Where did the Anatolian branch of Indo-European originate?

According to the Indo-Hittite hypothesis, the Anatolian languages may have split off a Pre-Proto-Indo-European language considerably earlier than the separation of the remaining Indo-European languages. It's likely that the ancient Hittites already spoke a Pre-Proto-Indo-European language prior to the time of Yamnaya culture and Yamnaya steppe herders were not responsible for the diffusion of IE languages to Anatolia. Tocharian has the perfect wagon vocabulary but some key words are missing in Indo-Hittite, which preserves archaism lost in other IE languages. Probably the ancient Hittites didn't develop the wagon vocabulary because they stayed behind unlike Tocharians who migrated to the Tarim Basin in western China.

"Proponents of the Indo-Hittite hypothesis claim the separation may have preceded the spread of the remaining branches by several millennia, possibly as early as 7000 BC. In this context, the proto-language before the split of Anatolian would be called Proto-Indo-Hittite, and the proto-language of the remaining branches, before the next split, presumably of Tocharian, would be called Proto-Indo-European (PIE). This is a matter of terminology, though, as the hypothesis does not dispute the ultimate genetic relation of Anatolian with Indo-European; it just means to emphasize the assumed magnitude of temporal separation.

According to Craig Melchert, the current tendency is to suppose that Proto-Indo-European evolved, and that the "prehistoric speakers" of Anatolian became isolated "from the rest of the PIE speech community, so as not to share in some common innovations."[1] Hittite, as well as its Anatolian cousins, split off from Proto-Indo-European at an early stage, thereby preserving archaisms that were later lost in the other Indo-European languages.[2]"

Just my thoughts. I was going to say something similar to this. Haven't linguists always been in disagreement about wether anatolian was derived from PIE, or if it was rather a sister to PIE? It makes sense to me, that the anatolian languages would have split off earlier from a pre-proto-indo-european or indo-hittite language, maybe spoken in the Caucasus. It's a good question which culture these people came from, as Epoch asks. But I think we need to remember that we are trying to solve a puzzle here, with half the pieces missing. I'm sure there's been lots of peoples, cultures and tribes through history we haven't found any trace of yet.
Considering that the reason PIE spread so far across Eurasia, was that the people of the yamnaya horizon were the first to combine horseriding with a pastoralist and nomadic lifestyle, it always occured odd to me, that some of them for unknown reasons would go through the balkans to stay in Anatolia, when they could have gone any were else.

I don't understand the people all over the internet crying that "the steppe theory is dead", scolding Willerslev and Damgaard for not abandoning a theory, that has loads of evidence for it in many different scientific fields, because of some flimsy and circumstantial evidence. I think they are too proffesional to jump at conclusions. They leave that to the laypeople who dream of their particular ancestors, and their particular ancient Y-chromosomal line, being the indo-european conquerors of Eurasia. lol.

The hittites left loads of writting in cuneiform, and one thing that is clear from these tablets is, that according to the hittites themselves, they were invaders that came from somewere else - and to be honest, the possibilities are kind of limited.

On the topic of the tocharians, or rather the earliest Tarim mummies, I don't think its' been completely settled were they came from. What I got from reading "The Tarim Mummies" by Mallory and Mair, was that the first IE people in the Tarim basin can't have come straight from the steppe, since they knew irrigation farming. They must have learned that somewere.
 
This is obviously very outdated, among other reasons because it states that Indians don't have any steppe-related ancestry, including its EHG (and as we know now even more clearly, not just EHG but also WSHG) component. Also, even if the South Caucasus hypothesis ends up being confirmed by the complete lack of EHG in Hittite or Luwian samples, that only tells us that Anatolian IE branched off first from an Early PIE. Late PIE and all the branches associated with this later phase of PIE with a lot of distinctions and probably innovations in relation to Anatolian IE remain totally linked to the Pontic-Caspian steppe. AFAIK no region of the world where these languages are known to have been spoken natively, by a numerous population at least since the early Iron Age, completely lacks BA Steppe-related ancestry.

