The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans

[Jaska]

Indo-Anatolian was specifically designed, as a term, to designate the non-steppe Indoeuropeans. Since this non-steppe hypothesis is effectively dead, it is obsolete and should be abandoned. Honestly not even some aspects of the chronology and branching events are that clear at this stage, since one thing is for certain, the Pre-Anatolian group made a long journey which made it deviate strongly from the trunk group of IE.
I always asked myself, if its about linguistic branching events and chronology, how they can effectively account for large scale substrate effects in particular. I have to confess I know very little about linguistics and probably that perspective is naive to some who know more, but from a purely logical point of view, the linguistic chronologies could be seriously skewed by various factors IMHO.

Since the early divergence of Anatolian is nowadays universally accepted, there is a need to distinguish between the two chronological stages. Proto-Indo-Anatolian can also be called Early Proto-Indo-European, but the former label tells clearly that Anatolian is the outlier. 

You are absolutely right that those phylolinguistic methods, which are based merely on the number of shared words between branches, are prone to several distorting processes, like strong substrate or other foreign influence (leading to too few shared words) or shared areal development of different related branches (leading to too many shared words). Therefore traditional historical linguistic methods and criteria (quality over quantity; historical phonology and morphology over shared words) are still the best way to build family trees. And if the family tree is based on false results, then the chronology based on the family tree also becomes erroneous.

P.S. Labels like Indo-Germanisch, Indo-European and Indo-Anatolian are based on geographic opposite ends; similarly like Finno-Ugric. So, according to many languages, the line between the two parts should be long; this might confuse some readers.

[Jaska]

In the Laz paper they went to great lengths to model BA Central Anatolia (Hittites), the only ones with Steppe ancestry. The best model is with Sredni Stih ancestry. Needing Sredni Stih ancestry to model BA Anatolia is evidence for a Western entrance to Anatolia as neither their Hypothesis B or A-East account for the presence of Sredni Stih or Core Yamnaya ancestry in the PIA.

Is it evidence for the western route? Is there Serednii Stih ancestry all the way through the Balkan? Not to my knowledge. In that case, the western route does not differ from the eastern route. Eastern route is supported by the Mesopotamian ancestry, too, and the lack of the EEF and WHG ancestries.  

Eventually it is irrelevant even though the genetic results would point to the eastern route, because only linguistic results could conclude the route for the Anatolian languages - language is not inherited in the DNA. And there is no law of nature requiring that the clearest genetically visible migration should be connected to that language lineage: it could also be that the Anatolian language spread via the western route and that the eastern migration was totally unrelated to it. 

Unfortunately there is no conclusive linguistic evidence concerning the expansion of the Anatolian branch. One possible hint could be a morphological feature shared by East Greek and Anatolian, pointed out by Andrew Garrett earlier ( https://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~garret...rgence.pdf ). This COULD be due to Pre-Proto-Anatolian substrate from the time when (Pre-)Proto-Greek expanded to the Southeasternmost Balkan. How uncertain this is, it is still a possible evidence for the route taken from the north by (Pre-)Proto-Anatolian. Nothing similar has been proposed between Anatolian and Armenian, which could favor western route for Anatolian. But these hints are uncertain and inconclusive.

[jdean]

By the way, the lengths that they have gone to not offend non-Europeans is sad but totally expected given the world we live in. To completely remove the word "European" and go with “Proto-Indo-Anatolian” is unforgivable. Descendant European languages are the most common languages spoken in the world. Perhaps they were afraid they were going to offend the speakers of the long dead Anatolian languages.

It says Indo-Europeans right there in the title. They use Indo-Anatolian and Indo-European to disambiguate between the stage that included Anatolian languages and the stage after these had split, what some linguists call "late PIE".

I'm obviously talking about the linguistic terminology and not the "Indo-Europeans" as a people. Indo-Anatolian is just as wrong as if they had termed it Euro-Anatolian.

