News Article on Wang Paper - PIE is Anatolian again?

Spread TO Iberia? Aren't the earliest BB remains from Iberia, more specifically Portugal? I've always thought of BB as a local, Iberian development (obviously foreign influences must have happened, too) that simply spread northward as a very prestigious cultural package through trade routes and maybe trade outposts and colonies to the North Sea region, where many people - not all, as we can see from the recent results of the arrival of steppe BB-like ancestry in the Balearic islands in the BA - picked it up much like Japanese people picked a lot of Western MATERIAL culture even if they maintained their cultural distinctiveness, ethnic identity and ancestry.

Yeah I meant from its proto-Beaker form which has no parallels in Iberia, should have clarified. Cultural packages don't really spring out of nowhere without previous prototypes or influence from outside.

One curious tidbit which is confusing me - the Beaker physical type is associated with L51 Central Europeans, but the few North African-influenced individuals we've found in Iberia were gigantic and brachycephalic too. So I don't really know whether that's coincidence or not (I hate coincidences but it may be the case here)
 
Steppe is by definition modeled as EHG + CHG... So if you would found Steppe + CHG in EBA Iberia, this would be unrelated to Steppe and just extra CHG from a maritime road or something. That is how logic would you to interprete it. So not founding extra CHG makes actually pretty much sense for a northern road having ultimate origin in a Steppe population. Why would Steppe in Steppe being EHG + CHG and Steppe in Iberia just being EHG... Or am i completely missing the point and Iberia EBA only have EHG and they interprete it as Steppe? It cannot be that, this would be a huge shortcut.
 
It's ultimately my gut instinct, clearly as that has changed a couple of times it isn't anything to rely on too heavily though. The main things I can think of atm are the fact that proto-Anatolian doesn't have the word for wheel (and PIE seems to have been spoken by a community familiar with farming), that Tocharian is likely not related to Afanasevo imo given the distance from the Tarim basin and the fact that likely Tocharian speakers from the Tarim Basin were CW-derived R1as, that in many ways it seems the CWC was not descended from Yamnaya, and that Yamnaya actually matches rather well with Dene-Caucasian of all things...

Yamnayan offshoots have presences in areas where Vasconic (BB culture - NOTE I STILL DON'T THINK IT WAS YAMNAYA DERIVED, but potentially derived from Kemi-Oba or something pre-Yamnaya), Yenesian (Afanasievo culture) and North Caucasian (Yamnaya proper but also potentially Maykop if Dene-Caucasian spread originally from Maykop) are spoken, with influence where Sino-Tibetan is spoken (Afanasevo introduced bronze metallurgy to East Asia and extremely extensive contacts with China existed with Afanasievo's descendents for thousands of years, so perhaps language transfer or at least influence was involved). That's Sino-Caucasian languages accounted for in terms of Yamnaya, Na Dene is harder to explain however they have modern swastikas and other similarities with areas of the Old World that only really date back at most to the 5th mBC (not getting into a debate about that though, but it's one of the things that I'll never change my mind on and not out of narrow-mindedness).

I definitely do think Catacomb was IE as it just makes a lot of sense for Greek and Armenian, so idk. Maybe Catacomb was influenced by CW, or perhaps everything I've mentioned so far are actually Repin and not Yamnaya offshoots as they all lack kurgans (afaik none in Afanasievo, BBs etc.) and thus Yamnaya was IE-ised by Maykop but Repin predating Maykop influence wasn't?

Post-Yamnaya Steppe populations shows that probably debuting in Catacomb / Poltavka and until Historical times, Z2103 was not anymore the only dominant lineage but Z93 coexisted with, as we saw that Scythians of western ukraine were mainly still Z2103. Both Armenians and Greeks mainly shows Z2103 and Z93 as R lineages, without the clades linked with post-Antiquity migrations. Catacomb and Poltavka could have been newly and conflicting populations in terms of R1a/R1b and Centum/Satem languages.
 
Yeah I meant from its proto-Beaker form which has no parallels in Iberia, should have clarified. Cultural packages don't really spring out of nowhere without previous prototypes or influence from outside.

