Where did the Anatolian branch of Indo-European originate?

I am person X, I hold the following belief:

Hittites will have higher EHG than Anatolia Chalcolithic and Bronze Age, if a future sample doesn't have that, then it is a Hatti person, not Hittite, as long as we don't find EHG, we don't find the Hittites.

My position is unfalsifiable. because I believe ...
 
It wasn't spoken all over Anatolia until classical times.

AnatolieLimits.jpg


If Anatolia is that then there were IE languages all over it or at least that is a position that can be supported.
In the North East there were Hattian speakers and Colchians east of Trabzon towards Georgia but at least in Hattian regions there were IE speakers too. (And nothing is known about the language of Colchians, although Georgians claim them)
 
I think that rather than search EHG in anatolia we should try to found the ancestral population of the anatolian samples that we have, or with wich it get the most closer. If anatolians samples for exemple match with anatolian neolithic, so they can't be IE's by deduction. If they match with something CHG, are they more Kura-Araxes or another culture ? Anatolia was full of hurrians a non related indo-european nation, so if every anatolian samples from chalcolithic or bronze age anatolia have the same origin, once more by deduction it can be IE's. Or are we gonna start to say that every CHG-like populations had different languages from different families ?
 
I think that rather than search EHG in anatolia we should try to found the ancestral population of the anatolian samples that we have, or with wich it get the most closer. If anatolians samples for exemple match with anatolian neolithic, so they can't be IE's by deduction. If they match with something CHG, are they more Kura-Araxes or another culture ? Anatolia was full of hurrians a non related indo-european nation, so if every anatolian samples from chalcolithic or bronze age anatolia have the same origin, once more by deduction it can be IE's. Or are we gonna start to say that every CHG-like populations had different languages from different families ?

That is not true.

I am person X, I hold the following belief:
Hittites will have higher EHG than Anatolia Chalcolithic and Bronze Age, if a future sample doesn't have that, then it is a Hatti person, not Hittite, as long as we don't find EHG, we don't find the Hittites.
My position is unfalsifiable. because I believe ...

Yes. I think I will do the opposite. If they find a sample with EHG or R1-something I will say it is a Hattian.
Inverting their unfalsifiable claims is a little funny.
 
7ab4e3529a666e28b97cf209e161492e.png


Location of Armi where Indo European was discovered at 2500 BC.

main-qimg-c1cc8ba57adb6bd87ec0baa513348ffc-c


And these are the location of Anatolian languages later in Anatolia. Slow expansion from North Syria to the southern coast of Anatolia?
 
from wiki.
"The scholar Petra Goedegebuure has proposed that before the conquest of the Hittites, an Indo-European language, probably Luwian, had already been spoken alongside the Hattic language for a long time."

220px-Luwian_Language_de.svg.png

disribution of luwian inscriptions from 2000 to 1000bc.
 
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.



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.



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.



Oh I think you do

Now you're a mind reader.

OK, have it your way, the spread of IE languages to Anatolia is the only situation in which we're not going to track "steppe" ancestry to prove it. Why? Because that would falsify the "proto-IE had to start on the steppe, it can't owe anything to any other place." It's clearly not enough that all the later languages spread from the steppe.

And, we don't even know that steppe won't show up. Perfectly fine with me if it does. However, IF IT DOESN"T, it falsifies that part of the "kurgan" theory. Only people like you think that's such a biggie.

This is precisely why I don't participate as much in these kinds of discussions (steppe, PIE etc.) as I used to, and let so many stupid, unsupported posts slide: it's boring and irritating in equal measure to debate "true believers" on EITHER side. It's like a freaking religion. On some sites you get crap like "Oh, no, you got me wrong: my HEART is with the steppe theory." Your HEART? Freaking get a life, people.
 
I need time to look better, but discussing if BA Anatolian samples were locals or true Hittites is losing time if IA Anatolian has truly 0 steppe watermark.
 
AnatolieLimits.jpg


If Anatolia is that then there were IE languages all over it or at least that is a position that can be supported.
In the North East there were Hattian speakers and Colchians east of Trabzon towards Georgia but at least in Hattian regions there were IE speakers too. (And nothing is known about the language of Colchians, although Georgians claim them)



The anatolian IE languages before the green and yellow semitic language push

The euboen alphabet came from north levant prior to west-semitic change

The white in the direction of NW are thraci/phygian languages
 
Now you're a mind reader.

