Bashkirs: What Subclades of R1b Were They?

[LeBrok]

India is made up of two linguistic groups.
1. Indo-European speakers
2. non Indo-European speakers.

with non Indo-European Indians, I mean the Indians who do not belong into the linguistic Indo-European family

Yes I agree, I just couldn't resist commenting on mentioned oxymoron. :)

[bertrand]

Sorry Bertrand, but this scenario that you present is completely impossible. The date of 10,000BC that you give is is far in excess of the generally estimated age of S28 (~3,500 YBP). You also have to consider the general distribution of S28 (France, southern Central Europe, Italy), from which the Bashkirs are a clear outlyer. I do however agree with Maciamo that the Bashkirs in general and the other R1b lineages from the sample excluding S28 are probably old.

Hello, sorry I was on vacation for a week but I would like to resume this thread because I really believe that S28 originated in the Bashkir area and I would like to try another attempt at convincing you:

Regarding the date of S28, most studies recognize that the current dating method for more recent mutations are unreliable (for those younger than 20,000 years old). Therefore the "guestimate" of 3500BC for S28 is not sufficient to discard my hypothesis. In addition, given the large amount of S28 holders today, a recent age is less likely.
If R1b is 25,000 years old (Myres et al.), S28 must be older than 3500 yrs old given the frequency of this marker in Europe today.

I believe the key to this problem is in the book: "the horse the wheel and language" by David Anthony. Anthony shows very convincingly that:
1) The PIE developed around 4000BC in the steppes of Ukraine
2) language similarities show that they came from the southern ural region after the Ice Age
3) They later evolved into two groups: a western group and an eastern group.
The western group emigrated up the Danube and Dniester (late centum languages around 3000BC) and the eastern group (satem) emigrated up the dnieper and back east toward the Ural and India

If now you map genetic maps to these patterns, it comes pretty clearly that Western PIE were mostly R1b and Eastern PIE were mostly R1a (as shown also by ancient DNA of Tarim mummies.) Therefore, at a time where Western PIE went up the Danube to found celtic and Italic civilizations, i believe it is highly unlikely that some of these (S28) went back to the Bashkir area. Only r1a went back up to the Ural via a reverse migration up the Volga.

I believe it is much more likely that S28 appeared before the emergence of the PIE, at the time when this group came down the Volga on its way to Western Ukranian steppes.

[razor]

There are facts which back up Maciamo's theory of IE expansion, and facts which don't. I think Anthony's (and not only Anthony's!) notion that the IE speech originated in the Eurasian steppes has become practically unassailable. The Anatolian theory is moribund to kaput. It's not just that the linguists have not accepted the Gamkrelidze-Ivanov hypothesis (and never will IMHO-- there's just too much that doesn't work), but also that archaeology militates against it. The unresolved issue (which will remain until plausible aYDNA is recovered sufficiently) is the interplay of R1a, R1b, and other haplogroups in the process of IE expansion. As to minor specifics: Maikop was an important culture on its own, and a significant intermediary to the steppes, but Maikop was not an "imperial" culture. It transmitted certain artifacts (perhaps: the wheel issue is yet unclear). It did not dominate the steppes in any visible way. The route of Maikop cultural influence was actually westward and northwestward (through the Crimea, where pre-Kemi-Oba and Kemi-Oba are offshoots, and of course Lower Mykhajlivka). Usatov(o) which Anthony and others see (possibly erroneously) as ancestral to the Germanic populations) was a successor culture to Lower Mykhajlivka in some important ways. The big mystery here is its fate. Which is bound up with the fate of Cucuteni-Trypilia (Usatov is the result of prior close contacts between Lo. Mykh. and Trypilia, including very significant exogamies. The key mysteries here are : (1) what happened to the Trypilian masses? (2) How did the Globular Amphorae culture (which Gimbutas already saw as close in many ways to Kemi-Oba and Lower Mykhajlivka) emerge and develop. And (3) what was the process of their Indo-Europeanization? Including the further relation of Corded Ware and Beaker. (3) is perhaps most easily visible in the overwhelming push of the steppe populations westward and south westward. Lower Mykhajlivka is swamped and absorbed by the Repin people as Yamna unfolds, and the same fate is shared by Usatov. IF (a big if) the Maikop and related complexes were primarily R1b, that would be the time that this group became a carrier of the IE speech. (As did R1b elements which participated in the emergence of Globular Amphorae and Corded Ware). The fate of particular groups (or combinations) of R1a, R1b et al. needs to be reanalyzed. All we know at the moment is the current situation and the likely starting situation (though the latter is much less certain). Everything in between is open for discussion and discovery.

