According to Lothar Kilian and A. Hausler: no immigrants for the dispersion of I.E.

Haganus

Regular Member
Messages
114
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Who does know Lothar Kilian and A. Hausler's theories:
the Indo-European languages did not arrive in West-Europe by immigrants, but
by acculturation and adoption. Both authors remark that the skeletons of people from the areas west of Weichsel are quite differents from those of the people in south Russia
and Ukraine. They absolutely deny any kind of immigration.
Who can give me more information? What is your opinion about Kilian and Hausler's theories?
 
I sometimes wonder whether IE language might have originally been language of haplogroup I people.. it's spread to Asia and east Europe can be due to I2a-din spread from Europe to asia...
 
I sometimes wonder whether IE language might have originally been language of haplogroup I people.. it's spread to Asia and east Europe can be due to I2a-din spread from Europe to asia...

So you've told us... :LOL:

I think that places its spread quite too late, remember that TMRCA of I2a-Din is remarkably young, it is one of the most recent bottlenecks in Haplogroup I, even among Haplogroup I's recent bottlenecking. Look up Nordtvedt's tree for some comparisons.

Besides, even a transmission from Haplogroup I people involves some movement of people, like the I2a-Din in the Kurds... and I think we see a more obvious movement that parallels some of the best theories on IE peoples with the combined movement of R1a and R1b peoples. That of course is not the whole story, as R1a and R1b also seem to have non-IE components, but I think that's because we are seeing BOTH transmission of culture AND migration. Certainly more migration than Kilian and Hausler would suggest, anyway, especially among men (Y-DNA seems to have different patterns than mtDNA).
 
So you've told us... :LOL:

I think that places its spread quite too late, remember that TMRCA of I2a-Din is remarkably young, it is one of the most recent bottlenecks in Haplogroup I, even among Haplogroup I's recent bottlenecking. Look up Nordtvedt's tree for some comparisons.

Besides, even a transmission from Haplogroup I people involves some movement of people, like the I2a-Din in the Kurds... and I think we see a more obvious movement that parallels some of the best theories on IE peoples with the combined movement of R1a and R1b peoples. That of course is not the whole story, as R1a and R1b also seem to have non-IE components, but I think that's because we are seeing BOTH transmission of culture AND migration. Certainly more migration than Kilian and Hausler would suggest, anyway, especially among men (Y-DNA seems to have different patterns than mtDNA).

you are probably right...

good indication is that R1a + N dominant Balts speak practically old Balto-Slavic language and have no I2a-din, while Slavs have lot of add on top of that old language and are R1a + I2a-din dominant...
 
This is what I always believed. Most Europeans are not Indo-European by race, only by language. While Kurds are Indo-European by race, culture and language.
 
Please I should like to know more about the Lothar Kilian and Alexanders Haeusler 's theories:
they deny any immigration from East-Europe in the area of West-Europe till the Weichsel.
But how did they declare the presence of the haplogroup R1a in Sweden and Norway?
 
Please I should like to know more about the Lothar Kilian and Alexanders Haeusler 's theories:
they deny any immigration from East-Europe in the area of West-Europe till the Weichsel.
But how did they declare the presence of the haplogroup R1a in Sweden and Norway?
Sweden and Norway is Scandinavia and very much isloated from the rest of West Europe.
 
I find it embarassing when people overtly have some kind of ideological agendas to pursue when they are arguing history, linguistics or genetics.
 
I find it embarassing when people overtly have some kind of ideological agendas to pursue when they are arguing history, linguistics or genetics.
Are you talking about me? I do also dislike folks with 'ideological agendas'...
 
No, I'm talking about Kilian and Hausler. And a lot of other people.
Ok, thanks. But how do you know they're biased toward this issue and have some hidden agenda behind their statements? Maybe they're very sincerely and trying to contribute some ideas in this debate. They're European and they discuss this about their own people.
 
But there is a lot of R1a in Europe , Poland , Czech , Slovakia , Hungary , Germany , Skandinavia ,... So some migration had to hapen . Also some of Scandinavian R1a is detected as Altaic ( non Slavic ) R1a ( together with some Q and K ) - so the migration from even far from East is evident . I believe that god part of Central European and East European R1a is also Altaic - Turkmen .
 
