The Proto-Indo European Homeland
Aktualizacja 17.02.2019. Dzięki Tanator! Świetna robota! 🙂
Mały przerywnik w moim językowym pastwieniu się nad ofitzjalnie obowiązującą nazistowską wykładnią rzeczywistości. Znalazłem trochę ciekawych danych, za pomocą których będę znęcał się nad że tak się wyrażę bardziej takim ogólnym przeciw-słowiańskim rozumowaniem. Leniwy jestem, winc wyręczą Mię w tym inni…
Oto najnowszy fytfór fielko-giermańskiej myfli ofitzjalnych mocarzy i łamaczy rozumu, jak Kristiansen, Haak, czy inni mendrcy z Max Planck Institute…
Plan zabawy w tym wpisie jest taki, że:
- najpierw upowszechnię tę w fielkich bulach zrodzonom ofitzjalną allo-allo nazi propagandę,
- a potem jej ocenę dokonaną przez Davidski’ego i resztę towarzystwa piszących na http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/., a dokładnie tu: http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/12/some-german-guy-once-said.html…
Kiedy pisze te słowa, nie wiem jeszcze, co tam zostało napisane w komentarzach. Tuszę, że Davidski porównuje te prafdy objawione jakoś ofitzjalnym naukaftzom z samego serca Nazilandu, do ich „chlubnych” pierwowzorów, jak KoSSinna, czy ociupinkę nowszych, coś bardziej może nawet Goebbels i spółka, patrz:
Moje zdanie, co do wiarygodności np. samego Kristiansena, itp jest od tzw. 2013 roku jednoznaczne, patrz:
Round table discussion
Thomas Olander Published on Sep 5, 2013
Round table discussion concluding the seminar „Tracing the Indo-Europeans: Origin and migration”, organized by Roots of Europe – Language, Culture, and Migrations, University of Copenhagen, 12-14 December 2012 Participants (from left to right): – Peter Jackson, University of Stockholm – Morten Allentoft, University of Copenhagen – James P. Mallory, University of Belfast – Kristian Kristiansen, University of Gothenburg – David W. Anthony, Hartwick College – Guus Kroonen, University of Copenhagen
Kristiansen to najfiększy chyba z żyjących obecnie uczniów ojca nazizmu KoSSinny i jego wcześniejszych fielko-prusko-giermańskich nauczycieli. O bystrości i celności jego tfierdzeń wypowiada się tu William Parkinson z SAR, winc ja nie muszem pisac już wincy nic, bo wszystko jest jasne.
A i przy tej okazji… Wyznawcy tzw. południowej drogi R1a też nie majom raczej powodu do świętowania…
ArmenianAlchemist Published on Dec 9, 2018
From the documentary „Les grands voyages de l‘humanité”/”Die Reise der Menschheit” (Cristina Trebbi and Christian Twente, Germany, 2018). It was broadcasted by ARTE a public Franco-German TV network that promotes programming in the areas of culture and the arts.
This clip highlights the new theory put forward by the Max Planck Institute that Armenia is the Proto-Indo European homeland.
From the video, Russell Gray :
„According to us, the best hypothesis is the one which brings together genetic and linguistic data. They [the Proto-Indo-Europeans] would have lived east of the fertile crescent about 8000 years ago … We believe that the origin is here in the southern Caucasus, eastern Anatolia, Armenia, and perhaps in northern Iran about 8,000 years ago„
„The most likely location of the population that first spoke an Indo-European language was south of the Caucasus Mountains, perhaps in presend-day Iran or Armenia, because Ancient DNA from people who lived there matches what we would expect for a source population both for the Yamnaya and for ancient Anatolians”.
– David Reich („Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past”, 2018, p.120)
For more information watch: https://youtu.be/UsXrwDqHJ8U
Gamkrelidze – Ivanov came to this conclusion as well, neolithic farming began in and around Armenia
Survive the Jive
Even if the urheimat was south of the Caucasus. which is not yet proven, the spread of IE languages was certainly via the steppe peoples North of it, and nor directly East and West from Armenia as in the map in the video.
Survive the Jive I repeatedly tell people that the Yamnaya were responsible for the spread. Just because I myself am Armenian does not mean I desperately want the PIE homeland to be in Armenia. It does not matter to me where it is located really. I just post these videos since this is an Armenian orientated channel and this is new data/studies.
Survive the Jive
ArmenianAlchemist ok i was responding to the video not to you personally. My own opinion is that the urheimat was north of the caucasus
Werent we steppe people? isnt that how we conquered? id have thought the main bunch only then moved south of the caucausus and then the languages diverged.
According to these new studies, the Yamnaya steppe people were the ones responsible for spreading the languages far and wide but their origin was in the Armenian Highland region.
ArmenianAlchemist yamnaya wasn’t located south of the Caucasus, the Yamna archaeological horizon was situated in roughly modern day east Ukraine/southern Russia.
@Commander Biff That is what was believed until recent studies. Check my video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsXrwDqHJ8U I am not saying that the south Caucasus was definitely the homeland of PIE because I myself am an Armenian, but it is a possibility according to several researchers.
Survive the Jive
@ArmenianAlchemist This is just based on absence of steppe dna in some assumedly Hittite samples. That is not conclusive proof at all and this video is therefore rather silly.
Survive the Jive I never state it is conclusive though.
ArmenianAlchemist even if pre-PIE is from south of the Caucasus, yamnaya along with most of their ancestry is still from the PC steppe, with the evidence suggesting they spoke a late dialect of PIE, from whence all surviving IE languages including Armenian are derived from.
Commander Biff I never said anything to the contrary.
ArmenianAlchemist you said yamnaya was from south of the Caucasus?
Commander Biff I said PIE possibly is.
The PI homeland is in Vinca culture in Serbia.
either armenia or iran. yamnaya was uralic.
Buddy, I’m sorry to inform you. But you’re fucking retarded.
Yamnaya was not fucking Uralic lmfao
Reconsidering the Indo-European Homeland
ArmenianAlchemist Published on Jul 7, 2018
A look at the forgotten Armenian hypothesis. This video was not made with chauvinistic intentions but rather to start a discussion.
Most common Armenian Y-DNA haplogroups
Great video. I’m always pleased to see advocates of a homeland South of the Caucuses. Although I am personally very reluctant to pinpoint an exact location, I currently view some stretch of land and interaction of people between Armenia, Eastern Turkey and Northern Iran as the most suitable PIE homeland!
That land (Armenia, Eastern Turkey, and Northern Iran) was always known as and referred to as the Armenian Highlands
@John Melikyan You are correct, specifically from the region of Soyuqbulaq, Agstafa, on the northern border of Armenia and Azerbaijan, in which at 2006, a French-Azerbaijani team discovered nine kurgans at the local cemetery. They were dated to the beginning of the 4th millennium BCE, which makes it the oldest kurgan cemetery in Transcaucasia. Later similar kurgans were observed in the Kura-Araxes (Armenian Highlands) and Maykop (Caucasus) cultures. Dialects of Armenian (among other IE branches) also show glottalization (associated with PIE). It has been argued to be recent influence from the other Caucasian languages, but Frederik Kortlandt argues glottalization cannot be considered a modern innovation and must be reconstructed with a wider dialectal distribution for older stages of Armenian, possibly making it among the oldest if not the oldest IE language. There are so many more things that prove that the most likely homeland for PIE was the region between the Armenian Highlands, Caucasus, and north-western Iran. I also like what the Shulaveri-Shomu culture shows, which existed between 6,000 BCE and 4,000 BCE in the region of Transcaucasia.
