Euro R1bs not Indoeuropeans?

[T E Peterman]

My point is that many of the people nested under y-DNA K probably spoke a Eurasiatic language. This would include L, M, N, O, P, Q, and... R

Even though R1b entered western Europe long before the spread of Indo European languages, they probably spoke a languages nested under the Eurasiatic superfamily. The known members are Uralic, Altaic, Turkic, Mongolian, Manchu??, Korean, Japanese, Chuchi-Eskimo, and well Indo European. The Amerind group might be considered an early branch of Eurasiatic.

Of course, as I'm sure critics will point out, language is a cultural phenomenon & doesn't necessarily follow lineages. I have maintained elsewhere in this forum that if parents speak different languages & if the father doesn't stick around for long, the child will most likely learn language from its mother.

To whatever extent language does follow patrilines, I will say that R1a probably was the source of Indo European & the R1b folk probably spoke an extinct language that would have been like a really early offshoot of proto-IE.

Timothy Peterman

[Stevo]

A lot depends on whether the bride goes to live with the groom's family or vice versa. From what I understand, the latter was the custom among the early Basques, which may explain the survival of their non-IE language.

As an example of the former, my wife, who is a native Russian speaker, lives here in the USA with me. Our daughter, who is three, understands Russian perfectly because my wife speaks it to her all the time. But my daughter actually speaks very little Russian. Her mother will tell her something or ask her something in Russian, and my daughter will answer in English. From her answers it is obvious she understands what my wife said, but she answers in English almost without fail.

It's actually pretty amusing, but it frustrates my wife, who really wants our daughter to learn to speak Russian.

[F.E.C.]

As an example of the former, my wife, who is a native Russian speaker, lives here in the USA with me. Our daughter, who is three, understands Russian perfectly because my wife speaks it to her all the time. But my daughter actually speaks very little Russian. Her mother will tell her something or ask her something in Russian, and my daughter will answer in English. From her answers it is obvious she understands what my wife said, but she answers in English almost without fail.

You're right, it's the same thing with a friend of mine whose mother is German: he can perfectly understand his mother speaking in her native language but at the same time he can't speak it fluently at all.
However I envy him because of the "multicultural taste" of his family...I'm just a "signor Rossi" (the Italian average Joe)

[Mikey]

Peoples (or nations) actually switch languages quite often.

Even the purest of "pure" Irish today speak English. Gaelic is a dying toungue, alas.

Was there a mass conquest of the Irish? Not really. Economic imperialism? Arguably. But it really just kind of happened.

The English themselves, which study after study show to be only 20% Germanic, now speak a Germanic toungue (English). How did this happen? No one is really sure. Yes the Anglo-Saxons invaded, but the penetration was not really widespread - and Briton had by that point a 500 year-old Gallo-Roman culture.

The Indians of South America (along with the mestizos, who are mostly Indian) speak Spanish. Even though there was very little mixing in certain areas.

My point is simple: if we didn't know about these replacements from history (i.e., written records), 2000 years from now, we may be scratching our heads to explain how it happened. With this in mind, it is difficult to be dismissive of any one theory.

I have posted though that invaders MUST leave some trace - particularly along Chromosome Y. That is why I personally doubt most of the dominant theories of IE spread. I posted them because the thread starter asked.

The "wave" theory, however, is most promising. That IE spread was relatively slow. That a small number (10-20%) indoeuropeanized a border population, both linguistically and culturally, who then did the same to others. Each time the percentage in the bloodlines diminished.

I illustrate this with a question: why do the Incas speak Spanish?

Well, a group of Italians called the Latins conquered much of Spain in 200 BC. They Latinized the inhabitants. By 500 AD, most spoke a regional dialect of Latin. By 1000 AD, this had become Spanish.

By 1500 AD, a small group of Spaniards (who were themselves a mix of Celts, Iberians and this small group of Italians) sailed to the New World and latinized the inhabitants - culturally and linguistically.

How much Italian blood does the South American Indian have? Really very little. Yet this is the origin of his language and culture.

This model I find plausible, if one buys the dominant theories on IE spread, of course.

Finally, Stevo, get your Hg tested already! (You keep posting "I'm not biased because of no test results.") Get tested!!!

[F.E.C.]

Mikey,
Thanks for your example of the "wave" theory. I find it appealing other than appropriate.

[Stevo]

Of course people switch languages, but not without some compelling reason.

All of the people in the examples cited by Mikey above had compelling reasons to change languages.

They didn't just wake up one morning, grab a Berlitz CD, and say, "I feel like speaking Spanish now!"

