously in the last few years: the data point out this or that, I'll change accordingly. Right now, I believe there was first a CHG intogression into the former overwhelmingly EHG steppes, a bit later farmer EEF cultures (Cucuteni-Tripolye mostly) expands to the Bug-Dnieper region and, neighboring the western steppe populations, influences Sredny Stog significantly. Contemporary Khvalynsk, hundreds of km to the east, remained less impacted by that EEF impact, but was more and more influenced by EEF-influenced/admixed Sredny Stog populations and also kept receiving some extra influence (genetic included) from the Caucasus. Then Repin developed out of those multiple influences and in the Yamnaya stage an opposite flow of genetics and culture happened, with a westward drive of Yamnaya onto Sredny Stog II, mixing with and absorbing it. That scenario looks plausible to me, but undeniably uncertain yet, so I'll have no problem adjusting or even refusing it entirely as I gain more knowledge on the subject and new genetic/archaeological findings are done.

CrazyDonkey
17-05-18, 00:06
CWC, later stages of Yamnaya and subsequent cultures are certainly not the right chronological frame to look for the ultimate origins of PIE. Finally, an adoption of IE by CWC from EEF/WHG people would not fit well many of the attested expansions of IE languages, which do not correlate at all - at least not directly - with an autosomal makeup and the main Y-DNA haplogroups found in CWC.

What does "the ultimate origins of PIE" mean? When and where the ancestors of Indo-European speakers last shared a common language, it seems to me, is the issue. That's PIE. When it was first shared is a much thornier question. Even if Anatolian is shown to come from Maykop, the question remains whether Anatolian comes from PIE or an earlier contributor to PIE.

Ygorcs
17-05-18, 01:02
What does "the ultimate origins of PIE" mean? When and where the ancestors of Indo-European speakers last shared a common language, it seems to me, is the issue. That's PIE. When it was first shared is a much thornier question. Even if Anatolian is shown to come from Maykop, the question remains whether Anatolian comes from PIE or an earlier contributor to PIE.

PIE means technically "the last common language between all related IE languages". Even if we assume that Anatolian was a sister language to PIE (it can't have been just an "earlier contributor to PIE", PIE at least in its early history by definition included Anatolian, the similarities aren't just on the level of a superstrate or substrate), that will just make us have to predate the existence of a Common IE language, in other words, PIE. Then we will have to assume that there was an Early PIE, later an expansion of this Early PIE, and in a completely different context and age a secondary and much bigger expansion from a language that was the continuous development of that Early PIE, minus Anatolian. Think of Old Latin vs. Vulgar Latin of imperial times. Languages evolve gradually, the boundaries we set are arbitrary.

When I say "ultimate origins of PIE", I'm talking about the language that existed somewhere and in some historic period and was the shared mother of both Anatolian and, via a Late PIE, of the other IE branches (we might maybe call it another name, e.g. "Pontic-Caspian", much like Italian or Portuguese are in some ways just two evolved forms of Latin).

I think that the genetic and linguistic evidences increasingly point out to that need of distinguishing Early PIE from Late PIE. The expansions that triggered those later branches may have been as distant from each other as the latest Roman conquests were from the Portuguese and Castillian world navigations.

halfalp
17-05-18, 05:43
AFAIK the EEF ancestry in CWC is minor enough (IIRC ~25-30%) to make it not a very a surprising puzzle. The R1a-EHG/CHG correlation is still strongly there, no major replacement autosomally. I don't think there is, in such processes of genetic formation of a new population structure, many "rules" to follow. Many scenarios are possible, we need to follow what the data indicate, because hypothetically anything is possible and could be explained sooner or later. As for the CHG part in Yamnaya or the Pontic-Caspian cultures in general, I think it's possible that it was mostly female-biased, but if we keep finding R1b-Z2103 or R1b-M269 south of the Caucasus then we'll have to rethink that scheme.

My own positions have been changing (and hopefully improving) continuously in the last few years: the data point out this or that, I'll change accordingly. Right now, I believe there was first a CHG intogression into the former overwhelmingly EHG steppes, a bit later farmer EEF cultures (Cucuteni-Tripolye mostly) expands to the Bug-Dnieper region and, neighboring the western steppe populations, influences Sredny Stog significantly. Contemporary Khvalynsk, hundreds of km to the east, remained less impacted by that EEF impact, but was more and more influenced by EEF-influenced/admixed Sredny Stog populations and also kept receiving some extra influence (genetic included) from the Caucasus. Then Repin developed out of those multiple influences and in the Yamnaya stage an opposite flow of genetics and culture happened, with a westward drive of Yamnaya onto Sredny Stog II, mixing with and absorbing it. That scenario looks plausible to me, but undeniably uncertain yet, so I'll have no problem adjusting or even refusing it entirely as I gain more knowledge on the subject and new genetic/archaeological findings are done.
But R1a in ancient eastern europe never had CHG until now or future studies. And obviously if we would found R1b-M269 dating from 6000BC at high numbers south of the caucasus, so everything would be reconsiderate, but i'm just noticing how people are easily jumping on conclusion, we found J* in Karelia 100% EHG did anybody supposed it was native ? no it had to came from south caucasus, we found R1b in Hajji Firuz did anybody supposed it came from the north ? no it had to be local... I just want to show how people are biased against south caucasus even if they say they just follow datas, by their emotional reactions it looks pretty obvious that the steppe hypothesis gage their values. For the matter of Anatolians, we never gonna had any royal dna and has multiple studies have shown " bronze age migrations were male biased ", there is very low chance to found any EHG in Anatolia in copper and bronze age but if we found 5 or 10% EHG people gonna style complain that this is not a proof of migration from the steppe, but they day they found ASI in bronze age steppe ( pure fantastical exemple ) they gonna immediatly jump and say " out of india was true !!!!! "

