A Hybrid Origin Model for the Indo-European Languages? My Thoughts on Heggarty et al 2023.
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 09. 2023
- lovely, just when the holy trinity of P.I.E that being archaeology, linguistics and genetics begins to really gain momentum supporting the steppe hypothesis concerning the origin of IE, someone has to go and throw a spanner in the works.
Fortunately, the spanner disintegrated upon impact.
In this video I go over a few of my reservations concerning Heggarty et al hybrid model.
Jackson Crawford and Prof Tony Yates also discussed the article with some apparent reservations.
• Indo-European News 9/2...
check out the comment from
@cemreomerayna463
under my second comment on the video, some interesting additional perspective.
I am Hungarian with my native language being Hungarian. I have zero generic relations to the Hungarians who conquered the Carpathian basin 1000 years ago. It is the same for 96% of present day Hungarians. Even the Hungarian conquerors were genetically diverse. The leading elite somewhat related to far eastern huns. The commoners being a mix of Ugric Turkic and IE people.A spread of a language doesn't necessarily correlate with the spread of genes.
Just because the Hittite elite spoke and wrote in an IE language doesn't mean Hittites had anything to do with IE people genetically.
It is true. Turkish speaking people in Turkey are the same. Only about 7% of them have Turkic genetics yet the whole country speaks Turkish. We know how this happened as this is recent history. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW WHICH ONE CAME FIRST IN THE CASE OF HITTITES. LANGUAGE OR GENETICS
@@MG-vf8xmwhere is your source?show me a source where it states they had no central asian,or western asia,even indigenious and siberian dna...the same goes for tatars,and all turkish group...i guess u confuse the term turkic with mongolian👎
Makes sense! Sumerians language was different than the proto-sumerians. It took time for the Akkadians to ride the sumerian language & writing. All three were different or distinct.
@@nukhetyavuz Mongolic and true Turkic DNA is roughly the same, both having originated in North Central Asia / South Siberia. It is correct that citizens of the nation of Turkey are almost wholly not Turkic genetically. Most in the West are Hellenic European, most in the East are Anatolian.
The scientific papers that prove this:
Machulla, H. K.; Batnasan, D.; Steinborn, F.; Uyar, F. A.; Saruhan-Direskeneli, G.; Oguz, F. S.; Carin, M. N.; Dorak, M. T. (2003)
finds that Turkish people are equally distant as German people are to the original Turkic DNA found in the Altai mountain complex
Turkey Ottoni C, Rasteiro R, Willet R, Claeys J, Talloen P, Van de Vijver K, et al. (February 2016)
dug up burials of pre-1000 ad / pre-Mongol expansion / pre-Turkic Anatolians from the Byzantine era, found that they share 90% genetic similarity to modern Turkish citizens
Berkman CC, Togan İ (2009)
finds that Turkish citizens aggregated genome shares only 10% similarity with the original Turkic genome and 80% with Anatolian genome
@@MG-vf8xm Turk here. I was about to give the same example. But AFAIK central asian genes in modern turks amount to around %20, not %7. Doesn't change the fact that the dominant genetic component of modern turkish citizens came from native Anatolians.
The footage shown here is just b-roll from my latest Cyprus trip. Enjoy!
Sounds about right. The frustrating thing for me is that they basically ignore the existence of nuclear (Non-Anatolian) Indo-European. Despite it being a well substantiated division in the family. And it seems pretty obvious that, at a minimum, nuclear indo-European was of the steppe. If not the whole family.
In fact the article inadvertently implies as much by including the distantly related Tocharian and Slavic branches in the steppe category.
At 14:00 you really hit the nail on the head. Greek is nuclear IE and Anatolian is not.
Alwin Kloekhorst points out a few dozen differences which, taken together, I believe firmly establish it. Of course there is the lack of the feminine gender in Anatolian. But also:
• Anatolian 2s. ti
• The active present participle suffix -ant in common IE is used for active and passive in Hittite
• Core IE has a verbal root *sed- for the momentane sense of "sit down" which doesn't appear in Anatolian
• The word ḫarra- "to grind" in Hittite is specialized for "plough" in nuclear IE e.g. ἀρόω, ἄροτρον
• mer- is for disappearing in Hittite, dying in the rest of IE
• Horse and wind get thematized in CPIE, meaning a vowel -o- is added to the end of the stem: Lat. equus, ventus
So what are they even on about?
Best guess Anatolian split off at least 800 years earlier than Tocharian. I was thinking that before I read Kloekhorst, but his book says the same thing.
