Where did the Anatolian branch of Indo-European originate?

Also its false to assert some sort of linguistic consensus as if this issue is entirely resolved and that this new data is totally not corroborating linguistic evidence. Check the discrepancies between these:

Zn2WKt8.png

p3Wi5Xj.png


pbh5N8m.png

N2x1s80.png

pu9Ej4T.png

And about the so called reconstructions of words for geography here is another clear example with a word as central as "Sea"

From the book "The Indo-European Controversy" :

"Another controversial PIE reconstruction is the root *mori, which presumably
means ‘sea’. If this term is indeed traceable all the way back to PIE, then
by the logic of linguistic paleontology one might assume that the speakers of
PIE must have lived near a large body of water of some type. Note, however,
that the relevant cognates come from the northwestern Indo-European
languages: Lithuanian māres, Old Church Slavonic morje, Latin mare, Old
Irish muir, Gothic marei. No relevant cognates are found in the Anatolian,
Tocharian, Greek, Armenian, Albanian, or even Indo-Iranian branches of the
family. The Greek word thalassa ‘sea’, for example, almost certainly comes
from a pre-Indo-European substrate. As a result of such absences, the root
*mori cannot be reliably reconstructed all the way back to PIE. It is possible
that the Indo-European branches that lack a word for ‘sea’ once had it but later
lost it, perhaps by acquiring it from the local substratum language, as has been
proposed for the Greek thalassa (as discussed in Chapter 7). Alternatively, it is
possible that the root *mori ‘sea’ was coined by – or borrowed into – the
common ancestor of a particular branch of the Indo-European family.
As it turns out, determining whether a word that is absent in many descendant
languages stems from PIE is often a difficult matter. In the case of ‘sea’, the issue
is further complicated by the fact that even in the Germanic and Celtic languages
we find other roots meaning the same thing, as evident in the English word sea
itself. Moreover, some of the roots for ‘sea’ can also refer to other types of water
bodies. For example, the German cognate of the English sea, See can refer to
either ‘lake’ or ‘sea’, whereas German Meer refers to either ‘sea’ or ‘ocean’
while the Dutch word meer generally means ‘lake’. Scottish Gaelic loch refers to
either ‘fresh-water lake’ or ‘salt-water sea inlet’. Similarly, Russian more, just
like its English counterpart sea, can also refer to a large landlocked body of
water, such as the Aral Sea, the Caspian Sea, the Dead Sea, or the Sea of Galilee.
Thus, it is possible that PIE speakers were familiar not with the sea in the sense
of the ocean, but rather with a large interior body of water"
 
Angela said:
Scientists don't work from fixed ideas and then reject anything that doesn't comport with those ideas.

If samples from Royal Hittite tombs are tested and there is no or extremely low steppe, then Hittite is autochthonous, not an import from the steppe via the Balkans.

You work from hypotheses, and follow the evidence. You don't start with the conclusion and do tons of special pleading to reduce the significance of the evidence that you have.

All of that said, two samples do not answer the question, so we have to wait.

As for the Huns, no need to speculate any longer. There are lots of admixture analyses for them, as there are for the various Scythian groups. It pays to read the paper and the supplementary materials as well.
Click to expand...

Not autochthonous, but most likely from the Caucasus. If they were authochthonous then they wouldn't have been subjugating the Hattic people there before them and using all their place names for the area. The paper mentions the problems with this that I'm sure everyone else is thinking about

"We cannot at this point reject a scenario in which the introduction of the Anatolian IE languages into Anatolia was coupled with the CHG-derived admixture prior to 3700 BCE, but note that this is contrary to the standard view that PIE arose in the steppe north of the Caucasus (4) and that CHG ancestry is also associated with several non-IE-speaking groups, historical and current. Indeed, our data are also consistent with the first speakers of Anatolian IE coming to the region by way of commercial contacts and small-scale movement during the Bronze Age."

"Among comparative linguists, a Balkan route for the introduction of Anatolian IE is generally considered more likely than a passage through the Caucasus, due, for example, to greater Anatolian IE presence and language diversity in the west"

I do agree though, it would probably be more constructive to get DNA from Luwian speakers further west from before the Hittite empire.
 
