Where did the Anatolian branch of Indo-European originate?

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.
 
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!; -)
 
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.
 
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.
I7044Bell BeakerHungary2500–2200LightBlond/ D-blondBlue

I2787Bell BeakerHungary2457–2201LightRedBrown
 
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.
I7044Bell BeakerHungary2500–2200LightBlond/ D-blondBlue

I2787Bell BeakerHungary2457–2201LightRedBrown

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.
 
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.

There is any Neolithic Anatolian individual that is either light skinned or fair haired / blue eyed. You just assume because EEF is ultimately in origin from Anatolia that those people had the same ( but earlier ) physical features than neolithic europeans. LBK or Hungary is not Barcin, Catalhoyuk or Anatolia.

That would be funny actually. Anatolian Farmers just had one on two genes that gives fair skin, EHG had the second, over all the hypothetic gene that gives all those mutations. If we are intellectually rigide we gonna believe that every single WHG individual was black with blue eyes even the Iron Gates ones and the Baltic ones. So an olive skinned anatolian tribe made sex over generations with black blue eyed people and with the power of wheat and temperate climate they became aryans! This is a betseller i tell y'all (Joke)
 
Last edited:
There is any Neolithic Anatolian individual that is either light skinned or fair haired / blue eyed. You just assume because EEF is ultimately in origin from Anatolia that those people had the same ( but earlier ) physical features than neolithic europeans. LBK or Hungary is not Barcin, Catalhoyuk or Anatolia.

That would be funny actually. Anatolian Farmers just had one on two genes that gives fair skin, EHG had the second, over all the hypothetic gene that gives all those mutations. If we are intellectually rigide we gonna believe that every single WHG individual was black with blue eyes even the Iron Gates ones and the Baltic ones. So an olive skinned anatolian tribe made sex over generations with black blue eyed people and with the power of wheat and temperate climate they became aryans! This is a betseller i tell y'all (Joke)

We had the exact same discussion almost one year ago. At that time I provided you with the links to the papers with the samples. I even quoted from the papers.

It is incontrovertible that there were Anatolian Neolithic individuals who carried the derived versions for both the "European" light skin alleles, and some also carried the mutation for blue eyes.

My God, even Fire-Haired took you to task for blindly denying what is in the data.

I am not going to go over all of it again.

READ and COMPREHEND what you are reading. No one is interested in opinions which are in contravention of fact.

See:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...ropeans/page2?highlight=pigmentation+Anatolia
 
We had the exact same discussion almost one year ago. At that time I provided you with the links to the papers with the samples. I even quoted from the papers.

It is incontrovertible that there were Anatolian Neolithic individuals who carried the derived versions for both the "European" light skin alleles, and some also carried the mutation for blue eyes.

My God, even Fire-Haired took you to task for blindly denying what is in the data.

I am not going to go over all of it again.

READ and COMPREHEND what you are reading. No one is interested in opinions which are in contravention of fact.

See:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...ropeans/page2?highlight=pigmentation+Anatolia

You're shadowing, your Sandra Wilde et Al paper dont talk about fair haired, fair skinned and blue eyed Anatolia Farmers. Any ANF individuals are fair haired or have blue eyes. Some EEF individuals have light hair, light skin genes, EEF is not Anatolian Farmers, comprehend that. Only EEF had both SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. Anatolian Farmers like CHG individuals would only have the SLC24A5 variant for light skin. In modern times, SLC24A5, SLC45A2, OCA2, HERC2 are found in populations without any light features at all like Ethiopians.
 
You're shadowing, your Sandra Wilde et Al paper dont talk about fair haired, fair skinned and blue eyed Anatolia Farmers. Any ANF individuals are fair haired or have blue eyes. Some EEF individuals have light hair, light skin genes, EEF is not Anatolian Farmers, comprehend that. Only EEF had both SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. Anatolian Farmers like CHG individuals would only have the SLC24A5 variant for light skin. In modern times, SLC24A5, SLC45A2, OCA2, HERC2 are found in populations without any light features at all like Ethiopians.

You are delusional or illiterate, I don't know which. The derived snps for some Anatolian samples are clearly listed in the appropriate papers.

