The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans

[Jaska]

https://scholarlypublications.universite...14602/view
PROTO-INDO-ANATOLIAN, THE “ANATOLIAN SPLIT” AND THE “ANATOLIAN TREK”:
A COMPARATIVE LINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVE
Alwin Kloekhorst

This is an excellent article. Loanwords in Hittite include the local city-culture words, showing that Anatolian is a newcomer in Anatolia; the inherited words point to a steppe pastoralist lifestyle, yet still without the wheel. 

They choose to believe in the Indo-Uralic relatedness, which would nicely agree with Proto-Indo-Anatolian being located in the Lower Volga Region.

[pelop]

There are also questions with the  uniparentals. If CLV is the PIA genetic cluster you would expect R1bV1636 to pop up in decent amount in the most progress derived cluster that is Yamnaya. R1b M269, R1a M417 and I2a must have learned the language from R1b V1636 male clans right? Unless proved otherwise we must conclude that the Dneper Don male clans strongly patriarchal ones must have learned PIA from northern caucasian women. Ther is no way to turn it around. Is that likely?

The problem with this argument is that I-L699 also became virtually non-existent in BA European steppe-derived populations. Zero Corded Ware or Bell Beaker samples with I-L699 and only a couple of Bulgarian Yamnaya samples (that don't seem to have left many descendants).

[old europe]

There are also questions with the  uniparentals. If CLV is the PIA genetic cluster you would expect R1bV1636 to pop up in decent amount in the most progress derived cluster that is Yamnaya. R1b M269, R1a M417 and I2a must have learned the language from R1b V1636 male clans right? Unless proved otherwise we must conclude that the Dneper Don male clans strongly patriarchal ones must have learned PIA from northern caucasian women. Ther is no way to turn it around. Is that likely?

The problem with this argument is that I-L699 also became virtually non-existent in BA European steppe-derived populations. Zero Corded Ware or Bell Beaker samples with I-L699 and only a couple of Bulgarian Yamnaya samples (that don't seem to have left many descendants).

you are clutching at straws: NOBODY SAYS THAT I2 was the only PIE marker. That is precisely why smart people tie PIE to at leat 3 Ylines I2-R1b M 269 and R1a M417.

It si strange to claim that only 1 yline ( that is R1b V1636) is tied to PIE when the main culture responsible for spreading LPIE, yamnaya, has no R1b V1636 in it. You would expect this line to turn out at least in decent numbers among them. Just think to the lower Don Yamnaya samples: this the region of the eastern pontic steppe nearest to the northern caucasus and it turned out to be full of tons of I2a samples besides the round of the mill R1bZ103 yamnaya. Very strange

[pelop]

There are also questions with the  uniparentals. If CLV is the PIA genetic cluster you would expect R1bV1636 to pop up in decent amount in the most progress derived cluster that is Yamnaya. R1b M269, R1a M417 and I2a must have learned the language from R1b V1636 male clans right? Unless proved otherwise we must conclude that the Dneper Don male clans strongly patriarchal ones must have learned PIA from northern caucasian women. Ther is no way to turn it around. Is that likely?

The problem with this argument is that I-L699 also became virtually non-existent in BA European steppe-derived populations. Zero Corded Ware or Bell Beaker samples with I-L699 and only a couple of Bulgarian Yamnaya samples (that don't seem to have left many descendants).

you are clutching at straws: NOBODY SAYS THAT I2 was the only PIE marker. That is precisely why smart people tie PIE to at leat 3 Ylines I2-R1b M 269 and R1a M417.

It si strange to claim that only 1 yline ( that is R1b V1636) is tied to PIE when the main culture responsible for spreading LPIE, yamnaya, has no R1b V1636 in it. You would expect this line to turn out at least in decent numbers among them. Just think to the lower Don Yamnaya samples: this the region of the eastern pontic steppe nearest to the northern caucasus and it turned out to be full of tons of I2a samples besides the round of the mill R1bZ103 yamnaya. Very strange

These arguments don't make any sense. We've not found any M269 in Cernavoda or Usatovo either but you are one of the biggest proponents of them being PIE speakers, if I'm not mistaken. Do you believe the Cernavoda L699 individual from Kartal spoke a different language than the V1636 Cernavoda individual from Kartal?