From Iosif Lazaridis:

Iosif Lazaridis‏ @iosif_lazaridis May 6More



- The steppe hypothesis predicts some genetic input from eastern Europe (EHG) to Anatolia.- Bronze Age Anatolians (Lazaridis et al. 2017) from historically IE-speaking Pisidia lack EHG; more samples obviously needed


Iosif Lazaridis‏ @iosif_lazaridis May 6More



Possibilities:1- Additional Anatolian samples will have EHG: consistent with steppe PIE2- Additional Anatolian samples will not have EHG, then either:



More



If additional Anatolian samples lack EHG, then either:1- Steppe not PIE homeland2- Steppe PIE homeland but linguistic impact in Anatolia vastly greater than genetic impact


Iosif Lazaridis‏ @iosif_lazaridis May 6More



Tentative steppe->Anatolia movements reach Balkans early (Mathieson et al. 2018) and Armenia (some EHG in Lazaridis et al. 2016). But not the last leg to Anatolia_ChL (Lazaridis et al. 2016) or Anatolia_BA (Lazaridis et al. 2017).



More



If Anatolians consistently don't have EHG, steppe PIE is very difficult to affirm; Near Eastern alternative likely (contributing CHG/Iran_N-related ancestry to both western Anatolia/steppe)If Anatolians have EHG, one could further investigate by what route they got it.

That's how scientists approach problems like this, for anyone who is interested.

In addition, why all this emphasis only on Hittites. Indo-European was spoken all over Anatolia. Where the heck are the samples with steppe?

main-qimg-4720f140e8b8b898ecac677f2d174a9d-c
 
Johane Derite said:
Also its false to assert some sort of linguistic consensus as if this issue is entirely resolved and that this new data is totally not corroborating linguistic evidence. Check the discrepancies between these:

Zn2WKt8.png

p3Wi5Xj.png


pbh5N8m.png

N2x1s80.png

pu9Ej4T.png

And about the so called reconstructions of words for geography here is another clear example with a word as central as "Sea"

From the book "The Indo-European Controversy" :

"Another controversial PIE reconstruction is the root *mori, which presumably
means ‘sea’. If this term is indeed traceable all the way back to PIE, then
by the logic of linguistic paleontology one might assume that the speakers of
PIE must have lived near a large body of water of some type. Note, however,
that the relevant cognates come from the northwestern Indo-European
languages: Lithuanian māres, Old Church Slavonic morje, Latin mare, Old
Irish muir, Gothic marei. No relevant cognates are found in the Anatolian,
Tocharian, Greek, Armenian, Albanian, or even Indo-Iranian branches of the
family. The Greek word thalassa ‘sea’, for example, almost certainly comes
from a pre-Indo-European substrate. As a result of such absences, the root
*mori cannot be reliably reconstructed all the way back to PIE. It is possible
that the Indo-European branches that lack a word for ‘sea’ once had it but later
lost it, perhaps by acquiring it from the local substratum language, as has been
proposed for the Greek thalassa (as discussed in Chapter 7). Alternatively, it is
possible that the root *mori ‘sea’ was coined by – or borrowed into – the
common ancestor of a particular branch of the Indo-European family.
As it turns out, determining whether a word that is absent in many descendant
languages stems from PIE is often a difficult matter. In the case of ‘sea’, the issue
is further complicated by the fact that even in the Germanic and Celtic languages
we find other roots meaning the same thing, as evident in the English word sea
itself. Moreover, some of the roots for ‘sea’ can also refer to other types of water
bodies. For example, the German cognate of the English sea, See can refer to
either ‘lake’ or ‘sea’, whereas German Meer refers to either ‘sea’ or ‘ocean’
while the Dutch word meer generally means ‘lake’. Scottish Gaelic loch refers to
either ‘fresh-water lake’ or ‘salt-water sea inlet’. Similarly, Russian more, just
like its English counterpart sea, can also refer to a large landlocked body of
water, such as the Aral Sea, the Caspian Sea, the Dead Sea, or the Sea of Galilee.
Thus, it is possible that PIE speakers were familiar not with the sea in the sense
of the ocean, but rather with a large interior body of water"
Click to expand...
I want to quote an Albanian linguist, Xhevat Lloshi, one of the best here in Albania, from his last study:
Periudhat historike të shqipes
Historical periods of Albanian language
Fjalët e gjuhëve i.e. dëshmojnë për zonat e përhapjes dhe kushtet e jetesës. Kanë fjalë të përbashkëta për dimrin, por jo përdetin (domethënë nuk janë formuar në treva bregdetare), për drurët (ahu, dru) dhe kafshët (ariu, ujku), që dëshmojnë për zona pyjore; dinin të numëronin të paktën deri në njëqind dhe emërtimi i numrit 100 shërben për dallimin centum(lat.) – satem (avestisht), i cili ndodhi me ndarjen e tyre. Kishin nisur të bënin jetë të ngulur, rrisnin grurin, mbanin bagëti, endnin leshin, përdornin harkun e shigjetën. Para se të ndaheshin e njihnin pak punimin e metaleve, duke filluar me bakrin. Kishin kaluar në familjen patriarkale, siç e dëshmojnë termat e farefisnisë, njihnin prijësa, besonin në hyjni dhe kishin disa përfytyrime etike.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the Gg translation:
The words of the IE languages testify to the areas of distribution and living conditions. They had in common words for the winter, but not for the sea (i.e. they are not formed in the shores), for trees (beech, wood) and animals (bear, wolf) that testify to forest areas; they knew to count at least until one hundred and the denomination of number 100 serves to distinguish centum (lat.) - satem (avestan), which occurred with their separation. They had started to do a sedentary life, grow wheat, keep cattle, woven the wool, use the bow and arrow. Before they were separated, they knew little metal work, starting with copper. They had passed into the patriarchal family, as the terms of kinship testify, knew leaders, believed in divinity, and had some ethical imaginations.
Click to expand...