And what are they doing with southern routes for Indo-Iranian? I want to believe that that picture is not from the actual article, but sadly I think it is. Indo-Aryan shows up in 15th century BCE texts in Mitanni fully formed, and there are *no* cognates or loanwords shared exclusively between Indo-Iranian as a whole, or the whole of any third of Indo-Iranian, and any language of the Bronze Age Middle East.
But you know where you will find a lot of loanwords? Finnish! I mean Finnic, of course. They're all unidirectional, Indo-Iranian to Finnic or Finnic and a few other branches of Uralic, later just Iranian to Finnic. And there's the eerie matches between Old Latvian and Iranian, like the verb present in trinītis "woven of three heddles" vis-à-vis paneer. And then there's the form of burials in far north Sintashta matching descriptions from the Vedas.
So what are they even on about?
I was just reminded of the RUKI sound law which is present in the satem branches: Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian, and Armenian (although Armenian is not "satem" in exactly the same way as the other two). It states that *s > *š after r,u,k,g,gʰ,i sounds. How does that happen? There's an isogloss somewhere, that means a line or curve where just about everyone on one side does something and those on the other do the other.
We also have the similarities between Greek and Indo-Iranian, e.g. reduplication in most perfect forms and some present active of -mi verbs.
And the similarities between Greek and Armenian, between Greek, Armenian, and Indo-Iranian, etc.
Again, what were they thinking? There are *real* questions in IE prehistory to be addressing, like its geography before and after the Anatolian split, before and after the Tocharian split. We live on a two-dimensional earth's surface, so you could try to use isoglosses and anything else to come up with a diachronic map of where the linguistic ancestors of groups were when. You could *even* then go on to title your paper "Language trees with sampled ancestors support a hybrid model for the origin of Indo-European languages," if that's what it led to. But not like this. Not like this!
Thanks for the great reply! I agree with all of your points, especially the Finnic loanwords. I also agree by the way completely with your estimation of Anatolian breaking up around 800 years before Tocharian did Kloekhorst say the same thing too? I'll have to go and check that out, might have missed it. Generally, I still get quite frustrated when I think about this article but it is what it is, I appreciate some of the methodology used in the research but that's about it. I spoke to a colleague who knows a little bit more about Hattic than I do (for my video on Hattic) and he said he feels its odd that Hattic shows a lot of influence from Luwian and Hittite but zero evidence of contact with proto-Hellenic. It's almost as if according to the article the early Greeks managed to migrate through the entire peninsula of Anatolia as ghosts.
Thanks again though for your comment, it was a great read.
@@LearnHittite Finnic loanwords where?
Greek is Western IE, Corded Ware derived via Vucedol (which also produced Macedon-Phrygio-Armenian). Hittite and Tocharian are not and are not even back influenced by the Corded Ware conquest of much of Eastern Europe, which changed proto-Indo-Iranian before these left-behind core IEs went on rampage.
One thing that Greek has and Asian and Albanian subfamilies do not is P/Q evolution (ekwos > hippos for example). This is not at all a mere Celtic trait, it's all over the place in Western Indoeuropean, Greek included.
So "nuclear Indoeuropean" is Yamna and what you call that is actually the largest branch of Yamna (Corded Ware) but not Yamna itself (much less Khvalynsk).
Yeah, too much is often made of the differences between Anatolian and the rest of IE. And really even among the Anatolian languages themselves. I think it was also Kloekhorst who dated the split between Hittite and Luwian at about 1,000 years before they first start getting heavily recorded in the 2nd millenium BC, meaning their internal split is at most circa 3,000 BC. And that makes sense to me given what we know now about what was going on in the Balkans and Thrace and the Ezero Culture etc, because, let's face it, the Balkan route is looking more and more likely unlike the Caucasus route that Goedegebuure and others tried to champion along with the "Southern" hypothesis that Reich and the geneticists seemed to have magically gleaned from the data despite the data very clearly showing quite the opposite.
I think the thing that they're on about is attention seeking. Appearing novel and innovative and paradigm shifting, in part to publish but also to attract funding. The aDNA crushed a wing of historical linguistics and archaeology that, although very much not the majority nor the consensus, has existed for a long time. And then with the aDNA came the need to keep the attention and the grants flowing into the labs, which I agree needs to be done but we can't use bad conclusions with good science in order to keep the money flowing. They still want to play with the big picture, theory-of-everything because that's sexier than getting down to the details and filling in the gaps more about what was going on with the steppe from ~4,000 BC to ~1,000 BC and what these various waves of people and culture were doing and why. I mean, there are some who are doing it but they're not getting nearly the attention nor funding of the ones trying to rewrite history. And then of course there's the nationalist BS.
