Oldest R1a M417 yet, guess where it was found.

Similar to the Corded ornament (which is typical for CW and BB) was in the Volga area. Also, Sredniy Stog begins its expansion from the Don and replace old populations. And Don is pretty close to the Volga.
This explains the similarity of the Sredniy Stog and Khvalynsk. And also the explain secret of their horse breeding, which probably originated in the Volga region.

Agreed. I was leaving out the horses for the moment, but this was surely a key component to everything. There does appear to be a priority to Samara, which we also see in the genetics, but the move from Dneiper-Donets to Sredny-Stog doesn't look to require Samara on a material basis i.e. Dneiper-Donets and Samara appear to be culturally homogeneous.
 
Yes you are right. Neolithic Ukraine was replaced by the new Eneolithic population, which occurs probably from the Don region. This has long been noted by archeology and paleoanthropology, and now we also have evidence of paleogenetics. The earliest traces of the Sredniy Stog begin in the Rostov - Don area.
Previous aDNA data from those cemeteries as the early Derievka is not yet ancestral for CW and BB. Probably because of this we have collision with a shortage of European R1b in those burials.

Yes. This supports the priority of the Volga region.
 
This is a Sredny Stog sample, and is EXACTLY what I've been saying about Sredny Stog since long before anyone else. They've looked like the origin of Corded Ware since long before any genetic data.

I've stated ad nauseam that Sredny Stog will be the earliest samples to resemble Corded Ware and MBA/LBA Steppe i.e. the first example of Steppe+EEF, which is then seen in all presumed IE speakers shortly following.

Kudos on this. I did not make any prediction as to whether Sredny Stog would be more ancestral to Corded Ware or to the western R1b branch (Unetice, etc.). It's a bit early to tell if it was overwhelmingly R1a rather than R1b, but at least there is evidence that R1a-M417 was present.
 
Kudos on this. I did not make any prediction as to whether Sredny Stog would be more ancestral to Corded Ware or to the western R1b branch (Unetice, etc.). It's a bit early to tell if it was overwhelmingly R1a rather than R1b, but at least there is evidence that R1a-M417 was present.

I guess with all my inane posting I was bound to get something right, or at least supported by unexpected results.

I was going on a simple archaeological question predicated largely on the fact that we hadn't yet seen any genomes from these spots. Where do we see the earliest blatant evidence of steppe culture mixing with the Balkan farming complexes? The answer was clearly and undoubtedly Sredny Stog.

And upon closer examination the pottery looks precisely what one would expected early versions of corded ware to look like. Then we see this EEF-Steppe type all across NW Eurasia and NE Europe in the following thousand or so years, which strongly suggests something very important about early interactions with steppe and farmers.

One of the big problems with PIE as we know is the highly sophisticated farming lexicon, which seems to be incompatible with much of the early steppe cultures. Sredny Stog offers a possible solution.
 
I somehow also generalized, I'll try again. It seems that nothing has changed much. Apart from, that primary expansion of the Sredniy Stog was from the East, from the Don region.

-All existing and historically fixed Indo-Europeans and their languages ​​come from Corded Ware and Bell Beaker. For now, with the exception of the Hittites, but about them a separate conversation.

-This extension and decay of their languages ​​came from one point.

- In CW and in BB is present: corded pattern, similar genetics and admixture of farmers, burial on the side. All this leads us to the Derievka. Where the admixture of farmers is obtained from Trypillian women as well as probably burial on the side.

- It is well seen how Corded Ware hypothetically appears from Derievka, and begins expansion to the north, into the forest zone. This is how Middle Dnepr culture emerges. All this can be associated with R1a expansion.

-The question of how the expansion of R1b occurs is still open and incomprehensible. Archaeologically it is difficult to say something. But nevertheless, by indirect evidence (includind archelogical), it still happened. We will be helped only by paleogenetics.

It is also interesting, why they split with the predominance of R1a and R1b in different populations. Probably there were some preconditions.
 
I somehow also generalized, I'll try again. It seems that nothing has changed much. Apart from, that primary expansion of the Sredniy Stog was from the East, from the Don region.

-All existing and historically fixed Indo-Europeans and their languages ​​come from Corded Ware and Bell Beaker. For now, with the exception of the Hittites, but about them a separate conversation.

-This extension and decay of their languages ​​came from one point.

