Where did the Anatolian branch of Indo-European originate?

[Ygorcs]

Bronze Age Anatolia doesn't have EHG, but Bronze Age Eastern Europe doesn't have ANF. The only link in the Bronze Age of both Anatolia and Eastern Europe is CHG, wich predate Bronze Age. Maikop and related north caucasus chalcolithic cultures have some ANF, but their paternal lineages are absent of steppe. Now we have an interesting conclusion, both Anatolia wich we would assume are natively ANF and Eastern Europe wich we would assume are natively EHG are both Indo-European speakers at some point in history. But there's more, both Eastern Europe and Indian Sub-continent and Iran are in Iron Age - Early Antiquity, Indo-Iranian speakers without Eastern Europe having ANI/ASI or Iran/Indian having EHG. Those pattern can only have one conclusion ( apart of the conclusion that I-E languages have been transmitted with mothers ). The conclusion is that I-E languages had both a demic and cultural diffusion, some people in western europe have becomed I-E speakers with direct ancestors of Yamnaya, some others like India-Iran and Anatolia have become I-E speakers with cultural diffusion and male lineage founder effects. Everything contradicte everything in I-E studies, even the researchers in the papers they feel something is fishy with only steppe hypothesis but at the same time the others hypothesis cant explain everything. But just imagine whats the actual consensus from anti-steppist people. Maikop bring PIE to steppe and because they were culturally superior they imposed language and bring female lineage but not male lineage in the pontic steppe. So a semi cultural-demic diffusion. Now we can apply the same pattern to Anatolia and Iran-India. India have gotten a gigantic founder effect with R1a-Z93 wich is clearly a northern lineage related with Iron Age eurasian steppe, but they dont have EHG properly, so they are still autosomally ASI/Iran_Neolithic = ANI? Iran but Anatolia are different stories, Iran didn't have the founder effect of Indians with R1a and are near the middle east, so they constantly had mashing with other populations. For Anatolia its way more complicate, I-E languages disappear 3'200BC of that place, apart from a big scale sampling of those ancient times, we cannot make a conclusion whatsoever. But lets take back to the genetic link between Bronze Age Anatolia and Bronze Age Pontic Steppe. BA Anatolia is mostly 50/50 ANF and Iran_Chalcolithic, while BA Pontic Steppe is mostly 50/50 EHG and CHG. Now what differentiate CHG/Iran_Neolithic/Iran_Chalcolithic? There is any genetic link between all this that i'm pretty sure Harvard gonna change the terminology of CHG in the Pontic Steppe for Iran_Chalcolithic to fit their hypothesis, maybe in future samples, maybe even in a simple revision of terminology.

Iran/India did have EHG ancestry, including according to the latest papers EHG-derived ancestry independent of and before Yamnaya. The South Asian/South Central Asian papers definitely suggested a relatively small demic impact from the steppe pastoralists, but it did confirm that the EHG+CHG package of the BA Pontic-Caspian steppe did reach those modern Indo-Iranian territories - just not directly from Yamnaya, but rather from some populatio before Yamnaya and especially, in much higher proportions, after Yamnaya in the MLBA Andronovo horizon.

_________________________

I don't feel confident to affirm where the Early PIE (Indo-Hittite, Indo-Anatolian) was first spoken, because I think that with the data we have until now we're basically in a stalemate, at least if we keep in mind that Anatolian is almost universally considered by linguists to have split earlier than all other branches, and the split of these residual IE branches had already begun at the very least by the early/mid Yamnaya period (~3000 BC). By 1500 BC Hittite, Old Indic and Mycenaean Greek (these two actually demonstrably much closer to each other than other IE languages, so assumed to latecomers of the PIE expansion), were already so different that it's really hard to assume that their divergence happened a mere 1000-1500 years before. So, in the period immediately preceding the Yamnaya horizon we probably had this situation, which is hard to reconcile completely with "South Caucasus origin" or "Anatolian origin" or "Steppe origin":

* CA/EBA Pontic-Caspian steppe: Chalcolithic "old" EHG/CHG mix + a little extra CHG + a really tiny amount of ANF which only appears in non-negligible amounts by the time of Yamnaya + near complete dominance of local Y-DNA, very few signs of Anatolian & Caucasus influence + a Mt-DNA makeup that is much more similar to that of the North Caucasus females

