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

Not only for words but also for phonetic, Balto-Slavc and Indo-Iranic show trends they don't share with other IE cousin languages, and phonetic is a very important element do determine ancient ties, IMHO... other ties between Balto-Slavic and northern or western IE dialects could have been acquired rather by contact?
That said put anDNA and linguistic tree (one or more?) is still a very hard work. Intercations perdured after first separation of still close ancient dialectes, I think, blurring things.
In scientific work, they use ancient DNA (aDNA) for conclusion. It's strange that they don't state which genetics it is, because such direction of migration and movement is not in accordance with migration of people that we knew about today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples#/media/File:Indo-European_migrations.jpg

The language are people in some area. R1a defines Balto-Slavs, for now they certainly do not have a source in Anatolia, at least as far as mutation R-Z645 is concerned. If they, i.e. their ancestors, are not in the area of Anatolia and the ancestors of the Indo-Iranians or Sanskirt speakers supposedly are, then how can these two groups share common words when each group lives isolated from each other?

If this paper is correct then there is some other migration based on genetics, and possibly there is some other source of R1a R-Z645 and it is not the Russian steppe but Anatolia. These are big genetic facts but without any attached genetic data.

I can't detect what it is about, but maybe they interpret aDNA incorrectly, or with older mutations. This is not at all clear to me. They may be using the older R1a which according to some maps has a source in that area.
 
Last edited:
It is a pity that this scientific paper does not have a linguistic tree drawn according to this theory, because it would be easier to understand their thesis. I don't know the history of Sanskrit and its connection with Iranian languages, but we know that connection between Sanskrit and Balto-Slavic words exists, from the time of living in their ancestral homeland. The only connection in this sense is the R1a Z93 branch. How then is it possible that their ancestral home according to this scientific paper is located in an area where there is no archaeogenetic R1a Z93 as well as its ancestral Balto-Slavic mutation?

If we look at this language tree, https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys...=max&dpr=2&s=93dd6871f9841a32f4a7876932ea1a49 then Slavic languages and Indo-Aryan have a common connection in the Indo-European homeland. If we assume that it is south of the Caucasus, who from that ancestral homeland brings common words to the territory where R1a groups live all the way to the Baltic? As far as I know R1a Balto-Slavic branches do not migrate from Anatolia towards the Russian steppes and the Baltic.

That's why I ask, on which aDNA is this work based? That is important and I do not know that information.
Sanskrit and Balto-Slavic are connected as IE-languages, this is making consensus.
Now, the question of a closer link between these two languages compared to other IE languages is a clearly open question.

You can read the supplementary material of the paper, you'll find the tree at page 57 (correponding to the Fig.2 connection diagram of the main paper).

While you claim the only connection is R1a-Z93, it significantly depends on the time you have for the language diffusion.
If you split these languages around 7500 ybp as proposed in the paper, you can't match that with R1a-Z93 that have a ~4500 ybp TMRCA.
And around 7500 ybp you still have potential genetic and cultural connections that will ultimately link Western Europe, the Steppe, and India. Thus no, R1a-Z93 is not the only link, it is a link that require a time separation around 4500 ybp to be a good candidate to have carried Bato-Slavic/Indo-Iranic mother language (but language divergence time is very hard to reconstruct, and it is the point of the paper we discuss here).

The tree you link is the results of linguistic research (I guess), as any research topic it is subject to progress and disagreements among experts. This tree is a possibility, the one in the paper we discuss is another. I don't have the knowledge in linguistic to claim anything regarding the most likely version to me (thus I accept all tree that are being discussed among experts as "possibilities").
The point is that the paper we discuss here is published under peer-review on a very hot topic ... so I'll be suspicious on anyone too prompt to denigrate their results on few lines on an internet forum ... if needing a response, a scientific published paper need a peer-reviewed response (this is how science work).

Regarding the potential vector of proto-IE from south caucasus to north caucasus, I can recommand you Lazaridis et al. 2022.
The population to look at would be CHG-related.
Looking at haplogroups only can be misleading ... using this method you would expect Euskara to be an IE language, yet it isn't.
Both R-M417 and R-M269 are relatively recent expansions, they can be the main diffusion vector of IE languages (but it is again not mandatory with present data, they could have became vector of IE as late as ~2500 BCE). But back in 5000 BCE they where only 2 males ... if IE language arrived on their land around that time, it is no big deal to have these two men adopting such language.

This work is based on languages not DNA. The result of this work is to propose divergence time for IE-language on a linguistic PoV. Language and DNA are not the same thing, they don't have to show a bijective behavior.
However, if their dating is correct (it has yet to be seen, and need more work), then clearly it discard R-Z93 as a vector for Indo-Iranic.
Yet, on a personal note, I don't think any definitive conclusion will be obtained from such methodology.

But even DNA (as a language proxy) is far from being perfect, and despite what "casuals" on forum are yelding, the relation WSH-IE is far from being a certitude. It is one model, a very decent one ... but decent alternative do exists.
Yet to me, the two main contenders at being the vector of IE languages are either CHG or WSH. And without very secured timing of language divergence time, it will likely be never possible to settle the question.
 
Last edited:
None of that as far as I know. The only migration of R1a goes towards India from direction of the Russian steppe. Opposite R1a migrations do not exist.
And as for the original country of Croats, it is White Croatia and the main Y haplotype in Croats is I2a, which is not of Indo-European origin.
Famous Indian geneticist Dr. Niraj Rai said recently that Steppe ancestry arrived in India about 1,000 years after Vedic era, so it has absolutely nothing to do with Indo-Iranian culture, their paper will be published soon.
 
Sanskrit and Balto-Slavic are connected as IE-languages, this is making consensus.
Now, the question of a closer link between these two languages compared to other IE languages is a clearly open question.

You can read the supplementary material of the paper, you'll find the tree at page 57 (correponding to the Fig.2 connection diagram of the main paper).

While you claim the only connection is R1a-Z93, it significantly depends on the time you have for the language diffusion.
If you split these languages around 7500 ybp as proposed in the paper, you can't match that with R1a-Z93 that have a ~4500 ybp TMRCA.
And around 7500 ybp you still have potential genetic and cultural connections that will ultimately link Western Europe, the Steppe, and India. Thus no, R1a-Z93 is not the only link, it is a link that require a time separation around 4500 ybp to be a good candidate to have carried Bato-Slavic/Indo-Iranic mother language (but language divergence time is very hard to reconstruct, and it is the point of the paper we discuss here).

The tree you link is the results of linguistic research (I guess), as any research topic it is subject to progress and disagreements among experts. This tree is a possibility, the one in the paper we discuss is another. I don't have the knowledge in linguistic to claim anything regarding the most likely version to me (thus I accept all tree that are being discussed among experts as "possibilities").
The point is that the paper we discuss here is published under peer-review on a very hot topic ... so I'll be suspicious on anyone too prompt to denigrate their results on few lines on an internet forum ... if needing a response, a scientific published paper need a peer-reviewed response (this is how science work).

Regarding the potential vector of proto-IE from south caucasus to north caucasus, I can recommand you Lazaridis et al. 2022.
The population to look at would be CHG-related.
Looking at haplogroups only can be misleading ... using this method you would expect Euskara to be an IE language, yet it isn't.
Both R-M417 and R-M269 are relatively recent expansions, they can be the main diffusion vector of IE languages (but it is again not mandatory with present data, they could have became vector of IE as late as ~2500 BCE). But back in 5000 BCE they where only 2 males ... if IE language arrived on their land around that time, it is no big deal to have these two men adopting such language.

