Anatolian Hypothesis: Lord Renfrew still a partial holdout

[Ygorcs]

What are they? What are the laws that give eoh in Old English?

"hippos" was the Attic Greek word, the word was different in Mycenean and other dialects (*ikwos -> ikkos in Aeolic).
There is one thing that is unexplained based on the reconstructed word (the /i/).

If you know the relevant sound laws for Greek I have a question to make.

Hi. I'm only aware of the most basic sound laws from PIE to Greek, but I can try to learn more about it if and when the subject requires us to do so. As for the transition from *hék'wos to Old English "eoh", with just a bit of speculation but also some scientific knowledge on Proto-Germanic all I can say is that the path from PIE to OE looks very natural and unsurprising: Early PIE *h1ek'wos > LPIE *ek'wos > Pre-PGM *ekwos > Pre-PGM *ehwos, ehwas > PGM *ehwaz > West Germanic *eehwa, *eehwe > Early OE *eohe > "eoh".

 

[Ygorcs]

My issue with this is what group would have brought R1b from the Caucasus to the steppe? It does not appear in the Caucasus until the Kura-araxes culture, long after we see R1b in the steppe. Earlier in the chalcolithic the predominate haplogroup in Armenia is L1a and we find steppe ancestry in both populations. CHG's also had y-dna J2 and likewise the spread of CHG ancestry south of the Caucasus follows the spread of J2, yet we find no J2 in the steppe. The Shulaveri-Shomu culture would be old enough to have been responsible for bringing R1b to the steppe, but we do not know their y-dna as far as I know.

Yes, this all still looks very vague and complicated, but I think those suggestive links really deserve to be better investigated. PIE seems to owe a lot to southern influences from the Chalcolithic Caucasus and Iran. R1b also doesn't appear (until now, afaik) in the Neolithic steppes, only rare, probably non-IE-related subclades of R1b in the Iron Gates, which is more than 1,000 km away from the eastern Pontic-Caspian steppe, near the Volga and the Caucasus, which is where "protypical" PIE apparently developed with the Yamna.

Meanwhile, I wouldn't be that sure for now that CHG always came in and spread in association with J2. Other branches of R1b, like R1b-V88, may well have been common in the Middle East and gained a totally "Mideastern" autosomal profile well before the IE expansions.The same could've happened with the high diversity of R1b in Northeastern Anatolia, the Black Sea region as far to the east as Georgia. R1b could well have been uncommon in Armenia, but concentrated in early times where it is even now clearly more diverse and more prevalent, around Trabzon (Turkey).

Y-DNA haplogroups get easily disconnected from specific autosomal profiles within just a few centuries. (Besides, according to Maciamo, if I'm not mistaken, certain subclades of J2b could possibly be related to the IE expansion. I can't see why that wouldn't be possible, or even that there was a CHG population with a particularly intense R1b founder effect, as is common now in the Caucasus, with autosomally and culturally similar peoples having a huge concentration of distinct haplogroups. Some Northeastern Caucasians, for example, are ~80% J1, and others a few kilometers apart are ~80% J2)

The almost certain links of PIE with Northwestern Caucasian and Kartvelian, even if there doesn't seem to be a particularly likely common origin, and the many cultural and genetic links with areas that are at least now CHG-dominant do not look like coincidences.

 

[Yetos]

But that's not relevant. Loanwords, especially and above all loanwards related to animals and plants, have been happening for thousands of years even when the language itself already has a native term to a similar subspecies or even to the same being. That doesn't even seem to be the case of chestnuts. The cultivation of chestnuts in Europe apparently dates to around 2,000 BC and the variants of the plant seem to have come from Turkey. It was also a very common food staple only in Southern Europe, beginning in the Balkans. Thus a Proto-Greek origin of the word is nothing but unsurprising. There is not only historic evidence for "chestnut, castaña, kastánea" being only loanwords, there are also solid linguistic bases. Following normal sound changes since PIE times, Greek "kastánea" should not give us English "chest[nut]" nor Latin "castanea", almost exactly the same word. This is enough for us to exclude the possibility of this word being very ancient in IE languages of different branches.

