PDA

View Full Version : Understanding indo-european y-dna



Barrister
17-03-13, 21:56
Hi all,
Just trying to better understand the original Y-dna of Indo-european civilization. I am led to believe that haplogroup R in it's various clades is the primary carrier and founder of Indo-european culture????

How does haplogroup I fit into this? Were these people adopters of indo-european culture by forced invasion?
Does anyone have any idea how this actually unfolded? What kind of time-frame are we looking at?
What was the pre-IE culture of haplogroup I?
I noticed that this haplogroup, especially I1 is in substantially larger quantities in Scandinavia and North germany, why has it maintained such a strong presence here? Would the engineering reputation of these people have something to do with their levels of creativity from their hunter/gatherer lifestyle combined with the disciplinary elements of indo-european culture?

Thanks

LeBrok
18-03-13, 05:01
I noticed that this haplogroup, especially I1 is in substantially larger quantities in Scandinavia and North germany, why has it maintained such a strong presence here? Would the engineering reputation of these people have something to do with their levels of creativity from their hunter/gatherer lifestyle combined with the disciplinary elements of indo-european culture?

Thanks
I'm not sure if it has anything to do with creativity of hunter-gatherer. If anything it might have something to do with lesser emotional state of Northern Europeans when compared to Mediterranean folks. It is not only showing how each groups express themselves, like Italian animated talking style verses "cold" Swedish or Finish one, but also how they run politics or their economy. With lesser volume of emotions economy can be run in more orderly/organized way, and people can easier agree and compromise on one direction in politics. It is possible that this is the true heritage of hunter-gatherer ancestors or even Neanderthals.

Barrister
18-03-13, 08:07
I'm not sure if it has anything to do with creativity of hunter-gatherer. If anything it might have something to do with lesser emotional state of Northern Europeans when compared to Mediterranean folks. It is not only showing how each groups express themselves, like Italian animated talking style verses "cold" Swedish or Finish one, but also how they run politics or their economy. With lesser volume of emotions economy can be run in more orderly/organized way, and people can easier agree and compromise on one direction in politics. It is possible that this is the true heritage of hunter-gatherer ancestors or even Neanderthals.

Ah interesting, i've noticed that also. Haplogroup I were hunter-gatherers before IE culture right? Do you feel that haplogroup I has actually been more successful at Indo-european culture than the R people? (through germanic culture)

Kardu
18-03-13, 11:57
I'm not sure if it has anything to do with creativity of hunter-gatherer. If anything it might have something to do with lesser emotional state of Northern Europeans when compared to Mediterranean folks. It is not only showing how each groups express themselves, like Italian animated talking style verses "cold" Swedish or Finish one, but also how they run politics or their economy. With lesser volume of emotions economy can be run in more orderly/organized way, and people can easier agree and compromise on one direction in politics. It is possible that this is the true heritage of hunter-gatherer ancestors or even Neanderthals.

Two problems with this view:
1. there were/are lot of non indo-european hunter-gatherers in the North.
2. There were/are hunter-gatherers all over the South.

nordicwarrior
18-03-13, 15:22
Great question.

Here's my opinion (please be aware that bias is rampant in this field and I'm not immune of course-- as I am a member of hg. I you may want to take my viewpoint worth a grain of salt). Haplogroup R brought with it more efficient systems of ruling tribes and later governing societies. Pound for pound haplogroup I members were probably bigger, stronger, and even more intelligent (although less socially inclined). It was a numbers game, and eventually the "invading" R clans swamped the natives genetically speaking.

The "I" natives were originally more concerned with fertility than warfare (from 45,000 years to about 8,000 years ago), and when the R peoples introduced advanced battle techniques (horses, bronze weaponry, chariots) it wasn't pretty. My thinking is that hg. I hid out in difficult areas to reach and then when they were eventually able to incorporate these new fighting technologies from the Russian Steppes, hg. R offspring undoubtedly regretted sharing their knowledge.

Every so often, the R systems break down due to corruption, greed, and "softness" and the more robust hg. I methods kick in. This explains the Anglo-Saxon invasions, the Vikings, and the Normans.

With our looming global depression, we may soon see hg. R (the royal haplogroup) have another erosion in it's efficiency of management systems.

P.S. For whatever reason, hg I tends to produce very attractive females and this is what had drawn the tribes of R toward Europe and then eventually into Scandinavia. They certainly didn't come for the tropical climate or plentiful farming-- it was for the ladies. Can't say I blame them...

