Anatolian Hypothesis: Lord Renfrew still a partial holdout

[Angela]

3rd Law of Behavior Genetics says that a substantial portion of the variation in complex human behavioral traits is not accounted for by either the effects of genes or families:

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721415580430

And this article says that even if you are directly descended from some group, it doesn't mean that you are behaviorally the same (one example are Vikings and modern Swedes):

https://archive.unews.utah.edu/news_releases/are-humans-evolving-faster/

"We aren’t the same as people even 1,000 or 2,000 years ago," he says, which may explain, for example, part of the difference between Viking invaders and their peaceful Swedish descendants.

Just like Puerto Rican bees are more peaceful than their ancestors due to soft selection on several genes.

I'll repeat:

"Please don't project your issues onto me. I'm not a "supremacist" of any type.

I just believe in following the logic wherever it takes me.

Btw, I don't consider a militaristic, highly patriarchal society an achievement or something to be lauded.

Their achievements are due to their borrowing from Minoan CULTURE.

How you interpret comments says much more about YOUR mindset than about mine."

I do find it amusing, however, when people who post over and over again about how things like intelligence all the way to GDP to heroism is based on genetics suddenly get religion and claim genetics don't count when some group with little connection to them has accomplished a great deal.

Like I said, you can't make this stuff up.

 

[Tomenable]

Also, as we know, you predicted so many things wrong, that only logical action is to acknowledge you are not very good at it and is to stop predicting. Let's stick to facts that we know and look with an open mind.

What did I predict wrong?

I don't recall predicting anything about Mycenaeans. Before claiming that I predicted something wrong, please post a link to my supposedly wrong prediction.

 

[Silesian]

Linear B Mycean symbol for wheel. Afro-Asiatic does not have a word for wheel.
One of the major conflicts between two super-powers-Hittites vs Egypt at the battle of Kadesh was for the valuable resource[trees-wood] in making wheels for the swift Egyptian chariot design. Deduced by logic the Egyptians could not invented war chariots, no proto Afro-Asiatic root word for wheel, and no wood, unless imported from the North or their conquered territories.

King Tut's ydns result's have never been made official, even after 6 -7 of being tested. Nor have they been retested. An easy way to prove one theory or another is release his or retest his dna.

[h=2]Origins[edit][/h]The Phoenician letter name ṭēth means "wheel", but the letter possibly (according to Brian Colless^{[citation needed]}) continues a Middle Bronze Age glyph named ṭab "good", Tav in Aramaic and Tov טוב‬ in Hebrew, ṭayyib طَيّب in modern Arabic, based on the nfr "good" hieroglyph:

 

[Tomenable]

I do find it amusing, however, when people who post over and over again about how things like intelligence all the way to GDP to heroism is based on genetics

I don't recall claiming such things, at least I didn't claim that these things are based exclusively on genetics. Genetics plays some role, but other things are also important.

On the other hand I remember arguing against LeBrok's and your claims about farming, hunter-gatherers and genetics, which were later disproven (and I was right). For example you guys claimed that hunter-gatherers were genetically incapable of learning how to farm. Which was disproven when several genomes of 100% hunter-gatherers (KO1 and few other samples) were found in cultural context of farming communities (which proves that cultural assimilation of HGs by farmers was taking place, as I claimed).

IIRC, LeBrok compared WHGs to First Nations in Canada and claimed that both groups are genetically incapable of sedentary lifestyle (which also shows that LeBrok is racist against First Nations - I've heard from other Canadians that racism against First Nations is widespread and more politically correct / acceptable than racism against Blacks or Jews).

You guys also claimed total replacement of HGs by farmers based on LBK samples, but later studies confirmed that hunter-gatherer communities continued to coexist with farming villages (not only in Gotland as this recent study shows, but also in some other parts of Europe) and gradually admixed with each other over the centuries (which is why Middle Neolithic genomes have more of WHG admixture than Early Neolithic).

For example Globular Amphora samples and Middle Neolithic Iberians are at least 25% WHG.

