search this blog

Friday, August 2, 2019

The PIE homeland controversy: August 2019 status report


Archeologist David Anthony has a new paper on the Indo-European homeland debate titled Archaeology, Genetics, and Language in the Steppes: A Comment on Bomhard. It's part of a series of articles dealing with Allan R. Bomhard's "Caucasian substrate hypothesis" in the latest edition of The Journal of Indo-European Studies. It's also available, without any restrictions, here.

Any thoughts? Feel free to share them in the comments below. Admittedly, I found this part somewhat puzzling (emphasis is mine):

It was the faint trace of WHG, perhaps 3% of whole Yamnaya genomes, that identified this admixture as coming from Europe, not the Caucasus, according to Wang et al. (2018). Colleagues in David Reich’s lab commented that this small fraction of WHG ancestry could have come from many different geographic places and populations.

I think that's highly optimistic. It really should be obvious by now thanks to archeological and ancient genomic data, including both uniparental and genome-wide variants, that the Yamnaya people were practically entirely derived from Eneolithic populations native to the Pontic-Caspian (PC) steppe. So, in all likelihood, this was also the source of their minor WHG ancestry.

Indeed, they clearly weren't some mishmash of geographically, culturally and genetically disparate groups that had just arrived in Eastern Europe, but the direct descendants of closely related and already significantly Yamnaya-like peoples associated with long-standing PC steppe archeological cultures such as Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog. I discussed this earlier this year, soon after the Wang et al. paper was published:

On Maykop ancestry in Yamnaya

I hope I'm wrong, but I get the feeling that the scientists at the Reich Lab are finding this difficult to accept, because it doesn't gel with their theory that archaic Proto-Indo-European (PIE) wasn't spoken on the PC steppe, but rather south of the Caucasus, and that late or rather nuclear PIE was introduced into the PC steppe by migrants from the Maykop culture who were somehow involved in the formation of the Yamnaya horizon.

Inexplicably, after citing Wang et al. on multiple occasions and arguing against any significant gene flow between Maykop and Yamnaya groups, Anthony fails to mention Steppe Maykop. But the Steppe Maykop people are an awesome argument against the idea that there was anything more than occasional mating between the Maykop and Yamnaya populations, because they were wedged between them, and yet clearly distinct from both, with a surprisingly high ratio of West Siberian forager-related ancestry (see here and here).


Despite all the talk lately about the potential cultural, linguistic and genetic ties between Maykop and Yamnaya, including claims that the latter possibly acquired its wagons from the former, my view is that the Steppe Maykop and Yamnaya wagon drivers may have competed with each other and eventually clashed in a big way. Indeed, take a look at what happens after Yamnaya burials rather suddenly replace those of Steppe Maykop just north of the Caucasus around 3,000 BCE.

Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
RUS_Progress_En_PG2001 0.808±0.058
RUS_Steppe_Maykop 0.000
UKR_Sredny_Stog_II_En_I6561 0.192±0.058
chisq 13.859
tail prob 0.383882
Full output

Yep, total population replacement with no significant gene flow between the two groups. Apparently, as far as I can tell, there's not even a hint that a few Steppe Maykop stragglers were incorporated into the ranks of the newcomers. Where did they go? Hard to say for now. Maybe they ran for the hills nearby?

Intriguingly, Anthony reveals a few details about new samples from three different Eneolithic steppe burial sites associated with the Khvalynsk culture:

The Reich lab now has whole-genome aDNA data from more than 30 individuals from three Eneolithic cemeteries in the Volga steppes between the cities of Saratov and Samara (Khlopkov Bugor, Khvalynsk, and Ekaterinovka), all dated around the middle of the fifth millennium BC.

...

Most of the males belonged to Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b1a, like almost all Yamnaya males, but Khvalynsk also had some minority Y-chromosome haplogroups (R1a, Q1a, J, I2a2) that do not appear or appear only rarely (I2a2) in Yamnaya graves.

As far as I can tell, he suggests that they'll be published in the forthcoming Narasimhan et al. paper. If so, it sounds like the paper will have many more ancient samples than its early preprint that was posted at bioRxiv last year.

For me the really fascinating thing in regards to these new samples is how scarce Y-haplogroup R1a appears to have been everywhere before the expansion by the putative Indo-European-speaking steppe ancestors of the Corded Ware culture (CWC) people. It's basically always outnumbered by other haplogroups wherever it's found prior to about 3,000 BCE, even on the PC steppe. But then, suddenly, its R1a-M417 subclade goes BOOM! And that's why I call it...

The beast among Y-haplogroups

At this stage, I'm not sure how to interpret the presence of Y-haplogroup J in the Khvalynsk population. It may or may not be important to the PIE homeland debate. Keep in mind that J is present in two foragers from Karelia and Popovo, northern Russia, dated to the Mesolithic period and with no obvious foreign ancestry. So it need not have arrived north of the Caspian as late as the Eneolithic with migrants rich in southern ancestry from the Caucasus or what is now Iran. In other words, for the time being, the steppe PIE homeland theory appears safe.

See also...

Did South Caspian hunter-fishers really migrate to Eastern Europe?

The PIE homeland controversy: January 2019 status report

Late PIE ground zero now obvious; location of PIE homeland still uncertain, but...

538 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 538   Newer›   Newest»
zardos said...

I don’t mean its irrelevant in general, but which kind of comparison are you supposed to make with a sole survivor?

If the recent findings taught us one thing, it is that where a people lives now had quite often little to do with where they came from.

At the time of the first IE studies, with rather stable, long lasting European nations, the idea of conquerors bringing a culture and language to people as far apart as Celts and Indo-Aryans was novel indeed.

How can you say were Proto-Basques were 5000 years ago?

JuanRivera said...

Actually, Tocharians certainily come from steppe groups. The question is if from Afanasievo or Andronovo.

JuanRivera said...

Is interesting too that Kumtepe 4 is radically different in composition from Barcin_C.

JuanRivera said...

The closeness of Shirenzigou to Huns argues against an Afanasievo origin.

Apostolos said...

'Steppe Maykop' is not a thing.

Greeks believed essentially that the ancestors of NWC speakers were essentially, at least partially, Pthiotic Achaei of Jason's crew and Laconians. That's a myth but whatever. (I will make a religion out of these myths to justify believing in them if some people have a problem with that)

They also believed, that there were people who were 'anciently Hellenes', afaiu in the Volga Finnic area, certainly in the forest steppe.

The thing that I would like to learn is if any of the lineages in these regions can have Greek Neolithic origin or common origin outside of what is now Greece (but where?) that would explain the existence of these traditions.

**
Concerning L51 I would associate it to prehistoric pile dwellings around the Alps (and ultimately a Villabruna related population). Certainly it would be interesting to find out what haplogroups they had, even if it would be something like G2a.

Also Cardial and Impressed Ware cultures should be studied more.

Andrzejewski said...

@Matt & @All Anthony: “But Wang et al. (2018) complicated that picture. From the first Eneolithic farmers who appeared at Unakozovskaya in the northwest Caucasus about 4600 BC to the Maikop culture, all of them had significant CHG ancestry, on a cline of 28-60%. But the other 72-40% of their ancestry can be modeled as an admixture of Anatolian Farmer (the great majority), Levantine Neolithic, and Ganj-Dareh-type Iranian Farmer ancestries. The Anatolian Farmer component is bar-graphed as 30-40% of the Eneolithic farmers’ ancestry (Wang et al. 2018: Figure 2c)”

So if Eneolithic Farmers of Darkveti Meshoko were 30%-40% Anatolian Farmers, doesn’t it imply that in most likelihood NW Caucasus languages were probably Anatolian derived and close or related to LBK and Tripolye ones (and maybe to Etruscan and Lemnian and the 40% non-IE substrate in Greek)?

Andrzejewski said...

@JuanRivera, @All From the Anthony paper (reply to Bomhard): “Yamnaya men were almost exclusively R1b, and pre-Yamnaya Eneolithic Volga-Caspian-Caucasus steppe men were principally R1b, with a significant Q1a minority.”

I’m curious what happened to the Q1a minority. Where did it disappear?

Also, Khvalynsk had a significant minority of R1a1 (most likely from Ukraine). Then what happened that Yamnaya was almost exclusively R1b?

A said...

@Apostolos. « They also believed, that there were people who were 'anciently Hellenes', afaiu in the Volga Finnic area, certainly in the forest steppe. »

What’s your source for that?

JuanRivera said...

The Khvalynsk Q1a seems specifically Q1a* (unless I'm missing something). Q1a* could be anywhere, because it's far older than Khvalynsk. However, Q-L932 clades seem quite appropriate as steppe Q1a clades, as they can all be foundin present-day IE-speaking areas (except for China and Arabia, which aren't IE-speaking), all with time depths of less than 6 kya BP, except for Q-L932 itself, Q-L933, Q-Y48703 and Q-BZ1466.

Andrzejewski said...

@JuanRivera Yes, but what happened to all these Q1a and R1a of Khvalynsk culture? How come Yamnaya was overwhelmingly R1b with nary a trace of Q1a or R1a?

Andrzejewski said...

Anthony sort of agreed with Bomhard that PIE was created as a merger of pre-Uralic in two stages with CHG language(s): early Eastern Caucasus influenced PIE’s morphology and phonology while later Maikop (NW Caucasus) influenced just the lexicon. Do you agree with their assessment?

For some reason I think the non-CHG one couldn’t have been pre-Uralic but something else.

Andrzejewski said...

All Anthony: “But Wang et al. (2018) complicated that picture. From the first Eneolithic farmers who appeared at Unakozovskaya in the northwest Caucasus about 4600 BC to the Maikop culture, all of them had significant CHG ancestry, on a cline of 28-60%. But the other 72-40% of their ancestry can be modeled as an admixture of Anatolian Farmer (the great majority), Levantine Neolithic, and Ganj-Dareh-type Iranian Farmer ancestries. The Anatolian Farmer component is bar-graphed as 30-40% of the Eneolithic farmers’ ancestry (Wang et al. 2018: Figure 2c)”

So if Eneolithic Farmers of Darkveti Meshoko were 30%-40% Anatolian Farmers, doesn’t it imply that in most likelihood NW Caucasus languages were probably Anatolian derived and close or related to LBK and Tripolye ones (and maybe to Etruscan and Lemnian and the 40% non-IE substrate in Greek)?

JuanRivera said...

I don't have any idea where or how those R1a, Q1a and J were hiding.

Ebizur said...

JuanRivera wrote,

"Meanwhile, I'm using the G25 map to model the Itelmen, which are near purely Magadan_BA"

What is the source of this "Itelmen" sample?

It is a bit difficult for me to believe that an Itelmen sample could be "purely" anything because the Itelmen hardly exist as a distinct ethnolinguistic group at present. Almost all of them should have Russian admixture and possibly also admixture from various non-Chukotko-Kamchatkan indigenous ethnic groups of Siberia and vicinity, Evens in particular.

Gabriel said...

I agree with Matt and Sam, the fact is that:

-Steppe Bell Beakers resemble Corded Ware
-early Steppe Bell Beakers don’t resemble Basques, but Northern Europeans, and are close to Nordic Bronze Age and Celtic fringe populations, the latter who are their utmost modern descendants, whereas Basques have significant additional farmer ancestry
-Germanic and Germanic-related groups carry R1b-L51 in significant amounts, and it looks unlikely this is associated with any non-Indo-European substrate
-R1b-Z2103 is present in Balto-Slavs and Indo-Iranians, and they don’t seem to show any Vasconic or Caucasian substrate

If anyone can argue against these, then let me know.

JuanRivera said...

R1b-Z2013 is present in all other IE groups. So, it seems more pan-IE, and given that all of them have steppe admixture, it can be linked easily to steppe admixture.

Gabriel said...

@JuanRivera

You’re right. In fact, R1b-Z2103 is present in Albanians and Greeks, and I’m not very confident it’s Pelasgian or something like that.

Matt said...

@Gaska: I don't know what you think, but I think nobody is trying to take the Basque to the steppes

Yes, I am engaging with the hypothesis which some have presented in these very comment threads that the Basque language derives ultimately from a Copper Age steppe urheimat, and was brought there by a movement by a patrlineal clan whose descendents never changed languages, at approximately 2500 BCE.

"Basque from the steppes" been argued in this thread and others.

I am aware you have not made this argument, but not everything is about you or in relation to arguments you have made, or the "our" who you often seem to presume to speak for.

@zardos: I don’t mean its irrelevant in general, but which kind of comparison are you supposed to make with a sole survivor?

Historical linguistics would not engage with claims that languages originated far from where they are found, without a linguistic argument, even if it is feasible that they originated far from where they are found today.

For'ex on other isolates, some Japanese or Korean are argued to originate from further west, but this is on attempts to tie them into a wider Transeurasian family and languages which are attested and exist there. Dravidian (less an isolate, but a family) some would argue had an external origin, but they make this argument on linguistic grounds of arguing for a relationship to Elamite (which I think the consensus does not agree on).

But in both cases, linguists would remain circumspect about suggestions that they must have come from very far away, without direct distributional evidence. It's quite possible and indeed more parsimonious that Japanese or Korean is anciently language of some people on the Korean Peninsula or Japanese mainland, and that Dravidian the language was the language of some people in India.

Take Burushaski; it would be quite possible probably to imagine some scenario where Burushaski is the last remnant of a large sphere of Burushakian languages, associated with movements of whatever their modal y haplogroup is, from some specific place where that y haplogroup recently expanded from, when it expanded. But what are linguists meant to make of those claims when there is no actual attested linguistic evidence for any of that sphere or broader presence of the language? And the larger this sphere that is imagined, the more questionable it becomes that *some* evidence of this was not left at the time languages become attested, and the less parsimonious it becomes.

zardos said...

I know the cases you brought up very well, but following your argument, linguists just dont have the last word.

Japanese for example must be from further East and Dravidian came with the Iranian farmers in all likelihood, regardless of a securely proven external relationship.

Or does anyone propose American Indian languages being native to the continent on an absolute way, if there would be no Eurasian relatives?

And a complete exchange of paternal lineages in a couple of generations by conquest is usually close to pioneer settlements. It almost always results in linguistic change.

And yes, genetically and physically Basques are what to expect from a steppe Beaker - Neolithic Mediterranean mixture.
The issue is, the other Western Europeans are not as clear cut. They have additional, later incoming influences of significance.

Thats why I consider the possibility of BB being not IE as a whole. Simply because its possible. Basque continuity from their paternal BB ancestors is certain. The continuity of language with BB being Proto-Italo-Celtic is not. Even if ots likely and might become almost certain with more Italic and Celtic warrior samples.

Ebizur said...

JuanRivera wrote,

"Squares with the fact that R1a can be found in Chukotko-Kamchatkan speakers (but not R1b, at least not yet)."

Dr. Tatiana Karafet's team's sample of eleven Koryaks contains a member of haplogroup J2b-M12 and a member of haplogroup O2a2-P201(xM134, M7). Both are very exotic Y-DNA haplogroups for the region; J2b-M12 has been observed elsewhere mainly among people in Southern Europe and South Asia, and O2a2-P201(xO2a2b1-M134, O2a2a1a2-M7) has been observed elsewhere mainly among southern Han Chinese (O2a2a-M188(xO2a2a1a2-M7)) and among people in Hunan Province of South-Central China, coastal East Asia, and Austronesia (O2a2b2-N6).

JuanRivera said...

So has Q1a-MEH2* at an unprecedent frequency, unmatched by any other population. So far, among ancient samples, Q1a-MEH2* has been found in Amerindians, Saqqaq (unless I'm missing something) and Khvalynsk (again, unless I'm missing something, and not directly, instead deduced from synonymous SNPs). That only serves to state the obvious, that Q1a-MEH2* is very widespread and, as such, it's meaningless to tie it except to an ANE population. About the J2b-M12, it could have been carried by the Sintashta-like population, as it has small but detectable EEF. Regarding the O2a2-P201(xM134, M7), there are similar phenomena, such as the division in Y between a northern Y1 and mainly southern Y2, the presence of B in Amerindians, whereas in Siberia it's observed among the Yakut as the farthest, and the distribution of P1-M45*, which is abundant in Central Asia, South Asia and Southeast Asia, but very low or absent in China.

zardos said...

Japanese from the West of course.

Drago said...

Matt raises some interesting points which can looked at further


a) no centre of the distribution argument; and no particular strong argument for violation of the centre of the distribution principle


The issue is that there this ''centre'' disappeared. As I outlined, the direct clannic descendants of the core Yamnaya groups dispersed to Afansievo, which was locally replaced; and Catacomb, which eventually also dipsersed due to the arrival of NW Caucasian speakers in the foorhills & Andronovo peoples in the steppe.
So why should there be any trace of a group which dispsersed over 4, 000 years ago, and in a zone where several turnovers of pre-literate societies ocurred.

b) no evidence of a wider distribution of either Basque or Iberian related languages than SW Europe at all

Yet, you seem to have recently suggesting that Vasconic arrived to Iberia with Urnfield culture.

One the one hand, Vasconic can't possibly have arrived to Iberia from central Europe 4,500 years ago because there's no evidence left, but precisely because the lack of this evidence, the logical conclusion is that it in fact arrived much later ?!

c) little to no family relationship reconstructed through the comparative method lexical and grammatical relationship between Basque and Iberian (despite claims of a relatively shallow linguistic divergence, comparable with that between two Indo-European stocks)

That seems to be your personal opinion, Matty. One only needs to gander at the similarities in the decimal systems between Basque & Iberian to consider the possibility. Have you any specific refutations to Iberian linguist Eduardo Orduna's very suggestion?

d) no linguistic paleontology reconstructing an Euskarro-iberian urheimat at a particular place and time (as the old school Indo-European historical linguists would like and place faith in), certainly not the late Copper->Bronze Age and not the steppes

Let's be serious; paleolinguistics cant reconstruct which patch of land languages come from.

e) no core lexical divergence work reconstructing a late Copper->Bronze Age divergence (as the new school Bayesian phylo linguists would like)

However, is there any evidence to the contrary ? If so please provide it

To imagine that mainstream linguistics and the experts linking mainstream linguistics and archaeology will accept a "Basque from the steppes"

The perspective is not that Basque came from the steppe, but the core of its ancestors did. The central tenet really isnt about Vasconic . In anycase, the mainstream linguists seem to think that Basques come from the Ice Age. So that's not a very sturdy theorem





Drago said...

Two final points

''To imagine ..that R1b-M269 male groups would and could not have switched languages under any circumstances (until "elite dominance/recruitment" by "Iron Age Celts"), seems quite fanciful to me. ''

Well, La Tene period Celts did migrate to Iberia.
For elite recruitement to occur, someone has to exist. Hence, this model can be employed in the Iron Age, when heriarchies already existed, but it cannot be employed in LCA Iberia - & Atlantic Europe as a whole, when arriving BB seemed to have purged the pre-existing status quo.
But this is not to suggest that the series of Celtic Cremation cemeteries which dot the north Mesetan landscape single handedly Celticized western Europe, or even Iberia. Indeed, the process might have begun much earlier. As you suggest - it might be precisely because some M269 males could switch languages that, L151 became a marker of NW Indo-European

FrankN said...