This would also make sense since some of the earliest kurgans were found in the Caucasus in the 4th millennium BC (Kipfer, Barbara Ann (2000), Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archeology, Springer)
You are correct, specifically from the region of Soyuqbulaq, Agstafa, on the northern border of Armenia and Azerbaijan, in which at 2006, a French-Azerbaijani team discovered nine kurgans at the local cemetery. They were dated to the beginning of the 4th millennium BCE, which makes it the oldest kurgan cemetery in Transcaucasia. Later similar kurgans were observed in the Kura-Araxes (Armenian Highlands) and Maykop (Caucasus) cultures. Dialects of Armenian (among other IE branches) also show glottalization (associated with PIE). It has been argued to be recent influence from the other Caucasian languages, but Frederik Kortlandt argues glottalization cannot be considered a modern innovation and must be reconstructed with a wider dialectal distribution for older stages of Armenian, possibly making it among the oldest if not the oldest IE language. There are so many more things that prove that the most likely homeland for PIE was the region between the Armenian Highlands, Caucasus, and north-western Iran. I also like what the Shulaveri-Shomu culture shows, which existed between 6,000 BCE and 4,000 BCE on the region of Transcaucasia.
Δημήτριος Α Very interesting indeed.
So it’s just a guess based on CHG component and because there are no Hittite samples. Sure sounds like an open & shut case for farming women to marry into steppe hunter pastoralists R1b groups and teach them to use their language and promote a male dominated warrior culture. Man would Gimbutas have hated those girls.
A teraz Davidski i komentarze ludzi piszących u Niego…
Saturday, December 15, 2018
Some German guy once said…
If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.
On a totally unrelated note, the Max-Planck-Institut für Menschheitsgeschichte (aka MPI-SHH) is apparently still claiming that its southern Proto-Indo-European (PIE) homeland theory has been corroborated by archaeogenetic data. For instance, check out the Youtube clip here.
Below is a screen cap from the clip showing a map that summarizes what the folks at the MPI-SHH are thinking in regards to the PIE question and the early spread of Indo-European languages.
Unfortunately, this map doesn’t make any sense. Why? Here it is, in point form, as simply as I can put it:
1) There’s no evidence in any archaeogenetic data of migrations during the Neolithic from what is now Armenia and surrounds to Western Europe, the Pontic-Caspian steppe, or, indeed, South Asia, that may have brought Indo-European languages to these regions. In fact, the currently available ancient DNA data outright contradict this scenario, because:
A) the Corded Ware and Yamnaya archeological cultures, which are generally considered to have been the main vectors for the spread of Indo-European languages from the Pontic-Caspian steppe into Northern and Central Europe, weren’t founded by migrants from south of the Caucasus (see here)
B) the Neolithic farmer populations that migrated deep into Europe and eventually colonized the western third of the continent were especially poor in Caucasus-related ancestry, and, realistically, could only have come from well to the west of the Caucasus
C) conversely, the Neolithic farmer populations that moved deep into South Asia are inferred to have been especially poor in Anatolian-related ancestry, and, realistically, could only have come from well to the east of the Caucasus (see here)
D) Caucasus-related ancestry, of basically the same type that is being associated by the MPI-SHH with the PIE expansion, did move into Western Europe across the Mediterranean, but this happened during the Bronze Age and it impacted the island of Sardinia, which is generally regarded to have been inhabited by non-Indo-European speakers until the Romans got there (see here). Oops.
2) There’s now overwhelming evidence both in ancient and modern DNA data that Eastern Europeans and Indians, especially Indo-European-speaking Indians, share significant ancestry, in particular paternal ancestry, from essentially the same Bronze Age populations living on the Pontic-Caspian steppe (not south of it!), and this is the only obvious, important genetic link between these two linguistically closely related but geographically far flung groups within the last…tens of thousands of years?
3) Ancient samples from Mycenaean, and thus Indo-European-speaking, Greece and parts of Iron Age Iberia where Indo-European languages were attested at the time also show steppe-derived ancestry, and, in fact, of a very similar character to that shared by Eastern Europeans and Indo-European-speaking Indians (see here and here, respectively).
4) However, Pre-Mycenaean and likely non-Indo-European Minoan samples, also from the Aegean region, don’t show any steppe ancestry, but they do show Caucasus-related ancestry, of basically the same type that is being associated by the MPI-SHH with the PIE expansion. Oops again.
Thus, at the very least, these undeniable and, surely, easy to grasp facts that I’ve just set out should give pause to anyone who still claims that the Near East, rather than the Pontic-Caspian steppe, was the main staging point for the expansions of the early Indo-Europeans. Indeed, methinks it’s now time to admit by all those concerned that the most likely homeland of all surviving branches of the Indo-European language family, and thus of late PIE, was the Pontic-Caspian steppe.
Honestly, I’m shocked, and even disturbed, that none of this seems to have filtered down to the linguists at the MPI-SHH, especially since the MPI-SHH is also heavily populated by scientists who apparently know a thing or two about archaeogenetics.
Now, it’s true that archaeogenetic data are yet to reveal an unambiguous signal of steppe ancestry in samples from Hittite era Anatolia (five have been published to date), which may perhaps suggest that the people who brought Hittite and the other Anatolian languages to Anatolia didn’t come from the steppe. Of course, Anatolian languages represent the earliest, most basal split in the Indo-European phylogeny, and thus aren’t part of the late PIE node. So if the Indo-European-speaking ancestors of the Hittites didn’t come from the steppe, then it stands to reason that early PIE didn’t either.
But this isn’t relevant to my criticism of the MPI-SHH, because even if early PIE didn’t come from the steppe, then like I said, there’s very solid evidence now that late PIE did, and the problem is that the linguists and geneticists at the MPI-SHH appear to be missing this point, or they’re unwilling to accept it.
Moreover, please note that I’m not arguing that the linguists at the MPI-SHH are getting things wrong when it comes to actual linguistics. For all I know, their approach in this area might well be perfect, and perhaps it has indeed revealed insights that have been missed by others using more traditional methods?
For instance, it’s possible that the phylogeny of Indo-European languages as shown in the video linked to above reflects the truth better than anything else offered to date. I don’t know, so I’m keeping an open mind about that. But admittedly, I’m skeptical, considering how lousy the MPI-SHH’s interpretation of the archaeogenetic data has been to date in this context, even at the most basic level.
An Idiot said…
Even though I believe in a West Asian homeland of sorts, it’s just laughable to think that it spread to Europe and India from the Middle East and not the Steppe. Unless it was a VERY silly mistake, there has to be some other questionable motives involved here – they probably just don’t like the idea of blonde Steppe colonists.
December 15, 2018 at 1:47 AM
I seriously doubt that the steppe-derived groups that moved into South Asia were very blond.
December 15, 2018 at 1:53 AM
That map seems to imply the primary split is betweeen Balto Slavic and Indo Iranian.
December 15, 2018 at 1:57 AM
Yeah, it looks like total BS.
December 15, 2018 at 1:59 AM
Doesn’t matter, the map is from the Twilight Zone and Heggarty was in the New Scientist and Guardian recently basically saying that there were migrations from Iran that gave rise to Yamnaya.
December 15, 2018 at 3:05 AM
Al Bundy said…
Especially considering the fact that Haak is at Max Planck and that 2015 paper made a strong, and pretty much accepted case, that steppe migrations brought IE to N Europe.
December 15, 2018 at 3:22 AM
Link to Youtube clip is not right.
“For instance, it’s possible that the phylogenetic relationships of Indo-European languages as shown in the screen cap below (from the video linked to above) reflects the truth better than anything else offered to date.”
I am very skeptical about their method. Glottochronology is pseudoscience. Reconstructed PIE is not a real language and has never been spoken by anybody etc.
But assuming there is some truth in their method, i.e. it works although we don’t know why, and the split between Indo-Iranian languages (red arrow) and Balto-Slavic languages (blue arrow) occurred before 4000 BC:
then Sredny-Stog seems to be the archeological culture from which these two language families emerged, not Armenia. We have R1a from Dereivka culture.