Nobody1
18-03-13, 17:14
at Barrister

Hg R1b and Hg I were already present in Europe long before the Indo-European migrations. The only mystery of Hg I is Sardinia and its distinct I-M26. an island in the middle of the Mediterranean with ~40% Hg I [Rootsi et al. (2004)] (distinct I-M26 (I2a1). And the only note worthy thing about Sardinia is its distinct Nuragic Civilization.

at nordicfoyer

i have read a lot of theories as to why the peoples of the Kurgan culture (Indo-Europeans) migrated/extended into Europe, but your theory, that it was all just because they were horny and wanted to score with Hg I chicks is Revolutionary.

Hg I vs Hg R1B

unproductive debate. Regions across Europe who either have a higher frequency of Hg I or a higher frequency of Hg R have pretty much the same share of merits concerning civilization and productivity. And its a debate that would span at least ~5000 years of History (with points in time where one region might have been more sophisticated than the other) and no culture or ethnicity was ever exclusively only part of one and the same Haplogroup to begin with.

sparkey
18-03-13, 17:51
I am led to believe that haplogroup R in it's various clades is the primary carrier and founder of Indo-european culture????

That's sort of true. There isn't a 1:1 relationship between R and IE, although there is some evidence that the earliest IE populations carried R1a, probably as a majority or plurality, and (certain subclades of) R1b, probably as a minority. There's also evidence linking early IE migrations to certain subclades of J2 and G2.


How does haplogroup I fit into this? Were these people adopters of indo-european culture by forced invasion?
Does anyone have any idea how this actually unfolded? What kind of time-frame are we looking at?
What was the pre-IE culture of haplogroup I?

Haplogroup I seems to be the most anciently European haplogroup that is still common. As a result, "When did Haplogroup I become IE?" is similar to answering the question, "When did IE get to Europe, and how long did it take to become dominant in Europe?". It's not an easy question to answer, although I think the most popular answer to "When did IE get to Europe?" is that it came first with Corded Ware culture. As for when it became dominant, it seems to have been a clear majority by the Classical Age, and the Classical Age helped solidify it.

An interesting twist is that there seems to be some I that may have never been IE... specifically the I2-M26 in Basques. (That doesn't mean, of course, that the pre-IE culture of Haplogroup I folks was Basque. We're not sure what it was.)


I noticed that this haplogroup, especially I1 is in substantially larger quantities in Scandinavia and North germany, why has it maintained such a strong presence here?

It's probably because I1 bottlenecked and spread from North Germany, close to Scandinavia, around the same time that the population of these regions expanded.

sparkey
18-03-13, 18:03
Hg R1b and Hg I were already present in Europe long before the Indo-European migrations.

How long do you peg R1b as having been in Europe? I can't say with any certainty whether or not the types of R1b common in Europe came before, during, or after the IE migrations. The subclades aren't all that old in Europe... it's still possible to work with a hypothesis in which European R1b came with IE migrants in the Chalcolithic. It's also interesting that the type of R1b common in Europe continues to have a positive correlation with IE speaking as far away as Iran. There's also a poor correlation between the spread of R1b in Europe and the early Neolithic migrations, so I have trouble fitting it in other than as a migration or expansion during the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age.


The only mystery of Hg I is Sardinia and its distinct I-M26. an island in the middle of the Mediterranean with ~40% Hg I [Rootsi et al. (2004)] (distinct I-M26 (I2a1). And the only note worthy thing about Sardinia is its distinct Nuragic Civilization.

What's mysterious about it? I think the main open question about Sardinian I2-M26>L160 is how long after the L160 TMRCA (7000 YBP, IIRC) it got there. I don't think there's much question at this point that L160 is most ancient near the Pyrenees.

nordicwarrior
18-03-13, 18:25
at nordicfoyer

i have read a lot of theories as to why the peoples of the Kurgan culture (Indo-Europeans) migrated/extended into Europe, but your theory, that it was all just because they were horny and wanted to score with Hg I chicks is Revolutionary.

Revolutionary-- I can live with that.

I like to think back to my younger school days, when teachers taught that hundreds of years ago brave men risked travelling by wooden boats over unknown seas facing possibly hostile peoples for the supposed goal of finding spice. Spice?