OK, have it your way, the spread of IE languages to Anatolia is the only situation in which we're not going to track "steppe" ancestry to prove it. Why? Because that would falsify the "proto-IE had to start on the steppe, it can't owe anything to any other place." It's clearly not enough that all the later languages spread from the steppe.

And, we don't even know that steppe won't show up. Perfectly fine with me if it does. However, IF IT DOESN"T, it falsifies that part of the "kurgan" theory.

I have no emotional attachment to any of this. I'm just very familiar with all of the evidence, and it's annoying when people ignore it for the sake of a conjured theory based on a VERY small amount of supporting data in comparison.

I do agree that these Anatolian genomes are supportive of a non-EHG mediated movement into Anatolia. Definitely. It's plain as day. I'm not ignoring anything. I'm just not sure that it's enough to mean what everyone's trying to claim. That's all.

This is precisely why I don't participate as much in these kinds of discussions (steppe, PIE etc.) as I used to, and let so many stupid, unsupported posts slide: it's boring and irritating in equal measure to debate "true believers" on EITHER side. It's like a freaking religion. On some sites you get crap like "Oh, no, you got me wrong: my HEART is with the steppe theory." Your HEART? Freaking get a life, people.

Yes I agree. Do not mistake me for these types.

Here's the genomes by the way. I don't think anyone's posted them yet.

AeQYPfe.png





And the relevant PCA

BGcWOCx.png
 
I need time to look better, but discussing if BA Anatolian samples were locals or true Hittites is losing time if IA Anatolian has truly 0 steppe watermark.

No there's Steppe in Iron Age

GxroANG.png


And wait, hold the phone. There appears to be some steppe in one of the MLBA Anatolian samples. Hmmmm.

Please everyone don't jump down my throat. I'm not claiming there's steppe, but what do we make of this? I've bracketed what looks like some steppe in one or two of the samples.

h1JFWsX.png


Below are the steppe samples. The ...._EBA are Yamnaya/Afanasievo
G4jDgpa.png




Here's the whole run again.


AeQYPfe.png
 
So, finally the absurd steppes hypothesis is burried. David Reich, the Max Planck institute and other renowned institutes now support the PIE-homeland south of the Caucasus. The absurd theory that primitive Steppe pastoralists passed the Balkans to Anatolia and lead to the much more advanced Hittite and other IE cultures in Anatolia is dead, especially seeing now that even early Hittite samples do not show any steppes related ancestry. I can't understand people after such burying facts, first Hajji Firuz pre-BA and now this, that ignorant people still hold to their phantasms of riding R1 nomads who expand their "virus" to the whole world.

The Iron Age samples have no relevance, since they are from a time when the Hittite civilization was destroyed by Semites and what not. At one point Steppes related ancestry indeed entered the Near East, but that was relatively "recent".

Steppe people weren't primitive, they were a very creative culture.

R1 nomads spreading their virus ? dude, you're an R1.
 
There is Caucasian admixture on the Steppe well before any evidence of contact with the Caucuses. It increased at the beginning of the Bronze Age, but every population in the Old World began to admix significantly as we moved toward the Bronze Age. This fact combined with the unassailable continuity of the material culture on the steppe through the Bronze Age leaves me unconvinced that this increase in Caucasian signals a linguistic shift. It's possible, but it's less likely in comparison to known examples..

As for the South Caucasus hypothesis, I don't think they're necessarily (or even at all) proposing anything related to the Bronze Age, about which you talk about the cultural continuity in the steppes. The CHG admixture seems to have increased significantly in the Mid-Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic, and there was profound economic and cultural transformations in that period roughly between 5000 and 3500 BCE.

Also, if Anatolian split first and the non-Anatolian IE developed with all its peculiar characteristics in the steppes, then we're certainly talking about a linguistic shift, probably coupled with cultural and genetic ones, around 4000 BC or even earlier. That first IE expansion would not have been a Bronze Age phenomenon.
 