[Taranis]

Hello, sorry I was on vacation for a week but I would like to resume this thread because I really believe that S28 originated in the Bashkir area and I would like to try another attempt at convincing you:

Regarding the date of S28, most studies recognize that the current dating method for more recent mutations are unreliable (for those younger than 20,000 years old). Therefore the "guestimate" of 3500BC for S28 is not sufficient to discard my hypothesis. In addition, given the large amount of S28 holders today, a recent age is less likely.
If R1b is 25,000 years old (Myres et al.), S28 must be older than 3500 yrs old given the frequency of this marker in Europe today.

I believe the key to this problem is in the book: "the horse the wheel and language" by David Anthony. Anthony shows very convincingly that:
1) The PIE developed around 4000BC in the steppes of Ukraine
2) language similarities show that they came from the southern ural region after the Ice Age
3) They later evolved into two groups: a western group and an eastern group.
The western group emigrated up the Danube and Dniester (late centum languages around 3000BC) and the eastern group (satem) emigrated up the dnieper and back east toward the Ural and India

If now you map genetic maps to these patterns, it comes pretty clearly that Western PIE were mostly R1b and Eastern PIE were mostly R1a (as shown also by ancient DNA of Tarim mummies.) Therefore, at a time where Western PIE went up the Danube to found celtic and Italic civilizations, i believe it is highly unlikely that some of these (S28) went back to the Bashkir area. Only r1a went back up to the Ural via a reverse migration up the Volga.

I believe it is much more likely that S28 appeared before the emergence of the PIE, at the time when this group came down the Volga on its way to Western Ukranian steppes.

Let me say this, I disagree completely with your assessment regarding S28. If S28 really originated in the Pontic-Uralic-Caspian region, we would also expect to find related outgroups of S28 (L21, Z196, M65 - as well as S21) should all be also found in that region, which they are not. Instead, all of these Haplogroups are basically exclusively Western or Central-Western European, and S28 amongst the Bashkirs is clearly an outlier. So unless you assume that R1b is Neolithic or Meso/Paleolithic in age (which has, at this point, been thoroughly debunked), I would argue that the age of 3500 years is not a too far off estimate. Granted, I admit that without a problem it might be older, but no more than 50%.

And regarding the Bashkir S-28, due to the general absence of other S116 subclades in the Bashkirs, the most plausible explanation really is a back migration.

Also, you should be aware that there is no, and never has been a 1:1 association between ethnolinguistic groups and Y-Haplogroups. There are a few cases where we get pretty close to this, but these are the exceptions, rather than the rule.

[Goga]

So unless you assume that R1b is Neolithic or Meso/Paleolithic in age (which has, at this point, been thoroughly debunked),

By who? Which scientist rejected that?

Only Maciamo and you like to think that, without providing any evidence.

[Taranis]

By who? Which scientist rejected that?

Only Maciamo and you like to think that, without providing any evidence.

Neolithic samples from Treilles and Derenburg? Those provide clear examples of the absence of R1b in the Neolithic. No offense Goga, but as far as I can tell, you are the only one who continues to adhere to such an early entry of R1b into Western Europe against all available evidence.

[Goga]

Neolithic samples from Treilles and Derenburg? Those provide clear examples of the absence of R1b in the Neolithic. No offense Goga, but as far as I can tell, you are the only one who continues to adhere to such an early entry of R1b into Western Europe against all available evidence.

We're speaking only about two places. What about the the Iberian Peninsula and England?

[Goga]

R1b came to Germany much later, with the Bell-Beaker culture. Even after Aryans (R1a & J2a maybe with some non-European R1b subclades etc. Battle Axe warriors) invaded Germanic lands.

[Taranis]

We're speaking only about two places. What about the the Iberian Peninsula and England?

We don't have any Neolithic samples from there yet, at least not to my current knowledge. However, based on the available evidence (zero samples of R1b from locations which today have ~70% and ~40% R1b, respectively), as well as the dispersal patterns of R1b subclades, I think it is absolutely justified to posit that should we get our hands at DNA from Iberian/British Neolithic sites, these with high likelihood will turn up no R1b.