Even when I was a kid I knew that explanation was bogus. Think about it... are you going to risk it all for some curry powder or some chiles? Not even a nice haul of silk would get me on a high risk voyage like they faced back in the day.

The motivating factor for the vast majority of mankind's endeavors is and has been-- whether 500 years ago or 5,000 years ago-- the pursuit of beautiful females from foreign lands.

Why do most people travel to Sweden for today-- for the pickled herring?

nordicwarrior
18-03-13, 18:50
I'd like to recommend a book called Pitcairns' Island (by Charles Nordhoff and James Norman Hall) which is based on the real life events following the famous Mutiny on the Bounty. This novel gives great insight to how men (and women) operate when they've left modern society and are forced to rebuild a working system of community.

It may be possible to draw parallels between these more modern folks in the Pacific, and the ancient hg I and hg R peoples encountering one another for the first time in Europe-- a new society was forged by the uniting of two existing cultures. And it also very much illustrates my point that beautiful young women are a tremendous motivating force.

I also get a kick out this book because it gives an almost comically accurate portrait of different y-haplogroups in action. From the secretive hooch hoarding Scotsman, to the Noble Polynesian tribal leader, to the probable haplogroup I crewman that loses his thread of reality-- but retains his bone crushing strength-- toward the novel's conclusion (don't want to spoil the ending for anyone who wants to read it). Also touched upon in this tale is the power of both stone and ancestor worship, which we also see in the primitive European cultures.

**EDIT**
Sparkey's more scholarly take is spot on by the way. R1a and to a lesser extent R1b were proto I-E drivers. Maybe some J2 further South.

**EDIT II**
And while it's nice to imagine that R and I live together in happy harmony-- you may find it of note that R1b occupies EVERY single royal family line in Northern and Western Europe as well as almost every U.S. Presidential seat I can find. (Except for Calvin Coolidge and of course Obama). Someone is paying close attention to this genetic stuff-- and they have been for a loooonng time.

Nobody1
18-03-13, 19:36
at Sparkey

Whats the correct opinion on how old R1b in Europe is? You claim its not "that" old and somewhere else i read that its post last Glacial maximum (~12.000 years ago).
But, the fact that:
Hans-Jürgen Bandelt - Human Mitochondrial DNA and the Evolution of Homo Sapiens (2006)
"R1a and R1b are both present in Indian populations, in both tribal and caste groups, between them amounting to a third of Indian Y-chromosome lineages....caste groups have received substantially more 'Indo-Aryan' genetic input from the north"

Inclines that Indo-Europeans have carried it into Europe (Kurgan phase III, 4th mill. BC), but the fact that Iberians(basques) were a NON-Indo-European (not even proto) people shows that R1b was also present in pre-Indo-European Europe.

And whats not Mysterious about the Sardinians being distinct from their environment (Mediterranean)? whether they descent from the Pyrenees or not is secondary. its not even established whether the Nuragic people were Indo-European or not. But since you claim its all well known/all questions answered, than lets hear it.

at nordicfoyer

True, and what your saying corresponds with Archaeology (and Anthropology). The migrating people always mixed with the already existing populations. Thats why there were always NEW cultures as opposed to the same culture brought in by the migrants. But i think that attraction for the female population is more a reason for a conquest than an entire/complete migration: Rape of the Sabine women, Helen of Troy etc

sparkey
18-03-13, 20:11
Whats the correct opinion on how old R1b in Europe is? You claim its not "that" old and somewhere else i read that its post last Glacial maximum (~12.000 years ago).

I don't know about "correct opinion" but using the same methodology on R1b in Europe and I in Europe tends to give an estimate of R1b being around 1/4 of the age of I. I've posted before (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/27049-More-precise-R1b-subclade-estimates-using-Nordtvedt-s-methodology) about R1b subclade estimates using Nordtvedt's methodology, which is the most popular for I subclade estimates. I could probably track down some other similar methodologies for comparison if you need additional ones (Klyosov's, etc.).

Post-LGM was a popular theory based on frequency analysis, prior to STR dating, diversity analysis, and ancient DNA tests started converging to show that R1b is younger than that in Europe. Of course, we're still not at a perfect answer yet.


Inclines that Indo-Europeans have carried it into Europe (Kurgan phase III, 4th mill. BC), but the fact that Iberians(basques) were a NON-Indo-European (not even proto) people shows that R1b was also present in pre-Indo-European Europe.