Dave:
"there are also several lose ends in regards to the steppe homeland theory, such as the lack of corroboration from aDNA for the steppe origins of the Hittites and Tocharians .."

Fair enough. I'd like to add the Swat Valley samples. The Swat River appears in the Rigvedas as Suvastu, with IE etymology, so the IA samples from there should represent IE speakers.

Now, there is pretty solid evidence of (late) Proto-Uralic borrowing from Indo-Aryan, and the most plausible zone of contact was the S. Urals during Sintashta times [Parpola argues for Sumerian as (Para-)Uralic, with Maykop as northward link, but I have a hard time to align such a scenario with the archeological and aDNA record.] Doesn't that mean that - in spite of weak aDNA evidence - the Sintashta, ultimately Steppe origin of Indo-Aryan may be regarded as linguistically assured?

Well, apparently Indic contains some traces of Centum languages, e.g. Bangani koto, Kashmiri hata "hundred". Zoller 2016 assesses the linguistic Picture in quite some detail and concludes (emphasis is mine):

“I have shown that at the time of Old Indo-Aryan there must have existed a linkage of lects, with Vedic just one of them. These lectal differentiations seem to suggest that the standard model of the three branches of Indo-Iranian is in need of a revision. Their existence also supports the idea of the earlier immigration of the ancestor(s) of the Outer Language which led to a strong encounter with Munda/Austro-Asiatic languages (but to a weak encounter in case of Vedic and Classical Sanskrit) which must have dominated the prehistoric linguistic area of northern India. This dominance must have extended far into prehistory because of the many parallels in the language isolate Burushaski. ”

https://www.hf.uio.no/ikos/forskning/publikasjoner/tidsskrifter/acta/volum_77/ao_2016_cpz.pdf:

IOW: Even if we accept Vedic Sanskrit as Sintashta, ultimately Steppe-derived, it apparently wasn't the first IE language arriving in India. Instead, it overformed earlier IE languages spoken there (which may, or may not, have been related to Tocharian).

IMO, everything at the moment points to (pre-)PIE originating from the S. Caspian. This includes Matt's latest PCA (thx, Matt, btw, for the efforts you always put into these). The Khvalynsk-Progress cline there points eastwards towards Tajiks, and when extrapolated further towards "ancients", it lands somewhere between Iran_Hotu and Saraszm. [The archeological connection between those two is well established: Neolithisation of Central Asian by the Jeitun culture originated in the Alborz foothills.]

FrankN said...

Having said that, there are still two things that puzzle me:

1. In terms of basic lexicon, PIE appears to have most in common with Chukotko-Kamshatkan. I also compared the PIE Swadesh 100 list with Proto-Wakashan-Nivkh-Algic (PAW) as proposed by S. Nikolaev (links under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algic_languages), with a surprisingly high number of parallels that go beyond what I term "paleo-substrate". E.g., PIE *h₁egʷʰ- “drink” and *h₂ékʷeh₂ "water" find almost perfect matches in Nikolaev's reconstruction. What is even more intriguing is that Nikolaew reconstructs *wä- "water" as generic PAW term (water body, liquid, etc.), with *hek - wä meaning "drinking water". So, the analogy isn't just restricted to the basic roots, but extends to the way the roots are combined in order to express a specific concept.
The issue here is that Nikolaev's PAW is transpacific and ancient, so there is no point in trying to find steppe signals in modern Chukotko-Kamchatkans. We are either dealing with an early Caucasian expansion that ultimately made it to the Americas (c.f. Kennewick Man's mtDNA X2a vs. the X2 in Iran_Neo), or late Mesolithic ENA influence on PIE, e.g. connected to the introduction of "combed"/ "pseudo-corded" pottery that can ultimately be traced back to the lower Amur Epi-Paleolithic.

2. There seems to have been significant cultural influence of late Mesolithic/ early Neolithic Ukraine on Khvalynsk and Yamnaya, far beyond its rather meager genetic contribution. Points in case are ritual trepanations (first evidence from the Dniepr Rapids area during the 6th mBC, common in Progress/Vonyushka and also Khvalynsk), use of red ochre in burials (a common UA_Mes, Baltic_HG and SHG feature), and also the "proto-Kurgans", essentially not much more than stone heaps, in Progress/Vonyushka. Opposite to what Anthony suggests, they hardly have anything in common with the large and richly furnished Leyla-Tepe / Maykop kurgans, but correspond well to contemporary practices in the Donetsk area.

If the late Mesolithic Dniepr-Donetsk area was culturally so important, why not also linguistically?

Andrzejewski said...

@FrankN maybe PIE evolved among Sredny Stog and was transplanted into Repin/Khvalynsk

epoch said...

@FrankN

I fail to see how that linked article by Zoller leads to a South Caspian Urheimat for PIE. So, what if two consecutive migrantions brought IE languages to India?

FrankN said...

Suyindik has above cited D. Reich as follows:
"about ten thousand years ago there were at least four major populations in West Eurasia—the farmers of the Fertile Crescent, the farmers of Iran, the hunter-gatherers of central and western Europe, and the hunter-gatherers of eastern Europe. All these populations differed from one another as much as Europeans differ from East Asians today."

So far, the linguistic implications of this observation seem to have gone widely unnoticed. Genetic isolation of course also means linguistic isolation, and a longer period of specific linguistic drift. Most of the major language families have now been reconstructed to proto-level, at a time depth of typically 5-6 ky ago (substantially longer for Afro-Asiatic). Apparently, except for mixed languages/ creoles, since then no new language family emerged. There has also been some recent work on comparing, possibly combining proto-languages into Macro-families, which bears the potential to increase the time depth by another couple of thousand years. However, any attempts to do so for PIE (Nostratic, IndoUralic etc.) have so far remained unconvincing, meaning that (pre-pre-)PIE is apparently very ancient.

As such, I believe that when it comes to the "homeland" issue, a key question is: When and where could a family develop its specific features that set it apart from all other families. Outside the tropics, the "when" question is answered relatively easily - we are either dealing with the Younger Dryas, but more likely with the LGM, when relatively small populations concentrated in spatially confined refugia, linguistically and genetically isolated from other populations.

The "where", of course, then needs to be answered separately for each population/ language group. As concerns (pre-pre) PIE, my best guess in this respect is the S. Caspian refugium. Theoretically, Siberia might be considered as well, but then we run out of LGM refugia out of which pre-pre-Proto Uralic and Altaic could have emerged...

FrankN said...

Epoch:

"So, what if two consecutive migrantions brought IE languages to India?"

What would have been the first migration? Acc. to Adams, Andronovo already fails for Tocharian, so I can't see it having reached India. Also, the Swat_IA samples preclude significant Steppe (Andronovo) ancestry in that "outer language" area described by Zoller - even more so, if the meager Portion of Steppe ancestry in them is to be attributed not just to Sintashta-derived overforming, but actually to two Steppe migrations.

Nah, the only plausible source of this first migration is Central Asia, and that means ultimately (directly, or with a stop-over in Zerafshan) the S. Caspian. While we still lack aDNA IVC aDNA, otherwise the NE Iranian connection is genetically obvious - be it Reich's old ANI, haplogroups of Indian goats and sheep, or the ca. 3500 BC Walnut finds in Kashmir. Modern Kashmiri Walnut trees have been established to descend from S. Caspian stock, one of the 2-3 LGM refugia for the Persian(!) Walnut (the other refugia lay around the Pamirs/ Tian Shan, that's where a/o modern Chinese trees originate from).

epoch said...

@FrankN

"Also, the Swat_IA samples preclude significant Steppe (Andronovo) ancestry in that "outer language" area described by Zoller"

Narashim prepub:

Finally, we examined our Swat Valley time transect from 1200 BCE to 1CE. While the earliest group of samples (SPGT) is genetically very similar to the Indus_Periphery samples from the sites of Gonur and Shahr-i-Sokhta, they also differ significantly in harboring Steppe_MLBA ancestry(~22%). This provides direct evidence for Steppe_MLBA ancestry being integrated into South Asian groups in the 2nd millennium BCE, and is also consistent with the evidence of southward expansions of Steppe_MLBA groups through Turan at this time via outliers from the main BMAC cluster from 2000-1500 BCE. Later samples from the Swat time transect from the 1st millennium BCE had higher proportions of Steppe and AASI derived ancestry more similar to that found on the Indian Cline, showing that there was an increasing percolation of Steppe derived ancestry into the regionand additional admixture with the ASI through

Works fine.

epoch said...

Narasimhan preprint, that is.

FrankN said...

Epoch:

The Narasimhan preprint clearly distinguishes Steppe_EBA (w/o EEF/ANF admix) and Steppe_MLBA (with such admix). So these 22% Steppe_MLBA are Sintashta-related, not from Andronovo, and there is actually nothing in the pre-print suggesting Steppe_EBA (Andronovo) making it across the Hindukush.

22% is what I call "meager", considering the impact of a similar magnitude of admixture on Basques (speculatively also Etruscans).

FrankN said...

Epoch:
In addition, look at the timescale: Steppe_MLBA ancestry appears around 2000-1500 BC in BMAC, by 1200 BC it is attested in the Swat valley. Now, the Rigvedas are commonly dated to around 1500 BC, and explicitly mention the Swat river as Suvasto (with IE etymology). Steppe_MLBA alone is not only too little, but also too late to explain this IE toponym.

After all, the Swat is quite a major river (and was important enough for being mentionned in the Rigvedas), and such rivers tend to keep their names for a long time - c.f. Missisippi (Algonquin), Guadalquivir (Arabic), Havel (->W. Slavic Hevelli), etc. This holds even more true if an ancient resident population isn't completely replaced, but only assimilated through "elite dominance" or whatever else you want to call 22% admix.

Matt said...

Zardos:Or does anyone propose American Indian languages being native to the continent on an absolute way, if there would be no Eurasian relatives?

There is some probably some distinction in weight of extra suppositions required here between "The Americas was completed unpopulated of any human life" vs what you are proposing in the case of Basque.

There are no reasons to be certain that linguistic change did not happen in the case that you have described, no reasons that I believe historical linguistics, drawing on the actual record of linguistic change, will find proven or demonstrated.

Dragos: So why should there be any trace of a group which dispsersed over 4, 000 years ago, and in a zone where several turnovers of pre-literate societies ocurred.

Perhaps there wouldn't be, but you would need some form of positive evidence to argue that there ever was such a group present. There doesn't seem to be any besides assertions about R1b-M269 clans not switching languages.

Yet, you seem to have recently suggesting that Vasconic arrived to Iberia with Urnfield culture.

No, I don't really think that is necessarily the case, and neither did I use those words.

Though it is curious that Urnfield influence overlaps with the area that later speaks Iberian (my quotes "Indeed if you look at the Urnfield Culture proposed to be ancestral to Halstatt or proto-Celtic itself, it does seem as if its distribution overlaps the cultures within Iberia that later are found to speak non-Indo-European languages" ... lots of post-Urnfield folk seem non-IE, in any case referring to Iberian and Etruscan speaking zones).

My comment in that thread was more to poke fun at the actual suggestion that an Urnfield archaeological expansion can be linked to Celtic, since it seems not. I'm not actually proposing "Iberian from Urnfield".

But even if I did really believe that, it probably wouldn't pass muster among historical linguistics. And fairly rightly, and despite being a much less onerous proposition than Vasco-Iberian languages in a whole zone where they aren't attested and the numerous other problems.

The other aspects we've discussed before; 1) a family relationship is not consensus, a close and recent family relationship of shallow depth less so, 2) you may not believe in linguistic paleontology (and there are arguments against it, though ones which are rather more pronounced for "Iron Age Celtic" than many other scenarios), etc. but historical linguistics believe in 3), it's not for others to refute that Iberian and Basque have a family relationship and split in the late Copper Age, as if that were the null hypothesis, it's for proponents to demonstrate that it's the case (they cannot be assumed to have this relationship until it is proven otherwise).

So there is not much point discussing them again.

epoch said...

@FrankN

"by 1200 BC it is attested in the Swat valley. Now, the Rigvedas are commonly dated to around 1500 BC, and explicitly mention the Swat river as Suvasto (with IE etymology). Steppe_MLBA alone is not only too little, but also too late to explain this IE toponym. "

Samples run from 1200 BC on. The oldest graveyard investigated has datings from 1400 BC on. There are even older Swat cultural signs, if I recall correctly up to 1700 BC. The 1200 BC has only to do with the oldest sample that the paper presents.

From the Supp Info:

The samples are from an extensive graveyard in Udegram village in the Swat Valley dating to 1400-800 BCE. The graveyard of Udegram (32 excavated graves) features two burial phases, encompassing 1400-1100 cal BCE and 1000-800 cal BCE.

Interestingly enough mentioning two burial phases.

mzp1 said...

Uralic borrowings are Iranian not Indo-Aryan. There is not enough evidence to suggest multiple competing dialects during Vedic times. The Vedic geography is widespread and the lanuguage is standardized. For example,


Latin Committee
Indo-Aryan Samiti

You can see that only Indo Aryan maintains the root Sam, meaning together, also as Sum in Latin. Clearly the Centum form is a divergence.

S -> H Occurs mostly in Iranian but also some modern Indo-Aryan dialects. We dont know the direction of transfer, bun-standard IA seems likely to have developed in periphary IA regions.

Also, Uralic borrowings are mainly, if not exclusively, through Iranian.

FrankN said...

As to the ancientness of (pre-pre-)PIE, let me exemplify it on a specific feature (this is also meant as a sort of delayed repsonse to Matt, who a couple of days ago questionned the usefulness of grammatical/ morphological comparisons vis-a-vis lexical ones).

This feature is grammatical gender (thx to Kristiina for drawing my attention to it). PIE is unique in this respect among all major language families (I can't exclude the possibility that one day somewhere on New Guinea a language with similar features pops up, but even then every serious linguist would immediately check whether it is some PIE relative.)

1. Presence of grammatical gender alone already sets PIE apart from roughly half of the world's language families. This concerns of course all isolating languages (e.g. Sinitic, Austronesian), but also many synthetic languages including Kartvelian, Uralic, Altaic, Hurro-Urartian, and most Austro-Asiatic languages except for the Munda familiy.

2. PIE expressed grammatical gender by suffixing, in contrast to pre-fixing (nominal class-based) families such as North Caucasian or Niger-Congo.

3. Gender marking was fusional, i.e. merged with other markers (numerus, case) into an inseparatable unit. This sets it apart from agglutinative languages w. grammatical gender, e.g. Dravidian, in which each category (gender, case, numerus) is expressed by a separate affix.

4. PIE's grammatical gender was sex-based, in contrast to the animate-inanimate distinction a/o employed by Chukotko-Kamchatkan, many Amerindian languages (Algic, Siouan, Uto-Aztecan etc.), Sumerian and Elamite, or more complex mixed gender/animateness systems as e.g. found in Burushaki and many Pama-Nyungan languages.

5. The last remaining major family, namely Afro-Asiatic, with which PIE shares all a/m criteria, finally, differs in that it only distinguishes masculine-feminine, while PIE also had a neuter gender.

Now, none of the above was/is set in stone. Some IE languages, most prominently English, have almost completely abolished grammatical gender (#1) except for pronouns. Several others (especially Romance) have lost the neuter (#5). Gender-differentiated articles (a/o Romance, Germanic) may be considered as a shift towards gender-prefixing (#2); Welsh even varies the initial consonant according to gender. West Slavic, finally, appears to have introduced an additional animate-inanimate distinction (#4). However, most of these changes are rather recent - grammatical gender, e.g. was still present in Old English, and Latin had a neuter.
It appears that PIE's way of gender marking was stable for some 4,000 years or longer, which may provide some indication on how long it took pre-PIE to develop this unique feature.

epoch said...

@FrankN

But the gist of your idea probably is: If Vedic came later the earlier Outer languages must have come before Swat, and that kills the steppe theory?

As the Vedic language was a koiné, a standardized language with a clear elite feeling, it could have had a different exposure to the indigenous languages. But there is also the case that among BMAC steppe outliers start to appear at 2000 BC. And we have no real samples from immediately *before* Swat, some of which are considered Indo-Aryan (Cemetry H was considered that by Parpola).

Even within Swat there might be an older layer.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301336720_The_Gandhara_Grave_Culture_New_Perspectives_on_Protohistoric_Cemeteries_in_Northern_and_Northwestern_Pakistan

Gabriel said...

@zardos

And yes, genetically and physically Basques are what to expect from a steppe Beaker - Neolithic Mediterranean mixture.

You keep claiming this, but put aside the fact early Steppe Bell Beakers resemble Corded Ware and are a firmly Northern European population.

So I find your argument that Basques are the “purest” Beakers and that therefore Beakers were Basque weak because early Steppe Bell Beakers did not resemble Basques.

old europe said...

@gabriel

"early Steppe Bell Beakers resemble Corded Ware and are a firmly Northern European population"

CWC and BBC are a mix between a southern population (EEF) and an eastern european population (EEF/CHG) in which way they are " northern"......

And in any case they came from eastern europe, by any stretch they are not northern european. They can be called northern because they followed a "northern" route to enter peninsular europe ( at least for now seems very likely)

zardos said...

@Gabriel: Basques are no "pure Bell Beakers", but the result of exclusively BB male lineages taking over Neolithic-Mediterranean communities and mixing with the local females with very little non-BB male lineages survivors initially.
So they made a complete take over and since then little happened which comes even remotely close. They still have the same physical and genetic features which you have to expect from such a union.
All the other Western populations differ from them and show significant other physical and genetic traits.
The last proof for that fact is the study on France.
Even if some other people have as much and more BB ancestry, they show later influences which can be best explained by Celtic CE and Germanic NE in the North and Roman and Greek etc influences in the South.

So their is genetically more of a significant for later language change in IE than in Basques. Why those unchanged adopted a different language, while those changing are supposed to be in the BB tradition is something which needs to be justified by additional data.

The post-Beaker impact is by far the lowest in Basques.

Gabriel said...

@zardos

If patrilines are the most important part of the equation, how do you explain R1b-U152 looking like the main haplogroup that had the job of spreading Celtic instead of, say, R1a-Z93? A Hittite-type situation?

I find it hard to believe Urnfield was the result of a Sintashta- or Trzciniec-related intrusion into Beaker territory, rather than an evolution from earlier Beaker cultures.

@Old Europe

Northern does not necessarily mean WHG/EHG, you’re basically saying all modern Northern Europeans are not “northern” because they have EEF/CHG ancestry.

zardos said...

Honestly, right now I'm 50:50 about steppe influenced Beakers being originally IE speakers or not.
More data is needed, like I said before. Italics might be an important clue.
Interestingly the Hallstatt culture was highly hierarchical, with a small upper class. At the end of Hallstatt, a revolution took place and a new culture of free warriors emerged. The Celtic La Tene.
Now some said the Hallstatt upper class came from the East. Now I would like to see upper class Hallstatt, Celtic and Italic warriors from central, clearly proven contexts.