I mean, after Derenburg, people already made the prediction that any sites in Western Europe would not yield any R1b, either. And yes, what happened, Treilles was also majorly Haplogroup G2a and R1b was completely absent. People made the same predictions about Ötzi's DNA, who also turned out to be G2a. I think what this shows is that these ancient DNA samples are representative enough to give us enough good clues to make reliable predictions about the past there, and it allows us to make good predictions about which Haplogroups we are going to find and which we are not going to find in DNA samples from specific archaeological cultures.

[Goga]

Ok, it's very highly possible that you're right! It just very hard for me to believe that Engalnd was R1b free for about 4500 years ago.

I believe that 4500 years ago in Germany there was much more R1a, J2a, I1 etc. and MUCH less R1b!

I think more than 30% I1, more than 30% of R1a, more than 10% J2a, more than 15% G etc...

[bertrand]

Taranis,

I believe you agree that R1b came from the pontic-caspian steppes; the evidence (linguistic, absence of ancient R1b in Neolitic Europe, etc...) is pretty strong in that direction.

Yet, today, there are very few R1b in Ukraine; the majority of all R1b are in Western Europe. But that does not mean that R1b originated in Western Europe as was wrongly assumed 10 yrs ago.

So i believe that the pre-PIE, before 4000BC were very few in number. In addition it was a nomadic people constantly on the move. Once they started their migration up the Danube, they grew rapidly, perhaps due to a mutation giving them lactose tolerence, and became the majority in Europe.

If S28 appeared 3500 years ago, that means one man carrying the mutation in the whole tribe, at a time when the Yamna culture was already well established in Western Europe, i dont see how that one man could give birth to 25% of all western europeans today.

Statistically, a long period must elapse between the appearance of the market, and that market being noticable on the map.

In any case, it seems that in the migration route of r1b and r1a, the bashkir region played an important part, like a border post between western and eastern steppes for a long time.

[bertrand]

oops! typo; I meant:
"Statistically, a long period must elapse between the appearance of the marker, and that marker being noticable on the map."

[razor]

Taranis,

I believe you agree that R1b came from the pontic-caspian steppes; the evidence (linguistic, absence of ancient R1b in Neolitic Europe, etc...) is pretty strong in that direction.

Yet, today, there are very few R1b in Ukraine; the majority of all R1b are in Western Europe. But that does not mean that R1b originated in Western Europe as was wrongly assumed 10 yrs ago.

So i believe that the pre-PIE, before 4000BC were very few in number. In addition it was a nomadic people constantly on the move. Once they started their migration up the Danube, they grew rapidly, perhaps due to a mutation giving them lactose tolerence, and became the majority in Europe.

If S28 appeared 3500 years ago, that means one man carrying the mutation in the whole tribe, at a time when the Yamna culture was already well established in Western Europe, i dont see how that one man could give birth to 25% of all western europeans today.

Statistically, a long period must elapse between the appearance of the market, and that market being noticable on the map.

In any case, it seems that in the migration route of r1b and r1a, the bashkir region played an important part, like a border post between western and eastern steppes for a long time.

Do the math. If S28 appeared ca. 1500 BCE the descendants could easily have been "on the map" as you say by 500 BCE if not sooner. That's exactly what happened with I2a-Dinaric according to the computations of Nordtvedt and Verenic. [first patriarch of Din-N= ca. 300 BCE; first patriarch of Din-S= ca. 30 BCE. By the 3rd c. CE first evident "Slavic" culture in Eastern Europe (The Kyivan culture). By the 6th c. CE: Slavic explosive expansion.=== Why should your case be any different?

[Dorianfinder]

Taranis,

I believe you agree that R1b came from the pontic-caspian steppes; the evidence (linguistic, absence of ancient R1b in Neolitic Europe, etc...) is pretty strong in that direction.

Yet, today, there are very few R1b in Ukraine; the majority of all R1b are in Western Europe. But that does not mean that R1b originated in Western Europe as was wrongly assumed 10 yrs ago.

So i believe that the pre-PIE, before 4000BC were very few in number. In addition it was a nomadic people constantly on the move. Once they started their migration up the Danube, they grew rapidly, perhaps due to a mutation giving them lactose tolerence, and became the majority in Europe.

If S28 appeared 3500 years ago, that means one man carrying the mutation in the whole tribe, at a time when the Yamna culture was already well established in Western Europe, i dont see how that one man could give birth to 25% of all western europeans today.

Statistically, a long period must elapse between the appearance of the market, and that market being noticable on the map.