Or it could show that they have a founder effect of R1b that drifted into their population from IE populations. R1b certainly isn't oldest in the Basques. I don't find the Basques compelling evidence that R1b didn't spread with IE... although I could imagine a situation in which the initial R1b advance occurred shortly before the initial IE advance in Western Europe, with the Basques forming from the initial R1b advance immediately prior to their neighbors adopting IE. I suppose the R1b frequency in the Basques is effectively unresolved.


And whats not Mysterious about the Sardinians being distinct from their environment (Mediterranean)? whether they descent from the Pyrenees or not is secondary. its not even established whether the Nuragic people were Indo-European or not. But since you claim its all well known/all questions answered, than lets hear it.

Did I claim that? I thought you were suggesting that the I2-M26 in Sardinians was mysterious because it was unrelated to continental I2, which didn't sound right to me, so I asked what you meant.

Nobody1
18-03-13, 20:48
at Sparkey

I dont really get your basque logic.
Fact is that the basques today are over 80% Y-Hg R1b. Now if you claim there was an "R1b advance" than 1. by whom and 2. if you meant Indo-Europeans, well than that must make the basques the most Indo-European people on the planet. But thats exactly NOT the case, they are NOT Indo-European and they speak a language akin to ancient Iberian. And big surprise, the Iberians were NON -Indo-Europeans as well.
And isnt it starnge that where ever the Iberians settled (Iberia, Brittany, Britain, Ireland) the population today is still largely R1b. Coincidence?
Now, since the Urheimat of the Indo-Europeans is within the range (Europe-Asia) of Hg R, there is a good possibility for the Indo-Europeans themselves to be carriers of Hg R1b. As is (most-likely) the case in India and the Iranian plateau. Based on that i consider Hg R1b to be both Pre (NON) - as well as indo-European.

As for Sardinia,
"I thought you were suggesting that the I2-M26 in Sardinians was mysterious because it was unrelated to continental I2"

No, i was def. not suggesting anything like that, i was just pointing out that one of the regions (apart from Balkans and Scandinavia) with an unusually high Hg I rate (40% I2-M26 [Rootsi et al. (2004)]) is an Island in the Mediterranean. which is distinct and all the island has to offer is a distinct Civ.; the Nuragic Civilization. Mysterious.

Jackson
18-03-13, 22:05
at Sparkey

I dont really get your basque logic.
Fact is that the basques today are over 80% Y-Hg R1b. Now if you claim there was an "R1b advance" than 1. by whom and 2. if you meant Indo-Europeans, well than that must make the basques the most Indo-European people on the planet. But thats exactly NOT the case, they are NOT Indo-European and they speak a language akin to ancient Iberian. And big surprise, the Iberians were NON -Indo-Europeans as well.
And isnt it starnge that where ever the Iberians settled (Iberia, Brittany, Britain, Ireland) the population today is still largely R1b. Coincidence?
Now, since the Urheimat of the Indo-Europeans is within the range (Europe-Asia) of Hg R, there is a good possibility for the Indo-Europeans themselves to be carriers of Hg R1b. As is (most-likely) the case in India and the Iranian plateau. Based on that i consider Hg R1b to be both Pre (NON) - as well as indo-European.

As for Sardinia,
"I thought you were suggesting that the I2-M26 in Sardinians was mysterious because it was unrelated to continental I2"

No, i was def. not suggesting anything like that, i was just pointing out that one of the regions (apart from Balkans and Scandinavia) with an unusually high Hg I rate (40% I2-M26 [Rootsi et al. (2004)]) is an Island in the Mediterranean. which is distinct and all the island has to offer is a distinct Civ.; the Nuragic Civilization. Mysterious.

When did Iberians settle in the British Isles?

nordicwarrior
18-03-13, 22:16
at nordicfoyer. But i think that attraction for the female population is more a reason for a conquest than an entire/complete migration: Rape of the Sabine women, Helen of Troy etc

I agree, but when we look at what's happening to Sweden in real time-- how do we describe that? Is it an attempted genetic conquest or a complete migration. Either way the regional autosomal will reflect serious impact.

And Nobody, the relatively high hg I in Sardinia jives with my refuge theory as well. Rocky, hilly island= region that would be difficult for chariots and even horses to gain much of an advantage. My comments may sound light-hearted and even silly from time to time, but they are exceedingly well researched.

sparkey
18-03-13, 22:38
I dont really get your basque logic.
Fact is that the basques today are over 80% Y-Hg R1b. Now if you claim there was an "R1b advance" than 1. by whom and 2. if you meant Indo-Europeans, well than that must make the basques the most Indo-European people on the planet.

