News Article on Wang Paper - PIE is Anatolian again?

I also speculated that the CHG/Iranian part of the steppe expansion could have come partly from Leyla-Tepe, but given the Eneolithic steppe results I started to think that culture was maybe too late, for I had assumed a really significant demographic impact considering their economic and social/class superiority, not just an incremental increase. I think we really need more high coverage samples from the Neolithic steppe and Caucasus, roughly 5500-4500 B.C.

Yeah, I think Leyla-Tepe is a dead-end unfortunately (Hajji Firuz has too much ANF even to be a source for CHG iirc and that predates Leyla-Tepe).

Whatever spread high CHG levels to the Steppe did so, surely, in the 7th millennium BCE
 
Post deleted
 
Last edited:
I think the point is to show how weak the linguistic arguments employed by Anthony and co. are :grin:

Morris prefers an Anatolian homeland, but that's not the meat of the paper.

The likely Semitic loans pointed out by I&G include 'oxe', 'goat', 'axe', 'star', 'seven' etc. A list can be found in their 'Indo-Europeans', p. 768.

Well that's it, they have in common the Seven Star Goat constellation. ( Does it exist? ). Why those loans should be Semitic ( once again... ) and not the other way around or even a third source? We ain't gonna move forward the schmilblick with those circular arguments. Also, does the I&G linguistic hypothesis goes something else but loanwords?
 
As for Leyla-Tepe, just by deduction on ancestry, what are the odds that the lineages from Velikent in this paper are not the same that the one in Leyla-Tepe? Because as far as i see all this, from late paleolithic to nowadays, South Caucasus / Iran seems very dominated by J and G2b as y-dna lineages. But of course the demic hypothesis is not anymore, now it's about ancestral component and cultural similarities, circular arguments. It's funny how we pass from demic expansion to ancestral component to cultural influences in the IE studies, with always South Caucasus as a premise with Harvard / Planck.
 
So according to you Suvorovo-Novodanilovka, Ezero and so on were not a product of the Neolithic culture of Southeastern Europe that had been evolving since more than 2000 years earlier, but a recent arrival from Anatolia?
I think it likely that there was a flow of people between Anatolia and South Eastern Europe over the duration of the Neolithic. The Anatolian that admixed into Suvorovo looks of a more recent type. Ezero looks a bit different - more Cucuteni-derived.
 
Whatever spread high CHG levels to the Steppe did so, surely, in the 7th millennium BCE
I would say substantially 5th millennium BC. Khvalynsk would suggest that yDNA Q1a was within the community that spread it, and that it was probably not indicative of high status, but flourished nonetheless. Limited autosomal DNA data suggests a best-fit origin in the Northern Caucasus. Limited phylogenic data on yfull estimates a possible coalescence point in the Northern Caucasus. Whether or how much it influenced IE, I cannot say.
 
As for Leyla-Tepe, just by deduction on ancestry, what are the odds that the lineages from Velikent in this paper are not the same that the one in Leyla-Tepe? Because as far as i see all this, from late paleolithic to nowadays, South Caucasus / Iran seems very dominated by J and G2b as y-dna lineages. But of course the demic hypothesis is not anymore, now it's about ancestral component and cultural similarities, circular arguments. It's funny how we pass from demic expansion to ancestral component to cultural influences in the IE studies, with always South Caucasus as a premise with Harvard / Planck.

Hajji Firuz had J2b and Z2103 (lack of C14 dating isn’t a huge issue, the Z2103 is probably that old as it’s more similar to those dated J2b’s than the later Z2103 sample), so Leila Tepe could easily be Z2103 I guess
 
Well that's it, they have in common the Seven Star Goat constellation. ( Does it exist? ). Why those loans should be Semitic ( once again... ) and not the other way around or even a third source? We ain't gonna move forward the schmilblick with those circular arguments. Also, does the I&G linguistic hypothesis goes something else but loanwords?

In the case of Semitic it's easy to tell because there are several Afro-Asiatic branches, of which Semitic might be the youngest.
 
But of course the demic hypothesis is not anymore, now it's about ancestral component and cultural similarities

Ancient DNA shows that from Bactria to Italy the Indo-European world used to be a genetic continuum centered around the south Caucasus
wvfUR2h.png


Only the most fringe regions of the IE world like northern Europe were outliers.
 
Ancient DNA shows that from Bactria to Italy the Indo-European world used to be a genetic continuum centered around the south Caucasus
wvfUR2h.png

Very useful. Thanks. I'd love to read the paper this was taken from. Could you please post a link?

I wonder what they call Persians though. There would have been no "Persians" proper in Persia in the Bronze Age yet.
 
Very useful. Thanks. I'd love to read the paper this was taken from. Could you please post a link?

I wonder what they call Persians though. There would have been no "Persians" proper in Persia in the Bronze Age yet.

