Anatolian Hypothesis: Lord Renfrew still a partial holdout

[Promenade]

Lord Colin Renfrew, progenitor of the Anatolian hypothesis still seems to believe that there was a pre-kurgan indo-european migration into Europe from Asia minor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5u7fls9CIs

In fact at 49:00 he even suggests Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic and Dravidian languages share a common urheimat in the middle east and all expanded therefrom around the same period with the advent of farming.

Although he now accepts the the validity of the spread of IE languages from the steppe into north and central Europe due to recent revelations from genetic discoveries he seems to have conveniently missed those conclusively connecting the spread of farming into Europe with people harboring non IE ancestry. His only argument now seems to be that since the earliest recorded indo-european languages are from Anatolia IE must have been spoken there first. The obvious answer to this being that Anatolia was the only area in the world Indo-European languages were being spoken in at the time where they could even possibly be recorded. He also doesn't seem phased by the fact that steppe ancestry in Greece seems to have only either come from the north or from Armenia and this ancestry entered long after farming had been introduced to Europe.

At 48:00 Renfrew makes a similar absurd claim about the spread of Celtic languages claiming that they might have spread from Iberia to the rest of Europe. He connects it to Tartessian, but only devotes 60 second to the matter and leaves it abruptly without developing an argument as for why. From his slide he seems to believe that it is associated with an apparent spread of the bell beaker culture from Iberia to the rest of Europe and at another point he mentions how the earliest bell beakers found are from Iberia. I'm guessing he believes centum indo-european languages spread from Iberia and were brought by a supposed Anatolian indo-european migration that traveled along the maritime seaboard with the cardium pottery culture. I find it baseless as well, but you have to guess how else Renfrew would consider that an IE language made it to Spain and then spread east rather than the other way around.

He doesn't start mentioning genetic evidence until the last 15 minutes, but it's clear to me that Renfrew either knows less about european migrations than most amateurs do online or that he has become emotionally attached to his brainchild theory and refuses to let it go. He is obviously an intelligent man who understands the importance of genetics, but if he thinks genetic evidence from hittites will change anything and that there isn't already an abundance of genetic evidence disputing the spread of IE languages from Anatolia and with farming then he will be sorely disappointed.

 

[Yetos]

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?

 

[bicicleur 2]

Lord Colin Renfrew is a dye-hard. He now admits the role of kurgan expansion without giving up his own theory, which has been proven absurd.
Mind you, he is not the only one. Many retired academics like Barry Cunliffe and Peter Bellwood clung very long to the Anatolian hypothesis.
The kurgan theory won't do either, it just explains an episode in the IE expansion.
For the full story we have to await more DNA results. We don't have a valid alternatif yet.

 

[MOESAN]

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?

Could you develop, YETOS, concerning 'horse'?
BTW tracing old roots is a hard sport, because in languages where a thing or being is very common, the vocabulary is very rich and nuanced (some very close things represented by words of different roots in place of a same root completed by prefixes or/and suffixes) , and some specific words can be exchanged (one for another) in dialects, and by time, some of them can be lost, or change degree of meaning (look at words for 'oak' and 'tree': Celtic compared to Slavic, and 'tree' vs 'wood' in germanic's). Very common concerning fauna and flora.
Concerning Greeks (Mycenians) and Iranics: 1) let's wait for more au-anDNA + 2) some archeologists/linguists think the territory of Catacombs as rich of indo-iranic toponyms and place and time do'nt exclude links with proto-Mycenians there (my amateur's impression is that very ancient Greek was a bit palatalizing, so a bit 'satemized', very more than subsequent Greek evolutions. SO not excludng by force a North Pontic origin at this stage.
I add it seems Hittis were rather new intruders in their (second?) homeland in central Anatolia. But it's true it doesn't exclude a coming from West Anatolia, but in my mind the Anatolian theory supporters don't see West Anatolia as the first place for proto-IE...
That said, I've not made my mind about Anatolian hypothesis and as some others I remain puzzled by this question;
in my mind, t the Catacombs times, the exchanges North the Pont were twosided: W to E + E to W: puzzling too. Not simple, I think.