 

[Angela]

Linear B Mycean symbol for wheel. Afro-Asiatic does not have a word for wheel.
One of the major conflicts between two super-powers-Hittites vs Egypt at the battle of Kadesh was for the valuable resource[trees-wood] in making wheels for the swift Egyptian chariot design. Deduced by logic the Egyptians could not invented war chariots, no proto Afro-Asiatic root word for wheel, and no wood, unless imported from the North or their conquered territories.

King Tut's ydns result's have never been made official, even after 6 -7 of being tested. Nor have they been retested. An easy way to prove one theory or another is release his or retest his dna.

I'm trying to think of a more irrelevant post, but I can't manage it.

Tut was a member of ONE Egyptian dynasty, and he was a freaking genetic mess. I wouldn't bet on his brains being any more superior than his body. You think the accomplishments of the Egyptians were because of some stray yDna that made its way into one line that got to the throne? Please. Who cares if he carried some R1b lineage?

It's like people who obsess about what y Dna the early Roman emperors carried. The people who created the glory of Rome were the engineers, architects, traders, lawyers, writers, soldiers, etc., not the insanity scarred, idiot, nincompoops who wore the purple, with the exception of Julius and Augustus. Rome was great despite them, not because of them.

Who ever claimed, btw, that the Egyptians invented the chariot?

Is everything from you people a straw man argument?

 

[Promenade]

Not exactly, and either way I never payed attention to what he said, although I do not support the Kurgan hypothesis. [Someone could say that not the steppes but cultures grouped under the label Europe_LNBA (or a part of them) or Armenia_MLBA represents 'the Proto-Indoeuropeans', or someone could say that Iran Neolithic represents 'the Proto-Indoeuropeans' etc. ] In the study there are 12 models, by the way, one is like 89% 'Minoan', for example. Also since the steppe proper admixture is mostly EHG + Iran Neolithic/CHG the steppe-like admixture can be theoretically a result of two admixture events one from a population that had EHG but not Iran Neolithic and a second from a population who had Iran Neolithic/CHG but not EHG.

Do you really think two separate admixture events is possible for Greece? That EHG ancestry somehow came to Greece unadmixed? Minoans and even Peloponnese Neolithic already had CHG ancestry, yet they were not an IE people. Looking at the Bronze age balkans we can see the trickling down of Yamnaya ancestry increasingly over time, pure EHG somehow arriving in Greece on its own doesn't make any sense.

exactly Now you seem to start understand the dilema but Myceneans did not came from North, the most possible that came from S caucasus direct and if we combine the Vucedol theory from 1928 then the max North myceneans might reach was Vucedol around 2000 BC if we follow the old theory of1928 republished lately by Giannopoulos Max North is south areas of Baden the area I many times mention as Vatin or Vucocar how come so much J2 came from there or why so little Yamnaa came from there? I do not mention the ones we call NW Greeks or proto-Greeks they may have even Yamnaa origin they have nothing to Do with Yamnaa neither Iranians have to do, so how come Greco-Aryan has same vocabulary with N Europe forest culture, the Yamnaa culture, or corded ware etc? THING THAT WE NEED TO REALIZE IS THIS R1b of west Europe has Gedrosian Component But Lacks Caucasus component so it should be away or pass veryfast from Black sea Maykop Yamnaa etc Why R1b is so low at Caucasu component? and so rich at Gedrosia? !!!! EVEN AT BASQUEZ/Gasgones did't pass few centuries at Yamnaa or Maykop etc?what connection has Aryan vocabulary with cordedware forest area? maybe Iranians came from Yamnaa too? come on

Why do you claim it as if it is 100% proven the Mycenaeans did not come from the north through the balkans and had to come from Armenia through Anatolia? Lazaridis' paper mentioned both options as plausible, it is not settled yet which is correct. In either situation CWC lexicon about trees could have reached Greece through LNBA steppe cultures in the balkans or through Armenians originating from the Catacomb culture which had contact with the CWC. Baden looks similar to GAC in that they were neolithic farmers who adopted an IE like culture without receiving any steppe genetic input, J2 was found earlier in Neolithic Hungary so it's not odd that it is found in the Baden Culture. As for the Gedrosia admixture I already addressed this in the comment you're replying to, as well as how indo-aryan would be connected to the CWC(Through Sintashta). Also there is Yamnaya ancestry in Vucedol before 2500bc, long before the emergence of the Mycenaean culture in Greece. It should also be mentioned that by Anatolian hypothesis it is meant the spread of IE languages from Asia Minor, not the arrival of steppe ancestry to Greece through Anatolia from Armenia which is something completely different and still likely to have happened.

