Where did the Anatolian branch of Indo-European originate?

halfalp said:
I explain myself, in Transcaucasia neolithic you have Anatolian and Iranian Farmers ancestry, Iranian Farmers having CHG, how do you separate what should be " Proper CHG " with " Iranian Farmers CHG "? How do you know if Iranian Farmers ancestry didn't pushed Proper CHG into the North in Mesolithic/Neolithic transition? How do you know for exemple that the CHG population of Pontic Steppe is not EHG/Iranian Farmers looking like Satsurblia-CHG because of the related ancestry? How a calculator can separate all those populations only by using modern genetic datas?
Click to expand...

I have made these questions myself, too. Maybe that's because I'm completely amateur in the subject, so it gets even more confusing than it already is by its very nature (trying to solve an incomplete puzzle, with several pieces missing). In the case of Transcaucasia, my only idea is that if Iranian Farmers did replace the CHG significantly then we should see a significant decrease in the WHG-related part of CHG (not present or negligible in Iran_Neolithic) in the calculators as the Neolithization process became more consolidated as far as the Early Bronze Age. Does that happen? I don't know.


As for the EHG/Iranian Farmer assumption isn't that exactly what David Reich seems to think is more probable in his recent book? I didn't read that point myself, but I was told so by some guy last week, who also showed me the print of pictures from his book. He seems to lean toward explaining the non-EHG part of the CA/BA Pontic-Caspian Steppe people as an admixture related to Iranian Farmers, not CHG proper.
 
Ygorcs said:
The main quibble I have with this is not even that it is kind of based on too many "ifs", but that languages rarely do indeed "become mixed". When we talk about the earliest origins of PIE, we're assuming the source of the fundamentals that made PIE different from other language groups. Japanese didn't stop being Japonic, English didn't stop being Germanic just because they literally absorbed more than half of their language from other language groups. The roots, the vast majority of the core vocabulary, the way the syntax and morphology functions, all of them is much more resilient against foreign influences and linguistic borrowings, despite the existence of Sprachbund, areal features and all of that. The "core" usually remains and distinguishes it from other language families, so we would still be able to point out the origin of the language despite all later superstrates. I doubt PIE was a sort of total "hybrid" (that's really a rare phenomenon in linguistics), but I think it's very likely that it was a bit like Japanese or Vietnamese absorbing a huge amount of vocabulary from the more advanced cultures nearby, especially if it was originally a hunter-gatherer language that managed to survive because its people shifted early enough to more intensive food production (agriculture/animal husbandry)
Click to expand...

I agree concerning the language at a certain stage of its history -
- firstable my aim was not to criticize any precise theory here; but speaking of the EEF (DNA) and Old Europe (cult.) possible input in purely theorical PIE genesis , I was saying I dont swallowed the Renfrew hypothesis of an IE allover-europe neolithic language;
- in a long time language history, I'm not sure a mix of different languages cannot produce finally a new grammar, and not only a mix of lexicons; if we take the English, I think it's grammar has suffered more influences from Celtic and French that what is commonly affirmed; it's arrived very different from pure Germanic languages; just a point, it does not predict my personal thoughts about PIE formation because I'm still in the darkness. Personally I don't see too much where the PIE could have find place between S-E Europe and S-W Asia groups of languages, spite I was looking for a rather well evolved culture for the language; but we have some prejudices sometimes concerning levels of culture and levels of language. My aim was also to try to explain the weak but surely real influence of Old Europe upon the ancient Cultures of the westernmost parts of the Steppes, at least on the auDNA level. Yamna is an other thing: but was Yamna the first element in the PIE genesis?: I don't know, even I would prefer a rather eastern place for PIE; Did not Yamna learn PIE at an early enough stage, spite it was maybe not the first promotor of i?t. To date I have no solid ground to predict the very place of PIE birth helas, even if your opinion could make sense and I could agree with it. So my hesitating posts are not in contradiction to your points.
 