Hallstatt would be one of the best candidates for a language transfer I know of. But like I said, its all open now with the strongest argument against IE Bell Beakers being non-IE Iberians, especially the Basques.

Gaska said...

@gabriel-steppe bell beakers is an absurd term used or invented by the guardians of Kurganist ultra-orthodoxy to try to differentiate the central European BBs from Iberian and southern France BBs. Remember than P312 is older in Spain than in Holland, France, Hungary, Bohemia, the British Isles, Hungary Italy or Poland

@old europe- BB culture can only be related to the east, due to the supposed steppe ancestry, which as of the date, we still don't know exactly what it is, nor with what steppe culture it is related, nor when it entered mainland Europe, nor how it spread. R1bL51 and P312 are western lineages, they have never been found and will never be found in the steppes. The Bb culture is absolutely western. The mitochondrial lineages of the BB culture in Central Europe are mostly (90%) from European Neolithic cultures (with a good percentage of typically Iberian chalcolithic lineages) and 10% of steppe lineages that passed to this culture thanks to the exogamy through the CWC. Gimbutas theory as it has been defended in the last 5 years is dead and buried, we cannot even affirm that IE has its origin in the steppes, and there is still some fanatic that tries to convince us that the steppe BBs existed and that there were massive population movements.

And regarding the Basques, I can say the same as for the Iberians (Spain and France) and the Tartesians (Western Andalucia and Extremadura), that NEVER spoke IE languages ​​and that nevertheless were and are absolutely P312, with which they are the most direct descendants of BBs that exist.

The Bb culture stopped the expansion of the steppe peoples (I think we should no longer call them Indo-European) in Hungary. The Western P312 mixed with the CWC and from it they acquired that famous steppe ancestry.

zardos said...

In Central Europe its interesting to see what happened after the fall of Bell Beakers, to the beginning of Hallstatt.
Unetice was no longer dominated by R1b, but showed a presence of I, was physically closer to Corded Ware than BB. From all we know the same goes for Urnfield and Hallstatt. Now the break took place in Central Europe from BB to Unetice.

Urnfield, Hallstatt and La Tene traditions are all NOT from the West, the more BB influenced regions, but expanded into these regions. Now this can mean
1. BB spoke no IE dialect (like Proto-Basque)
2. A different (non-Celtic/Italo-Celtic) IE language
3. They spoke Proto-Italo-Celtic and the later cultures and migrations didn't change it.

I doubt number 3 to be true, because the cultures which might have created the Celtic sphere were all born further East, outside of the BB strongholds. There is no West to East expansion - or at least I don't know of one which could be it. So we are left with 1 or 2.
The direct heir of BB lineages is Basque, which is non-IE, which is a huge problem for BBs being all IE speakers originally.

But I really hope for Italic samples and more from Celtic warrior burials and Hallstatt elite graves.

@Gaska: I use steppe beakers in a neutral way for those carrying steppe ancestry autosomal. Fact is, so far all BB groups with significant autosomal steppe ancestry were more R1b than anything else, whereas those without it had no R1b.

So R1b carriers introduced steppe ancestry to Iberia. Where and how they picked it up is not completely solved by now. They could be local Wester European male lineages (less likely) or coming from further East (more likely). From where exactly is not known by now.

Drago said...

@ Matt

''a family relationship is not consensus, a close and recent family relationship of shallow depth less so''

But the relationship has been proposed by a linguist.
If we are going to challenge it, then we need to provide support for claims, otherwise you seem to be saying the comparative method - the foundation of modern linguistics- should not be used .. in this particular case. Where is the consensus against it. You have provided no reference; or statistical analysis of the total number of article on Vasconic vs those for / against the proposal. The only reference you've made to is..Epoch. ;)

''you may not believe in linguistic paleontology (and there are arguments against it, though ones which are rather more pronounced for "Iron Age Celtic" than many other scenarios), etc. but historical linguistics believe in''

Theat is not quite correct.

Here are linguists - Szolt Simon: 'the basic principle of linguistic palaeontology must be that a hypothesis can be built only on existing data. No argument can be built on the lack of a data, i.e. of a word (argumentum e silentio) since we cannot decide why a given word is missing from the reconstructed lexicon – either it was indeed not part of the PIE lexicon or for whatever reason linguists cannot reconstruct it from the data provided by fragmentarily attested daughter languages''

Heggarty ''On the level of principle, and despite simplistic assertions to that effect, linguistic
palaeontology patently does not inherit the status and reliability of the Comparative Method
itself. The deception is because it glosses over a critical difference between the two levels on which that method works. When linguists reconstruct from correspondences in sound and meaning, these two levels play radically different roles (Anttila 1989: 365). Reconstruction works essentially on sound ‘laws’, in the sense that the changes they plot are precise, regular, identical and repeated across all words that have the corresponding phonological context. This consistency and predictability is what gives linguists such con dence in the sound sequences they reconstruct. That con dence does not carry over to the level of meaning, for we have no strict ‘meaning laws’ to predict precise semantic change (see Urban, this volume).
On the contrary, while sound change is exceptionless enough to make reconstruction viable
on that level, we cannot safely reconstruct the precise meaning or semantic origin of a given word string, especially far back in prehistory.''

P/L can give broad ideas about chronology, but not the kind of claims made by Anthony or Kroonen; which are little short of pseudo-science.




Drago said...

The evidence we have thus far is:
R1b-L51 - rich individuals are found in western Europe, where both IE & non-IE languages are found. The reconstructed paleolexicon for proto-Celtic demonstrates shared terms for Iron & Chariots (Waddell ..Celticization of Ireland). Perhaps it would be good to start from there & build up, instead of starting with the belief that R1b-M269 were the Ur-PIE; and everything else has to be fit around that (even when not factually consistent).

Gabriel said...

@Gaska

The mitochondrial lineages of the BB culture in Central Europe are mostly (90%) from European Neolithic cultures (with a good percentage of typically Iberian chalcolithic lineages) and 10% of steppe lineages that passed to this culture thanks to the exogamy through the CWC.

10% of female exogamy equals 50% of steppe ancestry?

The Bb culture stopped the expansion of the steppe peoples (I think we should no longer call them Indo-European) in Hungary. The Western P312 mixed with the CWC and from it they acquired that famous steppe ancestry.

Then why do Beakers in Hungary look like a mix between Hungarian Yamnaya and Corded Ware-related populations? I would expect these R1b-L51 samples to be richer in EEF and deficient in steppe if you were right.

Andrzejewski said...

@zardos “In Central Europe its interesting to see what happened after the fall of Bell Beakers, to the beginning of Hallstatt.
Unetice was no longer dominated by R1b, but showed a presence of I, was physically closer to Corded Ware than BB. From all we know the same goes for Urnfield and Hallstatt. Now the break took place in Central Europe from BB to Unetice.“

The only problem with your theory is that both BB and modern Western Europeans are predominantly R1b, like Yamnaya

epoch said...

@Drago

"A particulary interesting question is the possibility of loans between Iberian and Aquitanian/Basque. The recent identification of possible numerals in Iberian, bearing a striking similarity to their Basque counterparts would - if correct - imply either genetic relationship or large-scale borrowing. The former has often been ruled out as unworkable; if borrowing is responsible, it seems likely that the direction of borrowing would have been from Iberian into Aquitanian/Basque rather than the other way round, since Iberian was apparently the dominant language of trade and commerce throughout the north-east, and was influential even in areas where it was apparently not the main native language of the local populations (see p.100)"

- Multiligualism in the Graeco-Roman Worlds
Alex Mullen, Patrick James

You state: But the relationship has been proposed by a linguist.
If we are going to challenge it, then we need to provide support for claims, otherwise you seem to be saying the comparative method - the foundation of modern linguistics- should not be used .. in this particular case. Where is the consensus against it. You have provided no reference; or statistical analysis of the total number of article on Vasconic vs those for / against the proposal. The only reference you've made to is..Epoch. ;)


The comparitive method starts with a list of cognates. Please provide one beyond the numerals.

FrankN said...

Epoch:
"But the gist of your idea probably is: If Vedic came later the earlier Outer languages must have come before Swat, and that kills the steppe theory?"

Not quite. My ideas are:

1.) The Steppe was an important hub for secondary spread of late PIE, most notably into Central/Western Europe (a/o CWC), but also as concerns Vedic, and Indo-Aryan-related interaction with late Proto-Uralic.

2.) However, the Steppe can't have been the original PIE homeland:
a) A Steppe homeland can't explain shared PIE agricultural vocabulary. This concerns a/o cereal farming terms, as pointed out by Adams. It also concerns the probably most widespread agricultural PIE root, namely *h₂wĺ̥h₁[neh₂] "wool", attested from all PIE families and borrowed a/o by Sumerian, with a credible IE-internal semantic (PIE *welH- "to turn, wind", c.f. German wellen "to curl [hair]"). For all we know from archeology and DNA, wool sheep originated on the Iranian Plateau.

b.) A Steppe homeland leaves early IE branches unaccounted for. This concerns a/o Anatolian and Tocharian, but also a possible pre-Vedic, centum IE layer in (mountaineous) S. Asia, Zoller's "outer languages". It furthermore concerns attested IE borrowings in Sumerian (wool, copper, male/female slave, the eye-shaped IGI Sumerogram, etc.). All these can only be explained from a hub south of the Caucasus/ Caspian.

3.) Ultimately, the "homeland" approach IMO misses the main question, namely "Where did (pre-pre-PIE) develop those features that make it unique and set it apart from all other major language families?" After all, it wasn't lexical comparisons that lead to the "discovery" of relatedness between Sanskrit, Latin, OGrk and Germanic in the 18th century, it was morphological similarity (synthetic, fusional suffixes, similar verbal morphology, etc.). The lexical stuff (comparative methodology, systematic sound shifts etc.) came much later, putting flesh on the bones of that morphological skeleton.
The answer IMO lies in a prolonged incubation period in relative isolation, which should have been the LGM, and the most plausible spot for this process IMO is the S. Caspian LGM refugium, where a/o walnuts and almonds weathered the LGM.

Davidski said...

@FrankN

There were farmers just west of the Dnieper during the Neolithic, and of course they're the source of the Anatolian farmer ancestry in the Sredny Stog II sample.

So the idea that steppe people weren't familiar with farming and had no words to describe it during the Eneolithic needs to be put to bed.

Domesticated sheep were also found near the steppe at this time, in the Caucasus and probably on the North Pontic steppe. So again, not sure what the fuss is about?

FrankN said...

Juan Rivera:
"Kennewick is autosomally similar to the other "Paleoindians""

Which were your reference pops? Technically, it makes sense to restrict to only pre-Kennewick samples. In the Yana paper's PCA, Kennewick is visible displaced from the Amerindian mainstream towards Beringia/ E. Asia. Dave's older G10 spreadsheets showed him incorporating some 25% "Beringian" ancestry compared to "pure Amerindian" Anzick1.
In any case, the mtDNA X2(a) issue has remained somewhat obscure. Most analyses I have seen conclude that it wasn't among the original "founding" mtDNA haplogroups. The most southerly reported modern occurence in the Americas is on the Central Mexican Pacific coast. It appears to be completely absent from S. America, while accounting for almost a quarter of Algonquinian mtDNA, lending some genetic credibility to S. Nikolaev's proposal of a Wakashan-Nivkh-Algic language family originating from early Holocene trans-Pacific migrations.

Whatever the case - as I have said, reported lexical/ phonological closeness of PIE to Beringian languages is puzzling, and I am yet unable to come up with a satisfactory explanation.

epoch said...

@Drago

"Gomez Moreno's brillant decoding had two important consequences. One was that it demonstrated that Plaeohispanic texts were not written in one language, but in several. The other was that it revealed that the Iberian language could not be understood via Basque, a conclusion which put an end to the Vasco-Iberian hypothesis, despite resistance from outside Spain by scholars as prestigious as Schuhardt, which, as well as the conflict that was engulfing the continent at the time, significantly delayed the acceptance of the decoding in Europe."

- Celtiberian: Language, writing, epigraphy
Francisco Beltran LLoris, Carlos Jordan Colera

Matt said...

epoch: The comparative method starts with a list of cognates. Please provide one beyond the numerals.

Yeah, this is how these conversations about the relationship of Basque and Iberian tend to go (as a dialogue):

A: So B (proponent of idea), what's the lexical evidence for a relationship between Basque and Iberian?

B: The numeral system! It would be very strange and unusual and almost unprecedented for a numeral system to be borrowed, therefore there must be a family relationship.

A (and all historical linguistics): OK, numeral systems are borrowed at times but let's move on and ask: Why no lexical relationship in any basic vocabulary at all outside the numeral system? (Other than some terms relating to trade and urbanism (towns, silver, money) which would be not too surprising to be borrowed.)

B: Silence / something about adstrate borrowing from Latin, etc. into Basque replacing enough core vocabulary (but not numbers!) such that it is now impossible to see relationship.

And no one around this table is any more convinced.

Reconstruction of a relationship in Indo-European, and of a proto-lexicon, is highly blessed by the number of daughter languages and how widely dispersed they are, and the richness of current and historical attestation (even if it is frustrating too little for early branches). These are very difficult questions outside IE.

Consider "proto-Celtic" lexicon being dated to Iron Age as Dragos talks about upthread.

Is this shared "Iron Age" lexicon secured through the continental branches of Celtic, which are scantily attested, or purely through the ones in Britain and Ireland? The material for Celtiberian is very scanty after all. There is an argument for a shared term between Gaulish and Celtic languages in Britain (and notably the term crosses the sharing barrier into Germanic) (see: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cLB3v7csB0UC&lpg=PP33&pg=PP33#v=onepage&q&f=false and https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tzU3RIV2BWIC&lpg=PA314&pg=PA314#v=onepage&q&f=false). But this is not Celtiberian.

And even if there is a shared term for iron, is it implausible that a Bronze Age people skilled in metallurgy would know what iron is, and have a shared term for it, even if they did not practice ferrous metallurgy on a wide scale or use it for tools? This is similar to the problem of stating that a word for horse implies horse domestication, which of course it does not, or even that horses were a frequently encountered animal.

Plus these are languages which are interacting at close range - unlike the broader IE where later stage loans are implausible over very long distances*, it isn't implausible to explain iron related vocabulary via loans (we even know it happened across the Celtic->Germanic border, possibly in NE France).

*E.g. How would an IE in India and Europe from the neolithic both get identical loans of securely Copper Age terms? The only plausible thing to say is to challenge whether the vocabulary is actually a systematic homoplasy from an older word - e.g. words for turning systematically being used to generate words for wheel, etc.

zardos said...

"
The only problem with your theory is that both BB and modern Western Europeans are predominantly R1b, like Yamnaya"

It is not my theory per se, but one possible explanation I consider before new data and analysis hopfully solve the issue.
Whether Yamnaya was itself completely IE speaking is open to debate, so is where Western R1b lineages came from exactly at which time and in which cultural context.
But that later Celts had a significant impact in the West is pretty much a sure thing.

Matt said...

For discussion of that problem of reconstrution of languages from modern evidence, and bias due to poverty of early branching, critical material, and Celtic as an example (which is also the case more widely for IE in the poverty of certain material in early branching varieties):

Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics: For example, the Celtic languages are attested very unequally with respect to both the dates and the amounts of available material. While Celtiberian, Lepontic and Gaulish are attested in the 1st millennium BCE, they have provided us with very limited corpora, while the earliest monuments of the Insular Celtic languages stem from the middle of the 1st millennium CE, but have a very large corpora. Therefore the reconstruction of proto-Celtic must either rely chiefly on the comparison of forms from two branches of Insular Celtic (which may be one of the primary sub branches of Celtic), or must remain very incomplete.

(https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cQA2DwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA24&&pg=PA24#v=onepage&q&f=false)

FrankN said...

Dave:
"There were farmers just west of the Dnieper during the Neolithic, and of course they're the source of the Anatolian farmer ancestry in the Sredny Stog II sample."

Fully aggree. But these farmer's aDNA didn't make it to Khvalynsk or Andronovo, and neither did their technology - at least not according to Adams, or Mallory [For Sredny Stog II, OTOH, cereal farming is archeologically attested].

Intriguing in this respect is the introduction of non-light sensitive barley, better suited for moderate/ continental climate with late frost and humid summers. The original ANF/EEF barley varieties were non-light sensitive, well adapted to Mediterranean climate with spring precipitation but dry summers. Their origin has been traced back to the Levante and NW Syria. Barley was a frequent crop for Cardial Pottery, but rarely planted N. of the Alps (LBK, etc.).
Non-light sensitive barley, OTOH, has been traced back to the Iranian Plateau. It was a/o instrumental for colonising the Caucasian uplands - the higher in altitude Sioni and Kura-Araxes settlements, the more they planted barley instead of wheat. Intriguingly, the earliest Central European culture that predominantly, almost exclusively planted barley was Danish Single Grave. Subsequently, barley became the dominant crop in Unetice and Urnfield.

"Domesticated sheep were also found near the steppe at this time, in the Caucasus and probably on the North Pontic steppe."
Right. And again, we are probably talking about wool sheep, of Iranian origin, not about original ANF/EEF "meat and milk" sheep. Analyses of modern sheep aDNA have clearly demonstrated a dual origin of domesticated sheep - Anatolia plus the S. Caspian. While the former (mtDNA A) already expanded to Europe with EEF, the latter (mtDNA B) remained for quite a while restricted to south of the Caucasus (plus Central Asia/ India), only reaching Europe via the Steppe during the 4th mBC. [I'd love to see such inference from modern breeds be complemented by sheep aDNA, similarly to what has just been done on goats.]

IMO, aside from higher resistance to the Plague, a key factor for the success of - presumably late PIE-speaking - Steppe populations was an improved "agricultural package" that included wool sheep and non-light sensitive barley. Both innovations originated on the Iranian Plateau. It is a sensible assumption that the associated vocabulary did so as well.

epoch said...

@FrankN

ad 2a: See Davids response. Also, there were sheep bones found in many Eneolithic settlements all over the steppe. Sheep do not resemble indigenous animals from the steppe so the keeping of sheep is pretty old.

https://www.academia.edu/11290674/Der_%C3%9Cbergang_zur_Rinderzucht_im_n%C3%B6rdlichen_Schwarzmeerraum

ad 2b: We have literally two Hittite genomes and the Hittites settled among previous non-IE populations. We also have Kumtepe 4, which is a poor sample. But put in an ADMIXTURE run it shows steppe admixture. It is from exactly the right dating at exactly the right spot for the steppe hypothesis: When Kumtepe saw a massive change change, tied to latter Troy.

ad 3: PIE does not have a root for almond. Nor for olive. Nor saffron. Nor for tiger. etc etc. As for the suggested PIE-Sumerian connection, it is disputed. And if you read the article you might see what is the issue. Too much "hineininterpretieren".

FrankN said...