Ygorcs
19-05-18, 20:38
But R1a in ancient eastern europe never had CHG until now or future studies. And obviously if we would found R1b-M269 dating from 6000BC at high numbers south of the caucasus, so everything would be reconsiderate, but i'm just noticing how people are easily jumping on conclusion, we found J* in Karelia 100% EHG did anybody supposed it was native ? no it had to came from south caucasus, we found R1b in Hajji Firuz did anybody supposed it came from the north ? no it had to be local... I just want to show how people are biased against south caucasus even if they say they just follow datas, by their emotional reactions it looks pretty obvious that the steppe hypothesis gage their values. For the matter of Anatolians, we never gonna had any royal dna and has multiple studies have shown " bronze age migrations were male biased ", there is very low chance to found any EHG in Anatolia in copper and bronze age but if we found 5 or 10% EHG people gonna style complain that this is not a proof of migration from the steppe, but they day they found ASI in bronze age steppe ( pure fantastical exemple ) they gonna immediatly jump and say " out of india was true !!!!! "

I agree with you that there is, among some who have already predetermined what Urheimat they wish to be true (be it the "steppe" or the "South Caucasus"), a very obvious unwillingness to really "just follow the data" and at least think of the plausibiliy of other parallel hypotheses even if they may keep their preferences. My main point is that, not just in this study but also as indicated by previous analyses, there was virtually no CHG in earlier (Mesolithic) Eastern European HG, and then CHG appears clearly in the autosomal makeup of some (still not all) Eneolithic Khvalynsk-period samples, and later Yamna is full of that significant EHG+CHG mix. That looks to me like some significant Caucasian influence in the basic formation of the first IE tribes in the steppe, but not necessarily indicative of PIE arising and splitting outside the steppes (the "mother" or "grandmother" of PIE, okay, that's totally possible or even likely).

P.S.: I won't for now "cheer" for either an ultimately Transcaucasian CHG or EHG origin for this pre-PIE because I don't think we have a lot of things to favor one thing over another (except for some preconceived assumptions, sort of like "EHG were hunter gatherers, Caucasians were more advanced, so the EHG language couldn't have prevailed in the steppes"). I prefer not to voice any definite preference about that linguistic - not genetic - part of this controversy because even though a South Caucasian origin with CHG and R1b-majority people sounds very compatible to me, there is the "inconvenient truth" that, among all language families of the world, it is virtually undeniable that Indo-European looks like it shares more typological similarities with Uralic, a very Northern European/Northern Asian family, and for now I just can't envision a branch as northerly as Uralic being originally a CHG/Near Eastern family.

CrazyDonkey
20-05-18, 05:18
I think no steppe in a bronze age Anatolian sample isn't a surprise at this point. Not sure what this says about PIE though.

@Angela Looks like the first evidence of domestic horses is in Northern Anatolia around 2700BC, associated with Bulgarian cultures, dare I say Anatolian IE speakers? I really really want to see who these people were. They need to sample the people now. Someone get on the phone.

Anthony, in The Horse Wheel and Language argues that at Botai "horses were bitted and ridden in Northern Kazakhstan beginning about 3700-3500 BCE" and "may well have started before 4200 BCE" (p. 220).

halfalp
20-05-18, 10:07
I agree with you that there is, among some who have already predetermined what Urheimat they wish to be true (be it the "steppe" or the "South Caucasus"), a very obvious unwillingness to really "just follow the data" and at least think of the plausibiliy of other parallel hypotheses even if they may keep their preferences. My main point is that, not just in this study but also as indicated by previous analyses, there was virtually no CHG in earlier (Mesolithic) Eastern European HG, and then CHG appears clearly in the autosomal makeup of some (still not all) Eneolithic Khvalynsk-period samples, and later Yamna is full of that significant EHG+CHG mix. That looks to me like some significant Caucasian influence in the basic formation of the first IE tribes in the steppe, but not necessarily indicative of PIE arising and splitting outside the steppes (the "mother" or "grandmother" of PIE, okay, that's totally possible or even likely).

P.S.: I won't for now "cheer" for either an ultimately Transcaucasian CHG or EHG origin for this pre-PIE because I don't think we have a lot of things to favor one thing over another (except for some preconceived assumptions, sort of like "EHG were hunter gatherers, Caucasians were more advanced, so the EHG language couldn't have prevailed in the steppes"). I prefer not to voice any definite preference about that linguistic - not genetic - part of this controversy because even though a South Caucasian origin with CHG and R1b-majority people sounds very compatible to me, there is the "inconvenient truth" that, among all language families of the world, it is virtually undeniable that Indo-European looks like it shares more typological similarities with Uralic, a very Northern European/Northern Asian family, and for now I just can't envision a branch as northerly as Uralic being originally a CHG/Near Eastern family.