- In CW and in BB is present: corded pattern, similar genetics and admixture of farmers, burial on the side. All this leads us to the Derievka. Where the admixture of farmers is obtained from Trypillian women as well as probably burial on the side.

- It is well seen how Corded Ware hypothetically appears from Derievka, and begins expansion to the north, into the forest zone. This is how Middle Dnepr culture emerges. All this can be associated with R1a expansion.

-The question of how the expansion of R1b occurs is still open and incomprehensible. Archaeologically it is difficult to say something. But nevertheless, by indirect evidence (includind archelogical), it still happened. We will be helped only by paleogenetics.

It is also interesting, why they split with the predominance of R1a and R1b in different populations. Probably there were some preconditions.

Great summary.
 
Similar to the Corded ornament (which is typical for CW and BB) was in the Volga area. Also, Sredniy Stog begins its expansion from the Don and replace old populations. And Don is pretty close to the Volga.
This explains the similarity of the Sredniy Stog and Khvalynsk. And also the explain secret of their horse breeding, which probably originated in the Volga region.

the Y-DNA tells a different story

Mesolithic Ukraine, Mariupol and Sredny Stog Y-DNA is R1b1a-L754xP297 and I2a2a1b1-L701,L702, not the PIE Y-DNA.
The PIE Y-DNA is R1b-P297 which is Baltic in origin (mesolithic Latvia and Narva) till it gets replaced by Combed Ware R1a1-YP1272 over there.
That seems to be the moment when R1b-P297 starts moving south.

Maybe in Ukraine or in the Volga or Don area these R1b-P297 developped a common language with some R1b1a-L754xP297 who subsequently crossed the Caucasus and became herders (more specific R1b1a2-V88). That would make these R1b1a-L754xP297 the possible forefathers of the Hittites.
We do have R1b1a1b-CTS3187 (L389xP297) in Kura-Araxes.
 
the Y-DNA tells a different story

Mesolithic Ukraine, Mariupol and Sredny Stog Y-DNA is R1b1a-L754xP297 and I2a2a1b1-L701,L702, not the PIE Y-DNA.

And the R1a M417 Sredny Stog guy obviously has a different origin than the other Sredny Stog people who look like earlier Neolithic/Mesolithic Ukrainians. So, was he really of Sredny Stog origin or from another people? And therefore does Sredny Stog really have anything to with PIE or did PIE orignate somewhere further east?

The PIE Y-DNA is R1b-P297 which is Baltic in origin (mesolithic Latvia and Narva) till it gets replaced by Combed Ware R1a1-YP1272 over there.
That seems to be the moment when R1b-P297 starts moving south.

Samara_HG who dates 8,000 years old also belonged to R1b1a1-P297. I support a Western Steppe origin for M269, L23, Z2103, and L151. The Baltic HGs, like the Ukraine HGs and Balkan HGs, went the way of the do do bird. It's fascinating they had so much R1b1a before the R1b L23 expansions but all their R1b1a disappeared.
 
Samara_HG who dates 8,000 years old also belonged to R1b1a1-P297. I support a Western Steppe origin for M269, L23, Z2103, and L151. The Baltic HGs, like the Ukraine HGs and Balkan HGs, went the way of the do do bird. It's fascinating they had so much R1b1a before the R1b L23 expansions but all their R1b1a disappeared.

this is the DNA from the Samara area


RussiaSok River, Samara [I0124/SVP 44]M5650-5555 BCR1b1aM343+, L278+, [P297 equivalent PF6513+], M478-, [M478 equivalent Y13872+, Y13866- (The presence of positive and negative markers in the M478 node can reflect an intermediate stage of its formation.)], M478-, M269-U5a1dHaak 2015; Sergey Malyshev; Mathieson 2015
Samara EneolithicRussiaKhvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara [I0122 / SVP 35]M5200-4000 BCER1b1M415H2a1Mathieson 2015; Lazaridis 2016
Samara EneolithicRussiaKhvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara [I0433 / SVP 46]M5200-4000 BCER1a1M459U5a1iMathieson 2015
Samara EneolithicRussiaKhvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara [I0434 / SVP 47]M5200-4000 BCQ1aF2676U4a2 or U4dMathieson 2015


the HG was M73+,M478-, so away from both M478 and M269, and this branch was not found in later Khvalynsk
 
the Y-DNA tells a different story

Mesolithic Ukraine, Mariupol and Sredny Stog Y-DNA is R1b1a-L754xP297 and I2a2a1b1-L701,L702, not the PIE Y-DNA.
The PIE Y-DNA is R1b-P297 which is Baltic in origin (mesolithic Latvia and Narva) till it gets replaced by Combed Ware R1a1-YP1272 over there.
That seems to be the moment when R1b-P297 starts moving south.