This work is based on languages not DNA. The result of this work is to propose divergence time for IE-language on a linguistic PoV. Language and DNA are not the same thing, they don't have to show a bijective behavior.
However, if their dating is correct (it has yet to be seen, and need more work), then clearly it discard R-Z93 as a vector for Indo-Iranic.
Yet, on a personal note, I don't think any definitive conclusion will be obtained from such methodology.

But even DNA (as a language proxy) is far from being perfect, and despite what "casuals" on forum are yelding, the relation WSH-IE is far from being a certitude. It is one model, a very decent one ... but decent alternative do exists.
Yet to me, the two main contenders at being the vector of IE languages are either CHG or WSH. And without very secured timing of language divergence time, it will likely be never possible to settle the question.
At this time, in the year 2024, this is the migration of the R1a.
Therefore, the Lithuanian language has similar words from Sanskrit https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https://i.redd.it/gkh6d11igvi91.png, and their only connection with R1a from India is in the mutation R1a M417, that is, in a common house in the Russian steppe.

Their common ancestor is the R-Z645 mutation. https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z645/
Meaning that separation occurred TMRCA 5000 ybp. One group of people from the common house goes to the Baltic, the other to India. Since then, they have never seen each other again. But both today share common words. The main connection with Indo-Europeans in the Lithuanian population is R1a.


"The Lithuanian language has many similarities with Sanskrit – the classical language of ancient India. Probably no one would be able to unequivocally assert which is the very oldest language in the world, but it’s a fact that the Lithuanian language is one of the oldest and most archaic living languages in the world, and it has preserved more features of PIE than any other Indo-European language"

If the common house was in Anatolia, then how these common words coming to the Russian steppe? Which haplotype brings these words to R1a people. Or which R1a branch goes from Anatolia, across the Russian steppe to the Baltic? Such Y genetics do not exist. And to claim that language passes from one group of people to another group of people like a virus makes no sense. Then why would it only pass to the carriers of the R1a haplotype? And this despite the fact that there is a clearly visible R1a R-Z645 connection.
 
Last edited:
At this time, in the year 2024, this is the migration of the R1a.
Therefore, the Lithuanian language has similar words from Sanskrit https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https://i.redd.it/gkh6d11igvi91.png, and their only connection with R1a from India is in the mutation R1a M417, that is, in a common house in the Russian steppe.

Their common ancestor is the R-Z645 mutation. https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z645/
Meaning that separation occurred TMRCA 5000 ybp. One group of people from the common house goes to the Baltic, the other to India. Since then, they have never seen each other again. But both today share common words. The main connection with Indo-Europeans in the Lithuanian population is R1a.


"The Lithuanian language has many similarities with Sanskrit – the classical language of ancient India. Probably no one would be able to unequivocally assert which is the very oldest language in the world, but it’s a fact that the Lithuanian language is one of the oldest and most archaic living languages in the world, and it has preserved more features of PIE than any other Indo-European language"

If the common house was in Anatolia, then how these common words coming to the Russian steppe? Which haplotype brings these words to R1a people. Or which R1a branch goes from Anatolia, across the Russian steppe to the Baltic? Such Y genetics do not exist. And to claim that language passes from one group of people to another group of people like a virus makes no sense. Then why would it only pass to the carriers of the R1a haplotype? And this despite the fact that there is a clearly visible R1a R-Z645 connection.

I think we have a big methodological issue in your approach.
You make the assumption that R1a is the IE-language carrier. Yet, this is an assumption, alternatives do exists.

As I explained to you, the key part is the divergence time. If the language divergence time is around ~7000 ybp, then an haplogroup with diversification around ~5000 ybp cannot be the one behind the dseparation around ~5000 ybp.
Yet, identifying the divergence time of language is a complexe process, thus I'm personnally carefull with linguistic analysis.

DNA wise, Steppe and India are related by more than one component. And in fact, there is one that diffused around ~8000-7000 ybp and that ended up both in the North-Eastern Europe and in India.
There is also another one that diffused around ~5000/4500 ybp and that also ended in Europe and India.

How did "common words" ended in the Steppe ? In a CHG based model, with the CHG component that constitute ~half of the WSH one. For some reasons you ignore that. Why do you consider impossible that peoples who contributed for ~half of the WSH admixture could have brought their language with them ? If it is so obvious, why are you not publishing an astonishing peer-reviewed paper to settle once and for all the question ?

Which haplogroup ? Various depending on epoch, location and fluctuation due to founder effects.
In a CHG-based model, you would likely have some J1 and J2 as early carrier, that would have been followed by R1b and I2 as main carriers, before R1a also entered the game. Even I1 became a major carrier of some IE language ...
Why only passing to R1a ? Wasn't the case, R1b, I2, R1a, I1, E-V13, J2b some G2a are known to have been significant carriers of IE languages in Europe at some point of their histories !

Yet tracking only paternal line is limited, tracking admixtures makes more sense, paternal lineages are too affected by founder effects.
Anyway, DNA alone will never be a definitive proof for language propagation. The survivance of a language is neither insured by the paternal lineages nor by the amount of injected admixture.

DNA/Culture/Language are not bijective properties ... they are only partially correlated.
 
I think we have a big methodological issue in your approach.
You make the assumption that R1a is the IE-language carrier. Yet, this is an assumption, alternatives do exists.

As I explained to you, the key part is the divergence time. If the language divergence time is around ~7000 ybp, then an haplogroup with diversification around ~5000 ybp cannot be the one behind the dseparation around ~5000 ybp.
Yet, identifying the divergence time of language is a complexe process, thus I'm personnally carefull with linguistic analysis.

DNA wise, Steppe and India are related by more than one component. And in fact, there is one that diffused around ~8000-7000 ybp and that ended up both in the North-Eastern Europe and in India.
There is also another one that diffused around ~5000/4500 ybp and that also ended in Europe and India.

How did "common words" ended in the Steppe ? In a CHG based model, with the CHG component that constitute ~half of the WSH one. For some reasons you ignore that. Why do you consider impossible that peoples who contributed for ~half of the WSH admixture could have brought their language with them ? If it is so obvious, why are you not publishing an astonishing peer-reviewed paper to settle once and for all the question ?

Which haplogroup ? Various depending on epoch, location and fluctuation due to founder effects.
In a CHG-based model, you would likely have some J1 and J2 as early carrier, that would have been followed by R1b and I2 as main carriers, before R1a also entered the game. Even I1 became a major carrier of some IE language ...
Why only passing to R1a ? Wasn't the case, R1b, I2, R1a, I1, E-V13, J2b some G2a are known to have been significant carriers of IE languages in Europe at some point of their histories !

Yet tracking only paternal line is limited, tracking admixtures makes more sense, paternal lineages are too affected by founder effects.
Anyway, DNA alone will never be a definitive proof for language propagation. The survivance of a language is neither insured by the paternal lineages nor by the amount of injected admixture.