I remember in 2015 before the first Yamnaya sample of history, the theory was pretty made, Maciamo had this following, Yamnaya would be R1a and R1b coming from south caucasus at the time of Maikop. Everybody on Eupedia pretty much accepted the hypothesis, i didn't even question it for myself, it made sense, and there was nothing offensive or bad about R1b coming from south caucasus. Then Yamnaya samples arrived and turnes out R1b, everything had to be rethink and something broke at this point here. Pretty much at the same point or a little bit earlier Underhill and others have postulate that R1a and R1b had to come from south caucasus because of the modern geographic distribution of the basal forms of those lineage and all the shit happenned, a likely war between two camp happenned and between then it's the same biased views towards north or south. Personnally i already multiple times said my view on the IE question, it looks pretty certain for me that all modern IE languages came from a steppe migration, what's happened earlier is way more complicate. I found it very frustrating to try to explain PIE with CHG, because it is basically the antithesis of how we explain Steppe migration, one requires a specific male lineage ( or two ) and the other a specific autosomal dna. But i could everyday make me the lawyer of the devil and explain how it could be possible for PIE to come from the south ultimately.

CrazyDonkey
24-05-18, 20:37
My own positions have been changing (and hopefully improving) continuously in the last few years: the data point out this or that, I'll change accordingly. Right now, I believe there was first a CHG intogression into the former overwhelmingly EHG steppes, a bit later farmer EEF cultures (Cucuteni-Tripolye mostly) expands to the Bug-Dnieper region and, neighboring the western steppe populations, influences Sredny Stog significantly. Contemporary Khvalynsk, hundreds of km to the east, remained less impacted by that EEF impact, but was more and more influenced by EEF-influenced/admixed Sredny Stog populations and also kept receiving some extra influence (genetic included) from the Caucasus. Then Repin developed out of those multiple influences and in the Yamnaya stage an opposite flow of genetics and culture happened, with a westward drive of Yamnaya onto Sredny Stog II, mixing with and absorbing it. That scenario looks plausible to me, but undeniably uncertain yet, so I'll have no problem adjusting or even refusing it entirely as I gain more knowledge on the subject and new genetic/archaeological findings are done.

From "The Cultural Counterparts to Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Indo-Aryan", by A. Parpalo and C. Carpelon, The Indo-Aryan Controversy (2005):


The Khvalynsk culture expanded both east and west along the border of the steppe and forest-steppe. In the east, Khvalynsk immigrants, after a long trek, eventually reached southern Siberia and founded the Afanas'evo culture
(3600-2500 calBc) (Figure 4.5). In the west, the expansion of the Khvalynsk culture created the Mariupol' and Chapli type burials (5000-4500 calBc) in the Pontic steppe part of the Dnieper-Donets culture, in the area next occupied by the Srednij Stog culture (4500-3350 calBc) (Figure 4.5).

The Khvalynsk influence reached even further west, being represented by the Decea Muresului cemetery of Romania (4500 calBc). The Suvorovo culture (4500-4100 calBc) of Moldavia and Bulgaria probably belongs to the same wave of immigration, for it has been considered as resulting from an early Srednij Stog expansion to the west. Thus both the Afanas'evo culture of central Siberia, which is considered to be related to the Quawrighul culture (2000-1550 calBc) of Sinkiang, the region where Tocharian was later spoken, and the Suvorovo culture of Bulgaria would both have preserved the pre-Proto-Indo-European language of the Khvalynsk culture. This more archaic language would have largely prevailed in the subsequent fusions with later Proto-Indo-European speaking immigrants, who arrived at both areas with wheeled vehicles after the Srednij Stog culture was transformed into the Pit Grave culture (Figures 4.5, 4.6: Y) c.3500-3350 calBC. The Ezero culture (3300-2700 calBc) of Bulgaria, which resulted from the fusion with the early Pit Grave immigrants, took this pre-Proto-Indo-European language in a somewhat changed form into Anatolia 2700 calbc, where it became Hittite, Luwian, etc.

The Indo-European proto-language was spoken in the Srednij Stog culture (4500-3350 calBc) of southern Ukraine, an offshoot of the Khvalynsk culture with a Dnieper-Donets culture substratum. It developed in interaction with the non-Indo-European speaking prosperous Tripol'e culture (5500-3000 calBc) (cf. Figure 4.7: F), but had contact also with the early Proto-Uralic speaking Lyalovo culture (5000-3650 calBc) which extended to the forest-steppe between the Dnieper and the Don. After acquiring wheeled transport c.3500 calBC, the Srednij Stog culture started expanding and disintegrating. It was first transformed into the Pit Grave (Yamnaya) culture (3500-2200 calBc) distinguished by kurgan burials. Expanding northward to the forest-steppe zone, early Pit Grave culture participated in the formation of the Middle Dnieper culture (Figures 4.6: MD; 4.7: I) by 3300 calBC and thus contributed to the formation of the new Corded Ware cultural complex (Figures 4.6, 4.7), which quickly spread over wide areas of central and northern Europe, appearing in the Baltic countries and southwestern Finland 3200-3 1 00 cal bc and a little later in the Netherlands. The language of the Corded Ware culture, Proto-Northwest-Indo-European, was still close to Proto-Indo-European, but started to diverge into Proto-Italo-Celtic, Proto-Germanic, and Proto-Balto-Slavic under the influence of the local substratum languages.

https://archive.org/stream/EdwinBryantLauriePattonIndoAryanControversyEvidenc eAndInferenceInIndianHistoryRoutledge2005/Edwin+Bryant%2C+Laurie+Patton-Indo-Aryan+Controversy_+Evidence+and+Inference+in+India n+History-Routledge+%282005%29_djvu.txt

IronSide
17-06-18, 00:58
did the new C14 dates of the central/south Asian paper come out ?