[old europe]

The problem with this argument is that I-L699 also became virtually non-existent in BA European steppe-derived populations. Zero Corded Ware or Bell Beaker samples with I-L699 and only a couple of Bulgarian Yamnaya samples (that don't seem to have left many descendants).

you are clutching at straws: NOBODY SAYS THAT I2 was the only PIE marker. That is precisely why smart people tie PIE to at leat 3 Ylines I2-R1b M 269 and R1a M417.

It si strange to claim that only 1 yline ( that is R1b V1636) is tied to PIE when the main culture responsible for spreading LPIE, yamnaya, has no R1b V1636 in it. You would expect this line to turn out at least in decent numbers among them. Just think to the lower Don Yamnaya samples: this the region of the eastern pontic steppe nearest to the northern caucasus and it turned out to be full of tons of I2a samples besides the round of the mill R1bZ103 yamnaya. Very strange

These arguments don't make any sense. We've not found any M269 in Cernavoda or Usatovo either but you are one of the biggest proponents of them being PIE speakers, if I'm not mistaken. Do you believe the Cernavoda L699 individual from Kartal spoke a different language than the V1636 Cernavoda individual from Kartal?

people learn a new language either because they come into contact with a superior like culture that  is so rich an attractive that makes them switch to a more prestigious language or because they come under the political and military influence of other male clans. Of course after the invention of writing everything changes and there are other ways of spreading a language but when PIE was born it was a two way model of changing  language. In the steppe there were no major gap in civilazation between the different clusters ( Volga-Don Dneper- northern caucasus) so it highly unlikely that language changed because of contact with higher culture. Ironically the only civilazation that could attract other people to learn its language was the Cucuteni Tyrpilla one. But it is unlikely. So we are left with the military/violent kind of scenary. People that root for the R1bV1626 thesis should provide evidence of where and when R1b V1636 entered into contact with archeological culture rich in R1b M 269 and R1a M417 and made them switch language. Am I asking too much? I want to be provided with the kind of evidence we see in europe west of the former USSR.  autosomally    EEF and rich in G2 and I2 that all of of a sudden in just a couple of generations a complete switch especially ( and that is quite telling) in the Yline profile ( with tons of R1a and R1b). And we see the same mechanism all over again in many other language shift at least in every preliterary society.

[alanarchae]

having read up a bit more on the more up to date archaeological papers on Turkey c.4500-2500BC, I still think it’s far more likely the Anatolian’s came via the Balkans. There seems to river systems that could take pastoralists very quickly from east Thrace towards the area of Ankara and central Anatolia. The east of Turkey adjacent to the south Caucasus was flooded by non IE Kura-Araces peoples. I also doubt the alternitive idea that Anatolian IEs came from the steppe by bypassing the Caucuses mountains by migrating along the black sea east coast to Anatolia because the black sea coast of the south/west Caucasus and pretty well all the black sea coast of Anatolia was a dense and deep band of forest. Not at all ideal for steppe pastoralists.
They may well partly descend from pre Yamnaya Sredny Stog pastoralists but I reckon the route bis east Thrace is much more likely and they have fuund apparently north Balkans linked kurgan in east Thrace which date to about 3200BC which is prior to the Yamnaya invasion of old Europe. So imo the Anatolians and their language likely was located in the Balkans after early pre yamnaya migration from the steppes there and had reached turkish thrace by 3300-3200BC.

[Kale]

2 kaman Kalehoyuk samples from 1500 bc(pretty late) do show steppe,but the isparta,amsaya (likely palaic and luwian speakers)and other samples from central Anatolia don't show any 'CLV' ancestry or connection
I wonder how they dealt with this or simply brushed it under the carpet?