Maybe in Ukraine or in the Volga or Don area these R1b-P297 developped a common language with some R1b1a-L754xP297 who subsequently crossed the Caucasus and became herders (more specific R1b1a2-V88). That would make these R1b1a-L754xP297 the possible forefathers of the Hittites.
We do have R1b1a1b-CTS3187 (L389xP297) in Kura-Araxes.

Why different? These Y or very early or generally probably not the Sredniy Stog. But rather old burials of the Neolithic Ukraine from old Derievka which is estimated at 5500-4800 BCE, while the Sredniy Stog is 5300-4250 BCE (Klein). And this was replaced by pupulation of actual Sredniy Stog (as noticed by Fire Haired about R1a from Alexandria 5000-3500 BCE) It is already a different population, which probably came from the Lower Don culture, and where horse breeding was already developed. But their graves did not survive in the mass, just few. But we also can to test the actual Sredniy Stog. Maybe there is something interesting for us.

Also note, we generally still do not know anything about the Western European R1b and we can not somehow connect them with archeology(only indirectly), while the genesis of Corded Ware and R1a is probably understandable.
 
Last edited:
Why different? These Y or very early or generally probably not the Sredniy Stog. But rather old burials of the Neolithic Ukraine from old Derievka which is estimated at 5500-4800 BCE, while the Sredniy Stog is 5300-4250 BCE (Klein). And this was replaced by pupulation of actual Sredniy Stog (as noticed by Fire Haired about R1a from Alexandria 5000-3500 BCE) It is already a different population, which probably came from the Lower Don culture, and where horse breeding was already developed. But their graves did not survive in the mass, just few. But we also can to test the actual Sredniy Stog. Maybe there is something interesting for us.

Also note, we generally still do not know anything about the Western European R1b and we can not somehow connect them with archeology(only indirectly), while the genesis of Corded Ware and R1a is probably understandable.

Sredny StogUkraineDereivka I [S5893.E1.L1 / Grave 93]M5500-4800 BCER1b1R1b1:pF6250:8439542G->A; R1:CTS3321:14829196C->T; R:F370:16856357T->CU5a2aMathieson 2017
Sredny StogUkraineDereivka I [S5892.E1.L1 / Grave 33]M5500-4800 BCER1b1aR1b1a:pF6249:8214827C->T; R:M799:23134896C->TU4a1Mathieson 2017
Sredny StogUkraineDereivka I [S5891.E1.L1 / Grave 18]M5500-4800 BCERR:M651:9889199G->AU4dMathieson 2017
Sredny StogUkraineDereivka I [S5890.E1.L1 / Grave 87]M5500-4800 BCER1b1a (xR1b1a1a, xR1b1a1a2)R1b1a:A702:10038192G->A; R1b1a:FGC41:7900883C->A; R1b1a:L754:22889018G->A; R1b1:CTS2229:14226692T->A; R1b:M343:2887824C->A; R1:CTS2565:14366723C->T; R1:CTS5611:16394489T->G; R:CTS7876:17722802G->A; etcU5a1bMathieson 2017
Sredny StogUkraineDereivka I [S5886.E1.L1 / Grave 12]M5500-4800 BCEII:CTS2387:14286853T->C; I:CTS7502:17511797A->G; I:CTS7831:17692855T->A; I:FGC2412:21689728A->G; I:FGC2416:7642823G->T; I:pF3817:21939618G->AU4aMathieson 2017
Sredny StogUkraineDereivka I [S5885.E1.L1 / Grave 84]F5500-4800 BCE