In any case, it seems that in the migration route of r1b and r1a, the bashkir region played an important part, like a border post between western and eastern steppes for a long time.

What do you think could be a more likely TMRCA for S28? Remember to take into account the multiple effect of growth in a non-linear manner. Population growth is hardly ever uniform. Take the white Afrikaner population in South Africa as an example. They descend from a few settlers that arrived between 1652-1700 ... today there are 3-4 million, all pretty much related to one another.

[Farquharson]

Taranis,

Yet, today, there are very few R1b in Ukraine; the majority of all R1b are in Western Europe. But that does not mean that R1b originated in Western Europe as was wrongly assumed 10 yrs ago.

First off, we do not know what R1b frequencies are in Ukraine 6000 years ago. I do not see why we should apply a double standard to R1b near the Pontic-Caspian Steppe vis-a-vis the recent Neolithic finds of G2 and I2 in France and Spain. Both of the latter haplogroups were much more common in Western Europe back then than they are now. I am not saying this is definite, but one can argue the same thing about populations north of the Black Sea during that time too.

In regards to R1b and Bashkirs, R1b can also be found in other groups with Indo-Iranian connections, i.e. the Talysh, Kurds, Hazara, etc. I do not see why R1a or R1b had to travel alone in their migrations.

[Farquharson]

The following excerpt is taken from the official, 450-year hallmark page of the Bashkortostan province joining the Russian Federation :

"The written sources of the IX-XI centuries A.D. let scientists advance the Turk theory of Bashkir ethnos. The head of ethnology department of the Institute of history, language and literature Rinat Usupov analyzed the ancient ethnic-genetic layer in the region. He studied written sources, archeological materials, toponymy and folklore. The scientist indicated the ancient Indo-Iranian platform of ancient population not only in South Ural but for many nations of Eurasian continent. It is surmised that in the epoch of early iron Indo-Iranian nomads had founded the ethnic-genetic basis, which ancient population of South Ural and later Bashkir nation was formed on."

[AkBulat]

Интересно было почитать про башкир башкиру. Они действительно по языку тюрки и в некоторых родах (племя) R1b (М269, М 73) доходит до 87 %, но есть рода, где этой гаплогруппы нет совсем. Согласно историческим данным башкиры родом из Алтая. Гаплогруппа R1b там известна (алтайцы, тувинцы, и рядом уйгуры - все тюрки по языку), но преобладает R1a и N. На Урал башкиры приходят сравнительно поздно - по моему мнению в XIII в. Письменные источники их фиксируют: в VIII-IX в. в Средней Азии (Приаралье), в Х в. - в Поволжье, в XI-XII вв. - в Северном Причерноморье, на Дунае (у венгров, вот почему у них большой процент R1b, сцбклады не смотрел, думаю, что как и у башкир М269 и М 73) и оттуда на Урал. Как R1b попал на Алтай? Думаю, что возможны такие варианты. Если действительно R1b - Майкопская культура, то с потоком R1a (андроновская, афанасьевская культуры, происходящие от ямной). Впрочем, других вариантов я пока не вижу. Да, еще тюркско-кельтское родство подтверждается лингвистически. Я еще не закончил сравнивать кельтские и тюркские языки по списку Сводеша, но более 20 параллелей уже нашел.

[Yaan]

Goga I totally agree with you. It is good to see, that there are people with knowledge! Cheers!

[Taranis]

Интересно было почитать про башкир башкиру. Они действительно по языку тюрки и в некоторых родах (племя) R1b (М269, М 73) доходит до 87 %, но есть рода, где этой гаплогруппы нет совсем. Согласно историческим данным башкиры родом из Алтая. Гаплогруппа R1b там известна (алтайцы, тувинцы, и рядом уйгуры - все тюрки по языку), но преобладает R1a и N. На Урал башкиры приходят сравнительно поздно - по моему мнению в XIII в. Письменные источники их фиксируют: в VIII-IX в. в Средней Азии (Приаралье), в Х в. - в Поволжье, в XI-XII вв. - в Северном Причерноморье, на Дунае (у венгров, вот почему у них большой процент R1b, сцбклады не смотрел, думаю, что как и у башкир М269 и М 73) и оттуда на Урал. Как R1b попал на Алтай? Думаю, что возможны такие варианты. Если действительно R1b - Майкопская культура, то с потоком R1a (андроновская, афанасьевская культуры, происходящие от ямной). Впрочем, других вариантов я пока не вижу. Да, еще тюркско-кельтское родство подтверждается лингвистически. Я еще не закончил сравнивать кельтские и тюркские языки по списку Сводеша, но более 20 параллелей уже нашел.