 

[Silesian]

Mildly inappropriate to classify scientific papers on ancient samples as strawman and make fun of someones physical attributes- personally I would say such a comment might be worthy of strawman-profiling or physical handicap-profiling; though I respect that every one has their own ideas . It does not surprise living in a day and age where diet-profiling is acceptable. Classifying people on the basis of drinking white milk, when that was a staple that allowed their ancestors to survive, as nazi-supremacists is really just another way of profiling; what next white rice, white bananas? I personally don't judge people by their phenotype or physical appearance or capability.
Eighteenth dynasty was famous, for every-one knows that his father did something completely out of touch with past Egyptian dynasties. The wealth and success of the 18 Dynasty and the achieiment of Hatshepsut and Tut's heretic [Akhenaten] father.

King Tut has had genetic sample being tested on him since 1967, so there must evidently be some interest.
https://jomarchant.com/390/tracking-down-a-long-lost-piece-of-king-tut

 

[Tomenable]

I have a question regarding this K=12 data from Mathieson 2017. Light green component - which peaks in CHG and Iran Neolithic samples - is apparently absent from Ukraine Eneolithic and Corded Ware, but present in Yamnaya. Does it indicate that Sredni Stog II (I6561 with R1a-M417) and Corded Ware had absolutely no any CHG / Iran Neolithic admixture? Or is some CHG admixture already included in the main orange steppe component, and light green in Yamnaya just indicates that they had some extra amount of "Gedrosian" (?) admixture?:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/09/19/135616.full.pdf

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/12/corded-ware-as-offshoot-of-hungarian.html

Maybe this light green is related to differences between "Caucasus" and "Gedrosian" admixtures?

 

[Tomenable]

I think that this K12 orange component must already include some CHG. Otherwise it would be identical with EHG.

Light green likely indicates some extra amount of CHG (or Iran Neolithic) admixture in Yamnaya vs. Sredni Stog II.

 

[Yetos]

Do you really think two separate admixture events is possible for Greece? That EHG ancestry somehow came to Greece unadmixed? Minoans and even Peloponnese Neolithic already had CHG ancestry, yet they were not an IE people. Looking at the Bronze age balkans we can see the trickling down of Yamnaya ancestry increasingly over time, pure EHG somehow arriving in Greece on its own doesn't make any sense. Why do you claim it as if it is 100% proven the Mycenaeans did not come from the north through the balkans and had to come from Armenia through Anatolia? Lazaridis' paper mentioned both options as plausible, it is not settled yet which is correct. In either situation CWC lexicon about trees could have reached Greece through LNBA steppe cultures in the balkans or through Armenians originating from the Catacomb culture which had contact with the CWC. Baden looks similar to GAC in that they were neolithic farmers who adopted an IE like culture without receiving any steppe genetic input, J2 was found earlier in Neolithic Hungary so it's not odd that it is found in the Baden Culture. As for the Gedrosia admixture I already addressed this in the comment you're replying to, as well as how indo-aryan would be connected to the CWC(Through Sintashta). Also there is Yamnaya ancestry in Vucedol before 2500bc, long before the emergence of the Mycenaean culture in Greece. It should also be mentioned that by Anatolian hypothesis it is meant the spread of IE languages from Asia Minor, not the arrival of steppe ancestry to Greece through Anatolia from Armenia which is something completely different and still likely to have happened.

simply even archaiology say so

 

[bicicleur 2]

I think that this K12 orange component must already include some CHG. Otherwise it would be identical with EHG.

