Where did the Anatolian branch of Indo-European originate?

[epoch]

the southern Caucasus idea <snip> suggested through academic research done by leading geneticists and anthropologists.

What anthropologist studies and research has been done that suggests a southern Caucasus Urheimat?

 

[IronSide]

You're misrepresenting the actual position, which is: If we detect EHG ancestry at the proposed language shift you have evidence for the Steppe Hypothesis yet if you don't you don't have evidence against it. It's a form of this rule: Absence of proof isn't proof of absence.

The beauty of Ancient DNA is the ability to tell us where ancient people came from, and how they relate to the people living today.

When asking the question of where did the Anatolian speakers like Luwians and Hittites come from, you have test samples before and after they're arrival, assuming that you know when they arrived, that's no problem if you have a logical sequence of samples throughout the archaeological record.

We know that the people who carried IE languages to Europe arrived from the Steppe because that was the difference compared to the previous era.

Where did the Steppe people come from? a mixture of two populations, EHG and a southern population from Caucasus, logically, one of them is ultimately the origin of the deepest language that's the origin of all indo European languages.

The brute force method is to test every IE speaking population in the world, but you can also use linguistics as a guide, the Anatolian branch is the most diverging and shares the least with the others, and so their DNA will solve the question.

Now we have Ancient samples, and the only difference is that they have CHG, but not EHG, so some said they are not Anatolians because they don't have EHG ? This belief of EHG = IE has not yet been established for it to be used as an argument.

We were in process of testing it, a test can fail, otherwise, you don't have a hypothesis, you have a belief.

The hypothesis that only the elites can have EHG, is still within the domain of logical possibility, but probabilistically unlikely, the cruelest and gene flow prohibitive caste system that I can think of is that of Hinduism, and even there the lowest castes have Steppe ancestry, and the highest castes have ASI ancestry, it is still detectable.

 

[epoch]

The hypothesis that only the elites can have EHG, is still within the domain of logical possibility, but probabilistically unlikely, the cruelest and gene flow prohibitive caste system that I can think of is that of Hinduism, and even there the lowest castes have Steppe ancestry, and the highest castes have ASI ancestry, it is still detectable.

So, after 700 years of Ptolemeic rule every Egyptian burial should have Greek admixture? It didn't, as demonstrated by Krause 2017, which sampled Abusir from the New Kingdom up until the 5th century AD. Showing as Krause stated himself, for 1,300 years, complete genetic continuity. Yet we know that Greeks settled in Egypt. We know that Alexandria was a full blown Greek city. We know the language was spoken there, used in government. We know there were Greek rulers.

What you seem to forget is that we are pretty sure that the Hititte empire was very multicultural and we can be pretty sure its native speakers were a minority, not unlike the Greek rulers of the Middle-East after Alexander the Great. And yes, I do understand that the situation isn't completely comparable, but the analogy is clear enough.

 

[bicicleur 2]

It's hard for me to credit this is a serious post.

Since when is it "baiting" people to discuss a topic objectively?

As for the connection between the Indo-European theory and the Nazis, how can you possibly be unaware of it? Everyone who has studied this subject should know that it was fodder for the Nazi world view, although they placed the homeland in Germany, not the steppe. The Journal of Indo-European studies was founded and supported with money from a notorious Nazi. Where have you been? David Reich says in his book that some European scholars would not sign on to his first papers because of the horrific reputation in which these studies were held. Just because you never heard of something doesn't mean it's false.

Does that mean I believe this field shouldn't be studied? No, it doesn't. In fact, I've been on record for years as saying I think the general outline about the spread of the languages is correct. What do you want? An oath in blood?

Nothing is enough for people like you.

As for Davidski, he was notorious on Stormfront and Skadi for years, as well as forumbiodiversity. There are whole treasure troves of screenshots of his racist comments. That was his doing, not mine, and he's going to have to live with the consequences of his statements, as we all have to live with ours. Nothing, for good or ill, ever goes away on the internet.

Before you post, inform yourself: read a book once in a while, or some papers. You'd be amazed what you can learn if you don't go into everything with completely preconceived notions.

@Holderlin,

What a surprise.

it is not because the Nazi's used IE theory that every stepicist is a Nazi
and I see at least as many anti-stepicists refusing to see the scientific evidence as there are stepicists trying to twist the evidence

 

[IronSide]

So, after 700 years of Ptolemeic rule every Egyptian burial should have Greek admixture? It didn't, as demonstrated by Krause 2017, which sampled Abusir from the New Kingdom up until the 5th century AD. Showing as Krause stated himself, for 1,300 years, complete genetic continuity. Yet we know that Greeks settled in Egypt. We know that Alexandria was a full blown Greek city. We know the language was spoken there, used in government. We know there were Greek rulers.
What you seem to forget is that we are pretty sure that the Hititte empire was very multicultural and we can be pretty sure its native speakers were a minority, not unlike the Greek rulers of the Middle-East after Alexander the Great. And yes, I do understand that the situation isn't completely comparable, but the analogy is clear enough.