The later expansion (3,500 years old? That's 1500 BC, neither Maykop nor Yamnaya existed then! I think that's a serious mistake in the text) most clearly involved the EHG+CHG particular mix of the steppes. Anatolian, clearly more archaic and perhaps a sign of a much earlier expansion, is not found anywhere but in the northern portion of West Asia, so it can't be responsible for the widespread expansion that happened only much later from Western Europe to India.

last 2-3 years, DNA has confirmed the steppe theory except for the Anatolian branch, about which we still now very little
what also lacks is the link between the steppe and the spread into western Europe
we know Yamna was autosomal CHG + EHG and represented by Y-DNA R1b-Z2103
we know the Central European Bell Beaker spread into western Europe,
they were autosomal CHG + EHG + some additional EEF and represented by Y-DNA R1b-L151

we know a lot more in 2-3 years
I believe the origin of Anatolian will soon be solved and it is premature to speculate
 
Thank you for opening to doorwar to another civilization. It's hard to imagine the depth of one and than four but what other secrets are hidden. watching the films and researching the possibilities is one more reason to keep trying to find my way in a jungle of threads. This adds more questions than answers but offers the greatest rewards.
 
This is obviously very outdated, among other reasons because it states that Indians don't have any steppe-related ancestry, including its EHG (and as we know now even more clearly, not just EHG but also WSHG) component. Also, even if the South Caucasus hypothesis ends up being confirmed by the complete lack of EHG in Hittite or Luwian samples, that only tells us that Anatolian IE branched off first from an Early PIE. Late PIE and all the branches associated with this later phase of PIE with a lot of distinctions and probably innovations in relation to Anatolian IE remain totally linked to the Pontic-Caspian steppe. AFAIK no region of the world where these languages are known to have been spoken natively, by a numerous population at least since the early Iron Age, completely lacks BA Steppe-related ancestry.

The later expansion (3,500 years old? That's 1500 BC, neither Maykop nor Yamnaya existed then! I think that's a serious mistake in the text) most clearly involved the EHG+CHG particular mix of the steppes. Anatolian, clearly more archaic and perhaps a sign of a much earlier expansion, is not found anywhere but in the northern portion of West Asia, so it can't be responsible for the widespread expansion that happened only much later from Western Europe to India.

Agree with you though i should have underlined the Maikop part. It's a very important part of this puzzle.

On the other hand what do you think of possible Balkan route to Armi 2500 BC Indo-Europeans? Pre Yamnaya steppe -> Balkans -> North Syria (at this point they are being ruled by semitic people) It doesn't look very convincing to me.
 
Good analysis, however, even if we exclude certain cultures as being "archaelogically unfit", you need to have 2 things:

-first and foremost, EHG ancestry must exist in the future, in an Anatolian context.
-is any of the candidate cultures you proposed have any evidence of a presence in Anatolia at the right time ? or a culture that seems to be derived from them ?

Culture can change, We know for certain and beyond doubt that Yamnaya had Caucasus ancestry, and yet most of the cultures you mention as being unfit, Maykop has many similarities to Leyla Tepe, which preceded it.
Who said that ? Globular Amphora were haplogroup I2a but mostly autosomally EEF. There is a gap time between Yamnaya and Anitta. And secondly how one people says that sample is hittite ? it's like saying every ancestral indians sample should be part EHG. Is there any EHG in ancient Tumulis Culture or Bell Beakers of Irlande ?
 
If I understood it correctly, only the later steppe cultures (Andronovo and Sintashta) have appreciable amounts of EEF, and I also think the authors are paying too much attention at the EEF admixture in CWC while they neglect the EEF interactions and probable gradual admixture in the westernmost part of the steppes adjacent to and eventually also within Cucuteni-Tripolye territories. R1b-dominant expansions that did not involve Y-DNA haplogroups prevalent in CWC hardly came from CWC forest and forest-steppe lands. I'm also confident that the IE expansion had already begun much earlier than and possibly started even earlier than the fully mature phase of Yamnaya, so PIE can hardly be attributed to an influx of EEF that swept eastward into the steppes centuries later and only became a marked feature of western Eurasian steppe cultures near the mid Bronze Age (Sintashta, Andronovo), when Afanasievo, CWC and other steppe-related offshoots had already split from the Pontic-Caspian cultures many centuries earlier.
your assumptions have an usure base, Cucuteni were mainly EEF and the steppe eastward push had also a goid WHG chunk. For R1b being IE dubious also, in Iberia it has no steppe watermark except in the BB paper, and in Central Europe it decreases the steppe signal (!). The case to link Yamnaya with IE is... a tradition more than other thing, also steppe signal expands synchronously to Ukraine, Bulgaria, CWC, Siberia...
 