Epoch: "How would an IE in India and Europe from the neolithic both get identical loans of securely Copper Age terms?

Alexander the Great (Greek presence from Iberia to Bactria from ca.330 BC to around at least Augustean times)?

Skyths (occasionally) on the Oder and in Austria? E. Iranic-speaking Alans (Ossetians) marching with the Vandals to Iberia and ultimately N. Africa?

Let's also not forget Arabic, during the Medieval spoken from Malaga to Makassar, which has incorporated various Greek loans, e.q. qasdir "tin", from Greek κασσίτερος (kassíteros).

epoch said...

@frankN

"Fully aggree. But these farmer's aDNA didn't make it to Khvalynsk or Andronovo, and neither did their technology - at least not according to Adams, or Mallory [For Sredny Stog II, OTOH, cereal farming is archeologically attested]."

But later on it did. Late and Middle Bronze Age steppe has farmer admixture that early bronze age steppe hasn't.

Let's see what Mallory considered the problem:

As Anthony remarks in this symposium, there is really no serious evidence for arable agriculture (domestic cereals) east of the Dnieper until after c 2000 BCE (see also Ryabogina & Ivanov 2011; Mallory, in press:a). This means that there is also no evidence for domestic cereals in the Asiatic steppe until the Late Bronze Age(Andronovo etc). From the perspective of the Pontic-Caspian model, the ancestors of the Indo-Iranians and Tokharians should not cross the Ural before c 2000 BCE at the very earliest. Hypotheses linking the Tokharians to earlier eastward steppe expansions associated with the Afanasievo or Okunevo cultures of the Yenisei or Altai (Mallory and Mair 2000) become very difficult if not impossible to sustain (as
long as there is no evidence of arable agriculture in these cultures) as Tokharian retains elements of the Indo-European agricultural vocabulary.


This clearly must be connected to the uptick of EEF in late bronze age steppe (more or less suggested to be a CWC migration eastward) and seems a fine solution for that problem. The agricultural terms were reintroduced, and we have the genetic data to back that up.

Gaska said...

@davidski-"Well, I for one, no longer have a PIE homeland theory"

Everything is now much more complicated, but also more interesting and forces us all to think about reasonable solutions.

@Drago-Perhaps it would be good to start from there & build up, instead of starting with the belief that R1b-M269 were the Ur-PIE; and everything else has to be fit around that (even when not factually consistent)”

Agree- If the geneticists had done their job right from the beginning, we would have saved a lot of problems. I mean, it is one thing to analyze ancient genomes and another, to draw hasty conclusions or to use supposed autosomal components to achieve preconceived theories. If anyone is interested in rereading Haak's work on the massive migrations of the steppes and Olalde's paper on the European BBs, he will realize what I am saying. What is left of the massive migrations of R1b to Europe that radically changed European genetics and brought the IE language? Just 5 years later (in the case of Olalde a year later), the R1b lineages of the steppes have absolutely nothing to do with the Western R1b lineages and now we don't even know the language spoken in the steppes. Wonderful right?


@gabriel-10% of female exogamy equals 50% of steppe ancestry? Then why do Beakers in Hungary look like a mix between Hungarian Yamnaya and Corded Ware-related populations? I would expect these R1b-L51 samples to be richer in EEF and deficient in steppe if you were right.

Obviously there are hundreds of genomes of the CWC and the BBC to analyze, so far an exhaustive study of the Mit-Haps of these cultures has barely given us 10% of lineages from the steppes (or EHG). That is the reality we face because even in the CWC many mitochondrial lineages come from the Neolithic cultures of each region (GAC, even Baalberge). I cannot answer you because for me the steppe ancestry remains a mystery, or rather an artifice, used by some geneticists to square their theories. Everyone knows that modeling ancestry is relatively simple, and that the results depend in many cases on the samples used and the comparisons made. Then I am very skeptical about the percentages of steppe ancestry in the BBs. Could you tell me what are the samples used (and to which cultures belong) to determine the steppe ancestry of the Iberian BBs and the current Basques? Yamnaya ?, Repin ?. Maykop ?, Catacomb ?, Sredny Stog, Khvalynsk,?, All of them?

Have they found out those percentages by comparison with the CWC?


Regarding Beakers in Hungary, I suppose you will be up to date, and you will know that we have R1b-Z2103, H, I2a, G2a, that is, they have nothing to do with the CWC but with the BBs from Germany and Bohemia (R1b-P312) that traveled east where they mixed with small groups from Yamnaya (R1b-Z2103) and with Hungarian Neolithic farmers (H, G2a, and probably I2a) Many of them do not have steppe ancestry and have good percentages of Iberian blood. We have already spoken many times. The only possibility for L51 and P312 to have origins in the steppes is Davidski's theory that they were hidden in small groups in some subculture of the CWC. And that at the moment also seems very difficult.


Gaska said...

@Zardos-I use steppe beakers in a neutral way for those carrying steppe ancestry autosomal. Fact is, so far all BB groups with significant autosomal steppe ancestry were more R1b than anything else, whereas those without it had no R1b. So R1b carriers introduced steppe ancestry to Iberia. Where and how they picked it up is not completely solved by now. They could be local Wester European male lineages (less likely) or coming from further East (more likely). From where exactly is not known by now.

The term "steppe beakers" has never made much sense, let alone now. Regarding R1b bringing the steppe ancestry to Iberia, I cannot deny that it is a possibility (since R1b was able to acquire that ancestry of the CWC-ergo more likely) and then pass the Pyrenees, but to think that R1b-L51 originates in the steppes does not make much sense for me (ergo less likely)

old europe said...


@epoch

and that is....if there is no agricolture east of the dneper till 2000 that means that nothing east of the dneper can be envisaged to be the PIE homeland. Because PIE not only have agricoltural words but actively practised agricolture ( see also tripartite ideology that requires the presence of a farmer population)
( see Encyclopedia of IE culture "agricolture) So the only archeological culture that fits the bill is Sredni Stog ( which is a EEF-WHG/ Steppe eneolithic mix)

Scholars say that PIE is born out of a caucasian like language mixing with uraloid north eurasian language. It is an educated guess that this linguistic mix was also a genetic mix. Since the CHG in the steppe did not bring agricolture because the mix happened far east in the steppe I think we
go towards a scenario in which the caucasian language was the one brought by the european farmers and the uralic like the one connected with steppe eneolithic peoples ( dneper donets foragers).

so PIE= MNE Europe + Steppe Eneolithic

This theory works well also in terms of cultural package since Pit grave Culture is largely SS derived.
Genetic fully support this ( R1a M417 in SS and likely R1b L-51 in the westernmost part of the steppe and maybe even in Romania and sorroundings)

Only racism and political bias at this point prevent many to see the full picture ......it is all there in front of us.

Milan said...

@old europe

Vinca and Lepenski Vir (Serbia) are the PIE homeland. PIE language is the Vinca's Serbian language.

epoch said...

@Matt

"It would be very strange and unusual and almost unprecedented for a numeral system to be borrowed, therefore there must be a family relationship."

If I understand correctly the Iberian numerals are mostly from texts on coins (This needs more checking though). Even if this loan is indeed unusual in this case we can see the method of transfer as well as the reason why it was transferred: The use of Iberian coins for money.

Milan said...

R1A in Serbia is 12000 years old, in Europe 7000 years, in Russia about 4500 years, India 3850 years.

Davidski said...

@Milan

Show me R1a from the Balkans older than 4,000 years or I'll ban you.

You have a couple of hours.

NeilB said...

@a DNA from Horses, Oxen and Dogs?? You seem to forget that those domesticated animals went wherever their migrating human owners went. It is therefore unlikely that the descendants of these animals are found in the 'source' regions today. One only has to look at the difficulty of finding the PIE homeland via hundreds of ancient genomes to see that your suggestion is a non-starter. Now DNA from wood that might be more useful, as long as the biomes that hosted the trees are still extant (doubtful) NeilB

Milan said...

@Davidski

Free pdf (for e.g. map on p.19)

http://www.pollitecon.com/html/ebooks/Where-the-Slovens-and-Indo-Europeans-Came-From-DNA-Genealogy-provides-the-Answer.pdf

Cheers

FrankN said...

Epoch:
"Let's see what Mallory considered the problem:

(..) the ancestors of the Indo-Iranians and Tokharians should not cross the Ural before c 2000 BCE at the very earliest.(..)

This clearly must be connected to the uptick of EEF in late bronze age steppe (more or less suggested to be a CWC migration eastward) and seems a fine solution for that problem. The agricultural terms were reintroduced, and we have the genetic data to back that up."

Unfortunately, not. That c2000 BC crossing of the Urals (Sintashta) was by IEs that in all likelyhood already spoke a Satem language, and therefore can't explain Tocharian, including its agricultural terminology. There is simply no feasible way to connect Tocharian farming to the Steppe. Your quote shows that even Mallory has become aware of this problem. Unlike Adams, however, he doesn't seem yet prepared to fundamentally retreat from his earlier publications.

Davidski said...

@All

Milan is now banned from this blog.

Banned commentators list

Gaska said...

@Matt and Epoch-

I see that you are interested in the possible relationship between Iberian and Basque. The Spanish Linguists have been discussing the matter for decades, but from a few years to now, it seems that a consensus has been established regarding its similarity. There are many other examples that help to understand the situation (not only the numerals, which on the other hand are the best evidence)

Ascoli Bronze (89 BC) - Bronze plaque found in Rome, in which the Consul Cneo Pompeyo Estrabón, granted Roman citizenship to the "Turma Salluitana" under the "LEX IULIA de Civitate Latinis et Sociis Danda" as a reward for the conquest of Ascoli in the framework of the Social War (91-88 BC) against the revolted Picentinos. This Cavalry Squadron in command of a Decursion, was formed by the following riders (30), most of them Iberians and Basques

Basques-Sosinaden and Sosimilo (Son of Sosinase)-Urgidar (son of Luspanar)-Gurtano (son of Biurno)-Elando (son of Enneges)-Agirnes (son of Benabels)-Nalbeaden (son of Agerno)-Arranes (son of Arbiscar)-Umargibas (son of Luspangibas)- Beles (son of Umarbeles) etc

Iberians- Belennes (son of Albennes)-Atullo (son of Tautindals)-Bastugitas (son of Adimbeles

The names of the Basque and Iberian riders are very similar, there are Basques and Iberians in Aragon and they share the same cavalry unit. Many people believe that they are the same people and that the language is very very similar

Another evidence is the root "IL" very common in names and cities both Iberians and Basques

Strabo, Geography IV, 1, 2-Aquitans differ from the race of Gauls so much because of their
physical constitution as per its language; in fact, they look alike more to [the race of] the Iberians.

That is to say, the Aquitans (Basques) are more like Iberians than Gauls, not only physically but also in their language.

FrankN said...

Epoch:

"PIE does not have a root for almond. Nor for olive. Nor saffron. Nor for tiger. etc etc".

Neither for salmon, nor for Cranberry. Might have to do with the fact that IE is now spread over a wide range of eco-zones...
Otherwise, olives were domesticated in the Levante, so one should rather expect a proto-Semitic than a PIE root for them. But in fact, Witzel suggests a borrowing from Dravidian, along the semantic path of seed->Sesame->oil seed->vegetable oil->olive (oil tree).

I don't propose "out of India", so I don't bother with PIE lacking a root for "tiger". However, there is also no PIE root for "lion", in spite of lions being attested on the Pontic Steppe and the Balkans well into late antiquity.

"There are isolated later finds from Neolithic contexts: Greek Macedonia (ca. 6.46e6.0 cal ka BP) and western Hungary (ca. 5.5 cal ka BP), and more numerous records after ca. 5.0 cal ka BP from Hungary, the Ukraine, Bulgaria and Greece (Chalcolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age). We obtained a date of ca. 4.65 cal ka BP on a lion pelvis from the Bronze Age Mycenean site of Aigeira Acropolis, Greece (Table 1). In summary we can say that lions invaded south-eastern Europe during the Holocene, presumably via the Bosphorus from Turkey, perhaps as early as 8.0 cal ka BP and probably by ca. 6.5e6.0 cal ka BP. The survival of lions in Greece ca. 2.45e2.35 cal ka BP is attested by
classical authors such as Herodotus, Xenophon and Aristotle (Ninov, 1999; Sommer and Benecke, 2006; Bartosiewicz, 2009), but they had probably disappeared from the Ponto-Mediterranean region by about 2000 years ago at the end of the Iron Age (Sommer
and Benecke, 2006).
"
http://av-sher.narod.ru/Biblio/21_stuart_pantera.pdf

Anthony 2007 a/o reports lion depictions and statuettes from the Maykop Kurgan. So - what does that tell us about the PIE homeland?

[Sanskrit सिंह (siṃhá), btw, is intriguing for its closeness to Swahili simba (Proto-Bantu *ǹcímbá].

Davidski said...

@FrankN

Tigers lived in the Caucasus and Iran until the 1950s or even later.

But lions never lived on the Pontic-Caspian steppe. In fact, the closest they got was the Caucasus and Iran.

FrankN said...

Dave:
"Tigers lived in the Caucasus and Iran until the 1950s or even later."
Wasn't aware of that, thx for the info. Wikipedia even dates their extinction as late as the 1970s.

"But lions never lived on the Pontic-Caspian steppe."
All scientists aggree they did, c.f. my quote above. Lions are a common motive in Skythian art, see e.g.

https://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/digital-collection/25.%20Archaeological%20Artifacts/879763/!ut/p/z1/jZDLTsMwEEV_hS6yxJ48HKfdWUailBajikfqDXKjPIwSJ3JMI_H1GMSqgsDsrubMnTuDJc6xNOqka-V0b1Tr9UGmL4KxNIw5bAQnV8DE_p7s-d01hAl-_gLgl2KA5X_mZwA5b7_5a4G_ILI7vquxHJRrLrWpepxHBF0wWzSq7Nu-1oVqvXS6UoUbcZ7RJU1jn02eud_cUu_-QNZCPPGIJ9_AfD597NBUdAgQiQiE8RIgoxFNsvQzHDPHOPPhbFmVtrTozfqvN84N4yqAAKZpQoM2zvdGh5QL4Kehph8dzs9ZPHSP-ft2Da-kPW3ZYvEBZPAk3w!!/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/?lng=en

Davidski said...

@FrankN

Scythians learned about lions from Persians and maybe Greeks. I can assure you that Yamnaya people never met any lions.

In fact, the former scientific name for the lion sub-species that still survives in India is panthera leo persica, because it was first described from specimens from Iran.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiatic_lion

Ric Hern said...

I think it is easy to adopt counting words from other Languages especially if your own Language's counting words are long and laboursome. We see this with Bantu people adopting shorter Indo-European words...

Cpk said...

@epoch

What is the composition of the steppe admixture of Kumtepe 4? I read that it could be fully CHG?

Ric Hern said...

Even Moose(Elk) lived in the Caucasus...I think areas bordering the Eastern Black Sea would also have been good for Moose.

FrankN said...

Dave:
"I can assure you that Yamnaya people never met any lions."

Really?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250007417_A_lion's_share_of_attention_Archaeozoology_and_the_historical_record

"In the Ukraine, largely contemporaneous Copper Age lion finds have been published from the Tripolje culture settlement of Mayaki that included, among others, a proximal radius and a distal tibia fragment (Fig. 4.7).54 A phalanx media was also reported from the Gumelnitsa culture settlement of Bolgrad (Fig. 4.8).55 A reference to a yet unpublished Copper Age lion bone is known from the site of Molukhov Bugor."

Molukhov Bogor lies on the Dniepr in Cherkassy Oblast, some 200 km SE of Kiev. It has yielded AMS dates around 3500 BC, and is commonly assigned to the Dereivka culture.

The paper sets forth: "By now, lion remains have been identified in several Early Iron Age assemblages from settlements along the lower reaches of the Bug River and the Odessa region, including Tira (Fig. 4.19), new finds from O1’biya (Fig. 4.20),71 Berezan (Fig. 4.21), Chernomorka II (Fig. 4.22) and Chernovaty (Fig. 4.23)."

So far on "Scythians learned about lions from Persians and maybe Greeks."

Davidski said...

@FrankN

Lions lived in the Balkans and the Caucasus, so they or their remains may have been exported occasionally further north.

But there's no agreement that modern lions ever inhabited the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

epoch said...

@Cpk It's in de ADMIXTURE run of the Anatolian Hunter-Gatherer paper. In the supp info.

FrankN said...

Dave, come on!

"Modern lions reached the steppes of Ukraine and Hungary, without penetrating the forests of Central Europe."
https://academic.oup.com/biolinnean/article/109/1/66/2415711

"In Southeast Europe, the lion inhabited part of the Balkan peninsula up to Hungary and Ukraine during the Neolithic period."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_lions_in_Europe

"The Novoselskoe II hillfort is currently the 10th point with finds of lion’s bones and the extreme south-western point on the territory of modern Ukraine where the lion from Holocene is recorded."
https://www.e-anthropology.com/English/Catalog/Archaeology/STM_DWL_BWz5_JyZjZlYKDr1b.aspx

" lion finds from the Holocene are known only from Greece and Ukraine apart from the Carpathian Basin."
https://www.hnp.hu/en/szervezeti-egyseg/conservation/oldal/geography

How many more quotes do you need? A Google search for "Lion holocene Ukraine" yields around 317.000 results...

epoch said...

@FrankN

The lack of evidence for certain roots is never evidence because everything can get lost in time. I am aware. But there is literally not one shared root in IE that can be traced to the local ecology of the south Caspian, even not when clearly used for food.

It may not function as proof, it certainly should urge one to keep an alternative Urheimat in mind.

epoch said...

@FrankN

On Tocharian agricultural terminology:

"the proportion of words
inherited from the proto-language in a technical meaning is low.
Some other terms are borrowed from Indo-Iranian and Chinese,
and the rest is of unknown origin.
"

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=2ahUKEwign9bo9_DjAhVSJVAKHbXGBMwQFjAIegQIABAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.leidenuniv.nl%2Fbitstream%2Fhandle%2F1887%2F72349%2F08_Michae%2560%25C4%2599l_Peyrot.pdf%3Fsequence%3D1&usg=AOvVaw1Wxcpxd8IUTWzGiw16rnZ3

Ric Hern said...

Wild sheep (Mouflon) were found as far as the Crimea area..and only became extinct around the Later Bronze Age if I remember correctly...

PF said...

@JuanRivera @ epoch

Whoa, I never noticed how different the samples from Kumtepe are (I think the original paper only looked at the kum6?). I don't think too much stock can be put in such a low-res sample... but intriguing nonetheless.

[1] "distance%=14.1298"

Anatolia_N_Kumtepe_low_res:kum4

Boncuklu_N,41.6
Levant_N,21.8
EHG,14.6
CHG,12.6
Seh_Gabi_LN,9.4


[1] "distance%=13.6799"

Anatolia_N_Kumtepe_low_res:kum4

Anatolia_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N,66.4
RUS_Progress_En,33.6

Ric Hern said...