December 15, 2018 at 4:21 AM
PIE has a lot of vocabulary which disqualifies an early origin. Among those are metals (copper/bronze, gold, silver), milk products (milk, cheese, butter, wax), plants (oats, whose actual domestication wasn’t in the neolithic), animals (horse, who weren’t also domesticated until the late neolithic at earliest), equipment (wheels) and defense (forts). A steppe origin is supported by the animal product vocabulary, horses (who have at least two terms), tortoises (whose members mostly live in semiarid environments), sand, beaver, birch, disproportionate amount of terms for domestic animals (also observed for other pastoralists), and as bonus, water-related vocabulary (such as river, lake, water, wave, fishes, sea, ship, etc), caused by the climate forcing people to live near bodies of water, where they would develop fishing and navigation skills. The Pontic-Caspian steppe happens to have plenty of bodies of water, especially the Dnieper, Don, Volga and Ural rivers. Another point in favor is that every recorded IE languages, including those in Anatolia, Armenia and Iran, have a substrate,
the unsubstrated steppe IE languages going extinct without trace.
December 16, 2018 at 11:41 AM
Eh, mycenaean samples have been demonstrated to have steppe admixture. In contrast, minoan ones don’t have it. While linear A has been transliterated, it hasn’t been translated with IE languages, which makes the minoan language a non-IE one.
December 16, 2018 at 1:28 PM
There are linguistic connections between Proto-Indo-European and a language family near Baikal Lake, which probably date back to MA1:
December 16, 2018 at 2:06 PM
Recently ran models of minoans and mycenaeans. Minoans, represented by Minoan_Lasithi, have no steppe nor its proxies WSHG, EHG and Ukraine_N, and those made fits worse. Mycenaeans, in contrast, has detectable steppe proxies WSHG, EHG, Ukraine_N, Ukraine_Eneolithic and Khvalynsk_Eneolithic, and 13%+ contribution from steppe and steppe-containing populations. Best fits are with steppe itself. As for the minoan language, it’s likely to represent the pre-greek substrate.
December 16, 2018 at 2:10 PM
The fact is that languages change really fast and a lot when people mix, when their religions and cultures mix, and change very slowly and very little when people don’t mix and have stable cultures and religions.
Here is an interesting article on linguistic changes in Armenian language:
thanks to Lazaridis:
They give an example of Armenian numerals and how they changed. It may be interesting to compare Armenian numerals with Indo-Iranian, Slavic, Baltic and PIE. Slavic and Indo-Iranian numerals are almost identical, Baltic are slightly different from Slavic and Indo-Iranian but apparently closer to PIE.
For example number five:
Ved. pañca, Av. panca
Pol. Pięć (=pienci) OCS pętĭ (=penti)
OPruss. pēnkjāi, Lith. penkì
Ved. catvāras, Av. caθuuārō (=čatuaro)
OCS četyre, Pol. cztery (cz=č), Russ. četyre/ četvertij(=fourth)
OPruss. keturjāi, Lith. keturì
Armenian PIE homeland is not a linguistic argument. There is nothing close to PIE in Armenian language. It must be something else. What? I don’t know.
December 16, 2018 at 2:57 PM
Btw, in regards to the Q1a sample found within Yamnaya Samara ~6.5kya, is it possible that it stems from merely a genetic drift P —> Q in lieu of P —> R(1), rather than being considered “foreign”? After all, they all derive from the ANE/Afontova Gora3/EHG cluster.
December 16, 2018 at 7:54 PM
Probably not because most, if not all of the Yamnayan samples are derived from L23+ which is well downstream of R1b, let alone when R and Q split from P. That must be at least 25,000 years ago, so it’s not all that relevant. I would imagine the Q guys are related to contemporary Okunevans who have a completely different autosomal structure, yet were in near proximity and overlapped with Yamnaya and Afanasievo.
December 16, 2018 at 8:06 PM
Eh, that Q1a was actually Khvalynsk. Khvalynsk has a WSHG (West_Siberia_N) shift in relation to EHG (plus a CHG shift already known for years), and that the Q1a Khvalynsk guy had the most CHG out of all northern steppe samples (and as much as the Steppe Eneolithic samples in the southern steppe, specifically right next to the North Caucasus). All of that suggest that the Khvalynsk Q1a guy had his Q1a derived from local EHG groups.
December 16, 2018 at 8:14 PM
@AWoods I’m conflicted about that as well: some researchers assume that Okunovo is related to Botai and that both have some Yenisseyan affiliation. I think that both KC/Yenisseyan and Proto-Proto-IE stem from MA1 ANE—> EHG, and that blondism in Yamnaya came with the AG3 mutation. What I am not sure about is the Botai affiliation as I understand R1b samples have been found so maybe some Yamnaya/Khvalynsk link did exist somehow?
December 16, 2018 at 8:16 PM
@JuanRivera I wonder if the CHG in Khvalynsk were the aristocracy which may’ve brought with them the chariots, horse domestication and the kurgan burial customs while the local “commoners” were ANE/EHG or whether the incoming EHG “Indo-Uralic” or “Indo-Yenisseyan” we’re moving westbound from Central Asia and assimilating the local autochthonous CHG population speakers of Hatti/Hurrian/Kartvelian etc.?
December 16, 2018 at 8:23 PM
There appears to be a cline of EHG and CHG, in which there was an abrupt shift somewhat north of the Caucasus. While there’s some CHG in EHG, it’s in the order of single digits, and the bulk of steppe’s CHG (which was different from south caucasian CHG) arrived in the Neolithic and later, bringing with them the Neolithic package and the North Caucasian-like influence observed in PIE (although CHG-heavy people like the Steppe Eneolithic trio and the Khvalynsk Q1a guy spoke languages related to PIE, which went extinct, but not before having an impact upon it). There was also a WHG-ANE cline, in which there appears to be a fast decline in ANE as one goes west, as exemplified by the transition between 65%+ ANE-derived EHG and 30-45% ANE-derived Ukraine_Mesolithic/Ukraine_N. So, while ANE bought R and Q, and pre-PIE language, WHG bought I2a and CHG bought Basal Eurasian (as early as Mesolithic EHG samples), the North Caucasian-like influence in PIE and the neolithic package.
December 16, 2018 at 8:40 PM
The ethnolinguistic phylogenetic picture of NE Europe is far from simple: how else can we square the fact that the Saami language with its strong Uralic N1c3 marker has roughly 1/3 of its vocabulary deriving from some obscure substrate? And, in case this substrate relates to an assimilated WHG/SHG language(s), is it by any chance related to Erteboelle?
December 16, 2018 at 8:44 PM
I heard that the Saami substrate was Basque-like, which if true, would make Basque and the Saami substrate WHG and SHG languages. As for Ertebølle, it was likely related to it because of the proximity to Scandinavia.
December 16, 2018 at 8:53 PM
Now, speaking of Erteboelle Culture, it seems that the Hunter Gatherer I2a Erteboelle + EEF LBK merged to form the Funnelbeaker with its mixed forager/Farmer economy. When IE (R1a1 Rich Corded Ware + R1b Rich Bell Beaker) took over Funnelbeaker/Globolar Amphora and form the basis of the Proto-Germanic Branch, does it indicate that the uniqueness of this branch is because of the Satem (Corded) + Beaker (Centum) merger, or does it alternately indicate a pre-IE substrate?
I also ponder if the historic distinction between Northern Germans (Prussia, Saxony) v. Southern Germans (Bavaria, Austria) and between Protestants v. Catholics, respectively are the outcome of the different origins: WHG/SHG in the north, EEF/Anatolian Neolithic in the South?
December 16, 2018 at 8:54 PM
There appears to be a farming substrate in Proto-Germanic. As for the distinction, Northern Europe used more hunting, gathering, fishing and pastoralism, whereas Southern Europe depended more on agriculture (although some Italic-speaking groups were heavily pastoralist).