You got me interested, so here are some qpadm on the area. Didn't try to model the CHG-heavy outliers (Aknashen, Kura-Araxes > Arslantepe outliers). Ikiztepe on the Black Sea coast wants a little extra CHG, but it just barely fails this setup. 
https://genarchivist.com/attachment.php?aid=999

Here's a map showing those (L)CA/EBA samples.
Red = Has CLV
Black = no CLV
Blue = Some samples do some don't
   

[targaryen]

We have IBD between CLVs in the steppe and those Central Anatolian samples. That seals the deal. Proto-Anatolians were CLVs who mixed with Mesopotamians and attacked Anatolia from the east.

Archeology is important but let's not forget archeologists said Italo-Celtic came from the Danube and genetics throw that theory out the window.

Reich & co managed to to outdo both linguists and archeologists and answer a 200 year old question.

[old europe]

We have IBD between CLVs in the steppe and those Central Anatolian samples. That seals the deal. Proto-Anatolians were CLVs who mixed with Mesopotamians and attacked Anatolia from the east.

Archeology is important but let's not forget archeologists said Italo-Celtic came from the Danube and genetics throw that theory out the window.

Reich & co managed to to outdo both linguists and archeologists and answer a 200 year old question.

the authors of the paper just a few months ago " SEALED THE DEAL" in favour of the south of the caucasus theory just to go into into an humiliating back track.Credit to them but

1) what I do not agree with them is their boldness in seeing the CLV cluster as the SOLE generator of Indo Anatolian languages. tHis is contrast to what THEY THEMSELVES at the end recognize. Sorry to post it once again but in the presentation of the paper they ( I repeat THEY, NOT ME) recognize as the ultimate and prevalent source of the CWC steppe component the Golubaya Krinitsa   samples. The strange thing is that they decided that this was irrelevant to the proto Indo Anatolia   issue.  My take is this

1) INDO ANATOLIAN  STAGE: The Dneper Don foragers  expand to the Volga and to the northern caucasus: R1a and I2 start to show up in Khvalynsk

Target: RUS_Khvalynsk_LN:I11837
Distance: 3.3479% / 0.03347887 | R5P
49.8 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
15.4 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
15.0 RUS_Vologda_Veretye_Meso
13.2 RUS_Karelia_HG_Meso
6.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_Meso


RUS_Stavropol_Progress_Eneolithic
GolubayaKrinitsa_LowerDon.SG 0.370076 0.0422111 8.76728
Caucasus_Eneolithic 0.336401 0.0253511 13.2697
Tajikistan_Tutkaul_N 0.293523 0.0290258 10.1125
Tail: 0.16

At this stage every corner of the pontic caspian steppe speaks an indo anatolian dialects.

2) 4500 BC Proto anatolian language split and ( suppose the eastern track) and go to anatolia

3) Indo anatolian dialects that remain in the homeland ( Dneper -Don ) evolved archeologically into Sredni Stog and in virtue of the contact with the EEF societies evolved toward a more core PIE dialect likely richer in agricoltural terminology


If we refuse this explanation which just uses data that THEY PROVIDE we go back to the south of caucasus theory because you are obliged to see PIA as a Caucasus eneolithic language or a language from Central Asia ( Tutkaul)

[Southpaw]

How important was the Cucuteni-Tripolye influence on proto-PIE on terms of cultural influence?

[Jaska]

We have IBD between CLVs in the steppe and those Central Anatolian samples. That seals the deal. Proto-Anatolians were CLVs who mixed with Mesopotamians and attacked Anatolia from the east.

Archeology is important but let's not forget archeologists said Italo-Celtic came from the Danube and genetics throw that theory out the window.

Reich & co managed to to outdo both linguists and archeologists and answer a 200 year old question.

1. Could you tell, why the shared IBD would agree only with the eastern route? 

2. Indeed, migrations or linguistic expansions cannot be seen reliably from the archaeological data. Similarly, linguistic or cultural expansions cannot be seen from the genetic data, and genetic or cultural expansions cannot be seen from the linguistic data. Each discipline only studies its own object, nothing else.