How did Davidski @eurogenes explain the Hajji Fairuz R1b ? he claimed that the C14 dating must be wrong and the archaeological context is definitely not Chalcolithic but bronze age, without proof, and then went on to use his Global25/nMonte and produced Steppe results.

all Iran Chalcolithic samples (seh gabi, hajji fairuz, tepe hissar) contain additional EHG that was not present in Iran Neolithic, we know that since Lazaridis et al (2016), the paper's qpAdm modelling did produce that for all samples not just the R1b guy, and it was quite minor, 4% and 5% in Hajji Fairuz, which is expected for the Chalcolithic .. and most importantly, the R1b wasn't an outlier, he was genetically similar to Chalcolithic individuals nearby.



P
Prop1
Prop2
Prop3
Err1
Err2
Err3
Source1
Source2
Source3


0.03
0.52
0.48
NA
0.02
0.02
NA
Ganj_Dareh_N
Anatolia_N
NA


0.90
0.07
0.61
0.32
0.02
0.04
0.06
Iron_Gates_HG
Ganj_Dareh_N
Anatolia_N


0.62
0.04
0.51
0.45
0.01
0.02
0.03
Karelia_HG
Ganj_Dareh_N
Anatolia_N


0.58
0.47
0.48
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.02
Ganj_Dareh_N
Anatolia_N
West_Siberia_N



these are for Hajji Fairuz samples, the other locations are also modelled in the paper having extremely small amounts of EHG.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/04/likely-yamnaya-incursions-into.html

and this is from the comment section:


Mr. Kulkarni (https://www.blogger.com/profile/08812352482004389085) said...I2327. What are the archaeological evidences of dating of this person? What artefacts have been found along with him?
Afaik, there is no mention of him being a genetic outlier, and no mention of it being an intrusibe burial.
April 23, 2018 at 2:22 AM (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/04/likely-yamnaya-incursions-into.html?showComment=1524475355036#c2768073654625 399015)

Davidski (https://www.blogger.com/profile/04637918905430604850) [email protected]

Read what I wrote and try and understand it.
April 23, 2018 at 2:24 AM (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/04/likely-yamnaya-incursions-into.html?showComment=1524475492452#c2752581047993 030739)

Mr. Kulkarni (https://www.blogger.com/profile/08812352482004389085) [email protected] i see you giving random knowledge on archaeology about the skeleton falling into layer below which you have no clue about.

What I see you doing is manufacturing evidence to suit your theory.
April 23, 2018 at 3:10 AM (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/04/likely-yamnaya-incursions-into.html?showComment=1524478206481#c2747236568902 838655)

Davidski (https://www.blogger.com/profile/04637918905430604850) [email protected]

Quit acting crazy or I'll ban you.

For one, I didn't manufacture his Y-chromosome halogroup, which is common on the Bronze Age steppe, but missing from all C14-dated Near Eastern samples from before the Iron Age.

And I didn't manufacture the other Hajji Firuz sample with obvious Yamnaya ancestry that was thought to be Chalcolithic, but turned out to be Bronze Age after a C14 dating. This skeleton fell from the Bronze Age into the Chalcolithic layer. This is a fact.


I told you to read what I wrote and to try and understand it. So why don't you actually do that? How hard can it be to understand what I wrote and to consider it objectively?

How much more EHG do modern Iranians have ? is it the same levels as in the Chalcolithic ?

IronSide
17-06-18, 01:11
Can the genetics of modern Anatolian Turks tell us something about the Anatolian speakers ? what I see is that they have more CHG and are shifted towards the Caucasus with respect to Anatolia BA, and they also have slightly more EHG, if that EHG is from the Bronze Age, why did the BA samples lack it ? well someone would say only elites had it, but the problem is that all Anatolian turks today have it, do they all descend from the elites ?

halfalp
17-06-18, 11:53
Can the genetics of modern Anatolian Turks tell us something about the Anatolian speakers ? what I see is that they have more CHG and are shifted towards the Caucasus with respect to Anatolia BA, and they also have slightly more EHG, if that EHG is from the Bronze Age, why did the BA samples lack it ? well someone would say only elites had it, but the problem is that all Anatolian turks today have it, do they all descend from the elites ?
It would be interesting to know how much EHG are turkish tribes from western russia and maybe iran like the Qashqai and Azeris to know if Turkish tribes were sensibly EHG shifted to give it to modern day Turks.

MOESAN
17-06-18, 22:33
I remember in 2015 before the first Yamnaya sample of history, the theory was pretty made, Maciamo had this following, Yamnaya would be R1a and R1b coming from south caucasus at the time of Maikop. Everybody on Eupedia pretty much accepted the hypothesis, i didn't even question it for myself, it made sense, and there was nothing offensive or bad about R1b coming from south caucasus. Then Yamnaya samples arrived and turnes out R1b, everything had to be rethink and something broke at this point here. Pretty much at the same point or a little bit earlier Underhill and others have postulate that R1a and R1b had to come from south caucasus because of the modern geographic distribution of the basal forms of those lineage and all the shit happenned, a likely war between two camp happenned and between then it's the same biased views towards north or south.