DNA/Culture/Language are not bijective properties ... they are only partially correlated.
Why only R1a? Well, because it has the main frequency in the Slavic peoples. Find another Y candidate and show direction of migration in a wider area, ie with common Europe-India connections. There is also R1b but which R1b carriers have so many similar words with Sanskrit? Otherwise, there is a common Indo-European connection between all of them, however, there are too many similar words between Slavic and Sanskrit for it to be only an Indo-European connection. Croats receive the Slavic language only through R1a Z280 mutation. The main haplotype in India is R1a Z93, and it is the only major connection to the Slavs. The cohabitation between those two groups according to the YFull tree is 5000 ybp. And only then can they share common words.

If you have another theory based on y migration, show which haplotypes and branches they are.

I'm talking about what YDna says, and the linguistic division and time of separation based on linguistic theory is something else. But again I say language are people and people are YDna.
 
Why only R1a? Well, because it has the main frequency in the Slavic peoples. Find another Y candidate and show direction of migration in a wider area, ie with common Europe-India connections. There is also R1b but which R1b carriers have so many similar words with Sanskrit? Otherwise, there is a common Indo-European connection between all of them, however, there are too many similar words between Slavic and Sanskrit for it to be only an Indo-European connection. Croats receive the Slavic language only through R1a Z280 mutation. The main haplotype in India is R1a Z93, and it is the only major connection to the Slavs. The cohabitation between those two groups according to the YFull tree is 5000 ybp. And only then can they share common words.

If you have another theory based on y migration, show which haplotypes and branches they are.

I'm talking about what YDna says, and the linguistic division and time of separation based on linguistic theory is something else. But again I say language are people and people are YDna.
What is this non-sense ?
R1a has the highest frequency among slavic ?
What do you think it proves ? Particularly when this high dominance is due to a founder effect around ~5000/4500 ybp.
If the language split is older than that, this clade is clearly disqualified. Yet, dating language separation is a complex work, and results need to be considered carefully, but the point is that we have a component of autosomal DNA accounting for 50% of the WSH that can explain a higher dating of the language split around 7000 ybp.

After this DNA non-sense, you try to move on the linguistic side.
I will recommand you to read the position of Heggarty and al. 2023 in their suplementary material, section 7.6.2.1 page 69.
Titled : "7.6.2.1 WAS THERE AN [INDO-IRANIC+BALTO-SLAVIC] NODE ? THE CENTUM/SATEM CONTRAST AND THE RUKI RULE"
Content :
The claim that the Ringe tree topology supports the Steppe hypothesis rests especially on one particular node,which has also been taken as particularly important for contextualizing ancient DNA findings. The last major nodein the Ringe tree keeps Indo-Iranic and Balto-Slavic together in a single common branch until very late in thefamily’s divergence history, after all other main branches have split off. This has been taken to entail that theancestor of Indo-Iranic languages would likely have still been outside India and Iran, and further north on theSteppe, until a correspondingly late date. In Ringe’s chronology, the lineage ancestral to all Indic and Iraniclanguages remained undistinguished from the lineage ancestral to Baltic and Slavic languages until as late as c.2450 BC, i.e. less than a millennium before the time of Vedic, set by Ringe at 1500 BC. (It is not in fact universallyaccepted that Balto-Slavic itself is a valid node, although this is the majority view and in our analysis has a highposterior probability. For discussion, see (154).)
Even in Ringe’s own data-set, support for this last major node of [Indo-Iranic + Balto-Slavic] is very thin: it consistsof only three binary characters (while other characters conflict with any single tree). Each of these three charactersis highly questionable, and not considered probative by many other specialists. It is no widespread view that Indo-Iranic is most closely related to Balto-Slavic, or to any other particular branch (155).

One of Ringe’s three characters is cognacy in the meaning ‘all (plural)’. Cognacy between Indo-Iranic and Balto-Slavic languages is only partial here, however. Their ‘all’ words share only the morpheme *wi, followed by differentextensions: Indo-Iranic has *wikw􏰀 o, Balto-Slavic has *wiso. Ringe opts to code both as state 5 (differentiated onlyby his 5a and 5b labels), rather than as different states 5 and 6. Furthermore, *wi reconstructs to Proto-Indo-European, so its use in this meaning may be a shared retention or a parallel semantic shift, and does not prove aunique, late [Indo-Iranic + Balto-Slavic] node.

The other two characters have been long debated in Indo-European research: one aspect of the centum/satemcontrast, and the ‘ruki rule’. Ringe does not follow the basic contrast between centum and satem languages. Hedefines his character P2 narrowly, as “full ‘satem’ development of dorsals”, i.e. in such a way as to apply not to allsatem languages, but only to Indo-Iranic and Balto-Slavic (and to explicitly exclude Armenian and Albanian: p. 104in (50)). This is taken as a definitive character, which specifically separates [Indo-Iranic + Balto-Slavic] from [Greek+ Armenian]. So in effect, Ringe’s preferred definition separates [Indo-Iranic + Balto-Slavic], to set the satemlanguage Armenian together with the non-satem Greek instead. (This is because the state for P2 full satem is absentin both, even though basic satem is present in Armenian and absent in Greek.) This contradicts and overrides thebasic centum/satem contrast, then, which is not used as a character in the Ringe data‐set. There is long-standingdebate on this issue, and a range of alternative hypotheses on how the patterns in the language data arose. Ringe’schoice of definition is subjective, as is his confidence that that particular definition can be taken as a probativephylogenetic character — necessarily inherited, rather than a parallel development or areal phenomenon — whileother definitions cannot. This interpretation does not enjoy consensus in the field.

The ‘ruki’ rule (Ringe’s character P3) is a sound change named for the phonological context that triggers it, namelythe set of sounds /r/, /u/, /k/ and /i/ (or in fact not just /k/, but also other dorsal stops). The sound change is thatoriginal Proto-Indo-European */s/ came to be articulated slightly further back in the mouth (‘retracted’), as /ʃ/instead. Cross-linguistically, /s/ > /ʃ/ is in itself a frequent sound change, but what most Indo-Iranic and Balto-Slavic languages share is that this change generally applied also in the same set of contexts, namely where */s/followed immediately after any of the ‘ruki’ set of sounds. Some analysts deem the /i/ and /u/ vowels, and theconsonants /r/ and dorsal stops (like /k/), to form a particular combination of contexts idiosyncratic and unusualenough that it can be considered unlikely that the same sound change in these same contexts could have arisenindependently twice. These analysts take it as more plausible that the retraction change arose only once, that is,along a single branch to a common ancestor of [Indo-Iranic + Balto-Slavic]. This is Ringe’s position.

However, /i/ and /u/ have in common that they are the two highest cardinal vowels, where the tongue comesclosest to the palate and velum respectively. And /k/ is also formed at the velum, by the back of the tongue actuallymaking full closure there. Other ‘dorsal’ stops are also defined as being articulated by the back of the tongue (the‘dorsum’) against the palate, velum or even further back at the uvula. As for /r/-sounds, in phonology these form anotoriously diverse set, including sounds articulated from palatal to uvular as the location of stricture. The precisephonetic realization of the /r/ phoneme in early Indo-European branches is uncertain. So in fact, /r/, /u/, /k/ and/i/ all lie on the ‘close’ and ‘back’ limits to the vowel space, where it maps onto the corresponding places ofarticulation for consonants (see Fig. 10.6 in (156), and (157)). Nor is the mixed set of vowel and consonant triggersso unusual, particularly given that in Proto-Indo-European /i/ and /u/ functioned largely as (sonorants) in anycase, i.e. as consonants. The ‘ruki’ contexts all have in common a location of stricture that can naturally draw thearticulation of a preceding /s/ sound to be retracted to /ʃ/, closer where dorsal stops and high vowels arethemselves articulated with the tongue (i.e. partial assimilation in place of articulation).