Light green likely indicates some extra amount of CHG (or Iran Neolithic) admixture in Yamnaya vs. Sredni Stog II.

it's quite strange Ukraine eneo doesn't have CHG
the oldest CW sample (Estonian or Latvian? I don't recall) already had some CHG and he had no EEF yet
the Khvalynsk outlier had some CHG too

 

[Yetos]

Guys it simple

Renfrew theory
the pure first Anatolian Hypothesis
was dead from the begining
why?
cause supported as IE the neolithic farmers
cases like Otzi or the G2a2b2b1 of Kleitos
cause if it was a neolithic farmers then the name of metals should be different
I mean the plants and animals etc should have common name due to agricultural culture
but not the metals, cause they invented milleniums after
what we see at IE is that has common name for era metals,
so yes a wave with metal technology passed all over Europe either south, either North
This does not exclude that Neolithic spoke IE
but the connectivity of Otzi with Sardinians a mediterenean population drives us to a Caucasian language.
makes us wonder about the language of neolithic, while seems much better to be with the Bronze metal expand
although we know the love of this casta and their love for gold, which was a balkanic industry, a non Yamnaa neither steppe

on the other hand in the case of steppe and most possibly pastoralis and horse milk eaters
I do not see such neither at Myceneans neither At Yamnaans why?
we see the names of metals common to both Myceneans and Yamnaans
which is possible even if origin is steppe
BUT HOW come the trees and the plants that already prexisted Europe, before the bronze expand, have same name to N Europe, to Iran To Greece?
and not exist at steppe?
the most possible is that either they adopted them from neolithic farmers of Anatolia
or their primary land, the first land of IEans had such,
so if steppe is the land of IE why Myceneans who did not pass Yamnaa or N Europe have same names with Iran and N Europe?
this as also the gedrosian and the causasus component make me believe that IE was a S Caucasian or an Iranic origin
and possibly existed partially at Neolithic farmers,

the word is water, but Latin kept the previous which is close to Summerian the word aqua,
from the previous neolithic? or a close to Summerian non Yamnaa population also?

 

[Angela]

Do you really think two separate admixture events is possible for Greece? That EHG ancestry somehow came to Greece unadmixed? Minoans and even Peloponnese Neolithic already had CHG ancestry, yet they were not an IE people. Looking at the Bronze age balkans we can see the trickling down of Yamnaya ancestry increasingly over time, pure EHG somehow arriving in Greece on its own doesn't make any sense. Why do you claim it as if it is 100% proven the Mycenaeans did not come from the north through the balkans and had to come from Armenia through Anatolia? Lazaridis' paper mentioned both options as plausible, it is not settled yet which is correct. In either situation CWC lexicon about trees could have reached Greece through LNBA steppe cultures in the balkans or through Armenians originating from the Catacomb culture which had contact with the CWC. Baden looks similar to GAC in that they were neolithic farmers who adopted an IE like culture without receiving any steppe genetic input, J2 was found earlier in Neolithic Hungary so it's not odd that it is found in the Baden Culture. As for the Gedrosia admixture I already addressed this in the comment you're replying to, as well as how indo-aryan would be connected to the CWC(Through Sintashta). Also there is Yamnaya ancestry in Vucedol before 2500bc, long before the emergence of the Mycenaean culture in Greece. It should also be mentioned that by Anatolian hypothesis it is meant the spread of IE languages from Asia Minor, not the arrival of steppe ancestry to Greece through Anatolia from Armenia which is something completely different and still likely to have happened.

I don't see how anyone can logically argue against this.

@Silesian,
Please look up the definition of a straw man argument.

When someone implies that the accomplishments of the Egyptians are the result of the genetic make-up of one Pharaoh or one line of pharaohs, I fail to see how it is a straw man argument that this pharaoh was a genetic mess who would have been unable to accomplish or direct his people to accomplish anything whatsoever.

Plus, try not to get the Pharaohs all mixed up. It was Akhenaten who looked peculiar, for whatever reason.

Bringing all this up is for nought, however. Tut accomplished nothing of note, except for the luck involved in the fact that his tomb wasn't looted. Akhenaten spent most of his time on religious matters, which ultimately proved to have been time ill spent.