It seems this is not a term they came up, Alwin Kloekhorst uses it in his essay 'Proto-Indo-Anatolian, The “Anatolian Split” and the “Anatolian Trek”: A Comparative Linguistic Perspective'

But it's a lot older than that, Wiki  Indo-Hittite

[jdean]

I never let the issue of Anatolian bother me. We don’t have sampled we can confidently calll Anatolian speakers until a ute about of time after the batch off from the other IEs. Just look at the extreme dilution seen among the Mycenaean Greeks and then consider that the ancestors of the Anatolian lspent up to a millennium isolated from the other IEs (which likely means further dilution by non IEs) which the proto Greeks didn’t. Then consider the state-like social structure of the Hittites etc. I don’t think it’s that surprising that little genetic trace existed by 2000BC. The Anatolian’s should not be used as a weapon against the steppe hypothesis.

For the record I think they were likely some isooctane Suvorovo descended group of Steeny Stars f roots who were holed up somewhere for 1000 years before crossing to Anatolia. I strongly favour an east Balkans and/or maritime entry into Anatolia c.3000BC after spending about 1000 years somewhere in the Balkans.

Buy isn't this the point of these new papers that they do have evidence of Steppe ingress in central Anatolia who they assume were Anatolian speakers ?

[okshtunas]

It has been known for a while that PIE expanded only with EHG and WHG yline that is R1b M 269 and I2a
according to this paper . If that is right ( a big if) then Quiles was at least partially right

Partially right about what exactly in relation to R1a?

[Psynome]

Is it evidence for the western route? Is there Serednii Stih ancestry all the way through the Balkan? Not to my knowledge. In that case, the western route does not differ from the eastern route. Eastern route is supported by the Mesopotamian ancestry, too, and the lack of the EEF and WHG ancestries.  

In page 208 of the supplement, the authors model combinations of Anatolian sources and say this: "In conclusion it is possible that the Çayönü-related ancestry in TUR_C_BA could reflect populations on the path from southeastern Anatolia to central Anatolia and future studies may clarify if the admixture occurred in the east of the Hittite area followed by migration of the admixed population, or in Central Anatolia itself."

So despite using the label Mesopotamian for Çayönü ancestry they admit it could have just as easily already been in Central Anatolia at the time of admixure, weakening the association with the east.

[Jerome]

Interesting,I tried to follow their model from a G25 run(I know it's not Qpadm but I will have this run on Qpadm later)

I assume this means genotype data is available?

The cayonu and anatolian ba samples were already available theres nothing new In that.

[Jerome]

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?

[targaryen]

I may be just a dilettante at best while potentially reading some of these posts wrong, but this idea that R1a-M417 men joined in with the R1b-M269 men (who are supposedly the oldest proto-PIE speakers?) just seems like total nonsense and a gross oversimplification out of 2015 Apricity or something. Pretty much all of these Eastern European hunter gatherer/forager/fisher/pastoralist groups were mixtures of R1a, R1b, I2, Q1a, Q1b, and even J1 and J2 clades. Some para-IE groups likely had V1636 and M269 lines, others had near exclusively Z2103 or L51, with some minority lineages (I2-L699, Y13200, etc.). Sounds like we should delve more into the specific branches of these clades, rather than blankly assuming that somehow, all M417 men represent this completely different ethno-linguisitc coterie. It’s not like there was a pure, large late Neolithic “R1a” clan that somehow had DNA testing, and they were like “hey you R1b guys, we’re like brothers, let’s conquered the world!” These were very closely related networks and founder effects were common, just look at the Y-DNA diversity of Khvalynsk. Minority Y-DNA lines are almost always in human groups dominated by one or two haplogroups.

It's by sheer coincidence that a relatively static part of your Y-DNA matches with the cultural notion of a surname/clan, so it's not that far fetched.

Yamnaya had different clans and members of the same clan would have almost exclusively belonged to the same Y-DNA. Different clans fighting one another is nothing new.

[targaryen]

I never let the issue of Anatolian bother me. We don’t have sampled we can confidently calll Anatolian speakers until a ute about of time after the batch off from the other IEs. Just look at the extreme dilution seen among the Mycenaean Greeks and then consider that the ancestors of the Anatolian lspent up to a millennium isolated from the other IEs (which likely means further dilution by non IEs) which the proto Greeks didn’t. Then consider the state-like social structure of the Hittites etc. I don’t think it’s that surprising that little genetic trace existed by 2000BC. The Anatolian’s should not be used as a weapon against the steppe hypothesis.

