Does genetics prove Iran/Armenia is the original land of Indo-Europeans?

I mean people who aren't quacks like Vennemann.
I think except those who create these ridiculous folk etymologies, all other real linguists are quacks, even Jacob Grimm, the discoverer of Germanic Grimm's law of linguistics.
 
I think except those who create these ridiculous folk etymologies, all other real linguists are quacks, even Jacob Grimm, the discoverer of Germanic Grimm's law of linguistics.
So long as the etymologies produced don't support your position the "creators" are quacks right? I won't deny that Vennemann brought up good points (some which require consideration) and I certainly agree that he should be applauded for his attempt to reassess things.
However, even if Vennemann was on to something he proposes that Punic, the Semitic language of the Carthaginians, was the superstratum in Germanic, he proposed it was Carthaginians who colonized the North Sea. This is quite a distance from Iran and flies in the face of your theory of proto-Germanic in Iran (Vennemann still placed the ancestor of Germanic in Europe).
 
So long as the etymologies produced don't support your position the "creators" are quacks right? I won't deny that Vennemann brought up good points (some which require consideration) and I certainly agree that he should be applauded for his attempt to reassess things.
However, even if Vennemann was on to something he proposes that Punic, the Semitic language of the Carthaginians, was the superstratum in Germanic, he proposed it was Carthaginians who colonized the North Sea. This is quite a distance from Iran and flies in the face of your theory of proto-Germanic in Iran (Vennemann still placed the ancestor of Germanic in Europe).
Vennemann is a linguist, not a historian. The important point is that we know as a linguist, his works are very accurate and undeniable.
 
Vennemann is a linguist, not a historian. The important point is that we know as a linguist, his works are very accurate and undeniable.

If his work is undeniable then you must realize he does not argue for a proto-Germanic origin in Iran. Instead he proposed Punic-speaking seafarers from North Africa colonized the North Sea and from there their language influenced the ancestor of proto-Germanic. This clearly does not support your theory, I'm not sure why you think it does.

Secondly, if his work is so undeniable, why then have several scholars (Sheynin, Eska, Baldi, Page, etc) criticised his work quite strongly and provided counter positions that highlight the lack of evidence for his theory? Linguistics isn't going to be definitive enough, nor is it going to definitively answer the question. If these "Carthaginians" colonized the North Sea, where are the Punic inscriptions?
 
Cyrus - I do not know enough about linguistics to contribute usefully, and think it unlikely that Iran-Armenia was the original land of the Indo-Europeans, although IE-speakers were likely to have lived there from an early stage.

The significant point from genetics is that it looks as if Iran-Armenia was repeatedly colonised by a succession of different IE peoples, so I imagine there would have been various IE influences on its local languages over several millennia:
1. 5th millennium BC - perhaps pre-IE people spread into Armenia from the North
2. Late 4th millennium BC - a different type of people moved in from the North, possibly IE
3. mid 3rd millennium BC - another type of people moved in from the North, which was likely IE
4. mid 2nd millennium BC - another type of people moved in from the North, which was almost certainly IE
5. mid 1st millennium BC - at least one other type of Northern-looking people moved in, which again was almost certainly IE

There appear to be some Eastern Baltic genetic traces in each of waves 2 to 5. Germanic people appear to have developed in this same Eastern Baltic region, so it would not be surprising if there were common linguistic features between the Germanic languages and some of the various languages that were brought into Armenia-Iran over this lengthy period. The final wave in particular is very close to the period in which Germanic languages would have developed, and is also likely to have brought into Iran the language that is ancestral to modern Iranian.

I have looked at the genetics of three diverse Iranian-speaking populations (Iranians, Tajiks and Ossetians), and their components in common again fit best with prior populations located near to the Eastern Baltic. I would say there are signs in genetics that Germanics and Iranics (and indeed Slavs) had significant IE ancestry in common, but this common ancestry (and probably some lingustic traits that went with it) looks likely to be have been located principally in North Eastern Europe, rather than in the land of Iran-Armenia. Whether this is any help to what you are attempting to research, I do not know.
 