The ‘ruki’ set of contexts is thus not phonetically unmotivated or unusual for triggering a retraction of /s/. Otheranalysts consider the outputs to reflect a set of similar retraction changes that arose independently in parallel,rather than a single rule operating just once in a putative common Proto-Indo-Iranic-Balto-Slavic. There aremultiple indications that somewhat different, separate changes did indeed arise. According to some analyses, the‘ruki’ retraction of */s/ may also have applied partly in Albanian and to individual words in Armenian.Furthermore, the retraction did not operate identically or universally across Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranic in anycase. Ringe himself recognizes several complications (p. 109 in (50)), while other authors discuss details andexceptions in (158) for Indic and in (159) for Iranic, for example.

Alternative analyses are possible because various more recent sound changes have obscured the evidence of whatmay or may not have happened at earlier stages. In many languages, original Proto-Indo-European */s/ in ‘ruki’contexts is found as other sounds, not /ʃ/, and it is not always knowable whether an original */s/ > /ʃ/ retractionhad or had not already happened first. The retraction is observable in Lithuanian, for instance, but not in otherlanguages of the Baltic branch, so it is not clear whether the change had operated by the Proto-Balto-Slavic stage. InSlavic, the retracted /ʃ/ shifted again to /x/, whereas in Indic /ʃ/ shifted to contrastive retroflex /ʂ/. In Nuristani,Morgenstierne first noted that although original /s/ is often found changed to /ʂ/ as in Indic languages, this doesnot apply after the /u/ context, where original /s/ remained (160). As examples from Morgenstierne (withcorrections for Nuristani added here), in words for ‘mouse’ derived from Proto-Indo-European *múh2s with */s/,Indic languages have changed that /s/ ultimately to retroflex /ʂ/ (spelt in Indic as dotted ṣ), as for example in Vedicmūṣ- or Gawarbati muṣa. The cognate word in Nuristani languages, however, has /s/, without retraction to /ʂ/:Kâmviri and Kâta-vari both have /musˈa/ (realized phonetically as [muzˈɨ] and [musˈɨ] respectively), and Vâsi-varihas /müs/. Also in Nuristani, both after and before the /i/ context, original */s/ is found as /ʃ/, but through arelatively late sound change. For these /i/ contexts, strictly it cannot be known whether original ‘ruki’ changes hadalready applied, i.e. in a chain of /s/ > /ʃ/ > ‘Indic’ /ʂ/ and then back to Nuristani /ʃ/, but this raises questions ofparsimony and phonological motivation.

To be consistent with ‘ruki’ as evidence for an Indo-Iranic + Balto-Slavic node, one has to entertain the idea thatNuristani languages did actually inherit all the results of a full original ‘ruki’ change, but then reversed some of

those results by later sound changes: e.g. where found between vowels, /ʂ/ changed (‘back’) to /s/. Although thishas been hypothesized (161), the analysis includes faulty data on Nuristani languages, and proposes a sound changewhich — although convenient for defending a sweeping ruki rule — is unmotivated phonologically. It is unclearwhat phonetic preconditions should have caused such a reversal, nor why other instances of intervocalic *ṣ did nottherefore also become *s in Nuristani. For a more phonologically plausible alternative analysis of Nuristani “non-ruki *u”, not consistent with ruki as validly demonstrating an Indo-Iranic + Balto-Slavic node, see §4.2 in (162).

In sum, it is highly controversial whether the ‘ruki’ sound change is a genuine, single shared innovation (at aputative common Proto-Indo-Iranic-Balto-Slavic stage); many specialists consider it a series of independentparallel changes instead.

So the only three characters in (50) that ostensibly support a unique [Indo-Iranic + Balto-Slavic] node are all highlyproblematic, much debated in Indo-European linguistics, and not widely accepted as probative that the node didactually exist. Ringe himself warns that overall, even his preferred tree is supported by very few characters, andcontradicted by more: “18 characters are incompatible with the ‘best’ tree returned ... in computational terms ourresult is a total failure” (p. 85 in (50)). Ringe concedes that “the higher-order subgrouping of the lE family hasremained an unsolved problem for so many generations partly because the evidence is genuinely meagre” (p. 98 in(50)). In his own analysis, “the evidence for virtually all the larger, non-traditional subgroups that our algorithmposits is so slender” (p. 104 in (50)): no more than a handful of binary characters for any higher node. This is asreflected in the very low (>0.3) support values for the first three splits in our results here, and only 0.15 support for[Indo-Iranic + Balto-Slavic]. We take the linguistic data — qualitative as well as quantitative — as far fromsupporting such a node, especially not as the last major node to break up in the model for the Steppe hypothesis setout in (5), and when taken to have remained intact until less than a millennium before Vedic. We therefore alsotake it as premature for interpretations of aDNA data to presume the Ringe tree and its chronology as if in supportof a late presence of Indo-Iranic on the Steppe, before a late entry into India and Iran, in order to fit the Steppehypothesis.

Again, if you think this node is that obvious, it is not against me that you have to fight ... but against published work.
To do so, please submit your own paper that I would gladly read ... here on a forum your words and personal opinions about this field are pointless ... and definitely not suited to contest published work in peer reviewed journals.

Thus linguistically speaking Heggarty et al. 2023 claims that the Indo-Iranic/Balto-Slavic node is unlikely. Handle it.
It didn't fit with you pet-theory on the topic ? I don't really care. While I won't consider Heggarty et al. results as a certitude, it definitely shows that the existence of the Indo-Iranic/Balto-Slavic node is far from being a certitude among experts. Again, handle it.
If you try to present this node as a certitude, it is basically an intellectual fraud.

For some reasons you are obsessed by Y-DNA ... you dodge so many direct questions I asked you that I will set some rules unless you respond to the following question, I won't respond to you anymore :
1- Do you consider that a genetic component constituting 50% of WSH can be the source of their language ? Yes or No, and if No then why ?
2- Do you agree that a founder effect in a population can yields to change in dominant paternal lineages ? Yes or No, and if No then why ? (PS: keep in mind that we do have many documented examples of that)

And just to clarify, ~half of the world population didn't have Y-DNA ... therefore no, people are not "Y-DNA".
Peoples are living in cultures and speaking languages and they also carry DNA.
Yet, people can't change their DNA while they often change culture and language depending on wars and migrations.
Going by your logic, my autosomal DNA says I should speak a Celtic language, yet I'm speaking a Latin one, and inside a country that derives its name from a germanic tribe ... Hell my existence alone is proving that you conception of culture/language/DNA is completely flawed and didn't fit reality.
 
Summary of the situation :
Indo-Iranic and Slavic populations (can be generalised to all IE speaking groups) can be link in two ways :
1- CHG component diffused likely around 8000-7000 ybp.
2- WSH component (50% CHG itself) diffused around 5000 ybp.