December 16, 2018 at 9:03 PM
@JuanRivera – Not sure if it is a „farming” substrate or „Hunting” one: lots of words related to fish like „carp” are regarded pre-IE…who knows?
Second, the so-called non-IE substrate in the German language seem to be obsolete. It is actually strange that during Hitler’s time („pure Aryanism”) the currency of having up to 1/3 of the German language being supposedly non-IE had a momentum whereas nowadays no serious linguist mentions it anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_substrate_hypothesis
December 16, 2018 at 9:09 PM
Here’s a list of alleged words which are or were considered „non-IE” but they overwhelmingly cover „hunting” vocabulary, not „farming” one:
December 16, 2018 at 9:11 PM
Ric Hern said…
As far as I understand Germanic evolved more to the North mostly within Scandinavia. So my guess is a more Hunter Gatherer like Substrate. The fjords and Mountains certainly were more formidable terrain and less suitable for Farming…
December 16, 2018 at 9:16 PM
Ric Hern said…
My other guess is West Germanic = Corded Ware + SHG + Bell Beaker. And East Germanic = Corded Ware + SHG + Proto-Finnic ?
December 16, 2018 at 9:31 PM
One additional interesting point of reference here is that two Non-Indo-European speaking populations have *very* Europoid-looking phenotypes: Mordvins/Mari, who speak Uralic languages and are either EHG/WSHG:
The second population may be a mixture of CHG + Anatolian Farmers, which is the Adyghe/Cherkes who speak a Northwest Caucasus language (postulated by Johanna Nichols to have a phylum with PIE dating back to 12,000YBP (10,000BC):
It is surprising to find out that the putative proximate sources for Yamnaya or other Steppe population speaking Proto-Indo-European languages both look very modern European, despite their non-IE origins.
December 16, 2018 at 9:49 PM
Mari/Komi (Uralic speaking in European Russia) –
December 16, 2018 at 9:52 PM
Komi and Mari people are phenotypically very heterogeneous, with some looking totally North-Central European and others very Siberian. This is because they have 15-25% Siberian admixture, depending on how you calculate and define it, and that’s a lot compared to the vast majority of Indo-European-speaking Europeans. See here…
And nope, latest ancient DNA data refute that idea of any significant migrations of Iberian Bell Beakers out of Iberia. See here…
December 16, 2018 at 10:09 PM
Them meee said…
Also Mordvins are of mostly Eastern European descent, obviously. Also isn’t proto-proto-IE called pre-proto-IE?
December 16, 2018 at 10:15 PM
@Them meee I do not know what came before „Proto-Indo-European”; it is merely a construct of scientists rather than a living language. Additionally, no records of it survived because it was not written. My estimate is perhaps that during the shift from Samara -> Khvalynsk the language started to form and my guess is that it mostly came with the Yeniseian- Kamchatka- like lexicon. Derivation from Afontova-Gora3 is likely so the Indo-Europeans DID have blond hair, at least some alleles for it. What boggles my mind are some unresolved issues:
1. Did the ANE/EHG AG3 migrate west into the Steppe from Lake Baikal post-LGM, then assimilate the original Caucasus HG to incorporate the substrate of the CHG into the mostly Steppe ANE-derived language (close to Kamchatka language family), or did the CHG incursion from South of the Caspian transform Samara into Khvalynsk, with the foreigners being the „Aryan” or the ruling elite, with kurgan burial style, chariots, metallurgy and so on coming in from the „South”. (or via later Maykop).
2. Were the original IE R1b speakers? It seems as though both R1a1 and R1b stem from the Mal’ta Boy or a close lineage so perhaps the languages were of the same language family?
3. Is it probable (if it was not the case above), that the R1a1 were speakers of some „Old Europe” HG language that was „Indo-Europeanized” by the Khvalynsk folks?
4. Maybe the alleged „farmer substrate” in IE languages did NOT come with a Corded Ware substrate but with Yamnaya long term (2 millenia) of contacts with farmer societies to the West of it, such as Cucuteni Tripolye?
5. If indeed the overwhelming majority of Yamnaya (and of Bell Beaker) were R1b-L23 subclade, then who were the (predominantly R1a1) Corded Ware and what’s their relationship to Yamnaya? Is it likely or at least possible they were a sister-Steppe Culture?
I don’t have the answers. I hope Mathieson, Haas, Lazaridis, Reich et al. do, or will soon have 🙂
December 16, 2018 at 10:47 PM
”In other words, it’s likely that most CHG and Iran_N groups spoke languages from highly differentiated language families, while it’s possible that Bronze Age steppe groups spoke closely related languages form the same language family.”
Yes I agree in part.
However, before the steppe groups began to converge in the 5th century, they had been significantly diverged. So it might be that an R1a-M17 in Dereivka spoke a very different language to an R1b in the pre-Volga steppe. Unless one takes Andrzejewski’s view, which IMO is moving into the realm of pseudo-science.
December 16, 2018 at 11:01 PM
Blogger Davidski said…
However, before the steppe groups began to converge in the 5th century, they had been significantly diverged. So it might be that an R1a-M17 in Dereivka spoke a very different language to an R1b in the pre-Volga steppe.
I doubt that because Yamnaya-like populations were already expanding during the Eneolithic from the same relatively compact area, probably from between the Black and Caspian Seas.
We know this because the R1a-M417 sample from Dereivka has a lot of ancestry of this type, unlike the preceding samples from Dereivka. And obviously so do the Eneolithic samples from the North Caucasus Piedmont steppe and Samara.
December 16, 2018 at 11:14 PM
Actually, that Sredny Stog II R1a-M417 sample is from Alexandria not Dereivka. But it’s from eastern Ukraine anyway.
December 16, 2018 at 11:16 PM
“Actually, that Sredny Stog II R1a-M417 sample is from Alexandria not Dereivka. But it’s from eastern Ukraine anyway”
Alexandria site with R1a-M417 belongs to Sredny Stog II Dereivka culture.
December 17, 2018 at 12:36 AM
The migration of ANE to the Pontic-Caspian steppe was somewhere between the end of the LMG and the Younger Dryas. Before ANE came (besides that in CHG), there was a WHG-CHG cline, in which CHG-heavy groups suddenly gave way to CHG-poor groups somewhere between the Black and Caspian sea. Archeology seems to indicate an epigravettian influenced by ideas from the Near East. When ANE came, the WHG-CHG cline was turned into an EHG-CHG cline, given that EHG is ANE+WHG and a little of CHG. When the Neolithic came, CHG-heavy groups contributed more CHG to populations in the north, and with it the Neolithic package. Maykop has nothing to do genetically with the steppe as it has additional Anatolian and Iranian ancestry that’s absent in steppe groups, plus its CHG is different from the one in steppe groups. As for R1a and R1b, both were part of the same population, as R1a was detected in Neolithic and Eneolithic ukrainians and also a sample in Khvalynsk. Likely, there was a cloud of PIE and para-PIE languages stretching from the forest-steppe/forest transition to the North Caucasus, and from the Dniester to somewhat east of the Ural river. As time progressed, also WSHG (West_Siberia_N, which was 80%+ ANE) entered to Khvalynsk and descendant steppe groups from the east. As for blondism, not only AG3 had it, but also it was detected in Samara_EHG, in Khvalynsk and certainly present in Sredny Stog, Steppe Eneolithic and Yamnaya, although their remains didn’t survive. Homogeneization took place in the steppe in such a way that EEF was introduced to the eastern part, WSHG was introduced in the western part, CHG increased in the north, and EHG increased in the south. R1a was sorted more to the north, while R1b was sorted more to the south, resulting in predominantly R1a Corded Ware and predominantly R1b Bell Beakers. While CHG south of the Caucasus didn’t contribute to steppe, not even to EHG, it transmitted the Neolithic package and metallurgy to different „steppe CHG” in the foothills of the North Caucasus, who actually contributed to steppe groups. Meanwhile, the horse seems to be domesticated in the Late Neolithic or Eneolithic by Khvalysnk and Sredny Stog groups, who were poorer in CHG, except for the Q1a sample. Para-PIE languages in the forest-steppe/forest transition and between the Black and Caspian seas went extinct, being replaced by PIE, but not before contributing some terms.