Just to say I always preferred a North Caucasus origin for the concerned Y-R1b spite without being sure, of course; I don't take the older SNP's and the so used "biggest variance" of STR's as a proof of the place of origin of downstream SNP's bearers; because old forms say us only that a region received (when precisely?) them at some stage of history, in a relatively limited number, and that the the descendants were not numerous enough to favor a lot of new mutations at the SNP's level; at least we can infer without any proof that the presence of these old SNP's is old in this very region, so that the main groups of bearers of the ancient SNP's passed not too far; but spite close enough, this region is not by force the cradle of the expansion which give the numerous later downstream SNP's.

halfalp
18-06-18, 00:53
Just to say I always preferred a North Caucasus origin for the concerned Y-R1b spite without being sure, of course; I don't take the older SNP's and the so used "biggest variance" of STR's as a proof of the place of origin of downstream SNP's bearers; because old forms say us only that a region received (when precisely?) them at some stage of history, in a relatively limited number, and that the the descendants were not numerous enough to favor a lot of new mutations at the SNP's level; at least we can infer without any proof that the presence of these old SNP's is old in this very region, so that the main groups of bearers of the ancient SNP's passed not too far; but spite close enough, this region is not by force the cradle of the expansion which give the numerous later downstream SNP's.

I'm not sure to really understand your point, but you are talking about the fact that some basal form of R1b are found in Anatolia and South of Caucasus in general ? From Wikipedia, 70% of Socotri males from Socotra Island in the Arabian Sea are basal J*, but we know that ancient J people probably came from somewhere near the south of the Caucasus mountains. Very rare basal forms of haplogroup can have a very weird genetic distributions like for exemple R1a-YP1272 that the only few modern people having are from Bielorussia and Tunisia ( like wtf??? ). What is the ancient link between Bielorussia and Tunisia, absolutely no idea, but it is what it is.

IronSide
18-06-18, 04:48
Nobody likes what I'm saying in Anthrogenica :grin:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?14218-The-first-horse-herders-and-the-impact-of-early-Bronze-Age-steppe-expansions-into-Asi&p=417833&viewfull=1#post417833

Angela
18-06-18, 05:09
Nobody likes what I'm saying in Anthrogenica :grin:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?14218-The-first-horse-herders-and-the-impact-of-early-Bronze-Age-steppe-expansions-into-Asi&p=417833&viewfull=1#post417833

There doesn't seem to be a single person left there who has an open mind about anything. It's also being taken over by t-rolls who have their sock puppets debate each other. :) It would be funny if it weren't pathetic. I wouldn't waste my time if I were you.

I'm not saying the Out of the Balkans hypothesis is necessarily incorrect; I'm just saying that looking at it the way they do it's unfalsifiable. For people like this, it has moved into the realm, as you said, of belief, not academic debate.

Until there's some data somewhere that gives us some assurance of what happened I'll stay an agnostic.

Ygorcs
19-06-18, 01:56
Can the genetics of modern Anatolian Turks tell us something about the Anatolian speakers ? what I see is that they have more CHG and are shifted towards the Caucasus with respect to Anatolia BA, and they also have slightly more EHG, if that EHG is from the Bronze Age, why did the BA samples lack it ? well someone would say only elites had it, but the problem is that all Anatolian turks today have it, do they all descend from the elites ?

Isn't it just as likely that that extra EHG came during the Iron Age and afterwards with Cimmerians, Galatians, Scythians, northern Iranians and even much later the steppe Turks that stationed in Central Asia for some time before migrating into Anatolia?

Cpluskx
19-06-18, 10:50
I wonder how Hittites imposed their language in Anatolia if their population were too small and they didn't mix with the natives.

Alan
19-06-18, 12:24
did the new C14 dates of the central/south Asian paper come out ?

How did Davidski @eurogenes explain the Hajji Fairuz R1b ? he claimed that the C14 dating must be wrong and the archaeological context is definitely not Chalcolithic but bronze age, without proof, and then went on to use his Global25/nMonte and produced Steppe results.

all Iran Chalcolithic samples (seh gabi, hajji fairuz, tepe hissar) contain additional EHG that was not present in Iran Neolithic, we know that since Lazaridis et al (2016), the paper's qpAdm modelling did produce that for all samples not just the R1b guy, and it was quite minor, 4% and 5% in Hajji Fairuz, which is expected for the Chalcolithic .. and most importantly, the R1b wasn't an outlier, he was genetically similar to Chalcolithic individuals nearby.

As you said that is not real EHG ancestry from the Steppes since it was even found in low amounts in the mesolithic Huto sample. He knows that perfectly fine but something called agenda is sometimes blockading his brain from common sense. And about these admixture calculators. Trust me if he wants and tries hard enough he will show you " Steppe" admixture in as far as East Africa.

Alan
19-06-18, 12:29
Can the genetics of modern Anatolian Turks tell us something about the Anatolian speakers ? what I see is that they have more CHG and are shifted towards the Caucasus with respect to Anatolia BA, and they also have slightly more EHG, if that EHG is from the Bronze Age, why did the BA samples lack it ? well someone would say only elites had it, but the problem is that all Anatolian turks today have it, do they all descend from the elites ?