Johane, you can read the entire study here in Albanian:
https://www.academia.edu/5700700/Periudhat_historike_të_shqipes
 
Cpluskx said:
Game over for steppe homeland of PIE?
https://ibb.co/cRsTfd

source:https://zenodo.org/record/1240524#.WvSquqSFNaS
Click to expand...

"The EHG ancestry detected in individuals associated with Yamnaya (3000-2400 BCE) and the Maykop Culture (3700-3000 BCE) (in prep.) is absent from our Anatolian specimens"

Wow finally dna from Maykop... also they reaffirm Namazga introduced EHG to South Asia before later steppe migrations, but they are unlikely to have been Indo-European speakers.

It says "Anatolian languages established themselves in Anatolia by gradual infiltration and cultural assimilation" but from where? It seems like they're hinting from contact with Maykop, but at the same time they're saying "late Maykop" is not old enough.
 
Again, I hope next time they use the samples of old anthro research.

Senyurek (1951d, pp. 614-15) concludes that "the majority of the Chalcolithic and Copper Age inhabitants of Anatolia were dolichocephals of mainly Eurafrican and Mediterranean types, and that the brachycephals, probably representing the invaders, were rare in these periods. This study has further supported the conclusion that the earliest inhabitants of Anatolia were longheaded, and that the brachycephals came in subsequently. "The craniological evidence indicates that an invasion of brachycephals into Anatolia took place during the Chalcolithic period and that it was followed by a second invasion, bringing in the brachycephalic elements to Alaca Huyuk and other Copper Age sites, probably at about the middle of the Copper Age. The next invasion of brachycephals, which was more important and extensive than the previous ones, occurred at about 2000 B.C. This was made by the Hittites who were predominantly of the classical Alpine type."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Johane Derite said:
Also its false to assert some sort of linguistic consensus as if this issue is entirely resolved and that this new data is totally not corroborating linguistic evidence. Check the discrepancies between these:

Zn2WKt8.png

p3Wi5Xj.png


pbh5N8m.png

N2x1s80.png

pu9Ej4T.png

And about the so called reconstructions of words for geography here is another clear example with a word as central as "Sea"

From the book "The Indo-European Controversy" :