your assumptions have an usure base, Cucuteni were mainly EEF and the steppe eastward push had also a goid WHG chunk. For R1b being IE dubious also, in Iberia it has no steppe watermark except in the BB paper, and in Central Europe it decreases the steppe signal (!). The case to link Yamnaya with IE is... a tradition more than other thing, also steppe signal expands synchronously to Ukraine, Bulgaria, CWC, Siberia...

Talking of R1b generically is at this time pretty fruitless. What matters is if there is a correlation (not perfect, of course, because Y-DNA and autosomal DNA can part ways very easily in just a few generations, but still trends remain) between the expansion of BA steppe admixture and the expansion of R1b-M269 and more speciffically R1b-Z2103. I see no strong reason why, if you think PIE could have come from EEF populations, you should completely discard the very well substantiated influences of Cucuteni-Tripolye on Sredny-Stog and, by extension, Yamnaya (let me add I don't believe that to be true at all, but at least it's plausible).

Also, I see no reason why we should look for the origins of a common PIE in later developments like the eastward influence of EEF in CWC and also, I should add, a bit later in the cultures descending from Yamnaya and CWC, like Srubna, Sintashta and Andronovo. Those cultures, if they were IE, were most definitely descendants of an earlier common PIE that didn't exist any longer. We now have Eblaite evidence that the Anatolian IE branch already existed in Anatolia by 2500 BC so it's basically certain that an undivided PIE dates to well before the late 4th milennium BC.

CWC, later stages of Yamnaya and subsequent cultures are certainly not the right chronological frame to look for the ultimate origins of PIE. Finally, an adoption of IE by CWC from EEF/WHG people would not fit well many of the attested expansions of IE languages, which do not correlate at all - at least not directly - with an autosomal makeup and the main Y-DNA haplogroups found in CWC.
 
as said the relation of IE with EEF is a fifth option, the last trial in fact.

the evidence for Anatolian in Ebla is so weak that I don't consider it good for debate even...
 
Talking of R1b generically is at this time pretty fruitless. What matters is if there is a correlation (not perfect, of course, because Y-DNA and autosomal DNA can part ways very easily in just a few generations, but still trends remain) between the expansion of BA steppe admixture and the expansion of R1b-M269 and more speciffically R1b-Z2103. I see no strong reason why, if you think PIE could have come from EEF populations, you should completely discard the very well substantiated influences of Cucuteni-Tripolye on Sredny-Stog and, by extension, Yamnaya (let me add I don't believe that to be true at all, but at least it's plausible).

Also, I see no reason why we should look for the origins of a common PIE in later developments like the eastward influence of EEF in CWC and also, I should add, a bit later in the cultures descending from Yamnaya and CWC, like Srubna, Sintashta and Andronovo. Those cultures, if they were IE, were most definitely descendants of an earlier common PIE that didn't exist any longer. We now have Eblaite evidence that the Anatolian IE branch already existed in Anatolia by 2500 BC so it's basically certain that an undivided PIE dates to well before the late 4th milennium BC.