Cyrus - I do not know enough about linguistics to contribute usefully, and think it unlikely that Iran-Armenia was the original land of the Indo-Europeans, although IE-speakers were likely to have lived there from an early stage.

The significant point from genetics is that it looks as if Iran-Armenia was repeatedly colonised by a succession of different IE peoples, so I imagine there would have been various IE influences on its local languages over several millennia:
1. 5th millennium BC - perhaps pre-IE people spread into Armenia from the North
2. Late 4th millennium BC - a different type of people moved in from the North, possibly IE
3. mid 3rd millennium BC - another type of people moved in from the North, which was likely IE
4. mid 2nd millennium BC - another type of people moved in from the North, which was almost certainly IE
5. mid 1st millennium BC - at least one other type of Northern-looking people moved in, which again was almost certainly IE

There appear to be some Eastern Baltic genetic traces in each of waves 2 to 5. Germanic people appear to have developed in this same Eastern Baltic region, so it would not be surprising if there were common linguistic features between the Germanic languages and some of the various languages that were brought into Armenia-Iran over this lengthy period. The final wave in particular is very close to the period in which Germanic languages would have developed, and is also likely to have brought into Iran the language that is ancestral to modern Iranian.

I have looked at the genetics of three diverse Iranian-speaking populations (Iranians, Tajiks and Ossetians), and their components in common again fit best with prior populations located near to the Eastern Baltic. I would say there are signs in genetics that Germanics and Iranics (and indeed Slavs) had significant IE ancestry in common, but this common ancestry (and probably some lingustic traits that went with it) looks likely to be have been located principally in North Eastern Europe, rather than in the land of Iran-Armenia. Whether this is any help to what you are attempting to research, I do not know.

I think Iran/Armenia was actually the original land of Indo-European culture, not Indo-European people, by considering the diversity of Indo-European haplogroups in this region, it can be said Iran/Armenia was a crossroad of IE peoples, it is certainly wrong to say almost all people of Europe and South Asia came from here but it seems most of them have crossed through this land after adopting an IE culture, the main attraction for these migrations was probably the earliest civilizations which were formed in Mesopotamia.

Of course IE culture itself should be considered as a mixture of European, Middle Eastern and South Asian cultures too, the influence of European culture seems to be stronger than others.
 
@Cyrus could other IE languages too like Germanic language had been influenced equally by Proto-Semitic language in Near east region too then they have evolved more so lost the Semitic influence yet Germanic language has preserved those influences just as they preserved so many PIE characteristics too, we know PPIEs lived in Armenia/Zagros region before expanding to Steppe region.
 
@Cyrus could other IE languages too like Germanic language had been influenced equally by Proto-Semitic language in Near east region too then they have evolved more so lost the Semitic influence yet Germanic language has preserved those influences just as they preserved so many PIE characteristics too, we know PPIEs lived in Armenia/Zagros region before expanding to Steppe region.

Semitic people migrated probably from modern Lebanon or Israel to Mesopotamia in the mid 3rd millennium BC, at least 2,000 years after division of Indo-European into satem and centum sub-families, so about early Indo-European people in Zagros we should look at people who lived in the Middle East before the 3rd millennium BC, like Sumerians, Elamites and Hurrians.

It is believed that the first farmers lived in Zagros, if these people were PPIEs or proto-Indo-Europeans, we should find their words not only in the Middle East but also Europe and South Asia, there are really some strong evidences, for example let's look at the same word agriculture: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/agriculture from ager "field" + cultura "cultivation" and comapre to Sumerian agar "flied": https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/𒀀𒃼#Sumerian
 
A. Papadimitriou said:
@Cyrus
You are not familiar with the greek pronouns at all. Concerning the 3rd person pronouns, check the etymologies in each branch.

'tu' existed in Doric, and theoretically 'proto-Greek' too. It was 'su' in Attic (pronounced /sy/ according to mainstream linguists).
But some say it was ~'ti' in more Archaic PIE. It is ti in Albanian and some Slavic languages. (proto-Slavic reconstructed as ty)

The fact is that t>s in Hellenic is a very important sound change, also compare to Ancient Greek siphon "pipe" from proto-IE *tibʰ- "pipe", sakos "shield" from proto-IE *twek "shield", sebomai "to feel awe" from proto-IE *tyegʷ- "avoid", ...