@ FrankN

"Novoselskoe II hillfort" = Lower Danube ? Extreme Southwestern Corner of Ukraine. Does that really count as the Broader Pontic-Caspian Steppe area ?

Simon_W said...

Re: Zardos' assertion that Basques are like Bell Beakers; Gabriel already applied some criticism, so Zardos revised his initial assertion to the point that they are like Bell Beakers patrilinearly and that they show the least evidence of post-BB change. But I think it's an important point that Bell Beakers and the EBA in Britain and Ireland were quite distinct from Basques in showing more steppe ancestry.

Re: Davidski's assertion that CHG is native to Eastern Europe... Well! If you say something is native after having lived there for many millennia this certainly isn't wrong. But on the other hand CHG are very different from the WHG-EHG cline, they show much more Basal Eurasian ancestry, and they're closer to Iranian HG than to WHG or EHG. This doesn't refute the idea that they may be called native to Eastern Europe, but it's something to keep in mind nonetheless.

Re: Zardos's musings on Reich, notions of race and political correctness in the initial comment: I picked up that some months ago there was a heavy debate about Reich's view on race in the New York Times. I didn't have the opportunity to follow it nor do I exactly know what Reich suggested. I suppose he suggested that the traditional races be replaced with the big genetic clusters like West Eurasian, Sub-Saharan, East Eurasian? Correct me if I'm wrong or if you know more. In any case this was heavily criticised by some journalists, again I don't know exactly why, but I suppose they didn't find it constructivist enough.

Apostolos said...

@FrankN
Maybe prePIE or early PIE had an animate-inanimate distinction and feminine gender was introduced after contact with an Afroasiatic like language.

I think some say that the feminine descended from a collective plural.

epoch said...

@PF

"I don't think too much stock can be put in such a low-res sample... but intriguing nonetheless. "

It is such a pity because the sample comes from exactly the right spot, at exactly the right time. Kumtepe apparently showed a sudden change in culture, and this apparently is related to the rise of Troy as well.

A real effort should be made to re-analyse. If something is left, that is. I emailed some authors about that but got no answer.

Apostolos said...

If someone makes a model for Central European BB with samples 9000 years old or older, one of them being Villabruna, what it will be like?

zardos said...

@Simon: I didnt revised anything, I just clarified. BB made little to no foreign male assimilation. Rather they made a tabula rasa.

The NW BB had even less of a maternal foreign input, but that makes little difference.

What makes a difference is that Basques are like a BB dominated population in a time capsule, but nobody else in Western Europe. There was just no other agent which could have introduced Basque.

Finns are more Corded Ware than most actual IE speakers, but they were converted by a wave-like Uralic expansion.

If the same happened with Celts, a small paternal change might have reached the Atlantic fringe.

Celts are not the issue, but Italics are more complicated as an early attested IE expansion.
In Italics and Hallstatt elite we should find non-Beaker ancestry of significance.

Even if BB spoke an IE dialect, I would still assume a Celtic expansion from Central Europe to the West with a significant impact.

About Reich: I think he wants to be as politically correct as possible without telling obvious lies deliberately.
In the current political context thats enough for the thought police to dont like him. In fact, they dont like Natural science dealing with humans in general, because their constructs dont do well if being put to test and analysed critically.
I know the interviews and reactions to it, but this is not the right place to discuss this at length.

JuanRivera said...

Obtained better fits for Kum4 than even the model using Piedmont, by using a mixture of Areni_C, Tepecik_Ciftlik_N and Yamnaya_Bulgaria.

JuanRivera said...

Intriguingly, it shows no apparent genetic connection to nearby (and earlier) Barcin_C.

Desdichado said...

@FrankN: on the other hand, pantherine cat remains are notoriously difficult to separate, and there have been many instances of lions, tigers, European jaguars, and cave lions all getting mixed up, confused, and the relations between them very, very difficult to resolve. In a parallel to our discussions here, it seems that some genetic research has created a situation where the expectation of Pleistocene lions and their relation to existing lions—all of which overlapped in the range of tigers, by the way—was turned pretty much on its head recently.

Not that I disagree with you, but I'm just saying. Depending on the methods used in those papers, they may or may not have been lions.

All that said, this discussion cum speculation on the formation of early PIE, the Caucasian substrate hypothesis (and any putative distant relations to any eastern Eurasian languages, Uralic or otherwise) sounds like a great subject for a post at ADNAERA. I find it fascinating stuff and would love to see it collated into something more coherent in presentation than some comments, if at all possible.

Gabriel said...

@Gaska

Many of them do not have steppe ancestry and have good percentages of Iberian blood.

These samples don’t belong to P312.

@zardos

If the same happened with Celts, a small paternal change might have reached the Atlantic fringe.

But aren’t Finns dominated by N? So, why that’s not the case with R1a in Western Europe? Must be a Hittite situation then?

Celts are not the issue, but Italics are more complicated as an early attested IE expansion.
In Italics and Hallstatt elite we should find non-Beaker ancestry of significance.


Aren’t early Italics and Etruscans identical, and a Bell Beaker-farmer mix? Seems unlikely they will show something from the east. Also, R1b-U152 dominates Italy.

zardos said...

Unetice was no monolithic block and most of the later groups too were not as homogeneous as CW or BB. R1b clans were obviously integrated and became part of it early on.
Still the BB tradition survived mainly in refuges and further West, but was otherwise replaced.
Like Drago said, the more hierarchical, stratified, professional etc a society became, the more they used foreign males instead of cutting them down.
This is very obvious from the Hallstatt culture, with its farmers and miners, craftsmen, professional warriors and a ruling aristocracy in proto-state/early state chiefdoms.
Thats not comparable to the more tribal-clannish nature of BB and CW.

But again, the BB might very well have been IE speakers, we need more data.

Simon_W said...

@Samuel Andrews

I tried your suggestion again to use the French cluster 1 for modelling the Swiss. In my failed first attempt I had overlooked that I have to put the data into comma separated format.

[1] "distance%=1.4474"

Swiss_French

FrenchCluster1,46.7
Bell_Beaker_FRA,32.1
ITA_Collegno_MA:CL121,11.9
DEU_MA,9.3
CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany:DA111,0

[1] "distance%=1.0016"

Swiss_German

FrenchCluster1,45.1
DEU_MA,33.5
Bell_Beaker_FRA,13.8
ITA_Collegno_MA:CL121,7.6
CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany:DA111,0

[1] "distance%=2.3308"

Swiss_Italian

FrenchCluster1,53.8
ITA_Collegno_MA:CL121,44.2
Bell_Beaker_FRA,2
CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany:DA111,0
DEU_MA,0

Looks like all Swiss ethnic groups alike can be modelled as roughly 50% stemming from the French cluster 1. However, I don't think this is a useful modelling as long as we've got decent ancient samples at hand. Because the French cluster 1 is a modern cluster of mixed origin, hence it rather hides the ancient origins than uncovering them.

JuanRivera said...

Isn't Proto-Unetice a part of Corded Ware?

JuanRivera said...

Asked that because in the G25 database Proto-Unetice is labeled as CWC_Proto_Unetice.

Andrzejewski said...

@Simon “Re: Davidski's assertion that CHG is native to Eastern Europe... Well! If you say something is native after having lived there for many millennia this certainly isn't wrong. But on the other hand CHG are very different from the WHG-EHG cline, they show much more Basal Eurasian ancestry, and they're closer to Iranian HG than to WHG or EHG. This doesn't refute the idea that they may be called native to Eastern Europe, but it's something to keep in mind nonetheless.”

Both Iran_N and CHG are Dzudzuana-like populations (close or similar to Anatolian_Epipaleolithic) with a dose of 35% -50% ANE, so they may cluster somewhere close to Eastern European HG (EHG).

Matt said...

@Epoch, re; money and numbers, that feels like it could be a bit too congruent with the other vocabulary that is borrowed/shared between Iberian and Basque that I don't quite trust myself to believe it, but it would seem to be plausible.

Matt said...

@epoch, also re; cereal usage in the steppe zone -

Intensification in pastoralist cereal use coincides with the expansion of trans-regional networks in the Eurasian Steppe

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-35758-w.pdf

The pace of transmission of domesticated cereals, including millet from China as well as wheat and barley from southwest Asia, throughout the vast pastoralist landscapes of the Eurasian Steppe (ES) is unclear. The rich monumental record of the ES preserves abundant human remains that provide a temporally deep and spatially broad record of pastoralist dietary intake. Calibration of human δ13C and δ15N values against isotope ratios derived from co-occurring livestock distinguish pastoralist consumption of millet from the products of livestock and, in some regions, identify a considerable reliance by pastoralists on C3 crops. We suggest that the adoption of millet was initially sporadic and consumed at low intensities during the Bronze Age, with the low-level consumption of millet possibly taking place in the Minusinsk Basin perhaps as early as the late third millennium cal BC.

Starting in the mid-second millennium cal BC, millet consumption intensified dramatically throughout the ES with the exception of both the Mongolian steppe where millet uptake was strongly delayed until the end of first millennium cal BC and the Trans-Urals where instead barley or wheat gained dietary prominence. The emergence of complex, trans-regional political networks likely facilitated the rapid transfer of cultivars across the steppe during the transition to the Iron Age.


(Section on "Participation in trans-regional political exchange networks redirected pastoralist dietary intake" and associated cultural change is really interesting!).

Matt said...

Although the "low carb diet" doesn't seem to be so associated with great health, at least for Volga populations postdating the Khvalynsk cemetaries:

Biocultural Analysis of the Prehistoric Populations of the Volga Region

https://pure.qub.ac.uk/ws/files/42562597/CHAPTER_8_Murphy_and_Khokhlov_pdf.pdf

The results would tend to suggest that, with its low levels of cribra orbitalia, the Khvalynsk population was relatively healthy. This would correlate with the high prevalence of older adult males in the corpus and with the potentially high status nature of the Khvalynsk II burial ground as evidenced by the occurrence of a rich array of copper grave goods in the burials. The levels of enamel hypoplasia were relatively high, however, but given the other positive indicators of health it is possible that this is just a sign that those individuals who had been subject to ill health as a child had the ability to recover thereby enabling the hypoplastic defect to develop.

The standard of health appears to have dramatically declined between Khvalynsk (Eneolithic) and Yamnaya (EBA) times, when individuals had the highest levels of cribra orbitalia, enamel hypoplasia and violence-related injuries. None of the Yamnaya adult males survived into older adulthood which may be a further indicator of poor health...


The dentitions of all groups were characterised by high levels (c. 50-100%) of periodontal disease and calculus, and generally low levels (0-30%) of extensive tooth attrition, ante-mortem loss, abscesses and caries. ... When the frequencies of calculus and caries are compared, however, they can be used to assess the relative levels of proteins versus carbohydrates within a group's diet (Keenleyside 2008, 265). Lillie (1996; 2000) found, for example, that Mesolithic and Neolithic populations in Ukraine displayed no caries and high levels of dental calculus. He interpreted these findings as indicative of a protein-based diet that was low in carbohydrates, and therefore compatible with the hunting-fishing gathering and, for the Neolithic, pastoralist form of economy expected for these early populations. These trends are very similar to those derived from the Volga populations where caries are practically absent and the calculus levels are even higher. It can therefore be concluded that all of the Volga populations from the Eneolithic through to Late Bronze Age times consumed a high protein diet in which cereals were largely absent.

Femur lengths plugged into a standard equation (http://www.adbou.dk/fileadmin/adbou/projektopgaver/ADBOU_linear_regression_Mette_Wodx.pdf) suggests heights would tend to be fairly low from Yamnaya onwards at about 5'6", with Poltavka population seeming to be the tallest (albeit with low N) and Srubnaya the smallest. Corded Ware samples from Europe (genetically similar to Potapovka-Srubnaya) are similar, as I can recall. See - https://imgur.com/a/xymY8Fl

JuanRivera said...

One should keep in mind that EHG itself (and Ukraine_Mesolithic/N) is part CHG (5% in Sidelkino, ~3-4% in Karelia_HG, ~6-7% in Samara_HG), so it will be displaced in a PCA towards the CHG+Iran cluster compared to a model with similar WHG and AG3-like ANE levels (and explains why EHG and Ukrainian HGs don't model very well as solely WHG+ANE). It's supported by qpAdm, nMonte and F3 statistics (such as the ones in the Yana paper, which shows very minor Basal Eurasian in EHG). That CHG is present as far back as ~11 kya BP shows that it was present in Eastern Europe almost as long as in the Near East.

zardos said...

For Corded Ware 5'6" would be rather at the lower end of the spectrum, as they were usually taller than 170 cm and significantly taller than most Neolithic populations which were on average shorter. Actually Corded Ware were among the tallest post-HG poplations of Europe before the Bronze Age. Bell Beaker too were rather at the tall end of the spectrum, but slightly shorter than CW.
A height of more than 170 cm would have been exceptionally tall for a purely Neolithic group.

Gabriel said...

To those who believe R1b steppe people were Vasconic, what do you think of Germanic R1b?

Ryan said...

@Gabriel - "To those who believe R1b steppe people were Vasconic, what do you think of Germanic R1b?" The Bell Beakers folk made it pretty far into what later became Germanic speaking areas, so that's not really a problem, whether you think Bell Beakers spoke Vasconic or not.

zardos said...

I don’t know what exactly R1b-BB were, but for the start, even if they had CW-related ancestry, they were in no way the same people.

We still dont know the exact path they took or where they were coming from. They were physically very different and had increased Neolithic, but even more important increased WHG ancestry.
So how did that come?
I see no sufficient answer, but just groups of fairly typical BB males with corresponding females which expanded in all directions while taking local females, including CW, on the move, while males were rarely allowed to assimilate and if, they were among the poor, presumably without the same status and rights in the group.

That rather exploitative BB system existed for many generations largely unchanged, as if specific BB caste kept it alive.

But then you see it collapsing. The culture changes significantly, the physical and genetic profile as well. BB refuges and strongholds survive, like Neolithic groups survived the steppe invasion, but their system and power in Central Europe was broken down. The remains integrated in the new, already less clanish system.
They didnt disappear, but they mixed and changed in the new environment of the full Bronze Age.

After that change many more cultural, possibly also ethnic movements went over the BB territories.

So after the 4th-5th large turnover we have attested Celtic languages. Fine, but their is only relative genetic continuity with a lot in between.
The only people which show real continuity from their BB ancestors are Basques.

Now what do you do with that? Like Drago said look at other places than Western Atlantic Europe. Germanic can be, like Celtic, come from post-BB influences.Actually its much less of a problem with such a high proportion of non-R1b.

But we need more samples. Italic warriors, Hallstatt and Celtic elite for example, then we might know.

Andrzejewski said...

@zardos Germanic languages originated with the merger of a CW (Battle Axe, Single Grave) R1a with an incoming BB Halstadt group. That’s why they are very hard to place on the tree and that why they exhibit characters of both Balto-Slavic and Italo-Celtic.

The drivel about Germanic being 33% - 50% lexically (and/or morphologically, phonologically and so forth) EEF/WHG is pure hogwash and horse manure.

Gabriel said...

@Ryan @Andrzejewski

I doubt most Germanic R1b is from Bell Beaker.

Besides, the significant amount of I1 can explain whichever substrate there is in Germanic.

Huck Finn said...

@ mzp1 and re "Uralic borrowings are Iranian not Indo-Aryan." This is most probably not true, I'd say that early Indo Aryan of Abashevo is a good candidate for the very early loans as recently suggested by Parpola.

FrankN said...

Häkkinen 2012 lists a whole series of Uralic borrowings over various stages of development from Proto-Aryan to Iranian, e.g.

IE *ghew- >Early Proto-Aryan *gughew- >Early PU *juxi- "to drink"

IE *ghen- >Middle Proto-Arian *dzen- >Middle PU *senti- "to be born"

IE kmtom >Late Proto-Aryan catam >Late PU *seta "100"

IE gh(o)l(H) > Late Proto-Aryan *zhar > Early Iranian zaranya >Late PU *serna "gold"

"Based on all the relevant arguments Proto-Uralic is located in the taiga zone in the Volga-Ural region, from where its expansion began only ca. 2000 BC (Kallio 2006; Häkkinen 2009), but PreProto-Uralic seems to have been spoken in Southern Siberia, north from the Sayan Mountains, where it shared typological developments with the protolanguages of the Altaic type (Janhunen 2001; 2007) and donated loanwords to Pre-ProtoYukaghir (Häkkinen 2012b). The Aryan developments must have taken place in the vicinity of Proto-Uralic, that is in the North Caspian Steppes, as extensively argued by Carpelan & Parpola (2001). "


http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Problems_of_phylogenetics.pdf

Matt said...

@zardos, I tried again with the stature estimation equations from two major stature estimation papers from ancient papers, to generate a true apples-to-apples comparison, and the Yamnaya do come out more "favourable" from those:

1) Using comparison data from "Stature and the Neolithic Transition - Skeletal Evidence From Southern Sweden", male stature is: Yamnaya: 173.79, Battle Axe Culture: 172.8, TRB: 164.8, PWC: 164.5, Ertebolle: 162.4 cm.
(Imperial: Y: 5'8, BAC: 5'8, TRB: 5'5, PWC: 5'5, E: 5'4).

2) Using comparison data from "Transition to Agriculture in Central Europe: Body Size and Shape among the First Farmers", male stature is Yamnaya: 172.8, Corded Ware: 168.7, Linearbandceramik 162.8 cm.
(Imperial: Y: 5'8, CW: 5'6, LBC: 5'4).

See: https://imgur.com/a/zEQ3eaI

But on overlap being "exceptional" SD is about 7.5 cm for males, so if you take that SD then in

1) about 15% of TRB would overlap with top 50% Yamnaya and BAC, or in
2) 10% of Linearbankceramik would overlap top 50% Yamnaya, and 20% top 50% CW

Not really exceptionally rare to overlap, but possibly something like 1 in 5.

Matt said...

Though these people would probably not just look small but short-legged to us.

That is there's some data in Cox's big study of heights* (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2019/07/02/690545.full.pdf) using Ruff's data that shows slightly reduced leg length in proportion to height: https://imgur.com/a/A6RUcYY.

Note if averages in above graphic from Cox's paper seem low compared to male averages above, they're male+female, so male neolithic under Mathieson's study would also be about 166-167cm, predominantly shorter in the leg due to stunting.

*This is one I may have called Mathieson's before, but she's the main author and he is just one of them, so it's fairer to her to call it hers.

zardos said...

@Matt: I spoke of pure Neolithic populations, TRB is obviously not a pure Neolithic, but significantly WHG influenced population.

Generally speaking the Eastern pastoralists were taller and had more robust bones, thats true for Yamnaya and Corded Ware, with BB being also more on their side, but more variable in comparison and more of a range from very robust to even very gracile, probably because of their constant mixture with the surrounds. The core type was rather tall-robust too.