AkBulat: English please.

My opinion is R1b-M73 is autochtonous to Central Asia and may indeed be tied with the Turkic peoples.

Celtic and Turkic languages are completely unrelated. The Celtic languages are part of the Indo-European languages, whereas Turkic are part of the Altaic languages, a group which in itself is disputed. What is clear is that the Turkic languages at least share a close relationship with the Mongolic languages. Also, I would advise you heavily against using Swadesh lists, I am pretty sure that what you discovered there are just coincidential similarities. Also, I wonder what you actually compared there, because none of the modern Celtic languages (Irish, Breton, Welsh) are particularly representative of what the ancient Celtic languages (Gaulish, Celtiberian) were like.

Otherwise, it is a misconception to think of R1b-M269 as "Celtic". The only subclades of R1b that seem to be linked with the spread of Celtic-speaking peoples are L21 and S28.

Also, Hungarian R1b is decisively not of Turkic origin.

[AkBulat]

Taranis:
Vielen Dank für Ihr Feedback. Mit Englisch, es ist mir egal, nur auf der Ebene der sowjetischen Schule. Deutsch besser wissen, liebte sie an der Universität, aber ich bin kein Philologe, Historiker und Archäologe. Kann ich überprüfen, die maschinelle Übersetzung.
In der Populationsgenetik, ich bin ein Amateur, aber ich bin daran interessiert, die Probleme der Ethnogenese der Baschkiren. Wie ich verstehe, dass es einen neuen Trend in der Wissenschaft noch auf materielle Gewinne und versucht, irgendwie zu systematisieren. Und ich glaube, ich war die Synthese von archäologischen, glotohronologii und Populationsgenetik Daten zum Nutzen aller.
Ihre Skepsis gegenüber den Türken in Westeuropa, ich verstehe. Aber heute, fertig zu vergleichen (Liste Swadesh) baskische Sprache mit türkischen Sprachen und haben 46 von 207 Parallelen und 6 weitere Worte noch in Frage. Hier in Westeuropa R1b. Ich habe ein Student macht eine vergleichende Analyse des britischen Sprache. Er sagt, dass die meisten Turkisms in Walisisch. Ich freue mich auf wenn du fertig bist. By the way, machte er eine interessante Idee: Runen sind nur bei den Türken und Westeuropäern (deutsch-slawischen) bekannt.

[Taranis]

Taranis:
Vielen Dank für Ihr Feedback. Mit Englisch, es ist mir egal, nur auf der Ebene der sowjetischen Schule. Deutsch besser wissen, liebte sie an der Universität, aber ich bin kein Philologe, Historiker und Archäologe. Kann ich überprüfen, die maschinelle Übersetzung.

You're very welcome. I personally appreciate your reply in German, and I will reply in English however, because other board member should read this.

In der Populationsgenetik, ich bin ein Amateur, aber ich bin daran interessiert, die Probleme der Ethnogenese der Baschkiren. Wie ich verstehe, dass es einen neuen Trend in der Wissenschaft noch auf materielle Gewinne und versucht, irgendwie zu systematisieren. Und ich glaube, ich war die Synthese von archäologischen, glotohronologii und Populationsgenetik Daten zum Nutzen aller.

Glottochronology is a method that has been decisively debunked. It is not a scientifically sound method. It makes a lot of false assumptions about languages that can be easily disproven. In particular the method is largely based around the meaning of a word. It is typical that meanings of words can change (thereby rendering swadesh lists useless), while related languages retain cognates with different meanings. For example English "knight" vs. German "Knecht".

Ihre Skepsis gegenüber den Türken in Westeuropa, ich verstehe. Aber heute, fertig zu vergleichen (Liste Swadesh) baskische Sprache mit türkischen Sprachen und haben 46 von 207 Parallelen und 6 weitere Worte noch in Frage. Hier in Westeuropa R1b. Ich habe ein Student macht eine vergleichende Analyse des britischen Sprache. Er sagt, dass die meisten Turkisms in Walisisch. Ich freue mich auf wenn du fertig bist.

Well, the fact that you find the most apparent similarities in Welsh should make you suspicious, and it is telling of why glottochronology is so wrong. Welsh is a modern language, after all, and along with Breton and Cornish it is descended from a common Brythonic language that was spoken during the Migration Period. If there was a connection, one would expect it to be greater in the past, not less.

