In parallel universe. ;)

Hg I is about 20-30 thousand years old. Exodus if happened, happened 4-5 thousand years ago. Where was hg I hiding for first 20 thousand years?

Is that proven? Do we have DNA samples of that age? Or is it just mathematical estimate?
 
Is that proven? Do we have DNA samples of that age? Or is it just mathematical estimate?
IIRC the oldest hg I was found in Europe and it is from Neolithic times, 8kya, and it was already diversified into I2a subclade. It means that original hg I needs to be much older than that.
The total age of hg I is estimated mathematically based on frequency and number of mutations. So far it looks very plausible.
 
I1 never was near eastern population, but J are/were. J is Semitic = half Hebrew and fully Jews. Because Jews/Semites are one, Hebrews are second (or first) and Khazars (some R1a) are third.

I didn't understand your point. But Semitic languages are languages there isn't really a Semitic ethnicity. J1 isn't exclusive to Jews, neither is J2. Hebrew is a language, a Semitic language, there's no modern Hebrew ethnicity.
 
I Y-DNA people were enslaved by Egypt, then they escaped to Europe as 10 Lost Tribes of Hebrew, because Judah and Beniamin are Semites other are true Hebrews.

These are just my hypothesis of course
The story goes that the 10 tribes were exiled by the Assyrians, long after the Exodus supposedly took place.
 
But as I wrote before. Basques could be the oryginal R1b with original R1b language. Back to the topic.

And, as I wrote before, R1b is a very old and widespread haplotype that can't be associated with just one language. Perhaps Basque is the language of the Bell Beaker folk. But if R1b is IE, as many people on this forum think, the Basque language is a mystery.
 
And, as I wrote before, R1b is a very old and widespread haplotype that can't be associated with just one language. Perhaps Basque is the language of the Bell Beaker folk. But if R1b is IE, as many people on this forum think, the Basque language is a mystery.

In my opinion R1a is IE, R1b learned grammar, rules etc of IE language as Mozambique people were able to learn IE portuguese language. So Basque language should be closer to oryginal R1b people. IE languages are from east, they are R1a "unwanted" sons of "Aryans" (but mothers from indo-iranian territory). Sanskrit is written in local language, not in "aryan" language. And before all of this german, english was celtic, before was (in my opinion) Basque language.
Some think that Basque language have similarity to slovenian/czech: http://www.korenine.si/zborniki/zbornik01/pdf/jandacek_linguistic.pdf
but slavic languages are mix of indo-iranian (R1a) and I1 +I2a1b people, so the similarities can be because of older european populations here = when local R1b met I people. R1a changed our languages like french language changed Djibouti people their language.
And ones again, IE language (R1a) people is not "aryan" is a local people language which invaded and conquered R1b and I people (they came here from Egypt via near east). R1a can came here as todays seasonal worker also came. After 200 years it is possible that there will not be any Klagenfurt but polish Celowiec - if only polish people start to settle there. And belive me, even if they will be in minority they can put their rules, names etc. Bad/poor always win better/richer. This is why West gives way Russia. Poor have less to loss.
 
In my opinion R1a is IE, R1b learned grammar, rules etc of IE language as Mozambique people were able to learn IE portuguese language. So Basque language should be closer to oryginal R1b people. IE languages are from east, they are R1a "unwanted" sons of "Aryans" (but mothers from indo-iranian territory). Sanskrit is written in local language, not in "aryan" language. And before all of this german, english was celtic, before was (in my opinion) Basque language.
Some think that Basque language have similarity to slovenian/czech: http://www.korenine.si/zborniki/zbornik01/pdf/jandacek_linguistic.pdf
but slavic languages are mix of indo-iranian (R1a) and I1 +I2a1b people, so the similarities can be because of older european populations here = when local R1b met I people. R1a changed our languages like french language changed Djibouti people their language.
And ones again, IE language (R1a) people is not "aryan" is a local people language which invaded and conquered R1b and I people (they came here from Egypt via near east). R1a can came here as todays seasonal worker also came. After 200 years it is possible that there will not be any Klagenfurt but polish Celowiec - if only polish people start to settle there. And belive me, even if they will be in minority they can put their rules, names etc. Bad/poor always win better/richer. This is why West gives way Russia. Poor have less to loss.
Do you listen to what we say?! You are totally failing to react , in form of normal conversation, to anything we written so far. In all your posts you only recycled your weird beliefs.
 
Do you listen to what we say?! You are totally failing to react , in form of normal conversation, to anything we written so far. In all your posts you only recycled your weird beliefs.

You say one, I say second, someone can say third hypothesis. Why I should belive just one group of person. I wrote that this are only my wishful thinking. I want to know truth and give You more possible solution. Please be open. Every one knows that for example history is written by winners, but is this true for invaded people or only for invaders/winners?
 