CWC, later stages of Yamnaya and subsequent cultures are certainly not the right chronological frame to look for the ultimate origins of PIE. Finally, an adoption of IE by CWC from EEF/WHG people would not fit well many of the attested expansions of IE languages, which do not correlate at all - at least not directly - with an autosomal makeup and the main Y-DNA haplogroups found in CWC.
But i wonder something, if CWC -> Sintashta -> Andronovo had EEF and we know that R1a is not originally EEF autosomaly but EHG, how do we explain that EEF part ? have R1a change from EHG to EEF regionally ? than if the case why the same rule should not be applied to Anatolians IE's ? or they had substantial maternal input from EEF-like populations and if the case why the same rule should not be applied to the CHG part in Yamnaya or the Pontic Steppe in general ?
 
good point here, it might be taken samples from core Russia, maybe there the expanding EEF farmers and CHG herders meet too many climatic difficulties to colonize this edge region and impose their language, it's an idea that makes more sense at least.
 
But i wonder something, if CWC -> Sintashta -> Andronovo had EEF and we know that R1a is not originally EEF autosomaly but EHG, how do we explain that EEF part ? have R1a change from EHG to EEF regionally ? than if the case why the same rule should not be applied to Anatolians IE's ? or they had substantial maternal input from EEF-like populations and if the case why the same rule should not be applied to the CHG part in Yamnaya or the Pontic Steppe in general ?

AFAIK the EEF ancestry in CWC is minor enough (IIRC ~25-30%) to make it not a very a surprising puzzle. The R1a-EHG/CHG correlation is still strongly there, no major replacement autosomally. I don't think there is, in such processes of genetic formation of a new population structure, many "rules" to follow. Many scenarios are possible, we need to follow what the data indicate, because hypothetically anything is possible and could be explained sooner or later. As for the CHG part in Yamnaya or the Pontic-Caspian cultures in general, I think it's possible that it was mostly female-biased, but if we keep finding R1b-Z2103 or R1b-M269 south of the Caucasus then we'll have to rethink that scheme.

My own positions have been changing (and hopefully improving) continuously in the last few years: the data point out this or that, I'll change accordingly. Right now, I believe there was first a CHG intogression into the former overwhelmingly EHG steppes, a bit later farmer EEF cultures (Cucuteni-Tripolye mostly) expands to the Bug-Dnieper region and, neighboring the western steppe populations, influences Sredny Stog significantly. Contemporary Khvalynsk, hundreds of km to the east, remained less impacted by that EEF impact, but was more and more influenced by EEF-influenced/admixed Sredny Stog populations and also kept receiving some extra influence (genetic included) from the Caucasus. Then Repin developed out of those multiple influences and in the Yamnaya stage an opposite flow of genetics and culture happened, with a westward drive of Yamnaya onto Sredny Stog II, mixing with and absorbing it. That scenario looks plausible to me, but undeniably uncertain yet, so I'll have no problem adjusting or even refusing it entirely as I gain more knowledge on the subject and new genetic/archaeological findings are done.
 
CWC, later stages of Yamnaya and subsequent cultures are certainly not the right chronological frame to look for the ultimate origins of PIE. Finally, an adoption of IE by CWC from EEF/WHG people would not fit well many of the attested expansions of IE languages, which do not correlate at all - at least not directly - with an autosomal makeup and the main Y-DNA haplogroups found in CWC.

What does "the ultimate origins of PIE" mean? When and where the ancestors of Indo-European speakers last shared a common language, it seems to me, is the issue. That's PIE. When it was first shared is a much thornier question. Even if Anatolian is shown to come from Maykop, the question remains whether Anatolian comes from PIE or an earlier contributor to PIE.
 
What does "the ultimate origins of PIE" mean? When and where the ancestors of Indo-European speakers last shared a common language, it seems to me, is the issue. That's PIE. When it was first shared is a much thornier question. Even if Anatolian is shown to come from Maykop, the question remains whether Anatolian comes from PIE or an earlier contributor to PIE.

PIE means technically "the last common language between all related IE languages". Even if we assume that Anatolian was a sister language to PIE (it can't have been just an "earlier contributor to PIE", PIE at least in its early history by definition included Anatolian, the similarities aren't just on the level of a superstrate or substrate), that will just make us have to predate the existence of a Common IE language, in other words, PIE. Then we will have to assume that there was an Early PIE, later an expansion of this Early PIE, and in a completely different context and age a secondary and much bigger expansion from a language that was the continuous development of that Early PIE, minus Anatolian. Think of Old Latin vs. Vulgar Latin of imperial times. Languages evolve gradually, the boundaries we set are arbitrary.