If we restrict to this two genetic relations (which is not even mandatory ...) it is impossible to know which one carried the IE language without dating the linguistic diversification of the languages.

The lack of WSH DNA signituare in BA Anatolia despite IE-languages being present is what is making more and more geneticists and linguists smoothly migrate toward the idea of an Anatolian/Caucasian/Iranian homeland of IE-languages.

When challenging the presence of an Indo-Iranic/Balto-Slavic "recent" node ... it also removes the need of having Indo-Iranic passing by the Steppe.

I think both model are definitely feasible and easy to understand. Yet, the existing data are far from enough to definitely settle the question and might never be.
 
What is this non-sense ?
R1a has the highest frequency among slavic ?
What do you think it proves ? Particularly when this high dominance is due to a founder effect around ~5000/4500 ybp.
If the language split is older than that, this clade is clearly disqualified. Yet, dating language separation is a complex work, and results need to be considered carefully, but the point is that we have a component of autosomal DNA accounting for 50% of the WSH that can explain a higher dating of the language split around 7000 ybp.

After this DNA non-sense, you try to move on the linguistic side.
I will recommand you to read the position of Heggarty and al. 2023 in their suplementary material, section 7.6.2.1 page 69.
Titled : "7.6.2.1 WAS THERE AN [INDO-IRANIC+BALTO-SLAVIC] NODE ? THE CENTUM/SATEM CONTRAST AND THE RUKI RULE"
Content :


Again, if you think this node is that obvious, it is not against me that you have to fight ... but against published work.
To do so, please submit your own paper that I would gladly read ... here on a forum your words and personal opinions about this field are pointless ... and definitely not suited to contest published work in peer reviewed journals.

Thus linguistically speaking Heggarty et al. 2023 claims that the Indo-Iranic/Balto-Slavic node is unlikely. Handle it.
It didn't fit with you pet-theory on the topic ? I don't really care. While I won't consider Heggarty et al. results as a certitude, it definitely shows that the existence of the Indo-Iranic/Balto-Slavic node is far from being a certitude among experts. Again, handle it.
If you try to present this node as a certitude, it is basically an intellectual fraud.

For some reasons you are obsessed by Y-DNA ... you dodge so many direct questions I asked you that I will set some rules unless you respond to the following question, I won't respond to you anymore :
1- Do you consider that a genetic component constituting 50% of WSH can be the source of their language ? Yes or No, and if No then why ?
2- Do you agree that a founder effect in a population can yields to change in dominant paternal lineages ? Yes or No, and if No then why ? (PS: keep in mind that we do have many documented examples of that)

And just to clarify, ~half of the world population didn't have Y-DNA ... therefore no, people are not "Y-DNA".
Peoples are living in cultures and speaking languages and they also carry DNA.
Yet, people can't change their DNA while they often change culture and language depending on wars and migrations.
Going by your logic, my autosomal DNA says I should speak a Celtic language, yet I'm speaking a Latin one, and inside a country that derives its name from a germanic tribe ... Hell my existence alone is proving that you conception of culture/language/DNA is completely flawed and didn't fit reality.
Linguistics has its own rules and this should be respected, but in the end linguistics will have to be harmonized with genetics and TMRCA of individual Y branches.

As for question 1 or 2, I am not an expert on that issue because I follow Croatian migrations more. If we use information from wikipedia, that is, several scientific papers "Yamnaya culture individuals mainly belonging to R1b-Z210". https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2103/ This branch also exists in India and is located in the area of Yamnaya culture, with similar TMRCA separation time to R1a Z93 (TMRCA 5400-5000 ybp).

Therefore, the two main Indo-European haplotypes in the Indian area probably originated from the Russian steppe, and their language ie common Slavic-Sanskrit words may have originated in Anatolia? The R1b R-Z2103 branch shows similar archaeogenetic patterns in the northeast direction similar to the movement map of the R1a Z93 branch. I think it is quite clear that migration from Anatolia towards India at least as far as the R1b and R1a branches are concerned has not been genetically confirmed.

My opinion is that these common words were used 5 thousand years ago in the Russian steppe, Part of the tribe went to the west, the other part to India. As for R1b branches in that area(Russian steppe), it is likely that the main R1b wave moved west ie Balkans earlier, around 5.5-6 thousand years ago.

These are people and people are yDna. Anatolia in this sense has nothing to do with anything except that maybe the older R1b or R1a branches come from that direction. I don't know if the Indo-European homeland is there, I can only say where separation of R1a Slavs ancestors and R1a, R1b Indian people happened, for now in year 2024 this place is the Russian steppe.
 
Last edited:
Linguistics has its own rules and traceability and this should be respected, but in the end linguistics will have to be harmonized with genetics and TMRCA of individual Y branches.

As for question 1 or 2, I am not an expert on that issue because I follow Croatian migrations more. If we use information from wikipedia, that is, several scientific papers "Yamnaya culture individuals mainly belonging to R1b-Z210". https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2103/ This branch also exists in India and is located in the area of Yamnaya culture, with similar TMRCA separation time to R1a Z93 (TMRCA 5400-5000 ybp).

Therefore, the two main Indo-European haplotypes in the Indian area probably originated from the Russian steppe, and their language ie common Slavic-Sanskrit words may have originated in Anatolia? The R1b R-Z2103 branch shows similar archaeogenetic patterns in the northeast direction similar to the movement map of the R1a Z93 branch. I think it is quite clear that migration from Anatolia towards India at least as far as the R1b and R1a branches are concerned has not been genetically confirmed.

My opinion is that these common words were used 5 thousand years ago in the Russian steppe, Part of the tribe went to the west, the other part to India. As for R1b branches in that area(Russian steppe), it is likely that the main R1b wave moved west ie Balkans earlier, around 5.5-6 thousand years ago.

These are people and people are yDna. Anatolia in this sense has nothing to do with anything except that maybe the older R1b or R1a branches come from that direction. I don't know if the Indo-European homeland is there, I can only say where separation of R1a Slavs ancestors and R1a, R1b Indian people happened, for now in year 2024 this place is the Russian steppe.

1- As said, genetically speaking we have a genetic component that is linking the concerned areas around 7000 ybp. Therefore I don't see how you can discard this date as the IE-dispersion. And as expected, you don't respond to this point, you simply dodge.
The fact that you have another genetic link around 5000 ybp didn't tells you which one brought the language.

2- Keep in mind that we don't know what Yamnaya spoke as a language, claiming they spoke something IE-related is an hypothesis. That is a possibility, but not a given. No one is denying a genetic link with a TMRCA around 5000 ybp ... and this one you'll see it on many haplogroups. But again, with the CHG component you have another genetic link.
Therefore how can you be so sure that the link you are following is the one that diffused IE ?

3- Thus you have nearly no background in genetics nor in linguistic but you contest peer reviewed work ? Interesting.

4- Indo-European haplotype ? What is that ? Indo-European is a language family not a DNA. Strangely you are not adressing the content of Heggarty et al. 2023 paper about the low probability of a Balto-Slavic/Indo-Iranic "recent" node that link preferentially these languages compared to other IE language (I suspect that you didn't even read the paper).
Then, we are still in the same situation, you have a link in 7000 ybp and one in 5000 ybp ... which one brought the language ? You have not provided any way to settle the question.