It appears to be a PCA that was edited in MS Paint. Thus I assume it is his speculation. It is fine to speculate, but we don't actually know where the Romans would plot at the moment. All we have right now are an anthrogenica user's interrpertation of a lecture on Ancient Italian DNA. Moreover, we are not certain which samples they are, or if they are definitive. Moreover, fwiw, the user said the samples overlap "60% with Northern Italy, and 40% with Southern Italy".

At any rate, I don't want to derail this thread, so here is the thread dedicated to that subject:

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/37817-Talk-on-Ancient-Italian-Roman-DNA-over-in-Stanford
 
Last edited:
I would say substantially 5th millennium BC. Khvalynsk would suggest that yDNA Q1a was within the community that spread it, and that it was probably not indicative of high status, but flourished nonetheless. Limited autosomal DNA data suggests a best-fit origin in the Northern Caucasus. Limited phylogenic data on yfull estimates a possible coalescence point in the Northern Caucasus. Whether or how much it influenced IE, I cannot say.

Assuming those evidences are true, then why must they mean a spread to the steppes essentially in the 5yh millennium BC and not before? There was CHG-like admixture even in Mesolithic EHG, I would not be totally surprised if a relevant part if the CHG affinities in the steppes (at least its southeastern portion) dated to even before the arrival of the Neolithic package there and increased even more after it. I think samples going from roughly 6000 to 4500 BC could help us a lot to determine what happened. By 4200 BC the steppes were already full of CHG and later there was IIRC only incremental increase of an admixture process that was already nearly complete by the Chalcolithic. That is why I think there is little more than wishful thinking in linking Maykop or any post-Leyla Tepe Caucasian culture to the steppe cultures that would participate in the origin of Yamnaya and CWC.
 
In the case of Semitic it's easy to tell because there are several Afro-Asiatic branches, of which Semitic might be the youngest.

There is no such a thing as a younger language or language family. It may be just that the split of Semitic from a common ancestor happened later, but those para-Semitic branches definitely went extinct, and the closest common split with Semitic might be much older, probably with either Egyptian or Berber. The Afro-Asiatic subfamilies have such an old common language that they also lack a very rich common vocabulary as you can find in IE subfamilies. There are only a handful of certain cognates between Omotic and Semitic or even Cushitic and Semitic. Anyways, I would really like to know how I&G established if a word was a loanword. Mere sound similarity is very deceiving, if you have thousands of words it is not that hard to find some sound-alikes by mere chance.
 
Very useful. Thanks. I'd love to read the paper this was taken from. Could you please post a link?
I wonder what they call Persians though. There would have been no "Persians" proper in Persia in the Bronze Age yet.

We have an Iron Age sample from Iran:
XJ156CG.png
 
Ancient DNA shows that from Bactria to Italy the Indo-European world used to be a genetic continuum centered around the south Caucasus
wvfUR2h.png


Only the most fringe regions of the IE world like northern Europe were outliers.

Sorry to say, but that is a logical phallacy. It assumes as a certain thing that IE-speaking regions would all derive most of their genetic ancestry from the first PIE speakers, but that is not a given and would even be kind of surprising considering the historic movements we know of that ended up spreading some of the IE languages, like Latin, Persian and Slavic. Another problem is that some of those ancient ethnicities in the PCA had more than 1000 or 2000 years since the supposed IE migration into their respective areas. Such an analysis presumes that everyone stayed put, and only IE people migrated, conquered and caused partial genetic replacement in other lands. There is a clear evidence of independent expansion of an Iranian/Caucasian ancestry in the CA/BA besides that of "steppe" and certainly even other population movements.

By that same token, we would find that the majority of the Turkic speakers nowadays are like East Asian-shifted West Eurasians, and the mostly East Asian Turkic people are at the eastern periohery of their territory, then we'd assume that their homeland was more to the west than it probably was and its inhabitants more West Eurasian than they in fact were. I read the PCA in a different fashion: some of the IE populations look like they are slightly shifted toward the BA steppe to Bell Beaker continuum in comparison with the Mesolithic/Neolithic samples (Neolithic Iran, Chalcolithic Iran and EEF).
 
In the case of Semitic it's easy to tell because there are several Afro-Asiatic branches, of which Semitic might be the youngest.

Compare IE languages differentiation with AA ones, and look how of a big issue it is. What is AA language family is basically something that needs big update.
 
Hajji Firuz had J2b and Z2103 (lack of C14 dating isn’t a huge issue, the Z2103 is probably that old as it’s more similar to those dated J2b’s than the later Z2103 sample), so Leila Tepe could easily be Z2103 I guess

I think it's unlikely. I dont believe to the ( it could have been ). If R1b is shown, then ok, but enough of circular arguments. There is no reason that Z2103 was that early south of the caucasus, wich just embarass Narasimhan and the future of his studies. It's a big issue if on two individuals, one can be dated but not the most important one.
 
