Where did the Anatolian branch of Indo-European originate?

I don't understand how people can connect every expansion of genetic populations such as CHG/Iran_Meso, EHG, WHG to a single language family.
Like for real those components are as far as of mesolithic age!

That means some parts of the Near East could be full of non-IE-CHG population but still live just few hundred miles next to IE-speaking CHG folks.
The same with EHG groups. EHG could be very much the major component among Finno_Ugric, IE and god knows what else kind of people.

I have to roll with my eyes every time I hear that freakn argument "but but but, the region was full of non-IE pred. CHG populations such as Hurrians(while the origin of Hurrians is still on debate) how can CHG be PIE?" Like seriously? We are talking about Mesolithic time components, thats roughly 12000 years of time people.
 
Last edited:
Is the lack of foreign admixture in the Abusir mummies, as demonstrated by Jonathan Krause (2017), a very strong argument that the Ptolemeics in Egypt were local? Or proof of absence of Greek colonization of Egypt? Or proof that Greek originated in Alexandria?


Let me answer your question with a question. Can you guarantee me that the EHG we find in Iron Age Indo European speakers comes from the Steppes and not some other source? Can you guarantee me that the EHG we find in CWC culture is not of local non Indo European Baltic H&G origin but comes from the Steppes? Can you guarantee me that the EHG we find in South_Central Asia comes from the Steppes and is not of a more local origin as we have found some samples there that do have significant EHG but lack CHG and therefore can't be from the Steppes.
 
Maykop has EHG. It's in the Guus Kroonen supplement to this paper.


Correct but that doesn't play a role for the place of origin. As you know Yamnaya also had allot of CHG. What I am trying to explain here is, that EHG could have been widespred in some parts of West Asia already by Neolithic_Calcolthic. So Even if we find EHG in some Hittite samples that doesn't rule out the possibility it came from a culture in the Caucasus that already had some EHG themselves. Like finding CHG in CWC doesn't rule out it's Steppe origin, since Steppe had CHG already by Neolithic.

People sound like EHG is restricted to Steppes /East Europe and CHG_IranNeo to Iranian Plateau and Caucasus.

But the point is, that if we don't find any EHG in Hittite samples this completely rules out a Steppe origin for them. Like a lack of CHG_IranNeo in CWC would completely rule out a southern origin for PIE.
 
Jar-burials. There is a Kurgan site, with Leyla-Tepe pottery but also with a zoomorphic scepter, which points to steppe. Or Maykop.

Leyla Tepe Kurgans predate Yamnaya and are contemporaneous with those from Khvalynsk or maybe a little older.
 
You're confusing the terminology. Pre-Hittite means "the language that was spoken there before Hittite", it is most definitely NOT the same thing as Proto-Hittite, which would be "the immediate mother language of Hittite". Pre-Hittite is like Pre-Indo-European: it means it was an indigenous language in the area before the later IE spread there, and it implies no relationship at all between the two languages, at best only an influence as a substrate to the later language. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your particular use of the terminology, and you're using "Anatolian languages" as a merely geographical reference, to refer to the non-IE language families that existed in Anatolia before the arrival of IE.

Clearly then explain this non-semitic cuneiform hatti/hittite differences with cuneiform semetic, babylonian, assyrian and others ?
If linguistics took over 100 year to solve Hittite and these experts knew babylonian, assyrian etc like the back of their hands then .......
.
no point in just saying no if you have no logical answer
 
Ygorcs already mentioned it, but what's the point of comparing the cultural advancement of the Yamna culture (3500-2500 BCE) to the late Hittites (1500-1200 BCE), when they are separated by 1000 to 2300 years? It would be like comparing ancient Gaul with modern Britain and saying the British culture is amazingly more advanced than the French one. :petrified: That's the height of intellectual dishonesty. If you look at other Steppe-derived cultures contemporary to the Hittites, what you find are the Celts, the Mycenaean Greeks, the Indo-Aryans of the Rig Veda... They are all much closer to the Hittites than to Yamna.

Then, as Ygorcs said, the Hittites absorbed a lot of their culture from the Hattians or other pre-IE Indo-European populations.
Not that I disagree with your over all message but the Celts were not contemporary to the Hittites. And the earliest written documents in India date back only to the 3rd century bc and so the Rig Veda was only written down much, much later than when it supposedly originated. What was written down after thousands of years of oral tradition isn't a reliable account of life in Vedic India back in 1500 bc.
 
