Tweet
The following post is my own personal opinion, my own theory. If what follows sounds as if I am pontificating on absolute, established fact, just remember the sentence above with which I began this thread. 
Some linguistics scholars believe there was once a great Eurasian "super" language family from which at least the Uralic languages and Indo-European languages stem. Since those language families show certain similarities, I believe that is not only possible but likely.
Genetically speaking, as descendants of K, y-haplogroups L-R are relatively closely related to each other and are believed each of them to have had its genesis somewhere on the Eurasian steppe.
The Uralic language family has a strong connection to y-haplogroup N, which seems to have arisen, as did y-haplogroup R, in the Ural-Volga region. N and R are also fairly closely related.
I believe that in the distant past Ns and Rs spoke the same primitive Eurasian speech. In the case of the Ns, this language developed into the Uralic language family.
In the case of the Rs, however, their primitive Eurasian speech developed into Proto-Indo-European. Of course, Proto-Indo-European would later develop and subdivide into a number of languages that themselves evolved into the predecessors of the modern Indo-European languages.
The first and most basic division of the Indo-European languages is that between the Eastern or satem branch and the Western or centum branch.
It seems to me some of the genetics experts, like Dr. Spencer Wells, looked at the distribution of y-haplogroup R1a and, knowing what they know of the Kurgan Hypothesis, concluded that R1a must be the exclusive Proto-Indo-European y-haplogroup. That makes a certain amount of sense, given that one sees R1a spread in quantity from Eastern Europe into the Indian Subcontinent.
What experts like Dr. Wells have missed, however, is that R1a has a strong, observable connection with the East and with the satem IE languages but a very weak connection with the centum IE languages of the West.
What R1a there is in Western Europe can easily be traced to later, historically documented incursions and is not traceable to the Indo-Europeans.
Here is a nice little chart/tree of the centum or Western IE languages.
Here is the same sort of tree showing the satem or Eastern IE languages.
The prevalence of R1a among speakers of the Eastern IE languages should be readily apparent.
What also should be readily apparent is the strong connection of R1b - the single most prolific and populous Western European y-haplogroup - to the Western centum Indo-European languages.
The obvious explanation is that, just as R1as (and the closely connected R1s and R2s) were the primary spreaders of Indo-European in the East, R1bs were the primary propagators of Indo-European in the West.
It is interesting in this connection to note that the Uyghurs of northwestern China claim descent from the Indo-European Tocharians. The Tocharians, an exception in Central Asia, spoke a Western or centum Indo-European language with certain Celtic affinities (although Tocharian was not itself Celtic). The Uyghurs have a high proportion of R1b.
I am fully aware that my theory goes against some of the current popular speculation that R1b migrated into Europe during the Paleolithic Period and weathered the last Ice Age in Iberia. With all due respect for those who hold that opinion, I disagree. There is no evidence that is true.
At the same time, it is true that R1b haplotypes become more diverse, and arguably older, the farther east one travels in Europe. That diversity reaches its maximum, according to researcher Alan Foster, in the Ural-Volga region (surprise!).
It is my belief that most of the R1b in Western Europe was spread there by relatively small bands of centum Indo-European settlers beginning in the Neolithic Period and culminating in the Bronze Age.
The centum/satem split in the Indo-European language family mirrors almost exactly the basic West-East (R1b/R1a) split in y-haplogroup R.
Some linguistics scholars believe there was once a great Eurasian "super" language family from which at least the Uralic languages and Indo-European languages stem. Since those language families show certain similarities, I believe that is not only possible but likely.
Genetically speaking, as descendants of K, y-haplogroups L-R are relatively closely related to each other and are believed each of them to have had its genesis somewhere on the Eurasian steppe.
The Uralic language family has a strong connection to y-haplogroup N, which seems to have arisen, as did y-haplogroup R, in the Ural-Volga region. N and R are also fairly closely related.
I believe that in the distant past Ns and Rs spoke the same primitive Eurasian speech. In the case of the Ns, this language developed into the Uralic language family.
In the case of the Rs, however, their primitive Eurasian speech developed into Proto-Indo-European. Of course, Proto-Indo-European would later develop and subdivide into a number of languages that themselves evolved into the predecessors of the modern Indo-European languages.
The first and most basic division of the Indo-European languages is that between the Eastern or satem branch and the Western or centum branch.
It seems to me some of the genetics experts, like Dr. Spencer Wells, looked at the distribution of y-haplogroup R1a and, knowing what they know of the Kurgan Hypothesis, concluded that R1a must be the exclusive Proto-Indo-European y-haplogroup. That makes a certain amount of sense, given that one sees R1a spread in quantity from Eastern Europe into the Indian Subcontinent.
What experts like Dr. Wells have missed, however, is that R1a has a strong, observable connection with the East and with the satem IE languages but a very weak connection with the centum IE languages of the West.
What R1a there is in Western Europe can easily be traced to later, historically documented incursions and is not traceable to the Indo-Europeans.
Here is a nice little chart/tree of the centum or Western IE languages.
Here is the same sort of tree showing the satem or Eastern IE languages.
The prevalence of R1a among speakers of the Eastern IE languages should be readily apparent.
What also should be readily apparent is the strong connection of R1b - the single most prolific and populous Western European y-haplogroup - to the Western centum Indo-European languages.
The obvious explanation is that, just as R1as (and the closely connected R1s and R2s) were the primary spreaders of Indo-European in the East, R1bs were the primary propagators of Indo-European in the West.
It is interesting in this connection to note that the Uyghurs of northwestern China claim descent from the Indo-European Tocharians. The Tocharians, an exception in Central Asia, spoke a Western or centum Indo-European language with certain Celtic affinities (although Tocharian was not itself Celtic). The Uyghurs have a high proportion of R1b.
I am fully aware that my theory goes against some of the current popular speculation that R1b migrated into Europe during the Paleolithic Period and weathered the last Ice Age in Iberia. With all due respect for those who hold that opinion, I disagree. There is no evidence that is true.
At the same time, it is true that R1b haplotypes become more diverse, and arguably older, the farther east one travels in Europe. That diversity reaches its maximum, according to researcher Alan Foster, in the Ural-Volga region (surprise!).
It is my belief that most of the R1b in Western Europe was spread there by relatively small bands of centum Indo-European settlers beginning in the Neolithic Period and culminating in the Bronze Age.
The centum/satem split in the Indo-European language family mirrors almost exactly the basic West-East (R1b/R1a) split in y-haplogroup R.
But I'm not picking up a fight, I'm just curious.
Comment