MOESAN said:
I agree concerning the language at a certain stage of its history -
- firstable my aim was not to criticize any precise theory here; but speaking of the EEF (DNA) and Old Europe (cult.) possible input in purely theorical PIE genesis , I was saying I dont swallowed the Renfrew hypothesis of an IE allover-europe neolithic language;
- in a long time language history, I'm not sure a mix of different languages cannot produce finally a new grammar, and not only a mix of lexicons; if we take the English, I think it's grammar has suffered more influences from Celtic and French that what is commonly affirmed; it's arrived very different from pure Germanic languages; just a point, it does not predict my personal thoughts about PIE formation because I'm still in the darkness. Personally I don't see too much where the PIE could have find place between S-E Europe and S-W Asia groups of languages, spite I was looking for a rather well evolved culture for the language; but we have some prejudices sometimes concerning levels of culture and levels of language. My aim was also to try to explain the weak but surely real influence of Old Europe upon the ancient Cultures of the westernmost parts of the Steppes, at least on the auDNA level. Yamna is an other thing: but was Yamna the first element in the PIE genesis?: I don't know, even I would prefer a rather eastern place for PIE; Did not Yamna learn PIE at an early enough stage, spite it was maybe not the first promotor of i?t. To date I have no solid ground to predict the very place of PIE birth helas, even if your opinion could make sense and I could agree with it. So my hesitating posts are not in contradiction to your points.
Click to expand...

I do not agree with Renefrew because if PIE spreaded with agricolture we would have more traces of it in western asia and middle east so his theory is not built on solid ground. But there's an aspect in which Renefrew is right. IE proto-historical culture in the bronze age manifest a very structured kind of mind set ( sun cult, cremation, a refined philosophy like the ones we have in Greece and India) since these philosophies share a lot of traits they cannot have been borrowed from locals but they came from IE mindset. But it is impossible they derived from the steppe itself because we know they were basically war bands and nothing more than that. From whom did they borrow these refined cultural traits? IVC is to be ruled out because it cannot explain IE cultural traits in Europe. Also west asia for the same reasons. The only explanation possible is they borrow it from central western europe were it is not a coincidence that we find early manifestations of sun cult and cremation. above all now that we clearly know that aside from the cultural influences we can detect also a genetic input of farmers into Sredni Stog and Yamnaya. The question remains if the farmers managed to trigger a language change in the steppe in the time window of 4500-3500 or they just influenced in some fields the formation of PIE ( metallurgy and religion maybe). A strange and striking fact is that we cannot detect a linguistic influence from the west using other family languages. we know that PIE had relationship with caucasian and uralic but we can with absolute certainty rule out that the farmers spoke uralic or caucasian languages. but then the mystery deepens. Which kind of languages spoke the farmers? The absence of a third family language on PIE is striking. So apparently the only explanation is that despite mixing with them ( EEF+ WHG is present in ALL the historical IE speaking peoples) they left no traces whatsoever. Or ( as I believe) they left no traces of a third family language because the farmers too spoke IE.
 
Ygorcs said:
I have made these questions myself, too. Maybe that's because I'm completely amateur in the subject, so it gets even more confusing than it already is by its very nature (trying to solve an incomplete puzzle, with several pieces missing). In the case of Transcaucasia, my only idea is that if Iranian Farmers did replace the CHG significantly then we should see a significant decrease in the WHG-related part of CHG (not present or negligible in Iran_Neolithic) in the calculators as the Neolithization process became more consolidated as far as the Early Bronze Age. Does that happen? I don't know.


As for the EHG/Iranian Farmer assumption isn't that exactly what David Reich seems to think is more probable in his recent book? I didn't read that point myself, but I was told so by some guy last week, who also showed me the print of pictures from his book. He seems to lean toward explaining the non-EHG part of the CA/BA Pontic-Caspian Steppe people as an admixture related to Iranian Farmers, not CHG proper.
Click to expand...

I'am a complete amateur too, this is why i'm asking for vulgarization or transparence, explaining why and how they conclued their analysis. For what i understand from the Caucasus paper, all the sample doesn't have any CHG, in Transcaucasia it's Anatolia_Neo and Iran_Neo and in North Caucasia, the CHG/Iran_Neo tend to lean to an Iran_Neo terminology, why's that? CHG is older than Iran_Neo, so where those CHG went? Is Reich trying to say that the CHG signal in the recent paper is for him a Iran_Neo signal to prove a second migration? All this is shadowing, sometimes its CHG, sometimes Iran_Neo, but what are they using to differentiate the two? North Caucasus gonna always have WHG/EHG signals, so are they separating that signal from the Iran_Neo (wich is supposed to not have any WHG)? In my mind, if you have Iran_Neo and EHG it gives CHG, so why Reich is insisting that this CHG is Iran_Neo without any Archeological proofs that could be happlied to such pattern? The Iran_Neo samples like Ganj Dareh also have others admixtures in all graphics, like maybe ASI? that are not found in samples north of the caucasus, so how hypothetic Iranian Farmers in North Caucasus would look more like CHG than Ganj Dareh?
 
