Language trees support hybrid model for origin of Indo-European languages

Jovialis

Advisor
Messages
9,317
Reaction score
5,894
Points
113
Ethnic group
Italian
Y-DNA haplogroup
R-PF7566 (R-Y227216)
mtDNA haplogroup
H6a1b7
Language trees with sampled ancestors support a hybrid model for the origin of Indo-European languages


Languages of the Indo-European family are spoken by almost half of the world’s population, but their origins and patterns of spread are disputed. Heggarty et al. present a database of 109 modern and 52 time-calibrated historical Indo-European languages, which they analyzed with models of Bayesian phylogenetic inference. Their results suggest an emergence of Indo-European languages around 8000 years before present. This is a deeper root date than previously thought, and it fits with an initial origin south of the Caucasus followed by a branch northward into the Steppe region. These findings lead to a “hybrid hypothesis” that reconciles current linguistic and ancient DNA evidence from both the eastern Fertile Crescent (as a primary source) and the steppe (as a secondary homeland). —SNV

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abg0818

zSEGDDul.jpg
 
I am sure someone’s head is going to explode when he reads the paper, his name starts with D… . To be honest, I have no idea what "Bayesian phylogenetic inference" is and how it predicts dates for the divergence of PIE languages.

Also, I don’t have access to the full paper. Can anyone get access?
 
I actually largely agree. Not sure about 'south of the Caucasus'. It is possible but it was not my first option. In my opinion, certainly Anatolian originated in Anatolia.

I was sure about Greece that it didn't have anything to do with Yamnaya itself. I would be more willing to believe Greek came e.g. from Halaf (to be clear I don't believe that but there are more cultural similarities) than that it came from Yamnaya. Yamnaya being a 'secondary homeland' for all non-Anatolian languages was also an irrational position. It could have been homeland for a specific branch only, and even if that is true it can be a branch that has gotten extinct.

I also believe that the ancestor of Indo-Iranian was not in the steppes. BMAC and IVC could have been Indo-European. I don't say that this is necessarily the case.

What I find important in what they say is the following: "Some analyses enforced the assumption that modern spoken languages derive directly from ancient written languages than from parallel spoken varieties", which is something that I was thinking too. Though I don't have the knowledge to judge the methodology.
 
^^I think if they considered the findings of Penske et al. 2023, the genetic approximating of Myceanean-like people already occurred in the copper age with input from the Steppe; I wonder if that would have made a difference.

dYX3zOQ.png
 
I'm really curious which culture they argue Albanian to descend from cause so far it doesn't make much sense.
 
Very good article, that's my position about PIE, the origin was related to an ancient population in the Southern Caucasus, Eastern Anatolia and Northwest Iran where we can find ancient Y-DNA J branches related to CHG-IRAN components.
 
gIGHalV.jpg


This is from Phys.org

I always thought Greeks came from Anatolia, but Albanian seems strange to come from there. This open a complete new prospective.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I'm really curious which culture they argue Albanian to descend from cause so far it doesn't make much sense.

Albanian is from 'Old Europe' I believe. The interesting thing I saw on one of their graphs was Albanian being grouped with Tocharian, with Armenian and Greek forming another branch, together forming an Albanian-Tocharian/Greek-Armenian branch. I don't think this is correct but it may reflect something.

I believe the so called Tocharian language was related to Geto-Dacian, which in turn coud have been comparatively closer to what is called NW IE. (If we had texts, we could tell).

One word that I find interesting is Albanian moter = sister. If we take into account Anatolian, we could suppose that the common ancestor of all did not have the ~mater = mother word or that it had a different meaning like e.g. in Albanian.

Something else that I have found interesting in Albanian is the second pronoun 'ti'. This is interesting because a very large number of languages seem to reflect something like tu and it assumed that proto-Albanian also had *tu.
But Anatolian languages reflect *ti or something like *tig (in Hittite, but imho this may be the result of analogical developement with *ti being original). Now Greek is supposed to have had *tu but taking into account the developments in Attic-Ionic it had something in between *tu and *tju.

But taking into account Nostratic recontructions, Uralic etc, it seems more likely that *ti is more ancient than *tu but also that the *t sound was not a simple t.

I have speculated that the ~pater / ~mater words could have meant something like 'protector' and 'nurturer' respectively and I will explain why in a follow up post.
 
I was sure about Greece that it didn't have anything to do with Yamnaya itself. I would be more willing to believe Greek came e.g. from Halaf (to be clear I don't believe that but there are more cultural similarities) than that it came from Yamnaya.

The homeland of Greeks was in ancient Mukania (Mycenae), modern Muqan plain in the south of Caucasus.

map_Mugan_steppe.GIF
 
That's propably the most hilarious theory(and it's reasoning) i've ever read

You will have to believe that the homeland of Indo-Europeans was in the South of Caucasus.
 