One curious tidbit which is confusing me - the Beaker physical type is associated with L51 Central Europeans, but the few North African-influenced individuals we've found in Iberia were gigantic and brachycephalic too
. So I don't really know whether that's coincidence or not (I hate coincidences but it may be the case here)

Can you show the datas for this.
 
Why do you say that?

As for all IE languages being derived from a CWC language, do we already know if the steppe ancestry in the Balkans and especially in Greece and Armenia fits better with a (probably) Late Yamnaya/Early Catacomb or with a CWC origin? If the former, that would immediately falsify the idea that CWC can explain the entire expansion of IE languages. Besides, Yamnaya and Sredny Stog were autosomally and culturally much, much closer to each other than Yamnaya to any Caucasian CA or BA culture or to Cucuteni-Tripolye, which suggests to me that it is more likely that SS and Yamnaya shared the same language family than Yamnaya speaking a completely different language, let alone one of contemporaneous Caucasian stock (PIE was certainly a continuum of several dialects and maybe even had sister languages that eventually died out during the expansion of some more successful languages within that linguistic area).

Additionally, the Iberia paper as well as others confirmed that Central European BB was probably a big part of the history of Indo-Europeanization of Europe, but BB as far as I can see cannot be responsible for what happened in the Balkans (their easternmost reach was Hungary and they didn't have much influence beyond that), which also involved full Indo-Europeanization. Besides, it's not even certain that those Central European Bell Beakers were of CWC stock, and not coming from an intermediate homeland ultimately derived from Yamnaya. I find it tremendously unlikely that they just shifted to the language of theCWC women (not that they married only or mostly CWC women, they had far too much EEF ancestry for that), not just women, but women of a declining and generally less advanced culture than their own (language shift when the conquerors are a minority conquering a fully formed civilization is not a given, i.e. the Turkish in Anatolia or Arabs in Egypt, let alone when the conquerors are not absorbing a high culture and very complex society to rule them).

If you want to know my present leanings (of course they may change as I read more and more studies are released): ~5000 BC: Khvalynsk (pre-PIE) and Sredny Stog (para-PIE) > ~4200 B.C.: Suvorovo-Novodanilovka (early PIE) > 4000 B.C.: Sredny Stog and Late Khvalynsk (homogeneization of the languages of the steppe, followed by a new dialect continuum), with Suvorovo "islands" in the Balkans leading to the Indo-Europeanization of some communities (possibly in Cernavoda and/or Ezero) > 3500 B.C.: Repin/Early Yamnaya (second wave of linguistic homogeneization of the steppe, with LPIE dialects expanding and either absorbing or forcing a "reconvergence" of linguistic aspects towards a new lingua franca)... Or something like that. lol

I think what we might take in account when talking about IE languages per opposition to AA ones for exemple. All IE languages have direct links all each other. Vocabulary, Morphology, Phonology and all Sound changes, Shifts etc... have a logical pattern of evolution, it's a very coherent pattern and makes me think of Classical Latin and all the Romance dialects that are very coherent too, even tho the distance between them sometimes and that they all evolved from little regional dialects at the beginning. It just sounds like IE dialects evolved ultra fast, no resting. The time between the first expansion from the original Urheimat to their " Classical " distribution have probably lasted less than 2000 years ( Anatolian and Tocharian dialects included ). Even tho they are already in Antiquity very shifted, all IE languages could really be seen as just Dialects of a same language. Even the Gods are mostly the same, a part of Names, the functions are still there and there is parallels everywhere. Now try to do the same with Ancient Egyptian, Tamazight and Ancient Eastern Semitic languages, it absolutely not gonna work. PAA language is way way older than PIE and expanded way way slower than IE dialects.
 
What is that we expect? I wonder when we look around us nothing seems real but over the hourglass clock what has stayed constant? Maybe the greatest wrong is when someone pontificates a deep knowledge and it turns out to have no CORE TRUTH. the challenge is establish a balance and continue to work through those highs and lows of what's happening at the moment.
I want to believe in all that we share but at times the pieces are hard to except without focus but each pieces can easily come to contradict where we started from. Thank you for listening and sharing it just hard to believe that one answer can solve the problems even within the moment.
 