halfalp said:
I'am a complete amateur too, this is why i'm asking for vulgarization or transparence, explaining why and how they conclued their analysis. For what i understand from the Caucasus paper, all the sample doesn't have any CHG, in Transcaucasia it's Anatolia_Neo and Iran_Neo and in North Caucasia, the CHG/Iran_Neo tend to lean to an Iran_Neo terminology, why's that? CHG is older than Iran_Neo, so where those CHG went? Is Reich trying to say that the CHG signal in the recent paper is for him a Iran_Neo signal to prove a second migration? All this is shadowing, sometimes its CHG, sometimes Iran_Neo, but what are they using to differentiate the two? North Caucasus gonna always have WHG/EHG signals, so are they separating that signal from the Iran_Neo (wich is supposed to not have any WHG)? In my mind, if you have Iran_Neo and EHG it gives CHG, so why Reich is insisting that this CHG is Iran_Neo without any Archeological proofs that could be happlied to such pattern? The Iran_Neo samples like Ganj Dareh also have others admixtures in all graphics, like maybe ASI? that are not found in samples north of the caucasus, so how hypothetic Iranian Farmers in North Caucasus would look more like CHG than Ganj Dareh?
Click to expand...

maybe it's because it's hard to know what is CHG and what is iran neo? someone who knows how the calculators asign ancestry to these ancient groups could probably give you an answer. the CHG is based on a few(does anyone know which ones and how many?) ancient CHG samples. maybe these ancient samples have overlapping parts with iran neo and also EHG that are similar to each other and then its difficult to say what is what in modern samples.
 
Last edited:
Ailchu said:
maybe it's because it's hard to know what is CHG and what is iran neo? someone who knows how the calculators asign ancestry to these ancient groups could probably give you an answer. the CHG is based on a few(does anyone know which ones and how many?) ancient CHG samples. maybe these ancient samples have overlapping parts with iran neo and also EHG that are similar to each other and then its difficult to say what is what in modern samples.
Click to expand...

CHG or Teal was defined taking by two prehistoric samples from actual Georgia in Transcaucasia, Satsurblia and Kotias, the first being a paleolithic one and the second a mesolithic one. Represented by, from Satsurblia y-dna haplogroup J1* and for Kotias J2a. I'm not sure who came first between CHG and Iran_Neo, but Iran_Neo are represented by Ganj Dareh individuals from neolithic Zagros mountains. Roughly at the beginning it was like this: Iran_Neo = CHG + ANE | CHG = Iran_Neo + WHG/EHG. But those proxy probably have changed by now. And yes, i definitely need somebody who knows how the calculators works to understand how you seperate for exemple Proper WHG with Proper CHG in a same population. Exemple: A given population is modeled EHG + CHG with a 50/50 ratio, both EHG and CHG have WHG and ANE in different proportions. How then, do you know it is CHG and not Iran_Neo? How do you seperate the WHG from EHG and the WHG from CHG to know they are different?
 
etrusco said:
I do not agree with Renefrew because if PIE spreaded with agricolture we would have more traces of it in western asia and middle east so his theory is not built on solid ground. But there's an aspect in which Renefrew is right. IE proto-historical culture in the bronze age manifest a very structured kind of mind set ( sun cult, cremation, a refined philosophy like the ones we have in Greece and India) since these philosophies share a lot of traits they cannot have been borrowed from locals but they came from IE mindset. But it is impossible they derived from the steppe itself because we know they were basically war bands and nothing more than that. From whom did they borrow these refined cultural traits? IVC is to be ruled out because it cannot explain IE cultural traits in Europe. Also west asia for the same reasons. The only explanation possible is they borrow it from central western europe were it is not a coincidence that we find early manifestations of sun cult and cremation. above all now that we clearly know that aside from the cultural influences we can detect also a genetic input of farmers into Sredni Stog and Yamnaya. The question remains if the farmers managed to trigger a language change in the steppe in the time window of 4500-3500 or they just influenced in some fields the formation of PIE ( metallurgy and religion maybe). A strange and striking fact is that we cannot detect a linguistic influence from the west using other family languages. we know that PIE had relationship with caucasian and uralic but we can with absolute certainty rule out that the farmers spoke uralic or caucasian languages. but then the mystery deepens. Which kind of languages spoke the farmers? The absence of a third family language on PIE is striking. So apparently the only explanation is that despite mixing with them ( EEF+ WHG is present in ALL the historical IE speaking peoples) they left no traces whatsoever. Or ( as I believe) they left no traces of a third family language because the farmers too spoke IE.
Click to expand...

