Anatolian Hypothesis: Lord Renfrew still a partial holdout

[halfalp]

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.

But it doesn't really make sense, because if R1b was in Thrace and Northern Anatolia in the time of Neolithic, they would come in Europe with all the other Neolithic y-dna haplogroups and be part of the EEF. It looks more like the Iron Gates HG were pushed north in Baltic and Steppic area and by there have a reexpansion by a population ( older than Yamnaya ) somehwere in Ciscaucasia / North Caspian with the newly CHG component. You are right for the specific mtdna haplogroups, but admit that R1b-Z2013 or R1b-L23 would be in Ciscaucasia they could be largely influenced by the Shulaveri-Shomu Culture. Also Shulaveri-Shomu have a lot of cultural trait that are totally absent from the steppe, like cremation in a giant Jar.

 

[Olympus Mons]

But it doesn't really make sense, .... totally absent from the steppe, like cremation in a giant Jar.

Hi ,
No, It makes all the sense.
a. Don’t know where you go that idea. Shulaveri burial were all in crouch position in inhouse pits (except one, in a large pit with several inhumations also in crouch positions.
b. You didn’t read carefully - Agricultural initial spread from Anatolia, skipped, jumped over, hopped, over Thrace and north Anatolia. North Anatolia/thrace, strangely enough, had agricultural sort of late. It went from Barcin into Greece and further way. It even looks like there was a back migration into north Anatolia of agricultural coming from the Balkans (7th M). That is what I said. That back migration came from Balkans (Bulgaria) an shores of Black sea.
That is why I say that the back migration is the “SPELT” migration. Because you find Spelt in the Balkans (like in Vinca), at the same time you find Spelt with the Shulaveri in south Caucasus. Spelt, always follow SPELT

 

[halfalp]

Hi ,No, It makes all the sense.a. Don’t know where you go that idea. Shulaveri burial were all in crouch position in inhouse pits (except one, in a large pit with several inhumations also in crouch positions. b. You didn’t read carefully - Agricultural initial spread from Anatolia, skipped, jumped over, hopped, over Thrace and north Anatolia. North Anatolia/thrace, strangely enough, had agricultural sort of late. It went from Barcin into Greece and further way. It even looks like there was a back migration into north Anatolia of agricultural coming from the Balkans (7th M). That is what I said. That back migration came from Balkans (Bulgaria) an shores of Black sea. That is why I say that the back migration is the “SPELT” migration. Because you find Spelt in the Balkans (like in Vinca), at the same time you find Spelt with the Shulaveri in south Caucasus. Spelt, always follow SPELT

There is no way, that two different population were neighbour in a place like Anatolia without influence themselves. But i guess everything's gonna be clear when the Caucasus study gonna be out. I can feel for sure that there is no way that transcaucasia before Yamnaya was R1b, just because of the history of haplogroup J in general. But hey ! who fought Baltic and Iron Gates HG were R1b before the studies, so who knows.

 

[Olympus Mons]

There is no way, that two different population were neighbour in a place like Anatolia without influence themselves. But i guess everything's gonna be clear when the Caucasus study gonna be out. I can feel for sure that there is no way that transcaucasia before Yamnaya was R1b, just because of the history of haplogroup J in general. But hey ! who fought Baltic and Iron Gates HG were R1b before the studies, so who knows.

Fst between Neolithic anatolia and Neolithic Iran was as big as a german and a Japanese today. And they lived for millennia 100 miles apart.

I agree. we will see. But I am sure we will have lots more surprises before all this is clear.

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

I wrote the following, which is partly relevant:
https://adaemon.wordpress.com/2018/01/05/the-horse-the-wheel-and-r-s-p-beekes/

‘Comparative Indo-European Linguistics – An Introduction’ is a book written originally by Robert S.P. Beekes.

Its second edition is revised and corrected by Michiel de Vaan.The book has a ‘primarily didactic character’ (see the Preface of the second edition) and that according to Michiel de Vaan means that someone shouldn’t expect to find references for all claims made. That is an interesting idea.