When I say "ultimate origins of PIE", I'm talking about the language that existed somewhere and in some historic period and was the shared mother of both Anatolian and, via a Late PIE, of the other IE branches (we might maybe call it another name, e.g. "Pontic-Caspian", much like Italian or Portuguese are in some ways just two evolved forms of Latin).

I think that the genetic and linguistic evidences increasingly point out to that need of distinguishing Early PIE from Late PIE. The expansions that triggered those later branches may have been as distant from each other as the latest Roman conquests were from the Portuguese and Castillian world navigations.
 
AFAIK the EEF ancestry in CWC is minor enough (IIRC ~25-30%) to make it not a very a surprising puzzle. The R1a-EHG/CHG correlation is still strongly there, no major replacement autosomally. I don't think there is, in such processes of genetic formation of a new population structure, many "rules" to follow. Many scenarios are possible, we need to follow what the data indicate, because hypothetically anything is possible and could be explained sooner or later. As for the CHG part in Yamnaya or the Pontic-Caspian cultures in general, I think it's possible that it was mostly female-biased, but if we keep finding R1b-Z2103 or R1b-M269 south of the Caucasus then we'll have to rethink that scheme.

My own positions have been changing (and hopefully improving) continuously in the last few years: the data point out this or that, I'll change accordingly. Right now, I believe there was first a CHG intogression into the former overwhelmingly EHG steppes, a bit later farmer EEF cultures (Cucuteni-Tripolye mostly) expands to the Bug-Dnieper region and, neighboring the western steppe populations, influences Sredny Stog significantly. Contemporary Khvalynsk, hundreds of km to the east, remained less impacted by that EEF impact, but was more and more influenced by EEF-influenced/admixed Sredny Stog populations and also kept receiving some extra influence (genetic included) from the Caucasus. Then Repin developed out of those multiple influences and in the Yamnaya stage an opposite flow of genetics and culture happened, with a westward drive of Yamnaya onto Sredny Stog II, mixing with and absorbing it. That scenario looks plausible to me, but undeniably uncertain yet, so I'll have no problem adjusting or even refusing it entirely as I gain more knowledge on the subject and new genetic/archaeological findings are done.
But R1a in ancient eastern europe never had CHG until now or future studies. And obviously if we would found R1b-M269 dating from 6000BC at high numbers south of the caucasus, so everything would be reconsiderate, but i'm just noticing how people are easily jumping on conclusion, we found J* in Karelia 100% EHG did anybody supposed it was native ? no it had to came from south caucasus, we found R1b in Hajji Firuz did anybody supposed it came from the north ? no it had to be local... I just want to show how people are biased against south caucasus even if they say they just follow datas, by their emotional reactions it looks pretty obvious that the steppe hypothesis gage their values. For the matter of Anatolians, we never gonna had any royal dna and has multiple studies have shown " bronze age migrations were male biased ", there is very low chance to found any EHG in Anatolia in copper and bronze age but if we found 5 or 10% EHG people gonna style complain that this is not a proof of migration from the steppe, but they day they found ASI in bronze age steppe ( pure fantastical exemple ) they gonna immediatly jump and say " out of india was true !!!!! "
 
But R1a in ancient eastern europe never had CHG until now or future studies. And obviously if we would found R1b-M269 dating from 6000BC at high numbers south of the caucasus, so everything would be reconsiderate, but i'm just noticing how people are easily jumping on conclusion, we found J* in Karelia 100% EHG did anybody supposed it was native ? no it had to came from south caucasus, we found R1b in Hajji Firuz did anybody supposed it came from the north ? no it had to be local... I just want to show how people are biased against south caucasus even if they say they just follow datas, by their emotional reactions it looks pretty obvious that the steppe hypothesis gage their values. For the matter of Anatolians, we never gonna had any royal dna and has multiple studies have shown " bronze age migrations were male biased ", there is very low chance to found any EHG in Anatolia in copper and bronze age but if we found 5 or 10% EHG people gonna style complain that this is not a proof of migration from the steppe, but they day they found ASI in bronze age steppe ( pure fantastical exemple ) they gonna immediatly jump and say " out of india was true !!!!! "