* Caucasus (not its steppe slopes): Regional CHG + A lot of ANF + negligible or no EHG + Y-DNA makeup that is totally unlike that of the Pontic-Caspian steppe males + A Mt-DNA makeup that is much more similar to that of the Pontic-Caspian females

* Anatolia: Regional ANF + Increasingly more CHG/Iran_Neo + negligible or no EHG + predominantly local and some Caucasian-like Y-DNA

So, the pieces don't fit yet, unless we'll make a huge leap and assume that, to the surprise of most people, Caucasian women exchanged by Caucasus populations in exogamic arrangements were much more influential and powerful than we thought, having been able to produce a wholesale linguistic shift in the huge expanse of the Ukrainian/Russian steppes. One could argue that Y-DNA haplogroups can suffer dramatic expansions or retractions in some generations, but in that case we'd at least expect Caucasian-like Y-DNA haplogroups to be found in the "Indo-Europeanization phase" of the Pontic-Caspian steppe in much higher frequencies than in later periods (post-Yamnaya, for instance), which would suggest a later "comeback" of the native males winning over the Caucasian males who had become culturally dominant in an earlier age. But we see nothing like that in the ancient DNA database.

[Silesian]

@ToBeOrNotToBe:

Does no one remember prior papers? Please for goodness' sakes read the Sandra Wilde et al and the Mathiesen et al papers. The Yamnaya people were DARK, darker than most Europeans today. As for light hair, and eyes for that matter, it already existed in NEOLITHIC ANATOLIA. It didn't need to get introduced by the steppe people. It's just that over the years, since these are recessive traits, they don't pop up as much.

So far almost all the Yamnaya tested were ynda-R1b[Z-2109]. The same ydna R1b found in 14000YBP+/- Villabruna Italy[with more downstream mutations]. Their pigmentation was not that much different than the ancient Europeans like R1b found at Villabruna and R1b found at Iron Gates 8000-12000YBP+/-, perhaps shade/s lighter . The earliest light/hair/eye pigmentation around Yamnaya kurgan turned up in Hunter Gatherer R1b Samara 7500YBP+/- a branching/M73-M269.

[Ygorcs]

I am dead serious, its the called the argument of how many samples do you need to know if people of different ethnicities had sex?

take the Minoans and Mycenaeans for example, how many samples from the Myceneans did not have EHG ? not a single one.

How many samples from the Minoans did not have CHG ? not a single one.

In the damgaard et al paper, all BA Anatolian samples, were similar to the 3700BC Chalcolithic individual, the first in Anatolia to have CHG. all didn't have EHG.

There is no conspiracy, the first Anatolian sample from the Iron Age immediately had EHG ancestry, I think we have two, both had it. notice a pattern?

seriously if there is Steppe ancestry undiscovered in BA Anatolia then God is a joker.

I'm not saying this necessarily happened, but that kind of situation is perfectly possible if there had not been enough time for a large-scale homogeneization of the population yet (especially if the populations initially remained averse to inter-ethnic exogamy). Some generations after the immigration of a "new" population (which, if they came from the Balkans or the Caucasus, and not from the steppes directly, must've already been themselves pretty low on EHG), I think it's totally expected that if you had e.g. 100 samples some would come off nearly 100% immigrant, some others more or less mixed, and a vast majority would still be totally unmixed, 100% indigenous. If all you have is 3 or 5 samples, I wouldn't be surprised if they end up having some bias or fail to demonstrate the true genetic diversity that existed in a non-homogeneized population. That's what I'd expect in any scenario where the immigration was not absurdly massive and/or there was not a huge population replacement in the region, anyway. The widespread mixing process, even when it is not socially disencouraged, takes many generations to consolidate. Anatolian IA is clearly many centuries after the introgression of IE peoples in the region, and ditto for Mycenaeans and, switching to CHG instead of EHG, the Minoans.

[Silesian]

Can't wait for this question to be resolved - I'm backing a West Asian origin of the pre-proto-Indo-Europeans, with Anatolians being either those who didn't cross into the Steppe, or simply a relatively early reflux. West Asian origin of PPIE will, in my opinion, be ultimately related to the first proto-urban settlements of the Copper Age - ................
If only they could bloody get a move on though, it shouldn't take that long to do all this!