5- Stop being obsessed with Y-DNA ... CHG component in Steppe originate from the south of the Caucasus. You have no way to determine if the IE-language comes from the CHG side or the EHG side. 5000 ybp Y-DNA in caucasus emerged from "recent" founder effect ... it is completely irrelavant as a proxy of Early IE-speakers around ~6000 ybp.

6- Your opinion is not really interresting as you have no way to prove this WSH-model against a CHG-model ... Science is not a matter of what theory you prefer. Science is a matter of facts. And yet you have not provided any facts to settle the question.

7- No peoples are not "yDNA" half of mankind didn't carry yDNA.
As said before, a human DNA can't change, a human culture and language can and often do during wars or migrations.
DNA alone will never settle linguistic questions ... following your logic Euskara should be an IE-language, yet it isn't.

8- As of 2024, in the scientific community the PIE homeland is an open question, and recent papers are more and more leaning toward an Anatolian/Caucasian/Iranian homeland.
If you disagree with that, it is not with me that you need to discuss, but you need to publish a peer reviexed paper. Yet you have not shown any compelling argument neither in genetics nor in linguistic.

9-The lack of response to direct questions, the systematic dodging of key points, and your refusal to adress the Heggarty et al. 2023 arguments indicates that this discussion is going nowhere. And me, I have to go somewhere.

Cheers,
 
1- As said, genetically speaking we have a genetic component that is linking the concerned areas around 7000 ybp. Therefore I don't see how you can discard this date as the IE-dispersion. And as expected, you don't respond to this point, you simply dodge.
The fact that you have another genetic link around 5000 ybp didn't tells you which one brought the language.

2- Keep in mind that we don't know what Yamnaya spoke as a language, claiming they spoke something IE-related is an hypothesis. That is a possibility, but not a given. No one is denying a genetic link with a TMRCA around 5000 ybp ... and this one you'll see it on many haplogroups. But again, with the CHG component you have another genetic link.
Therefore how can you be so sure that the link you are following is the one that diffused IE ?

3- Thus you have nearly no background in genetics nor in linguistic but you contest peer reviewed work ? Interesting.

4- Indo-European haplotype ? What is that ? Indo-European is a language family not a DNA. Strangely you are not adressing the content of Heggarty et al. 2023 paper about the low probability of a Balto-Slavic/Indo-Iranic "recent" node that link preferentially these languages compared to other IE language (I suspect that you didn't even read the paper).
Then, we are still in the same situation, you have a link in 7000 ybp and one in 5000 ybp ... which one brought the language ? You have not provided any way to settle the question.

5- Stop being obsessed with Y-DNA ... CHG component in Steppe originate from the south of the Caucasus. You have no way to determine if the IE-language comes from the CHG side or the EHG side. 5000 ybp Y-DNA in caucasus emerged from "recent" founder effect ... it is completely irrelavant as a proxy of Early IE-speakers around ~6000 ybp.

6- Your opinion is not really interresting as you have no way to prove this WSH-model against a CHG-model ... Science is not a matter of what theory you prefer. Science is a matter of facts. And yet you have not provided any facts to settle the question.

7- No peoples are not "yDNA" half of mankind didn't carry yDNA.
As said before, a human DNA can't change, a human culture and language can and often do during wars or migrations.
DNA alone will never settle linguistic questions ... following your logic Euskara should be an IE-language, yet it isn't.

8- As of 2024, in the scientific community the PIE homeland is an open question, and recent papers are more and more leaning toward an Anatolian/Caucasian/Iranian homeland.
If you disagree with that, it is not with me that you need to discuss, but you need to publish a peer reviexed paper. Yet you have not shown any compelling argument neither in genetics nor in linguistic.

9-The lack of response to direct questions, the systematic dodging of key points, and your refusal to adress the Heggarty et al. 2023 arguments indicates that this discussion is going nowhere. And me, I have to go somewhere.

Cheers,
Linguistically, I don't deny peer reviewed work. I am saying that today's genetics refutes migration of R1a and R1b people from Anatolia to India.
I don't know who diffused IE, I'm just following the genetics and what we know from scientific papers. So far the Russian Steppe is the source, I haven't seen genetics to disprove that.

Indo-European haplotypes are currently R1a and R1b branches, because one part exists in Europe and the other in India. For now, as far as I know, their common homeland is the Russian steppe. Given that the main Western European R1b does not bring R1a branches (perhaps some exists), this would mean that probably these two groups do not live mixed but probably live next to each other speaking a common language and with minimal mixing.
This would mean that at the time of their separation about 6 thousand years ago, the R1b group probably speaks a slightly different language, while the R1a group also speaks a slightly different language. This R1a language 5000 ybp probably has a combination of Proto-Indo-European and initial archaic Proto-Balto-Slavic language . Part of that common speech or words goes with R1a Z93 towards India.

I can't know exactly how that language sounded, but apparently the common Balto-Slavic-Sanskrit words sounded similar today as they did 5 thousand years ago.

The question is what kind of relationship were between R1b and R1a branches if migration of R1b people to Western Europe did not bring R1a branches. This means that they did not live mixed in their ancestral homeland. While migration towards India shows possible R1a-R1b mixing.
It is possible that R1b split into several branches in the area of the Russian Steppe, and that part of these branches went to the Balkans earlier. And that in this sense development of their languages goes in a different direction.
 
Last edited:
Linguistically, I don't deny peer reviewed work. I am saying that today's genetics refutes migration of R1a and R1b people from Anatolia to India.
I don't know who diffused IE, I'm just following the genetics and what we know from scientific papers. So far the Russian Steppe is the source, I haven't seen genetics to disprove that.
Stop spreading misinformations please !
PIE homeland is debated, most recent papers such as Lazaridis et al. 2022 (a genetic paper) claim that PIE homeland is in Anatolia/South-Caucasus: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm4247
Similarly, one of the most recent linguistic work place the homeland south of the caucasus : https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abg0818
One of the main argument being the actual total absence of WSH DNA in BA-Anatolia where IE-language are attested.

No one here is claiming that R1a or R1b came from south caucasus ... WSH are ~50% CHG and ~50% EHG.
Explain how can you can be so sure that IE came from EHG ? Because if coming from CHG, then it comes from ~Anatolia/Caucasus/Iran.

Please, stop claiming that you follow published work when you clearly ignore a lot of published work ;) .

Indo-European haplotypes are currently R1a and R1b branches, because one part exists in Europe and the other in India.

No, steppic DNA (WSH) around 5000 ybp is known to host the following paternal lineages: R1a, R1b, I2, Q, and even a J1 is documented at Khvalynsk (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient...plotree_Variant&searchfor=J-M267&ybp=500000,0) ...
Are they related to IE-languages ? In a WSH-based model, these haplgroups were carriers of IE-languages ... in a CHG-based model, WSH can (or not) have spoken an IE language and these haplogroup might have adopted those languages as late as 4500 ybp (hardly after that).

And technically such thing as an "IE haplotype" didn't exists, language are propagated by humans populations, indiviual male humans carry Y-DNA aswell, but the driving lineages in the propagation of languages have often changed accross history. R1b, R1a, I2, I1, J2, G2a, E-V13 all have propagated IE-languages at some point.