 

[Yetos]

@ Moesan

It is simple

some believe that IE ment Horse wheel chariot
but is it?

lets see
Cappadokia in Iranic languages Cappadaka from Cappadawa or Cappatussa etc
means land of Horses,
so lets see
OCS Kobyla
Celtic Latin Equus-Hepphew Godess Eppona
Mycenean ikkos Greek Ippos
Germanic horse Ars Marc
Illyrian mandos
Getto-Thracian God Menzanas

same with word wheel
same with word chariot

on contradictory
lets find the words for metal
Ka-ko cypros copper etc etc
same with trees and flowers and other animal like goat
Aiwa Goat Aiga getta

if IE was trully a steppe language
and based on Kumis from Phorbas (female horse) milk
why we see so many word for horse
but not for metal or trees etc etc

just this from the forum
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...an-PIE-word-for-Nobility-or-Free-Men-Assembly

I think IE language was a S Caucasian language and not a steppe

 

[Angela]

Lord Colin Renfrew is a dye-hard. He now admits the role of kurgan expansion without giving up his own theory, which has been proven absurd.
Mind you, he is not the only one. Many retired academics like Barry Cunliffe and Peter Bellwood clung very long to the Anatolian hypothesis.
The kurgan theory won't do either, it just explains an episode in the IE expansion.
For the full story we have to await more DNA results. We don't have a valid alternatif yet.

That's where I am as well.

 

[Promenade]

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?

Really Yetos, no connection and this is proven by genetics?

Then how do you explain that the Mycenaean Greeks derived a fifth of their genetic make up from steppe ancestry and that this ancestry was absent in Minoans? Do you really believe that the genetic impact from a steppe migration needs to be equal in urban centers in the south as to less densely populated areas in the north to support the theory and that without a complete replacement languages can't be transmitted? You only have to look to India to see that this need not be or even more recently to the colonization of the Americas.

Also the study you and Renfrew reference is purely linguistics based, over half a decade old and purely ignorant of any recent genetic discoveries, does not offer any specific evidence for the geographical origin for indo-european languages and makes huge leaps and bounds about the spread of indo-european languages based solely on its estimated age.

The etymology of the word horse is not a huge hole in the steppe theory as you seem to believe either.

From the study:
"Renfrew maintains that the linguistic argument for the Kurgan theory is based only on limited evidence for a few enigmatic Proto-Indo-European word forms. He points out that parallel semantic shifts or wide-spread borrowing can produce similar word forms across different languages without requiring that an ancestral term was present in the proto-language."

So if the shared words related to the spread of supposed kurgan technology is irrelevant then why should the etymology of the word "horse" and it's relative diversity be relevant in any way? I am not a linguist so enlighten me, where are all the shared indo-european words that have to do with farming or is this also irrelevant due to semantic shifts and borrowing?

Even Renfrew admits in his lecture that the "warrior horseman theory" of the indo-european expansion is unlikely and the kurgan hypothesis no longer solely rests upon this assumption, meanwhile his argument clearly rests upon the expansion of farming as mentioned in the lecture and the referenced paper. I must admit his theory about indo-european, afro-asiatic and dravidian languages all expanding from the mid-east with farming is somewhat beautiful, but that is only the second word I would use to describe it after ludicrous. We might just find that not one of these languages originated there.

@ Moesan

It is simple

some believe that IE ment Horse wheel chariot
but is it?

lets see
Cappadokia in Iranic languages Cappadaka from Cappadawa or Cappatussa etc
means land of Horses,
so lets see
OCS Kobyla
Celtic Latin Equus-Hepphew Godess Eppona
Mycenean ikkos Greek Ippos
Germanic horse Ars Marc
Illyrian mandos
Getto-Thracian God Menzanas

same with word wheel
same with word chariot

on contradictory
lets find the words for metal
Ka-ko cypros copper etc etc
same with trees and flowers and other animal like goat
Aiwa Goat Aiga getta

if IE was trully a steppe language
and based on Kumis from Phorbas (female horse) milk
why we see so many word for horse
but not for metal or trees etc etc

just this from the forum
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...an-PIE-word-for-Nobility-or-Free-Men-Assembly

I think IE language was a S Caucasian language and not a steppe

Okay we are actually more closely aligned about this than it seemed at first. I do not believe that the kurgan hypothesis is purely correct. We now know the Caucasus also played an important role and could have been an earlier homeland or at least a partial contributor, but I do not see how anyone can still support the Anatolian hypothesis given the genetic evidence of the past few years.