U5b2bMathieson 2017
Sredny StogUkraineDereivka I [S5883.E1.L1 / Grave 39]M5500-4800 BCER1b1a (xR1b1a1a, xR1b1a1a2)R1b1a:CTS4244:15510064T->G; R1b1a:FGC35:18407611C->T; R:CTS7876:17722802G->A; R:F459:18017528G->T; R:M651:9889199G->A; R:M734:18066156C->TU4aMathieson 2017
Sredny StogUkraineDereivka I [S5881.E1.L1 / Grave 20]M5500-4800 BCER1R1:CTS997:7132713G->A; R1:L875:16742224A->G; R:CTS207:2810583A->GU5a1bMathieson 2017
Sredny StogUkraineDereivka I [S5876.E1.L1 / Grave 142]M5500-4800 BCER1aR1a:L62:17891241A->G; R1a:L146:23473201T->A; R1:CTS997:7132713G->A; R1:CTS2565:14366723C->T; R1:CTS3321:14829196C->T; R1:CTS5611:16394489T->G; R1:CTS8116:17839981G->A; R1:p231:9989615A->G; R1:p238:7771131G->A; R1:p286:17716251C->T; R:CTS3622:15078469C->G; etcU5a2aMathieson 2017
Sredny StogUkraineDereivka I [S5875.E1.L1 / Grave 53]M5500-4800 BCEI2a2a1bI2a2a1b:CTS10100:19255890G->A; I2a2a1:CTS9183:18732197A->G; I2a2:L37:17516123T->C; I:CTS1800:14073053G->A; I:CTS2387:14286853T->C; etcU4a1Mathieson 2017
Sredny StogUkraineDereivka I [I4114 / Grave 103]M5500-4800 BCER1b1aR1b1a:A702:10038192G->A; R1b1a:CTS3063:14637352T->C; R1b1a:FGC36:13822833G->T; R1b1a:L1345:21558298G->T; R1b1a:pF6271:23984056G->A; R1b1:CTS2134:14193384G->A; R1b1:CTS2229:14226692T->A; R1b1:L278:18914441C->T; R1b1:L1349:22722580T->C; R1:CTS5611:16394489T->G; R1:L875:16742224A->G; R1:p294:7570822G->C; R:CTS3622:15078469C->G; etc.U5a1Mathieson 2017
Sredny StogUkraineDereivka I [I4112 / Grave 1]M5500-4800 BCERR:M734:18066156C->T;U5a2aMathieson 2017
Sredny StogUkraineDereivka I [I4111 / Grave 123]F5500-4800 BCE

U4dMathieson 2017
Sredny StogUkraineDereivka I [I4110 / Grave 73]M5500-4800 BCER1b1a (xR1b1a1a, xR1b1a1a2)R1b1a:A702:10038192G->A; R1b1a:FGC36:13822833G->T; R1b1a:FGC41:7900883C->A; R1b1a:L754:22889018G->A; R1b1a:L761:16773870A->G; R1b1a:L1345:21558298G->T; R1b1a:pF6271:23984056G->A; R1b1:L1349:22722580T->C; R1b:M343:2887824C->A; R1:CTS4075:15377120A->G; R1:CTS5611:16394489T->G; R1:F102:7854412A->G; R1:L875:16742224A->G; R1:p238:7771131G->A; etc
Mathieson 2017
Sredny StogUkraineDereivka I [I3717 / Grave 42]M5500-4800 BCEI2a2a1b1I2a2a1b1:L702:7629205C->T; I2a2a1:CTS9183:18732197A->G; I2a2a:p221:8353707C->A; I2a2:L37:17516123T->C; I2a2:L181:19077754G->T; I2a2:p218:17493630T->G; I2a:L460:7879415A->C; I:CTS88:2723755G->A; I:CTS674:6943522C->T; etcU5a2aMathieson 2017
Eneolithic (Stog/Post-Stog)UkraineRevova, kurgan 3 [R3.19a]M4274 ± 93 BC

U4Nikitin 2017
UkraineAlexandria : contact zone between Sredny Stog and others5000-3500 BCER1a1a1-M417H2a1aMathieson 2017


these are indeed Dereivka 5500-4800 BC and they look like a continuation of the mesolithic and Mariupol populations

nevertheless it looks like R1b1a-L754xP297 was in southern Russia, Ukraine and the Iron Gates
while R1b-P297 was more northern prior to the arrival of combed ware
 
these are indeed Dereivka 5500-4800 BC and they look like a continuation of the mesolithic and Mariupol populations
Yes, its true. Neolithic Dereivka still has old populations. But I want to remind to avoid confusion that Dereivka is a large burial ground and there are burials from different times (as in Zvejnieki). When we talk about Dereivka as pre-IE, we have in mind the later Eneolithic layers.
Here a little about this culture:
https://translate.google.ru/transla...u=http://генофонд.рф/?page_id=9312&edit-text=
 
There is also confusion due to the fact that the Early pre-corded Sredniy Stog (Old Neolthic Ukraine population) is a different culture with different roots than the late corded Sredniy Stog II (Eneolithic). Now sometimes the later Sredniy Stog II is distinguished in the Dereivka culture (link above).
 