​Hittite (natively ����������������� �� nešili "[in the language] of Neša"), also known as Nesite and Neshite, is an Indo-European-language that was spoken by the Hittites, a people of Bronze Age Anatolia who created an empire, centred on Hattusa. The language, long extinct now, is attested in cuneiform, in records dating from the 16th (Anitta text) to the 13th century BC, with isolated Hittite loanwords and numerous personal names appearing in an Old Assyrian context from as early as the 20th century BC.

The Hittite city was called Hattusa.
Proto Indo European has no word for city/town,roof,floor,brick

The oldest discovered bricks, originally made from shaped mud and dating before 7500 BC, were found at Tell Aswad, in the upper Tigris region and in southeast Anatolia close to Diyarbakir.^[1]

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~rnoyer/co...ialCulture.pdf

[Ygorcs]

The Hittite city was called Hattusa.
Proto Indo European has no word for city/town,roof,floor,brick

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~rnoyer/co...ialCulture.pdf

That's a really troublesome (among many others) points against ToBeOrNotToBe's "advanced West Asian gingers" hypothesis. How come the bulk of the IE linguistic expansion (Anatolian notwithstanding, it's just the outlier) is clearly tied to a supposedly Indo-Europeanized Pontic-Caspian steppe full of "red-haired pale people" who, unlike their immediate ancestors, had no "proto-urban" society, barely practiced agriculture and were clearly less developed technologically and in terms of social organization than the Near Eastern populations they came from? Did they go through some huge cultural/economic regression as they expanded northward, yet somehow that happened just as they were expanding their language most widely? In this as in other matters, the hypothesis is full of holes.

[epoch]

As for the mummies, come on. If you want Egyptian mummies with some "Greek" ancestry in them this is not the place to look. Look in Alexandria, for goodness' sakes, or at least somewhere near the Delta. That's where the vast majority of the Greek citizens lived. It's like looking for Lombard ancestry not in Lombardia or the Veneto but in Calabria.

Bingo. Now, if that applies to Lombards and Ptolemeids, why not for Anatolians?

[Yetos]

The Hittite city was called Hattusa.
Proto Indo European has no word for city/town,roof,floor,brick

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~rnoyer/co...ialCulture.pdf

hm

ending in - issa ossa ussa -assa etc is considered pure PIE ending.

[Yetos]

Bingo. Now, if that applies to Lombards and Ptolemeids, why not for Anatolians?

because Hellenistic Aigypt does not mean all Egypt spoke Greek Makedonian, Neither Koine,

But conserning Fayum we have evidences,,


As for Italy, and Lombards, cause Lombards were Germanic, does not mean Italy was all speaking Germanic or Italian,
in Fact consider when Lombards enter Italy, consider where Normans enter S Italy
and when S Italy tottaly turn to modern Italian,

just think Normans enter S Italy, Lombards enter N Italy,
and before Italian unicification movements (Garibaldi Mazzini etc)
how much of Italy spoke these languages?


in fact day by day I have the thinking that languages spread at the time of peace, not at the time of war,


Notice BMAC and Afanasevo, they are about same genetical, but not Linguistic, why?

[Angela]

Bingo. Now, if that applies to Lombards and Ptolemeids, why not for Anatolians?

Sorry, you've lost me. Should I post the map of the IE language areas of Anatolia again? What I said was that IF, given sufficient time, NO samples turn up in this area with EHG, then this hypothesis is in trouble.

You're in effect saying that EHG doesn't have to turn up anywhere in the IE SPEAKING areas of Anatolia.

MY example was not even exactly apropos. The signal of the Lombard genetics is definitely there in northern and perhaps down to central Italy, even if it is a minority one. Yet, they didn't even manage to change the language.

You're proposing that a group so tiny that it's genetic footprint is totally gone changed the language of an extensive, densely populated area of more advanced people.

The two situations are not at all similar.

There are also problems with the crossing the Caucasus scenario, as Ygorcs pointed out. Just as it makes no sense that people who spent all that time in the Balkans had no word for wheel, it doesn't make sense that people from a culture with mudbrick houses has no word for it. Indeed, it makes no sense that the steppe people were so primitive if half their genetics came from a more advanced area.