"Akhenaten tried to shift his culture from Egypt's traditional religion, but the shifts were not widely accepted. After his death, his monuments were dismantled and hidden, his statues were destroyed, and his name excluded from the king lists.^[12]Traditional religious practice was gradually restored, and when some dozen years later rulers without clear rights of succession from the 18th Dynasty founded a new dynasty, they discredited Akhenaten and his immediate successors, referring to Akhenaten himself as "the enemy" or "that criminal" in archival records."

It was the succeeding dynasty, by most accounts descending from a commoner, which brought Egypt to its greatest glory.

 

[Tomenable]

it's quite strange Ukraine eneo doesn't have CHG
the oldest CW sample (Estonian or Latvian? I don't recall) already had some CHG and he had no EEF yet
the Khvalynsk outlier had some CHG too

I'm sure that this orange component also includes some CHG or something CHG-like.

Already Khvalynsk had CHG, and from previous papers we know that CWC had it too.

Does anyone know what exactly is "Gedrosia" and "Caucasus" from Dodecad K12b? These are components based on modern populations. Are both of these components related to CHG and Iran Neolithic?

Maybe CHG admixture on the Steppe was not from one source, but from a few sources.

 

[IronSide]

I'm sure that this orange component also includes some CHG or something CHG-like.

Already Khvalynsk had CHG, and from previous papers we know that CWC had it too.

Does anyone know what exactly is "Gedrosia" and "Caucasus" from Dodecad K12b? These are components based on modern populations. Are both of these components related to CHG and Iran Neolithic?

Maybe CHG admixture on the Steppe was not from one source, but from a few sources.

Gedrosia in modern populations is a component that is highest in the Baloch and Brahui peoples, while Caucasus is the main component of Georgians, Abkhazians, and other Caucasian peoples.

In an ancient context, Iran Neolithic was extremely high in Gedrosia, while CHG were high in Caucasus as well as Gedrosia, we know from Genetic structure of the world first farmers that CHG can be modelled as 72% Iran Neolithic like and 28% European hunter-gatherers, Iran Neolithic is a mix of Basal Eurasian and an ANE like population.

IMO, Caucasus and Gedrosia are composed from the same elements, ANE and Basal, but Caucasus includes more EHG and WHG.

This is IranNeo in Dodecad K12b

Population
Gedrosia	67.02
Siberian	-
Northwest_African	-
Southeast_Asian	-
Atlantic_Med	-
North_European	-
South_Asian	6.25
East_African	-
Southwest_Asian	5.28
East_Asian	-
Caucasus	19.91
Sub_Saharan	1.55

Iran Chalcolithic:

Population
Gedrosia	38.56
Siberian	-
Northwest_African	-
Southeast_Asian	-
Atlantic_Med	-
North_European	-
South_Asian	1.19
East_African	-
Southwest_Asian	11.42
East_Asian	-
Caucasus	48.74
Sub_Saharan	0.09

Kotias CHG:

Population
Gedrosia	34.94
Siberian	0.98
Northwest_African	-
Southeast_Asian	-
Atlantic_Med	-
North_European	9.76
South_Asian	1.17
East_African	-
Southwest_Asian	-
East_Asian	-
Caucasus	47.18
Sub_Saharan	5.95

 

[Silesian]

@Angela

When someone implies that the accomplishments of the Egyptians are the result of the genetic make-up of one Pharaoh or one line of pharaohs, I fail to see how it is a straw man argument that this pharaoh was a genetic mess who would have been unable to accomplish or direct his people to accomplish anything whatsoever.

Plus, try not to get the Pharaohs all mixed up. It was Akhenaten who looked peculiar, for whatever reason.

Bringing all this up is for nought, however. Tut accomplished nothing of note, except for the luck involved in the fact that his tomb wasn't looted. Akhenaten spent most of his time on religious matters, which ultimately proved to have been time ill spent.

"Akhenaten tried to shift his culture from Egypt's traditional religion, but the shifts were not widely accepted. After his death, his monuments were dismantled and hidden, his statues were destroyed, and his name excluded from the king lists.^[12]Traditional religious practice was gradually restored, and when some dozen years later rulers without clear rights of succession from the 18th Dynasty founded a new dynasty, they discredited Akhenaten and his immediate successors, referring to Akhenaten himself as "the enemy" or "that criminal" in archival records."