Yes, its true. Neolithic Dereivka still has old populations. But I want to remind to avoid confusion that Dereivka is a large burial ground and there are burials from different times (as in Zvejnieki). When we talk about Dereivka as pre-IE, we have in mind the later Eneolithic layers.
Here a little about this culture:
https://translate.google.ru/transla...u=http://генофонд.рф/?page_id=9312&edit-text=

Good read. Went in to a little more detail than the source I had gone off of.

This is sort of like the problem with the big bang in that it's difficult to talk about the big bang at it' beginning (or prior), but it makes perfect sense to talk about moments following.

We're looking for this perfect beginning of PIE, but it couldn't have really happened like that. All of these populations were speaking something prior to the time frame for PIE that wasn't PIE, as defined, up to a period where PIE formed, then differentiated and dispersed. It would have been very fluid and complex. PIE may never even have existed as we think of it, or as it's reconstructed.

We can circumvent this problem if we talk about a pre-PIE, but this has no real definition. I guess what I'm getting at is that PIE could not have existed without a fully developed understanding of farming culture. And this is clearly not happening with Samara HGs, so even if the genes are clearly radiating out of the mesolithic Volga/(Baltic Y-lines), they could not have been speaking Indo-European until they contacted farmers. The language is a farming language. This is one of the problems with the steppe origin.

I don't think we'll ever be able to deduce a "homeland" because it never really existed in the way most people are thinking. And I honestly think that the mixing of the steppe and Balkan complexes is the most plausible mechanism at this point. But then of course we have this influx of Caucasian that some people are trying to ascribe a quasi-Mesopotamian identity which would have brought the farming lexicon through the mountains. I think the latter is less likely, but I'm getting pissed that we have no real Maykop genomes yet. I believe we got some mtDNA though.

I also need to keep reminding people that most Scythian samples (and ANI) had little to no Anatolian farmer in them. This strongly suggests that Yamnaya (at its Eastern fringes, at the very least) was already differentiated into Indo-Iranian.
 
This is sort of like the problem with the big bang in that it's difficult to talk about the big bang at it' beginning (or prior), but it makes perfect sense to talk about moments following.

We're looking for this perfect beginning of PIE, but it couldn't have really happened like that. All of these populations were speaking something prior to the time frame for PIE that wasn't PIE, as defined, up to a period where PIE formed, then differentiated and dispersed. It would have been very fluid and complex. PIE may never even have existed as we think of it, or as it's reconstructed.

And it seems to me the opposite. Paleogenetics will gradually put everything in its place and tell us more, where archeology is powerless. For example. Not so long ago it was almost axiomatically considered, Dnepro-Donetsk -> Sredny Stog -> different Indo-European cultures (opinions were different in fact, but it was one of mainstream) Now paleogenetics told us that the population of Dnepro-Donetsk and Sredny Stog (early) simply died out and was replaced by another population, and can not be ancestral for IE. We just removed the excess. And this question became a little closer to the truth.

But yes, I agree that many of these cultures were not speak IE, but I think something like IE. Also they were all culturally and genetical similar.
But we received our specific IE language only from one cultural group of people.

We can circumvent this problem if we talk about a pre-PIE, but this has no real definition. I guess what I'm getting at is that PIE could not have existed without a fully developed understanding of farming culture. And this is clearly not happening with Samara HGs, so even if the genes are clearly radiating out of the mesolithic Volga/(Baltic Y-lines), they could not have been speaking Indo-European until they contacted farmers. The language is a farming language. This is one of the problems with the steppe origin.