First I've seen your channel. I'm pleased to see more work going into Hittite & Tocharian. Thanks🔥
Thank you for your kind words!
Also, I'd like to add that we'd perhaps expect a similar non-Indo-European substrate influence to be observed in the Anatolian/Greek branches if they jointly migrated westwards from this south Caucasus (proto Hattic maybe) but we don't have that.
šipant - libate en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/spend-
I know nothing about the study of languages but I would tend to believe in a hybrid model. Our understanding of evolution has changed, from a linear march of progress understanding to the branching tree model, to a branching tree with remix grafting. Genetically it would be easier to find remixing events(i.e. neanderthals and humans) but socially and archaeology-wise much more difficult to prove and document. Kirby Ferguson's work on social evolution (Everything is a remix) was eye opening for me.
Thanks for your comment and a good point raised. I'm not against a hybrid model regarding IE, I just have my doubts about the one presented in the article. It'll be interesting to see what the Heggarty team come up with next, maybe they have some solutions to the linguistic problems.
@@LearnHittite I took the time to read the abstract and look at the map. Now I see the word hybrid is used to blend the theories and not the processes of evolution as I mentioned above. While I think the processes of social and genetic evolution are the same, they operate on different time scales. Also social evolution is not dependant on sharing genetics. From what I've learned, most of these ancient civilizations didn't live in isolation but traded and shared ideas and products. I watched a video years ago about the Hittites and the video mentioned that they were actively consolidating gods between the various civilization they had contact with. This would imply social evolution in action.
Hi there, long time "rival" of Davidski and similar right wing racialist tendencies in the field of genetics (I used to blog as "Maju" for the record). The question as I understand it is that the formation of the Khvalynsk culyture (surely the first Indoeuropeans or proto-Indoeuropeans) show an almost 50-50 admixture of EHG (European Uralics) and CHG or rather similar Zagros-Caucaus Neolithic peoples, which were surely dominant and should be more directly at the origin of Indoeuropean (Uralic influences would be rather substrate/adstrate but debatable I guess).
This creates a new "mixed" autosomal component, which we later observe expanding westwards (with some dilution and shift of Y-DNA from R1b-Volga to R1a-Dniepr).
Feel free to ask any questions, I'll try to answer to the best of my capabilities (if YT notifications work).
Very interesting, I have to be honest I only have a passing knowledge of genetics but I am interested in learning more. I'll look into everything that you've posted.
Out of interest, would you say that there is any genetic evidence supporting the indo-uralic hypothesis?
@@LearnHittite Define "Indo-Uralic hypothesis". I think that Uralic and Indoeuropean are almost certainly NOT derived from a common root but that Indoeuropean has massive Uralic substrate and adstrate (and Indo-Iranic even more probably, because of longer persistent contact). So I will back the "soft Indo-Uralic" model, the one that doesn't think only in terms of branching but of complex interaction (think, for instance, of English and its massive French vocabulary... but still Germanic in the grammar and core vocabulary, not Romance).
The genetics of earliest Indoeuropeans is a mix of Zagros Neolithic peoples (close to Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers and distinct from other Neolithic peoples further west in the Fertile Crescent) and the Uralic (EHG) populations they encountered when crossing the Caucasus in northwards direction. That admixture produced the earliest identifiable Inodoeuropeans (Khvalynsk culture) but the southern Neolithic element was surely dominant culturally and linguistically. I can make a search for the relevant paper(s) if desired (they're just not readily available to me as I write this but I remember reading at least one such study about the genesis of Indoeuropeans with this quite well demonstrated.
The Uralics are clearly known from a lot of archaeology and genetics to have ultimately originated in East Asia, becoming the main Siberian specialists after the Last Glacial Maximum. They gradually moved west through Siberia reaching Europe only after the end of the Ice Age (Epipaleolithic or Mesolithic) and quite clearly quickly admixing with the locals in patrilocal fashion and dominating demographically Russia, the Baltics and much of Scandinavia even at that time. That's the genetic type EHG (Eastern European Hunter Gatherers), other genetic markers are Y-DNA N1 (which is still very dominant) and mtDNA C (more obvious in ancient sites that have been documented genetically), they also show a variable apportion of "true European" haplogroups however. They also brought with them pottery (which was first developed in China, at least some 12,000 years ago, while in West Eurasia was unkown until much later).