I agree with you that there is, among some who have already predetermined what Urheimat they wish to be true (be it the "steppe" or the "South Caucasus"), a very obvious unwillingness to really "just follow the data" and at least think of the plausibiliy of other parallel hypotheses even if they may keep their preferences. My main point is that, not just in this study but also as indicated by previous analyses, there was virtually no CHG in earlier (Mesolithic) Eastern European HG, and then CHG appears clearly in the autosomal makeup of some (still not all) Eneolithic Khvalynsk-period samples, and later Yamna is full of that significant EHG+CHG mix. That looks to me like some significant Caucasian influence in the basic formation of the first IE tribes in the steppe, but not necessarily indicative of PIE arising and splitting outside the steppes (the "mother" or "grandmother" of PIE, okay, that's totally possible or even likely).

P.S.: I won't for now "cheer" for either an ultimately Transcaucasian CHG or EHG origin for this pre-PIE because I don't think we have a lot of things to favor one thing over another (except for some preconceived assumptions, sort of like "EHG were hunter gatherers, Caucasians were more advanced, so the EHG language couldn't have prevailed in the steppes"). I prefer not to voice any definite preference about that linguistic - not genetic - part of this controversy because even though a South Caucasian origin with CHG and R1b-majority people sounds very compatible to me, there is the "inconvenient truth" that, among all language families of the world, it is virtually undeniable that Indo-European looks like it shares more typological similarities with Uralic, a very Northern European/Northern Asian family, and for now I just can't envision a branch as northerly as Uralic being originally a CHG/Near Eastern family.
 
Last edited:
I think no steppe in a bronze age Anatolian sample isn't a surprise at this point. Not sure what this says about PIE though.

@Angela Looks like the first evidence of domestic horses is in Northern Anatolia around 2700BC, associated with Bulgarian cultures, dare I say Anatolian IE speakers? I really really want to see who these people were. They need to sample the people now. Someone get on the phone.

Anthony, in The Horse Wheel and Language argues that at Botai "horses were bitted and ridden in Northern Kazakhstan beginning about 3700-3500 BCE" and "may well have started before 4200 BCE" (p. 220).
 
I agree with you that there is, among some who have already predetermined what Urheimat they wish to be true (be it the "steppe" or the "South Caucasus"), a very obvious unwillingness to really "just follow the data" and at least think of the plausibiliy of other parallel hypotheses even if they may keep their preferences. My main point is that, not just in this study but also as indicated by previous analyses, there was virtually no CHG in earlier (Mesolithic) Eastern European HG, and then CHG appears clearly in the autosomal makeup of some (still not all) Eneolithic Khvalynsk-period samples, and later Yamna is full of that significant EHG+CHG mix. That looks to me like some significant Caucasian influence in the basic formation of the first IE tribes in the steppe, but not necessarily indicative of PIE arising and splitting outside the steppes (the "mother" or "grandmother" of PIE, okay, that's totally possible or even likely).

P.S.: I won't for now "cheer" for either an ultimately Transcaucasian CHG or EHG origin for this pre-PIE because I don't think we have a lot of things to favor one thing over another (except for some preconceived assumptions, sort of like "EHG were hunter gatherers, Caucasians were more advanced, so the EHG language couldn't have prevailed in the steppes"). I prefer not to voice any definite preference about that linguistic - not genetic - part of this controversy because even though a South Caucasian origin with CHG and R1b-majority people sounds very compatible to me, there is the "inconvenient truth" that, among all language families of the world, it is virtually undeniable that Indo-European looks like it shares more typological similarities with Uralic, a very Northern European/Northern Asian family, and for now I just can't envision a branch as northerly as Uralic being originally a CHG/Near Eastern family.