Let's try scaled Global25 on Iberia Bell Beaker (with steppe); it's surely not gospel, but it's something.

HG sources going eastward from Iberia:
68% Iberia CA, 19% El Miron, 13% Iberia N, 0% Iberia Mesolithic - distance 7.67479%
44% LBK N, 18% Iron Gates HG, 17% Vestonice 16, 21% Iberia CA - distance 5.6527%
55% Iberia CA, 24% EHG, 21% LBK N - distance 2.5947%

Adding CHG sources:
61% Iberia CA, 22% EHG, 17% Peleponnese N Outlier - distance 2.1621%
68% Iberia CA, 19% EHG, 7% CHG, 6% LBK N - distance 1.8130%

With Yamnaya:
72% Iberia CA, 28% Yamnaya Samara - distance 1.1723%
70% Iberia CA, 24% Yamnaya Samara, 4% EHG, 2% LBK N - distance 1.0501%

Has a somewhat higher ratio of EHG:CHG than Yamnaya does (unless this is some artifact of G25).

Global25? what is it?
 
No matter how many people over the years have tried to explain it, no matter what tools they use, you don't grasp that people from a Bell Beaker "setting" are going to differ genetically based on time period and where they adopted the "Beaker" package.

Maciamo wrote about it years ago. Culture and genetics are NOT synonymous with this group. Period.

we were speaking about Iberian BB? of course the genetic profile will differ between carriers, admixeds and adopters of the culture, it happens worldwide, as per example USA or Italy itself. What you are not understanding with me?
 
It's ultimately my gut instinct, clearly as that has changed a couple of times it isn't anything to rely on too heavily though. The main things I can think of atm are the fact that proto-Anatolian doesn't have the word for wheel (and PIE seems to have been spoken by a community familiar with farming), that Tocharian is likely not related to Afanasevo imo given the distance from the Tarim basin and the fact that likely Tocharian speakers from the Tarim Basin were CW-derived R1as, that in many ways it seems the CWC was not descended from Yamnaya, and that Yamnaya actually matches rather well with Dene-Caucasian of all things...

Yamnayan offshoots have presences in areas where Vasconic (BB culture - NOTE I STILL DON'T THINK IT WAS YAMNAYA DERIVED, but potentially derived from Kemi-Oba or something pre-Yamnaya), Yenesian (Afanasievo culture) and North Caucasian (Yamnaya proper but also potentially Maykop if Dene-Caucasian spread originally from Maykop) are spoken, with influence where Sino-Tibetan is spoken (Afanasevo introduced bronze metallurgy to East Asia and extremely extensive contacts with China existed with Afanasievo's descendents for thousands of years, so perhaps language transfer or at least influence was involved). That's Sino-Caucasian languages accounted for in terms of Yamnaya, Na Dene is harder to explain however they have modern swastikas and other similarities with areas of the Old World that only really date back at most to the 5th mBC (not getting into a debate about that though, but it's one of the things that I'll never change my mind on and not out of narrow-mindedness).

I definitely do think Catacomb was IE as it just makes a lot of sense for Greek and Armenian, so idk. Maybe Catacomb was influenced by CW, or perhaps everything I've mentioned so far are actually Repin and not Yamnaya offshoots as they all lack kurgans (afaik none in Afanasievo, BBs etc.) and thus Yamnaya was IE-ised by Maykop but Repin predating Maykop influence wasn't?