so you are telling that becomes was common in Balkans
has also same etymology in Iranic languages?
in fact as you said it may originated in Turkey,
that is good point for caucasian origin of IE

besides what about the tree that is in PIE as ptel-ela
Tilion πτελεα
what about oak tree, did that came from Balkans to West Europe?
what about Ulmus tree,
ww do not speak about tree like Orange κιτρον that was brought by Alexander
which Strangely or accidently although import from East has different names
we speak about common European trees ok?
so instead of finding a cheery picked even for one tree, better search the forest.
in fact that commonality was the main theme for Anatolian hypothesis
but was the metal onomatology that shook it and ram it down,

cause if I follow that Logic, as you describe it above
THEN IT IS MOST EASY THAT WORD KA-KO copper as the computer
might be from fast expand of metalurgy than from IE marching North and West,


PS
this has nothing to do with stupid Nordisism or Baltisism or Meditteranism,
All are IE today, and world is moving so fast so all have equal chance to prove their 'superiority'
if that help some of us to feel better.

 

[Ygorcs]

so you are telling that becomes was common in Balkans
has also same etymology in Iranic languages?
in fact as you said it may originated in Turkey,
that is good point for caucasian origin of IE

I'm afraid you still did not understand my point. The phonetic forms of the words for "chestnut" in various IE branches are too similar for any of them to have come directly from PIE or IE early dialects 5,000 or even (if we're talking about a possible Anatolian origin including the Anatolian IE branch) more than 6,000 years ago.

There is no way the words would still resemble the basic root *kastan- so closely if they were that old and did spread through the many IE branches as part of their internal ancient vocabulary, not from much later borrowings. Also, the cultivation of chestnuts in Europe, beginning in 2,000 BC and really catching up in the Hellenistic and Roman eras, is some 2k-3k years too late to be related to PIE.

These plants and animals are mainly Mediterranean, and the steppe peoples wouldn't be incomers to a depopulated area: they were actually, as it increasingly shows in the genetic studies, a minority in Southern Europe. For me it's no surprise that the substrate languages gave them hundreds of nouns about the local nature - and, given the huge expansion of EEF and CHG just before the IEs, I wouldn't be surprised if those substrates were actually mostly belonging to just a handful of language families, what would explain, for example, several strikingly similar non-IE roots for plants and animals in Proto-Germanic and also in Proto-Greek. It isn't unlikely that many European and Anatolian EEF and CHG dominant people shared the same language family (when the Proto-Greeks arrived, they were there for "only" 4,000 years, and possibly some peoples were more successful in spreading and imposing their languages than others).

As for the rest of your message, sorry, but I could not understand your wording. Could you explain those ideas again in clearer and more organized terms?

 

[Ygorcs]

Was the proto-Afro-Euro-Dravidian tongue spoken in one of the Ice Age refugia in Southern Europe or the Balkans, with some of this group's descendants developing agriculture in Anatolia and the Levant?

I think it is highly unlikely that there was once such a common language instead of just neighboring languages maybe sharing areal features. These languages are associated with a huge territory and seem to be correlated with the expansion of haplogroups as diverse, unrelated and old as E1b1b, R1, J2 and perhaps even L. I don't think it is very plausible that all of them lived near to each other and shared the same language during the LGM.

 

[bicicleur 2]

I'm afraid you still did not understand my point. The phonetic forms of the words for "chestnut" in various IE branches are too similar for any of them to have come directly from PIE or IE early dialects 5,000 or even (if we're talking about a possible Anatolian origin including the Anatolian IE branch) more than 6,000 years ago.

There is no way the words would still resemble the basic root *kastan- so closely if they were that old and did spread through the many IE branches as part of their internal ancient vocabulary, not from much later borrowings. Also, the cultivation of chestnuts in Europe, beginning in 2,000 BC and really catching up in the Hellenistic and Roman eras, is some 2k-3k years too late to be related to PIE.

These plants and animals are mainly Mediterranean, and the steppe peoples wouldn't be incomers to a depopulated area: they were actually, as it increasingly shows in the genetic studies, a minority in Southern Europe. For me it's no surprise that the substrate languages gave them hundreds of nouns about the local nature - and, given the huge expansion of EEF and CHG just before the IEs, I wouldn't be surprised if those substrates were actually mostly belonging to just a handful of language families, what would explain, for example, several strikingly similar non-IE roots for plants and animals in Proto-Germanic and also in Proto-Greek. It isn't unlikely that many European and Anatolian EEF and CHG dominant people shared the same language family (when the Proto-Greeks arrived, they were there for "only" 4,000 years, and possibly some peoples were more successful in spreading and imposing their languages than others).