If the ancestry came mostly from women, women who weren't able to effect the culture as much, it might be possible, but that would require the women, with no power, changing the language.

The only other possibility I see is that it was much earlier, but I don't know how that fits with the timing for pre-proto-IE.

[Angela]

So far almost all the Yamnaya tested were ynda-R1b[Z-2109]. The same ydna R1b found in 14000YBP+/- Villabruna Italy[with more downstream mutations]. Their pigmentation was not that much different than the ancient Europeans like R1b found at Villabruna and R1b found at Iron Gates 8000-12000YBP+/-, perhaps shade/s lighter . The earliest light/hair/eye pigmentation around Yamnaya kurgan turned up in Hunter Gatherer R1b Samara 7500YBP+/- a branching/M73-M269.

Sorry, Silesian, maybe it's too early yet for me. What is the point you're trying to make?

There were light haired light eyed people in Neolithic Europe. (See Sandra Wilde et al for Hungary just for starters, then all the later samples that turned up) There were some light haired light eyed people in Neolithic Anatolia before any movement to Europe. There was no R1b of any kind in any of these cases.

[IronSide]

The Shang dynasty of China were Steppe people.

The first Japanese emperors were very much high in Steppe.

The Pharoahs of Egypt ? Dr.Eugenics told us about their red hair, they are descended from the Steppe pastoralists.

God ? he lives in the open Steppe, his throne is upon the waters of Lake Baikal.

The Roman Patrician families were high in Steppe, the plebians are not.

The Inca and Mayan elite were Steppe people who crossed the Bering Strait, alternatively, they may have crossed the Atlantic.

you will never find their DNA, they are the elites, Steppe people founded all major civilizations.

[davef]

The Shang dynasty of China were Steppe people.

The first Japanese emperors were very much high in Steppe.

The Pharoahs of Egypt ? Dr.Eugenics told us about their red hair, they are descended from the Steppe pastoralists.

God ? he lives in the open Steppe, his throne is upon the waters of Lake Baikal.

The Roman Patrician families were high in Steppe, the plebians are not.

The Inca and Mayan elite were Steppe people who crossed the Bering Strait, alternatively, they may have crossed the Atlantic.

you will never find their DNA, they are the elites, Steppe people founded all major civilizations.

Bow to me, my non steppe underlings. WE HAZ TEH HORZES

[IronSide]

The abducted women of the weaker Maykop transmitted so much culture for the Steppe, metals and carts, hehe even how they buried their dead.

[davef]

If the steppe people did conquer Anatolia without changing it genetically, how can we explain the fact that Europe has so much steppe ancestry?

[Angela]

The Shang dynasty of China were Steppe people.
The first Japanese emperors were very much high in Steppe.
The Pharoahs of Egypt ? Dr.Eugenics told us about their red hair, they are descended from the Steppe pastoralists.
God ? he lives in the open Steppe, his throne is upon the waters of Lake Baikal.
The Roman Patrician families were high in Steppe, the plebians are not.
The Inca and Mayan elite were Steppe people who crossed the Bering Strait, alternatively, they may have crossed the Atlantic.
you will never find their DNA, they are the elites, Steppe people founded all major civilizations.

You do realize there are lots of idiots out there who really do believe this nonsense, right? :)

Sarcasm is lost on such people.

[Ailchu]

The abducted women of the weaker Maykop transmitted so much culture for the Steppe, metals and carts, hehe even how they buried their dead.

was there more than just metals and carts? the romans also adopted iron after beeing defeated by armies with iron weapons without changing their culture. carts were probably also spread in cultures south of the caucasus without becoming indo european. i'm definitly no steppist and i'm open for a more southern origin. butas far as i understood it there is no male haplogroup from maykop in yamnas. that would be one of the problems if not the main problem we would have to address.
@Angela
what is the chronological order of these languages? were they all spread by hittites?

[Taranis]

On the contrary, the largest parts of Anatolia were IE speaking. They were also not the parts anywhere near the Balkans. You people just ignore everything that doesn't fit on your side of the ledger. There's nothing scholarly about your approach whatsoever.



Why focus only on the Hittites?

I'm sorry, but only people with an agenda are going to believe this if not one sample in this whole area ever shows EHG. There's still time for the samples to show up, of course, but as I said, if none show up it's a real problem.