We have an Iron Age sample from Iran:
XJ156CG.png

What I find interesting (in comparing the two graphs - whoever edited them) is the parallel genetic flows : one in northern Europe, developing homogeneously from the steppe, and one in southern Europe, with a clear CHG/Iranian influx.

As I see things, the pink dots labelled Thessaloniki are what became of the populations Pip refers to as East Balkan (Ezero derived), after they had received a slight influx of CHG. As one moves south from them towards Mycenaeans, the CHG+EEF regularly increases, and the steppe gets increasingly diluted (with the exception of Crete, pulled northwards by Dorians et alia).

The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that BB steppe ancestry didn't come through Romania/Bulgaria. Or if it did, it didn't linger there. I even wonder whether L51 came via Hungary and across the Carpathians at all. They didn't have as much CHG as the steppe people just north of the Caucasus. It is easy enough to assume they moved from some point further north on the steppe (under threat of R1a tribes?), and went west skirting CWC territory, then along the northern slopes of the Carpathians, into GAC territory, or what was left of it. Bringing their own version of Centum PIE with them.

I honestly did consider Suvorovo and Ezero as source pops for BB at one time. But Suvorovo is definitely too old (and had vanished long before BB emerged), and Ezero would have been too admixed by 2500 BC, after 600 years of rubbing elbows with farmers.

As for PIE originating south of the Caucasus, I don't know any better than the next guy, but I find it strange that those R1a People, up north in the forest steppe, should have taken to a geographically remote language just to please their neighbors and trade with them. People change languages when they are militarily, or economically, or culturally, superseded. It takes time and pressure. Gaulish is reported by Sidonius Appolinaris to still have been spoken in rural Gaul more than 500 years after the Roman conquest, in spite of Roman cultural prestige and economic prowess.
 
Let's look at this question from a different angle - the East Ukraine outlier I6561 circa 4,000 BC with yDNA R1a-M417. It bears little autosomal resemblance to other early samples in that region, looking neither like Ukraine Neolithic nor Yamnayan. We know that multiple Suvorovo-Novodanilovka sites popped up in East Ukraine at around 4,000 BC. We know of other Suvorovo-Novodanilovka sites (some with earlier dates) in the Balkans/East Carpathians. We know that a similar autosomal mix to I6561 arose in two Bulgarian sites dated to 4,500 BC, and that the East Ukraine sites contained some Balkan-derived objects. There seems little doubt to me that I6561 was substantially an East Balkan/Carpathian Suvorovo-derived individual.

We can see that this I6561 outlier has the same yDNA as both Corded Ware and Sintashta/Indo-Aryans, and an almost identical autosomal DNA mix to both Corded Ware and Sintashta. Its Suvorovo-Novodanilovka derived community shows little signs of yDNA or autosomal mixing with any other populations over the 1,500 years that elapsed before its Corded Ware and Sintashta derivatives emerged. It looks to have been largely self-contained and endogamous, with little sign of any colonisation, subjugation or dilution from other populations, and therefore seems unlikely to have adopted any language from outside its own community. All of its many derivative populations appear to use the satem branch of Indo-European, which does not seem to arise in other populations. I6561's community looks to me a very strong candidate for proto-satem IE.

As I6561 appears to derive principally from admixed Suvorovo populations in the Balkans/Carpathians, and we know that some of these populations remained in these Western locations, it seems likely to me that these I6561-related Western-leaning populations with similar autosomal mixes were most likely (the predominantly western) proto-centum IE.

Accordingly, the early/mid-5th millennium BC East Balkans/Carpathians looks a prime candidate for a pre-satem/centum branching of IE.

Autosomally, this population appears to have been approximately 65:35 Steppe:EEF in satem Novodanilovka East Ukraine, and was likely to have been more weighted towards EEF in the centum Carpathians/Balkans. As the satem M417 populations in the East admixed very little with any other populations after 4,000 BC, I see no reason to assume that the centum M269 populations in the West would have admixed heavily either with EEF populations in the West before they spread their people and languages across Western Europe.

Based on this hypothesis, the speakers of a pre-centum/satem branching IE would have been a mixed EHG and Anatolian people with relatively minor CHG input. We have three samples likely to be substantially derived from this population and that bear the following CHG components - 10%, 11% and 0%. Especially as there is a further Anatolian branch of IE, I would say that Anatolian and Steppe populations are more likely candidates for being the major contributors to proto-IE than CHG, but who knows?
 
Has anyone thought of the fact that PIE might have been adopted by the incoming step people ?

This mixture of farmers aswell you seem to conclude all to easily that it was all from east to west.

I have a rather different picture building up which points to WHG being responsable for pie.

As far farming you dont know that they didnt just kidnap farmers and make them there slaves.

I see a warlike maritime Mob of stone building brutes that did what they please, and they were eventually just outnumbered.

Sounds like a blue print for the Romans
 

This thread has been viewed 83694 times.

Back
Top