As for the rest of your message, sorry, but I could not understand your wording. Could you explain those ideas again in clearer and more organized terms?

thanks for explaining
you're very patient

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

Hi. I'm only aware of the most basic sound laws from PIE to Greek, but I can try to learn more about it if and when the subject requires us to do so. As for the transition from *hék'wos to Old English "eoh", with just a bit of speculation but also some scientific knowledge on Proto-Germanic all I can say is that the path from PIE to OE looks very natural and unsurprising: Early PIE *h1ek'wos > LPIE *ek'wos > Pre-PGM *ekwos > Pre-PGM *ehwos, ehwas > PGM *ehwaz > West Germanic *eehwa, *eehwe > Early OE *eohe > "eoh".

Concerning 'eoh' I didn't ask because I believe it is surprising. I asked you to mention the relevant sound laws at least after the reconstructed (unattested) PGM word. The reason I asked is because I believe you don't know them.

 

[Ygorcs]

Concerning 'eoh' I didn't ask because I believe it is surprising. I asked you to mention the relevant sound laws at least after the reconstructed (unattested) PGM word. The reason I asked is because I believe you don't know them.

Oh I see... but, well, so what? lol. That's what the reading of articles and books of expert and reknown linguists are for. You don't always need to know personally every details of a scientific process in order to believe the result of the analysis, do you? At least I hope you humbly don't even pretend you do know them. Honestly, yours was pretty much an irrelevant and uncalled for comment, but this is just a fun hobby to me anyway, so I won't get worked up and make this discussion longer than it obviously deserves (not) to be.

Getting back to the topic, it still remains a bit of a mystery for linguists how exactly a "hi-" appeared instead of the expected "e-" in the Attic (thanks for reminding) Greek word "hippos". It could've been influenced by another pre-IE word, suffered a change by analogy or alliteration, be-reborrowed from a later extinct IE branch, there are several possibilities/hypotheses.

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

Oh I see... but, well, so what? lol. That's what the reading of articles and books of expert and reknown linguists are for. You don't always need to know personally every details of a scientific process in order to believe the result of the analysis, do you? At least I hope you humbly don't even pretend you do know them. Honestly, yours was pretty much an irrelevant and uncalled for comment, but this is just a fun hobby to me anyway, so I won't get worked up and make this discussion longer than it obviously deserves (not) to be.

Getting back to the topic, it still remains a bit of a mystery for linguists how exactly a "hi-" appeared instead of the expected "e-" in the Attic (thanks for reminding) Greek word "hippos". It could've been influenced by another pre-IE word, suffered a change by analogy or alliteration, be-reborrowed from a later extinct IE branch, there are several possibilities/hypotheses.

What is the word we should expect from *k^wek^wlos in Balto-Slavic?

 

[Lenab]

*No other west asian group has this Mtdna.
*no Anatolian group has this Mtdna.
*No Iranian group has this Mtdna.
*later groups having this are : Yamnaya, Bell beakers, Unitece (i1), and H2 is more ubiquitous, even in eastern europe, and H15 is also seen in Yamanya .

Funny is ancestralJourneys, always so quick at adding new aDna, hasn t yet inserted the Shulaveri Dna in her website.... coverage was good enough to make Ian logans database, hence pretty good Dna coverage. Now imagine why she doesnt! :=)

Yes very true It's because West Asians are not the same as ancient times neither did West Asian have a single ethnicity

 

[Ygorcs]

What is the word we should expect from *k^wek^wlos in Balto-Slavic?

Due to the loss of labialization (kw > k) and the merger of short [o] with short [a], the regular development without any other external influence would've been "keklas", however it is also possible that, due to rounding influence of previous and following "kw", the [e] vowel had already shifted to [o] in some dialectal variants of PIE at least, giving *kwokwlos or at the least *kwukwlos (for instance, the implied reconstructed variant that gave the Ancient Greek and the Tocharian "wheel" words also included such a rounding of the vowel, *kwukwlos). From a variant *kwokwlos (very plausible considering how naturally [we] tends to shift into [wo]) the transition to Proto-Balto-Slavic *kaklas is very straightforward and totally regular: kwokwlos > koklos > kaklas. But, anyway, this is just an explanation and a proposal for debate for the other nice users of this forum, because of course I'm totally sure that you weren't genuinely asking it, but just - as I've already been clearly informed - making some vain tests.

 

[Lenab]

What on earth is a Proto Balkan Slav Slavs came to the Balkans during the Middle Ages?