The Chapter 3 (p. 35-54) of the second edition is titled ‘The Culture and Origin of the Indo-Europeans’.It is generally based on the idea that we can use the ‘PIE vocabulary’ (reconstructed forms based on words that have survived but often not in all daughter languages and sometimes with shifted meaning). That seems almost ok if it is done with caution but we will see what it means for them.

No Cities
“Indo-Europeans”, they say, “didn’t have cities” even though “There is one word which seems to mean a similar concept, *p(o)lH- (Skt. pū́r, Lith. pilìs, Gr. pólis)”, they “know that this word in the beginning only referred to an enclosed space, often situated on high ground (cf. Greek akrópolis), where people retreated in times of danger.”They don’t mention how they know it though but I won’t focus on it. It would suffice to say though that we find the meaning ‘city’ in Greek, Sanskrit, Thracian (see the suffix -para often found in Thracian toponyms). Along with the data from Baltic languages (Lithuanian pilis, for example, means palace, castle, stronghold) we may reconstruct an original meaning ‘enclosed settlement’.

Houses made from wood
After informing us that the word for house was *dom and that “from that root we also have Goth. timrjan ‘to carpenter'”, they say that “without any doubt, the houses must have been made from wood”. That “without any doubt… must have been” seems interesting. No argument is used here. Now, I don’t know what materials ‘Indo-Europeans’ could have used but their certainty comes out of nowhere. At least, no linguistic argument can be used.

Cows and horses
Concerning domestic animals they say that “the most important domesticated animal was the cow *g^weh[SUB]3[/SUB]us" but also “hardly less important was the sheep *h[SUB]3[/SUB]euis, we also know the word for ‘lamb’ *h[SUB]2[/SUB]eg^wno" etc. How do they know that ‘the most important domesticated animal was the cow?’

And why don’t they use a linguistic argument to support it (here they could say for example that the word survives in many daughter languages).

Another claim out of nothing is the following “The horse was certainly the animal which more than any other characterized the Indo-Europeans”. What type of linguistic data can prove that statement to be true? No such data exist or can exist.

The same is true about the statement “The favorite domestic animal was without any doubt the ‘dog’, *ḱuōn”. Even though that is something very easy to believe, linguistic data just show that a word that meant ‘dog’ existed.

The wheel
Again after mentioning the reconstructed words for ‘carry, ride’ and ‘wheel’ etc. they say: “There is no question that we are dealing here with massive (as opposed to spoked) wheels, that is to say, wheels which were made out of one whole piece of wood ,such as that found in DeEese in Drenthe in the northeast of the Netherlands (from about 2400 B.C.), or with wheels made of planks of wood.”

And if I have doubts what is the argument that will convince me? I have to trust the Dutch scholars that the wheels Indo-Europeans had were like those found in in DeEese in Drenthe from about 2400 B.C.A large part of what they write concerning the culture of ‘Indo-Europeans’ are speculations based on their preconceived ideas and fantasies.

They have to admit some things though, for example that ‘Indo-Europeans’ seem to have been acquainted with agriculture, that words for weapons or gold and silver (at least) can’t be reconstructed etc., because otherwise the ideological character of the book would have been too evident.

The ideological character of the book is evident also because after or before even mentioning theories they don’t agree with like those of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov or Renfrew they write things like “but this theory is in fact very improbable”, “extremely improbable is the theory of the British archaeologist…” etc.

When they mention things Theodor Poeschke or Karl Penka wrote (they connected Indo-Europeans to blond and blue-eyed people) they don’t make any similar assessments but just say “We see here how considerations originating in physical anthropology played a role”(Whatever may follow that remark, in parentheses, probably serves as a diversion)

 

[halfalp]

Fst between Neolithic anatolia and Neolithic Iran was as big as a german and a Japanese today. And they lived for millennia 100 miles apart.

I agree. we will see. But I am sure we will have lots more surprises before all this is clear.

Yes i know both were distinct population, but i dont understand your point, you assume Neolithic Iran were R1b ?