3. Therefore, no genetic study can overrule the linguistic results. But concerning the route of the Anatolian branch, we have at the moment no compelling evidence supporting either western or eastern route. Therefore, we can take hints from genetics or archaeology.

[jdean]

We have IBD between CLVs in the steppe and those Central Anatolian samples. That seals the deal. Proto-Anatolians were CLVs who mixed with Mesopotamians and attacked Anatolia from the east.

Archeology is important but let's not forget archeologists said Italo-Celtic came from the Danube and genetics throw that theory out the window.

Reich & co managed to to outdo both linguists and archeologists and answer a 200 year old question.

1. Could you tell, why the shared IBD would agree only with the eastern route? 

2. Indeed, migrations or linguistic expansions cannot be seen reliably from the archaeological data. Similarly, linguistic or cultural expansions cannot be seen from the genetic data, and genetic or cultural expansions cannot be seen from the linguistic data. Each discipline only studies its own object, nothing else.

3. Therefore, no genetic study can overrule the linguistic results. But concerning the route of the Anatolian branch, we have at the moment no compelling evidence supporting either western or eastern route. Therefore, we can take hints from genetics or archaeology.

What are your thoughts on Kloekhorst's idea concerning the Kizil Irmak river, it appears you don’t find it 'compelling' but do you have issues with it ?

This distribution of Anatolian languages on all sides of the Kizil Irmak’s bend, while a non-Indo-European language was spoken inside the bend, strongly suggests that the speakers of these Anatolian languages came from the west, but that their migration was initially blocked by the Kizil Irmak river, which they were not able to cross in large enough numbers to settle on its east side.

[pelop]

People that root for the R1bV1626 thesis should provide evidence of where and when R1b V1636 entered into contact with archeological culture rich in R1b M 269 and R1a M417 and made them switch language. Am I asking too much?

There was no culture "rich in R-M269 and R-M417" before the late 4th millennium BC because these founder effects are strongly associated with the Yamnaya and Corded Ware expansions. M417 has a ~3300 BC TMRCA, good luck finding it in 4000 BC or before.

There's also no "R-V1636 thesis", this is just something you've invented yourself.

[okshtunas]

People that root for the R1bV1626 thesis should provide evidence of where and when R1b V1636 entered into contact with archeological culture rich in R1b M 269 and R1a M417 and made them switch language. Am I asking too much?

There was no culture "rich in R-M269 and R-M417" before the late 4th millennium BC because these founder effects are strongly associated with the Yamnaya and Corded Ware expansions. M417 has a ~3300 BC TMRCA, good luck finding it in 4000 BC or before.

There's also no "R-V1636 thesis", this is just something you've invented yourself.

Well you're incorrect (depending how you look at it).

R1a-M417 has a TMRCA of 5400ybp, or roughly 3400 BCE. However, it formed 8700ybp, or roughly 6700BCE. So, M417 individuals obviously existed long before the TMRCA. It is only that, all surviving men under M417 belong to one founder, 5400ybp. All the other singletons died out. There is no knowing how prevalent or spread out they once were. 

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-M417/

In the case of R1b-M269, the TMRCA is 6400ybp, or roughly 4400BCE. However, it formed 13300ybp, or roughly 11300BCE, with all its singletons besides the remaining one in 4400BCE were wiped out. 

https://www.yfull.com/tree/r-m269/

Also, take into account the possibility as some would suggest that TMRCA calculations may be underestimated by 10-15%.

Which would push this back further in time

[pelop]

So, M417 individuals obviously existed long before the TMRCA. It is only that, all surviving men under M417 belong to one founder, 5400ybp. All the other singletons died out. There is no knowing how prevalent or spread out they once were. 

There's no need for these SNPs to have been prevalent or spread out, because founder effects don't require it. That's the whole point.