 

[Yetos]

Oh I see... but, well, so what? lol. That's what the reading of articles and books of expert and reknown linguists are for. You don't always need to know personally every details of a scientific process in order to believe the result of the analysis, do you? At least I hope you humbly don't even pretend you do know them. Honestly, yours was pretty much an irrelevant and uncalled for comment, but this is just a fun hobby to me anyway, so I won't get worked up and make this discussion longer than it obviously deserves (not) to be.

Getting back to the topic, it still remains a bit of a mystery for linguists how exactly a "hi-" appeared instead of the expected "e-" in the Attic (thanks for reminding) Greek word "hippos". It could've been influenced by another pre-IE word, suffered a change by analogy or alliteration, be-reborrowed from a later extinct IE branch, there are several possibilities/hypotheses.

Ygorcs

I sugest see this before you ask about the 'hi-' infront

ίππος < αρχαία ελληνική ἵππος < ινδοευρωπαϊκή (ρίζα) *h₁éḱwos < *h₁oh₁ḱu- (ταχύς)

Mycenean Greek *íkkʷos

cavalry knight horseriders
Greek ιπποτες hippotes
Mycenean Greek e-qe-ta was ικετες but turn επετες epetes instead/compare of Latin e-qe-ta equites


and lets say ok with kastanea
what about elm tree
what about oak tree
what about linden tree
Ulmus
ptel-ela

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

Due to the loss of labialization (kw > k) and the merger of short [o] with short [a], the regular development without any other external influence would've been "keklas", however it is also possible that, due to rounding influence of previous and following "kw", the [e] vowel had already shifted to [o] in some dialectal variants of PIE at least, giving *kwokwlos or at the least *kwukwlos (for instance, the implied reconstructed variant that gave the Ancient Greek and the Tocharian "wheel" words also included such a rounding of the vowel, *kwukwlos). From a variant *kwokwlos (very plausible considering how naturally [we] tends to shift into [wo]) the transition to Proto-Balto-Slavic *kaklas is very straightforward and totally regular: kwokwlos > koklos > kaklas. But, anyway, this is just an explanation and a proposal for debate for the other nice users of this forum, because of course I'm totally sure that you weren't genuinely asking it, but just - as I've already been clearly informed - making some vain tests.

A front vowel doesn't shift that easily to a back vowel. (Are we talking about a change from front mid vowel to back mid vowel or what? How open do you assume they were when non-Anatolian IE or Late PIE was spoken?)

I wanted to see if you would mention an o-grade root (if you had done that I would ask why that happened in some but not all daughter languages).

Neogrammarians had said that sound laws have no exceptions. If you say something like sometimes /e/ may shift to /u/ between labiovelars in Balto-Slavic (and/or Greek), you are making claims that aren't falsifiable.

A statement like /he/ (or /e/) may sometimes shift tο /hi/ (or /i/) is a statement that is equally and not more problematic.

Then another thing is if Baltic, Greek and Tocharian point to the existence of an /o/ or an /u/, then the reconstruction can be wrong.

 

[Ygorcs]

A front vowel doesn't shift that easily to a back vowel. (Are we talking about a change from front mid vowel to back mid vowel or what? How open do you assume they were when non-Anatolian IE or Late PIE was spoken?)

Actually, I do think it shifts that easily to a back vowel. There are literally dozens of examples of that kind of change ([e] to [o] under the influence of previous [w] or labialized sounds *kw- and *gw-). You can find both in the PIE stage itself (*wedr, from *wed-, "wet" > *wódr, "water) and in many of the daughter languages, especially from Late PIE to Latin:
1. Wekw-s > vox
2. Hweghw- > vovére
3. Gwerh3- > vorare
4. Sweyd- > soudor (Old Latin) > súdor
5. Swepnos > Swemnos > Somnus
6. Dewk- > Douco > Dúco

And also similar changes from [we] to [wo] or tu [wu] (later ) in other languages:

1. From LPIE to Common Slavic: welh- > volja; hrewg- > rug > rygati; gwer > gora; hew- > obut; hlewdh- > ljudïje.
2. From LPIE to English: werk > weorc > work; werh3 > word; gwem- > come, koma; dewk- > tow.
3. From LPIE to Greek: wiek-s > weikos > woikos > oikos.