Sure, but may I introduce you to Occam's razor:

Occam's razor (also Ockham's razor or Ocham's razor; Latin: lex parsimoniae "law of parsimony") is the problem-solving principle that, when presented with competing hypothetical answers to a problem, one should select the answer that makes the fewest assumptions.

You have to assume they have been an Elite, they didn't enteract with people they live around (for hundreds of years), every one of the samples we have wasn't a Hittite, and they have must have carried EHG ... more than one sample didn't have EHG, I conclude that most likely the Anatolian IE didn't carry EHG.

A difference between Bronze Age Anatolia and Greek ruled Egypt is language, language in Egypt didn't change to Greek, while Anatolians spoke IE, yes yes ancient multi culturalism but ethnic Anatolians were also a majority in the west, like the Luwians, Lydians and Carians.

 

[berun]

You're misrepresenting the actual position, which is: If we detect EHG ancestry at the proposed language shift you have evidence for the Steppe Hypothesis yet if you don't you don't have evidence against it. It's a form of this rule: Absence of proof isn't proof of absence.

he! good resumé

 

[berun]

This is what he was referring to:

"There is an extensive linguistic supplement to the paper itself, found here:

G. Kroonen, G. Barjamovic, M. Peyrot, Linguistic supplement to Damgaard et al. 2018: Early Indo-European Languages, Anatolian, Tocharian and Indo-Iranian. 10.5281/zenodo.1240524 (9 May 2018).

It is at least as important as the genetic paper in terms of discussion, I think.

The authors of the supplement summarise the literature on the topic:
1) There is no consensus on the Balkan or Caucasian route for the Anatolian languages, though there are arguments that lead to a preference for the Balkan route among some linguists.
2) The languages are diverged for at least a millenium before we get the written records of their varieties (Palaic, Luwian, Hittite etc)
3) The linguistic evidence does not indicate mass migration or elite conquest, because the language characteristics are relatively in line with the language area, rather it appears "diffusional".
4) New evidence is presented from the Eblaite state with personal names from "Armi" (we don't know where that is, probably a statelet under the control of Ebla) with Anatolian derivation, in the Turkey-Syria border, 500 years before the earliest attestation of the other Anatolian languages in 2500BC (which therefore push the split of the language group even further back). These personal names also appear in Assyrian records about trade with "Armi". These names occur contemporaneous with Yamnaya, so the hypothesis that even Anatolian derives from Yamnaya can be safely rejected."

This is a good example on how are working steppists: if they got a DNA proff perfect, if none, then we are dealing with cultural and low-intensity migrations. The paper goes to say:

The Afanasievo culture is currently the best archaeological proxy
for the linguistic ancestors to the speakers of the Tocharian languages.

they recognize the time span (3000 years) and the space span (2000 km) but it's not a problem... I'm amazed also how they forgot the Tarim mummies R1a which don't match too well with R1b-Z2105 Yamnayans / Afanasievans

First, the lack of genetic indications for an intrusion into Anatolia refutes the classical notion
of a Yamnaya-derived mass invasion or conquest. However, it does fit the recently developed
consensus among linguists and historians that the speakers of the Anatolian languages established
themselves in Anatolia by gradual infiltration and cultural assimilation.

the degree of bullshitting production is similar to those found among us...

However, a small group of ca. twenty names connected to Armi build on what appear to
be well-known Anatolian roots and endings, such as -(w)anda/u, -(w)aššu, -tala, and -ili/u, cf. A-lalu-
wa-du, A-li-lu-wa-da, A-li-wa-da, A-li-wa-du, A-lu-wa-da, A-lu-wa-du, Ar-zi-tá-la, Ba-mi-a-du, Ba-wia-
du, Du-du-wa-šu, Ha-áš-ti-lu, Hu-da-šu, Mi-mi-a-du, Mu-lu-wa-du, Tar5-hi-li, and Ù-la-ma-du (Archi
2011: 21–25; Bonechi 1990). The Eblaite script does not always distinguish voiced and voiceless
consonants and ignores germinates (Catagnoti 2012). This renders it difficult to establish an exact
reading of the names and makes it impossible at present to determine the language or languages
to which the names from Armi belong with any certainty, except to say that they clearly fall within
the Anatolian Indo-European family.

that is supposed to guarantee Hittite?

name without clear IE roots are now Hittite by having Hittite endings... ?!? so let's take Spanish names with diminutive -co as Juanico and say that Mexico DF is a full fledged Basque city.

bah, better to read science fiction books than DNA papers

 

[epoch]

You have to assume they have been an Elite, they didn't enteract with people they live around (for hundreds of years), every one of the samples we have wasn't a Hittite, and they have must have carried EHG ... more than one sample didn't have EHG, I conclude that most likely the Anatolian IE didn't carry EHG.