Your description of the Iranic name for Cappadocia is a also bit deceptive though as it is more accurately "the nation of beautiful horses." Archeological evidence associates horse domestication and the earliest uses of chariots with steppe cultures more than any other people so the linguistic evidence would be eclipsed here anyhow.

 

[Angela]

No, it wasn't a fifth steppe ancestry; it varied from 4% to 18%. You can't derive a 20% average from that. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but facts are facts.

Nor did the authors venture a conclusion as to whether it arrived directly from the steppe or from Anatolia. They said they needed more data if you'll remember.

I do agree that the farmer hypothesis seems dead in the water. It's too far back in time, for one thing.

 

[Promenade]

No, it wasn't a fifth steppe ancestry; it varied from 4% to 18%. You can't derive a 20% average from that. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but facts are facts. Nor did the authors venture a conclusion as to whether it arrived directly from the steppe or from Anatolia. They said they needed more data if you'll remember. I do agree that the farmer hypothesis seems dead in the water. It's too far back in time, for one thing.

Angela the 4 to 18 percent was referring to EHG ancestry, not overall Yamnaya ancestry. Renfrew mentions 20 percent as the overall percentage of steppe ancestry in the Mycenaeans, but in the study it is a bit lower 13 to 18 percent. Anatolia as an origin wasn't even mentioned in the study, the origin was postulated either as the Steppe or Armenia(Caucasus). So at most Anatolia would have served as a bridge for IE coming into Greece, not as a homeland. (Side note: Has there ever been an ancient genetic study that ever claimed we didn't need more data?)

 

[davef]

Did Renfrew test them himself? Out of curiousity.

 

[Yetos]

@ promenade

with term IEans we mean the creators and the carriers of IE language, not the steppe people by termination
we try to find them by Linguistic methods, by theories through the results of the theory, through customs and culture,
through every possible meaning
the role of genetics is significant
BUT can you explain why the Gedrosian component is missing in some Hypothtical IE Hgroups?
also for culture and mettalurgy,
until lately they believed that Gold metalurgy was IE
but today we know that first gold extract is somewhere middleEast
and the first gold primitive industrial mettalurgy was in Balkans
a road oposite the road of Kurgans,

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?
offcourse there are cases like S America where less % change the language of pre-congistadores era
but not at the begin, needed large migration and colonisation and Slave import to do such
and even today in some areas Ameridian are spoken,
BUT we speak about the 4-18% of steppe at Myceneans,
a non Yamnaa population,
and we see the the for example the R1b and R1a at Armenia Kurdistan Iran (until today possible steppe mark)
BUT we do not see the % of J2 there, stuff from which Myceneans were made off.
neither in the lands of Celts

we do know that IE has some common with Uralic in Northern languages (Yamnaa origin)
But we also know that IE has common with Summerian
and with Semitic,
the case with Turkic is another story,

for the above I can not fully accept the genetical term R1 is IE
neither the steppe ancestry, cause today by the linguistic theory of Green Atkinson
the homeland is in S caucasus

as for the theory of Renfrew that IE was a language of neolithic farmers.
it seems it is dead, or is dying every day,
yet is still strong concerning the onomatology (names) of plants,
cause we both know that if IE were steppe people they had nothing to do with agriculture and with trees.
(a casta of pastoralis and warriors clan-tribal system)
Where in steppe has trees to share the common names?
but from Greek to Britain to Balt we see common/simmilar names in many trees and flowers,
THAT DO NOT EXIST IN STEPPE

Καστανον
chestnut
kastanie
karycnievy
castan

how can you explain that both Yamnaa and non Yamnaa IEans of Europe
have common name for a tree, THAT DO NOT EXIST at open arid steppes?

and is not only this,


At least

Steppe people were fed by Kumis
Did Yamnaa did so?
Did Myceneans did so?
Did Celts eat kumis?

 

[Promenade]

Did Renfrew test them himself? Out of curiousity.