You also seem to ignore the fact that the Turkic languages as a whole are fairly young, and Proto-Turkic was only spoken around the 1st century AD.

By the way, machte er eine interessante Idee: Runen sind nur bei den Türken und Westeuropäern (deutsch-slawischen) bekannt.

No, the Turkic and Germanic runes are completely unrelated, even though many signs look similar. There is also the semi-syllabaries that were used by the Iberians and Celtiberians, also includes signs that look identical to certain Turkic and Germanic runes, but are also completely unrelated with these.

[Mikewww]

If proto-Indo-European were from Central Asia (East Russia) they would carry R1a, P*, Q* and other native Central Asian haplogroups with them.

If proto-Indo-European were from West Asia they would carry R1a and J2 (+ maybe some Indo-Europeanised R1b and G2a subclades) with them.

If proto-Indo-European were from Northwest Europe, they would carry I1 and R1b with them.

etc.

You seem to making a large assumptions that R1b (M343) is from Northwest Europe. This issue is debated and studied to great length. There is a very good case to be made that R1b came out of SW Asia, the Caucasus or even Central Asia. In fact the argument is generally between those locations with a Eastern European origin being only lightly considered.

Ironically, the effect is that is you just made a great argument for R1b spreading IE languages to Western Europe by laying out some basic geographically connected outcomes.

- PIE started somewhere along the edges of East Europe and West Asia.
- R1b probably started somewhere along the edges of East Europe and West Asia.
- IE languages, specifically Centum, absolutely dominate Western Europe.
- R1b subclades, specifically P312 and U106, absolutely dominate Western Europe.

What's the parsimonious explanation? Is it just a tremendous coincidence? Look at maps of Centum IE language distribution and R1b distribution. I don't think it is just a coincidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Centum_Satem_map.png

[MOESAN]

interesting points of view - someones have an apparently very high knowledge (more than me!)

some remarks:
Y-R1b came from East (Eurasia? Siberia?) almost everybody agree - but when and how? it's to be believed that sometimes R1b came alone, sometimes mixed with other HGs - the Danube river theory is "in the wind" for good reasons but I think in a northerner way also (S.Baltic coasts -
Y-R1b in Bashkirs appears to be basically upstreams to L51 (the so alone poor L51 in Eastern and Central Europe!)
the downstream (within a disrupted chain of SNPs) R1b (S28/U152 & S21/U106) could have reached the Volga region later from Europe - the presence of Y-I1 in surrounding regions East of Moscou seam being attached by some Russian scholars to an eastward migration from North-Eastern Europe (langage unknown) before the ages of metals, excluding future germanic speaking people - why it could not have send R1b-S21 & S28 too? it could explain the paucity of intermediary SNPs among Bashkirs?
according to some answers on this thread it appears Bashkirs knew a langage shift maybe from iranian I-E to Turkish - to say that the steppes peoples knew a lot of contrary movements and some language shifts*
Y-R1b could have been an I-E (the first maybe) bearer: it's not to say that all R1b spoke only an I-E language or a proto- one...
what is obvious is: in Western Europe the numeric dominance of Y-R1b is troubling and seams to exclude (whatever the date and the number of times of arrivasl there) an heavy mixing with others HGs...

*general personal hypothesis: the warlike patriarchal small tribes could have promoted their Y-DNA on the cost of the vanquished ones, but absorbing a lot of foreign mt-DNA and autosomals and loosing their languages? bigger ones did that too: see the Franks and some mixed ethnies of Pakistan where male I-E conquerors lost their language)

[AkBulat]

Bashkirs,Hazara and other "eastern" media R1b split from the"Western" her lines before the latter went to Europe.Where and when was this division, I, as an archaeologist, interested in most.
It isbelieved that R1b bearers spoke a Turkic language (if you want you can call iterbi - RB-language, but the essence remains the same). Based on thisassumption, I Population below poverty line speaker Western media R1b andTurkic languages in the complex. More than one language against another, andlooking for an analogy in several languages. The result was yet to find a fewparallels that can make the assumption that the separation probably occurred inthe Eneolithic, under the pastoral herding, when an even greater role playedhunting.