For the record I think they were likely some isooctane Suvorovo descended group of Steeny Stars f roots who were holed up somewhere for 1000 years before crossing to Anatolia. I strongly favour an east Balkans and/or maritime entry into Anatolia c.3000BC after spending about 1000 years somewhere in the Balkans.

Its not used as a weapon against steppe hypothesis. The paper literally wrote that pre-SS people migrated to the Caucasus and East Anatolia. 

We have Anatolians with 10% of this "archaic steppe" component similar to Myceneans with Yamnaya. Plus there are plenty of ancient South Caucasians with R1b.

[targaryen]

It is over

https://ibb.co/n6CS2kj

In the Laz paper they went to great lengths to model BA Central Anatolia (Hittites), the only ones with Steppe ancestry. The best model is with Sredni Stih ancestry. Needing Sredni Stih ancestry to model BA Anatolia is evidence for a Western entrance to Anatolia as neither their Hypothesis B or A-East account for the presence of Sredni Stih or Core Yamnaya ancestry in the PIA.

Lol what? They literally state the eastern route in their abstract. Those samples are 90% Mesopotamian + 10% non-Yamnaya CLV.

[old europe]

It is over

https://ibb.co/n6CS2kj

In the Laz paper they went to great lengths to model BA Central Anatolia (Hittites), the only ones with Steppe ancestry. The best model is with Sredni Stih ancestry. Needing Sredni Stih ancestry to model BA Anatolia is evidence for a Western entrance to Anatolia as neither their Hypothesis B or A-East account for the presence of Sredni Stih or Core Yamnaya ancestry in the PIA.

Lol what? They literally state the eastern route in their abstract. Those samples are 90% Mesopotamian + 10% non-Yamnaya CLV.

in any case no matter what

[alanarchae]

I think in fairly simple patriarchal clan type societies without any impact from other more advanced more civic societies there would be a striking tendency for yDNA lineages and languages to align. It’s only a problem if you apply that as an absolute. There are clearly cases when individuals of a different y lineage (craft specialists, fosteelings who never returned home to their biological tribe, NPEs etc) or smaller clans attach themselves to a powerful clan and might adopt their genealogy and identity. If a small number of individuals are somehow accepted into the clan then this may be forgotten with time (and the clan historian figure may fascikitate this with falsifying their pedigree -as seen in Gaelic genealogies) and by chance one of these ‘cuckoos’ could rise to the top and spawn a large lineage themselves. I think these are exceptions to the rule but did happen.

Once you have a more complex siciety based on civic institutions, the role of biological lineage of course weakens greatly or at least gete a lot more complex and less exclusive in many cases.

[R.Rocca]

I may be just a dilettante at best while potentially reading some of these posts wrong, but this idea that R1a-M417 men joined in with the R1b-M269 men (who are supposedly the oldest proto-PIE speakers?) just seems like total nonsense and a gross oversimplification out of 2015 Apricity or something. Pretty much all of these Eastern European hunter gatherer/forager/fisher/pastoralist groups were mixtures of R1a, R1b, I2, Q1a, Q1b, and even J1 and J2 clades. Some para-IE groups likely had V1636 and M269 lines, others had near exclusively Z2103 or L51, with some minority lineages (I2-L699, Y13200, etc.). Sounds like we should delve more into the specific branches of these clades, rather than blankly assuming that somehow, all M417 men represent this completely different ethno-linguisitc coterie. It’s not like there was a pure, large late Neolithic “R1a” clan that somehow had DNA testing, and they were like “hey you R1b guys, we’re like brothers, let’s conquered the world!” These were very closely related networks and founder effects were common, just look at the Y-DNA diversity of Khvalynsk. Minority Y-DNA lines are almost always in human groups dominated by one or two haplogroups.

Maybe I missed it, but I have not seen a single post on this thread where anyone is claiming exclusivity, so the Apricity comment is a poor choice on your part. If R1a and L51 get mentioned a lot is because most folks on this site are European and there R1a and L51 came out being the largest expanders into Central and Western Europe by far. To your point, the earliest Serednii Stih were mostly I2a, so clans that started as a single cultural entity eventually split into others and that's were the Y-DNA founder effects come into play.

[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. 

  Qpadm42224.xls (Size: 20 KB / Downloads: 32)