News Article on Wang Paper - PIE is Anatolian again?

As regaards the historical linguistic arguments about the PIE homeland this is IMHO a must read that was recently brought up on another blog:

https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/plg/phil/2018/00000019/00000001/art00003#

Thanks Markod, everyone should read it. I have taken a quick look on it and already seen these:

''If correct, the evident linguistic conclusion would be that Anatolian languages were already in situ in Anatolia by the 6th millennium BCE.''


''Gamkrelidze and Ivanov have also suggested that PIE contained terms for panther,lion and elephant and for southern tree species. These animals and trees could be used to exclude a northern homeland. They also compiled an impressive list of loan words which they said were borrowed from proto-Kartvelian and the Semitic languages into PIE. These relationships suggested to them that PIE had evolved in a place where it was in close contact with both the Semitic languages and the languages of the Southern Caucasus…''
 
Thanks Markod, everyone should read it. I have taken a quick look on it and already seen these:

''If correct, the evident linguistic conclusion would be that Anatolian languages were already in situ in Anatolia by the 6th millennium BCE.''





''Gamkrelidze and Ivanov have also suggested that PIE contained terms for panther,lion and elephant and for southern tree species. These animals and trees could be used to exclude a northern homeland. They also compiled an impressive list of loan words which they said were borrowed from proto-Kartvelian and the Semitic languages into PIE. These relationships suggested to them that PIE had evolved in a place where it was in close contact with both the Semitic languages and the languages of the Southern Caucasus…''

I had the idea to post it on Anthrogenica but you can just imagine what the reactions will be. Lewis and Perelstsvaig for many of them are like Jesus and Mary
 
Post deleted
 
VkDDIoW.png

Proportion of Steppe ancestry in Bell Beakers, modelled as Yamnaya_Samara vs Anatolia_Neolithic+WHG.
Samara is the black chunk.
From this paper : Olalde et al. - May 9, 2017
https://www.researchgate.net/public...he_genomic_transformation_of_Northwest_Europe
As for samples above L2 east of Northern France:
Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I7041 / M
Find location: Szigetszentmiklós-Üdülősor
Country: Hungary
Associated label in publication: Hungary_BA
Date: 2500–2200 BCE
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): H1b1
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2 (M269)
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)
Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I4253 / M
Find location: Samborzec
Country: Poland
Associated label in publication: Beaker Central Europe
Date: 2456–2207 calBCE (3850±20 BP, PSUAMS-2339)
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): U5a2c
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2 (M269)
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)
Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): RISE564.SG / M
Find location: Osterhofen-Altenmarkt
Country: Germany
Associated label in publication: Bell_Beaker_Germany.SG
Date: 2500-2000 BCE
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): H-T16311C
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2a1 (L51)
Reference: AllentoftNature2015
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)
Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I1530 / M
Find location: Rothenschirmbach
Country: Germany
Associated label in publication: Beaker Central Europe
Date: 2458–2140 calBCE (3818±48 BP, Er-8715)
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): H3ao
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2 (M269)
Reference: MathiesonNature2015
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)
Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I0805 / M
Find location: Quedlinburg
Country: Germany
Associated label in publication: Beaker Central Europe
Date: 2467–2142 calBCE (3839±55 BP, Er-8558)
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): H1
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2 (M269)
Reference: MathiesonNature2015
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

There are no subclades identified for any of these samples - they could all be L2 for all we know. Where are any of the other scores of L51 branches found in early Central Europe? I don't see any.

It is unsurprising that Bell Beaker samples look 50% Yamnayan, when they are only analysed into two categories. If they were analysed into Yamnayan vs Bulgarian EHG(Suvorovo)-admixed Chalcolithic, you would find that Bell Beaker would look not much above 0% Yamnayan.

Again, it is insightful to note how the researchers define Yamnayan as if it were representative of all 'Steppe' ancestry, even though the Yamnayans only flourished on the Steppe for a brief period, how their yDNA shrivelled subsequently, how they only inhabited a part of the Steppe and how they shared that part of the Steppe with other groups bearing very different DNA.

Added to which, I'm not aware of any evidence to indicate the language or languages that Yamnayans spoke.
 
Could Proto-Indo-European have been a composite language of mixed Steppe and Anatolian origin, in the same way that English is a composite of Germanic and French influences?
 
Thanks Markod, everyone should read it. I have taken a quick look on it and already seen these:

''If correct, the evident linguistic conclusion would be that Anatolian languages were already in situ in Anatolia by the 6th millennium BCE.''


''Gamkrelidze and Ivanov have also suggested that PIE contained terms for panther,lion and elephant and for southern tree species. These animals and trees could be used to exclude a northern homeland. They also compiled an impressive list of loan words which they said were borrowed from proto-Kartvelian and the Semitic languages into PIE. These relationships suggested to them that PIE had evolved in a place where it was in close contact with both the Semitic languages and the languages of the Southern Caucasus…''

Very very interesting read. Lots of information and debunks in it.
 
As regaards the historical linguistic arguments about the PIE homeland this is IMHO a must read that was recently brought up on another blog:

https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/plg/phil/2018/00000019/00000001/art00003#

Do you have a DOI? I can't access it.