That Elite nonsense is one of the last straws hardcore Steppists are trying to hold on, while historically and archeologically it makes no sense, since there wasn't any Elite vs peasant structure among Hittites/Hattis based on the "ethnic origin" rather than status. And it didn't matter if you were Hittite or Hatti to be of high status. Also Even if we assume it was only a Hittite Elite we know as a fact that the Elite always leaves behind some genetic traces even among the commong folks.

epoch
19-06-18, 19:09
As you said that is not real EHG ancestry from the Steppes since it was even found in low amounts in the mesolithic Huto sample. He knows that perfectly fine but something called agenda is sometimes blockading his brain from common sense. And about these admixture calculators. Trust me if he wants and tries hard enough he will show you " Steppe" admixture in as far as East Africa.


did the new C14 dates of the central/south Asian paper come out ?

How did Davidski @eurogenes explain the Hajji Fairuz R1b ? he claimed that the C14 dating must be wrong and the archaeological context is definitely not Chalcolithic but bronze age, without proof, and then went on to use his Global25/nMonte and produced Steppe results.

all Iran Chalcolithic samples (seh gabi, hajji fairuz, tepe hissar) contain additional EHG that was not present in Iran Neolithic, we know that since Lazaridis et al (2016), the paper's qpAdm modelling did produce that for all samples not just the R1b guy, and it was quite minor, 4% and 5% in Hajji Fairuz, which is expected for the Chalcolithic .. and most importantly, the R1b wasn't an outlier, he was genetically similar to Chalcolithic individuals nearby.



P
Prop1
Prop2
Prop3
Err1
Err2
Err3
Source1
Source2
Source3


0.03
0.52
0.48
NA
0.02
0.02
NA
Ganj_Dareh_N
Anatolia_N
NA


0.90
0.07
0.61
0.32
0.02
0.04
0.06
Iron_Gates_HG
Ganj_Dareh_N
Anatolia_N


0.62
0.04
0.51
0.45
0.01
0.02
0.03
Karelia_HG
Ganj_Dareh_N
Anatolia_N


0.58
0.47
0.48
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.02
Ganj_Dareh_N
Anatolia_N
West_Siberia_N



these are for Hajji Fairuz samples, the other locations are also modelled in the paper having extremely small amounts of EHG.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/04/likely-yamnaya-incursions-into.html

and this is from the comment section:



How much more EHG do modern Iranians have ? is it the same levels as in the Chalcolithic ?

Then we'll do it with formal stats:

D(Mbuti, EHG; Hajji_Firuz_ChL_outlier, Hajji_Firuz_ChL) = -0.0151 -3.737 460845

epoch
19-06-18, 19:13
That Elite nonsense is one of the last straws hardcore Steppists are trying to hold on, while historically and archeologically it makes no sense, since there wasn't any Elite vs peasant structure among Hittites/Hattis based on the "ethnic origin" rather than status.

Last straw?

Why and where did Hittites adopt cremation? Where in the adjacent areas can we find cremation (http://www.persee.fr/doc/mom_2259-4884_2012_act_58_1_3495), sometimes combined with typical steppe burials in one tumulus?

And what do we know about the steppe admixture (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135616) of that area?


And it didn't matter if you were Hittite or Hatti to be of high status.

Indeed. It is even known that early kings adopted to bypass natural sons. So even if we find not a trace of steppe in an elite burial the steppe hypothesis isn't falsified. Because it is to be expected from what we know of Hittite history that we'll find such results if the steppe hypothesis is true.


Also Even if we assume it was only a Hittite Elite we know as a fact that the Elite always leaves behind some genetic traces even among the commong folks.

No. We know for a fact that isn't the case as Johannes Krause found no admixture whatsoever in the Abusir mummies (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/05/30/dna-from-ancient-egyptian-mummies-reveals-their-ancestry/?utm_term=.2ce4e53b97af) up until the late Roman period and that was after roughly 700 years of Greek elites ruling Egypt, which then harboured one of the most famous Graecophone cities ever know: Alexandria.



“for 1,300 years, we see complete genetic continuity.”

Ailchu
20-06-18, 00:54
Can the genetics of modern Anatolian Turks tell us something about the Anatolian speakers ? what I see is that they have more CHG and are shifted towards the Caucasus with respect to Anatolia BA, and they also have slightly more EHG, if that EHG is from the Bronze Age, why did the BA samples lack it ? well someone would say only elites had it, but the problem is that all Anatolian turks today have it, do they all descend from the elites ?

maybe it came recently? during the roman, greek, ottoman empire maybe. there were many europeans who migrated to anatolia after the ottomens were pushed back too. and lets not forget the slave trade. there were millions of people imported from southern russia alone.
how much EHG did the turks have who conquered anatolia? if they brought 6-10% east asian but were not 100% east asian themselves but maybe only 50% their genetic contribution would have been quite big so if they had more EHG than anatolians it could also have an effect.

Alan
20-06-18, 03:29
Then we'll do it with formal stats:

D(Mbuti, EHG; Hajji_Firuz_ChL_outlier, Hajji_Firuz_ChL) = -0.0151 -3.737 460845
You don't get it. This "EHG" admixture is found even in mesolithic Iran-Huto samples. And yes you can even manipulate formal stats. Try using Chalcolthic-Mesolithic or Calcolthic Caucasus samples and see how they fit in.