One point I'd like to make: this discussion has been focusing a lot on genetics, whereas we're actually talking (or should be talking) about a language family. One important point to make is that the Luwic group of languages possessed a type of palatalization that can* be compared to Satemization, while Hittite was basically a "Centum" language (in the sense that the "palato-velars" and "plain velars" of PIE are merged). In essence this means you may (or may not) need to reconstruct the three series of consonants (plain velars, palato-velars and labio-velars) as distinct for Proto-Anatolian (in contrast to the other IE branches):

This leaves us with two possible scenarios:

1) either that Proto-Anatolian diverged before the Centum/Satem split (this certainly allows for variants of the old "Indo-Hittite" model, where you had a split between Proto-Anatolian and a type of Late PIE in the steppe, which was the ancestor language of the other branches).

2) or that Proto-Anatolian was in fact a centum language and the palatalization in the Luwic branch is secondary (French is another good example of a Centum language that has quite extensive secondary palatalization).

Either way, the Anatolian languages have a few peculiar features, in particular that there's no male/female/neuter genders (which you could reconstruct for late PIE) but an animate/inanimate gender.

*EDIT: I missed something here, sorry.

[Ygorcs]

because Hellenistic Aigypt does not mean all Egypt spoke Greek Makedonian, Neither Koine,

But conserning Fayum we have evidences,,


As for Italy, and Lombards, cause Lombards were Germanic, does not mean Italy was all speaking Germanic or Italian,
in Fact consider when Lombards enter Italy, consider where Normans enter S Italy
and when S Italy tottaly turn to modern Italian,

just think Normans enter S Italy, Lombards enter N Italy,
and before Italian unicification movements (Garibaldi Mazzini etc)
how much of Italy spoke these languages?


in fact day by day I have the thinking that languages spread at the time of peace, not at the time of war,


Notice BMAC and Afanasevo, they are about same genetical, but not Linguistic, why?

BMAC and Afanasievo? No, they aren't. The Y-DNA haplogroups and the autosomal makeup are very different, and BMAC didn't have nearly as much Yamnaya-like / EMBA Steppe-like ancestry. The (assumed, not proven) lack of linguistic similariti is easily explained in that case.

[epoch]

Sorry, you've lost me. Should I post the map of the IE language areas of Anatolia again? What I said was that IF, given sufficient time, NO samples turn up in this area with EHG, then this hypothesis is in trouble.

You're in effect saying that EHG doesn't have to turn up anywhere in the IE SPEAKING areas of Anatolia.

MY example was not even exactly apropos. The signal of the Lombard genetics is definitely there in northern and perhaps down to central Italy, even if it is a minority one. Yet, they didn't even manage to change the language.

You're proposing that a group so tiny that it's genetic footprint is totally gone changed the language of an extensive, densely populated area of more advanced people.

The two situations are not at all similar.

There are also problems with the crossing the Caucasus scenario, as Ygorcs pointed out. Just as it makes no sense that people who spent all that time in the Balkans had no word for wheel, it doesn't make sense that people from a culture with mudbrick houses has no word for it. Indeed, it makes no sense that the steppe people were so primitive if half their genetics came from a more advanced area.

If the ancestry came mostly from women, women who weren't able to effect the culture as much, it might be possible, but that would require the women, with no power, changing the language.

The only other possibility I see is that it was much earlier, but I don't know how that fits with the timing for pre-proto-IE.

Then I'll let Damsgaard explain it:

“We are pretty sure Indo-European languages were introduced to Anatolia – either through the Balkans or the Caucasus, by a minority,” Damgaard says. The languages would then have been sustained in Anatolia through cultural processes, he adds.

https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/MAGAZINE-backing-the-wrong-wild-horse-1.6196288

[Angela]

Then I'll let Damsgaard explain it:



https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/MAGAZINE-backing-the-wrong-wild-horse-1.6196288

That is totally unresponsive to my point, and meant to misrepresent my point as well. Is this how you conduct intellectual discussions?

NOWHERE have I ever said or implied that it is impossible for an elite, minority group to impose their language. Only someone totally ignorant of this discipline would do such a thing.