READ THE FREAKING PAPERS. Follow the discussion to which I linked.


You post another lie on this site and I will not only delete it, you get an infraction.
 
This is posted only for people who know how to read a graph:

From Mathiesen et al:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/10/10/016477.full.pdf

uReh2BF.png
[/IMG]

We already knew from prior papers that Anatolian Neolithic farmers carried derived SLC24A5. The hunter-gatherer group here includes Motala.
 
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.
I7044Bell BeakerHungary2500–2200LightBlond/ D-blondBlue

I2787Bell BeakerHungary2457–2201LightRedBrown

Bell Beaker is not a good example to infer the phenotype of the PIE-speaking Pontic-Caspian cultures centuries earlier. They were already heavily EEF-shifted (IIRC some of the samples appear to be ~50% BA steppe at most) and were not optimal proxies for Yamnaya, much less earlier Khvalynsk or Sredny Stog, either in genetics or in looks, despite the obvious genetic relation. I think (though I'm not sure) the frequency of light hair and light eyes in the Bell Beaker and CWC samples is much higher than in their common source, the Pontic-Caspian steppe cultures of the Chalcolithic & Early Bronze Age.
 
I did not know that there were blonde/blue eyed Neolithic Anatolians. Where do you think they come from? (or originated in Anatolia?)
 
I did not know that there were blonde/blue eyed Neolithic Anatolians. Where do you think they come from? (or originated in Anatolia?)

Blonde is a different issue. To the best of my recollection there was a prediction for light hair in only one or two samples. Plus, the reliability percentages of predictions for hair color are quite low. Blue eyes and skin pigmentation predictions are much more reliable.

According to Lazaridis et al, Neolithic Anatolians of this period are approximately 1/3 Levant Neolithic, 1/3 Iran Neolithic, and 1/3 local. That "local" component is partly UHG related to the hunter-gatherers of Europe.

This is hashed out to some extent in the Eupedia thread to which I linked above. You can also use the search engine to find other discussions.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...ropeans/page2?highlight=pigmentation+Anatolia
 
According to Lazaridis et al, Neolithic Anatolians of this period are approximately 1/3 Levant Neolithic, 1/3 Iran Neolithic, and 1/3 local. That "local" component is partly UHG related to the hunter-gatherers of Europe.
Angela, it seems that things may change after an upcoming paper*, if I understand it right. See the abstract (emphasis is mine):
*You mentioned it here: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/36503-Upcoming-Papers-ISBA-2018

The first Epipaleolithic Genome from Anatolia suggests a limited role of demic diffusion in the Advent of Farming in Anatolia

Feldman et al.

Anatolia was home to some of the earliest farming communities, which in the following millennia expanded into Europe and largely replaced local hunter-gatherers. The lack of genetic data from pre-farming Anatolians has so far limited demographic investigations of the Anatolian Neolithisation process. In particular, it has been unclear whether farming was adopted by indigenous hunter-gatherers in Central Anatolia or imported by settlers from earlier farming centers. Here we present the first genome-wide data from an Anatolian Epipaleolithic hunter-gatherer who lived ~15,000 years ago, as well as from Early Neolithic individuals from Anatolia and the Levant. By using a comparative dataset of modern and ancient genomes, we estimate that the earliest Anatolian farmers derive over 90 percent of their ancestry from the local Epipaleolithic population, indicating a high degree of genetic continuity throughout the Neolithic transition. In addition, we detect two distinct waves of gene flow during the Neolithic transition: an earlier one related to Iranian/Caucasus ancestry and a later one linked to the Levant. Finally, we observe a genetic link between Epipaleolithic Near-Easterners and post-glacial European hunter-gatherers that suggests a bidirectional genetic exchange between Europe and the Near East predating 15,000 years ago. Our results suggest that the Neolithisation model in Central Anatolia was demographically similar to the one previously observed in the southern Levant and in the southern Caucasus-Iran highlands, further supporting the limited role of demic diffusion during the early spread of agriculture in the Near East, in contrast to the later Neolithisation of Europe.
So, the remaining 10% of the ancestry of "earliest" Anatolian farmers would be related to Iran and Levant. I wonder if the J2a in Anatolian farmers is associated with the first wave - from Iran/Caucasus -, and if the E and H are associated with the second wave - from Levant -, since these three were also identified in Neolithic Europe. I also wonder if this Iranian/Caucasus wave in Neolithic transition in Anatolia helps to explain the little CHG in Ötzi.
 