Thats like claiming melons from Anatolia are from Kazakhstan because there are melons in Kazakhstan too while there are the same melons found in Anatolia since thousands of years.

Alan
20-06-18, 03:39
Last straw?

Why and where did Hittites adopt cremation? Where in the adjacent areas can we find cremation (http://www.persee.fr/doc/mom_2259-4884_2012_act_58_1_3495),
Aha so cremation is something typical Steppe therefore Yamnaya has abslutely zero to do with it. Tell me more.


sometimes combined with typical steppe burials in one tumulus?

How many freakn times have I already explained you in these threads that what you call "typical Steppe burials" are found since thousands of years in the Caucasus. Not only that they are contemporaneous to the earliest burials on the Steppes, they are also believed to predate them by few centuries. Doesn't matter how many times bolden out "for a fact" you absolutely speak no facts here. And I am honestly tired repeating myself like a broken recorder just because you either don't know or don't care much about real archeology/hisotry.


The earliest kurgans date to the 4th millennium BC in the Caucasus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan#cite_note-FOOTNOTEKipfer2000291-3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan


Among the sites associated with this culture, the Soyugbulag (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyugbulag)kurgans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan) or barrows are of special importance.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyla-Tepe_culture#cite_note-3) The excavation of these kurgans, located in Kaspi Municipality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspi_Municipality), in central Georgia, demonstrated an unexpectedly early date of such structures on the territory of Azerbaijan. They were dated to the beginning of the 4th millennium BC.[4 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyla-Tepe_culture#cite_note-4)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyla-Tepe_culture

The point is, there is no need for "Steppe" to explain the burials.

You still keep repeating over and over against the same debunked "arguments".

epoch
20-06-18, 08:06
Aha so cremation is something typical Steppe therefore Yamnaya has abslutely zero to do with it. Tell me more.

Ah. You didn't read it.


How many freakn times have I already explained you in these threads that what you call "typical Steppe burials" are found since thousands of years in the Caucasus. Not only that they are contemporaneous to the earliest burials on the Steppes, they are also believed to predate them by few centuries.

However, if you start reading literature, you'll find similar burials dated 4400 BC in Suvorovo, and contemporary (3900 BC) small barrows start to appear in Sredni Stog.


Doesn't matter how many times bolden out "for a fact" you absolutely speak no facts here. And I am honestly tired repeating myself like a broken recorder just because you either don't know or don't care much about real archeology/hisotry.

You state that Elite, and I'll quote you, "always leaves behind some genetic traces even among the common folks". So I point that we have at least one clear example where that is not the case. Hence it counters your argument, which clearly stated the word always. See? Argument debunked.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyla-Tepe_culture

The point is, there is no need for "Steppe" to explain the burials.

You still keep repeating over and over against the same debunked "arguments".

You haven't debunked them, you ignore them. You ignore the problem that a route from Leyla Tepe to Anatolia presents: A sudden appearance of cremation. Whereas a route through the Balkans will present two possibilities: Ezero, proven to have steppe by Mathieson, or Bulgarian Yamnaya, idem dito, both showing gradual change to cremation.

Lastly, read the Caucasus paper. How are the odds that Leyla-Tepe will be packed with R1b and/or R1a? If not, the best possible option for it to be a source of PIE is female mediated language transfer to a highly patriarchical culture, without showing a substrate of those fathers original tongue. The chances for that are really slim.

And considering the fact that the Calcolithic Caucasian samples from that paper show that they can't be the source of the CHG already in the Calcolithic steppe samples from that same paper, the chances that Leyla Tepe even actually is the source of CHG in steppe aren't very large.

epoch
20-06-18, 08:20
You don't get it. This "EHG" admixture is found even in mesolithic Iran-Huto samples. And yes you can even manipulate formal stats. Try using Chalcolthic-Mesolithic or Calcolthic Caucasus samples and see how they fit in.

Thats like claiming melons from Anatolia are from Kazakhstan because there are melons in Kazakhstan too while there are the same melons found in Anatolia since thousands of years.

No. You appear to not get it. The R1b sample shows extra EHG admixture when compared to Hajji Firuz Chalcolithic samples.

epoch
20-06-18, 09:54
For those interested:

https://www.persee.fr/doc/mom_2259-4884_2012_act_58_1_3470

First signs of barrows on the North Pontic Steppe start around 3900 BC. Earlier steppe burials sometimes were in natural hills.

etrusco
20-06-18, 12:10
For those interested:

https://www.persee.fr/doc/mom_2259-4884_2012_act_58_1_3470

First signs of barrows on the North Pontic Steppe start around 3900 BC. Earlier steppe burials sometimes were in natural hills.

So basically another proof that steppe cultural "ethnogenesis" was nurtured by farmers from CT.....as I always predicted....now that we have also the genetic input of farmers into Yamnaya itself.....Manzura's smile.

MOESAN
22-06-18, 13:50
I'm not sure to really understand your point, but you are talking about the fact that some basal form of R1b are found in Anatolia and South of Caucasus in general ? From Wikipedia, 70% of Socotri males from Socotra Island in the Arabian Sea are basal J*, but we know that ancient J people probably came from somewhere near the south of the Caucasus mountains. Very rare basal forms of haplogroup can have a very weird genetic distributions like for exemple R1a-YP1272 that the only few modern people having are from Bielorussia and Tunisia ( like wtf??? ). What is the ancient link between Bielorussia and Tunisia, absolutely no idea, but it is what it is.

