Thread by @blog_supplement

I currently see the matter as being somewhat complicated. There is definitely a clear ancestral component going back to early IE & earlier I-An. However, the case might be made for specific Greek-Aryan parallels in linguistic& philological terms. When viewed probabilistically

https://twitter.com/arya_amsha/status/1599257830766579713

(Bayesian if you like), this builds up quite a bit; e.g., lu~N/la~N formations, word for arrow eis:iShu; liT usage in epic language; geometric formulation of altars, certain specific epic motifs... making some kind of specific link between Gr & Aryan more probable than the

alternative. This had led earlier to the suggestion of Greco-Armeno-Aryan, Phrygian probably in that mix. However, over the past 5 years, the archaeogenetic evidence has decisively (IMO) pushed the evidence in favor of the alternative branching Balto-Slavic+Aryan. This would mean

that the earlier linguistic Bayesian phylogeny that had Greco-Armenian branch diverging earlier has some truth to it. But what about the Gr-Ar-Aryan signal then? We can propose that this is merely an artefact of poor preservation in other PIE branches & all these are PIE. However

the linguistic component of that signal doesn't go well with that. Hence, I personally favor a secondary contact with the early Aryans, when the languages still had a degree of mutual intelligibility. This could have happened before the Gr-Ar+Phrygian group moved south. Or it

could have happened due to pulse of secondary contact with chariot-borne Aryans moving south. In favor of this we see a small but potentially real signal of admixture with a Sintashta-related group in certain early Mycenaean samples. This would mean the spread of chariot tech had

an Aryanizing effect on the earlier branching IE groups & its effects were distinct depending on the group. I prefer this scenario though alternatives like the one in the QT are not entirely ruled out. Among other things, one can revisit the linguistic signal in Bangani...