Also we now have first impressions of "genetic height" and this points even more to the heigher steppe people height. Actually you can in Europe, to a point at least, guess the steppe percentage respectively Neolithic ancestry by looking at height alone. This is even true inside of nations like France and Italians. There are some exceptions to this rule, because a lot happened in between, but if speaking of a very generalised pattern, its true.

I know some CW groups were somewhat shorter, but 168 is really at the lower end of their range.

"Not really exceptionally rare to overlap, but possibly something like 1 in 5."

I talked about averages. Obviously the tallest Neolithics could overlap with the steppe average. But nevertheless, the physical difference is signfiicant. Depending on the kind of warfare, it might have played in too.

At that time the environmental influence was stronger than now of course. In the Hallstatt burials the upper class was close to modern heights, whereas the poor were almost as short as Neolithics. Now that can be mostly attributed to nutrition and living conditions, but the genetic height should be considered too in future research.

PF said...

@JuanRivera

Intriguingly, it shows no apparent genetic connection to nearby (and earlier) Barcin_C.

Barcin_C (aka Anatolia_Chl) is nearly a millennium *later* than Kum4...

If the Kum4 admixture results are taken as accurate, it certainly lends a lot of credence to a very early Steppe-related migration almost surely coming via the Balkans, which got diluted over time leading to trace amounts in Barcin_C and later. Enough to transmit a language? I have no idea.

Migration may be too strong a word. It almost seems like it was just a few individuals at first (like Varna_outlier). Anyways would be great to try and retest Kum4 and more generally get more genomes from late Neolithic western Anatolia.

Matt said...

@Zardos: I spoke of pure Neolithic populations, TRB is obviously not a pure Neolithic, but significantly WHG influenced population.

But the skeletal data seems to show that mesolithic WHG were no taller than neolithic groups! See the data from Cox and the Swedish study...

Pitted Ware Culture and Ertebolle were shortest in the Swedish study, while Cox's study showed the Mesolithic and late Upper Paleolithic (e.g. Villabruna WHG types) to be shorter than the Neolithic group...

EEF tended to have pretty robust limbs in terms of proportionate strength - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171129143359.htm - "A new study comparing the bones of Central European women that lived during the first 6,000 years of farming with those of modern athletes has shown that the average prehistoric agricultural woman had stronger upper arms than living female rowing champions."

Though facial shape may have been more gracile.

JuanRivera said...

10% steppe admixture seems the lowest amount in a population with steppe ancestry speaking IE (with the exception of modern Sardinians, Etruscans, Basques and other Paleohispanic groups, Uralic groups and Turkic groups). Above 30% steppe admixture, there are no non-IE populations (with exception of some Turkic groups, Estonians/Livonians, and maybe Mansi, Khanty and Ket)

zardos said...

@Matt: The Mesolithic populations were quite variable and you have to consider their genetic height too, which I don't know for them - probably you?

Also, mixture can oftentimes result in taller variants and in the case of TRB and GAC, my impression is that selection pushed the HG influenced pastoralists in the direction of the classic Corded type.

In a way, they reached through the Corded expansion and partial replacement faster what the Northern pastoralists were already heading for. For example in pigmentation (lighter), lactase persistence, taller and more robust overall. Thats part of the reason why in the past a lot of people put GAC and CWC rather close together, because especially in comparison to earlier Neolithics and Eastern HG groups, they were not that different after all physically and culturally. Coming from a different background, both headed towards a quite similar way of life which was at that time the best adaptation to the Northern habitat. CW had just the edge over the Western groups, for whatever exact reasons.

zardos said...

One question our linguistic experts might answer. One of Reichs main arguments against a steppe homeland of the PIE is that Anatolian speakers, according to him, lacked the vocabulary for the parts of a wagon and other means of transportation which all other IE speakers ought to share.
How accurate is his argument? Do Anatolian IE speakers lack a lot of the vocabulary one would attribute to the steppe way of life completely? Beyond what could be lost in the new homeland?

Andrzejewski said...

@zardos it’s estimated that Anatolian branch languages branched out 6500 YBP, which is just before horse riding and horse taming, wheel utilization and charioteers came into being. But I may be sorely wrong

Ryan said...

@Gabriel - Why do you doubt that R1b in Germanics is from BB? They made it as far as Denmark. Not all of it has to be direct either - half of Germany was Celtic speaking at one point.

I don't think the Beaker folk are the origin of the substrate in Germanic though except perhaps minor contributions.

zardos said...

@Andre: 4500 BC is quite early isn't it? About 1000 years earlier than usually assumed. And attested in Anatolia much later.
So if assuming they came from the PC steppe, they could have been in the vicinity of other IE groups for much longer time, but probably no longer in the direct sphere of influence and exchange, before entering Anatolia.
When and where they entered Anatolia is completely unknown if I recall correctly.

Andrzejewski said...

Could the switch from TRB/Funnelbeaker in Central Europe to Globular Amphora be attributed to a migration of a different set of Middle Neolithic farming community from the Paris basin? Would Michelsberg be responsible for the vast introgression of WHG ancestry in the GAC with its accompanying I2a y-DNA? Maybe blondism which according to @Samuel Andrews’ guest blog post was limited to GAC and subsequently spread in all directions via absorption into the expanding CWC was not a legacy of Rössen or Laryngial or the impact of Motala or Erteboelle on LBK but it actually migrated from France? And last but not least - could it be that Michelsberg is responsible for the exponential meteoric rise of mtDNA H on the expanse of (now rare, previously common in Cardial Pottery) N1a, K1a (common in Ashkenazi Jews and seen in Ötzi) or HV and R0 (common among Cucuteni Tripolye)?

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0179742

“At the regional level, the analysis of the Gougenheim mitochondrial gene pool (SNPs and HVR-I sequence analyses) permitted us to highlight a major genetic break associated with the emergence of the Michelsberg in the region. This genetic discontinuity appeared to be linked to new affinities with farmers from the Paris Basin, correlated to a noticeable hunter-gatherer legacy. All of the evidence gathered supports (i) the occidental origin of the Michelsberg groups and (ii) the potential implication of this migration in the progression of the hunter-gatherer legacy from the Paris Basin to Alsace / Western Germany at the beginning of the Late Neolithic.”

JuanRivera said...

There are two roots for grass in PIE: *wel- and *ḱoyno-. Reflexes of the former are attested from Britain to India (and present even in Hittite), while the latter to an area stretching from Greece to Latvia, without reflexes either east or west of it. Interestingly, Italic languages don't show reflexes of any of the two, having replaced them with a word derived from the PIE root *gʰreh₁- 'to grow' (herba, which is specifically a Latin word). Neither does Iranic.

JuanRivera said...

And Germanic.

JuanRivera said...

Found that Afanasievo has 1.67% Botai admixture (being otherwise similar to Yamnaya_Karagash, which itself is 99.17% Yamnaya_Samara and 0.83% Botai).

JuanRivera said...

So, those who said that Afanasievo crossed Botai territory without admixing are both wrong and right.

epoch said...

@zardos

Anatolian languages have indeed not inherited any of the words associated with wagons as found in late PIE. Their word for wheel, "ḫūrkis", is almost certainly from a PIE root. That may mean that it's an innovation. However, there also is the Tocharian A word for wheel, "wärkänt", which could be associated. If that is the case Reich's argument is falsified.

I am by no means an linguistic expert, mind you. Not even nearly. I just had the same question as you a while ago and this is what I basically found.

Andrzejewski said...

@JuanRivera It’s not that Yamnaya offspring populations didn’t admix with Botai; it is that the latter’s influence on the former is almost tantamount to none. Compare it to Sen. Warren’s claim to an indigenous Native American heritage, where she got very very little. <2% equals “noise levels”. According to this Botai analogy 60M -70M Americans have Cherokee blood.

On top of this genetic analysis, bear in mind that even if Botai had contributed significantly to Indo-Iranian populations, their DEMIC and cultural, linguistic et al influence on their developements is diddly squat.

Furthermore, to seal the deal - Narasimhan 2018 clinched it by pointing out that neither Botai nor BMAC have donated any large enough chunk of ancestry to be accounted for as a considerable (=non negligible) genetic contribution. Therefore, it negates the hitherto-prevailing view regarding Hinduism and Avesta as deriving from non-IE BMAC.

All that said, I’m curious where culturally and linguistic isolates in India and Nepal came from, their linguistic affiliation and their genetic origins: Burusho, Nihali and Kusunda. Any ideas?

JuanRivera said...

Another set of interesting observations: Forest Yukaghirs and Tundra Yukaghirs are extremely different in genetic composition. Levanluhta_IA has East Eurasian and EHG ancestry (in addition to Corded_Ware_Baltic), whereas Levanluhta_IA_o gets only Baltic_HG ancestry (in addition to Corded_Ware_Baltic), which bears similarity to the Saami_IA and Finnish_IA groups of the Yana paper, respectively. Contrary to the Yana paper, however, Levanluhta_IA produced better fits with Kolyma_Meso over Devils_Gate_Cave_N, but both are far outmatched in fits by Shamanka_EBA. Tundra Yukaghirs may be a holdover from the Early Neolithic of Yakutia (with 35.83% Magadan_BA-like Kolyma ancestry and 64.17% Ulchi), whereas Forest Yukaghirs seem to be instead a mixture between roughly equal parts Tundra Yukaghir and Sintashta-like steppe population (53.57% Sintashta_MLBA and 46.43% Tundra Yukaghir), with further Yakut admixture from the Altai (6.67% of autosomal DNA). Even today, Forest Yukaghirs are 50% Sintashta_MLBA. Tundra Yukaghirs lack both Yakut and Sintashta_MLBA admixtures. Given that such high percentages of steppe admixture aren't seen normally in non-IE peoples, it's quite possible that the ancestors of Forest Yukaghirs may have undergone Yukaghirization at some point in the past. Given that Forest Yukaghirs are significantly Sintashta_MLBA and the kind of steppe ancestry in Magadan_BA is Sintashta-like, that gives a means for Sintashta-like ancestry to reach the Pacific. As for Magadan_BA, using Forest Yukaghirs gives better fits than using raw Sintashta_MLBA. Even when adding Forest Yukaghirs, Magadan_BA still shows extra Ulchi.

JuanRivera said...

I know that Botai has no cultural or major genetic influence on steppe groups, hence the both wrong and right.

Davidski said...

@JuanRivera

Levanluhta_IA has East Eurasian and EHG ancestry (in addition to Corded_Ware_Baltic), whereas Levanluhta_IA_o gets only Baltic_HG ancestry (in addition to Corded_Ware_Baltic), which bears similarity to the Saami_IA and Finnish_IA groups of the Yana paper, respectively.

Nope.

The West Eurasian ancestry in Levanluhta_IA and especially Levanluhta_IA_o is mostly Germanic not Corded_Ware_Baltic.

On the trail of the Proto-Uralic speakers (work in progress)

JuanRivera said...

Turns out adding Tundra Yukaghirs too result in way better fits. Here's the model: Magadan_BA: (Yukagir_Forest+Yukagir_Tundra+Kolyma_Meso+Ulchi, 2.6935, Yukagir_Forest 7.5% Yukagir_Tundra 50.83% Kolyma_Meso 39.17% Ulchi 2.5%). The previous fits not involving Tundra Yukaghirs were 5.302, while those that also didn't include Forest Yukaghirs were ~5.6.

JuanRivera said...

Thanks for the correction. I value learning more than holding a position.

JuanRivera said...

So, the non-Kolyma ancestry of Magadan_BA would be ~12.33% Forest Yukaghir, ~4.02% Ulchi and ~83.56% Tundra Yukaghir. Overall, given what the models indicate, it seems like the Yakutian Neolithic would be Tundra Yukagir-like, with some extra Ulchi. If true, it would be likely ~95.31% Tundra Yukaghir and ~4.69% Ulchi.

JuanRivera said...

Nivh and Nivkh also have Ekven_IA in addition to Magadan_BA (and, of course, Ulchi).

JuanRivera said...

Yukaghirs (especially Forest Yukaghir) are actually close to the location from which the Magadan_BA samples have been extracted. So, maybe we would see more steppe in ~2000 BC Magadan and Kamchatka (or maybe equal or less).

Matt said...

@zardos, well, in terms of the actual height of people in the Neolithic, Mesolithic, Bronze Age, etc., and the nutritional / stress and so on influence of them and what this said about the health and diet of different populations, which was the original topic, you have to consider only the measured heights or estimates via femur.

(Partly I'm interested in this because you get these ideas contrasting tall, healthy, strong pastoralists and hunter gatherers who are seen as akin to modern people in their health, with farmers who are seen as malnourished, small and weak. Yamnaya and Corded Ware and WHG male 6 footers and the like, contrasted against 5 foot tall farmers.

It seems like a very sanitized and "PC" view of ancient foragers and pastoralists, who were probably rather poorly nourished and had physically demanding and stressful lifestyles to modern people. I'm against what seems to be an increasingly popular romanticisation of ancient forager and pastoralist lifestyles.)

If you wanted to consider how much of height of modern people is explained by ancient ancestry, then I guess you would instead want to look at genetic scores.

But the scores from Cox's paper suggest that the identified genetic height differences between Mesolithic, Neolithic, and Bronze Age people are small, something like 0.5-0.25 of an SD, depending on how the GWAS corrected for population structure.

Mesolithic and Upper Paleolithic samples also came out with the same genetic score as Neolithic people... Perhaps Mesolithic populations are variable, but it does seem to be a bit untestable to argue that there must have been some genetically ultra tall hidden set of samples that they hadn't sampled...

Even if that is an underestimate of the real genetic differences by 2-3x, you would still only get to 2-3ins or something like this (which is a bit allowance), which matches OK the skeletal record in the Swedish paper or Central European paper (between high steppe CW populations and their respective local TRB and LBK populations).

Matt said...

Re; loss of shared wheel and wagon vocabulary in Anatolian (Hittite, Luwian, etc.), the argument (if I remember rightly, and I may not) is that they didn't have shared terms with other IE groupings but separate derivations and loanwords (though I don't know if this is true or not).

Not that they didn't have words for wheels and wagons at all, which would be fairly ridiculous to expect in any Bronze Age people.

It's not like anyone could ever argue "Oh, they moved to Anatolia, where people wouldn't need to know what wheels and wagons are" which is insane from the perspective that these were widespread technologies that were pretty much everywhere across West Eurasia almost as soon as they were invented (from Sumer to the Middle-Late neolithic farmers of NW Europe).

The argument that they could not have switched out on this particular set of words doesn't seem overwhelmingly strong however. It's not like there is some reason that they couldn't have shifted these lexemes.

Arguments that hinged on "X must have diverged earlier because when we see them turn up later in history, they lack shared vocabulary on Y which happened at time Z" is not really a very strong argument.

Stronger arguments for early divergence of Anatolian seem to be in the structure of the phylogeny of morphological and phonological changes, and greater variation in core lexicon (which has no particular strong impetus to change in response to technological change).

JuanRivera said...

So, first, a movement from the Urals through the Kazakh steppe to the Minusinsk depression associated with Andronovo. From there, going through the Yenisei and Lena valleys and then through the Verkhoyansk and Kolyma ranges.

Nezih Seven said...

@Davidski

In Anthony's article it's written that most Yamnaya individuals score more than 50% CHG, but in models I've tried with G25 EHG is much higher than CHG. Why is that?

zardos said...

@Matt: From all data I have ever seen the pastoralists were in much better health than the farmers in Central- and Northern Europe. Mesolithic HG populations were fairly variable.

If Cox finds so little differences in genetic scores, I'm not sure his work was spot on, because again, all I have ever seen points in a different direction. But probably he is right, and all the others wrong, we'll see.

This study on height and BMI in modern populations follows the pattern I meant:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4984852/

And you know Mathieson et al:
"First, the Iberian Neolithic and Chalcolithic samples show selection for reduced height relative to both the Anatolian Neolithic (p=0.042) and the Central European Early and Middle Neolithic (p=0.003). Second, we detect a signal for increased height in the steppe populations (p=0.030 relative to the Central European Early and Middle Neolithic). These results suggest that the modern South-North gradient in height across Europe is due to both increased steppe ancestry in northern populations, and selection for decreased height in Early Neolithic migrants to southern Europe."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4918750/

Linguistics:
"Stronger arguments for early divergence of Anatolian seem to be in the structure of the phylogeny of morphological and phonological changes, and greater variation in core lexicon (which has no particular strong impetus to change in response to technological change)."

Well, there are two problems: First, Anatolian IE met a pre-IE substrat and this substrat was numerically, culturally and structurally stronger than any other IE met when first taking a region. So in the oldschool interpretation, a lot of the change was attributed to foreign influences on Proto-Anatolian.

Second, even if that's not right and can be refuted by linguists, an earlier departure from the main IE communities would be mean little for the homeland from my perspective. Especially since we know nothing about where Anatolian was before it can be historically attested.

So the argument of Reich, for a lack of steppe people's innovations and their vocabulary for it at the time of separation, would be mean something, the rest not. But I agree that this is a very weak linguistic argument of Reich, and if its the only one, with the idea of genetic CHG influence from Transcaucasia, his whole story is not plausible.

Davidski said...

@Nezih Seven

In Anthony's article it's written that most Yamnaya individuals score more than 50% CHG, but in models I've tried with G25 EHG is much higher than CHG. Why is that?

Because Anthony isn't talking about CHG ancestry per se, but rather about the component inferred with ADMIXTURE that peaks in CHG. Note that he refers to Figure 2c in Wang et al. in his text. That's the ADMIXTURE bar graph.

However, normally it's not a good idea to infer ancient ancestry proportions from ADMIXTURE output. Here's an example of how things can go wrong...

The Metal Age invader that never was #2

JuanRivera said...

Just realized that Saqqaq may actually be a mixture of Tundra Yukaghir-like and Kolyma (given that Saqqaq models as ~25% Devils_Gate_Cave_N in the Yana paper, and the Ulchi model as mostly Devils_Gate_Cave_N, the rest being Kolyma[and no steppe ancestry or any other ancestry]). Magadan_BA may then be a mixture of Forest Yukaghir-like, Tundra Yukaghir-like, Ulchi-like and Saqqaq-like. I'll be waiting as long as necessary to see new samples from the Saqqaq and other Greenlandic cultures, as the Saqqaq genome we have is too low-quality.

JuanRivera said...

Actually, ~20%.

Ben Osland said...

Quoting Suyindik who cited Reich:

"about ten thousand years ago there were at least four major populations in West Eurasia—the farmers of the Fertile Crescent, the farmers of Iran, the hunter-gatherers of central and western Europe, and the hunter-gatherers of eastern Europe. All these populations differed from one another as much as Europeans differ from East Asians today."

Is this really the case when we consider that all populations are admixed with one another? EHG are roughly half WHG. Anatolia_N derives mainly from Mesolithic Anatolia (Feldman 2019)in which there is obvious geographic proximity that tie Mesolithic Anatolians to WHG. There is Villabruna connection to the Near East.

Iran_N would be the most extreme outlier but even here, there is some overlap with components (ANE, which is also present in EHG and to a lesser extent, WHG; possibly even Anatolia_N itself, via Iran_N input. And again, the aforementioned Iran_N input into Anatolia_N.)