Is there any relevance to Hajji Firuz? That Z2103 sample from the 6th mBCE (pushing YFull way back) seems legit even though it hasn't been carbon-dated (various reasons, mainly that it is the same as other dated samples in terms of its admixture).

Unfortunately this may all be related to Shulaveri-Shomu, as like it Hajji Firuz has some of the oldest evidence for wine-making
 
There are no subclades identified for any of these samples - they could all be L2 for all we know.

They could also be what they are reported to be, for all we know.

Again, it is insightful to note how the researchers define Yamnayan as if it were representative of all 'Steppe' ancestry, even though the Yamnayans only flourished on the Steppe for a brief period, how their yDNA shrivelled subsequently, how they only inhabited a part of the Steppe and how they shared that part of the Steppe with other groups bearing very different DNA.

Sure. Those guys are dimwits who have so much to learn from us amateurs.

It is unsurprising that Bell Beaker samples look 50% Yamnayan, when they are only analysed into two categories. If they were analysed into Yamnayan vs Bulgarian EHG(Suvorovo)-admixed Chalcolithic, you would find that Bell Beaker would look not much above 0% Yamnayan.

1W3DbbO.png
 
Could Proto-Indo-European have been a composite language of mixed Steppe and Anatolian origin, in the same way that English is a composite of Germanic and French influences?

I think if there was a superstrate as strong as the Norman superstrate in English it likely would have come from a language that we have no or only poor records of. There are a few obvious loans of course, but they seem to be limited to Semitic and Kartvelian as far as I know. It's probably more likely that IE constituted a distinct linguistic group for some time before the break-up.
 
The Ivanov and Gamkrelidze point about loan words is irrelevent. It's always the same, we say " PIE have loan words from Semitic " We never say " PIE and Semitic have loan words in common ". It is always the same bias, that whatever the hypothesis is, everything must come from the Near East, because we have this old bias in mind that everything comes from there, the Babel Hypothesis. As far as reality, i'm happy to know what is the Elephant, Lion, Tiger loan word in each IE languages... Probably only Greek, Iranian and Anatolian languages have them, but because they are the oldest following the Indo-Hittite Hypothesis, it's probably linked with PIE and absolutely not with the fact that they neighbor many languages from the Middle-East. And why is there no loan words for the Bear, the Wolf and the Horse, wich are ( a part the farming animal ) words in every IE languages, in Middle-Eastern languages hm? What PIE was not enough Noble to influence other languages? Why 3 words that are the same in each IE languages even Anatolians, are absent from this " debunk " but 3 randoms words such as Lion, Tiger, Elephant that are not related in Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavic is right now relevent? A good exemple to found the biased people.
 
They could also be what they are reported to be, for all we know.
#
What these samples are reported to be is simply M269 and L51. They could also be L2, or DF27, or U106, or Z2118, or in some cases Z2103 or PF7562, or from any one of scores of other subclades of these two broad SNPs. Nothing further is indicated.

Sure. Those guys are dimwits who have so much to learn from us amateurs.
I wouldn't say that. I would guess they are probably intelligent people with careers and livelihoods to think about.

I haven't analysed Czech Bell Beaker, so cannot comment.
I have analysed German Bell Beaker - the above autosomal combination diverges from it by almost 16 times more than the following best-fit (74% Bulgarian EHG-admixed Chalcolithic + 14% Bulgarian EBA + 12% Ukraine Late Chalcolithic).

Just as "At Szigetszentmiklós in Hungary, we find Beaker Complex associated individuals with very different proportions (from 0% to 74%) of Steppe ancestry but overlapping dates. This genetic heterogeneity is consistent with early stages of mixture between previously established European farmers and migrants with Steppe ancestry.", German Beaker samples have largely fixed proportions of EHG and Anatolian ancestry and very different proportions of CHG ancestry, which is consistent with ancient admixture between EHG and Anatolian, and recent admixture of a small amount of CHG. It is not consistent with Yamnayan ancestry.
 
Is it possible that the Yamnaya samples are later than those “early” Yamnaya folk that migrated down the Danube? Yamnaya samples seem to be Sicilian-like in pigmentation, but the Z2103 Hungarian Bell Beaker with tonnes of Yamnaya ancestry has light skin and red hair. Perhaps that would change affinities somewhat, idk
 
On another note, why is Afanasievo affiliated with Tocharian? Given the Tarim basin mummies (R1a, ultimately Corded Ware derived) are not descended from Afanasievo (R1b-Z2103, Yamnaya derived), and the likely link of the Tarim basin mummies to Tocharian, would that actually mean Yamnaya was non-IE? Or just that Tocharian was adopted by the incoming R1a folk?
 
On another note, why is Afanasievo affiliated with Tocharian? Given the Tarim basin mummies (R1a, ultimately Corded Ware derived) are not descended from Afanasievo (R1b-Z2103, Yamnaya derived), and the likely link of the Tarim basin mummies to Tocharian, would that actually mean Yamnaya was non-IE? Or just that Tocharian was adopted by the incoming R1a folk?