That snake thing is really sitting deep in IE cultures. The legend about the Kurdish origins goes this way, There was a blacksmith called Kawa who killed a tyranic King,who grew Snakes out of his shoulders and those snakes had to be fed with brains of young boys and girls. He brought these kids into the Zagros mountains and fed him brains of sheeps until the Kids were grown and they revolted against the King. Many Historians connect the King with the Assyrian rule.

http://www.kurdishinstitute.be/kawa-and-the-story-of-newroz/

really cool. thanks
 
Why the neg rating IronSide. Too much science or too much Kurdish?

What ? I didn't vote on your post.

It must be some kind of error, I definitely remember not downvoting anything, and c'mon man, I love science and I admire the Kurds, brave people.

It can happen, when you scroll down your finger kinda acquires it's own consciousness, and so maybe it downvoted, but I certainly didn't authorize any such strikes.
 
@raspberry, the Neolithic - IE relation is a 5th choice because it faces serious proplems in the linguistic field, true problems, no hypotheses here, like languages as Hattic, Hurrian, Minoan, Pelasgian, Etruscan, Raethian, Iberian, Basque, Tartessian, etc.
 
does anyone know more about those leyla tepe kurgans? is it true that the way people were burried in yamna kurgans resembles the way of how people were burried in the yamna preceding cultures in the same region and the main difference is that there was just a kurgan on top of it?
 
This means that the speakers of these language must have arrived there prior to any Yamnaya expansions.

As if Yamnaya was the only IE steppe culture, when they were fairly late. It was not Yamnaya which brought down the "Old Europe" settlements on the lower Danube, but the Sredny Stog culture.
 
What ? I didn't vote on your post.

It must be some kind of error, I definitely remember not downvoting anything, and c'mon man, I love science and I admire the Kurds, brave people.

It can happen, when you scroll down your finger kinda acquires it's own consciousness, and so maybe it downvoted, but I certainly didn't authorize any such strikes.
Thats why I asked. appeared kind of weird to me. Wanted to be sure before I make a judgement about you. That's why I called you out.
 
Clearly then explain this non-semitic cuneiform hatti/hittite differences with cuneiform semetic, babylonian, assyrian and others ?
If linguistics took over 100 year to solve Hittite and these experts knew babylonian, assyrian etc like the back of their hands then .......
.
no point in just saying no if you have no logical answer

Sorry, I found your post unintelligible, so I can't give any answer, logical or otherwise. :-D
 
By the way "The first horse herders" paper is the first to point to Kievan Rus region as an important place for PIE dispersals.



As a fifth choice alternative the IE could be assigned to early farmers, as this component is all over Europe and is among the new Hittite samples.

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.
 
Our results also suggest distinct migrations bringing West Eurasian ancestry into South Asia before and after but not at the time of Yamnaya culture. We find no evidence of steppe ancestry in Bronze Age Anatolia from when Indo-European languages are attested there. Thus, in contrast to Europe, Early Bronze Age Yamnaya-related migrations had limited direct genetic impact in Asia.

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.

imageedit_5014_5105405848.jpg


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]
 
Btw Nick Patterson said this about Indo Europeans in 2014:

''Patterson said that linguistic evidence has tracked the ancestral language, called “late proto-Indo-European” to about 3,500 years ago in the Caucasus, among a people who had wheeled vehicles at a time when they were just being put into use.
Genetic evidence ruled out one likely related group in the region, the Yamnaya, because their DNA showed the group had hunter-gatherer ancestry, which is inconsistent with the fact that two Indo-European groups, Armenians and Indians, don’t share it, Patterson said. That made Patterson look south, to the Maikop civilization, which likely had significant contact with the Yamnaya, as a plausible culture where Indo-European languages originated. Samples have been obtained from Maikop burial sites, but the DNA work to test that proposal is pending, Patterson said.''

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/12/the-surprising-origins-of-europeans/
 
Btw Nick Patterson said this about Indo Europeans in 2014:

''Patterson said that linguistic evidence has tracked the ancestral language, called “late proto-Indo-European” to about 3,500 years ago in the Caucasus, among a people who had wheeled vehicles at a time when they were just being put into use.
Genetic evidence ruled out one likely related group in the region, the Yamnaya, because their DNA showed the group had hunter-gatherer ancestry, which is inconsistent with the fact that two Indo-European groups, Armenians and Indians, don’t share it, Patterson said. That made Patterson look south, to the Maikop civilization, which likely had significant contact with the Yamnaya, as a plausible culture where Indo-European languages originated. Samples have been obtained from Maikop burial sites, but the DNA work to test that proposal is pending, Patterson said.''

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/12/the-surprising-origins-of-europeans/

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.
 

This thread has been viewed 156380 times.

Back
Top