December 17, 2018 at 8:41 AM
“Para-PIE languages in the forest-steppe/forest transition and between the Black and Caspian seas went extinct, being replaced by PIE, but not before contributing some terms.”
Could you tell us in more detail about how you see this process taking place. Where, in which cultures, para-PIE languages were spoken and how, when and where PIE was formed and from where and when it expanded. I think that West Yamnaya where Post-Stog tribes mixed with incoming from the east Yamnaya, forming pre-Corded Ware which then migrated north, is a very interesting period. It is a pity we don’t have aDNA from this time.
December 17, 2018 at 10:54 AM
Or maybe it is likely that they CHG admixture in the Khvalynsk —> Stredny Stog —> Yamnaya is just a genetic drift from ANE —> EHG?
December 17, 2018 at 2:28 PM
Indo-Hittite would fit in the early Eneolithic, with Anatolian migrating out through the Balkans, leaving archeological and genetic traces, whereas core IE remained more time. Indo-Uralic seems EHG. As for CHG, it isn’t just genetic drift as it has Basal Eurasian and ANA ancestry, plus it matches Kotias (a 14 kya sample from the Caucasus) very well, also, the Basal Eurasian and ANA in EHG seems to come from CHG. The CHG in steppe groups seems to match with surface Northwest and Northeast Caucasian (hence North Caucasian) influences in PIE (at the core, PIE is another North Eurasian language family deriving from ANE).
December 17, 2018 at 2:46 PM
Them meee said…
CHG is not a drifted EHG. The CHG in the steppe is… different, but it’s not drifted EHG since it clearly has different origins than EHG.
December 17, 2018 at 3:33 PM
CHG seems to originate in the Near East, from a mixture of ANE and Dzudzuana, whereas EHG is E European in origin, arising out of WHG+ANE+CHG. The two only shared ANE and little Dzudzuana, and then, CHG’s ANE is Mal’ta-like, whereas EHG’s ANE is AG3-like.
December 17, 2018 at 3:39 PM
It’s rather unlikely that anyone lost any sleep over a single allele in a heavily damaged ancient sample, especially also since Yamnaya samples don’t show a high frequency of alleles associated with blond hair or light eyes. The earlier finding that Andronovo from South Siberia was predominantly a blond/light-eyed population probably did cause a bit of panic in some academic circles, but as it turns out now, the reason for this wasn’t Andronovo’s high level of Yamnaya ancestry, but probably admixture from (non-Indo-European) Middle Neolithic farmers living west of the steppe.
December 17, 2018 at 3:58 PM
When it comes to various subclades of R1b I am often at a loss: apparently,a male buried at Lebyazhinka approximately 7,000 years BP and often referred to by scholars of archaeogenetics as the „Samara hunter-gatherer” appears to have carried the rare Y-DNA haplogroup R1b1* (R-L278*).
Now, not even a few hundreds years later, and another subclade of R1b seems to be part of a different horizon:
„Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer (EHG) is a lineage derived predominantly from ANE. It is represented by two individuals from Karelia, one of Y-haplogroup R1a-M417, dated c. 8.4 kya, the other of Y-haplogroup J, date 7.2 kya, and one individual from Samara, of Y-haplogroup R1b-P297, dated 7.6 kya. This lineage is closely related to the ANE sample from Afontova Gora, dated c. 18 kya”.
So, how come the Samara R1b-P297 individual belongs to an „Eastern HG” cluster, whereas an R-L278* (R1b1) from the SAME AREA/Culture is regarded as „Samara Hunter Gatherer” instead of EHG? And what is „Samara HG” anyway?
Also, if all Y-Haplogroups are derived from ANE/AG3, then why would the Y-Haplogroup J individual be part of „EHG” himself?
December 17, 2018 at 4:01 PM
Samara_HG is EHG from Samara. But some of the info on that page is wrong anyway. Karelia_HG doesn’t belong to R1a-M417. So I wouldn’t rely on Wikipedia for this sort of stuff.
December 17, 2018 at 4:05 PM
@DAvidski „The earlier finding that Andronovo from South Siberia was predominantly a blond/light-eyed population probably did cause a bit of panic in some academic circles, but as it turns out now, the reason for this wasn’t Andronovo’s high level of Yamnaya ancestry, but probably admixture from (non-Indo-European) Middle Neolithic farmers living west of the steppe.”
It seems that maybe the reason that Northwestern Caucasus speaking populations such as the Adyghe (Cherkes) https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A0geK957ORhc2yYAn5oPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw–?p=adyghe&fr=yhs-itm-001&hspart=itm&hsimp=yhs-001 look like modern Europeans has perhaps something to do with the almost even mix of Neolithic Anatolian Farmers with Caucasus HGs? Maybe the Nordicists were wrong all along and it actually happened to be Middle Eastern-derived lineages that are responsible for the so-called „Nordic” phenotype instead of the Yamnaya/Steppe ancestors?
But it seems as if the Siberian-descendant lineages like the Mari (Finno Ugric) possess overwhelmingly very Europoid phenotype, albeit with kind of a strong „Ladogan” or „Turanic” WSHG admixture to it.
So, if Steppe populations were largely ANE/EHG-CHG cline, it’s likely that they look like modern Europeans, mainly Eastern Baltics?
It puzzles me why so many non-IE populations from the Caucasus to Lake Baikal look almost identical to modern Europeans. Does it have to do with the mdDNA actually? Hard to know. I DO know that the Steppe populations’ mtDNA vary much: V, H, T, N, K, Z, R, HV, U, etc.
December 17, 2018 at 4:12 PM
EHG and Steppe shared U2, U4, C1, C4a3, C4a6 and C5 with Siberians. T, H, V, K, J, I and W, among others, were introduced by steppe populations to southern Siberia.
December 17, 2018 at 4:31 PM
The are lots of things that fall between the cracks. One of them is the „Semitic question” i.e. where do the Semites come from? The original Natufians as we understand them were one of the first groups to transition from HGs into farming, circa 14,500ybp (around the same time of AG3). Somehow there was a mutual admixture between Natufian and Anatolian Farmers, the latter as I understand it were mostly autochthonous HGs transitioning to agriculture ~12,000 years ago with infusions of Natufians, Iran-related population and WHG from the Balkan?
Now, the story in the Book of Genesis about some mythical warlord figure named „Abraham” originating from Harran, which was inhabited by Hurrians, or even perhaps belonged to the Mittani kingdom 3,700 years ago (Hurrians ruled by a Yamnaya-derived „marianu” elite). Lots of bible researchers analysing the biblical stories of Genesis came to the conclusion that „Abraham” or whoever he represented was NOT a Semite but a Hurrian, and that many of the customs (e.g. passing a wife off as a sister, etc) derived from Hurrian folklore.
Now, modern geneticists conclude that the current Middle Eastern population is an admixture of the original „Semites” (=Natufians) with a strong demic diffusion of Iran_N/CHG. The Hurrians may as well be descendants of the Kura-Araxes culture. Modern Lebanese DNA is 92% Natufian + Iran_N.
Now, to complicate things even more, perhaps what happened after the Uruk migration is that those „Hurrians” carried J1 and J2 into the Levant, and that the aboriginal Y-DNA Haplogroups of E1b1b were replaced by Caucasus Hunter Gatherer/Iran_N DNA?
Some researchers theorize that the Amorites were actually Hurrians/Urartu/CHG who switched their speech into Semitic languages.