Bull
Бык

European and Caucasian			Meaning	Turkic languages
Irish	tarbh [tarev]	мал-тыуар	скот	Bashkir
Spanish	toro	туар	товар	Bashkir
Catalan	tawro	тартыу	тянуть, тащить, тягловый, тяговый арба тартыу – тянуть телегу	Bashkir
Lithuanian	tauras (моста)	терек	скот	Bashkir
Swedish	tiur	тире	шкура	Bashkir
German	Stier	тау	стадо
Gothic	stiur	туар	скотина, скот	Crimean Tatar
Armenian	tabari mis (говядина)	табар	товар, имущество, домашние животные	Uigur, Turkish, Chagatai
		табаар	товар	Yakut
		тавар	товар	Chuvash
		tabar/tavar	добро, имущество, богатство	Old Turk д
		тууар эт	говядина	Karachai-Balkaria
		tuvar eti	говядина	Crimean Tatar

​​ Wool
Шерсть

Irish	olann	yun		Azerbaijan
Bulgarian	вьлна	йөн		Bashkir
Spanish	lana	жуын		Kazakh
Catalan	ilana	жюн		Karachai-Balkaria
Latvian	lana	yün		Crimean Tatar, Turkish
Lithuanian	vilna
German	Wolle
Serbian	вуна
Ukrainian	вовна
Estonian	villane löng

Boom
Стрела

Irish	Saighead [said]	садак окь		Karachai-Balkaria
		hаđак	колчан	Bashkir
Catalan	sageta	Çiginti		Crimean Tatar
Roman (Etruscan?)	sagitta	cоған		Shor

Hunting
Охота

Irish	seilg [Selэg]	avcilig		Crimean Tatar
Lithuanian	medžiokle	аусылык		Bashkir

Sail
Парус

Spanish, Portuguese	vela	желкин		Kahzah
Latvian	velum	yelken		Crimean Tatar, Turkish
French	voile	елкəн		Bashkir

Sword
Меч

Irish	сlaiomh [kli:v]	qilinc		Azerbaijan
Catalan	glavi	кьылыч		Karachai-Balkaria
Roman (Etruscan?)	gladius	kiliÇ		Turkish
Lithuanian	kalavijas	кылыш		Shor
		кылыс		Bashkir

The lastword struck me most, because there is no intimacy in the names of metals. Theword "sail" suggests that before the separation, they both livedsomewhere near the sea (the Black? Caspian? Persian?).
Of course,this is the most cursory examination of the vocabulary. I watched until theonly word which could make the chronological anchor (classes, metal, objects ofmaterial culture). I can still say that there is a similarity in terms of"land," "Fire," "cheese" (?), "Sheep,""Wave".

By the way:

[I]The name 'Herman' (german) into its componentparts is divided as follows: Ger-man. In the first part of the initial soundrep goes back to the sound [h], which was designated a thick breathingGreek transcription tyurkskoyazychnogo words eras. In this context, it has thesemantics of the word er 'real man' or 'real man'. The second component of May- this is somewhat distorted by the personal pronoun myeon 'I'. The originalform of this name was Ermen the semantics of 'I - a true man' or 'I - a realman. " Accordingly, the title was etnoterritorii 'Ermen'. Now remark ofStrabo that the "language of the Romans' word germani means" genuine"is understandable only if the language was Turkic language, not Latin.

Quote from:

ДроздовЮ.Н.
Тюркская этнонимия древнеевропейскихнародов. - М., 2008. - 392 с.The bookpresents research results ethnonymy ancient European tribes and peoples accordingto the ancient and early medieval written sources. It is established thatethnonymy these tribes and peoples were tyurkskoyazychnoy. The same hassurvived to the present time, but in a much distorted form. The resultsobtained suggest that the majority of the European population from ancienttimes to the X-XII centuries was tyurkskoyazychnoy.
ISBN 978-5-904215-04-0


Do notthink that I pan-Turkists. You just went on, and the Turks own language"frozen." That's it. This property aglyutinativnyh languages.

[Taranis]

Bashkirs,Hazara and other "eastern" media R1b split from the"Western" her lines before the latter went to Europe.Where and when was this division, I, as an archaeologist, interested in most.
It isbelieved that R1b bearers spoke a Turkic language (if you want you can call iterbi - RB-language, but the essence remains the same). Based on thisassumption, I Population below poverty line speaker Western media R1b andTurkic languages in the complex. More than one language against another, andlooking for an analogy in several languages. The result was yet to find a fewparallels that can make the assumption that the separation probably occurred inthe Eneolithic, under the pastoral herding, when an even greater role playedhunting.