I do not see why, if wodr- coming from wed- seems perfectly acceptable, and the shit from we- to o-, wo- or -u was so common in later IE languages, we could not explain the very minor and simple variance between an implied *kwekwlos and another *kwukwlos as a dialectal form. IE was probably never, even in its early stages, a completely homogeneous language devoid of any dialects. If the hypotheses are correct, even in its early stages in the steppes the IE-speaking territory was huge (somethin like the entire territory of modern France!), so dialectal variation, some of them quite idiosyncratical, was and is expected.

I wanted to see if you would mention an o-grade root (if you had done that I would ask why that happened in some but not all daughter languages).

You are free to mention and propose why or why not, if you wish. We will certainly be interested to know your takes on this subject. This is a forum of discussion for amateurs, so feel at home.

sometimes [/B]/e/ may shift to /u/ between labiovelars in Balto-Slavic (and/or Greek), you are making claims that aren't falsifiable.

Of course sound rules have no exceptions unless they are made null by other similarly relevant influences in the word (sometimes a sound change is barred or has its form changed because of the closeness of other given sounds), or even they are effectively made exceptions to the rule because of things like alliteration, analogy with similar words (generally with some similarity of context and meaning) or even other exceptional phenomena like hyper-correction and rhyming with other words.

No sound change at all explains Common Slavic devẽtĭ or Latin quinque or English four.They are all exceptions to the expected form given by regular sound rules, all of them triggered by the influence of a close and similar sound nearby (Proto-Italic *penkwe > *kwenkwe), or by the influence of an immediately following word with a similar form or even possibly by simple dissimilation leading people to differentiate one consonant from the other, e.g:

Pre-Proto-Slavic *newini, newin- leading to Common Slavic *devẽtĭ, closely followed by a very similar, if not for the *n, *desẽtĭ for "10"; the expected Germanic form *hwedwor gave *fedwor, later English "four", under the neighboring influence of *fimf). Not all words have their form (at least one of the variants of it, which eventually became dominant) directly explained by sound changes alone.

A statement like /he/ (or /e/) may sometimes shift tο /hi/ (or /i/) is a statement that is equally and not more problematic.

I do not think this is what happened. I think some other word or an adjective or noun that used to be spoken in conjunction with "horse", or then a very particular and peculiar sound rule in another now extinct IE language, triggered a change from the expected "e" to "hi". I do not think it was a straightforward evolution, but one influenced by other not strictly phonetic phenomena.

 

[Ygorcs]

Ygorcs

I sugest see this before you ask about the 'hi-' infront

ίππος < αρχαία ελληνική ἵππος < ινδοευρωπαϊκή (ρίζα) *h₁éḱwos < *h₁oh₁ḱu- (ταχύς)

Mycenean Greek *íkkʷos

cavalry knight horseriders
Greek ιπποτες hippotes
Mycenean Greek e-qe-ta was ικετες but turn επετες epetes instead/compare of Latin e-qe-ta equites

and lets say ok with kastanea
what about elm tree
what about oak tree
what about linden tree
Ulmus
ptel-ela

Each of them needs to be analysed by itself, but I'd say the possibilities are also the same if those words are also as similar and thus apparently not very ancient nor ancestral to the IE languages: loanwords from one IE language, substrate language a pre-IE language family, IE innovation to name a new concept or object (in that case, a tree found in their newly conquered territories) and eventually spread only through some dialects of IE (areal features, Sprachbound and all of that). I don't really think that all words shared by only a few IE languages or branches must go back to the very original PIE stage or to supposedly different PIE early languages.

As for "hippos", the problem is only that this [h] is unexplained. Mycenaean Greek as you say did not have it. Greek, at least Attic Greek as it was also reminded for us, had "hippos" when the normally expected evolution from Mycenaean "íkkos" would've been simply "ippos", with no [h].

 

[halfalp]

I wonder something, is it simply possible that R1b had a great range from Balkans, Baltic, Pontic Steppe and Ciscaucasia in the Mesolithic / Neolithic and that only the R1b from Ciscaucasia ( an Pontic R1b related ) that would have relations with Transcaucasus / Caucasus people have that CHG marker ? We can clearly says by now that we fail to link CHG with all R1b markers, even EEF dont have CHG, CHG seems to emerge in Europe in the Pontic Steppe but without CHG y-dna lineage. The only explanation is that some R1b saying from the Kouban region might exchange women ( a basic exogamic practice from sapiens ) with CHG related people ( we found some mtdna U4 in transcaucasia and middle-east in the time of chalcolithic ) but because Transcaucasia through Middle-East were culturally more interesting ( neolithic package ) the CHG signal is way more bigger in north than the EHG signal in south. The only other possibility is that Caucasus away, some R1b would have a circum Pontic range from Kouban region in north to Trabzon in south, meaning that North Anatolia and South Anatolia would be the territory of two different people the R1b in North and the G2a in South, the probleme is, there is absolutely none genetic link that could explain such a scenario and it would be difficult without any natural boundaries to explain two different genetic cluster in Anatolia.

