Proto-Indo-European *a

Pronk, Tijmen

doi:10.1163/22125892-00701002

Cited by 16 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An alternative terminology, which we use here, names the entire linguistic group "Indo-Anatolian" (IA) and uses IE to refer to the set of related non-Anatolian languages such as Tocharian, Greek, Celtic, and Sanskrit. 6,49 Dates between 4300-3500 BCE have been proposed for the time of IA split 49,[59][60][61] predating both the first attestation of the Hittite language in Central Anatolia (post-2000 BCE 49 ) and the expansion of the Yamnaya archaeological culture (post-3300 BCE). We identify the Yamnayapopulation as Proto-IE for several reasons.…”

Section: Figure 5: Trajectory Of the Yamnaya Expansion We Use Hapne-l...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans

Lazaridis,

Patterson,

Anthony

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Yamnaya archaeological complex appeared around 3300BCE across the steppes north of the Black and Caspian Seas, and by 3000BCE reached its maximal extent from Hungary in the west to Kazakhstan in the east. To localize the ancestral and geographical origins of the Yamnaya among the diverse Eneolithic people that preceded them, we studied ancient DNA data from 428 individuals of which 299 are reported for the first time, demonstrating three previously unknown Eneolithic genetic clines. First, a "Caucasus-Lower Volga" (CLV) Cline suffused with Caucasus hunter-gatherer (CHG) ancestry extended between a Caucasus Neolithic southern end in Neolithic Armenia, and a steppe northern end in Berezhnovka in the Lower Volga. Bidirectional gene flow across the CLV cline created admixed intermediate populations in both the north Caucasus, such as the Maikop people, and on the steppe, such as those at the site of Remontnoye north of the Manych depression. CLV people also helped form two major riverine clines by admixing with distinct groups of European hunter-gatherers. A "Volga Cline" was formed as Lower Volga people mixed with upriver populations that had more Eastern hunter-gatherer (EHG) ancestry, creating genetically hyper-variable populations as at Khvalynsk in the Middle Volga. A "Dnipro Cline" was formed as CLV people bearing both Caucasus Neolithic and Lower Volga ancestry moved west and acquired Ukraine Neolithic hunter-gatherer (UNHG) ancestry to establish the population of the Serednii Stih culture from which the direct ancestors of the Yamnaya themselves were formed around 4000BCE. This population grew rapidly after 3750-3350BCE, precipitating the expansion of people of the Yamnaya culture who totally displaced previous groups on the Volga and further east, while admixing with more sedentary groups in the west. CLV cline people with Lower Volga ancestry contributed four fifths of the ancestry of the Yamnaya, but also, entering Anatolia from the east, contributed at least a tenth of the ancestry of Bronze Age Central Anatolians, where the Hittite language, related to the Indo-European languages spread by the Yamnaya, was spoken. We thus propose that the final unity of the speakers of the "Proto-Indo-Anatolian" ancestral language of both Anatolian and Indo-European languages can be traced to CLV cline people sometime between 4400-4000 BCE.

show abstract

Section: Figure 5: Trajectory Of the Yamnaya Expansion We Use Hapne-l...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans

Lazaridis,

Patterson,

Anthony

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If Chris Fowler's (2022) point is accepted that chamber architecture is re lated to kinship ar ran gements (though that claim is not unproblematic, given the instances above where close biological relations do not predominate), then we should expect further diversity. Perhaps that is characteristic of pre-Indo-European societies, with Indo-European societies (perhaps from the late fourth or third millennia cal BC onwards) being said to be predominantly patrilocal and patrilineal (Pronk 2023).…”

Section: Kinship: the Anthropologists' And Archaeo Lo Gists' Accountsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Kinship questions

Whittle

2024

Doc. praeh.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Kinship, diverse webs of relationship generated by people in their social practice, has long been analysed and debated by anthropologists, from an earlier dominance of lineage theory to the current, much more fluid emphasis on relatedness. Since the days of processualism, archaeologists have given more attention to kinship than in the early years of the discipline, but in rather limited and general ways until very recently. With the advent of successful aDNA investigations, and with some prompt from posthumanist theory, that interest has been renewed recently. I discuss some inconsistencies between the accounts of kinship by anthropologists and archaeologists, notably the emphasis by the former on diversity, relatedness, the possibilities and implications of bilateral descent, and the uncertain relationship between biology and kinship. To begin to investigate how this might all work out in archaeology, I sketch three scenarios from successive parts of the Neolithic in Britain and Ireland, across the fourth to third millennia cal BC, attempting specific rather than generalised models and indicating the outlines of a possible trajectory through time.

show abstract

The Linguistic Roots of Ancient Greek

Ringe

2024

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This book traces the development of Proto-Indo-European into Ancient Greek of about the 5th century bc, attempting to recover the relative chronology of changes whenever possible and to explore in detail how the Ancient Greek dialects diversified. It is roughly parallel to From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic (2nd ed.; Oxford University Press, 2017) and is intended for readers who have at least begun to learn Ancient Greek and are interested in its prehistory. Readers should be aware that this book is not a complete historical and comparative grammar of Greek.

show abstract

Proto-Indo-European *a

Cited by 16 publications

References 37 publications

The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans

The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans

Kinship questions

The Linguistic Roots of Ancient Greek

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About