No, he mentions the 20 percent figure a little after the 1:00:00 mark before discussing the possibility of IE languages entering Europe from Anatolia prior to entering from the steppe. He doesn't seem to have time to discuss this argument, but from his prior image around 58:30 we can guess he isnt simply pushing back the date at which Mycenaean culture began in Greece rather he still believes IE languages may have come to Greece and other parts of Europe from neolithic farmers in Anatolia.

 

[Angela]

Angela the 4 to 18 percent was referring to EHG ancestry, not overall Yamnaya ancestry. Renfrew mentions 20 percent as the overall percentage of steppe ancestry in the Mycenaeans, but in the study it is a bit lower 13 to 18 percent. Anatolia as an origin wasn't even mentioned in the study, the origin was postulated either as the Steppe or Armenia(Caucasus). So at most Anatolia would have served as a bridge for IE coming into Greece, not as a homeland. (Side note: Has there ever been an ancient genetic study that ever claimed we didn't need more data?)

You're correct, the steppe percentage ranges from 13 to 18%, so, regardless of what Renfrew says, it is not 20% on average. That also includes the elite burial, yes?

As for the rest, I never said that Anatolia was the origin, although parts of Armenia are indeed in Anatolia. I was talking about the route, as were the authors.

It is still a very different matter if these bearers of "Greek" and the "Indo-European" culture came from the steppe down through the Balkans, or from the Caucasus area and across Anatolia. That is NOT the "Kurgan" hypothesis. We know what those people looked like, and they're not Yamnaya like.

I frankly don't care which it turns out to be, but it is not settled as far as I'm concerned.

Perhaps I reacted with irritation because the Kurgan warriors are still busy trying to explain away the findings of the paper. I'm sure they're still pushing the results of the one later sample with more "steppe", ignoring the fact that indeed it is "later", it is female, and, more importantly, the fact that the author responded to those comments and specifically said that the sample is of poor quality.

Of course, they've drawn a veil over the fact that one week before the results came out the Mycenaens were being predicted to be R1a blonde 100% Corded Ware people. You can't make this stuff up.

Not that I'm trying to say I'm always right. If you had asked me five years ago if this was enough admixture to change language and culture in a time before wide spread literacy and quasi-modern institutions, I would have said no. However, that was before results like those from Remedello.

 

[davef]

You're correct, the steppe percentage ranges from 13 to 18%, so, regardless of what Renfrew says, it is not 20% on average. That also includes the elite burial, yes?

As for the rest, I never said that Anatolia was the origin, although parts of Armenia are indeed in Anatolia. I was talking about the route, as were the authors.

It is still a very different matter if these bearers of "Greek" and the "Indo-European" culture came from the steppe down through the Balkans, or from the Caucasus area and across Anatolia. That is NOT the "Kurgan" hypothesis. We know what those people looked like, and they're not Yamnaya like.

I frankly don't care which it turns out to be, but it is not settled as far as I'm concerned.

Perhaps I reacted with irritation because the Kurgan warriors are still busy trying to explain away the findings of the paper. I'm sure they're still pushing the results of the one later sample with more "steppe", ignoring the fact that indeed it is "later", it is female, and, more importantly, the author's own statement saying that the sample is of poor quality.

Of course, they've drawn a veil over the fact that one week before the results came out the Mycenaens were being predicted to be R1a blonde 100% Corded Ware people. You can't make this stuff up.

Absolutely. You just need to look up Mycenaean artwork on google. I haven't seen a single depiction of a Germanic looking Mycenaean.

 

[davef]

No, he mentions the 20 percent figure a little after the 1:00:00 mark before discussing the possibility of IE languages entering Europe from Anatolia prior to entering from the steppe. He doesn't seem to have time to discuss this argument, but from his prior image around 58:30 we can guess he isnt simply pushing back the date at which Mycenaean culture began in Greece rather he still believes IE languages may have come to Greece and other parts of Europe from neolithic farmers in Anatolia.

But how exactly did he arrive at 20 percent though?

Oh wait, he didn't have time to discuss. Hopefully he will at some point

 

[elghund]

But how exactly did he arrive at 20 percent though?