 

[halfalp]

For me the flaw of the " Middle-Eastern " origin of R1b is that i can't conceive that, R1b from Central Asia -> Iran -> Transcaucasia -> Anatolia -> Balkans. If that scenario was the case, we would see way more Middle-Eastern maternal but also paternal lineage in Mesolithic Europe linking with R1b, wich is not the case. No population wanders in land in the search of the perfect Eden paradise, without stoping, they would stop at every place that would be a good living, once again they would take in passage a lot of Middle-Eastern maternal lineage. Look just at Neolithic Europe, G2a2 ok but also H2, E, T, F... Once again, we would see a lot of other Middle-Eastern paternal and maternal markers. Wich is not the case. The northern road doesn't have this flaw, because we assume that R haplogroup was the late paleolithic original Central Asian / Northern Asian paternal marker, that would have some classic paleolithic U maternal lineage markers like U2, U5a maybe U4 but also some siberian one, that we found in Mesolithic Eastern Europe like C. For me all this only show a classic case of " Neighboring ", Balkans and Anatolia exchanging some genetic and maybe Ciscaucasia and Transcaucasia doing the same, that after a lot of years reduced the genetic distant between europe and middle-east.

 

[Olympus Mons]

Yes i know both were distinct population, but i dont understand your point, you assume Neolithic Iran were R1b ?

Point is: in neolithic/mesolithic very close by populations were very, very, different.
And we have still very few samples.

 

[halfalp]

Point is: in neolithic/mesolithic very close by populations were very, very, different.
And we have still very few samples.

Well not so close, we dont know the exact range of the CHG-like population wich could be all Transcaucasia and being a genetic border between Anatolian who receive WHG genetic input and Iran. The question is, is Anatolian Neolithic and Iran Neolithic the same population genetically as Anatolian and Iran Mesolithic.

 

[Yetos]

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].

same is with Latin and celtic

equus
Hepphew

it is not the (h) BUT THE CHANGE Q->P which happens only in celtic and Greek

so instead of 'unexplained' (h) I suggest search the change Q->P
cause possibly even Latins were not a Yamnaa pop

 

[Ygorcs]

same is with Latin and celtic

equus
Hepphew

it is not the (h) BUT THE CHANGE Q->P which happens only in celtic and Greek

so instead of 'unexplained' (h) I suggest search the change Q->P
cause possibly even Latins were not a Yamnaa pop

Sorry, I did not understand your point. The change kw > p had at least 2,500 years between Early Yamna and Gaulish, for example, to happen, and as for the Latins their early form *equos was astoundingly similar to the reconstructed PIE *hekwos.

I did not get what you mean saying that "same is with Latin and Celtic". Latin and P-Celtic were distinct languages for perhaps 1,500-2,000 years when they were attested. And Proto-Celtic was almost certainly similar to Latin on the presence of *kw. After all, we still have Q-Celtic languages nowadays, where no change from kw > p happened at all.

That indicates, of course, that the forms like *epos and others of that kind are very late innovations, dating to even after the breakup of Proto-Celtic, which was itself a relatively late language, possibly dating only to the Urnfield culture (around 1,200 BC, i.e. som 2,000 years later than Yamna). The change from [kw] to [p] was late both in SOME, only SOME Celtic languages, and even in Greek (Mycenaean Greek did not have this change yet). Also this simple shift does not indicate strongly a common descent or even a mutual influence. It is a very common, unsurprising change, and it also happened in Romanian from Vulgar Latin (aqua > apa), without any need for Greek or Celtic influence. It happened even earlier in Oscan distinguishing it from other Italic languages like Latin (L. quis vs. O. pis).

P.S: What is this form *hepphew that you wrote? From what language is it? I can't identify it and it does not look Celtic. Celtic words for "horse" are all very straightforwardly derived from the PIE *hek'wos and Proto-Celtic reconstructed *ekwos: eb, ech, each, epos, ep, ekua-... I never saw a variant with [h], certainly not in Italic and Celtic.

 

[Ygorcs]

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.

