Deep Origins of the Indo-European Family

 

Deep Origins of the Indo-European Family

This question regularly arises in our group, so a few remarks are necessary.

The Indo-European (IE) family is primarily a linguistic concept developed by historical linguists. Through internal classification of the daughter languages, linguists concluded that the Anatolian branch separated first, while all the other branches—including Armenian—descend from a later branch often called Late PIE, Nuclear Indo-European, or similar terms.

This means that the question of the deep origins of the Indo-European family is closely connected to the origins of the Anatolian languages. Since the Anatolian languages are extinct, we cannot study their speakers directly today. The only reliable way to investigate their origins is through ancient DNA from Anatolia.

When referring to Anatolia in this context, we must be precise. Ideally, we should focus on regions where Anatolian-speaking populations actually lived, excluding areas where other populations were dominant:

• not the Aegean coast, where early Greek groups later settled,

• not eastern Anatolia east of the Euphrates, where early Armenic-speaking groups were already present,

• and not parts of the northern Levant, where Hurrian and Semitic populations were widespread.

If we exclude those regions, we are left with only about a dozen ancient DNA samples from genuine Bronze Age Anatolian contexts (3000–1200 BCE). This number is far too small to draw definitive conclusions about the origins of the Anatolian branch. At present, these samples only provide preliminary indications of what might eventually be demonstrated.

Possible Scenarios

Several possible scenarios can currently be considered:

1. Anatolians descended from Armenian Highland farmers.
   This scenario appears quite plausible.

2. Anatolians descended from Steppe Eneolithic populations in the North Caucasus who migrated south through the Caucasus.
   This is also possible, although the issue of how the steppe Eneolithic ancestry became diluted would need to be explained.

3. Anatolians derived from populations related to the CLV, Volga, or Dnieper clines and migrated to Anatolia via the Balkans.
   This scenario seems unlikely, but it still needs to be fully ruled out.

As we can see, the key to understanding the deep origins of the Indo-European family lies not in Armenia, not in modern Armenian genetics, not in the Caucasus, and not in Europe—especially not in northern Europe. The decisive evidence will most likely come from Bronze Age Anatolia.

Linguistic Evidence

Apart from genetics, there is also a “soft” line of evidence that may support hypotheses about Indo-European origins: historical linguistics.

For example, if a linguist were able to convincingly demonstrate the Indo-Uralic hypothesis—which proposes that Indo-European and Uralic languages descend from a common ancestor—then we would have strong reason to assume that their shared origins lay among Eastern European hunter-gatherers (EHG).

However, no such definitive proof currently exists. Moreover, genetic evidence suggests that Uralic languages likely originated in Siberia, probably among populations related to the Yukaghir.

Cultural Arguments

In Lazaridis et al. (2024), the authors discuss agricultural terminology in Indo-European languages, using it as an argument for more southern origins. Arguments about early contacts with Semitic or Sumerian populations are also often mentioned.

However, such arguments cannot be decisive. Indo-European languages were already spoken in parts of the Near East around 6300 years ago, and there is little reason to doubt this today. Therefore, demonstrating contacts with Sumerians does not significantly clarify the deeper origins of the Indo-European family.

The Role of Yamnaya

Another unproductive approach is to reject or attack the role of the Yamnaya culture in the spread of Indo-European languages. Doing so is problematic.

The main reason that Western scholarship has shown renewed interest in Armenian-related hypotheses since 2015 is precisely because of the Yamnaya discoveries in ancient DNA studies. If Yamnaya is removed from this framework, there is little reason to associate Armenian Highland farmers with Indo-European expansion, since those farmers did not migrate directly into Europe or India.

What they did influence strongly was the Caucasus, where today we find at least three different non–Indo-European language families.

Final Remark

For this reason, my advice to some members of our group is simple: be patient and avoid emotional reactions. We cannot change the past—we can only learn about it as new evidence emerges.