That last point is not very strong, because its premise (that they left no linguistic traces) is still very debatable. There were several non-IE languages in Europe until the Roman Era (and those were the few that were written down or talked about in written documents of other peoples, there were certainly several others), as well as clearly non-IE substrates in all IE branches that settled in Europe. If the farmers already spoke IE languages, we wouldn't expect such significant substrate influences from unknown but certainly non-IE language families, especially in Germanic and Greek. And of course there is still Basque being spoken nowadays exactly in one of the areas of modern Europe with a higher proportion of EEF ancestry. The paucity of pre-IE languages in Europe is quite easily explained by the virtually ubiquitouse presence (within Europe) of steppe-derived ancestry (suggestive of the expansion of Indo-Europeanized mixed populations) at least since the late Bronze Age/early Iron Age, which is when most of Europe started to have a modicum of literacy to leave written evidences of its languages.
 
class Biased{

public void weakExcuse(BA_Anatolian sample){

while(numberOfSamples != infinity)
{
if(sample.steppe > 0)
{
sample.culture = "invisible AnatolianIE elite";
}
else
{
sample.culture = "could be anything, who cares ?";
}
++numberOfSamples;
}

}

}
 
from the linguistic supplement of Daamgard et al 2018:

First, the lack of genetic indications for an intrusion into Anatoliarefutes 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. Second, the attestation of Anatolian Indo-European personal names in 25thcenturyBCEdecisively falsifies the Yamnaya culture as a possible archaeological horizon for PIE-speakers prior to the Anatolian Indo-European split. The period of Proto-Anatolian linguistic unity can now be placed in the 4thmillennium BCE and may have been contemporaneous with e.g. the Maykop culture (3700–3000 BCE), which influenced the formation and apparent westward migration of the Yamnaya and maintained commercial and cultural contact with the Anatolian highlands (Kristiansen et al. 2018). Our findings corroborate the Indo-Anatolian Hypothesis, which claims that Anatolian Indo-European split off from Proto-Indo-European first and that Anatolian Indo-European represents a sister rather than a daughter language. Our findings call for the identification of the speakers of Proto-Indo-Anatolian as a population earlier than the Yamnaya and late Maykop cultures
Click to expand...

Ok people, I'll take that bolded statment as true, Proto-Indo-Anatolian is earlier than Yamnaya and Late Maykop, what cultural sequnces lead to Anatolian speakers in Anatolia ? without having any EHG admixture ?

What Steppe culture pre Yamnaya could have lead to Anatolians ? but without EHG admixture ? convince me
 
I still must open athread about Tocharians, and Hettites,

what steppe culture that evolute to satem, could give the centum tocharian?

BMAC although genetically connected to Athanasevo (if remember correct)
gave centum language (tocharian)
while all steppe gave satem.
 
IronSide said:
from the linguistic supplement of Daamgard et al 2018:



Ok people, I'll take that bolded statment as true, Proto-Indo-Anatolian is earlier than Yamnaya and Late Maykop, what cultural sequnces lead to Anatolian speakers in Anatolia ? without having any EHG admixture ?

What Steppe culture pre Yamnaya could have lead to Anatolians ? but without EHG admixture ? convince me
Click to expand...