What you are proposing, however, is that a densely populated, advanced culture (in relation to these new arrivals) had its language changed by a group so small that absolutely no trace of it remains genetically. I don't know of any other such situation. The Mycenaeans, for example, do show some steppe ancestry, even if it is relatively small. We find the same thing in India, and certainly in Europe, where it is much larger. In the case of the Romans, you had a small group's language eventually predominating in most conquered areas, but this was by a literate, advanced culture conquering less advanced, illiterate people. Even then, traces of the Roman genetic presence can be found.

Oh, and as to the article to which you linked for a trail from the Balkans to Anatolia, I read the entire article very carefully. It deals with trade networks not at all with population movement, in case anyone wondered.

Look, you clearly don't have an open mind about any of this, so this discussion is pointless. Believe what you wish.

[IronSide]

I'm convinced:

Furthermore, our genetic data cannot confirm a scenario in which the introduction of the Anatolian Indo-European languages into Anatolia was associated with the spread of EBA Yamnaya West Eurasian ancestry. The Anatolian samples contain no discernible trace of steppe ancestry at present. The combined linguistic and genetic evidence, therefore, have important implications for the “Steppe Hypothesis”in Southwest Asia.

First, the lack of genetic indications for an intrusion into Anatolia refutes the classical notion of a Yamnaya-derived mass invasion or conquest. However, it does fit the recently developed consensus among linguists and historians that the speakers of the Anatolian languages established themselves in Anatolia by gradual infiltration and cultural assimilation.

Second, the attestation of Anatolian Indo-European personal names in 25th century BCE decisively falsifies the Yamnaya culture as a possible archaeological horizon for PIE-speakers prior to the Anatolian Indo-European split. The period of Proto-Anatolian linguistic unity can now be placed in the 4thmillennium BCE and may have been contemporaneous with e.g. the Maykop culture (3700–3000 BCE), which influenced the formation and apparent westward migration of the Yamnaya and maintained commercial and cultural contact with the Anatolian highlands (Kristiansen et al. 2018). Our findings corroborate the Indo-Anatolian Hypothesis, which claims that Anatolian Indo-European split off from Proto-Indo-European first and that Anatolian Indo-European represents a sister rather than a daughter language. Our findings call for the identification of the speakers of Proto-Indo-Anatolian as a population earlier that the Yamnaya and late Maykop cultures

and this

Indeed, our data are also consistent with the first speakers of Anatolian IE coming to the region
by way of commercial contacts and small-scale movement during the Bronze Age. Among
comparative linguists, a Balkan route for the introduction of Anatolian IE is generally considered
more likely than a passage through the Caucasus, due, for example, to greater Anatolian IE
presence and language diversity in the west

historians and linguists reached a consensus, the speakers of the Anatolian languages established themselves in Anatolia by gradual infiltration and cultural assimilation, and of course, commercial contacts.

Want a region to speak your language (and become a language family) ? well it's easy, you gradually infiltrate, and culturally assimilate.

Your tribe will cross the Bosphorus, one by one, gradually, or else they'll discover your autosomes, and then you spread yourselves thin across Anatolia, to begin the process of cultural assimilation.

How you do that you may ask ? well, you can ask them nicely, impressing them by how nice you are, they'll be impressed.

Or you can trade with them, trading with them so much and so hard until they submit.

Or you can tell them stories, on how you migrated from the Pontic Caspian Steppe, without horses or wheels, barely speaking or having sex with anyone in the Balkans.

they'll be impressed, and in the next day, the sun will shine and everyone will start speaking your language, leaving their trash languages behind for good, this situation will last for centuries, until your language grows and becomes a large happy family.

[Ygorcs]

Sorry, you've lost me. Should I post the map of the IE language areas of Anatolia again? What I said was that IF, given sufficient time, NO samples turn up in this area with EHG, then this hypothesis is in trouble.

You're in effect saying that EHG doesn't have to turn up anywhere in the IE SPEAKING areas of Anatolia.

MY example was not even exactly apropos. The signal of the Lombard genetics is definitely there in northern and perhaps down to central Italy, even if it is a minority one. Yet, they didn't even manage to change the language.

You're proposing that a group so tiny that it's genetic footprint is totally gone changed the language of an extensive, densely populated area of more advanced people.

The two situations are not at all similar.