When compared to the rest of the world,facial morphology is largely the same throughout Western Eurasia, which led to the craniometrical taxon 'Caucasoid' being applied to a large swath of Western Eurasia. It's not very empirical, and even pooh-poohed nowadays, but it's obvious to see in comparison with East Asians, Native Americans, Sub-Saharan Africans.

The relative uniformity is largely down to post-bronze age movements of peoples around Eurasia but could also suggest that this is something very old-a feature common to Pre-Ice age Western Eurasian groups like Dzudzuana. Given the fact that facial reconstructions show the facial morphology of of WHGs like La Brana, Loschbour, Cheddar Man to already fit within European range, the latter could be a possibility.

Matt said...

@zardos: Re genetic height, it's technical but there are lots of questions raised about those old GWAS studies (2015 is, unbelievably, old considering how fast the field is moving) in the last year.

The issues with older GWAS like that GIANT dataset analysis is that because you're talking about alleles of such low effect and the realized phenotype is correlated with population structure, there is really minimal sensitivity to distinguishing true height alleles from alleles which just represent population structure.

So e.g. you end up with Neolithics ending up with lots of "short" variants, but those actually may just be "Spanish / Portuguese" variants that are not really causally related to height and just happen to be related to a phenotypically shorter and taller population in the present day (and can't be used to create a genetic height score, properly). Such "height" signals are inflated, then.

In the same way, if you had a panel with a lot of Dinaric Alpine people and Hungarian or something, you'd find that the tall variants would probably become Neolithic (though maybe less dramatically so).

Hence the better way to do so is to just use an ethnically homogenous panel to control for population structure and find "real" variants. Ideally you use siblings.

But you can't do this until you have sample sizes like the UK Biobank White British cohort. So this was not done until Biobank was out there.

Since we had UK Biobank then, there are a couple of studies that did this last year:

https://elifesciences.org/articles/39725 - "Reduced signal for polygenic adaptation of height in UK Biobank" (Copenhagen's paper)

https://elifesciences.org/articles/39702 - "Polygenic adaptation on height is overestimated due to uncorrected stratification in genome-wide association studies" (Harvard's paper)

These find that the height score differences between WHG, Neolithic, etc. do replicate to some degree, but at far, far lower magnitude clip.

So it's not like Samantha Cox vs Everyone Else, more like "Everyone Pre-Biobank sample sizes" vs "Everyone Post-Biobank sample sizes". And the post-Biobank people have a better dataset.

But this stuff will continue to be validated or not as other countries begin to churn out Biobank scaled datasets, and scores that independently replicate across population begin to be identified.

Matt said...

@zardos: Re the impact of substrates acting on Anatolian to accelerate divergence and make it look like a falsely older than it is, one issue is that this is supposition though and not demonstrated that substrates do accelerate change.

But the more essential point is that arguments for extraordinary substrate pressures would really only applies to the Bayesian models that look at rate of change in core lexicon.

If you have a "perfect phylogeny" model of reconstructing an IE tree through a series of phonological and grammatical changes which can only happen in a series 1->2->3->5->n with no back mutation and the Anatolian languages are always splitting at 1, then you can't really attribute this to extraordinarily accelerated change rates from substrate influences.

That seems to be the case for Anatolian, at least on the linguistic consensus of reconstruction of PIE.

That is, that Anatolian preserves some extremely archaic features of earliest IE, and have features directly derived from earliest PIE, so those can't be explained by "substrate influence". Google "archaism" and "Anatolian" for specific examples.

(It seems to be less a consensus in the case of some other branches that look early diverged under the Bayesian core lexicon models - Indo-Aryan, etc. These are often postulated to be early branch offs under the Bayesian analysis of core lexicon, but do not branch off as early under "perfect phylogeny".)

I don't really have the linguistic knowledge to confirm this one way or the other, but it seems to be the general linguistic consensus.

K33 said...

[i]Aug 3: David: But the location of the PIE homeland is somewhere around the Black Sea, that's for sure, and probably rather late in the scheme of things.

Aug 4: Well, I for one, no longer have a PIE homeland theory.

I'm just not satisfied with any of the explanations that I've seen. Some scenarios do look more plausible than others, but none are especially meaningful considering all of the data.[/i]
----------------------------
David, these two statements seem contradictory? Did you change your mind after seeing some new evidence between these two posts?

Regarding the admittedly odd y-dna patterns observed in BA Iberia: What do you think about the "fourth" steppe theory, which has been proposed by amateurs only very recently: that a European farmer group (like Globular Amphora or Cucuteni) are the progenitors of PIE?

The linguistic argument requires early contact between PIE and pre-Uralic, and this box could be checked by the proximity of these cultures to Pit Comb Ware.

Genetically, we know there's a pulse of WHG-heavy farmer admixture into Yamnaya/CW immediately prior to the explosive spread of late PIE. And of course the I2a2 clades found in both Yamnaya and in BA Spain, Balkans, etc, might be ultimately traced to farmers.

I personally still think the steppe theory holds crown until it's definitively dethroned, but a European farmer homeland model would be a much more plausible alternate than the Anatolian and Caucasus models, IMO

Andrzejewski said...

@Ben Osland “The relative uniformity is largely down to post-bronze age movements of peoples around Eurasia but could also suggest that this is something very old-a feature common to Pre-Ice age Western Eurasian groups like Dzudzuana. Given the fact that facial reconstructions show the facial morphology of of WHGs like La Brana, Loschbour, Cheddar Man to already fit within European range, the latter could be a possibility.”

Do we actually have a full cranofacial reconstruction of La Brana, Cheddar etc? So far, only Ötzi seems to be fully reconstructed, and even that is deemed inaccurate.

I read a study saying that Anatolia_N was something between Dzudzuana and WHG of the Villabruna cluster, with the former being a Gravetian-like population. I don’t know how serious this claim is, especially when WHG and ANF were described as very physically different from each other.

FrankN said...

On wheels: The most obvious example of a late transfer of "wheel" terminology is German "Rad" - a medieval borrowing from either Latin or Celtic (Iranian, via Alans, is another possible source). Otherwise, it seems to be consensus that Sumerian GALGAL ultimately also goes back to PIE *kweklos, possibly via an intermediary such as Hurrian (in which case, however, Anatolian "ḫūrkis" as apparent deviation from the Near Eastern "mainstream" would be even more problematic).

Otherwise, there is Proto-Wakashan-Nivkh-Algic *kwilku “round” (c.f. Proto-Algic *kwelk “to turn, return”, all as per Nikolaev 2016). Nivkh kulku-r “wheel” is probably rather an independent development than an IE borrowing.

Elsewhere, we find:

- PNC *gwɨ[l]gwǝ “round object, skull”, *hwǝ̄lkwē “carriage, vehicle; wheel”,
- Georgian (ḳwe-)ḳwer-a “round”, OGeorg grgol “ring”,
- PST *qʷār “move; round (object)”,
- Altaic *k`úlo “to turn”,
- Chukchee-Kamchatkan *kǝvlǝ- “to spin, roll; wheel, spindle”,
- Uralic *kulke “to move” *kerä “round, turning”,
- Eskimo *akra-ɣ- “round, to roll, wheel, (snow-)ball”,
- Telugu *kral“to move, turn round”, kalu “wheel”,
- Katuic *(kǝ-)kol “round”, *wiel “round; (re-)turn, spin”,
- Afras *kVr(kVr) “round; to rotate; ring, circle, ball”,
- Bushman *kVrV “round” [all from starling.rinet.ru],
- Manga (Nilo-Saharan, from Blench 2007) bukukul “round”;
- German Kugel, Dutch kogel "ball, bullet" (c.f. "Kulturkugel") of unclear, probably non-IE origin.

IOW, we are not talking about an IE-specific term, but about a globally distributed paleo-root with the meaning "(go/turn) round" that has been applied to various round objects, including skulls, (snow-)balls, rings, and also wheels.

You, Epoch, deem the lack of Anatolian and Tocharian equivalents to "wheel" and/or "Rad/rota" terms otherwise found in IE a "very weak linguistic argument of Reich". Now, I agree, it is certainly not the strongest point to be brought forward. But when it comes to "very weak linguistic arguments" Anthony's "horse and wheel" stuff should IMO clearly but higher on the respective list.

epoch said...

@FrankN

You mean "zardos". I just pointed to what I found.

Davidski said...

@K33

Did you change your mind after seeing some new evidence between these two posts?

The point I was making was that there were no tangible clues and no real evidence linking any known archeological culture with archaic PIE.

All that we have right now, at all levels of the game, is pure speculation based on the rather obvious fact that the PIE homeland was somewhere in the vicinity of the Black Sea, and the high probability that late/nuclear PIE exploded from the steppe.

Late PIE ground zero now obvious; location of PIE homeland still uncertain, but...

Regarding the admittedly odd y-dna patterns observed in BA Iberia: What do you think about the "fourth" steppe theory, which has been proposed by amateurs only very recently: that a European farmer group (like Globular Amphora or Cucuteni) are the progenitors of PIE?

This sounds like a western version of the Maykop PIE theory. In other words, the light is passed on to the steppe hoi polloi, and they do most of the leg work. Lame.

It should be obvious by now that there's no PIE theory without at least a significant input from some steppe people.

zardos said...

@Matt: Of course a different substrate or neighbour accelerates changes.
We can see this everywhere. Take Sanskrit as an example with some foreign influences from the start.

You could observe it in realtime with German dialects, especially in fringe areas.
But to pin it down for something quite specific and important like in the case brought up by Reich is beyond anything I can evaluate by myself.
But in the end genetics will decide it and the only thing I accuse Reich et al us that they present the case almost as if its a sure and proven thing, which it is definitely not, even less so for their scenario than others.

AWood said...

Language could be female mediated which is why there is a language shift to a non-IE language. We see many of the R1b rich cultures of southern Europe, such as in Iberia have taken EEF wives as we know they heavily practiced exogamy. This must have also been the case for the R-V88 hunter gatherers. Since the northern European farmers collapsed, there was more of a balance between EEF/Steppe derived females, where as the ones in the south of Europe did not, making mates more readily available.

I don't see the importance of language when it comes to the roles of men in a primitive society. Also, poster Gaska keeps emphasizing that Z2103 and L51 having "nothing to do with each other", which is pretty much impossible since they have a common ancestor 700 years earlier, probably the western steppes or the Carpathians.

olga said...



According to Asko Parpola in his book “Formation of the Indo European and Uralic( Finno Hugric ) languages family in the light of archeology” the hittitan Word for “chariot” was “zalti” a word loaned from de Luwian “zala” wagon, cart.
That is the oficial interpretation.
In euskera or basque language “Zaldi” means “horse” And horses existed before carts were invented.
In Asturias, North of Spain, close to the Basque Country, small horses that run free in the Cantabric Mountains are called “zaldones” and like the basque ponnies “pottokas” are considered natives of Iberia.
These facts lead me to think that vasconic languages have very old Anatolian connection and also do Iberian and Tartesic languages.
If I am not mistaken, the neolithic component of basques forms a cloud with Barcin.
Of course in the route from Anatolia to the last end of Europe, they encountered West Hunter Gatherers, with their own languages with whom they mixed and formed the base that gave origin to vasconic people and language in West Europe.
Perhaps there were several waves of people coming from Anatolia, Levante and Central Europe in small quantities. But Euskera, in spite of the different contacts and culture, is a sort of fossil keeping words from the Stone Age before metals were wrought and carriages were invented.Who knows if the small “zaldi” helped to drag stones and build dolmens.




Matt said...

@zardos: All things being equal, it may be that contact effects accelerate linguistic change. But it's far from certain that this is the dominant force, in the summary of all effects. You can easily find examples where groups that don't have much contact have extensive change, or where communities of speakers take in lots of outgroup speakers with little influence on the language. (You refer to Sanskrit, for'ex but this has often been considered conservative within IE.)

There are material attempts to work this sort of thing out however: https://www.pnas.org/content/114/42/E8822

It's not implausible for contact effects to be significant, it just seems the sort of thing that ends up with arguments that can't really be tested and so there's no idea if they're correct or not.

Matt said...

@FrankN, and if talking about linguistic correlates of wheels has challenges, there is at least clear archaeological evidence that wheels and wagons existed before and outside the spread of Corded Ware Culture to Central and Western Europe.

Much more difficult is the spread of the domesticated horse.

It often seems to be an article of faith that horses spread into Central+Western Europe only with the spread of the Corded Ware or other offshoots of the steppe.

But of course there are horse bones present before this, and it is well conceivable that a useful domesticate could spread well before CW, so the argument then hinges on use of domesticated horse, and that is hard to provide evidence for.

So the argument is then that size differences in horse bones should be taken as indication of system breeding.

But there are no agreements between specialists about how to distinguish this trend from natural variation, and small sample sizes render it difficult to make a judgement!

As described here (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=EaVTxjrbIFQC&lpg=PA253&pg=PA248#v=onepage&q&f=false) -
"Benecke (1994), for example, maintains that an increase in variation of body size should be considered a marker of domestication in horses, similar to that seen in the probable domestic populations from Kazakhstan and Russia dating to the Bronze and Iron ages. Uerpmann (1990), on the other hand, believes that a similar degree of variation in body size among Neolithic equine populations in fourth millennium Germany falls within the limits of a wild population".

Thus you can get anything in this variability

"Employing the same LSI technique as Uerpmann, Benecke (2006a) identifies the first domestic horses in central Germany to the Late Neolithic Bernburg culture (3500–2700 cal. BC), where there is an increase in the average size of horses, an increased variability in bone size and also a higher proportion of horse bones found at sites (this latter is discussed further below). Benecke (2006a) interprets the combination of the increase in size and variability of bone measurements as representing the importation of domestic horses from sites in eastern or south-eastern Europe, where horses are known to be larger (there is east–west size variation of post-glacial horses with larger animals in eastern Europe and the steppe and smaller horses in the Iberian Peninsula (Uerpmann 1990; Bokonyi 1974: 248–54, 1978)). However, in contrast to Benecke’s interpretation, Steppan (2006) interprets changes in size variability of horses in the Neolithic of Germany and Switzerland as resulting from human activities causing ecological changes to their habitats." ("From wild horses to domestic horses: a European perspective" - https://tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00438243.2012.647571?src=recsys&journalCode=rwar20 - Bendrey, 2012)

(Or for another example of even earlier purported import of domesticated horses by Late Neolithic European populations - http://sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/az2016n1a2.pdf - a high size variability in Eneolithic Funnel Beaker culture (TRB, 3800-3350 BC) together with a non-homogeneous distribution in Řivnáč culture (3100-2800 BC) and a significant increase in size between Lengyel and Baden-Řivnáč horizons (probably already in TRB) combined with the occasional occurrence of unexpectedly large individuals probably indicate the importation of tamed or even domesticated horses as early as the times of TRB culture

zardos said...

@Unknown: But for Ireland we know that a language shift took place, or do you propose a Celtic speaker's continuity in Ireland from the earlist Beakers to modern times?

Like I said, Celtic spread from Central Europe in all likelihood and did so in a wave like form, in which one chiefdom created and assimilated the next. From Hallstatt on in particular, thats perfectly possible. In Central Europe there is no continuity at all and I wouldn't even dismiss a Neolithic lineages' revival among Unetice's core group.

Another issue is that the Irish are for sure not a direct continuation of BB, but show admixture and the modern R1b levels might be, in part, the result of later developments like founder effect and not just continuity.

Its perfectly possible that steppe influenced BB were IE speakers, we will see. A language shift through captured brides, and BB brought women with them too btw, is just ridiculous in the given context. It might have happened earlier and in more Norhtern parts, at a time the original BB founders were dominant though. Thats possible.

Samuel Andrews said...

@zardos,

There is strong continuation in Ireland since Bell Beaker. 70% of irish belong to R1b L21, 100% of Bell Beaker in British Isles belonged to R1b L21. Founder effects can't explain this.

There's a slight shift south in the British Isles in the iron age. *Slight.*

JuanRivera said...

Actually, Sidelkino is ~60% ANE, while later EHGs are 64%+ ANE. As for R1b, the presence of R1b-Z2013 in steppe and the absence of R1b(xV88, R1b1*) in the Neolithic and non-steppe admixed Bronze Age (with exception of Baltic HGs, who were admixed with EHG, which is supported by both autosomes and the Q1a2 Y-chromosome haplogroup) points towards a steppe origin of R1b-L51. There's a similar correlation of R1a with steppe, and unlike R1b, it hasn't been found west of the steppe until the Bronze Age. However, outliers of both do exist, such as Sardinians (who have R1b-M256 but very little steppe ancestry), Forest Yukaghirs (who are half Sintashta_MLBA but show no western Y-DNA nor mtDNA) and Chukotko-Kamchatkans (who have R1a and possibly R1b but have very little to trace steppe ancestry).

Davidski said...

@All

Please note that posting with the nick "Unknown" isn't allowed here.

And in regards to Ireland, there was definitely a genetic shift in much of the country since the Bell Beaker period, to a more southerly genetic structure.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Ben Osland,
"Quoting Suyindik who cited Reich....Mesolithic West Eurasians as different from each other as modern Europeans and East Asians (paraphrased)."

You're right to be critical of this claim.

This claim which Reich (and the others) consistently repeats is false. Just as his claim the claim Yamnaya was founded by migrants from iran is false. And just as his claim WHG moved into Europe from the Middle East 15,000 years ago is false.

All of the Epipaleolithic pops from the Middle East shared mtDNA (Modern Europeans & East Asians share no mtDNA). It is obvious they were distinct from each other but shared somekind of Paleolithic common ancestry.

And obviously, to say EHG was not related to WHG is crazy.

I know Reich bases his claim Epipaleolithic West Eurasians were as distinct from each other as modern Europeans are from East Asians on some-kind of statistic. Whatever, that statistic is it cannot describe full relationship between populations. Basal Eurasian ancestry might be hiding the recent common ancestry between them.

Also, Reich & others know that to describe Europeans as multi-racial sounds good politically. So, they like to exaggerate how different the various pops who founded Europe were from each other. Anatolia is not far away from Europe. Yamnaya lived in eastern Europe not Central Asia. When you think about it, the idea they have that populations from different worlds mixed in Europe starts to look silly.



zardos said...

Where is the shift in Basques? Even a slight one like in the Irish?
We know Celts came in later, so no reason to propose a Northern BB Italo-Celtic continuity. Assuming a wave like expansion from the comtinent means we don't have to expect a huge genetic impact. Times were different then they were in the times of Yamnaya, GAC, CWC and BB. In Hallstatt we find a stratified society in which the majority of males was rather poor and dependent, in comparison to the upper and middle class, but its rather unlikely they were of a different ethnicity and spoke a different language. Central Europe became in the late Bronze and early Iron Age, in this respect, more like Greece and Anatolia were before.