As for the South Caucasus hypothesis, I don't think they're necessarily (or even at all) proposing anything related to the Bronze Age, about which you talk about the cultural continuity in the steppes. The CHG admixture seems to have increased significantly in the Mid-Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic, and there was profound economic and cultural transformations in that period roughly between 5000 and 3500 BCE.

No, there wasn't. Most of the influence is coming from the Balkans, especially before the Bronze Age.

Also, if Anatolian split first and the non-Anatolian IE developed with all its peculiar characteristics in the steppes, then we're certainly talking about a linguistic shift, probably coupled with cultural and genetic ones, around 4000 BC or even earlier. That first IE expansion would not have been a Bronze Age phenomenon.

Yes of course. If.

Look, if we can trace IE back to the Old Old world I think that would be amazing. Why would I have some irrational aversion to this? I don't post on those forums full of 30 year old virgin white males. I just think there's MASSIVE leaps being made in this conclusion considering everything we know.

We have a nice set of bronze age Anatolian samples, but compared to Europe it's very small, and look how much we learned about Europe in the South East European paper and the Baltic paper. A ton.

*EDIT* And I'm pretty goddam sure there's steppe in one of the Anatolia_MLBA samples. What's going on? Can someone comment on this without attacking me. Thanks.
 
I'm not surprised about the steppe admixture in the early iron age samples. The Phrygians migrated to Central Anatolia from the Balkans during the very end of the bronze age.
 
No, there wasn't. Most of the influence is coming from the Balkans, especially before the Bronze Age.

Well, I'd bet Khvalynsk and later Repin weren't simply autochthonous developments without any foreign influence, and they were far enough from the Balkans and close enough to the Caucasus to allow us to believe that the "rapid" Neolithization of the entire region from Ukraine to the Caspian wasn't exclusively Balkan-influenced. Also, the first characteristic kurgans do not seem to have appeared in the steppes, but in Transcaucasia. But of course I'm not sure. I'll just say that the Mesolithic and early Neolithic samples from Ukraine have a different autosomal makeup with much much less CHG/Iran_Neo related ancestry. I doubt that came from a generally more technologically advanced region without any cultural impact at all, even if the language of the natives didn't necessarily change.
 
If you compare the Anatolian Indo-European cultures with those in the steppes, then you can call the steppe cultures primitive. My point is: how should those "creatives" of steppes lead to such an "organized" (advanced) culture in Anatolia? And do not start with "elite dominance" and what not.

Well, that kind of thing happened multiple times in History (and Pre-History): "barbarians" come, conquer, rule, but end up being extremely inflluenced (and changed) or even absorbed into the local more advanced civilizations they infiltrated into. That happened with the Amorites, Persians, Medes, Franks, Muslim Arabians, steppe Turks (into Central Asia and Iranian Plateau), Mongols, Manchus and dozens of other peoples who originally came from more primitive lands but managed to become advanced as they mixed with civilizations they conquered.

Why would you think the Anatolian IEs were necessarily any different? That's a pretty repetitive pattern in history, if that happened it wouldn't be surprising in the least, especially if you consider that all that advance you know and talk of is an artifact of the mid-late Bronze Age (Hittite Empire, which existed roughly 1,000 years after even the latest phase of the Yamnaya culture), and the origins of Proto-Anatolian, a still undivided IE subfamily, are much older than that, certainly with more than one milennium for all kinds of cultural transformations to happen, including, you know, learning things from your neighbors, because cultures aren't stumbling blocks that do not mix with each other. In the case of Hittite, that interaction and intermixing is especially noticeable because they, even during their most glorious period, effectively had a bilingual empire (non-IE Hattic and Hittite) and used the pre-IE local language in much of their liturgy and religion.
 