How many Incas did the Pizarro brothers kill?

When the folks with the guns or the cash speak, everyone wants to know what they're saying.

The English are only 20% Germanic?

What is Germanic?

A certain genetic or racial combination one can quantify and break into percentages?

English is a Germanic language, and the English are every bit as "Germanic" as any other people who speak a Germanic language and have a culture and institutions that largely derive from those of the early Germanic tribes.

Besides, how much the Anglo-Saxons and the later Vikings replaced the Celtic inhabitants of what is now Britain is a matter of debate.

Anyway, people do not switch languages without a real good reason.

(I'm still waiting for the results of my Y-37 test in Batch 147.)

[Stevo]

Peoples (or nations) actually switch languages quite often.

Even the purest of "pure" Irish today speak English. Gaelic is a dying toungue, alas.

Was there a mass conquest of the Irish? Not really. Economic imperialism? Arguably. But it really just kind of happened.

Mikey -

The English dominated Ireland from the 12th through the 20th centuries: about 700 years.

It didn't really just kind of happen. There was indeed a "mass conquest."

If I recall correctly, at various times the English outlawed any use of Gaelic, just as they outlawed the use of the Welsh tongue in Wales.

The Irish learned English at the point of a sword and in order to work for and trade with the English.

The English themselves, which study after study show to be only 20% Germanic, now speak a Germanic toungue (English). How did this happen? No one is really sure. Yes the Anglo-Saxons invaded, but the penetration was not really widespread - and Briton had by that point a 500 year-old Gallo-Roman culture.

The Romans controlled Britannia (what is now England and southern Scotland) for about 350 years.

The evidence is pretty strong for a substantial replacement of the Romano-British population with Anglo-Saxons.

Besides I1a, I1c, and possibly I1b, many of the clades of R1b found in Britain are Frisian, North German, and Danish and not native Celtic at all.

Most of the native Britons fled into Wales, Strathclyde, and Armorica (Brittany).

Some remained, no doubt, but far fewer than many believe.

[F.E.C.]

Of course people switch languages, but not without some compelling reason.

All of the people in the examples cited by Mikey above had compelling reasons to change languages.

They didn't just wake up one morning, grab a Berlitz CD, and say, "I feel like speaking Spanish now!"

How many Incas did the Pizarro brothers kill?

When the folks with the guns or the cash speak, everyone wants to know what they're saying.

Why couldn't this apply to the case of not-so-warlike indigenous Europeans facing the coming of fiery chariot-drivers from the steppes who were technologically more advanced?

The English are only 20% Germanic?

What is Germanic?

A certain genetic or racial combination one can quantify and break into percentages?

English is a Germanic language, and the English are every bit as "Germanic" as any other people who speak a Germanic language and have a culture and institutions that largely derive from those of the early Germanic tribes.

Besides, how much the Anglo-Saxons and the later Vikings replaced the Celtic inhabitants of what is now Britain is a matter of debate.

Perhaps Mikey referred to the descendents of the different Germanic tribes who started moving to Britain after the Romans left. Actually, I think it's possible to discern them from the deep natives (actually it seems possible to distinguish even between Anglo-Saxons and Vikings). However IMO his 20% estimate is too low.

[Stevo]

Why couldn't this apply to the case of not-so-warlike indigenous Europeans facing the coming of fiery chariot-drivers from the steppes who were technologically more advanced?

It could. Maybe it did.

Perhaps Mikey referred to the descendents of the different Germanic tribes who started moving to Britain after the Romans left. Actually, I think it's possible to discern them from the deep natives (actually it seems possible to distinguish even between Anglo-Saxons and Vikings). However IMO his 20% estimate is too low.

Here's what I posted probably just before your post, Francesco.

The English are mostly Germanic, in my humble opinion.

The Romans controlled Britannia (what is now England and southern Scotland) for about 350 years.

The evidence is pretty strong for a substantial replacement of the Romano-British population with Anglo-Saxons.

Besides I1a, I1c, and possibly I1b, many of the clades of R1b found in Britain are Frisian, North German, and Danish and not native Celtic at all.

Most of the native Britons fled into Wales, Strathclyde, and Armorica (Brittany).

Some remained, no doubt, but far fewer than many believe.

[F.E.C.]

Here's what I posted probably just before your post, Francesco.

Correct

[Stevo]

This Changes Everything

Now that I am R1b1, I must insist that R1bs are the true Aryans.