Oh wait, he didn't have time to discuss. Hopefully he will at some point

The mean of 13 and 18 is 15.5, which, if you are rounding by tens, rounds to 20.

 

[Promenade]

@ promenade

with term IEans we mean the creators and the carriers of IE language, not the steppe people by termination
we try to find them by Linguistic methods, by theories through the results of the theory, through customs and culture,
through every possible meaning
the role of genetics is significant
BUT can you explain why the Gedrosian component is missing in some Hypothtical IE Hgroups?
also for culture and mettalurgy,
until lately they believed that Gold metalurgy was IE
but today we know that first gold extract is somewhere middleEast
and the first gold primitive industrial mettalurgy was in Balkans
a road oposite the road of Kurgans,

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?
offcourse there are cases like S America where less % change the language of pre-congistadores era
but not at the begin, needed large migration and colonisation and Slave import to do such
and even today in some areas Ameridian are spoken,
BUT we speak about the 4-18% of steppe at Myceneans,
a non Yamnaa population,
and we see the the for example the R1b and R1a at Armenia Kurdistan Iran (until today possible steppe mark)
BUT we do not see the % of J2 there, stuff from which Myceneans were made off.
neither in the lands of Celts

we do know that IE has some common with Uralic in Northern languages (Yamnaa origin)
But we also know that IE has common with Summerian
and with Semitic,
the case with Turkic is another story,

for the above I can not fully accept the genetical term R1 is IE
neither the steppe ancestry, cause today by the linguistic theory of Green Atkinson
the homeland is in S caucasus

as for the theory of Renfrew that IE was a language of neolithic farmers.
it seems it is dead, or is dying every day,
yet is still strong concerning the onomatology (names) of plants,
cause we both know that if IE were steppe people they had nothing to do with agriculture and with trees.
(a casta of pastoralis and warriors clan-tribal system)
Where in steppe has trees to share the common names?
but from Greek to Britain to Balt we see common/simmilar names in many trees and flowers,
THAT DO NOT EXIST IN STEPPE

Καστανον
chestnut
kastanie
karycnievy
castan

how can you explain that both Yamnaa and non Yamnaa IEans of Europe
have common name for a tree, THAT DO NOT EXIST at open arid steppes?

and is not only this,


At least

Steppe people were fed by Kumis
Did Yamnaa did so?
Did Myceneans did so?
Did Celts eat kumis?

The common name for trees isn't really relevant. We've already established that this isn't conclusive evidence for a ancestral term from a proto-language and can just as easily arise from borrowing. From Greece to Great Britain to the Baltics we also find steppe ancestry, but this is just a coincidence? Of course there are examples of genetic shifts not related to linguistic shifts, but the arrival of steppe ancestry in Greece comes at the same time as the arrival of the Mycenaean people. In no way am I trying to dissociate the Mycenaean people and its culture from Greece, just that the arrival of non indigenous ancestry correlated with a shift in culture just as the arrival of prior ancestral groups.

Obviously there was diffusion of Indo-European culture and it isn't restricted to the genetic component as well. I think a good example is the GAC which appeared IE but turned out to be neolithic farmer. The Iberian Bell Beakers is another good example, but we do eventually see the appearance of Steppe ancestry in both areas, the same as in Greece and any other known IE speaking population from before the modern era. As for R1 it is also found within all IE speaking people to a degree. I'm not completely convinced whether R1b spread from the steppe initially with IE or perhaps went through a found effect upon the IEs contacting WHGs near the balkans or Hungary, but R1a is clearly linked to the steppe IE expansion. We may just find that the roots of the IE languages are in both the Caucasus and the Steppe, I don't see it restricted to that of the steppe horizon or for that matter the Caucasus.

You're correct, the steppe percentage ranges from 13 to 18%, so, regardless of what Renfrew says, it is not 20% on average. That also includes the elite burial, yes?

As for the rest, I never said that Anatolia was the origin, although parts of Armenia are indeed in Anatolia. I was talking about the route, as were the authors.

It is still a very different matter if these bearers of "Greek" and the "Indo-European" culture came from the steppe down through the Balkans, or from the Caucasus area and across Anatolia. That is NOT the "Kurgan" hypothesis. We know what those people looked like, and they're not Yamnaya like.