This would mean that at the time of their separation about 6 thousand years ago, the R1b group probably speaks a slightly different language, while the R1a group also speaks a slightly different language.
Hum ... so you claim that R1a and R1b were distinct populations speaking the nearly same language ... but they splited ~22800 ybp (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R1/). Do you believe PIE original node is 23 000 year old ? I don't think so.
I thought that your line of thoughts was :
And to claim that language passes from one group of people to another group of people like a virus makes no sense.
It sounds like you changed of mind, and that you now believe that R1a or R1b managed to "contaminate" R1b or R1a with the IE-virus ???
But if so ? What is avoiding R1a and R1b to have absorbed the IE-language near the caucasus when these EHG lineage gathered ~50% of CHG dna ???

Interesting how your own "explanations" gives already the mechanisms to prove that the South-Caucasian homeland of PIE can work aswell ;) .


For some reasons, you refuse to acknowledge that CHG component is liking India and Europe around ~7000 ybp.
Doing so, you deny population genetics. Considering that you also deny linguistics ... what remains of your claims ? Ideology at best.
I will just quote myself,
Summary of the situation :
Indo-Iranic and Slavic populations (can be generalised to all IE speaking groups) can be link in two ways :
1- CHG component diffused likely around 8000-7000 ybp.
2- WSH component (50% CHG itself) diffused around 5000 ybp.

If we restrict to this two genetic relations (which is not even mandatory ...) it is impossible to know which one carried the IE language without dating the linguistic diversification of the languages.

The lack of WSH DNA signituare in BA Anatolia despite IE-languages being present is what is making more and more geneticists and linguists smoothly migrate toward the idea of an Anatolian/Caucasian/Iranian homeland of IE-languages.

When challenging the presence of an Indo-Iranic/Balto-Slavic "recent" node ... it also removes the need of having Indo-Iranic passing by the Steppe.

I think both model are definitely feasible and easy to understand. Yet, the existing data are far from enough to definitely settle the question and might never be.
 
It is really funny that some people talk about R1a regarding Indo-European people whereas as none of known ancient Indo-European samples in India, Iran, Anatolia, Greece, Italy is R1a. What we know about Slavic-speaking people dates back to 9th Century AD.
 
Stop spreading misinformations please !
PIE homeland is debated, most recent papers such as Lazaridis et al. 2022 (a genetic paper) claim that PIE homeland is in Anatolia/South-Caucasus: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm4247
Where does it say that the PIE homeland is in Anatolia/South-Caucasus, in the context of migration to India? This is what writes in the scientific paper: "Steppe pastoralists of the Yamnaya culture initiated a chain of migrations linking Europe in the west to China and India in the East." That's what I'm talking about

Similarly, one of the most recent linguistic work place the homeland south of the caucasus : https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abg0818
One of the main argument being the actual total absence of WSH DNA in BA-Anatolia where IE-language are attested.

No one here is claiming that R1a or R1b came from south caucasus ... WSH are ~50% CHG and ~50% EHG.
Explain how can you can be so sure that IE came from EHG ? Because if coming from CHG, then it comes from ~Anatolia/Caucasus/Iran.
I'm not talking about from where the IE come from or not, I'm talking about a possible place where the Indic R1a ancestors and the Balto-Slavs lived together, which is currently the Russian steppe. And I don't know from where they came from, and I don't know where the PIE homeland is.

Please, stop claiming that you follow published work when you clearly ignore a lot of published work ;) .



No, steppic DNA (WSH) around 5000 ybp is known to host the following paternal lineages: R1a, R1b, I2, Q, and even a J1 is documented at Khvalynsk (https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient...plotree_Variant&searchfor=J-M267&ybp=500000,0) ...
Are they related to IE-languages ? In a WSH-based model, these haplgroups were carriers of IE-languages ... in a CHG-based model, WSH can (or not) have spoken an IE language and these haplogroup might have adopted those languages as late as 4500 ybp (hardly after that).

And technically such thing as an "IE haplotype" didn't exists, language are propagated by humans populations, indiviual male humans carry Y-DNA aswell, but the driving lineages in the propagation of languages have often changed accross history. R1b, R1a, I2, I1, J2, G2a, E-V13 all have propagated IE-languages at some point.
"Most linguists agree that PIE may have been spoken as a single language (before divergence began) around 3500 BCE, which coincides with the beginning of the Yamna culture in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and of the related Maykop culture in the northwest Caucasus. There is now compelling genetic evidence that haplogroups R1a and R1b, the most common paternal lineages in Europe, Central Asia and parts of South Asia, were mainly propagated by the Indo-European migrations during the Bronze Age."

eupedia




Hum ... so you claim that R1a and R1b were distinct populations speaking the nearly same language ... but they splited ~22800 ybp (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R1/). Do you believe PIE original node is 23 000 year old ? I don't think so.
I thought that your line of thoughts was :

It sounds like you changed of mind, and that you now believe that R1a or R1b managed to "contaminate" R1b or R1a with the IE-virus ???
But if so ? What is avoiding R1a and R1b to have absorbed the IE-language near the caucasus when these EHG lineage gathered ~50% of CHG dna ???

Interesting how your own "explanations" gives already the mechanisms to prove that the South-Caucasian homeland of PIE can work aswell ;) .


For some reasons, you refuse to acknowledge that CHG component is liking India and Europe around ~7000 ybp.
Doing so, you deny population genetics. Considering that you also deny linguistics ... what remains of your claims ? Ideology at best.
I will just quote myself,
I'm talking about R1b and R1a branches that are 5-6 thousand years old. And not about the ancestors of R1a and R1b who arrived 100 thousand years ago from Africa. Homeland of PIE may be in Africa and I'm not talking about that. I am telling you that the Indic R1a branches or R1a Z93 TMRCA 5000 ybp, split in the Russian steppe. Common Sanskrit and Balto-Slavic words were used 5000 years ago in a common home, which is the Russian Steppe, not Anatolia. I don't know if R1a and R1b groups previously lived in Anatolia and if the Indo-European homeland is there. What I know and what Y genetics in 2024 is saying is that the splitting of the Indic R1a branch begins in the Russian Steppe. Unfortunately, we have no Y evidence that R1a groups move from Anatolia to India, at least as far as the main R1a Z93 in India is concerned.
 
Last edited:
As for the Indo-European ancestral homeland, or place where the Proto-Indo-European language starts, for now in my opinion it is difficult to determine the place where it was located. What should be our guide is archaeogenetic place where the older R1a and R1b mutations lived (10,000-7,000 years) together, given that migration of R1b branches to the west and R1a in the Slavic countries do not show that these younger branches mixed. Which means that their common language and common house must be older than 6-5 thousand years. From the time when they lived together, mixed.

What we archaeogenetically have as a possible connection is the southeastern area of Ukraine.

"Several Mesolithic and Neolithic males buried at Deriivka and Vasil'evka in modern-day Ukraine c. 9500-7000 BP carried R1b1a. These individuals were largely of EHG ancestry, with significant WHG admixture.(Mathieson I, Alpaslan-Roodenberg S, Posth C, Szécsényi-Nagy A, Rohland N, Mallick S, et al. (March 2018). "The genomic history of southeastern Europe")"
And arheogenetic R1a R-M459 10782 ybp from Ukraine, https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-M459*/ https://www.google.com/maps/place/Z...47.8388!4d35.139567!16zL20vMDJoODdx?entry=ttu

It is the closest thing in terms of time and geography between R1b-R1a that I have found.
 