I remember in 2015 before the first Yamnaya sample of history, the theory was pretty made, Maciamo had this following, Yamnaya would be R1a and R1b coming from south caucasus at the time of Maikop. Everybody on Eupedia pretty much accepted the hypothesis, i didn't even question it for myself, it made sense, and there was nothing offensive or bad about R1b coming from south caucasus. Then Yamnaya samples arrived and turnes out R1b, everything had to be rethink and something broke at this point here. Pretty much at the same point or a little bit earlier Underhill and others have postulate that R1a and R1b had to come from south caucasus because of the modern geographic distribution of the basal forms of those lineage and all the shit happenned, a likely war between two camp happenned and between then it's the same biased views towards north or south. Personnally i already multiple times said my view on the IE question, it looks pretty certain for me that all modern IE languages came from a steppe migration, what's happened earlier is way more complicate. I found it very frustrating to try to explain PIE with CHG, because it is basically the antithesis of how we explain Steppe migration, one requires a specific male lineage ( or two ) and the other a specific autosomal dna. But i could everyday make me the lawyer of the devil and explain how it could be possible for PIE to come from the south ultimately.
 
My own positions have been changing (and hopefully improving) continuously in the last few years: the data point out this or that, I'll change accordingly. Right now, I believe there was first a CHG intogression into the former overwhelmingly EHG steppes, a bit later farmer EEF cultures (Cucuteni-Tripolye mostly) expands to the Bug-Dnieper region and, neighboring the western steppe populations, influences Sredny Stog significantly. Contemporary Khvalynsk, hundreds of km to the east, remained less impacted by that EEF impact, but was more and more influenced by EEF-influenced/admixed Sredny Stog populations and also kept receiving some extra influence (genetic included) from the Caucasus. Then Repin developed out of those multiple influences and in the Yamnaya stage an opposite flow of genetics and culture happened, with a westward drive of Yamnaya onto Sredny Stog II, mixing with and absorbing it. That scenario looks plausible to me, but undeniably uncertain yet, so I'll have no problem adjusting or even refusing it entirely as I gain more knowledge on the subject and new genetic/archaeological findings are done.

From "The Cultural Counterparts to Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Indo-Aryan", by A. Parpalo and C. Carpelon, The Indo-Aryan Controversy (2005):

The Khvalynsk culture expanded both east and west along the border of the steppe and forest-steppe. In the east, Khvalynsk immigrants, after a long trek, eventually reached southern Siberia and founded the Afanas'evo culture
(3600-2500 calBc) (Figure 4.5). In the west, the expansion of the Khvalynsk culture created the Mariupol' and Chapli type burials (5000-4500 calBc) in the Pontic steppe part of the Dnieper-Donets culture, in the area next occupied by the Srednij Stog culture (4500-3350 calBc) (Figure 4.5).

The Khvalynsk influence reached even further west, being represented by the Decea Muresului cemetery of Romania (4500 calBc). The Suvorovo culture (4500-4100 calBc) of Moldavia and Bulgaria probably belongs to the same wave of immigration, for it has been considered as resulting from an early Srednij Stog expansion to the west. Thus both the Afanas'evo culture of central Siberia, which is considered to be related to the Quawrighul culture (2000-1550 calBc) of Sinkiang, the region where Tocharian was later spoken, and the Suvorovo culture of Bulgaria would both have preserved the pre-Proto-Indo-European language of the Khvalynsk culture. This more archaic language would have largely prevailed in the subsequent fusions with later Proto-Indo-European speaking immigrants, who arrived at both areas with wheeled vehicles after the Srednij Stog culture was transformed into the Pit Grave culture (Figures 4.5, 4.6: Y) c.3500-3350 calBC. The Ezero culture (3300-2700 calBc) of Bulgaria, which resulted from the fusion with the early Pit Grave immigrants, took this pre-Proto-Indo-European language in a somewhat changed form into Anatolia 2700 calbc, where it became Hittite, Luwian, etc.