Angela, it seems that things may change after an upcoming paper*, if I understand it right. See the abstract (emphasis is mine):
*You mentioned it here: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/36503-Upcoming-Papers-ISBA-2018

So, the remaining 10% of the ancestry of "earliest" Anatolian farmers would be related to Iran and Levant. I wonder if the J2a in Anatolian farmers is associated with the first wave - from Iran/Caucasus -, and if the E and H are associated with the second wave - from Levant -, since these three were also identified in Neolithic Europe. I also wonder if this Iranian/Caucasus wave in Neolithic transition in Anatolia helps to explain the little CHG in Ötzi.

I don’t find that surprising at all, or in contradiction to what Lazaridis proposed in that paper. These are far separated time periods.

As as for your speculations, makes sense to me.
 
I guess someone hasn't read the papers with pigmentation data for Yamnaya.

I know you ignore me, but something is wrong with their pigmentation predictors. If we look at the British Beaker folk, they are predicted to be by a large majority dark-haired, with basically no rufosity. If the Beaker folk make up the bulk of British DNA, this is incorrect.

Saying that, they clearly weren’t unambiguously blonde like some Baltic finds, which roughly puts to bed the idea of Nordic tribes in the Scandinavian sense - for Yamnaya. Corded Ware is another story altogether.
 
I know you ignore me, but something is wrong with their pigmentation predictors. If we look at the British Beaker folk, they are predicted to be by a large majority dark-haired, with basically no rufosity. If the Beaker folk make up the bulk of British DNA, this is incorrect.

Saying that, they clearly weren’t unambiguously blonde like some Baltic finds, which roughly puts to bed the idea of Nordic tribes in the Scandinavian sense - for Yamnaya. Corded Ware is another story altogether.

The Irish, who have much less ancestry from the Anglo-Saxon invasions than the English, are a predominantly brown haired people, and that includes dark brown haired people.

As for “rufosity” that is closer to brunette hair coloring than to blondness. I’ve never checked, but I wonder if there is more of it in areas settled by Vikings. Otherwise, it may just have drifted to higher levels because they’ve been so isolated on the periphery of Europe for so long.
 
Sean Hannity (Irish Roots)

maxresdefault.jpg
 
I don’t find that surprising at all, or in contradiction to what Lazaridis proposed in that paper. These are far separated time periods.

As as for your speculations, makes sense to me.
Angela, not sure I got it right. Why “far separated time periods” ? It says “earliest Anatolian farmers derive over 90 percent of their ancestry from the local Epipaleolithic population”, based on this 15000 years old sample and on Early Neolithic samples from Anatolia. So, 10% of the earliest Anatolian farmers ancestry would have come from Iran/Caucasus Neolithic and Levant Neolithic. The oldest Neolithic settlement in Anatolia would be 9250-8750 years old, and the earliest samples from Lazaridis et. al. are 8500-8200 years old, right?
As for my speculations, well, I'm assuming the Epipaleolithic pop from Anatolia were G2a mainly, but we never know! :)
 
Angela, it seems that things may change after an upcoming paper*, if I understand it right. See the abstract (emphasis is mine):
*You mentioned it here: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/36503-Upcoming-Papers-ISBA-2018

So, the remaining 10% of the ancestry of "earliest" Anatolian farmers would be related to Iran and Levant. I wonder if the J2a in Anatolian farmers is associated with the first wave - from Iran/Caucasus -, and if the E and H are associated with the second wave - from Levant -, since these three were also identified in Neolithic Europe. I also wonder if this Iranian/Caucasus wave in Neolithic transition in Anatolia helps to explain the little CHG in Ötzi.

Maybe the Epipaleolithic hunter-gatherers of Anatolia already had long-gone connections with the eventual populations of both Iranian and Levant farmers. That would confirm that those populations were indeed separated for a long time, but they still had minor affinities due to Paleolithic movements, not early Neolithic ones.
 

This thread has been viewed 156390 times.

Back
Top