IF all these data point are correct and interconnected, it may turn out that a Yamnaya-style male migration of Hurrians/CHG altered the original Y-DNA of the ME. The only problem that underlies it all is a simple one: HOW DID THE SEMITIC LANGUAGE SURVIVE LIKE THE BASQUE INSTEAD OF THE INDIGENOUS „SEMITES” LANGUAGE-SHIFTING TO HURRIAN/Northwest Caucasian?
December 17, 2018 at 4:31 PM
Blogger JuanRivera said…
Replacement of H lineages was from both steppe and CHG, the latter localized to the south. The CHG input in southern Europe certainly began in the Neolithic, as evidenced by Pelopponense_N. As for Semitic, they survived because they were also desert pastoralists, giving them a base from which expand.
December 17, 2018 at 4:48 PM
The GAC (Globular Amphora Culture) was the founding upon the CWC was installed. I am starting to think that the Corded Ware was a natural growth of the preceding Stredny Stog and perhaps even stretching back as far as the Bog-Dniester and Dniester-Donets. R1a1 was indigenous to its area and spanning all the way to contemporary Poland with its own Satemized version of the Para-PIE language(s) while Yamnaya was R1b (what happened to all the Samara Culture abundant R1a1, I wonder), Centum, and it later gave rise to Bell Beaker.
December 17, 2018 at 8:34 PM
Ric Hern said…
My personal view is that R1a was more abundant in the Forest Steppe to the North. R1b was more the Open Plains guys. Contact zone of R1a and R1b I was in the area where Forest gave way to Grassland.
December 17, 2018 at 8:46 PM
@Ric Hern do you agree that both R1a1 and R1b were originally speakers of some variations of a PIE language, or do you think R1b was “first” and R1a1 was “Indo-Europeanized”? What’s your opinion about the transformation of Samara —> Khvalynsk Culture and the role CHG elements might’ve played in it?
December 17, 2018 at 8:51 PM
Ric Hern said…
Maybe the split between R1a and R1b happened near the Lower Don with R1a moving up the Don and R1b migrating to the Balkans along the Black Sea Coast.
December 17, 2018 at 8:55 PM
Ric Hern said…
I think neither R1a or R1b spoke PIE before they started to mingle during the Eneolithic. When you bake a cake you have to have all the ingredients otherwise it will not be a cake. Heheheeh…
December 17, 2018 at 9:09 PM
R1a, and especially its R1a-M417 subclade, doesn’t look like it was common anywhere before the Indo-European expansions. It certainly was nowhere near Poland until the Corded Ware people got there. R1b was much more common in the steppe and forest steppe throughout the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Eneolithic, all the way from the Baltic to Central Asia.
December 17, 2018 at 9:10 PM
Greek language have Anatolian substratum, in central Greece placenames, so possibly Minoan was related to Anatolian. While western Corded Ware in Holand is ancestral to Bell Beaker culture, and Basque are almost identical to western Bell Beaker. According to Grigoriev theory the Indoeuropean languages came to Northern and Central Europe not earlier than late Bronze age.
December 18, 2018 at 2:08 AM
Indoeuropean Migration in northern/central Europe 1400 BC according to Archeologist Grigoriev
Also pre-Celtic Bronze age Britain is almost identical to eastern Corded Ware, they are possibly the ancestors of Picts that are possibly related to Basque , and it is considered that German languages have substratum that is related to North Caucasian or to Basque
December 18, 2018 at 3:10 AM
Eastern Corded Ware was closely related to Trzcieniec culture and to modern Balto-Slavs. Everything matches, including the subclades of R1a and mtDNA. See here…
It shows no relation to Basques at all. Also, Picts were Indo-Europeans. So Grigoriev was obviously wrong about a lot of things.
December 18, 2018 at 3:32 AM
It’s like this…
Corded Ware > Trzciniec culture > R1a-M417(Z282+) Balto-Slavs
Corded Ware > Sintashta culture > R1a-M417(Z93+) Indo-Iranians
There’s no need to reinvent the wheel based on outdated archeological data.
December 18, 2018 at 3:57 AM
That sounds like a fringe theory. The fact is that Balto-Slavs and Indo-Aryans are related linguistically and genetically, and E1b1 has nothing to do it. So those ancient E1b1 samples weren’t Indo-Aryans. Indo-Aryans are derived from R1a-rich Sintashta. See here…
December 18, 2018 at 4:30 AM
The Balto-Slavic paternal marker is R1a-M417. It comes from Corded Ware. So Corded Ware was Proto-Balto-Slavic. There were no other later migrations that had any real impact on the Balto-Slavic gene pool.
December 18, 2018 at 6:01 AM
N1c1 is also very rare among Hungarians, almost absent
December 18, 2018 at 7:39 AM
„@Geroge N1c1 is also very rare among Hungarians, almost absent” @Slumbery
Magyar who invaded Hungary from the Steppes in the 900s were not genetically Uralic but had R1a1 marker. Perhaps indicative of a language shift? The Scythian Confederacy of tribes was very diverse and the Steppes included people of different ancestries. Khazars (supposed ancestors of Eastern European Jews by some) were also mostly R1a1, and 3 Khazar tribes (Kabars) joined the Hungarians in the invasion of Pannonia.
December 18, 2018 at 9:20 AM
It’s now almost cristal clear that IE was carried by steppe populations, and a somewhat less clear thing is to what IE is most closesly related, among north eurasian languages.
December 18, 2018 at 12:40 PM
PhD Project at at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History (MPI-SHH)
04 Contact and change in the diversification of the Indo-Iranic languages.
“While Indo-Iranic languages began to diversify already millennia ago, their extensive attestation across a long historical period makes them an excellent site for observing processes of linguistic change. Processes of linguistic change in Indo-Iranic are relevant for better understanding of the origin and diversification of Indo-European languages more generally, which has been an important research theme for scholars in both FSU and MPI-SHH.
Throughout their histories, Indo-Iranic languages have been involved in a wide range of contact scenarios in very diverse social, political and cultural configurations. This has led to significant borrowing and convergence in different languages at different points in time. The wide diffusion of Indo-Iranic into central Asia has led to contact with Turkic and other families of central and northern Asia, while there has been considerable contact in the western part of the Indo-Iranic area with languages of the Caucasus on the one hand and Afroasiatic languages on the other, while in the east of the area Indo-Iranic languages have been in contact with Dravidian and Sino-Tibetan ones. Not to be discounted either are phenomena of lateral transfer within Indo-Iranic, across the long history of the family.
This work would naturally take place in a cross-linguistic environment, combining lines of evidence also from archaeology and archaeogenetics to draw inference about the history of peoples speaking Indo-Iranic languages.”
I don’t think they will get a better understanding of the origin and diversification of Indo-European languages by studying interactions of Indo-Iranic with Turkic, Afroasiatic and Caucasian languages together with genes. Studying Indo-Iranic and Balto-Slavic languages and genes would be a much better idea for understanding of the origin and diversification of Indo-European languages. They would even have a chance of getting close to PIE.
December 18, 2018 at 12:55 PM
Them meee said…
It doesn’t smell like, it obviously is. This has been their intention for years. Also comparing Indo-Iranian with Turkic and studying their interactions will only improve our knowledge of Proto-Turkic.
December 18, 2018 at 1:10 PM
The Tocharians remain a mystery: an IE people, Native to NW China, which may or may not be descennded from its first inhabitants, the Tarim Basin Mummies. Unlike their neighbors the Scythians who were Indo-Iranic Satem speaking and R1a1,
the Tocharians (also called Yuezhi and Wusun, as well as Kushans) were R1b, spoke a Centum language and wore tartan and other forks of attire reminiscent of Celts and Germans of NW Europe. Along with the Saka (Scythians) the Tocharian ruled most of Asia before caving in to East Eurasian population like Turkic, Tungusic and Han Chinese. No fixed verifiable link to Tarim Basin Mummies and/or to Afanasievo Culture has ever been undisputably established yet.