 

[bicicleur 2]

that CHG admixture has spread all over Eastern Europe, not just in the steppe
the oldest CW in Estonia/Latvia had CHG before it had EEF admixture
mtDNA H2 seems to be around with the first CHG admixture

 

[halfalp]

that CHG admixture has spread all over Eastern Europe, not just in the steppe
the oldest CW in Estonia/Latvia had CHG before it had EEF admixture
mtDNA H2 seems to be around with the first CHG admixture

Yes, indeed, but what about my point, that some R1b subclades in Ciscaucasia could get the CHG component without any real population migration, just by exchange of woman with native CHG people. CHG component in steppe, doesn't come from Neolithic Old Europe, but likely from Caucasus but without any male lineage.

 

[Olympus Mons]

I wonder something, is it simply possible that R1b had a great range from Balkans, Baltic, Pontic Steppe and Ciscaucasia in the Mesolithic / Neolithic and that only the R1b from Ciscaucasia ( an Pontic R1b related ) that would have relations with Transcaucasus / Caucasus people have that CHG marker ? We can clearly says by now that we fail to link CHG with all R1b markers, even EEF dont have CHG, CHG seems to emerge in Europe in the Pontic Steppe but without CHG y-dna lineage. The only explanation is that some R1b saying from the Kouban region might exchange women ( a basic exogamic practice from sapiens ) with CHG related people ( we found some mtdna U4 in transcaucasia and middle-east in the time of chalcolithic ) but because Transcaucasia through Middle-East were culturally more interesting ( neolithic package ) the CHG signal is way more bigger in north than the EHG signal in south. The only other possibility is that Caucasus away, some R1b would have a circum Pontic range from Kouban region in north to Trabzon in south, meaning that North Anatolia and South Anatolia would be the territory of two different people the R1b in North and the G2a in South, the probleme is, there is absolutely none genetic link that could explain such a scenario and it would be difficult without any natural boundaries to explain two different genetic cluster in Anatolia.

Halalp,
There were natural barriers in Anatolia. There was a thick forrest that separated the Barcin Region (south) to the people living in south Black sea shores (like eg Fikirtepe) ,reason why agriculture jumped over thrace and somehow south Balkans. And yes, that is key and you are very correct. This is may take, just to reiterate.

1. Mesolithic pop, from Balkans/thrace, during 7^th millennia moved on east to south shores of black sea and like Iron gates they had lots of R1b. Hence the “srange” highly pastoral life style of Ovogorata, fikirtepe, Hogostihim, etc (conolly et al 2012)
2. During 6^th millennia they materialize in the form of Shulaveri-Shomu in south Caucasus. So a population of R1b. We do not have Y-dna (yet) but already know that they were “diferent” in terms of MtDna. H2+152, H15a1 and I1…. Not at all a local boys in Anatolia/Caucasus. This Mtdna is later associated with Steppe/yamnaya.
3. When Shulaveri disappeared from south Caucasus in the beginning of 5^th millennia (4900bc they were gone) some moved back to south shores Balck sea (hence KUM6 with Mtdna H2a) and some, lots, just like you said, move up north from Kuban river region. I truly don’t know if they already had much CHG (KUM6 shows they did, but not that much) but they did mingle with a “completely” CHG pop that might be in Kuban river and surroundings. Because from Kotias to Shulaveri there is a period where the south Caucasus shows not many people. Anyways Lazaridis still talks about CHG/Iran Neolithic)

However, these guys show up, 500-1000 years later mixed in so many steppe cultures, most still understudied, some ending up as Yamnaya. That is the reason why Steppe R1b sub clades, died in Steppe! But not language. Highly pastoral dads do not teach language. Their mothers do. That is why Y-dna was lost there, but not their language. Exogamy ruled.

1. So by these time (4900BC) you already have a PIE population, with R1b-(L23+) , moving into steppe, also moving back to Anatolia (north)… and other places, but that is a different story.