I believe the original IE sound was /θ/, not /t/, so it could be changed to both /t/ and /s/ in Hellenic. It is also changed to z/ts (other than /t/) in Anatolian and Tocharian languages, compare Hittite zik "thou", Sumerian zu "thou" could be also a loanword from Indo-European.

About Avestan/Old Persian hi/shi (conj. -sh) "he/she/this", it is good to mention that we see the same words for the 3rd singular personal pronoun in Elamite too, also compare Old Irish hé/sé.
 
I have studied Indo-european.eu they say PIEs never set foot on Armenia\Zagros region before BA so they(R1b) came from Villabruna to Steppe then expanded from there according to them, I have mixed feeling about it.
 
I have studied Indo-european.eu they say PIEs never set foot on Armenia\Zagros region before BA so they(R1b) came from Villabruna to Steppe then expanded from there according to them, I have mixed feeling about it.

I wouldn't base ones study entirely off of one blog (Eurogenes differs greatly from Indo-European.eu), I would read as much as possible from various camps that support different theories for the spread of PIE and especially when they are compared to the genetic data.
 
I have studied Indo-european.eu they say PIEs never set foot on Armenia\Zagros region before BA so they(R1b) came from Villabruna to Steppe then expanded from there according to them, I have mixed feeling about it.

According to recent researches Iran is the source of both R1a-M17 and R1b-M343, it is possible that one of these haplogroups exists in another land too but it can't be enough for being the original land of Indo-Europeans.
 
According to recent researches Iran is the source of both R1a-M17 and R1b-M343, it is possible that one of these haplogroups exists in another land too but it can't be enough for being the original land of Indo-Europeans.



what research, for example?
 
The fact is that t>s in Hellenic is a very important sound change, also compare to Ancient Greek siphon "pipe" from proto-IE *tibʰ- "pipe", sakos "shield" from proto-IE *twek "shield", sebomai "to feel awe" from proto-IE *tyegʷ- "avoid", ...

I believe the original IE sound was /θ/, not /t/, so it could be changed to both /t/ and /s/ in Hellenic. It is also changed to z/ts (other than /t/) in Anatolian and Tocharian languages, compare Hittite zik "thou", Sumerian zu "thou" could be also a loanword from Indo-European.

About Avestan/Old Persian hi/shi (conj. -sh) "he/she/this", it is good to mention that we see the same words for the 3rd singular personal pronoun in Elamite too, also compare Old Irish hé/sé.

What you have in your mind as 'Hellenic' is just Attic.

Either way, Doric Greek had 'tu'. Though the assumption that T was used only and exclusively for a /t/ sound is not exactly correct. It is likely, imho, that at least for foreign words Attic speakers used the letter T for a sound like that of Old Persian Č.

In Tsakonian I have seen /c/ and /ts/ in places where Doric supposedly had /t/ and Attic had /s/, the first in the 2nd singular personal pronoun e'cu (Standard e'si, 'si), the second in the interrogative 'tsi (what?) (Standard 'ti)

Imo, it is likely there was a range of pronunciations for the interrogative t~t:~ts~c~k?

Probably there wasn't a 3rd personal pronoun. See the etymologies. It's relatively obvious these pronouns come from demonstratives.
 
Let's look at some recent genetic studies:

The Arrival of Steppe and Iranian Related Ancestry in the Islands of the Western Mediterranean: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/584714v1.full

In Sicily, Iranian-related ancestry was present during the Middle Bronze Age, showing that this ancestry which was widespread in the Aegean around this time (in association with the Minoan and Mycenaean cultures), also reached further west.

The genomic history of the Iberian Peninsula over the past 8000 years: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6436108/

Our results indicate that in Iberia increases in Steppe ancestry were not always accompanied by switches to Indo-European languages. This is consistent with present-day Basques who speak the only non-Indo-European language in western Europe but overlap genetically with Iron Age populations (Fig. 1D) showing substantial levels of Steppe ancestry.
 