On the other hand the precursor of the dominant proto-Indoeuropean component, which may well have spoken already a proto-PIE of some sort, must have originated in the Fertile Crescent or West Asia region, where there were many different cultures (and thus surely also languages) at the early Neolithic. I even have a candidate culture in what is now NE Turkey as possible PPIE one. This could also be supported by very strange way-too-many connections (sprachbund surely) between Basque and PIE, such as the *hrktos-hartz (bear) and the *hesh-hauts (ash) one. These can't be explained when Basque and PIE had no connection... other than surely in the Neolithic Fertile Crescent, not themselves but their ancestors.
After that, the precursor of Indoeuropean clearly absorbed much Uralic substrate (and later also adstrate, as the Uralics lived all the time just north of the Indoeuropean homeland) and that would explain why they are connected... but not in a pure phylogenetic way.
Thanks for your input. Much appreciated
Lots of food for thought
11:11 ..
- Awpa /awpa/ means (cloud) in Hittite.
- Ewr, 'ewr /awr, ?awr/ means (cloud) in Kurdish.
So cpukd this means, on Hittite it's a comppsed word as:
▪Awpa .. aw-pa ..
• "aw" which means (water: wa-ter), wven in Kurdish (av, aw)
• "pa" which means (high, up, above).
Or, "pa" itself is a metathesis of "ap" (ap, ab, av, aw) which means (water) too.
So "awpa" will be in reality is a tautological from different roots.
... !? 🤔
Thanks for your comment! It derives most likely from PIE 'albhos'. 'Ewr' is from PIE 'nbhros'.
Horse is irrelevant, it didn’t matter with 49er wagons migration from East to west USA 19th century. Why would it matter 5000 year
Oooh, he really stirred things up, didn't he?
I agree with you, entirely, but have to swallow hard and remind myself (and all others of the same way of thinking) that these messy arguments are the less-than-pristine-pure paths by which knowledge is increased.
The swallowing hard is due to the possibility of the VERY messy situation presented by the Out Of India garbage. coming to be accepted as part of such healthy disputation.
Not worth giving everyone a dull, throbbing head-ache talking of it here. Talking of it anywhere.
You dismiss the Out of India theory, without any proof or rebuttal with actual substance, you just call it "garbage", what an excellent Wignat scholar you are, perfect for western academia.
Out of India is laughed about everywhere but in crazy circles in India - there is zero chance anybody else will ever take it seriously.
@@peterfireflylund Because those western academics are essentially racist in nature and do not know the first thing about holistic academia, everything is slowly coming out and putting a nail in the coffin of Steppe Theory and those colonial era Aryan Migration Theories
The big flaw in all these studies is that they assume no influence from the Akkadian speaking Neolithic farmers who originally inhabited Europe. If they actually paid attention to genetic they would realize this culture which built the monoliths was not suddenly exterminated with their arrival.
Thanks for the comment! I agree with you in part, what makes you think that the pre-PIE language was Akkadian and not say some proto form of Hurrian or Hattic? Not saying that you're wrong just curious! Thanks again
@@LearnHittite The critical evidence for this is that all the runic texts (a few hundred) from Europe so far sampled can be translated in Akkadian. These begin with Minoan Phaistos Disk and Linear A (1900 BCE) up to the Scandinavian Codex Runicus (1200 CE). Many etymologically problematic English words actually derive from Akkadian and not Indo-European as assumed. Given many of these seem to be graffiti this language was natively spoken. Dwarf names seem to be Akkadian phrases.
@@francisnopantses1108 Runic texts include Phoenician texts as well as Etruscan, Aegean, Pontic, etc. Compare the letters and they are more similar than different. They all derive from Minoan Linear A. Also the commercial level trade as evidenced by archaeology requires a common language. The old idea that all these modern defined groups are isolated cultures is false.
@@daveo2797we know where the Phoenician writing system comes from and it is not Linear A…
Horse was first domesticated in Central Asia. Runic writing system has its origins in Central Asia as well. See Orhun Yazitlari.... Why do you lack the ability to understand what's written? But still, central Anatolia, especially black sea region is mostly R1b. AND it's R1b in its greatest diversity anywhere, which is genetics evidence as the origin of R1b before major migrations took place.