There are also problems with the crossing the Caucasus scenario, as Ygorcs pointed out. Just as it makes no sense that people who spent all that time in the Balkans had no word for wheel, it doesn't make sense that people from a culture with mudbrick houses has no word for it. Indeed, it makes no sense that the steppe people were so primitive if half their genetics came from a more advanced area.

If the ancestry came mostly from women, women who weren't able to effect the culture as much, it might be possible, but that would require the women, with no power, changing the language.

The only other possibility I see is that it was much earlier, but I don't know how that fits with the timing for pre-proto-IE.

You said exactly what I think and meant to say, but in much clearer and concise words. Thanks!; -)

[halfalp]

Iran/India did have EHG ancestry, including according to the latest papers EHG-derived ancestry independent of and before Yamnaya. The South Asian/South Central Asian papers definitely suggested a relatively small demic impact from the steppe pastoralists, but it did confirm that the EHG+CHG package of the BA Pontic-Caspian steppe did reach those modern Indo-Iranian territories - just not directly from Yamnaya, but rather from some populatio before Yamnaya and especially, in much higher proportions, after Yamnaya in the MLBA Andronovo horizon.

_________________________

I don't feel confident to affirm where the Early PIE (Indo-Hittite, Indo-Anatolian) was first spoken, because I think that with the data we have until now we're basically in a stalemate, at least if we keep in mind that Anatolian is almost universally considered by linguists to have split earlier than all other branches, and the split of these residual IE branches had already begun at the very least by the early/mid Yamnaya period (~3000 BC). By 1500 BC Hittite, Old Indic and Mycenaean Greek (these two actually demonstrably much closer to each other than other IE languages, so assumed to latecomers of the PIE expansion), were already so different that it's really hard to assume that their divergence happened a mere 1000-1500 years before. So, in the period immediately preceding the Yamnaya horizon we probably had this situation, which is hard to reconcile completely with "South Caucasus origin" or "Anatolian origin" or "Steppe origin":

* CA/EBA Pontic-Caspian steppe: Chalcolithic "old" EHG/CHG mix + a little extra CHG + a really tiny amount of ANF which only appears in non-negligible amounts by the time of Yamnaya + near complete dominance of local Y-DNA, very few signs of Anatolian & Caucasus influence + a Mt-DNA makeup that is much more similar to that of the North Caucasus females

* Caucasus (not its steppe slopes): Regional CHG + A lot of ANF + negligible or no EHG + Y-DNA makeup that is totally unlike that of the Pontic-Caspian steppe males + A Mt-DNA makeup that is much more similar to that of the Pontic-Caspian females

* Anatolia: Regional ANF + Increasingly more CHG/Iran_Neo + negligible or no EHG + predominantly local and some Caucasian-like Y-DNA

So, the pieces don't fit yet, unless we'll make a huge leap and assume that, to the surprise of most people, Caucasian women exchanged by Caucasus populations in exogamic arrangements were much more influential and powerful than we thought, having been able to produce a wholesale linguistic shift in the huge expanse of the Ukrainian/Russian steppes. One could argue that Y-DNA haplogroups can suffer dramatic expansions or retractions in some generations, but in that case we'd at least expect Caucasian-like Y-DNA haplogroups to be found in the "Indo-Europeanization phase" of the Pontic-Caspian steppe in much higher frequencies than in later periods (post-Yamnaya, for instance), which would suggest a later "comeback" of the native males winning over the Caucasian males who had become culturally dominant in an earlier age. But we see nothing like that in the ancient DNA database.

Give me mesolithic / neolithic caucasus-north caucasus samples of R1b-M269 and all this story is over.

[Silesian]

Sorry, Silesian, maybe it's too early yet for me. What is the point you're trying to make?

There were light haired light eyed people in Neolithic Europe. (See Sandra Wilde et al for Hungary just for starters, then all the later samples that turned up) There were some light haired light eyed people in Neolithic Anatolia before any movement to Europe. There was no R1b of any kind in any of these cases.

preprint see Mathieson 2017--Afontova Gora might have the same ydna as Malta1[R*][Samarra was R1b branch]
"The derived allele of the KITLG SNP rs12821256 that is associated with – and likely causal for – blond hair in Europeans [4,5] is present in one hunter-gatherer from each of Samara, Motala and Ukraine (I0124, I0014 and I1763), as well as several later individuals with Steppe ancestry. Since the allele is found in populations with EHG but not WHG ancestry, it suggests that its origin is in the Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) population. Consistent with this, we observe that earliest known individual with the derived allele is the [Siberian] ANE individual Afontova Gora 3 which is directly dated to 16130-15749 cal BCE (14710±60 BP, MAMS-27186: a previously unpublished date that we newly report here)."