Can you explain this point again? I don't get: whose Y-DNA was lost there in the steppes? That of supposedly R1b Shulaveri-Shomu mixed with local steppe tribes? Or do you mean that at least some steppe R1b tribes belonged to rare subclades replaced by the R1b subclades of Shulaveri-Shomu that would eventually boom, but the Proto-Indo-European language of steppe natives survived due to their mothers teaching it to their mixed children? Isn't CHG introgression supposed to have been bigger through the maternal line and not the paternal one, suggesting that any "southerner"incomers came with a lot of women?

 

[Yetos]

Sorry, I did not understand your point. The change kw > p had at least 2,500 years between Early Yamna and Gaulish, for example, to happen, and as for the Latins their early form *equos was astoundingly similar to the reconstructed PIE *hekwos.

I did not get what you mean saying that "same is with Latin and Celtic". Latin and P-Celtic were distinct languages for perhaps 1,500-2,000 years when they were attested. And Proto-Celtic was almost certainly similar to Latin on the presence of *kw. After all, we still have Q-Celtic languages nowadays, where no change from kw > p happened at all.

That indicates, of course, that the forms like *epos and others of that kind are very late innovations, dating to even after the breakup of Proto-Celtic, which was itself a relatively late language, possibly dating only to the Urnfield culture (around 1,200 BC, i.e. som 2,000 years later than Yamna). The change from [kw] to [p] was late both in SOME, only SOME Celtic languages, and even in Greek (Mycenaean Greek did not have this change yet). Also this simple shift does not indicate strongly a common descent or even a mutual influence. It is a very common, unsurprising change, and it also happened in Romanian from Vulgar Latin (aqua > apa), without any need for Greek or Celtic influence. It happened even earlier in Oscan distinguishing it from other Italic languages like Latin (L. quis vs. O. pis).

P.S: What is this form *hepphew that you wrote? From what language is it? I can't identify it and it does not look Celtic. Celtic words for "horse" are all very straightforwardly derived from the PIE *hek'wos and Proto-Celtic reconstructed *ekwos: eb, ech, each, epos, ep, ekua-... I never saw a variant with [h], certainly not in Italic and Celtic.

ygorcs

it is more simple
there is a change when Yamnaas reach W and S Europe IE languages
or another wave came at iron age that spoke different aspirations than the previous bronze age IE
it is called Q->P change
before Yamnaans the aspirations was Q after Yamnaas change to P
understanding that, IE was spoken to S Europe


as for the law you mention about 'e' and about the phonetic at the end

watch this
Latin minus (yodization?)
Greek Μειον meion (no yodization)

but Greek ippos but Epos
Celtic Hepphew but Epona

Mycenean ikkos (yodization)
Latin equus (no yodization)

what kind of phonetic law is the above?
minus bur meion
equus but ikkos
we speak about phonetics not aspirations of inner IE language evolution
so Latin shows yodization with nose vowel like n m even Italian do such compare - ini
while Greek prefer ε η ο with μ ν
and show yodization with older διγαμμα w,

North Europe auruch
S europe tauros


watch this for the phonoental pronouncation

Ὁ δ’ ἠλίθιος ὥσπερ πρόβατον βῆ βῆ λέγων βαδίζει! (Κρατινος ο Αθηναιος)
a cow Μυκαται
but a goat μηκαται

 

[Ygorcs]

ygorcs
it is more simple
there is a change when Yamnaas reach W and S Europe IE languages
or another wave came at iron age that spoke different aspirations than the previous bronze age IE
it is called Q->P change

As I already said above, this change is too late to have anything to do with Yamna. Proto-Italic and Proto-Celtic, which were already too late to be still Yamna or Yamna going to the west and south (both of those proto-languages are just the few surviving remnants of a much earlier western or possibly central European IE, dating to around 1,200-1,000 BC, almost 2,000 years after Yamna). And both Proto-Italic and Proto-Celtic HAD *KW (*qu) and many Celtic and Italic languages RETAINED THE QU- form (see Latin and Irish). ​Only some of them, way after the breakup of PIT and PCE, changed the *kw into a *p. That happened milennia after Yamna and well into the Iron Age. So, I don't think you can derive any hypothesis from this late and, actually, very repeatedly occurring sound change.