1. I'm not sure. The primary spread of R1b in Western/Central Europe seems to date to the Chalcolithic and/or Bronze Age. Who does that fit best? I have guesses, and some could fit IE speakers.
2. Not necessarily, it could mean that the Basques descend largely from IE speakers on their patrilines. It doesn't say anything about their other lineages, nor does it say anything about their language or culture. In general, I find that Y-DNA distributions tend to magnify the effect of migrations.


But thats exactly NOT the case, they are NOT Indo-European and they speak a language akin to ancient Iberian. And big surprise, the Iberians were NON -Indo-Europeans as well.

I think there is general consensus that the Basques descend largely from the Aquitani, rather than the Iberians. I don't know of strong evidence to link Iberian to Basque.


And isnt it starnge that where ever the Iberians settled (Iberia, Brittany, Britain, Ireland) the population today is still largely R1b. Coincidence?

The proposal that Iberians settled Britanny, Britain, and Ireland is new to me. Doesn't sound likely at all.

Nobody1
19-03-13, 02:14
spread of R1b

if it occurred during the Chalcolithic, what about the Bell beaker culture? west to east (non-indo-european) and existing in a region were most of the R1b carriers are today as well as a spread to Central Europe. It wasnt until the proper Bronze age that cultures from the Black sea area are clearly detected on the Baltic coast and in the Danubian region Tumulus-Urnfield cultures, and burial sites containing quantities of swords and daggers of an invading people.

Basque Bust

There is either something fundamentally wrong with a people that have a paternal (Indo-European) lineage of over 80% yet have/share no Indo-European linguistic affiliations or culture; OR there is something fundamentally wrong with this theory.

Jules Michelet - History of France Vol.II (1847)
"The comparison of the ancient names of places in the Iberian peninsula with the Basque tongue, shows this tongue to have been that of the Iberians; and as this people seems to have had only one tongue, Iberian nations and nations speaking Basque are synonymous expressions."

basques = iberians = Non Indo-Europeans

Aquitani or Iberian

Charles Anthon - A classical dictionary (1841)
"The Aquitani, according to Strabo (190), differed from the Gallic race both in physical constitution and in language. They resembled, he tells us, the Iberians rather than the Gauls."

James Cowles Prichard - Researches Into the Physical History of Mankind, Vol.II (1826)
"CAESAR informs us, that Gaul was occupied in his time by three nations, who differed from each other in language and manners. The third of these nations, viz. the Aquitani, were, as we have already observed, a branch of the Iberian stock"

Iberian was not ONE tribe it was more a tribal confederation consisting of many tribes; one of them the Aquitani.

Iberians of Britain

the Silures were one of the most powerful tribes in Britain (Wales).

Tacitus - Agricola (98 AD)
"The dark complexion of the Silures, their usually curly hair, and the fact that Spain is the opposite shore to them, are an evidence that Iberians of a former date crossed over and occupied these parts."

Rev. John Evans - A Popular History of the Ancient Britons (1901)
"There certainly was one race, denominated the Iberians, a non-Aryan [non-Indo-European] people, a remnant of whom existed in the time of Caesar as the Silurian tribes of South Wales - mainly in 'Monmouthshire' and the adjoining districts. When the Celts came they found these people in the possession of the country and war ensued. The Celts ultimately conquered the aboriginal Iberians and finally destroyed or absorbed them in the course of time."

Ancient writers did not have any extensive knowledge about Britain, so Tacitus and the modern British scholars are all of the Documented history of Iberians in Britain. There is however a vague passage in Caesar's war book.

Julius Caesar - De bello Gallico (50 BC)
"the interior of Britain was inhabited by those who were immemorially natives of the island, but the maritime parts by the Belgae."

So, the natives were not Gallic (Belgae) and since they were immemorially natives,prob. akin to the Silures Iberians.
There are also endless quotes about the Irish Picts being Iberian.

nordicwarrior
19-03-13, 02:28
Wow, speaking of well researched! Good job...

Barrister
19-03-13, 05:50
That's sort of true. There isn't a 1:1 relationship between R and IE, although there is some evidence that the earliest IE populations carried R1a, probably as a majority or plurality, and (certain subclades of) R1b, probably as a minority. There's also evidence linking early IE migrations to certain subclades of J2 and G2.