December 18, 2018 at 1:40 PM
The MPI-SHH is going to push for a southern origin for Indo-Iranian, because the MPI-SHH was always going to do that, and we all knew it, including you. There’s nothing sophisticated behind its stance on the matter.
Obviously, the major Sintashta-derived cultural transformations in what is now Iran took place from the Late Bronze Age and well into the Iron Age. This is the mainstream narrative, including and especially among Iranian academics, and absolutely fits with the latest ancient DNA data from Central and West Asia.
A palimpsest grave at the Iron Age cemetery in Estark-Joshaqan, Iran
Corded Ware, Sintashta and Andronovo/Srubnaya are also the only ancient cultures and populations that really link Indo-European-speaking Europeans with Indo-European-speaking Iranians and South Asians. The early appearance of Indo-Iranians in West Asian can be explained by very early incursions from the steppe, well before the main Indo-Iranian migrations from there.
Poking holes in pet theories floated by various academics at one time or another isn’t very clever or useful.
December 18, 2018 at 8:56 PM
R1a1 is the key to both Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic. There is obviously one or more missing links here. I would tentatively advocate the the Corded Ware was a direct extension of the preceding Sredny Stog and not a Yamnaya. My hypothesis is: Sredny Stog -> Corded Ware -> Balto-Slav; Stregny Stog -> Sintashta -> Andronovo -> Indo-Iranian. So, the Balto-Slav branch may be a sister branch to Indo-Iranian, but does it also mean that it was rich in EEF/WHG admixture through maternal mtDNA? If Sintashta is regarded an extension of the CWC and not the Sredny Stog itself, then it may lack the EEF/WHG components.
December 18, 2018 at 9:21 PM
There have been so many indicators as to why Farmer ancestry did not contribute to PIE creation. The „“Dispatches From Turtle Island” paper that I was quoting was putting to rest the question of any influence from Caucasus groups being a demic one in lieu of a mere cultural diffusion, as was the case. Furthermore, it was finally the nail in the coffin of the theory that „PIE came from the CHG” groups. I did NOT. The paper found no discernible similarity between Maykop or any Caucasus-based group, and concluded that the cultural impact from the Caucasus may have been the kurgan, some religious ideas and metallurgy, very strong signals of Steppe culture, albeit the impact was shy of being also linguistic. Therefore, PIE came with the ANE/EHG and NOT from the Caucasus/Middle East/West Asia.
December 18, 2018 at 9:29 PM
As for the Hungarian King Béla III, this was posted recently on Anthrogenica:
Based on the Y-STR haplotype of King Béla III, we estimated with the machine learning algorithm in the first step that he belonged to the R1a-Z93 subgroup
that is most common among Indo-Iranic and Turkic speaking peoples. The second step predicted that King Béla III belonged to the Z2123 subgroup of R1a-
Z93. The Phylogenetic analysis showed King Béla III most likely belonged to the relatively rare YP451+ YP449-subgroup of Z2123, which practically only appears in the North Caucasus, especially among Karachays and Balkars.
According to Wikipedia:
The Karachays (Къарачайлыла, Qaraçaylıla) are a Turkic people descended from the Kipchaks, and share their language with the Kumyks from Daghestan. The modern Balkars identify as a Turkic people, who share their language with the Karachays from Karachay-Cherkessia and Kumyks from Dagestan. The ethnogenesis of the Balkars resulted, in part, from an invasion of Alania during the 11th century, by Kipchak Turks and their Cuman allies.
December 18, 2018 at 10:15 PM
Lots of Indo-Iranians from the steppe became Turkic speakers during the Middle Ages. It seems like some joined the ranks of the Magyars who were migrating into the Carpathian Basin. But another option are political and familial royal links between early Hungary and the Turkic tribes from north of the Caucasus.
December 18, 2018 at 10:20 PM
@Davidsky + Kristiina
Just for the record. The 900 AD Hungarians being a mixed Uralic-Turkic alliance is pretty much canon. And one of the reasons for this that the Hungarian envoys who visited the Byzantine court in 948 AD pretty much spelled this out, when they said that the Hungarians had two languages and then gave example words for the two languages. The Byzantines noted that one of the languages is similar to the language of Bashkirs and the other was not familiar for them. The envoys also self identified as „Turks”.
Of course the reliability of Medieval sources is always a shaky area, even when they claim first hand information like this, but the thing is, this is so far compatible with linguistic and archaeology as well as with later Hungarian sources that talk about 3 joined Turkic tribes (and possibly that was just one event in a multi-step mixing process).
Given that early Medieval western Turkic groups tended to pack a lot of steppe Iranian ancestry, there is an obvious connection.
Early sources also claim that there was strong connection with the Khazars before they moved west and a Khazar connection with intermarriages can serve as a bridge to modern groups in the Caucasus too. So really, there is plenty of plausible way for the founder dynasty to have this particular lineage.
December 18, 2018 at 11:17 PM
@Zarzian @Them meee Eneolithic Iran was populated by Elamites, Kassites, Gutians, Sumerians, Akkadians, Hurrian-Urartu, Subartians – none of them spoke any Indo-European language. It was only after 1,000BC that the Persians and the Medes descended from beyond the Zagros mountains and gradually assimilated all the Native non-IE populations. They had Steppe ancestry and they also referred to themselves as “Aryans”, meaning “noble”. The Steppe charioteers constituted the elite in the conquered countries – Iran and India, same as their fellow Steppe bands conquered Anatolia and ruled over the native non-IE Hatti and Hurrians, who were either CHG, EEF or an admixture of both.
December 19, 2018 at 8:04 AM
BTW, what do you think about the eupedia.com website? I personally think that they are either outdated or off-the-mark on lots of things. I recall reading the Proto-Indo-European was, according to them, a „jargon/creole” language, created by a merger of R1a1 Indo-Uralic speakers with an R1b component of CHG speakers of Hurrian/Kartvelian. Even in 2014-15 many of their theories seemed not too grounded in science but quite speculative.
December 19, 2018 at 6:20 PM
The speculations at Eupedia about the dispersals of PIE and related genetic markers are indeed outdated and nowadays just look outright stupid, and that’s the start of the problems there. But I don’t think the author will ever move with the times and the data, because he and his core followers seem to have a big emotional investment in PIE and R1b-M269 originating south of the Caucasus, and moving in tandem to the steppe during the Eneolithic or maybe Bronze Age.
So it’s best to avoid Eupedia if you’re looking for unbiased and up to date opinions and generally correct information.
It’s sad to watch when people get obsessed with their pet theories like this and lose touch with reality. It’s a similar case with Carlos, who’s posting total garbage regularly trying to convince the world and probably himself that Corded Ware Culture was Uralic and R1a-Z645 is the Proto-Uralic marker.
The guy’s totally lost it, but he’s dug such a hole for himself that I don’t think his ego will ever let him climb out of it.
December 19, 2018 at 6:40 PM
„The Balto-Slavic paternal marker is R1a-M417. It comes from Corded Ware. So Corded Ware was Proto-Balto-Slavic.”
This would imply that Indo-Iranians were Balto-Slavs, which doesn’t make much sense from the linguistic point of view. It would be much more appropriate to say that R1a-M417 was originally associated with a population ancestral to both the Balto-Slavs and Indo-Iranians, plus maybe to some related (Satem?) extinct branches, for example to some hypothetical Satem dialects initially associated with R1a-Z284 or R1a-L664. Thus, I doubt that the Corded Ware people spoke Proto-Balto-Slavic.
I would rather call this Corded Ware language (Pre-)Proto-Balto-Slavo-Indo-Iranian, while Proto-Balto-Slavic was most likely spoken in Trzciniec, or in Trzciniec-Sosnica-Komarov horizon.
December 20, 2018 at 4:09 PM
Right, what I meant was that R1a-M417 was the Balto-Slavic paternal marker, but not exclusively so, and also not that Indo-Iranians were Balto-Slavs.