I don't know what you're trying to get to, but you're comparing things that are chronologically very far apart from each other. Dené-Caucasian is a (very fringe, in fact) hypothesis that is assumed to relate to language expansions that happened dozens of thousands of years ago, still in the Paleolithic era. Some of the Caucasian language families, fully formed, and very distinct from each other, are estimated to have started to split more than 4000-5000 years ago. Dené-Yeniseian is dated to at the very least 4000 to 5000 years ago. Yamnaya is just way too late for all of those developments. Yamnaya would probably have very little to do with the present distribution of the language families you're talking about even if they were ultimately related, because that link would be thousands of years before Yamnaya (and that's a really big if, aside from Starostin and some other "bold" scientists not many linguists think we can go back that far in the reconstruction of proto-languages based on a few similar roots and particles, and Starostin's work has been shown to have many mistranslations and incorrect semantic correspondences to try to force a nonexistant fit between extremely distant language families). There is no way that language families as profoundly different as Vasconisc, Yeniseian and North Caucasian (which of them? It's still very arguable if Northwest and Northeast Caucasian are directly related, actually even the two main branches of Northeast Caucasian are so distant from each other that their divergence is assumed to be extremely old, at least 4000-5000 years). I think you're trying a bit too hard to fit Yamnaya into this whole (and very controversial) Dené-Caucasian thing. Chronologically and linguistically it just makes no sense.

As for genetics, it's most likely that CWC does not derive from Yamnaya, it's actually contemporaneous with Yamnaya in the latter's mid and late phase, so chronologically it doesn't make much sense. But autosomally the steppe component in the CWC is very close to that of the Yamnaya, and their Y-DNA haplogroup was present in the Pontic-Caspian steppe that would become mostly Yamnaya roughly just before the predecessors to CWC expanded northward. So it makes sense that they were just a closely related population that probably had preserved more Sredny Stog patrilineal lineages and avoided Yamnayization by pushing northward and eventually spreading to North Europe. I find it very unlikely that they wouldn't have spoken LPIE at least when they migrated, because I am definitely not sure that all IE language branches can be derived from CWC, and I'm also unconvinced by the idea that the CWC, not being themselves a great and powerful civilization, managed to convince non-IE-speaking people to their West (BB) and to their South (Catacomb) and perhaps even some others still to speak LPIE dialects even as they were, in some cases, receding and declining (as in ~2500-2200 B.C. Central Europe).
 
Yeah I meant from its proto-Beaker form which has no parallels in Iberia, should have clarified. Cultural packages don't really spring out of nowhere without previous prototypes or influence from outside.

One curious tidbit which is confusing me - the Beaker physical type is associated with L51 Central Europeans, but the few North African-influenced individuals we've found in Iberia were gigantic and brachycephalic too. So I don't really know whether that's coincidence or not (I hate coincidences but it may be the case here)

Are you sure about that? I had read that there are some antecedente ceramic styles (Cordoz or something like that, I don't remember the name well now) in Portugal that might have served as the inspiration for the bell beakers. Some have also speculated that there might've been North African influences coupled with local trends. In any case, I think genetics has already established quite well that the earliest BB people of Iberia were not genetically the same population as the BB of Central Europe. That wouldn't be the first time that people spread a cultural mode that wasn't originally theirs (Arabs did just that in their so-called "Arab" architecture, many non-genetically Roman/Central Italian people did that spreading all things Roman to all corners of Europe, Turks did that spreading a lot of originally Iranic cultural stuff, and so on).
 
I think what we might take in account when talking about IE languages per opposition to AA ones for exemple. All IE languages have direct links all each other. Vocabulary, Morphology, Phonology and all Sound changes, Shifts etc... have a logical pattern of evolution, it's a very coherent pattern and makes me think of Classical Latin and all the Romance dialects that are very coherent too, even tho the distance between them sometimes and that they all evolved from little regional dialects at the beginning. It just sounds like IE dialects evolved ultra fast, no resting. The time between the first expansion from the original Urheimat to their " Classical " distribution have probably lasted less than 2000 years ( Anatolian and Tocharian dialects included ). Even tho they are already in Antiquity very shifted, all IE languages could really be seen as just Dialects of a same language. Even the Gods are mostly the same, a part of Names, the functions are still there and there is parallels everywhere. Now try to do the same with Ancient Egyptian, Tamazight and Ancient Eastern Semitic languages, it absolutely not gonna work. PAA language is way way older than PIE and expanded way way slower than IE dialects.