I don't think we'll ever be able to deduce a "homeland" because it never really existed in the way most people are thinking. And I honestly think that the mixing of the steppe and Balkan complexes is the most plausible mechanism at this point. But then of course we have this influx of Caucasian that some people are trying to ascribe a quasi-Mesopotamian identity which would have brought the farming lexicon through the mountains. I think the latter is less likely, but I'm getting pissed that we have no real Maykop genomes yet. I believe we got some mtDNA though.

In my opinion, the hypothetical migration of the proto-IE population from the Lower Don to the Eneolithic Dereivka region is a pretty beautiful solution to all the problems you have named.
By the way look opinion of a professional. Here, really everything converges and is explained:

The localization in the steppes and forest-steppes between the Dniester, the Lower Don and the Kuban of the first pastoral shepherds is in good agreement with the three main directions of the pre-Indo-European linguistic contacts. In the west, they directly bordered on the carriers of agricultural vocabulary of Middle Eastern origin (Trypillians), in the north-east - the Finno-Ugric, and to the southeast - the Kartvelian lexicon of the Caucasus
(c)Zaliznyak
 
And it seems to me the opposite. Paleogenetics will gradually put everything in its place and tell us more, where archeology is powerless. For example. Not so long ago it was almost axiomatically considered, Dnepro-Donetsk -> Sredny Stog -> different Indo-European cultures (opinions were different in fact, but it was one of mainstream) Now paleogenetics told us that the population of Dnepro-Donetsk and Sredny Stog (early) simply died out and was replaced by another population, and can not be ancestral for IE. We just removed the excess. And this question became a little closer to the truth.

But yes, I agree that many of these cultures were not speak IE, but I think something like IE. Also they were all culturally and genetical similar.
But we received our specific IE language only from one cultural group of people.



In my opinion, the hypothetical migration of the proto-IE population from the Lower Don to the Eneolithic Dereivka region is a pretty beautiful solution to all the problems you have named.
By the way look opinion of a professional. Here, really everything converges and is explained:

I don't disagree with much of what you say.

I do think you're putting too much in the genetics. There's Yamnaya burials in Bulgaria that are 40% EEF, and, archaeologically, Dneiper Donets still looks nearly identical to Samara whereas the genetics disagree.

Sure, we probably have a pre-farming IE in Samara and or the Baltic from which early dispersals radiate. But what exactly is the mechanism?

Essentially what you're saying is that latter Srendy Stog = Western Khvalynsk, which I can buy, but Khvalynsk is way less farmer than Sredny Stog and PIE is very very farmer.
 
I don't disagree with much of what you say.

I do think you're putting too much in the genetics. There's Yamnaya burials in Bulgaria that are 40% EEF, and, archaeologically, Dneiper Donets still looks nearly identical to Samara whereas the genetics disagree.

And you imagine 15-20 years ago all these archaeological cultures. There it is not clear who came from and when, only very roughly speaking (There even genesis of Andronovo was very weird, and not from CW). And now we have a lot of logical constructions due to paleogenetics. As in criminalistics, dna made a revolution in archeology.

Essentially what you're saying is that latter Srendy Stog = Western Khvalynsk, which I can buy, but Khvalynsk is way less farmer than Sredny Stog and PIE is very very farmer.

The basic view is that the main lexicon of the IE is pastoral, or even supposedly "mesolithic". (which is exactly happened in western Khvalynsk)
Then they came to Dereivka, and began to contact with Trypillians and borrowed their neolithic vocabulary for the agriculture. It seems that everything is logical to me.
 