That's the million dollar question that not even the geneticisists and archaeologists are venturing too much into trying to give a definite answer. I myself don't know. However, if Proto-Indo-Anatolian also preceded Maykop, so Indo-European in the steppes probably existed even before Yamnaya too (still in the Copper Age possibly), I also don't know what non-EHG but heavily CHG (and minimally ANF) culture is a perfect fit and the best candidate for this sequence of events, with a split between 2 divergent languages in two distinct and distant ecosystems. Do you know some pre-Maykop culture that was demonstrably found in both the steppes and Transcaucasia? (not just some vague influences, it should necessarily be something transformative indicating a totally new ethnic element and material & abstract culture). This Anatolian situation is really a conundrum, especially if we're supposed to find the common source of Early PIE (Indo-Hittite) earlier, in the Neolithic or the beginning of the Chalcolithic.
 
Ygorcs said:
That's the million dollar question that not even the geneticisists and archaeologists are venturing too much into trying to give a definite answer. I myself don't know. However, if Proto-Indo-Anatolian also preceded Maykop, so Indo-European in the steppes probably existed even before Yamnaya too (still in the Copper Age possibly), I also don't know what non-EHG but heavily CHG (and minimally ANF) culture is a perfect fit and the best candidate for this sequence of events, with a split between 2 divergent languages in two distinct and distant ecosystems. Do you know some pre-Maykop culture that was demonstrably found in both the steppes and Transcaucasia? (not just some vague influences, it should necessarily be something transformative indicating a totally new ethnic element and material & abstract culture). This Anatolian situation is really a conundrum, especially if we're supposed to find the common source of Early PIE (Indo-Hittite) earlier, in the Neolithic or the beginning of the Chalcolithic.
Click to expand...

Well, Maykop Kurgans are similar to the earlier Leyla-Tepe culture, the culture has also been linked to the north Ubaid period monuments, in particular, with the settlements in the Eastern Anatolia Region (Arslantepe, Coruchu-tepe, Tepechik, etc.), these might have been a source of migration to West Anatolia.

Hahaha that's of course in the alternate reality of Indo-Anatolian actually emerging from Northern Mesopotamia.
 
IronSide said:
Well, Maykop Kurgans are similar to the earlier Leyla-Tepe culture, the culture has also been linked to the north Ubaid period monuments, in particular, with the settlements in the Eastern Anatolia Region (Arslantepe, Coruchu-tepe, Tepechik, etc.), these might have been a source of migration to West Anatolia.

Hahaha that's of course in the alternate reality of Indo-Anatolian actually emerging from Northern Mesopotamia.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're right, Leyla-Tepe or, if Early PIE is even more remote/archaic than we thought, even Shulaveri-Shomu are good candidates for now... BUT I really ask you (I don't know in fact): is there a solid cultural and economic trail in the archaeological record linking Leyla-Tepe to the Pontic-Caspian steppe, especially more northerly places not adjacent to the Caucasus, which were eventually associated with Yamnaya and apparently already had a lot of CHG in the Eneolithic (pre-Yamnaya)? Did Leyla-Tepe visibly expand to the steppes?
 
This is all complicated by the fact that if it is true that the "CHG like/Iran Neo like" component on the steppe is very, very old, I don't see how it could have brought even proto-PIE. Is pre-proto-IE a possibility?

That doesn't mean there aren't problems with the Balkan hypothesis. I don't see any actual archaeological trail from Ezero to Anatolia. It goes the other way. An abstract in the ICAANE thread makes the case for that east to west spread of technology even stronger.

Plus, there's the missing EHG signal. The Mycenaeans didn't have much, but they had some.

You can't have a hypothesis supported by phantom, untraceable, elites.
 
Ygorcs said:
Yes, you're right, Leyla-Tepe or, if Early PIE is even more remote/archaic than we thought, even Shulaveri-Shomu are good candidates for now... BUT I really ask you (I don't know in fact): is there a solid cultural and economic trail in the archaeological record linking Leyla-Tepe to the Pontic-Caspian steppe, especially more northerly places not adjacent to the Caucasus, which were eventually associated with Yamnaya and apparently already had a lot of CHG in the Eneolithic (pre-Yamnaya)? Did Leyla-Tepe visibly expand to the steppes?
Click to expand...

Leyla-Tepe are thoerized to be the ancestors of Maykop, Maykop transmitted to Yamnaya their carts, their bronze, and their kurgans, you could argue that if they transmit that then their religion also.