You're making too much of an assumption here of a 1:1 connection between language and genetics, which is not the case. People can swap their languages, but they cannot swap their genes. For example, R1b is also found in Africa (specifically Cameroon and northern Nigeria), specifically predominantly amongst Chadic? Does that mean that there must be a language connection between, say, the Hausa language (which is a Chadic language, and thus, an Afroasiatic language) and Turkic, or Basque, or Indo-European? It does not work like that.

Bull

The Catalan word for bull is "toro", not "tawro". Likewise, it's Swedish "tjar".

Gaulish "tarvos"
Welsh "tarw"
Breton "tarv"
Lusitanian "taurom"
Latin "taurus"
Greek "tauros"

It is clear that the root word is *tauro-, which is quite different from Turkic "tabar".

​​ Wool
Шерсть

Irish	olann	yun		Azerbaijan
Bulgarian	вьлна	йөн		Bashkir
Spanish	lana	жуын		Kazakh
Catalan	ilana	жюн		Karachai-Balkaria
Latvian	lana	yün		Crimean Tatar, Turkish
Lithuanian	vilna
German	Wolle
Serbian	вуна
Ukrainian	вовна
Estonian	villane löng

Old Irish "olann"
Welsh "gwlan"
Latin "lana"
Classical Greek "lēnos"
Hittite "hulana"
Avestan "varna"

It is pretty clear that this is from a common PIE root, and it is not even slightly similar to the Turkic word "yun".

Boom
Стрела

Irish	Saighead [said]	садак окь		Karachai-Balkaria
		hаđак	колчан	Bashkir
Catalan	sageta	Çiginti		Crimean Tatar
Roman (Etruscan?)	sagitta	cоған		Shor

Hunting
Охота

Irish	seilg [Selэg]	avcilig		Crimean Tatar
Lithuanian	medžiokle	аусылык		Bashkir

Also Welsh "helfa". The Proto-Celtic root word is "selgo-".

Sail
Парус

Spanish, Portuguese	vela	желкин		Kahzah
Latvian	velum	yelken		Crimean Tatar, Turkish
French	voile	елкəн		Bashkir

Sword
Меч

Irish	сlaiomh [kli:v]	qilinc		Azerbaijan
Catalan	glavi	кьылыч		Karachai-Balkaria
Roman (Etruscan?)	gladius	kiliÇ		Turkish
Lithuanian	kalavijas	кылыш		Shor
		кылыс		Bashkir

The word for "sword" is 'claideb' in Old Irish, 'cleddyf' in Welsh and 'cladios' in Gaulish.

The lastword struck me most, because there is no intimacy in the names of metals. Theword "sail" suggests that before the separation, they both livedsomewhere near the sea (the Black? Caspian? Persian?).
Of course,this is the most cursory examination of the vocabulary. I watched until theonly word which could make the chronological anchor (classes, metal, objects ofmaterial culture). I can still say that there is a similarity in terms of"land," "Fire," "cheese" (?), "Sheep,""Wave".

I am sorry to say this, but what you have here are just superficially similar terms. There is no regularity whatsoever behind that.

By the way:

[I]The name 'Herman' (german) into its componentparts is divided as follows: Ger-man. In the first part of the initial soundrep goes back to the sound [h], which was designated a thick breathingGreek transcription tyurkskoyazychnogo words eras. In this context, it has thesemantics of the word er 'real man' or 'real man'. The second component of May- this is somewhat distorted by the personal pronoun myeon 'I'. The originalform of this name was Ermen the semantics of 'I - a true man' or 'I - a realman. " Accordingly, the title was etnoterritorii 'Ermen'. Now remark ofStrabo that the "language of the Romans' word germani means" genuine"is understandable only if the language was Turkic language, not Latin.

I'm very sorry to say this, but you are completely on the wrong track there. The name "Herman" is the Germanized version of the Latin name "Arminius", and didn't exist in this shape until the 16th century or so. It is completely unrelated to the Latin word "Germani". This word in turn is Celtic in etymology, which is derived from a Celtic word for "short" or "near".

Compare:
- Old Irish "gerr" (short)
- Modern Irish "gearr" (short)
- Welsh "ger" (near)

In this sense, the word "Germani" can be understood to have originally meant something like "neighbours". Besides, it does not make sense in the slightest to assume the Romans would borrow a Turkic word for describing the Germanic peoples when at that point they had no contact with the Turkic peoples. Also, the Germanic peoples did not designate themselves as "Germani", but as something akin to "Theudones" (hence modern-day German "Deutsch").