You say one, I say second, someone can say third hypothesis. Why I should belive just one group of person. I wrote that this are only my wishful thinking.
We know it is just your wishful thinking. What baffles us is that you ignore posts of people who know much more than you on these subjects.
I want to know truth and give You more possible solution.
I'm sorry but if you don't know the truth, or at least science behind it, you can't give good solutions.

Please be open.
You are not even willing to discuss on consider what science says about genetics of our ancestors. Who is not open?
Go through this website and you will find posted scientific papers our knowledge is based on. Be open and read what experts say.


Every one knows that for example history is written by winners,
We are not talking much history here on this thread, mostly genetics. And if we have few hypotheses about past of our ancestors, it has to be in line with scientific discoveries. Please read up the wealth of knowledge contained on Eupedia before creating outlandish hypotheses. It is here at a tip of your finger.
http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/
 
Last edited:
Bell Beakers is about pots and not about language........if you want to talk about basque language, then see if Vasconic script is basque, but leave BB out of language discussions.
 
Bell Beakers is about pots and not about language........if you want to talk about basque language, then see if Vasconic script is basque, but leave BB out of language discussions.

No, I won't do that. Bell Beaker folk had much more than just pots to make them distinctive. There's every reason to believe, based on archeology, that they represented a new population movement, possibly the one that brought Vasconic language to western Europe. Since nobody knows what language Bell Beaker folk spoke, I feel free to speculate. Present me with DNA evidence that the distinctive Bell Beaker population didn't represent a population turnover and I will change my mind.
 
No, I won't do that. Bell Beaker folk had much more than just pots to make them distinctive. There's every reason to believe, based on archeology, that they represented a new population movement, possibly the one that brought Vasconic language to western Europe. Since nobody knows what language Bell Beaker folk spoke, I feel free to speculate. Present me with DNA evidence that the distinctive Bell Beaker population didn't represent a population turnover and I will change my mind.

Your wasting your intellectual time in chasing that the BB where one race............as for basques they have been stabilized where they reside since the neolithic times.

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/basque-and-other-european-origins.html

archeologists have found BB pots from morocco to poland , the only logical explanation is that BB is only about pots and the ability to learn this type of pot as one neighbour learnt from another neighbour
 
IIRC the oldest hg I was found in Europe and it is from Neolithic times, 8kya, and it was already diversified into I2a subclade. It means that original hg I needs to be much older than that.
The total age of hg I is estimated mathematically based on frequency and number of mutations. So far it looks very plausible.

Agree, but I'd be much happier with archaeological DNA proofs. When we have a rubber-band-like timeline of "very plausible" events it's valuable to pin down some of them with "certainty pins".
 
Agree, but I'd be much happier with archaeological DNA proofs. When we have a rubber-band-like timeline of "very plausible" events it's valuable to pin down some of them with "certainty pins".
Sure, in 10-20 years dust should settle. The good news is that so far whatever we find fits mathematical predictions of mutations, and with every year scientists are getting better in it.
 
Your wasting your intellectual time in chasing that the BB where one race............as for basques they have been stabilized where they reside since the neolithic times.

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/basque-and-other-european-origins.html

archeologists have found BB pots from morocco to poland , the only logical explanation is that BB is only about pots and the ability to learn this type of pot as one neighbour learnt from another neighbour

Maybe it would help if you actually learned something about the BB cultural package (which was much more than just pots) and the archeological and mtDNA evidence for BB people as an intrusive population that arrived in Europe during the late Neolithic. And that nonsense about "people are not pots" has been proven wrong time and time again, as new DNA evidence shows that yet another major cultural shift was also a population turnover. And I'm sure we'll have that evidence for BB eventually - the only two Y DNA examples we have for BB are also the two earliest examples of R1b in Europe.
 
Maybe it would help if you actually learned something about the BB cultural package (which was much more than just pots) and the archeological and mtDNA evidence for BB people as an intrusive population that arrived in Europe during the late Neolithic. And that nonsense about "people are not pots" has been proven wrong time and time again, as new DNA evidence shows that yet another major cultural shift was also a population turnover. And I'm sure we'll have that evidence for BB eventually - the only two Y DNA examples we have for BB are also the two earliest examples of R1b in Europe.

Are you telling me that the ancients had the ability to decide which haplogroups made which type of pots?
Are you trying to tell me, that the ancient haplogroups migrated as per 1 haplogroup at a time....and that different waves of individual haplogroups went their own ways...............tell me, how did the ancients determine which person had which haplogroup?

the only source we have is the emergence of haplogroups in certain area of the world , within a small time frame of each other , migrating together
 
Are you telling me that the ancients had the ability to decide which haplogroups made which type of pots?
Are you trying to tell me, that the ancient haplogroups migrated as per 1 haplogroup at a time....and that different waves of individual haplogroups went their own ways...............tell me, how did the ancients determine which person had which haplogroup?

the only source we have is the emergence of haplogroups in certain area of the world , within a small time frame of each other , migrating together

I can't tell whether you're genuinely stupid or willfully stupid. Either way, you're going into the "ignore" pile. Bye.
 