As for their genetics, I'd refer to my post on the last thread we spoke https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/36421-3000-years-old-Anatolian-personal-names-in-Ebla/page2?p=548131&viewfull=1#post548131

Modelling Yamnaya Samara from Eneolithic Samara is the correct way, not from Progress and Vonjuchka. people tried to do that in the past, they also needed two ancestries: 1-more CHG 2-more ANF, Maykop_Steppe outliers have these two.

some links from Davidski and Anthrogenica:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/08/genetic-and-archaeological-continuity.html
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6163-Dstats-and-qpAdm-with-EHG-Samara-Eneolithic-and-Yamnaya

Davidski uses Kotias and Hungary Neolithic in his modelling, as additional required ancestry to Yamnaya, CHG does not rise alone anymore, Chad rohlefsen in Anthrogeneica naturaly says that's geneflow from Maykop.
 
Can't wait for this question to be resolved - I'm backing a West Asian origin of the pre-proto-Indo-Europeans, with Anatolians being either those who didn't cross into the Steppe, or simply a relatively early reflux. West Asian origin of PPIE will, in my opinion, be ultimately related to the first proto-urban settlements of the Copper Age - whether or not these settlements, such as those from the Halaf and Starčevo-Körös cultures, were principally founded by, say, R1b-folk (which is my belief), or some other tribe, remains to be seen. There might be a lot of fighting over this, as people will undoubtably argue that whoever it turns out to be are some kind of civilisational race. There has to be one though, so hopefully all parties will be open to the truth - not like, for example, Zahi Hawass, who censored certain Y DNA results of ancient Egyptians, while releasing others. Given his hatred of the West, it's screamingly obvious what those censored results probably showed, but anyway.

People seem to forget about those pale, red-haired Chalcolithic Armenians sequenced a while back, and happily ignore evidence of people with such pigmentation having had an ancient presence in the Middle East - despite a highly endogamous and extremely urbanised Middle Eastern group still possessing those qualities in relative abundance today far in excess of what could be explained by European admixture (Ashkenazi Jews). These same people also ignore smoking-gun evidence of lighter pigmentation present from antiquity (e.g. with Ramses II), and make it out that the entire region was uniformly olive-brown skinned Orientalid types, from time immemorial - suggesting otherwise would be "racist", and that's "evil". The level of cognitive dissonance can be simply astounding - from both sides though, not just those who are rabid anti-Nordicists.

If only they could bloody get a move on though, it shouldn't take that long to do all this!
 
raspberry said:
"People seem to forget about those pale, red-haired Chalcolithic Armenians sequenced a while back, and happily ignore evidence of people with such pigmentation having had an ancient presence in the Middle East - despite a highly endogamous and extremely urbanised Middle Eastern group still possessing those qualities in relative abundance today far in excess of what could be explained by European admixture (Ashkenazi Jews)."
- what nonsense is this? What has this to do with the question where the PIE homeland was? Stop with this R1b-red hair nonsense (Maciamo should delete his map where he made a non existent correlation between these two things, people who have no clue always get mislead by that map). You mix unrelated things together (haplogroups have no relevance on your appearance, it is all in your autosomal DNA which is clearly not exclusively Near Eastern, so a European origin for your ginger hair is likely). I agree that the PIE homeland was south of the Caucasus but with nothing more of what you said. Interesting what complexes some people have.
Click to expand...

So basically, you don’t get why looking at haplogroups is important. I understand that being R1b won’t give you red hair, but it’s important to look at migrations - it’s far more complicated to do so with autosomal DNA.

Areas with high levels of rufosity tend to have higher levels of R1b, and this correlation is definitely statistically significant. How can people downplay the R1b-rufosity connection, it’s clear as day. If we link the two, and say that this mutation originated with or at least was primarily spread by R1b, now we can have a fingerprint for the historical presence of tribes with R1b-like admixture. And this applies to all red hair, except those in Australia, which is caused by a different mutation.

But you’re skipping the obvious point - those pale-skinned, red-haired Armenians from the Copper Age(!) fit very nicely with an immediate South Caucasus origin. And I’m saying, that looking at the archeological evidence and extrapolating, there’s a clear connection between R1b-like admixture (note - this wouldn’t be like R1b today in all probability) and the spread of early Copper Age settlements. Which nicely maps out PPIE ethnogenesis, and gives twin plausible solutions to the Anatolian problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 157100 times.

Back
Top