"Another controversial PIE reconstruction is the root *mori, which presumably
means ‘sea’. If this term is indeed traceable all the way back to PIE, then
by the logic of linguistic paleontology one might assume that the speakers of
PIE must have lived near a large body of water of some type. Note, however,
that the relevant cognates come from the northwestern Indo-European
languages: Lithuanian māres, Old Church Slavonic morje, Latin mare, Old
Irish muir, Gothic marei. No relevant cognates are found in the Anatolian,
Tocharian, Greek, Armenian, Albanian, or even Indo-Iranian branches of the
family. The Greek word thalassa ‘sea’, for example, almost certainly comes
from a pre-Indo-European substrate. As a result of such absences, the root
*mori cannot be reliably reconstructed all the way back to PIE. It is possible
that the Indo-European branches that lack a word for ‘sea’ once had it but later
lost it, perhaps by acquiring it from the local substratum language, as has been
proposed for the Greek thalassa (as discussed in Chapter 7). Alternatively, it is
possible that the root *mori ‘sea’ was coined by – or borrowed into – the
common ancestor of a particular branch of the Indo-European family.
As it turns out, determining whether a word that is absent in many descendant
languages stems from PIE is often a difficult matter. In the case of ‘sea’, the issue
is further complicated by the fact that even in the Germanic and Celtic languages
we find other roots meaning the same thing, as evident in the English word sea
itself. Moreover, some of the roots for ‘sea’ can also refer to other types of water
bodies. For example, the German cognate of the English sea, See can refer to
either ‘lake’ or ‘sea’, whereas German Meer refers to either ‘sea’ or ‘ocean’
while the Dutch word meer generally means ‘lake’. Scottish Gaelic loch refers to
either ‘fresh-water lake’ or ‘salt-water sea inlet’. Similarly, Russian more, just
like its English counterpart sea, can also refer to a large landlocked body of
water, such as the Aral Sea, the Caspian Sea, the Dead Sea, or the Sea of Galilee.
Thus, it is possible that PIE speakers were familiar not with the sea in the sense
of the ocean, but rather with a large interior body of water"
Click to expand...

As far as I can see, the only - but relevant - consensus in all those hypothetical trees of the divergence of PIE is that Anatolian split first and/or in any case is not particularly closely related to any other attested IE branch. And that observation, virtually consensual among linguists, does matter now that we're discussing a possible "dual" nature (not only in terms of geography/homeland, but also possibly of chronology) of the IE family.
 
Promenade said:
"Among comparative linguists, a Balkan route for the introduction of Anatolian IE is generally considered more likely than a passage through the Caucasus, due, for example, to greater Anatolian IE presence and language diversity in the west"
Click to expand...

I don't think this reason is particularly strong, though it is certainly plausible. That's mainly because in the very same region, present-day Turkey, the historically documented Turkic-speaking immigration also affected the western part of Anatolia much more intensely than the eastern part of Anatolia or Transcaucasia, even though we know for a fact that the Seljuk Turks came from the east and entered Anatolia from present-day Azerbaijan and Iran, mostly bypassing eastern Anatolia to concentrate much more heavily in Western/Central Anatolia and, especially after they defeated the Byzantines for good, the southwestern Aegean provinces. That historic movement of people into Anatolia shows that not necessarily migrations difuse gradually and evenly through the territory as they move westward, they often bypass entire regions or are kicked out from areas nearer to their original focus of dispersal.
 
Ygorcs said:
As far as I can see, the only - but relevant - consensus in all those hypothetical trees of the divergence of PIE is that Anatolian split first and/or in any case is not particularly closely related to any other attested IE branch. And that observation, virtually consensual among linguists, does matter now that we're discussing a possible "dual" nature (not only in terms of geography/homeland, but also possibly of chronology) of the IE family.
Click to expand...

Accidently disliked your comment
 
Angela said:
There you go again. First of all, attestation is not "age" of a language. Second of all, some of them were attested in Hittite texts. Perhaps you should do some reading on the topic.

https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Anatolian_languages.html
Click to expand...

OK, so saying that it was "all over Anatolia" means something very specific, and I don't think you can say that in 2500BC. Could be true, but as far as I can tell it's likely not.

The evidence strongly suggests IE intrusion into Anatolia over pre-existing Hatti speaking groups that were attested at least by around 2500BC, then Hittites absorb these people 1000 years later. 1000 years.
 
Ygorcs said:
As far as I can see, the only - but relevant - consensus in all those hypothetical trees of the divergence of PIE is that Anatolian split first and/or in any case is not particularly closely related to any other attested IE branch. And that observation, virtually consensual among linguists, does matter now that we're discussing a possible "dual" nature (not only in terms of geography/homeland, but also possibly of chronology) of the IE family.
Click to expand...

I was going to say the same thing. Most of those tree are complete BS, and they do not accurately represent the current dispute among academics.
 
holderlin said:
OK, so saying that it was "all over Anatolia" means something very specific, and I don't think you can say that in 2500BC. Could be true, but as far as I can tell it's likely not.

The evidence strongly suggests IE intrusion into Anatolia over pre-existing Hatti speaking groups that were attested at least by around 2500BC, then Hittites absorb these people 1000 years later. 1000 years.
Click to expand...

For goodness' sakes that's absolute bunk, pulled out of your own imagination. You have no way of knowing that's what happened.