Yes, there is no doubt Afro-Asiatic is much older and probably at least in part still represents the expansion of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers (maybe some of the most intensive and efficient ones, like the early Natufians or even their immediate ancestors?). I must say, though, that in my opinion the divergence from the common, mostly unchanged PIE core started even before the PIE expansion per se. In my opinion the steppe migrations of the EBA already spread quite distinct dialects, which still formed an even dialect continuum, but at the extremes of it my hunch is that there was already significant linguistic differentiation. Then the linguistic divergence was strongly accelerated by the lack of any literary culture, any political centralization, any common identity (they probably didn't see themselves as "the Indo-Europeans" or any other unified nation), any close contacts between the extremes of that dialect continuum after its dramatic expansion, and by the close contact and admixture with completely different populations (and presumably a lot of the speaking community eventually came to be formed by secondary, non-native speakers).
 
I don't know what you're trying to get to, but you're comparing things that are chronologically very far apart from each other. Dené-Caucasian is a (very fringe, in fact) hypothesis that is assumed to relate to language expansions that happened dozens of thousands of years ago, still in the Paleolithic era. Some of the Caucasian language families, fully formed, and very distinct from each other, are estimated to have started to split more than 4000-5000 years ago. Dené-Yeniseian is dated to at the very least 4000 to 5000 years ago. Yamnaya is just way too late for all of those developments. Yamnaya would probably have very little to do with the present distribution of the language families you're talking about even if they were ultimately related, because that link would be thousands of years before Yamnaya (and that's a really big if, aside from Starostin and some other "bold" scientists not many linguists think we can go back that far in the reconstruction of proto-languages based on a few similar roots and particles, and Starostin's work has been shown to have many mistranslations and incorrect semantic correspondences to try to force a nonexistant fit between extremely distant language families). There is no way that language families as profoundly different as Vasconisc, Yeniseian and North Caucasian (which of them? It's still very arguable if Northwest and Northeast Caucasian are directly related, actually even the two main branches of Northeast Caucasian are so distant from each other that their divergence is assumed to be extremely old, at least 4000-5000 years). I think you're trying a bit too hard to fit Yamnaya into this whole (and very controversial) Dené-Caucasian thing. Chronologically and linguistically it just makes no sense.

As for genetics, it's most likely that CWC does not derive from Yamnaya, it's actually contemporaneous with Yamnaya in the latter's mid and late phase, so chronologically it doesn't make much sense. But autosomally the steppe component in the CWC is very close to that of the Yamnaya, and their Y-DNA haplogroup was present in the Pontic-Caspian steppe that would become mostly Yamnaya roughly just before the predecessors to CWC expanded northward. So it makes sense that they were just a closely related population that probably had preserved more Sredny Stog patrilineal lineages and avoided Yamnayization by pushing northward and eventually spreading to North Europe. I find it very unlikely that they wouldn't have spoken LPIE at least when they migrated, because I am definitely not sure that all IE language branches can be derived from CWC, and I'm also unconvinced by the idea that the CWC, not being themselves a great and powerful civilization, managed to convince non-IE-speaking people to their West (BB) and to their South (Catacomb) and perhaps even some others still to speak LPIE dialects even as they were, in some cases, receding and declining (as in ~2500-2200 B.C. Central Europe).

Thanks for the post...very good info.
 
Yes, there is no doubt Afro-Asiatic is much older and probably at least in part still represents the expansion of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers (maybe some of the most intensive and efficient ones, like the early Natufians or even their immediate ancestors?). I must say, though, that in my opinion the divergence from the common, mostly unchanged PIE core started even before the PIE expansion per se. In my opinion the steppe migrations of the EBA already spread quite distinct dialects, which still formed an even dialect continuum, but at the extremes of it my hunch is that there was already significant linguistic differentiation. Then the linguistic divergence was strongly accelerated by the lack of any literary culture, any political centralization, any common identity (they probably didn't see themselves as "the Indo-Europeans" or any other unified nation), any close contacts between the extremes of that dialect continuum after its dramatic expansion, and by the close contact and admixture with completely different populations (and presumably a lot of the speaking community eventually came to be formed by secondary, non-native speakers).