It was the succeeding dynasty, by most accounts descending from a commoner, which brought Egypt to its greatest glory.

RamessesII-19 Dynasty was good at signing peace treaty the Indo-European Hattusili-Battle of Kadesh.
However that is not what is of interest. It's the use of the wheel and chariot, and wagon. Egypt accomplished building the pyramids, not an easy feat, the use of wheels and wagons would be great to transport tools and food stuffs for example. To show they had shared a common word for wheel from Proto-Afro-Asiatics, and shared with [Phoenicians >borrowed from Egyptian heiroglyphics] who in turn shared their written alphabet as sea-faring people.
If Egypt did not have a use/word/ wood for wheels/wagons, just how did the Phoenicians acquire the symbol-in Greek known as Theta? We know Sintashta had spoked wheels, and earlier wagons were used by Yamnaya culture. This is the reason for wanting to know the genetic identity of the Eighteenth, were they native to Egypt, then we might get some insight were they acquired invented the use of wheel chariot and earlier use of wagons, like the distinct linguistic Sumerians.
[h=1]

[/h]

 

[Angela]

@Angela


RamessesII-19 Dynasty was good at signing peace treaty the Indo-European Hattusili-Battle of Kadesh.
However that is not what is of interest. It's the use of the wheel and chariot, and wagon. Egypt accomplished building the pyramids, not an easy feat, the use of wheels and wagons would be great to transport tools and food stuffs for example. To show they had shared a common word for wheel from Proto-Afro-Asiatics, and shared with [Phoenicians >borrowed from Egyptian heiroglyphics] who in turn shared their written alphabet as sea-faring people.
If Egypt did not have a use/word/ wood for wheels/wagons, just how did the Phoenicians acquire the symbol-in Greek known as Theta? We know Sintashta had spoked wheels, and earlier wagons were used by Yamnaya culture. This is the reason for wanting to know the genetic identity of the Eighteenth, were they native to Egypt, then we might get some insight were they acquired invented the use of wheel chariot and earlier use of wagons, like the distinct linguistic Sumerians.

I'm not following you at all. This dynasty was founded by a man who kicked the Hyksos OUT of Egypt. If he was R1b, then perhaps it was a situation like that of Somerled.

I don't see how it matters.

No one has ever suggested, to my knowledge, that the Egyptians invented the chariot. They certainly improved it immensely, however.

Start at 8:00

Nor is the might of Egypt or its importance to the world down to one technology. This is 1000 years after the building of the Pyramids, and before the great reigns of Ramses.

It should be obvious to anyone who has studied any history whatsoever that once an improvement was made, the knowledge spread like wildfire. That's they way it goes.

It was a mixed blessing. The fiscal drain of building these chariots, getting mounts and training the men has been suggested as one cause of the Bronze Age Collapse.

When will this mania to take over the glory of other civilizations for the aggrandizement of steppe peoples end? For the first time in my life I'm in sympathy with the "New Left". This is cultural appropriation on a truly gigantic scale.

 

[Ygorcs]

The well tested Greaco-Aryan even Greaco-Armenian CAN NOT BE EXPLAINED NEITHER BY KURGANNEITHER BY STEPPE THEORIES. and altough Yamnaa and Steppe seems very well in explanation of North Europe genetic and Linguistic THEY ARE TOTTALY OUT OF THINKING in South.so Renfrew's theory still is strong and well based

I really fail to see how the recent studies on the Mycenaeans and Minoans can reinforce Renfrew's increasingly out of touch hypotheses. There we have a Neolithic Greece with no steppe component at all, a Bronze Age Greece where the Minoans traditionally held to be more indigenous and non-IE really appear as a mix of EEF+(extra) CHG without any steppe admixture, and suddenly we know that the Mycenaeans are, out of "sheer coincidence", the only Bronze Age Greeks with a minor but noticeable steppe admixture (and they are certainly not the first Proto-Greeks to arrive in Greece, but a people already totally diluted into the numerous Pre-Hellenic population). To me these data alone make it extremely improbable that Proto-Greeks had nothing to do with the Pontic-Caspian steppe. They were probably not direct immigrants from the steppes, but were certainly related to the Yamna horizon, either in the Balkans or, less likely, in the South Caucasus evidently admixed with the indigenous peoples there. To me, at least, the findings that Mycenaeans were only ~10% steppe-like perfectly fits what I had imagined for Proto-Greeks: a Balkanic people (Ezero? Cotofeni? Vucedol?) who had a heavy Pre-IE substrate both in genetics and in language and had undergone a deep process of cultural shift by elite dominance . as expressed after 2011 by Greenhill Gray Atkinson