@Holderlin+@Dov
Very interesting posts, trying to put some light into this intricated successions of cultures.
Languages comparisons could put languages close or far according to lexicon as opposed to grammar, both as as opposed to phonetic trends.
I lack knowledge about the ties between agricultural and pastoral vocabularies of diverse linguistic groups; a deep study about this could help here, I think. A possibility could be that a language spoken in Steppes gained strength about the 5000/4000 BC and borrowed agricultural lexicon from Tripolye influenced cultures of West Steppes; what would not exclude some other loans from other cultures (South Caucasus? or else?);
A good "fusion" in Steppes could have produced a partly new language rather homogenous NOW (after loans) before radiation/diffusion under the form of an homogenous enough "PIE", creating the impression of a cool history without any tribulation in the language? At those times these loanwords borrowed through the same filter on a short enough period would show provisory homogeneity and after that would undergo the same phonetic evolutionS than "genuine" PIE words among the "daughters" languages.
Maybe sometime archeology and genetics will find an agreement? Without more data I guess that a lot of the agricultural vocabulary came from Tripolye culture; Catacombs seemed more agricultural than Yamnaya and physically more akin to East-Central Europe, at least the western Catacombs. But where came Catacombs from? Maybe a melting pot? In fact its physical heterogeneity between subgroups (same for mt DNA between West and East?) and the case of western types and DNA in later eastern Steppes cultures point towards a brewing West/East-East/West spanning a long enough time, I think. But if what I say is sensible (loanwords in a short enough time) we can consider that the agricultural package was obtained from West for the most, soon enough, and transmitted only after to East, where by the way, stoke breeding seemed stronger than plants culture. The 'satem' trend, as said by forumers here and there, could have been born early enough, perhaps as soon as CWC, during some language transmission to unkown groups of North-East or East.
&:I was said that the PIE agricultural lexicon was not so developped as believed at first. In accord with what Dov wrote.
&&: this doesn't say us too precisely from where came the pre-agricultural PIE.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dov
And you imagine 15-20 years ago all these archaeological cultures. There it is not clear who came from and when, only very roughly speaking (There even genesis of Andronovo was very weird, and not from CW). And now we have a lot of logical constructions due to paleogenetics. As in criminalistics, dna made a revolution in archeology.



The basic view is that the main lexicon of the IE is pastoral, or even supposedly "mesolithic". (which is exactly happened in western Khvalynsk)
Then they came to Dereivka, and began to contact with Trypillians and borrowed their neolithic vocabulary for the agriculture. It seems that everything is logical to me.

I understand the archaeology doesn't allow a high resolution picture, but there are some things that you can't dismiss. Things like copper coming from the Balkans, and contemporaneous Dnieper-Donets and Samara layers possessing very similar material culture.

I don't disagree necessarily with a pre-farming-PIE in Samara, but it has no real linguistic definition. Also, Yamnaya has no Anatolian farmer, and yet you require the farming lexicon to come from mixing with the Balkans. It also sounds like you would need to see this in the genetics. This is problematic.

And I don't think we can say the the "main lexicon" is pastoral.
 
@Holderlin+@Dov
Very interesting posts, trying to put some light into this intricated successions of cultures.
Languages comparisons could put languages close or far according to lexicon as opposed to grammar, both as as opposed to phonetic trends.
I lack knowledge about the ties between agricultural and pastoral vocabularies of diverse linguistic groups; a deep study about this could help here, I think. A possibility could be that a language spoken in Steppes gained strength about the 5000/4000 BC and borrowed agricultural lexicon from Tripolye influenced cultures of West Steppes; what would not exclude some other loans from other cultures (South Caucasus? or else?);
A good "fusion" in Steppes could have produced a partly new language rather homogenous NOW (after loans) before radiation/diffusion under the form of an homogenous enough "PIE", creating the impression of a cool history without any tribulation in the language? At those times these loanwords borrowed through the same filter on a short enough period would show provisory homogeneity and after that would undergo the same phonetic evolutionS than "genuine" PIE words among the "daughters" languages.
Maybe sometime archeology and genetics will find an agreement? Without more data I guess that a lot of the agricultural vocabulary came from Tripolye culture; Catacombs seemed more agricultural than Yamnaya and physically more akin to East-Central Europe, at least the western Catacombs. But where came Catacombs from? Maybe a melting pot? In fact its physical heterogeneity between subgroups (same for mt DNA between West and East?) and the case of western types and DNA in later eastern Steppes cultures point towards a brewing West/East-East/West spanning a long enough time, I think. But if what I say is sensible (loanwords in a short enough time) we can consider that the agricultural package was obtained from West for the most, soon enough, and transmitted only after to East, where by the way, stoke breeding seemed stronger than plants culture. The 'satem' trend, as said by forumers here and there, could have been born early enough, perhaps as soon as CWC, during some language transmission to unkown groups of North-East or East.
&:I was said that the PIE agricultural lexicon was not so developped as believed at first. In accord with what Dov wrote.
&&: this doesn't say us too precisely from where came the pre-agricultural PIE.

Your mechanism of PIE formation is something like what I imagine.

It's hard to divorce PIE from farming. The Anatolian hypothesis exists for a reason.
 

This thread has been viewed 43809 times.

Back
Top