Yes, Pontic Steppe is a very huge territory of 1'000'000 km2, it's hard to imagine one big Lingua Franca without even slightly some differentiations between all the speakers of it. It's even possible that some dialects pre-Yamnaya were already Centum/Satem shifted, maybe Maykop or South Caucasus influenced the language to shift toward Satemization? I never really believed that Satemization was related with Uralic input, Satem languages sound like something coming from Middle-East. And obviously local populations give their own local words or we would have perfect dialects with thousand of km of separation. Obviously, if Celts from eastern alps would encounter Scythians tribes in a trade or Greeks on the Adriatic, none would consider the others their ethnic equals. Even tho they would exchange some cultural features and notice that they have the same god of thunder for exemple, their reasoning would be something like that " hey we have the same gods, it makes sens because they are the only gods i know and the only ones that exist " and not " yo we have the same gods! are we related? ".

When we talk about IE languages and their expansion, it sound very easy, we have the proved Steppe expansion who matches Genetic, Lineage and Linguistic distribution. For Afro-Asiatic it's way more complexe. Iberomaurusian, Natufian, Chalcolithic South Caucasus? Sounds like the first two makes more sense. Then we have R1b-V88 and Chadic languages, wich complicated even more the link with any kind of Lineage with the AA languages, because certainly R1b-V88 comes from Paleolithic Europe and didn't bring any kind of AA language to Africa.
 
Autosomal analysis of modern Spanish populations might provide a clue.

While autosomal differences in the Basque population are subtle, they seem to have a significant impact on optimal ancestral fit. My results suggest that Basques are the only Iberian population for which ATP3-like people appear to have contributed the largest share of their autosomal DNA (I estimate 41%), whilst other Iberians fit better with larger shares of Central European steppic populations and Iberian Neolithics (and only about 29% ATP-like).

Perhaps Basques were more heavily descended from the earliest wave of R1b-M269 newcomers like those at El Portalon, and were sheltered to some degree from Central European newcomers arriving in later waves. This earliest wave looks to have been less steppic and so is more likely to have spoken an Anatolian language. I see 5th millennium BC Balkans as a melting pot of different ethnicities, probably multi-lingual. If the earliest wave of M269 newcomers migrated to Iberia before the main growth and expansions of steppic populations occurred, it would likely have spoken the language of the majority Anatolian population found in the Balkans at the time.

This would suggest Basque to be perhaps an Anatolian/Balkan language, and PIE to be a steppic language common to both early majority R1b-L23 and early majority R1a-M417 populations.

Could there be any mileage in this?
 
Scenario would be like; Hattians invade Anatolia, pick up the IE language (why?) fragment and distribute it to Anatolia (like Latin->Romance languages) Earlier the language would move to Steppe via Balkan farmers. Total speculation.

I guess it depends on whether Anatolians can be shown to have steppe ancestry. I think they probably won't have any.

Between ANF and CHG I think the latter looks like a more obvious contender for Hattian and Kaskian, no? In that case I think Anatolian might have expanded before the Hattians came. Hattian appears to have some Luwian influence.
 
I guess it depends on whether Anatolians can be shown to have steppe ancestry. I think they probably won't have any.

Between ANF and CHG I think the latter looks like a more obvious contender for Hattian and Kaskian, no? In that case I think Anatolian might have expanded before the Hattians came. Hattian appears to have some Luwian influence.

Reading about Hattians, i found this on wiki:

''Scholars have long assumed that the predominant population of the region of Anatolia "in the third millennium [BC] was an indigenous pre-Indo-European group called the Hattians."[5] But it is thought possible that speakers of Indo-European languages were also in central Anatolia by then. The scholar Petra Goedegebuure has proposed that before the conquest of the Hittites, an Indo-European language, probably Luwian, had already been spoken alongside the Hattic language for a long time''

Plus:

''According to later Hittite documents, Sargon the Great had fought with the Luwian king Nurdaggal of Burushanda'' (2300 BC - Central Anatolia)

Also this paper comes to mind: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/08/proto-indo-european-homeland-in.html
 

This thread has been viewed 84591 times.

Back
Top