I'm not talking about from where the IE come from or not
Oviously ... but when the Balto-Slavic/Indo-Iranic node is a debated topic ... Indo-Iranic homeland is basically PIE homeland ...
Are you really quoting Eurpedia as a scientific source where ~80% of the content of the website at least is completely outdated ?
Where does it say that the PIE homeland is in Anatolia/South-Caucasus
Everywhere in the paper.

I'm talking about R1b and R1a branches that are 5-6 thousand years old.
R1a is a EHG related paternal lineage ... when it started to speak IE is unknown, feasible models allow fairly late dates for them adopting IE-languages. For instance, in a CHG diffusion model of IE-language, the R1a migrants arriving in India might have adopted a local IE-language.
Yet you can't prove R1a carried IE languages and even less prove that they carry Indo-Iranic.
It is a possibility, other feasible model exists.
Your attempt at hiding scientific works and genetic data (CHG) won't change this reality.

The issue is not your favorite pet-model ... it is that you falsely present it at the only working one and you deny the scientific debate among experts on the topic.

You are a bit looping on your un-supported claim, no a specific node between Indo-Iranic and Balto-Slavic is not making consensus.
You didn't even tried to reply to the peer-review content of Heggarty et al. 2023 adressing this issue.
What a joke !

I offer you the final word (if you want).
 
Oviously ... but when the Balto-Slavic/Indo-Iranic node is a debated topic ... Indo-Iranic homeland is basically PIE homeland ...

It is a linguistic interpretation. I say what genetics says. Indo-Iranic homeland is basically PIE homeland, yes, and Balto-Slavic homeland is basically PIE homeland. Logically when they are R1a relatives.
Are you really quoting Eurpedia as a scientific source where ~80% of the content of the website at least is completely outdated ?
"According to those studies, haplogroups R1b-M269 and R1a, now the most common in Europe (R1a is also common in South Asia) would have expanded from the West Eurasian Steppe, along with the Indo-European languages; they also detected an autosomal component present in modern Europeans which was not present in Neolithic Europeans, which would have been introduced with paternal lineages R1b and R1a, as well as Indo-European languages"
Haak W, Lazaridis I, Patterson N, Rohland N, Mallick S, Llamas B, et al. (June 2015). "Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe"
Allentoft ME, Sikora M, Sjögren KG, Rasmussen S, Rasmussen M, Stenderup J, et al. (June 2015). "Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia"
Scheme of Indo-European dispersals from a Yamanaya-Western Steppe Herders homeland ( ), c. 4000 to 1000 BCE, according to the widely held Steppe hypothesis.
(Indo-European expansions, based on Anthony (2007), Nordqvist & Heyd (2020), Narasimhan (2019). Also: (6 September 2019). "The formation of human populations in South and Central Asia")


Everywhere in the paper.


R1a is a EHG related paternal lineage ... when it started to speak IE is unknown, feasible models allow fairly late dates for them adopting IE-languages. For instance, in a CHG diffusion model of IE-language, the R1a migrants arriving in India might have adopted a local IE-language.
Local IE-language? So we have a genetic link between Balto-Slavs and Sanskrit speakers in the R1a Z93 branch, and that is the dominant branch in India today. However, someone else may have brought these common words?
From where and which genetics? It must still be the common place of living of the ancestors of Balto Slavs and Indic people.

Yet you can't prove R1a carried IE languages and even less prove that they carry Indo-Iranic.
I'm not proving that, I'm saying that common words from Sanskrit and Balto-Slavic were spoken in the Russian steppe 5 thousand years ago. Because only in that place on the globe these two groups live together.

It is a possibility, other feasible model exists.
Your attempt at hiding scientific works and genetic data (CHG) won't change this reality.

The issue is not your favorite pet-model ... it is that you falsely present it at the only working one and you deny the scientific debate among experts on the topic.
That's why I asked which Y genetics proves their theory, because ultimately archaeogenetics will clarify that question, not linguistic science.


You are a bit looping on your un-supported claim, no a specific node between Indo-Iranic and Balto-Slavic is not making consensus.
You didn't even tried to reply to the peer-review content of Heggarty et al. 2023 adressing this issue.
What a joke !

I offer you the final word (if you want).
I think I explained everything.

Otherwise, I cannot dispute someone's scientific work if he did not present genetic data on which all these possible migrations are based. As for linguistic interpretation, as I said, genetics is a stronger science in this sense. Linguistics does not determine migration of people, but genetics determines migration of people. And people are language.
 
Last edited:
The first great article of 2024 was published in Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-44430-5

IEMig.jpg
 
The first great article of 2024 was published in Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-44430-5

View attachment 15047
Sounds like an interesting methodology ... Thanks for sharing.
From what I get of their approach, they have no way to "time" the dispersion. Therefore, while they acknowledge a Farming-related dispersal model, I think it would work aswell in a CHG-based diffusion model.
In fact, I find their "velocity field" more coherent in a "Heggarty et al. 2023" model than in a Farming-related diffusion.

The main problem is to understand the behavior of this probe when multiple diffusions inside the language family "stack" over each other and therefore might blind a little bit the probe egarding the real original dispersal pattern.

I'll just extract one sentence, that summarize well the recent discussion on this topic :
Therefore, the homeland of Indo-European languages remains controversial.
Says a peer-reviewed nature paper ...
 
The first great article of 2024 was published in Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-44430-5

View attachment 15047
The latest archaeogenetic data must be used and this is not visible on this map. The main R1a Z93 branch archaeogenetically shows migration route north of the Caspian Sea and not directly from Caucasus through Anatolia to India. I think that such an approach is frivolous.

There are the oldest archaeogenetic findings listed in Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, China. There is not a single archaeogenetic mutation on the YFull tree in direction from the Caucasus, through Anatolia, Iran to India.

Regarding living genetics and archaeogenetics if we look at ancestral y mutations then migration directions in the R1a Z93 branch are as follows, R-BY226207 Russia-China, R-Y91310 Russia-India, R-YP1506 Russia-Kyrgyzstan+Pakistan+China, R-Y39884 Kazakhstan-China, R-Y41571 Russia+Kazakhstan+Kyrgyzstan, R-FGC45861 China, R-KMS149 Russia+Kazakhstan, Russia-Iran+Iraq, R-FGC45867 Turkmenistan-China, R-FT18317 China, R-Y34351 China+Iraq+Kyrgyzstan, R-BY199972 Pakistan(but in older ancestral mutation R-FT18317 is a person from China) -India.

Behind the R-Z94 mutation Indic branches start, which means that same in TMRCA time 4500 ybp reside in the territory of India and Pakistan. https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z94/
In that branch there is a sub-branch R-Z2124, and this also where Russia, Mongolia begins again, as the oldest archaeogenetic samples. https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2124/ then the Iranian mutations begin behind the mutation R-Y9 https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y9/

Then comes mutation R-S23592 https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-S23592/ and again the oldest archaeogenetic samples from Russia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, China begin.

Consequently, there is not a one mutation in the R1a Z93 tree which show migration and direction from Anatolia to-Iran-India-China. All the main and oldest branches come through Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan towards China and India and Iran. Which means that this blue migration route towards India via Iran for R1a Z93 does not exist. And this is the main Indo-European branch in India.
 

This thread has been viewed 18696 times.

Back
Top