The first study you link refers to the Iranian ancestry as "Iranian-farmer" ancestry. So this is not in the context of PIE people, second link you provide is discussing the increase in Steppe ancestry in Iberia, even in non-IE speaking populations.
 
The first study you link refers to the Iranian ancestry as "Iranian-farmer" ancestry. So this is not in the context of PIE people, second link you provide is discussing the increase in Steppe ancestry in Iberia, even in non-IE speaking populations.

Iranian farmer or Iranian hunter, it says the origin of Italic culture in Sicily, like Greek culture in Greece, is from Iran, not Steppe.
 
Iranian farmer or Iranian hunter, it says the origin of Italic culture in Sicily, like Greek culture in Greece, is from Iran, not Steppe.

That is not what either of those papers say at all, did you actually read them?

Abstract from the first link, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/584714v1.full:

A series of studies have documented how Steppe pastoralist-related ancestry reached central Europe by at least 2500 BCE, while Iranian farmer-related ancestry was present in Aegean Europe by at least 1900 BCE. However, the spread of these ancestries into the western Mediterranean where they have contributed to many populations living today remains poorly understood. We generated genome-wide ancient DNA from the Balearic Islands, Sicily, and Sardinia, increasing the number of individuals with reported data from these islands from 3 to 52. We obtained data from the oldest skeleton excavated from the Balearic islands (dating to ∼2400 BCE), and show that this individual had substantial Steppe pastoralist-derived ancestry; however, later Balearic individuals had less Steppe heritage reflecting geographic heterogeneity or immigration from groups with more European first farmer-related ancestry. In Sicily, Steppe pastoralist ancestry arrived by ∼2200 BCE and likely came at least in part from Spain as it was associated with Iberian-specific Y chromosomes. In Sicily, Iranian-related ancestry also arrived by the Middle Bronze Age, thus revealing that this ancestry type, which was ubiquitous in the Aegean by this time, also spread further west prior to the classical period of Greek expansion. In Sardinia, we find no evidence of either eastern ancestry type in the Nuragic Bronze Age, but show that Iranian-related ancestry arrived by at least ∼300 BCE and Steppe ancestry arrived by ∼300 CE, joined at that time or later by North African ancestry. These results falsify the view that the people of Sardinia are isolated descendants of Europe’s first farmers. Instead, our results show that the island’s admixture history since the Bronze Age is as complex as that in many other parts of Europe.

From the second link, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6436108/:

We assembled genome-wide data from 271 ancient Iberians of whom 176 are from the largely unsampled period after 2000 BCE, thereby providing a high resolution time transect of the Peninsula. We document high genetic substructure between northwestern and southeastern hunter-gatherers prior to the spread of farming. We reveal sporadic contacts between Iberia and North Africa by ~2500 BCE, and by ~2000 BCE the replacement of 40% of Iberia’s ancestry and nearly 100% of its Y-chromosomes by people with Steppe ancestry. In the Iron Age, we show that Steppe ancestry had spread not only into Indo-European-speaking regions but also into non-Indo-European-speaking ones, and we reveal that present-day Basques are best described as a typical Iron Age population without the admixture events that later impacted the rest of Iberia. Beginning at least in the Roman period, we document how the ancestry of the Peninsula was transformed by gene flow from North Africa and the eastern Mediterranean
 
That is not what either of those papers say at all, did you actually read them?

Abstract from the first link, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/584714v1.full:



From the second link, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6436108/:

The first study says nothing about Indo-Europeans but it talks about Iranian origin of Mycenaean culture which was one of the earliest known Indo-European cultures and it says Italic culture in Sicily had the same origin. We know from at least 1600 BC, Anatolian and Indo-Aryan cultures existed in the west of Iran and Iran could be source of them too.
I think we should just wait for newer studies about Iranian origin of other Indo-European cultures. Those who work on Steppe origin of some Europeans, have focused on non-Indo-European cultures in Europe.
 
There are many researches which show the original land of Indo-Europeans was a mountainous area, not steppe, for example look at it:

33c5_mountain.jpg
 

This thread has been viewed 97235 times.

Back
Top