 

[MOESAN]

Sorry, I did not understand your point. The change kw > p had at least 2,500 years between Early Yamna and Gaulish, for example, to happen, and as for the Latins their early form *equos was astoundingly similar to the reconstructed PIE *hekwos.

I did not get what you mean saying that "same is with Latin and Celtic". Latin and P-Celtic were distinct languages for perhaps 1,500-2,000 years when they were attested. And Proto-Celtic was almost certainly similar to Latin on the presence of *kw. After all, we still have Q-Celtic languages nowadays, where no change from kw > p happened at all.

That indicates, of course, that the forms like *epos and others of that kind are very late innovations, dating to even after the breakup of Proto-Celtic, which was itself a relatively late language, possibly dating only to the Urnfield culture (around 1,200 BC, i.e. som 2,000 years later than Yamna). The change from [kw] to [p] was late both in SOME, only SOME Celtic languages, and even in Greek (Mycenaean Greek did not have this change yet). Also this simple shift does not indicate strongly a common descent or even a mutual influence. It is a very common, unsurprising change, and it also happened in Romanian from Vulgar Latin (aqua > apa), without any need for Greek or Celtic influence. It happened even earlier in Oscan distinguishing it from other Italic languages like Latin (L. quis vs. O. pis).

P.S: What is this form *hepphew that you wrote? From what language is it? I can't identify it and it does not look Celtic. Celtic words for "horse" are all very straightforwardly derived from the PIE *hek'wos and Proto-Celtic reconstructed *ekwos: eb, ech, each, epos, ep, ekua-... I never saw a variant with [h], certainly not in Italic and Celtic.

What makes you so sure of independant evolution Kw-/P in Europe (at least)? it seems all the pops or parts of pops who knowed this evolution have had very possible contacts around Hungary at beginning of IA or between Urnfields and IA. I would be more prudent here.
No offense, jus a point.

 

[Yetos]

Guys
I love you both

Now you came to my words

we know that Mycenians were not a Yamnaa pop
their language is estimate all know when
and till when still very active and not influenced

the change Q->P
starts at least at known languages (we do not know early Thracian)`
with Mycenean to Greek
and in West Europe later
that indicates another wave of Yamnaans or ystero-yamnaans or yamnaa apogonoi (by the term I mean the IE branches that are born or continue relativity of early yamnaa and not other branches)
adding more steppe admixture to Europe,

language is a vivid thing, it evolutes, take an example of Homerick Mycenean to modern Greek
a total continue evolution,
But aspirations are liitle be conservative than the vocabulary evolution
so each time big changes happened it is beacause a new dialect becomes lingua franga
or newcomers come.

thank you guys I love you

 

[MOESAN]

I made the hypothesis (only that, not a theory) that the change could be the mark of new elites in Central Europe; but this does not prove or disprove these new elites came from far East or Steppes; it could even be the result of an ancient partly local pop adopting I-E or having adopted it freshly and taking weight in the political-economical game - just thoughts in absence of serious clues.

 

[Milan.M]

Cows and horses
Concerning domestic animals they say that “the most important domesticated animal was the cow *g^weh[SUB]3[/SUB]us" but also “hardly less important was the sheep *h[SUB]3[/SUB]euis, we also know the word for ‘lamb’ *h[SUB]2[/SUB]eg^wno" etc. How do they know that ‘the most important domesticated animal was the cow?’

And why don’t they use a linguistic argument to support it (here they could say for example that the word survives in many daughter languages).

Another claim out of nothing is the following “The horse was certainly the animal which more than any other characterized the Indo-Europeans”. What type of linguistic data can prove that statement to be true? No such data exist or can exist.

The same is true about the statement “The favorite domestic animal was without any doubt the ‘dog’, *ḱuōn”. Even though that is something very easy to believe, linguistic data just show that a word that meant ‘dog’ existed.