I can't tell whether you're genuinely stupid or willfully stupid. Either way, you're going into the "ignore" pile. Bye.

lol

here you go , for your "summary"
More recently, data and calculations from Myres et al. (2011),[79] Cruciani et al. (2011)[80] Arredi et al. (2007),[81] and Balaresque et al. (2010)[82] suggest a Late Neolithic entry of M269 into Europe.

These hypotheses appear to be corroborated by more direct evidence from ancient DNA. For example, Early Neolithic Y-DNA from Spain did not reveal any R1b, but rather E-V13 and G2a,[82] whilst a similar study from a French pre-Beaker Neolithic site revealed haplgroup G2a and I-P37.[83] It is only later, from a German Bell Beaker site dated to the third millennium BCE, that the first evidence for R1b is detected. Ancient Y-DNA results for the remains of Beaker people from Iberia have yet to be obtained.


Whilst such studies are insightful, even if the dates postulated by authors are correct, they do not necessarily imply that the spread of a particular genetic marker represents a distinct population, 'tribe' or language group. As such, 'genetic studies' have often drawn criticisms not only from archaeologists and cultural anthropologists, but also from fellow population geneticists.[32]

some need to keep their personnel dream..........but when all these speculations are done and dusted, one thing remains.......BB is about pots and the link between people and these types of pots. To link a type of pot to a haplogroup or language is wrong
 
Your wasting your intellectual time in chasing that the BB where one race............as for basques they have been stabilized where they reside since the neolithic times.

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/basque-and-other-european-origins.html

archeologists have found BB pots from morocco to poland , the only logical explanation is that BB is only about pots and the ability to learn this type of pot as one neighbour learnt from another neighbour


It might be the correct explanation but i don't think it's the *only* logical explanation.

IIRC Vinca were the first coppersmiths and Vinca disappeared but maybe some of them escaped whatever led to their disappearance and spread around Europe as a caste of coppersmiths and artisans like the African blacksmith castes.
 
lol

here you go , for your "summary"
More recently, data and calculations from Myres et al. (2011),[79] Cruciani et al. (2011)[80] Arredi et al. (2007),[81] and Balaresque et al. (2010)[82] suggest a Late Neolithic entry of M269 into Europe.

These hypotheses appear to be corroborated by more direct evidence from ancient DNA. For example, Early Neolithic Y-DNA from Spain did not reveal any R1b, but rather E-V13 and G2a,[82] whilst a similar study from a French pre-Beaker Neolithic site revealed haplgroup G2a and I-P37.[83] It is only later, from a German Bell Beaker site dated to the third millennium BCE, that the first evidence for R1b is detected. Ancient Y-DNA results for the remains of Beaker people from Iberia have yet to be obtained.


Whilst such studies are insightful, even if the dates postulated by authors are correct, they do not necessarily imply that the spread of a particular genetic marker represents a distinct population, 'tribe' or language group. As such, 'genetic studies' have often drawn criticisms not only from archaeologists and cultural anthropologists, but also from fellow population geneticists.[32]

some need to keep their personnel dream..........but when all these speculations are done and dusted, one thing remains.......BB is about pots and the link between people and these types of pots. To link a type of pot to a haplogroup or language is wrong



lack of ancient DNA, fellows:
we have more mt-DNA than Y-DNA for ancient times - + 2 x Y-R1B or 0 x Y-R1b (or any sort of Y-DNA) don't mean too much things compared to the span of time and the territories to cover -

and BB did not cover all Western Europe and the subsequent cultures labelled BBs were perhaps only influenced and boosted by genuine BBs - surely BBs had DNA and types but were they numerous enough to change the genetic landscape of Western Europe?
the mt-DNA (kind of H) change in Germany put on their account were they entirely caused by them or by slightly older and younger moves (Atlantic Megalithers with a cultural and maybe partly demic push towards East?)
the Trichterbecher (Funnel) people shew in some analysis an intermediary position between "sardinian" and "basque" what points towards Atlantic (I know: it could be their Hunt-Gath'rs part which could give this result, things are not simple) -
concerning Y-R1b, WE DON'T KNOW FOR NOW WHERE THEY PASSED THROUGH INTO EUROPE!?! they came from East, but "East" is vague - there has been more than a "va-et-vient" W>>E + E>>W in Northern Europe between middle Neolithic and Bronze so... today, the last surveys concerning ancient DNA did not show any Y-R1b yet except the 2 in Germany...
I think the most of Y-R1b bearers came from the Steppes and not from Anatolia, what doesn't disprove the passage of someones through South - and I think we can imagine than a first wave of Y-R1b could have spoken a not-I-E language (here I think in Basque)?
I'm still a bit confused about this exciting (and boring) problem of basque language and Y-R1b; all the way, the Basques if not identical keep showing some affinities with occidental Celts and the BB problem doesn't seem providing clues for now -
 

This thread has been viewed 254618 times.

Back
Top