I frankly don't care which it turns out to be, but it is not settled as far as I'm concerned.

Perhaps I reacted with irritation because the Kurgan warriors are still busy trying to explain away the findings of the paper. I'm sure they're still pushing the results of the one later sample with more "steppe", ignoring the fact that indeed it is "later", it is female, and, more importantly, the fact that the author responded to those comments and specifically said that the sample is of poor quality.

Of course, they've drawn a veil over the fact that one week before the results came out the Mycenaens were being predicted to be R1a blonde 100% Corded Ware people. You can't make this stuff up.

Not that I'm trying to say I'm always right. If you had asked me five years ago if this was enough admixture to change language and culture in a time before wide spread literacy and quasi-modern institutions, I would have said no. However, that was before results like those from Remedello.

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.

But how exactly did he arrive at 20 percent though?

Oh wait, he didn't have time to discuss. Hopefully he will at some point

It was most likely an error davef, I made the mistake of repeating it.

 

[Angela]

The mean of 13 and 18 is 15.5, which, if you are rounding by tens, rounds to 20.

Don't be absurd. In a matter like this, why would you round to tens????

If you want to take an average from such a small number of samples, it's 15% or 16%.

Talk about desperate.

It's not your mistake, Promenade. It's Renfrew's. He's getting old, I guess. Plus, we all make little errors like that.

 

[Yetos]

The common name for trees isn't really relevant. We've already established that this isn't conclusive evidence for a ancestral term from a proto-language and can just as easily arise from borrowing. From Greece to Great Britain to the Baltics we also find steppe ancestry, but this is just a coincidence? Of course there are examples of genetic shifts not related to linguistic shifts, but the arrival of steppe ancestry in Greece comes at the same time as the arrival of the Mycenaean people. In no way am I trying to dissociate the Mycenaean people and its culture from Greece, just that the arrival of non indigenous ancestry correlated with a shift in culture just as the arrival of prior ancestral groups.

Obviously there was diffusion of Indo-European culture and it isn't restricted to the genetic component as well. I think a good example is the GAC which appeared IE but turned out to be neolithic farmer. The Iberian Bell Beakers is another good example, but we do eventually see the appearance of Steppe ancestry in both areas, the same as in Greece and any other known IE speaking population from before the modern era. As for R1 it is also found within all IE speaking people to a degree. I'm not completely convinced whether R1b spread from the steppe initially with IE or perhaps went through a found effect upon the IEs contacting WHGs near the balkans or Hungary, but R1a is clearly linked to the steppe IE expansion. We may just find that the roots of the IE languages are in both the Caucasus and the Steppe, I don't see it restricted to that of the steppe horizon or for that matter the Caucasus.





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.



It was most likely an error davef, I made the mistake of repeating it.

but that is the problem Promenade
R1a lacks Gedrosian component

so genetics did not prove yet the IE origin of steppe
although the results seem better until the late paper
so we are still to the method of comparison results of certain theories

and I do not think think the word chestnut is from Greek or from Iran or from whoeverIE
the termination computer is after English
the termination economy is after Greek
the termination tobacco is common due to non Europe product, unknown to early Europeans, brought from America
but the words like chestnut or tree
I do not think so.
people were fed much before any entrance of steppe people
and recogn and gave names to plants

So how come the IE ptelela limetree linden-tree
Greek πτελεα
latin tilia
etc etc
can be from steppe?
or the tree ulmus elm-tree

that is why I can not accept steppe as homeland of IE language
cause these things do not exist at steppe
and yet the road from Steppe to Yamnaa to west Europe
shows the same name with the ones on the road from Steppe to Iran and India
SO these words are PIE but how come since do not exist at Steppe

 

[Alcuin]

he even suggests Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic and Dravidian languages share a common urheimat in the middle east and all expanded therefrom around the same period with the advent of farming

A lot of people have proposed that, especially with regards to Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic, though as far as I know the latter's latest proposed coalescence time would be pretty much bang on the 12,000 years ago that farming took off in the Near East.

Where would isolates such as Basque, which it is occasionally claimed forms part of a larger language group with the above families, fit in? Are similarities really limited to a few cognates here and there? 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?