It's a general statement not linked to this only thread but yes, I spoke about South Caucasus and my aim was to say that a current pop which presents haplo's stayed under old forms is not by force and everytime the source pop of other pops presenting derived haplo's, and as a whole presenting far more numerous downstream haplo's than the supposed source pop.
harmonious chain of downstream SNP's among modern pops (when ancient DNA lacks of course) is a better basis to determine the track(s) taken by the source pop in its expansion(s). Same problem with L51 in Southwest Europe and the dychotomy between Southern and Northern Italy SNP's for Y-R1b. I consider the bulk of the down-L23 (-> L51) in Europe took the Central and Northern Europe routes, when only a less numerous group took a Southern (coastal?) route.
Of course, ancient DNA will resolve the question and maybe falsify my thoughts...
Concerning the present thread, I consider we need more data, and sure data in ancient Anatolia.

MOESAN
22-06-18, 13:58
So basically another proof that steppe cultural "ethnogenesis" was nurtured by farmers from CT.....as I always predicted....now that we have also the genetic input of farmers into Yamnaya itself.....Manzura's smile.

Etrusco, have you new studies concerning Yamnaya DNA making and the weight of EEF or ANF in it? I thought Yamna people had concerning southern elements a rather CHGlike element, where we could have to distinguish between old CHG and CHGlike Iranian farmers elements? That said, CTC had surely some input into Sredny Stog and later Steppes cultures (their cattle too) but the Steppes metallurgy seems owing to South Caucasus.

etrusco
22-06-18, 15:59
Etrusco, have you new studies concerning Yamnaya DNA making and the weight of EEF or ANF in it? I thought Yamna people had concerning southern elements a rather CHGlike element, where we could have to distinguish between old CHG and CHGlike Iranian farmers elements? That said, CTC had surely some input into Sredny Stog and later Steppes cultures (their cattle too) but the Steppes metallurgy seems owing to South Caucasus.


More or less ( so far) the EE+WHG component in Yamnaya is 15%. The rest is EHG + CHG like component but I wonder if the latter at the end will turn out to EEF+WHG too. We'll see what happens!

Angela
22-06-18, 16:38
More or less ( so far) the EE+WHG component in Yamnaya is 15%. The rest is EHG + CHG like component but I wonder if the latter at the end will turn out to EEF+WHG too. We'll see what happens!

How could someone mistake CHG for a combination of EEF and WHG?

CHG is very different from EEF, even with some WHG added. The similarity of CHG is with Iran Neo, not EEF.

Plus, it is steppe people from the eastern part of the steppe who have 40-50% CHG. I see nothing in the archaeology of the movement of the farmers from Europe onto the steppe which would account for such huge percentages that far east.

The fact that there was some genetic intrusion of EEF onto the steppe, which we can document, and certainly some cultural impact from "Old Europe" onto the steppe doesn't mean that's the only source. Culturally, for example, bronze metallurgy came from south of the Caucasus, as did other cultural innovations.

One of the admirable things about the steppe people is that they were able to assimilate technology and other cultural influences from many areas.

etrusco
22-06-18, 17:57
How could someone mistake CHG for a combination of EEF and WHG?


The fact that there was some genetic intrusion of EEF onto the steppe, which we can document, and certainly some cultural impact from "Old Europe" onto the steppe doesn't mean that's the only source. Culturally, for example, bronze metallurgy came from south of the Caucasus, as did other cultural innovations.

One of the admirable things about the steppe people is that they were able to assimilate technology and other cultural influences from many areas.


yes it should be obvious that EEF and CHG are very different but since I always red on blog from experts that Steppe Yamnaya was a combination of 60% EHG and 40% CHG then why they confused EEF with CHG....hence my question about the chance of it being an even bigger mistake. As for metallurgical stuff I think that the main influence is from the Carpath-balkan metallurgical complex.

berun
22-06-18, 18:14
The fact that there was some genetic intrusion of EEF onto the steppe, which we can document, and certainly some cultural impact from "Old Europe" onto the steppe doesn't mean that's the only source. Culturally, for example, bronze metallurgy came from south of the Caucasus, as did other cultural innovations.

But elite languages can replace indigenous languages, so speaking about this "some" EEF "recently discovered" contribution is creating even more mess about the IE urheimat. Even more, as more kurgans I see the more I figure out that it would be the product of megalithic people in a region without big rocks. But well, I'm not with Sir Renfrew.

etrusco
22-06-18, 18:30
But elite languages can replace indigenous languages, so speaking about this "some" EEF "recently discovered" contribution is creating even more mess about the IE urheimat. Even more, as more kurgans I see the more I figure out that it would be the product of megalithic people in a region without big rocks. But well, I'm not with Sir Renfrew.

I could have written your post myself....I agree 100% above all in the fact that kurgan are a distant imitation of atalantic ( spain portugal, france) megalithism. In this culture we can find the raising of the WHG signal among the EEF post-cardial farmers that matches exactly the western input into Yamanaya ( in sredni stog the EEF +WHG is even higher).....the tide is turning?