The Indo-European proto-language was spoken in the Srednij Stog culture (4500-3350 calBc) of southern Ukraine, an offshoot of the Khvalynsk culture with a Dnieper-Donets culture substratum. It developed in interaction with the non-Indo-European speaking prosperous Tripol'e culture (5500-3000 calBc) (cf. Figure 4.7: F), but had contact also with the early Proto-Uralic speaking Lyalovo culture (5000-3650 calBc) which extended to the forest-steppe between the Dnieper and the Don. After acquiring wheeled transport c.3500 calBC, the Srednij Stog culture started expanding and disintegrating. It was first transformed into the Pit Grave (Yamnaya) culture (3500-2200 calBc) distinguished by kurgan burials. Expanding northward to the forest-steppe zone, early Pit Grave culture participated in the formation of the Middle Dnieper culture (Figures 4.6: MD; 4.7: I) by 3300 calBC and thus contributed to the formation of the new Corded Ware cultural complex (Figures 4.6, 4.7), which quickly spread over wide areas of central and northern Europe, appearing in the Baltic countries and southwestern Finland 3200-3 1 00 cal bc and a little later in the Netherlands. The language of the Corded Ware culture, Proto-Northwest-Indo-European, was still close to Proto-Indo-European, but started to diverge into Proto-Italo-Celtic, Proto-Germanic, and Proto-Balto-Slavic under the influence of the local substratum languages.

https://archive.org/stream/EdwinBry...e+in+Indian+History-Routledge+(2005)_djvu.txt
 
did the new C14 dates of the central/south Asian paper come out ?

How did Davidski @eurogenes explain the Hajji Fairuz R1b ? he claimed that the C14 dating must be wrong and the archaeological context is definitely not Chalcolithic but bronze age, without proof, and then went on to use his Global25/nMonte and produced Steppe results.

all Iran Chalcolithic samples (seh gabi, hajji fairuz, tepe hissar) contain additional EHG that was not present in Iran Neolithic, we know that since Lazaridis et al (2016), the paper's qpAdm modelling did produce that for all samples not just the R1b guy, and it was quite minor, 4% and 5% in Hajji Fairuz, which is expected for the Chalcolithic .. and most importantly, the R1b wasn't an outlier, he was genetically similar to Chalcolithic individuals nearby.

PProp1Prop2Prop3Err1Err2Err3Source1Source2Source3
0.030.520.48NA0.020.02NAGanj_Dareh_NAnatolia_NNA
0.900.070.610.320.020.040.06Iron_Gates_HGGanj_Dareh_NAnatolia_N
0.620.040.510.450.010.020.03Karelia_HGGanj_Dareh_NAnatolia_N
0.580.470.480.050.030.020.02Ganj_Dareh_NAnatolia_NWest_Siberia_N

these are for Hajji Fairuz samples, the other locations are also modelled in the paper having extremely small amounts of EHG.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/04/likely-yamnaya-incursions-into.html

and this is from the comment section:

Mr. Kulkarni said...I2327. What are the archaeological evidences of dating of this person? What artefacts have been found along with him?
Afaik, there is no mention of him being a genetic outlier, and no mention of it being an intrusibe burial.
April 23, 2018 at 2:22 AM

Davidski
said...@Kulkarni

Read what I wrote and try and understand it.
April 23, 2018 at 2:24 AM

Mr. Kulkarni
said...@davidski i see you giving random knowledge on archaeology about the skeleton falling into layer below which you have no clue about.

What I see you doing is manufacturing evidence to suit your theory.
April 23, 2018 at 3:10 AM

Davidski
said...@Kulkarni

Quit acting crazy or I'll ban you.

For one, I didn't manufacture his Y-chromosome halogroup, which is common on the Bronze Age steppe, but missing from all C14-dated Near Eastern samples from before the Iron Age.

And I didn't manufacture the other Hajji Firuz sample with obvious Yamnaya ancestry that was thought to be Chalcolithic, but turned out to be Bronze Age after a C14 dating. This skeleton fell from the Bronze Age into the Chalcolithic layer. This is a fact.


I told you to read what I wrote and to try and understand it. So why don't you actually do that? How hard can it be to understand what I wrote and to consider it objectively?

How much more EHG do modern Iranians have ? is it the same levels as in the Chalcolithic ?
 

This thread has been viewed 156417 times.

Back
Top