The homeland of Greeks was in ancient Mukania (Mycenae), modern Muqan plain in the south of Caucasus.

First of all you should check how old is the toponym, especially if it is pre-Turkic or not and if it has a plausible etymology in languages like Turkic or NE Caucasian etc.

Secondly, Greeks never identified as Mycenaeans, one of the early names is ~Akhaioi, maybe used for the Eastern group, the so called Mycenaeans or a part of them, Mycenaeans being a conventional name applied by Western scholars and adopted then by everyone else.

Following a similar "method" you can compare Sumerian Larsa with Greek Larisa and say Greeks came from Sumer. Even better compare Greek Ion with Chinese Han and say they came from China.
 
First of all you should check how old is the toponym, especially if it is pre-Turkic or not and if it has a plausible etymology in languages like Turkic or NE Caucasian etc.

Secondly, Greeks never identified as Mycenaeans, one of the early names is ~Akhaioi, maybe used for the Eastern group, the so called Mycenaeans, which is a conventional name applied by Western scholars.

Following a similar "method" you can compare Sumerian Larsa with Greek Larisa and say Greeks came from Sumer. Even better compare Greek ethnic/tribal name Ion with Chinese Han and say they came from China.


Heinrich Schliemann was the first one who used the term mycenean to describe that era.
 
Lazaridis is very skeptical, you can check his opinion on Twitter: https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/1684642571342209026

The main insight of this paper is probably a new date for PIE(6100BC). Imo, the rest doesn’t make much sense. For example Indo-Iranian is definitely from Corded ware>Fatyanavo>Sintashta.


https://www.mpg.de/20666229/0725-evan-origin-of-the-indo-european-languages-150495-x


"The team used recently developed ancestry-enabled Bayesian phylogenetic analysis to test whether ancient written languages, such as Classical Latin and Vedic Sanskrit, were the direct ancestors of modern Romance and Indic languages, respectively."

What I find interesting is that they tested with their new methodology if classic Latin or Vedic Sanskrit are direct ancestors to modern languages.
 
First of all you should check how old is the toponym, especially if it is pre-Turkic or not and if it has a plausible etymology in languages like Turkic or NE Caucasian etc.

Secondly, Greeks never identified as Mycenaeans, one of the early names is ~Akhaioi, maybe used for the Eastern group, the so called Mycenaeans or a part of them, Mycenaeans being a conventional name applied by Western scholars and adopted then by everyone else.

Following a similar "method" you can compare Sumerian Larsa with Greek Larisa and say Greeks came from Sumer. Even better compare Greek Ion with Chinese Han and say they came from China.

This thing that Mycenaean Greeks were the same people of ancient Mukania in the ancient Akkadian sources is another issue, Herodotus call them Mycians and they were the earliest known people in the Caucasian Albania: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_Albania Strabo says about this region: "Greek armour, brazen vessels, and burial places are to be seen there" https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0198:book=11:chapter=7:section=1
 
This thing that Mycenaean Greeks were the same people of ancient Mukania in the ancient Akkadian sources is another issue, Herodotus call them Mycians and they were the earliest known people in the Caucasian Albania: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_Albania Strabo says about this region: "Greek armour, brazen vessels, and burial places are to be seen there" https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0198:book=11:chapter=7:section=1

The impression I get reading it is these Mukians could have possibly been an Iranian population.

The Ainianae of Strabo appear to be Greek (or Greek in origin because language shifts are possible in an area dominated by another linguistic group). Most probable interepretation is that they moved from Greece, during the historical times. And there was a tribe with the same name from Central Greece.
 
Lazaridis is very skeptical, you can check his opinion on Twitter: https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/1684642571342209026

The main insight of this paper is probably a new date for PIE(6100BC). Imo, the rest doesn’t make much sense. For example Indo-Iranian is definitely from Corded ware>Fatyanavo>Sintashta.



The following quote is correct: https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/1562894181454200832

That makes possible my idea: Anatolian being native in Anatolia (south and/or West Anatolia, not eveywhere), early prescence in Anatolia and early divergence. Early split between Anatolian and non-Anatolian, either in Anatolia or in SE Europe. The rest of the languages from 'Old Europe' (possibly a part of it), with progressive assimilation of HG groups everywhere. Populations inside the ANF - Steppe Eneolithic continuum possibly playing an important secondary role. A Neolithic movement from 'Old Europe' to West Asia being responsible for Indo-Iranian or at least Indo-Aryan. IVC being Indo-Aryan.
...
I don't really care about convincing anyone. But, first of all Sintashta can belong to a parallel branch.

As far as I remember the clades they have are different from those in India, or something has changed?
 

This thread has been viewed 18780 times.

Back
Top