December 20, 2018 at 6:57 PM
„The Balto-Slavic paternal marker is R1a-M417. It comes from Corded Ware. So Corded Ware was Proto-Balto-Slavic.”
Definitely the language of Corded Ware was closer to Proto-Balto-Slavic than to Proto-Indo-Iranian IMO. We don’t know the language of Corded Ware but we know that that it influenced Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Balto-Slavic and therefore it is now often called Indo-Slavic, based on common origin and many similarities between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages. Indo-Slavic has not been reconstructed and Proto-Balto-Slavic has not been reconstructed too so we cannot say that the language of Corded Ware was not Proto-Balto-Slavic or that it was Proto-Balto-Slavic.
But actually I think that it is very probable that the language of Corded Ware was intelligible to much greater degree to Proto-Balto-Slavs than it was to Proto-Indo-Iranians and in such a case we could say that Corded Ware was indeed Proto-Balto-Slavic.
I think it is very likely because languages change when people move and mix. Indo-Iranians moved a lot, mixed a lot, are far away from Corded Ware origin. Balto-Slavs didn’t move, didn’t mix and remain exactly where Corded Ware originated and first expanded.
So it is logical to assume that Balto-Slavs preserved their original language better. Another thing is the stability of religion and culture which influences language changes.
There are many common things in believes, myths, customs, poetic conventions, metaphors, symbols, between Vedic traditions in India, Orphic in Greece and Slavic. I believe it is very likely that these common things originated in Corded Ware. Because they survived among Slavs until modern times, it suggests a very stable religion and culture in our region.
December 21, 2018 at 1:18 AM
@EastPole The Slavic languages have 3 layers: the first, most original one, is the CWC-derived one.
Then later on because of Slavs being under Scythian domination for centuries, there were lots of lexical words coming from Scythian-Sarmatian Iranic languages. That is ON TOP of the fact that the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranic branches were already close. Words like „bog” came from Iranic into Slavic. Then during the medieval times both West Slavs (Poles, Czech) and Eastern Slavs (Varangians) came under Germanic influences, which further transformed the languages (words like Szlachta, Rycerz, etc). A striking feature is how modern Lithuanian is the closest among living languages to PIE.
December 21, 2018 at 1:13 PM
“@EastPole The Slavic languages have 3 layers: the first, most original one, is the CWC-derived one. Then later on because of Slavs being under Scythian domination for centuries, there were lots of lexical words coming from Scythian-Sarmatian Iranic languages. That is ON TOP of the fact that the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranic branches were already close. Words like „bog” came from Iranic into Slavic.”
No, you are wrong. Read some books:
Slavic names like Boleslav were used in Corded Ware. Here is the proof:
So it follows that Slavic ‘l’ is older than Sanskrit ‘r’: Sk. ‘r’ < Sl. ‘l’ Sk. ‘Bhurishrava’ < Sl. ‘Boleslav’
Some poetic meters in oldest Vedic and Greek poetry are the same as in Slavic poetry, probably also from CWC:
Vedic religious and spiritual vocabulary is especially close to Slavic and mostly from Slavic, i.e. Vedic gods have better etymology in Slavic than in Sanskrit. So in my opinion the chances that the language of CWC was close to Slavic are very high.
December 21, 2018 at 3:08 PM
@East Pole The „Iranic” influence is via the Scythian/Sarmatian/Alan who had subjugated the Slavs. Both were R1a1 but Scythians were warlike and despite what’s called „Iranic”, they had a very Europoid or even „Nordic” appearance.
December 21, 2018 at 9:48 PM
“”Indobaltic” would more fit the concept of how the language family names are done. Usualy the both extreme, geographical oposites. Like Indoeuropean (both extreme ends: India and Europe), originally called „Indogermanic” (both extreme ends India and Iceland (Germanic) So, a proto Satem langauge would logically be named „Indobaltic” or „Baltoindic” or something.”
In such a case Indo-Slavic is definitely more logical, Slavs have lived west of Balts and have been much more populous.
“@East Pole The „Iranic” influence is via the Scythian/Sarmatian/Alan who had subjugated the Slavs. Both were R1a1 but Scythians were warlike and despite what’s called „Iranic”, they had a very Europoid or even „Nordic” appearance.”
We have plenty of aDNA of Scythians, show me on PCA which Scythians subjugated the Slavs and had Iranic component. Ossetians for example who are often linked with Alans don’t have any R1a at all, are autosomaly Caucasian and don’t have the word ‘bog’, which is, as most competent linguists agree, Slavic.
Notice that Slavs don’t have East Asian component so common among Scythians / Sarmatians and also don’t have their Y-dna. Scythians / Sarmatians were very diverse, very multicultural people and you don’t know anything about them.
December 22, 2018 at 12:06 AM
From David Reich’s article:
“Nevertheless, ancient DNA data has provided evidence that the Yamnaya were indeed a society in which power was concentrated among a small number of elite males. The Y chromosomes that the Yamnaya carried were nearly all of a few types, which shows that a limited number of males must have been extraordinarily successful in spreading their genes. In contrast, in their mitochondrial DNA, the Yamnaya had more diverse sequences.9 The descendants of the Yamnaya or their close relatives spread their Y chromosomes into Europe and India, and the demographic impact of this expansion was profound, as the Y-chromosome types they carried were absent in Europe and India before the Bronze Age but are predominant in both places today.”
I understand that by close relatives of Yamnaya he means CWC who spread R1a-Z645 to India, which was absent there before the Bronze Age.
December 22, 2018 at 3:17 PM
@East Pole ““Nevertheless, ancient DNA data has provided evidence that the Yamnaya were indeed a society in which power was concentrated among a small number of elite males. The Y chromosomes that the Yamnaya carried were nearly all of a few types, which shows that a limited number of males must have been extraordinarily successful in spreading their genes. In contrast, in their mitochondrial DNA, the Yamnaya had more diverse sequences.9 The descendants of the Yamnaya or their close relatives spread their Y chromosomes into Europe and India, and the demographic impact of this expansion was profound, as the Y-chromosome types they carried were absent in Europe and India before the Bronze Age but are predominant in both places today.”
Not just their (rather limited, ie R1b and also R1a1) Y-DNA Hap (all derived from EHG, ANE sources), which make me and @JuanRivera link them to other Siberiann-based ANE rich populations like Nivkh-Chukotko-Kamadatcha, (point is that both me and @Davidski claim that the PIE originally came from AG3 or its ilk and NOT from any CHC source); the Yamnaya mtDNA was rich in East-CWC (Poland, Czech Republic of today). All these findings make me proud that my culture (assuming that Poland’s population has been largely continuous with Poland_EBA) is overwhelmingly a direct descendant of Steppe populations (Yamnaya or a closely related R1a1 one, not necessarily Yamnaya per se), both on the uniparental Y-DNa but also on the MATERNAL side. This dinlstinguisges Slavic populations who are directly offsprings of East-CWC v. Germans and other Western Euros who are scions of Western-CWC and have therefore more Anatolia_N on the maternal side.
December 22, 2018 at 4:41 PM
This distinguishes Slavic populations who are directly offsprings of East-CWC v. Germans and other Western Euros who are scions of Western-CWC and have therefore more Anatolia_N on the maternal side.
Nope. Northwest Europeans, and especially North and East Germans are way closer to Poles and Russians in terms of ancient ancestry proportions, including Anatolian_N ancestry, than they are to the French, let alone Iberians and Italians. On the other hand, Iberians and Italians are closer to Slavs from the Balkans than they are to Northwest Europeans.
December 22, 2018 at 4:49 PM
Allo-allo, czyli przeciw-logiczne i przeciw-słowiańśkie fielko-giermańśkie goebbelsizmy jakie są każdy może teraz zobaczyć… 🙂