Obviously they taught the R1as how to speak English - yes, the original Indo-European speech - and sent them down through the Khyber Pass into India to bring back the recipe for Curry Chicken.

The R1as were late in returning, which of course explains Alexander the Great's need to push East in pursuit and the subsequent Roman campaigns against the Parthians.

In the end the R1bs triumphed when the British East India Company finally secured the coveted Curry Chicken recipe and the tardy R1as were duly required to pay for their laxity by supplying R1bs with tea.

And that, friends, is history.

My doctoral thesis should be a piece of cake now!



For those who don't get it: that was not serious. I have the utmost respect for those scary Kurgan R1as and their sandy skirts . . . or Sanskrit or whatever.

[Stevo]

Check this out!

You all should read this introductory article carefully. It makes a great deal of sense.

I have read Renfrew's Archaeology and Language. The web site above does a fine job of punching holes in its hypothesis, as well as Gimbutas' Kurgan theory.

[Downer101]

Now that I am R1b1, I must insist that R1bs are the true Aryans.

Obviously they taught the R1as how to speak English - yes, the original Indo-European speech - and sent them down through the Khyber Pass into India to bring back the recipe for Curry Chicken.

The R1as were late in returning, which of course explains Alexander the Great's need to push East in pursuit and the subsequent Roman campaigns against the Parthians.

In the end the R1bs triumphed when the British East India Company finally secured the coveted Curry Chicken recipe and the tardy R1as were duly required to pay for their laxity by supplying R1bs with tea.

And that, friends, is history.

My doctoral thesis should be a piece of cake now!



For those who don't get it: that was not serious. I have the utmost respect for those scary Kurgan R1as and their sandy skirts . . . or Sanskrit or whatever.

This is not true, the distribution of R1b is so concentrated in Western and Central Europe that it is Native. R1a is amongst the first speakers of PIE because it is distributed the most amongst the Slavs and Central Asians more recently. Slavs and Indo-Iranians, etc. are the languages that are the closest to the original PIE. Our native toungue might've been Proto-Basque, but it's also possible that Basque is a double-toungue (intermediate language). Although the latter that the Basque is an intermediate language I doubt.

[T E Peterman]

I would like to suggest a possible alternative hypothesis. Consider first that many lingists think that PIE was more closely related to Uralic/ Altaic & other languages of eastern Siberia & more distantly to native American languages. Consider also that haplogroup R is a "brother" of Q, both derived from P, which is a "brother" to NO, as well as L & M.

This makes me wonder if the whole R haplogroup spoke PIE & later R1a spoke the satem branch & R1b spoke the centum branch. There are two main issues that have to be resolved:

1. the age of PIE (some have suggested a common language in 8500 BC, others more recent, others earlier)

2. the age of the R1b in western Europe (for the last few years, the conventional word on this is about 30,000 BC)

I have to wonder about #2. The MRCA for R1b1c is estimated to have lived in 7500 BC. There was supposedly a population bottleneck involving R1b at the end of the last Ice Age, which wouldn't be that surprising. The diversity of R1b1c in Iberia has long suggested that Iberia was the homeland of R1b during the last Ice Age. But... as new data comes in, some of this might have to be modified. I have never heard any reports of R1b1c10 being in Iberia at all. This was an early offshoot of the main trunk of R1b1c & consists of perhaps 20%+ of all R1b1c men. The distribution is mainly Alpine & Balkan, with a minority spread across Germany & Poland. The MRCA of R1b1c10 lived in about 5,000 BC. This suggests to me that as R1b1c was moving in from the east, the R1b1c10 group may have broke off while they were passing through the Balkans & never made it to Iberia.

I don't have any notes in front of me, so the above dates are estimates from memory. If these dates are accurate, R1b1c could have entered Europe a lot later than was first thought. They could have displaced the local y-haplogroups. My guess is that the pre-R1b population of western Europe was composed heavily of the I haplogroup. In addition to replacing the dominat y-haplogroup, they could have replaced the local non IE languages as well.

Whatever the case may be, if R1a was the originator of PIE, the early R1b folk must have spoke a language that was quite similar.

Timothy Peterman

[Nagelfar]

My guess is that the pre-R1b population of western Europe was composed heavily of the I haplogroup. In addition to replacing the dominat y-haplogroup, they could have replaced the local non IE languages as well.

Subgroups like I1a don't seem to be spread evenly enough with diverse enough haplotypes, maybe I1b, but that doesn't explain haplogroup I in general. The appearance of I1a uniformity seems to be mostly modern movement.

Too bad we can't test mummies or fossils for Y haplogroups.