The Hittites were a superstratum imposed on Hattic and Hurric people, that is the general idea from Hittitologists. The liturgy of the Hittites was in Hattic. The language carries a Hattic substrate. The history of the Hittites show how they overran Hattic and Hurric areas to form the Hittite empire.

What you call an assumption is called consensus among archaeologists.

A difference between Bronze Age Anatolia and Greek ruled Egypt is language, language in Egypt didn't change to Greek

It did in Alexandria. Remember that library?

while Anatolians spoke IE, yes yes ancient multi culturalism but ethnic Anatolians were also a majority in the west, like the Luwians, Lydians and Carians.

Yes, but that does not necessarily mean massive immigration. And we don't know enough to say if Luwians and Lydians were a majority in the West. Mind you, we are absolutely sure that Hattic was spoken in Anatolia, yet we have no indigenous trace of it apart from citations Hittite texts and some other texts. Who knows what was spoken when?

 

[IronSide]

The Hittites were a superstratum imposed on Hattic and Hurric people, that is the general idea from Hittitologists. The liturgy of the Hittites was in Hattic. The language carries a Hattic substrate. The history of the Hittites show how they overran Hattic and Hurric areas to form the Hittite empire.

What you call an assumption is called consensus among archaeologists.



It did in Alexandria. Remember that library?



Yes, but that does not necessarily mean massive immigration. And we don't know enough to say if Luwians and Lydians were a majority in the West. Mind you, we are absolutely sure that Hattic was spoken in Anatolia, yet we have no indigenous trace of it apart from citations Hittite texts and some other texts. Who knows what was spoken when?

Ok, let's flip this, convince me that they must have carried EHG ? I really don't know

 

[IronSide]

The Hittites were a superstratum imposed on Hattic and Hurric people, that is the general idea from Hittitologists. The liturgy of the Hittites was in Hattic. The language carries a Hattic substrate. The history of the Hittites show how they overran Hattic and Hurric areas to form the Hittite empire.

What you call an assumption is called consensus among archaeologists.



It did in Alexandria. Remember that library?



Yes, but that does not necessarily mean massive immigration. And we don't know enough to say if Luwians and Lydians were a majority in the West. Mind you, we are absolutely sure that Hattic was spoken in Anatolia, yet we have no indigenous trace of it apart from citations Hittite texts and some other texts. Who knows what was spoken when?

If the Hittites were a superstratum, are the other Anatolian languages also superstratums with few actual speakers ?

 

[halfalp]

This is a good example on how are working steppists: if they got a DNA proff perfect, if none, then we are dealing with cultural and low-intensity migrations. The paper goes to say:



they recognize the time span (3000 years) and the space span (2000 km) but it's not a problem... I'm amazed also how they forgot the Tarim mummies R1a which don't match too well with R1b-Z2105 Yamnayans / Afanasievans



the degree of bullshitting production is similar to those found among us...



that is supposed to guarantee Hittite?

name without clear IE roots are now Hittite by having Hittite endings... ?!? so let's take Spanish names with diminutive -co as Juanico and say that Mexico DF is a full fledged Basque city.

bah, better to read science fiction books than DNA papers

The western cities of the tarim basin like Kashgar were scythians / iranians not tocharians. Already when Maciamo thought tarim mummies were tocharians and belong to R1a i already was dubitative because tocharian is a centum language and that ancient chinese depicted them as redhaired and green eyes. We know now that Afanasievo was R1b and tocharians were situated in Eastern, Southern tarim but mainly in the gansu corridor for wich we dont have any dna for that time. Hittite is nothing for indo-european studies, look at satem languages, at modern french, languages and especially synthetic languages evolved really fast. Listen to Hittite reconstruction on YouTube and tell me if it sounds more Celtic or more Semitic.

 

[Cpluskx]

Epoch, it's possible that you will be proven right at the end but the problem is that you do not move with the data, you are trying to fit the data into your view. So discussing things with you becomes pointless at some point. I used to believe the origin of PIE was somewhere in East Europe - Siberia area before Reich, Krause etc. changed their and my opinion.