I think the R1a is from the oldest layer in Xinjiang. Likely Andronovo migrants.
 
I think the R1a is from the oldest layer in Xinjiang. Likely Andronovo migrants.


Yeah, I guess if Tocharian really did come from Andronovo it would be satem and less archaic. I guess those R1a Tarim basin folk just adopted Tocharian.
 
Yeah, I guess if Tocharian really did come from Andronovo it would be satem and less archaic. I guess those R1a Tarim basin folk just adopted Tocharian.

We dont have Tocharian DNA to be fair, most of the Tarim Mummies are coming from the South of the Tarim Basin, while Tocharian languages were found in the North / North-east, closer than the prehistoric Afanasievo range. Also chinese people are saying that the people related with the Tocharians were also in the Gansu Corridor at some point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myXDzswKE2M Sounds like something Hittite and weirdness.
 
There are Anatolian names from 2500 BC North West Syria (Ebla). So they need to find steppe ancestry in Anatolia before 2500 BC to prove steppes as PIE homeland.

Yes, I know that claim in the linguistic part of a genetics paper, but I would still like to see further studies focusing on the linguistics about that finding. They claim that the names look Anatolian IE because of certain affixes that look Anatolian, but I would like first to know if they are reconstructable as certainly IE, particularly considering how profoundly influenced by substrates and superstrates Anatolian IE was.

That said, I think it should still be explained how and when precisely non-Anatolian IE came to be spoken as early as the Chalcolithic in the steppes probably even before Yamnaya, and therefore before any significant even if minor Anatolian Neolithic ancestry existed there).

Besides, the genetic data and the datings do not fit together: the ANF in Yamnaya can best be modelled as coming from the west, from eastern Europe, and not from the Caucasus and thence from Anatolia directly. Obviously LPIE would not have come to Europe via the Balkans and EPIE >>> Anatolian would not have simply stayed put since the start. That would assume that Anatolian and Yamnaya IE would have been languages apart for more than 3000 years when Yamnaya started, let alone when its language split into many branches. If Anatolian farmers spread PIE, and PIE was still spoken in Anatolia, why was its spread led by European farmers millennia later? The Wang paper itself claims the Anatolian-like ancesty there is EEF, not Neolithic Anatolian or rather the much more mixed Chalcolithic Anatolian. And of course all the data suggest that if Maykop people migrated into the steppes, they were a negligible part of the population, it cannot even be seen. And culturally too the influences in Yamnaya seem to have come more from the west than from the south at that time.

As for the supposed words for lion, panther and elephant proposed by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, well, if those were names of local animals they had contact with then the homeland could not have been Anatolia either, because elephants were not naturally found there. Maybe we're back to "out of India"? Lol. As for lions, they were found in all of the Balkans and Southern Europe as a whole. The steppe expansion in the west Black Sea (Bulgaria, Romania) most probably had lions. The Balkans supplied lions to the Roman Empire as early as the beginning of the common era.
 
From here: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/dna-mating-asian-herders-european-farmers



Anybody else as confused as I am? I thought there were only two remaining camps - the Southern origin associated with the source of Steppe CHG and the indigenous Northern Steppe origin. But now, it looks like Max Planck is seriously proposing an origin with farmers.

Krause_IE_map.png


Max_Planck_PIE.png



Some Maykop migration "still happened" (implying it must have been very minor), "occasional migrations"? That has got to be one of the weakest arguments for the origin of PIE I have ever read. Thank God they correctly say "they speculat". It is almost like they wanted so bad to find evidences for an Anatolian origin of PIE that subsequently spread via the steppes, bu they just could not, and now they are clinging to the last faint hope, which is that even though Maykop had almost nothing to do with Yamnaya, and its ANF was almost certainly EEF from Europe and not Anatolian Chalcolithic from Asia Minor, they still managed to lend their language to the steppe peoples via "some occasional migrations" that barely left any genetic impact. It is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, because if no one finds any non-insignificant genetic impact of Caucasian, let alone Anatolian peoples, in the steppes, then they will just say "but they spread knowledge and technology, so they also spread their language" (as if the steppes did not receive cultural influences from other lands and cultures, too, and as if all such contacts, even without any clear acculturation worthy of this name, led to linguistic shifts "per se").
 
Well Wang's hypothesis is language transfer without admixture I guess.

Seems to me like something they made up as they went, like the hybrid hypothesis in general. Verging on pseudoscience even.

If they establish that as a premise, well, then the most honest thing they should say is: "we have come to the conclusion that genetics has no place in this linguistic discussion". And they of course will have to avoid deducing anything touching on the subject of linguistics or even on ethnicity based on genetics, because they will have concluded that genetically untraceable, tiny migrations and cultural contacts might often have triggered language shift, even when there was clearly no acculturation as in the steppes, where despite heavy foreign influences there is a cultural evolution without severe ruptures from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age. Sorry, but this is pseudoscience. If they really think a language transfer happened without admixture, but they obviously do not what languages were spoken by Maykop or other Caucasian cultures back then, or even by the EEF farmers, then they should just quit from this discussion as eeal scientists, not "speculators".
 

This thread has been viewed 83705 times.

Back
Top