But from where should the Basques have come? Let's assume the R1b in BB is steppe derived, lets assume the original BB cultural masters taught a steppe derived fringe group their secrets of copper metalurgy, a new cult and whatnot, and assimilated them somehow, someway - they had to do it earlier and in more Northern/Eastern parts of Europe, where this steppe derived fringe group was when they met. But if it was like that, why should only the Basques being converted? Its possible, because they were the lineages closest to Iberia and under a stronger influence in Southern France already f.e., while the others were not and stayed on their mother tongue, used the Iberian language as a lingua franca only.

There are many more possible scenarios, but the most likely one is that BB as a whole had one language and for sure they didn't change it because of the women they took with them. Though they might be more inclined to do so, if they were fluent speakers of the Iberian tongue even before entering the peninsula, because of some kind of relationship to a Southern founder group.

But for explaining Celtic and Germanic, you don't need them to speak IE. Because even if they were IE speakers, they might have been of a different branch.

What happened in Central Europe is even more complicated actually, because there might have been different ethnicities and even language groups which became dominant with the next turnover. Like form BB-Unetice-Tumulus-Urnfield-Hallstatt-LaTene.
While La Tene is "the" Celtic culture, it is rather unlikely that Hallstatt didn't harbour a Celtic core group in its geographic range. But before that, its highly speculative. Urnfield might have still been Italo-Celtic or even multi-ethnic.

Whatever happened, whole lineages seem to have been integrated by the ruling group on a regular basis and complete, genocidal purges like we saw them before became in any case less frequent in comparison to LN/EBA. At least in the more developed societal units, like in Hallstatt. This could even result in client based chiefdoms, in which the majority of local lineages could survive - like they did in Ireland. The invaders genetic impact was comparatively small if the takeover was not too nasty. Even smaller or harder to detect if we deal with closely related (all steppe influenced, Northern) populations with rather subtle differences.

Andrzejewski said...

By “Southerly” you mean “more EEF”, right?

Davidski said...

No, I mean more southerly as in south of Ireland. EEF no longer existed at the time.

Samuel Andrews said...

There's strong continuation between Bell Beaker/EBA British Isles and Celtic British Isles.

1.8808"

Irish

England_CA_EBA,66
FrenchCluster1,22.3
Hallstatt_Bylany:DA111 (Celt),11.7

1.9919"

England_IA

England_CA_EBA,70.3
FrenchCluster1,29.7

There's also strong continuation between Bronze age Spain & Iron age Spain (modern Basque, catalonia).
1.2518"

Iberia_East_IA

Iberia_North_BA,72.8
FrenchCluster1,27.2
Hallstatt_Bylany:DA111 (Celt),0

2.0009"

Basque_Spanish

Iberia_North_BA,63.5
Hallstatt_Bylany:DA111 (Celt),22.5
FrenchCluster1,14

Davidski said...

@Samuel Andrews

If you want to test the genetic shift in Iberia that occurred during the spread of Celtic languages there, then compare the Celtiberians who are labeled Iberia_North_IA with the pre-Celtic populations from the region.

This might give you a clue as to whether the post-Beaker genetic shift in Ireland was large enough to be accompanied by a language shift.

But I wouldn't use the Scythian/Asian-admixed Hallstatt samples to do this, as it's unlikely that they're a good proxy for the early Celts who migrated into Western Europe.

Andrzejewski said...

I’ve just read an excellent article on Peqi’in Cave:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327118987_Ancient_DNA_from_Chalcolithic_Israel_reveals_the_role_of_population_mixture_in_cultural_transformation/fulltext/5b7af4e1299bf1d5a718c27d/327118987_Ancient_DNA_from_Chalcolithic_Israel_reveals_the_role_of_population_mixture_in_cultural_transformation.pdf?origin=publication_detail

It’s amazing how the 26% Anatolia_N (in addition to 57% Levant_N and 17% Iran_N) was corresponding to a remarkable increase in both ydna T (the one Thomas Jefferson had!) but also in the frequency of alleles responsible for light skin and blue eyes. That tells me that perhaps all MN societies in Europe had those light pigmentation properties and not just GAC.

Bob Floy said...

@Andre
"perhaps all MN societies in Europe had those light pigmentation properties and not just GAC."

I seriously doubt that *all* European MN groups had those traits.
A different phenotype emerged in the north east.

JuanRivera said...

Found out that Karasuk models as Baikal_EBA+Okunevo+Sintashta+Kolyma_Meso, whereas Karasuk_o is ~90% Baikal_EBA, with the rest being Okunevo and Kolyma_Meso. Feel free to correct me if my models are wrong.

Gabriel said...

@Davidski

How large, would you say, was the genetic shift in Ireland since the Beaker period? Any Germanic or English influence, by the way?

JuanRivera said...

Here are the models: Karasuk: (Okunevo_BA+Sintashta_MLBA+Baikal_EBA+Kolyma_Meso, 2.5559, Okunevo_BA 40.83% Sintashta_MLBA 53.33% Baikal_EBA 4.17% Kolyma_Meso 1.67%)

Karasuk_o: (Okunevo_BA+Sintashta_MLBA+Baikal_EBA+Kolyma_Meso, 3.3335, Okunevo_BA 10% Sintashta_MLBA 0% Baikal_EBA 89.17% Kolyma_Meso 0.83%)

JuanRivera said...

In contrast, Karasuk isn't the source of steppe ancestry in Yukagir_Forest, as suggested by worse fits. Also, only extra Ulchi (1.67%) is evident as the only extra ancestry in the otherwise 45% Yukagir_Tundra 50.83% Sintashta_MLBA 2.5% Yakut mixture typical of Forest Yukaghirs (I ran a new model), as trying to include other components result in failure (0% ancestry from them).

Andrzejewski said...

Speaking about BA Ireland:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/no-wait-real-ava-bronze-age-woman-scottish-highlands-180970950/

So “Ava” who had been originally reconstructed as a red haired light pigmented Highlander Scot in 2016 got a makeover in 2018 to look more “Southern European”. On the other hand, a 5,500 year old Neolithic man from the U.K. looks almost like a modern Brit including all the “bells and whistles” of having a red hair:

https://gizmodo.com/this-is-possibly-what-5-500-year-old-man-looked-like-1495379777 (+pic)

Until recently I used to be an avid “Yamnaya’ist”, believing that what we associate with “modern European” look (and genetics) came with the Indo-Europeans from the PC Steppes, but more and more I’m starting to believe that it’s actually the Anatolian Farmers, with their Ötzi and that 5,500 year old Brit and with the upshot of light skin and blue eyes in that cave in Pequi’in 6,000 years ago (time of LBK) who were behind modern phenotypes. In fact, that 5,500 year old “Brit” could be undistinguishable in any Supermarket in Manchester today, and Loschbour man could pass as local in Berlin. And the cherry on the cake is that both Loschbour and the “Neolithic Brit” don’t look that different from each other despite being from a different source population (former was WHG; “Brit” was Neolithic EEF).

Andrzejewski said...

@Bob Floy First of all, this dude below is not an Arsenal Football Club fan in 2019, but a 5,500 year old reconstruction of a ‘British’ man who lived 500 years before Stonehenge; look how “modern” he looks:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Du0ZHP7oifI/UrBuOhn-OLI/AAAAAAAAJa4/oJes4IzZBqs/s1600/article-2525035-1A24190400000578-122_634x773.jpg

This phenotype seems to be unbiquitous all over Neolithic Northern Europe.

Second, would you assert that the different phenotype in the NE was because of admixture with Baltic HG? Or do you think that SHG a-la-Motala has anything to do with this emerging phenotype?

Third, would the alleles for Pequi’in cage dwellers’ light pigmentation, their high (26%) Anatolia_N and ydna T a coincidence or do they have a direct correlation?

Last but not least: do you believe that an inteogression of WHG-rich population from Paris (=“Michelsberg”) is behind the turnover from TRB/Funnelbeaker into GAC?

Bob Floy said...

@Andre

For starters, I've learned to take these reconstructions with a grain of salt.

"this dude below is not an Arsenal Football Club fan in 2019"
Lol, definitely not. Don't get me wrong, I don't think what you're saying is necessarily silly or anything like that, but I've given up on getting pat answers to any of these questions, the more data comes in, the more questions we have. A few years ago it looked like everything was on the verge of being solved, now, not so much.

" would you assert that the different phenotype in the NE was because of admixture with Baltic HG? Or do you think that SHG a-la-Motala has anything to do with this emerging phenotype?"

I lean(in a non-committal sort of way) towards the Baltic HG idea.

Bob Floy said...

I think that anyone who's into this topic, being honest, will admit that their expectations have been violated, and that they've gotten a whole lot more than they bargained for. Anyone who thinks they have all the answers now, dosen't. The only thing I'm certain of is that the spread of steppe-related people is connected in some way with the spread of IE, but it need not have come with the first major wave. There's no reason to assume that all Yamnaya related people necessarily spoke IE, we're talking about a story that played out across a huge area over a few thousand years. I also think that PIE may have originated in the caucuses. And when I say "the caucuses", I mean the caucuses, not northern Iran, lol.

JuanRivera said...

So, given that Nganassans spoke a Yukaghiric language (until recently, later shifting to a Samoyedic language) it reinforces the hypothesis that the Forest Yukaghirs didn't originally speak Yukaghiric languages.

JuanRivera said...

Levanluhta_IA models quite good as EHG+Nganassan+Sweden_IA (Yukagir_Tundra also is quite good; both produce far better results than Baikal_EBA and Ulchi, which in turn are far better than both Kolyma and Devils_Gate_Cave_N). That gives some support to the Uralo-Yukaghir hypothesis (though, linguistics are far more important).

JuanRivera said...

In any case, there was very likely a circumpolar people who resembled Tundra Yukaghirs in genetics.

Gaska said...

For the linguistic debate, what really matters is to finish finding out (once and for all) the exact genetic component of all steppe cultures. and in this sense the panorama is complicated as ancient genomes are published. If we think that Khvalynsk uniparental markers data is true (although I think we still do not know to which subclades of R1b that majority of Khvalynsk men belong), we have that this culture is also a mixture of male lineages from the Caucasus (J) , Asia (Q1a), the steppes (R1a, R1b) etc. If this culture also does not have autosomal components from Neolithic farmers because it is supposedly a "pure" or "basal" CHG, and if we also take into account that theoretically this ancestry only appears in mainland Europe from the year 3000 BC with the CWC, then only the Yamnaya culture remains as a source of expansion of the IE language towards Europe

Yamnaya is a more farmer shifted fusion of Progress & Khvalynsk, and the source of the ANF shift must be, GAC, Majkop or Cucuteni groups-This means that this culture is even more mixed than Khvalynsk, so more than a source of influences it seems their destiny. This culture only lasted 700 years (3,300-2,600 BC) and for now we only have R1b-Z2013, R1b.V1636 and I2a (correct me if I'm wrong). On the other hand, we have Z2013 and I2a in the eastern BBs and we have to assume that R1a (CWC) comes from Yamnaya, and we also know that Central Europeans BBs only have about 10% of steppe mitochondrial lineages (arrived through the CWC).

With this data, can anyone really think that the Yamnaya culture and the male and female lineages linked to it could produce a total linguistic change in a continent inhabited by at least two million people? Are we serious?

Are you going to continue defending that L51 is hidden in some subculture of the CWC, that later one or several small clans of this lineage kidnapped the BB culture and then kidnapped the languages ​​of Western Neolithic farmers? What the hell are we talking about?

If the subclades of R1b in Khvalynsk (we are going to leave the problem of R1a, in minority in that culture, and disappeared in Yamnaya for now) turn out to be R1b-L23/L51/P312 then our discussions will be over, but in the meantime, the Steppe cultures do not seem capable of having produced the great genetic and linguistic changes that everyone seems to see. I can be wrong and of course if this happens I will have to acknowledge it publicly, but so far everything seems like a fairy tale.

Gaska said...

Zardos is right, if the situation in Iberia has been complicated by the affairs of the Basques/Iberians and the results of the Iron Age, I imagine what can happen when studies of Italy and especially those of southern France are published because, both the Etruscans- Aquitaine and Occitania are absolutely NO-IE. If we add to this that the Mycenaeans and Hittites so far are J, then can someone explain to me the link between R1b-P312 with the steppes and the IE language? are we kidding?

We will see what happens with genetic continuity in Central Europe during the Bronze Age and the Iron Age, but, for God's sake, the only Spanish Celtiberian analyzed is I2a, I suppose Hallstatt and Tene will have an important genetic mix because Central Europe (unlike Iberia, Italy or the British Isles, which are remote places and therefore the last places where genetic, cultural, technical or linguistic developments can arrive) has to be a kind of genetic shaker. Undoubtedly the expansion of IE languages ​​has to be much later (Bronze Age, Iron Age), forget the BB culture as a factor of dispersion.

We have talked little about Vk531 in Norway (R1b1a1.2.400 BC) without a gram of steppe ancestry, maybe everyone is looking in the wrong direction.

JuanRivera said...

Isn't that sample likely to belong to Pitted Ware? In any case (Pitted Ware or SHG), it is EHG-admixed and also not a farmer (the former being more relevant, as the steppe R1a and R1b clades are of EHG origin).

Bob Floy said...

@Davidski
"At this stage, I'm not sure how to interpret the presence of Y-haplogroup J in the Khvalynsk population."

Maybe not all steppe CHG is female mediated?

zardos said...

@Gabriel: "How large, would you say, was the genetic shift in Ireland since the Beaker period? Any Germanic or English influence, by the way?"

Of course Ireland has significant later Germanic influences. Like in Northern Italy, they might have been more Northern shifted afterwards, like in Northern Italy. Northern Italy too might have come back to be more Northern shifted with Germanic influence than it was in Roman times. Populations can bounce back depending on the influx they experience.

When Italics came in, Northern Italy is supposed to be Northern shifted, with Celts even more so, then came the Roman intermixture and everything was moving South-East. But with the Germanic influx, they might have ended up being almost were they were before.

It is clear that the crude genetic profile of BB and Proto-Celts was not THAT different, because they came from an at least related source with similar proportions of the main Northern European components. So don't expect a complete change like from British Neolithic to BB, even if a fair share of the population was actually replaced.

If I'm right about the "Celtic wave-like expansion" through Western Europe, the new influence should be larger starting from Eastern France to the British Isles and Iberia. Which means you need regional sammples from the times of Urnfield-Hallstatt-La Tene to put everything into context.

@David: Some scholars speculated about an Eastern influence of significance on Hallstatt, especially the Hallstatt elite and Hallstatt East even more so. Would be really fascinating to find more Iranian influences. Could have been that originally some parts of the Hallstatt elite were of a different ethnicity after all.
The animal style in art and the horse cult could be interpreted as later Eastern influences in La Tene/Celts, which postdate the original "Indoeuropeanisation".
The shift from Hallstatt to La Tene was quite dramatic in every respect. We should not underestimate the possibility of big upheavals postdating everything which came from the steppe.

Garvan said...

@Gabriel: "How large, would you say, was the genetic shift in Ireland since the Beaker period? Any Germanic or English influence, by the way?"

The East Coast of Ireland cannot be less than 30% British, considering ancestry in the last 400 years.

Going back further, to the verge of history, then we have the Brigantes refugees from Roman occupation of Britain, in the South East, Cruithin (Picts) near Belfast. Manai in Wicklow (from Gaul), Gangani from north Wales, Domnanii from Deveon and Cornwall.

What do you mean by Germanic influence? The Beakers were from the same source population as the Germans. The shift has been away from Beakers.

The twist to the story is that the genetic cline in Ireland is from the North (Steppe) to the South (farmer), the opposite to what I expected considering that La Tene entered Ireland through the North.


zardos said...

@fGarvan:
"What do you mean by Germanic influence? The Beakers were from the same source population as the Germans. The shift has been away from Beakers.

The twist to the story is that the genetic cline in Ireland is from the North (Steppe) to the South (farmer), the opposite to what I expected considering that La Tene entered Ireland through the North."

In Central Europe the post-BB developments resulted in waves of admixture from people with more WHG, more steppe or more Neolithic, depending on the exact lineages and developments. So I wouldn't wonder about Celts which were reaching the British Isles would have picked up more Neolithic ancestry on the way, if not having it from Central Europe to begin with. The British BB were, after all, from the more heavily Corded influenced Northern/Dutch groups if I recall correctly.

Also, we might expect even some Roman times influence reaching Ireland one way or another.

I don't agree with Germanic being of the same stock. Closely related, yes, but same? No. In Ireland we have not just English, but also Viking influences of significance btw.

Leron said...

The general rule of thumb is, the area where the highest diversity of a single language family exists is most likely near the area of origin.

Due to it’s mountainous topography the Caucasus was able to preserve language families that went extinct everywhere else. Yet some people still consider the Caucasus a possible origin of IE? That really amazes me. Even Anatolia makes more sense.’

JuanRivera said...

I agree.

Matt said...

@Leron, what language families does that hold true for though? Greatest diversity of Tibeto-Burman in SE Asia, Afroasiatic in North and East Africa, IE languages not in Pontic-Caspian for sure. Niger-Congo languages, maybe?

We largely only have hypotheses about language family ur-heimats, but doesn't seem that present day diversity and origin reliably match. The principle of "Centre of Attested Distribution" - or, with more sophisticated the shortest vector along phylogenetic language trees to attested distribution - makes more sense than present day diversity I would say.

The problem of looking at present day diversity is that when you have a zone which looks close to the languages which form the first attested split, but there is little downstream diversity, or a language replacement there, you would miss that.

For Sino-Tibetan, linguistics might support a primary split between SW Tibeto-Burman and Sinitic as primary in the tree, which logically suggests a homeland in NW China, but if you looked at diversity measures alone in the sense of raw # attested mutually unintelligible varieties, you might think that the family was in NW Indo-China...

zardos said...

@David: How reliable are the admixture proportions from the Viking paper in your opinion?

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/07/17/703405/F11.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1

So far I always read BB had more WHG, but in this one they make a graphic showing just more Neolithic, but actually even less WHG for Central European BB?

Corded and Unetice is actually the same in that admixture graph. I know thats not comparable to a solid statistic, but would you agree or disagree with that comparison? Because if true it would point to Unetice being the result of a Corded ancestry revival after BB, like I think it happened based on other known features of the three cultures, even though BB and additional WGH-Neolithic elements might have been integrated in Unetice.

Gabriel said...

@zardos

Celtic and Germanic are probably both from Single Grave so, eh, if so, kind of the same stock.

capra internetensis said...

@JuanRivera

Forest Yukaghirs fit pretty well as half Tundra Yukaghir, half Russian.

zardos said...

We still dont know exactly from where Western R1b and BB came from. There are just hints and speculation.
But even more important, Celtic and Germanic might stem from Eastern regions in which the BB legacy was smashed and only parts reintegrated into the new cultural system from Unetice on.
At their height, BB were in control, but after their demise no more.
I think both Celtic and even more so Germanic came from later cultural formations without direct continuity from BB. Genetically the BB legacy survived in an admixed form.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 538   Newer› Newest»