But there is a lot of R1a in Europe , Poland , Czech , Slovakia , Hungary , Germany , Skandinavia ,... So some migration had to hapen . Also some of Scandinavian R1a is detected as Altaic ( non Slavic ) R1a ( together with some Q and K ) - so the migration from even far from East is evident . I believe that god part of Central European and East European R1a is also Altaic - Turkmen .
Yes, but they do speak about West Europe. I think that what they're trying to say is that peoples in western (Atlantic) European regions with high R1b are native to Europe and that R1b is not IE at all, but very ancient native European subclade.
 
I'm skeptical of the thesis. It's one thing to say that there is insufficient evidence to support the migration theory as the primary cause for the spread of IE; to categorically state that immigration played no role sounds like an error in the other direction to me.

The theory looks like the academic revisionism that periodically sweeps through some disciplines, usually in reaction to an earlier orthodoxy. It often has as much to do with power struggles between different groups of scientists as it does with the science itself. For that reason it is usually unbalanced and fated to be replaced by something more nuanced.

IMO the genetic trail left by R1B between the Caucasus and Western Europe is the clear sign of a significant migration. The only question in my mind is whether it accompanied the spread of IE languages.
 
IMO the genetic trail left by R1B between the Caucasus and Western Europe is the clear sign of a significant migration. The only question in my mind is whether it accompanied the spread of IE languages.
True. I think that the answer to this question is to find out when R1b migrated into Europe, and the age of PIE.

The first European R1b folks could be the PIE language carriers, non-Indo-European Neolithic farmers or maybe even somebody else.
 
But there is a lot of R1a in Europe , Poland , Czech , Slovakia , Hungary , Germany , Skandinavia ,... So some migration had to hapen . Also some of Scandinavian R1a is detected as Altaic ( non Slavic ) R1a ( together with some Q and K ) - so the migration from even far from East is evident . I believe that god part of Central European and East European R1a is also Altaic - Turkmen .

Mind you, there is also small percentages of R1a in Western Europe, and most of them cannot be convincably be explained by Germanic influence (for example the Auvergne has ~5% R1a, Cantabria even has over 8%!), which is why I personally suspect that there may have been a small Celtic component to R1a as well.

Haplogroup-R1a.gif
 
Mind you, there is also small percentages of R1a in Western Europe, and most of them cannot be convincably be explained by Germanic influence (for example the Auvergne has ~5% R1a, Cantabria even has over 8%!), which is why I personally suspect that there may have been a small Celtic component to R1a as well.

I've observed the same pattern before with mtDNA U4a2, which generally maps quite well to the Corded Ware expansion but has a little bit of spillover into Western Europe that seems to map better with Celtic peoples than Germanic peoples. Although I don't have any answers as to why that is, I suspect that it may be the result of two transmissions: first from Corded Ware to Beaker people (they surely came into contact) and second from Beaker people to the Celtic expansions (ditto). Any thoughts?
 
I've observed the same pattern before with mtDNA U4a2, which generally maps quite well to the Corded Ware expansion but has a little bit of spillover into Western Europe that seems to map better with Celtic peoples than Germanic peoples. Although I don't have any answers as to why that is, I suspect that it may be the result of two transmissions: first from Corded Ware to Beaker people (they surely came into contact) and second from Beaker people to the Celtic expansions (ditto). Any thoughts?

Let me say I absolutely agree with that! On the flip side, I must also say that there is no reason why there should be no Celtic R1a whatsoever, anyways. The percentages we see in the Auvergne and Cantabria actually fit very well with an expansion from Central Europe (ie, from the periphery of the former Corded Ware area).
 
Yes, but they do speak about West Europe. I think that what they're trying to say is that peoples in western (Atlantic) European regions with high R1b are native to Europe and that R1b is not IE at all, but very ancient native European subclade.
Yes there is posibility that parts of R1b were previosly in Europe ( spreading from West Asia during Neolithe or even Paleolitic Europeans ) , but some parts of them had probably come with IE speackers , like parts joined R1a in Tocharians.
Thanks for answering
 
Mind you, there is also small percentages of R1a in Western Europe, and most of them cannot be convincably be explained by Germanic influence (for example the Auvergne has ~5% R1a, Cantabria even has over 8%!), which is why I personally suspect that there may have been a small Celtic component to R1a as well.

Haplogroup-R1a.gif
I also believe there was R1a in Celts , but Celts were also IE speackers so they are counted in migrations
 

This thread has been viewed 42550 times.

Back
Top