I agree here and i could add that according to some daughter IE languages they did not distinguished between "horse" and "donkey".
For example Welsh march, Breton marc’h, and Old English mearh Old Saxon merge, meriha (“mare”), Dutch merrie (“mare”), Old High German marah (“horse”).

Compare
Albanian magar("donkey"),Romanian măgar("donkey") borrowing in South Slavic magare,magarac("donkey") id. Alternatively from *margar, from *margë

Another example
Latin equus, PIE *h₁éḱwos (“horse”). Cognates include Ancient Greek (híppos), Sanskrit (áśva) compare Old Armenian էշ (ēš, “donkey”) from same root.

Now the word "cavalry" riding of horses

Latin Caballus Welsh ceffyl, Manx cabbyl,Scottish Gaelic and Irish capall.Also compared is Ancient Greek καβάλλης (kabállēs, “nag”), in turn possibly a borrowing from a Balkan, Anatolian, or northeast European language. Compare Turkish kaval, adjunct of at (“horse”),Slavic *kobýla.


What kind of horses did "Indo Europeans" ride then?

For the oxen i do think that was most important animal of IE people but that is another topic,since much more relevance is given to horse,chariot or wheel.

 

[Ygorcs]

What makes you so sure of independant evolution Kw-/P in Europe (at least)? it seems all the pops or parts of pops who knowed this evolution have had very possible contacts around Hungary at beginning of IA or between Urnfields and IA. I would be more prudent here.
No offense, jus a point.

Very nice hypothesis, I find it reasonable. You are right that I (we) should be more prudent dealing with all these reconstructions. However, we need to fine tune the chronology here to see if this scenario is really plausible. If the Italic tribes and the Celtic tribes were still all around Hungary way after the breakup of Proto-Celtic and Proto-Italic, and well into the development of such distinct languages as Oscan and Gaulish, that may make sense. Otherwise, I don't think we could explain well why early Italic and early Celtic became "P-shifted" in some places and not in other places, if they were supposedly under the same areal influence or, perhaps, the same elite dominance. Proto-Celtic and Proto-Italic do not show any kw > p, so we can't assume this is an old sound change, before the widespread Celtic and Italic migrations to places far away from Hungary or its surroundings - unless, of course, we find evidences for it.

Since Celtiberian and Lusitanian, which are plausibly more conservative, "archaic" remnants of early Proto-Celtic migrations, also lack the kw > p change, I'd speculate that this is a latter change, from the times when Celtic (and possibly also Italic) languages were already dispersed in a very large territory, where the "Hungarian" influence would've been less strongly felt. But, anyway, perhaps just some branches of Celts and Italics, already divided and dispersed, were under this influence that led from *kw to *p.

However, in any case, this must have very little or nothing to do with Greek "íkkos" > "ippos". This change happened nowhere near Hungary, but mostly in Attic Greek, and in an entirely different cultural and social environment. Also, the change was completely different in nature from the Celtic and Italic sound changes, since the channge to "p" only happened in some words under very specific conditions (before [a] and [o]). In other situations, the changes were very different, from *kw to [t] or [k]. It was apparently an independent process.

 

[Aaron1981]

Ι suggest find the new linguistic theoriesof Greenhill Atkinson Grayas
also the last Lazarides paper about Myceneans
Renfrew theories are better conserning the 'old IE' languages like Anatolian
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 basedas expressed after 2011 by Greenhill Gray Atkinson

consider only that Mycenean and probably Hettit
the most typical bronze age civilizations
that we know
HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH YAMNAA

even genetics say so,
IE populations with very slow steppe admixtures
show clearly that open steppe theories are wrong conserning South
yet seem correct at N Europe

Find the atopon on the word Horse
which Antony is claiming

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?

Actually, there is Steppe admixture in the Mycenaean population that was not there during the Minoan period, the Mathieson paper you are inferring even stated as such. It wasn't a repopulation event, who thought it was anyways?

Yamnaya is 3200 BC, these graves were what...1200 BC? Of course they are not directly related, but if we infer a Pontic-Caspian origin as the origin of the language, and to some extent, the people, it isn't really that far fetched to see commonalities.