I don't really understand why there is such a heated argument about the origins of the Anatolian branch. Some people seem to think that it is important to determine whether PIE originated in the Steppe or in the South Caucasus. But that's a false dichotomy. I have been saying for nearly 10 years, without needing to adjust my discourse as all ancient DNA evidence have always confirmed my proposed scenario, that R1b-M269 (and L23, which was not yet discovered when I started writing my R1b history in early 2009) originated in the South Caucasus (or Eastern Anatolia, which is almost the same thing) and that this R1b branch were cattle herders who crossed the Caucasus between 6000 and 5000 BCE. They mixed with the local population (I2a, R1a and, to my surprise also older branches of R1b like L388 and P297), and only then around the time of the Late Khvalynsk/Sredny Stog or Early Yamna/Maykop can we say that a common lingua franca had appeared in the Pontic Steppe that included vocabulary for horses (domesticated c. 4000 BCE), carts/wagons and metallurgy.

I have explained here and here why it is nonsensical to think of the Hittites and other Anatolian IE as not having a Steppe origin. They had Steppe vocabulary and even possessed Steppe technology. There is no way these people were descendants from the R1b-L23 who stayed in the South Caucasus. Since PIE is estimated to be approximately 6000 years old (4000 BCE), it is equally ludicrous to believe that the Anatolian branch could have split from other IE languages 8000 years ago. Yet one cannot say that the Anatolian branch remained in the Caucasus without asserting all this by the same occasion.

As for the CHG admixture in Bronze Age Anatolia, most of it would have been brought by the Kura-Araxes expansion, which was contemporaneous to the Yamna expansion, but from the South Caucasus to Anatolia, Aegean Greece, Cyprus, the Fertile Crescent, Iran, Bactria-Margiana and as far as the Indus. The Hurrians, Hattians, Minoans, and possibly also the Akkadians, Assyrians and Elamites descend at least partly from the Kura-Araxes people. The Kura-Araxes haplogroups included J2a1 (M319, Z7671, F3133, Z6046, L581, etc.), J1-Z1828, G2a-L293 and T1a-P77.

But the bottom line is that R1b-L23 is the principal original lineage of PIE, as R1b-L23 did originated in the South Caucasus, but PIE as a language did not develop until c. 4000 BCE over 1000 to 2000 years after R1b-L23 settled in the Pontic Steppe.

So genetically, the paternal line of Indo-European is from the South Caucasus, but PIE people and language are a hybrid of South Caucasian and Steppe people. There is no point arguing beyond that.
 
Last edited:
I don't really understand why there is such a heated argument about the origins of the Anatolian branch. Some people seem to think that it is important to determine whether PIE originated in the Steppe or in the South Caucasus. But that's a false dichotomy. I have been saying for nearly 10 years, without needing to adjust my discourse as all ancient DNA evidence have always confirmed my proposed scenario, that R1b-M269 (and L23, which was not yet discovered when I started writing my R1b history in early 2009) originated in the South Caucasus (or Eastern Anatolia, which is almost the same thing) and that this R1b branch were cattle herders who crossed the Caucasus between 6000 and 5000 BCE. They mixed with the local population (I2a, R1a and, to my surprise also older branches of R1b like L388 and P297), and only then around the time of the Late Khvalynsk/Sredny Stog or Early Yamna/Maykop can we say that a common lingua franca had appeared in the Pontic Steppe that included vocabulary for horses (domesticated c. 4000 BCE), carts/wagons and metallurgy.

I have explained here and here why it is nonsensical to think of the Hittites and other Anatolian IE as not having a Steppe origin. They had Steppe vocabulary and even possessed Steppe technology. There is no way these people were descendants from the R1b-L23 who stayed in the South Caucasus. Since PIE is estimated to be approximately 6000 years old (4000 BCE), it is equally ludicrous to believe that the Anatolian branch could have split from other IE languages 8000 years ago. Yet one cannot say that the Anatolian branch remained in the Caucasus without asserting all this by the same occasion.

But the bottom line is that R1b-L23 is the principal original lineage of PIE, as R1b-L23 did originated in the South Caucasus, but PIE as a language did not develop until c. 4000 BCE over 1000 to 2000 years after R1b-L23 settled in the Pontic Steppe.

So genetically, the paternal line of Indo-European is from the South Caucasus, but PIE people and language are a hybrid of South Caucasian and Steppe people. There is no point arguing beyond that.

what does lazardis mean when he says that no steppe in anatolian populations falsifies the steppe theory? isn't he actually playing with the thought that the anatolian branch was spread by people who were missing EHG?
 

This thread has been viewed 159684 times.

Back
Top