Greek Celtic Ikkos Ippos Hepphew Germanic Ars Mars Aryan Cappa (Capadawa cappadaka) So if Antony is correct why the horse is different in South? should the main theme of the basic material of IE culture should the same? BUT IS NOT. WHY?

Languages often have synonyms for very common animals in the given culture of that society. In the Northeast of Brazil, where donkeys were a major livestock for transport and agricultural techniques, we have "jumento", "jegue", "asno" and other words. It's perfectly normal. See how easily "equus" was replaced by "caballus" in all Romance languages. Also, the Greek "hippos" doesn't come directly from PIE *hek'wos, it would've become a different word if it had followed the regular sound changes from PIE to Greek. I think it may well have come from another IE language that once bordered Proto-Greek. Also, the same root *hek'wos is found in the vast majority of IE groupings, including the Northern ones. The Germanic root that gave us "horse" comes from an affectionate euphemism meaning basically "the swift one", but still you had "eoh" in Old English and "jór" in Icelandic directly descended from *hek'wos. So, it doesn't look like the northern and the southern branches were all that different between themselves. Greek actually shares more isoglosses with "northern" groups like Indo-Iranian (once the main group spoken in the steppes) and Balto-Slavic than other IE branches.

 

[Ygorcs]

As for the 4-18 % of Myceneans I can tell you this in N Greece the Slavic admixture is 20-25% and in some spotted areas reach 35% was this % able to change tottaly language?

That is one situation. Right to the east of these Northern Greek areas, you have Turkey where a minor East Asian+Central Asian component (presumably Turkic influx) of at most 20% was capable to shift the language of one of the most populated regions of the world in the Middle Ages

Καστανον chestnut kastanie karycnievy castan

Basic rule of linguistics: if the words look way too similar in meaning and in phonetic form for branches that are supposed to have diverged thousands of years ago, the odds are that you're dealing with a very widespread loanword. "Castan", "kastanie", "chestnut" are all too similar, there doesn't seem to have happened a lot of regular and historic sound changes there. A root that in Romance gave "castagna, castaña" would probably be something like *hasten, *hassen in Germanic. In fact, as you can look in the dictionaries, "chestnut" comes from "chesten, chestaine", the French derivative of "castanea", which by itself is the Latin loanword borrowed from Greek "kastánea". These words didn't come from Neolithic/Chalcolithic PIE, but from much later.

 

[Ygorcs]

I agree, we aren't going to settle where the IE language came to Greece right now, but it seems clear it was accompanied by an increase in steppe admixture regardless. I am not saying the Mycenaean's were direct transplant from the steppe either genetically or culturally, that is ridiculous, but an incursion from a people harboring steppe ancestry brought foundations of the IE Greek language.

I think there should be more attention to investigate, maybe linking it with population genetics, the linguistic hypothesis (I'd read an article on it months ago) that PIE was the result of heavy grammatical influence and vocabulary borrowing imposed by a language related to the Northwestern Caucasian branch onto an EHG/Eurasian Steppe language. It really did make sense to me on many linguistic (like supposed links of PIE with Northwestern Caucasian and also a bit with Kartvelian), historical and genetic grounds (heavy influx of CHG into a previous EHG population). It also could maybe explain why Neolithic Pontic-Caspian Steppe is mainly a R1a and I2 landscape, but R1b increasingly appeared later. Still in the present age the highest diversity of R1b is in North/Northeastern Anatolia and the Southern Caucasus, and there is a clear concentration of R1b in that region compared to the neighboring Anatolian and Caucasian areas.