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

Yes, but that does not necessarily mean massive immigration. And we don't know enough to say if Luwians and Lydians were a majority in the West. Mind you, we are absolutely sure that Hattic was spoken in Anatolia, yet we have no indigenous trace of it apart from citations Hittite texts and some other texts. Who knows what was spoken when?

Those who aren't biased usually assume that Luwians, at least, were numerous. (even if they favor a diffusion model of some short)

Hurrians were located outside Anatolia proper.

Off course, 'we don't know' what languages could have been spoken there. That is true about every region, pretty much, including the steppes.

If PIEans were a CHG-rich group, the non-IE elements could have been EEF-related and vice versa.

 

[epoch]

Ok, let's flip this, convince me that they must have carried EHG ? I really don't know

So far all IE languages apart from Anatolian can be attested to Yamnaya related ancestry. Anatolian was a very old split from it. Suppose we postulate an EHG-less origin for the oldest PIE Urheimat. Maykop has EHG (as per Kroonens linguistical paper) so we need to find it south of the Caucasus. What cultures are available?

1) Shulaveri-Shomu culture. These people buried in jars. If Yamnaya and/or Maykop originated from them, why don't we see jar burials among them? Yes, burial rites change, e.g. Indo-Europeans started to cremate in Europe and India. But we see gradual change there: cremation in Unetice and even bi-ritual burials in Andronovo, inhumations and cremations in one single barrow. We see nothing, literally nothing in Yamnaya or Maykop

2) Kura Araxes. It's too young to have created Maykop, where the earliest Kurgans are found. It could be the ancestors of Yamnaya, but how could Yamnaya have originated from KA if Maykop is firmly in between it?

3) Leyla-Tepe. Jar-burials. See 1. We have a number of Kurgans in Leyla-Tepe area but these contained a zoomorphic scepter. There are far more zoomorphic scepters found in the Steppe and along the Danube, older than those Kurgans. So if anyhting those Kurgans are intrusive from the north.

Now lets see the candidates for intrusion from the steppe:

1) Bulgarian Yamnaya. They were separated from the rest of the Yamnaya horizon, took on a lot of local customs (pottery) and possibly can be related to the change to cremation.

2) Kura-Araxes/Leyla-Tepe Kurgans. As I said, it looks like the Leyla-Tepe Kurgans are intrusive, based on the zoomorphic scepter. And while Kura-Araxes is too young to be the ancestor of Maykop, it's not to be an ancestor of a Maykop expansion. Kura-Araxes's burials are vastly diverse, and it has forms of Kurgans.

3) Perhaps Suvorovo, if Kroonen is right about the split being pre-Yamnaya? Haven't looked into that. Zoomorphic scepters are found among it, though.

4) Maykop has EHG, as Guus Kroonen revealed and seems olders than Yamnaya.

There simply isn't a nice culture to associate with PIE south of the Caucasus.

 

[halfalp]

Most of the comments start to become ridiculous, Maciamo and others have already say multiple times that we dont have any royal Hittite dna because they were cremated. There is litteraly any known buril, this start to be ridiculous and Lazaridis and Reich should actually take some archeology cursus before try to explain things with their ancestral components. But i'm baiting voluntary here, because i'm sure they actually are appointed with some historians and archeologists, so why is this actually still a question ? So why actually people still complain if they are not bigoted ? I think we should have some kind of group therapy where everybody explain what motives him in the way he think and why he is so obsessed with one or another hypothesis, that could be very progressive for the forum.

 

[epoch]

Epoch, it's possible that you will be proven right at the end but the problem is that you do not move with the data, you are trying to fit the data into your view. So discussing things with you becomes pointless at some point. I used to believe the origin of PIE was somewhere in East Europe - Siberia area before Reich, Krause etc. changed their and my opinion.

Than tell me: Which culture south of the Caucasus was it? And what evidence do you have apart from genetics that they are the culture of the PIE Urheimat?

 

[Cpluskx]

Than tell me: Which culture south of the Caucasus was it? And what evidence do you have apart from genetics that they are the culture of the PIE Urheimat?

I don't know, though i know that Reich has the Maykop data and i'm waiting for it.

 

[epoch]

I don't know, though i know that Reich has the Maykop data and i'm waiting for it.

Maykop has EHG. It's in the Guus Kroonen supplement to this paper.

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

 

[Boreas]

Hurrians were located outside Anatolia proper.

He said "Hattic", so I think he means Hatti people in Central Anatolia not Hurrians.

Before the Hittites, there were just Luwian in West, Hatti in Central, Hurrian in East.

 

[Cpluskx]

Maykop has EHG. It's in the Guus Kroonen supplement to this paper.

EHG doesn't make everywhere it exists instantly IE.