Link the academic articles which support your argument, I'll read them and comment on them. Many R1b lineages pre-date the the time horizon for PIE so you'll need to be more specific about what R1b clades your talking about. What exactly do runes have to do with the argument? Horses were first domesticated on the western Eurasian steps, is that the central asia you're referring to? how does that support an Anatolian or hybrid PIE homeland? www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2010146
@@LearnHittite True first horse domestication was done by Siberians whom are closely related to Turkic, Mongolian and even Native American Indians. There are same words in Turkish and Native American languages. R1b is most diverse in black sea region of modern day Turkey. In other words, there is presence of multiple R1b clades in people in that area. And I don't know if you know population genetics but this is the exact population of genetic drift and points out the fact that the origin of R1b is in northeastern Turkey and its black sea coast. This area is also close to Armenia. They may have been Greeks in the past but they have been Turks for a long long time now. Also, most Greeks in modern day Greece are not "real" Greeks genetically. Linguistically, Greek spoken in black sea coast of Turkey is also the only living version of Greek that is most similar to ancient Greek, even more so than then Koine Greek, Greek spoken today. Runes have central Asian roots, too., which are forebears of Germanic writing systems. So is the Latin alphabet, which owes its existence to middle east and Phoenicians. So the supposed contribution of Greeks or Greek speaking people, who are supposedly the founders of western civilization is the Cyrillic alphabet, which is used in Greece and some eastern european countries only. Now as for references, if you do a research through paid membership of academic libraries, you will access these for yourself. I highly recommend you all read The West by Naoíse Mac Sweeney. History comes from the word story and it is a story written by those in power and not only that it is highly political and self-serving thus hardly true.
Germanic runic and turkic runic has no phonetic value in common, and also germanic runes predates turkic by 600 years, R1b was widespread in eurasia already at 8000BP
Most likely animal of migration in Asia was camel not horse. That’s animal of choice of silk route trade.
The reason they are trying to tie Proto Indo European to Greek, Armenian or to the Pontic Steppe but not to Hittite is completely political. Hittite is basically modern-day Turkey, and a lot of Pontic Steppe is Turkic as well. And of course, it is politically inconvenient that both agriculture and European languages have their roots in a non-European land back then and today does not sit well with a lot of lay people as well as academics...
Nonsense, Hittite is an older branch of Indo European Language. There were no Turks in that region when the Hittites migrated from the Eurasian steppe to Anatolia. Not much record of their migration exits.
@samkupp1390 Hey, don't write nonsense stuff without understanding the issue. Hittite lands are exactly in modern-day Turkey. Nowhere have I written that Hittites were Turkic or Turks. But of course, they became Turks of modern-day Turkey as it's impossible for all common folk to move around and leave their place of birth, etc, easily.
@@MG-vf8xm OK armchair putz.
Not really, people usually associate the Pontic steppe with PIE due to genetic relativism and several cultural similarities (the role of the horse and husbandry). In my experience in this faculty (Hittitology) academics tend to reject the Anatolian route as we lack genetic and linguistic evidence from it. That it is from current day Turkey plays little role as Anatolia was inhabited by various IE people for millennia.
The Anatolian route fails to explain how in a rich agriculture based cultural sphere, the IE family fails to show similarities of a big amount of agricultural terms. Not to mention that we do not have sincere Hittite/bronze age IE Anatolian genetic material to place a foundation on genetics for the Anatolian route and no, the Kalaman Höyük sample cannot be used for Hittite proper. Therefore, we cannot even say that Hittites are related to the modern days inhabitants of Türkiye.
I would say, based on their dependance on deportees and the tablets where the households were counted, Hittites were actually a relatively small nation that could not notably influence the modern day Anatolians. But we need more evidence for this hypothese.
@@Linduine Horse was first domesticated in Central Asia. Runic writing system has its origins in Central Asia as well. See Orhun Yazitlari.... Why do you lack the ability to understand what's written? But still, central Anatolia, especially black sea region is mostly R1b. AND it's R1b in its greatest diversity anywhere, which is genetics evidence as the origin of R1b before major migrations took place.
Lol... you don't like the paper because it does not confirm to your biases? lol
I'm biased against poorly executed science, yes.
But I am actually interested in what ways you support the paper?
The Steppe hypothesis is wrong...When the paper states that the origin (or homeland) of the proto-Indo European language is "somewhere south of the Caucasas" I think they are onto something...Their notion that the language was introduced to India in 5000 BC completely shatters the "Aryan migration theory." People need to pay more attention to the "Out of India" Theory. The antiquity of the Indian civilization and Vedic Sanskrit is undeniable.
When define Vedic its about horse and wheel. Now it prove aryan migration into india not outward.