You need to read about the Anatolian languages and about the Hittites. Start by reading the article from some of the contributors to this paper. All of these "Anatolian" languages probably differentiated in place.
https://zenodo.org/record/1240524#.WvUE-4gvzIX

All Indo-European migrants eventually admixed to some degree with the "locals". Still, the way that arrival is tracked is by the presence of "steppe" in the autosome, whether it's Europe or Central Asia or India. Isn't that what all the analysis is about? What do you think we've all been tracking for the last couple of years?

Only with Anatolia we don't need to find any trace of steppe? This takes special pleading and biased reasoning to a whole new level.

We may find that steppe in royal Hittite samples or elsewhere. I don't care one way or another, but if it's not found anywhere in Bronze Age Anatolian samples it's game over. Period.
 
Angela said:
There you go again. First of all, attestation is not "age" of a language. Second of all, some of them were attested in Hittite texts. Perhaps you should do some reading on the topic.
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Anatolian_languages.html
Click to expand...

fact is that Hittite was insignificant till they conquered the Hatti ca 1900 BC

and the 'Hittite' samples, nobody knows whether they are actualy Hittite or Hatti, but autosomal they probably had mixed
 
Angela said:
For goodness' sakes that's absolute bunk, pulled out of your own imagination. You have no way of knowing that's what happened.

You need to read about the Anatolian languages and about the Hittites. Start by reading the article from some of the contributors to this paper. All of these "Anatolian" languages probably differentiated in place.
https://zenodo.org/record/1240524#.WvUE-4gvzIX

All Indo-European migrants eventually admixed to some degree with the "locals". Still, the way that arrival is tracked is by the presence of "steppe" in the autosome, whether it's Europe or Central Asia or India. Isn't that what all the analysis is about? What do you think we've all been tracking for the last couple of years?
Click to expand...

Well it's far less bunk than a South Caucuses PIE, that's for sure. What part exactly?

I thought you weren't talking to me anymore.

I've done a lot of reading on this, including that paper, which by the way is hardly a comprehensive review. I actually found the Tocharian section more interesting.

The evidence cited isn't antithetical to what I'm saying, in fact it may even support it. The Kanes records are only a few hundred years earlier than attested Hittite, which I'm fine with, and the Elba records with the IE names from 2500BC are very sparse. Hardly evidence of being "all over Anatolia" such that any bronze age sample will likely be speaking Anatolian. And Hittite doesn't envelope the region until around 1500 BC, which is in fact 1000 years after these initial records of what seem to be mostly Hattic words, or indecipherable.

As to their other conclusions, like Proto-Anatolian needing to have differentiated by 3500-3000BC in Anatolia, they have made some leaps on the way to this. I understand why they're saying this, and I think it could easily be the case, but It could have certainly started to differentiate outside of Anatolia as well.

The intrusive nature of Hittite has wide acceptance, and I've read the papers and I can see why. It's not just me making up stuff. The Hattians show every sign of being seated in Anatolia, and I even think their pantheon is firmly rooted in 8000 year old Anatolian farmers evidenced by figure representations of known Hattian gods, which is amazing.

And yes I understand the search for steppe genes in all of this, but this particular bit of it didn't really need reference to steppe anything. I'm only saying that it looks like Anatolian is intrusive to Anatolia, and that we can't say that it was so common and widespread by 2500BC that we were likely to draw an Anatolian speaking sample. The evidence suggests the opposite.

Angela said:
Only with Anatolia we don't need to find any trace of steppe? This takes special pleading and biased reasoning to a whole new level.
Click to expand...

No, we would still like to see some steppe, but Anatolian does seem to exemplify an exception to a model that has been cross verified 6 ways from Sunday for all other IE languages, especially Indo-Iranian. So you're absolutely right that it deserves special consideration, but there's nothing biased or pleading about it. Just because this special consideration isn't suddenly throwing out the steppe model entirely doesn't mean that it's any more wrong than the South Caucuses speculation. At least with what we currently know.

And, I keep going back to that Yamnaya grave with 50% Anatolian Farmer. If a proper Yamnaya grave can have 50% EEF, then I'm not so sure we need Steppe in Anatolian speakers.

Angela said:
We may find that steppe in royal Hittite samples or elsewhere. I don't care one way or another, but if it's not found anywhere in Bronze Age Anatolian samples it's game over. Period.
Click to expand...

What on earth do you mean "game over"? I'm not competing in whatever weird thing you've gotten caught up in. None of this is anything but interesting to me.

Angela said:
I don't care one way or another
Click to expand...

Oh I think you do
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top