2016 paper. see Qiaomei Fu et al

​Blue-eyed, dark-skinned man from Villabruna Cave 1, directly dated to about 14,000 years ago and belonging to paternal haplogroup R1b1.

Even though R1b Hunter Gatherer is 2000+/- older than Yamnaya kurgan burials in same region/ of Volga; they were darker phenotype than Samarra R1b. Below are the results of analyses of the hunter-gatherer sample I0124 from Samara, near the Volga River in Russia. The sample is dated to 5650–5555 BC.I0124 belonged to Y haplogroup R1b1*(xR1b1a1, R1b1a2) and mitochondrial haplogroup U5a1d.
see genetiker 2015/03/07 phenotype prehistoric Europe snps
OCA2/HERC2, rs12913832, blue eyes
SLC24A5, rs1426654, Caucasoid light skin
SLC45A2, rs16891982, Caucasoid light skin
KITLG, rs12821256, blond hair


Please see genetiker/2018/02/25/pigmentation-of-the-bell-beaker-people/
R1b-Z2109+ same R1b branch[R1b-Z2109+] as Yamnaya Kurgan culture burials but different phenotype Blue/Brown eyes/ Red/Blonde Hair/Light skin.

I7044

Bell Beaker

Hungary

2500–2200

Light

Blond/ D-blond

Blue

I2787

Bell Beaker

Hungary

2457–2201

Light

Red

Brown

[Angela]

preprint see Mathieson 2017--Afontova Gora might have the same ydna as Malta1[R*][Samarra was R1b branch]
"The derived allele of the KITLG SNP rs12821256 that is associated with – and likely causal for – blond hair in Europeans [4,5] is present in one hunter-gatherer from each of Samara, Motala and Ukraine (I0124, I0014 and I1763), as well as several later individuals with Steppe ancestry. Since the allele is found in populations with EHG but not WHG ancestry, it suggests that its origin is in the Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) population. Consistent with this, we observe that earliest known individual with the derived allele is the [Siberian] ANE individual Afontova Gora 3 which is directly dated to 16130-15749 cal BCE (14710±60 BP, MAMS-27186: a previously unpublished date that we newly report here)."


2016 paper. see Qiaomei Fu et al

​Blue-eyed, dark-skinned man from Villabruna Cave 1, directly dated to about 14,000 years ago and belonging to paternal haplogroup R1b1.

Even though R1b Hunter Gatherer is 2000+/- older than Yamnaya kurgan burials in same region/ of Volga; they were darker phenotype than Samarra R1b. Below are the results of analyses of the hunter-gatherer sample I0124 from Samara, near the Volga River in Russia. The sample is dated to 5650–5555 BC.I0124 belonged to Y haplogroup R1b1*(xR1b1a1, R1b1a2) and mitochondrial haplogroup U5a1d.
see genetiker 2015/03/07 phenotype prehistoric Europe snps
OCA2/HERC2, rs12913832, blue eyes
SLC24A5, rs1426654, Caucasoid light skin
SLC45A2, rs16891982, Caucasoid light skin
KITLG, rs12821256, blond hair


Please see genetiker/2018/02/25/pigmentation-of-the-bell-beaker-people/
R1b-Z2109+ same R1b branch[R1b-Z2109+] as Yamnaya Kurgan culture burials but different phenotype Blue/Brown eyes/ Red/Blonde Hair/Light skin.

I7044

Bell Beaker

Hungary

2500–2200

Light

Blond/ D-blond

Blue

I2787

Bell Beaker

Hungary

2457–2201

Light

Red

Brown

So what? I already told you. Go to Sandra Wilde et al. There are blonde light eyed people in Neolithic Hungary. There are light haired light eyed people in Neolithic Anatolia. NONE OF THEM HAD R1b.

It's not tied to ydna. PERIOD.

I don't get what you don't get.