Haplogroup I seems to be the most anciently European haplogroup that is still common. As a result, "When did Haplogroup I become IE?" is similar to answering the question, "When did IE get to Europe, and how long did it take to become dominant in Europe?". It's not an easy question to answer, although I think the most popular answer to "When did IE get to Europe?" is that it came first with Corded Ware culture. As for when it became dominant, it seems to have been a clear majority by the Classical Age, and the Classical Age helped solidify it.

An interesting twist is that there seems to be some I that may have never been IE... specifically the I2-M26 in Basques. (That doesn't mean, of course, that the pre-IE culture of Haplogroup I folks was Basque. We're not sure what it was.)



It's probably because I1 bottlenecked and spread from North Germany, close to Scandinavia, around the same time that the population of these regions expanded.


Great question.

Here's my opinion (please be aware that bias is rampant in this field and I'm not immune of course-- as I am a member of hg. I you may want to take my viewpoint worth a grain of salt). Haplogroup R brought with it more efficient systems of ruling tribes and later governing societies. Pound for pound haplogroup I members were probably bigger, stronger, and even more intelligent (although less socially inclined). It was a numbers game, and eventually the "invading" R clans swamped the natives genetically speaking.

The "I" natives were originally more concerned with fertility than warfare (from 45,000 years to about 8,000 years ago), and when the R peoples introduced advanced battle techniques (horses, bronze weaponry, chariots) it wasn't pretty. My thinking is that hg. I hid out in difficult areas to reach and then when they were eventually able to incorporate these new fighting technologies from the Russian Steppes, hg. R offspring undoubtedly regretted sharing their knowledge.

Every so often, the R systems break down due to corruption, greed, and "softness" and the more robust hg. I methods kick in. This explains the Anglo-Saxon invasions, the Vikings, and the Normans.

With our looming global depression, we may soon see hg. R (the royal haplogroup) have another erosion in it's efficiency of management systems.

P.S. For whatever reason, hg I tends to produce very attractive females and this is what had drawn the tribes of R toward Europe and then eventually into Scandinavia. They certainly didn't come for the tropical climate or plentiful farming-- it was for the ladies. Can't say I blame them...


That's sort of true. There isn't a 1:1 relationship between R and IE, although there is some evidence that the earliest IE populations carried R1a, probably as a majority or plurality, and (certain subclades of) R1b, probably as a minority. There's also evidence linking early IE migrations to certain subclades of J2 and G2.



Haplogroup I seems to be the most anciently European haplogroup that is still common. As a result, "When did Haplogroup I become IE?" is similar to answering the question, "When did IE get to Europe, and how long did it take to become dominant in Europe?". It's not an easy question to answer, although I think the most popular answer to "When did IE get to Europe?" is that it came first with Corded Ware culture. As for when it became dominant, it seems to have been a clear majority by the Classical Age, and the Classical Age helped solidify it.

An interesting twist is that there seems to be some I that may have never been IE... specifically the I2-M26 in Basques. (That doesn't mean, of course, that the pre-IE culture of Haplogroup I folks was Basque. We're not sure what it was.)



It's probably because I1 bottlenecked and spread from North Germany, close to Scandinavia, around the same time that the population of these regions expanded.


I'd like to recommend a book called Pitcairns' Island (by Charles Nordhoff and James Norman Hall) which is based on the real life events following the famous Mutiny on the Bounty. This novel gives great insight to how men (and women) operate when they've left modern society and are forced to rebuild a working system of community.

It may be possible to draw parallels between these more modern folks in the Pacific, and the ancient hg I and hg R peoples encountering one another for the first time in Europe-- a new society was forged by the uniting of two existing cultures. And it also very much illustrates my point that beautiful young women are a tremendous motivating force.

I also get a kick out this book because it gives an almost comically accurate portrait of different y-haplogroups in action. From the secretive hooch hoarding Scotsman, to the Noble Polynesian tribal leader, to the probable haplogroup I crewman that loses his thread of reality-- but retains his bone crushing strength-- toward the novel's conclusion (don't want to spoil the ending for anyone who wants to read it). Also touched upon in this tale is the power of both stone and ancestor worship, which we also see in the primitive European cultures.

**EDIT**
Sparkey's more scholarly take is spot on by the way. R1a and to a lesser extent R1b were proto I-E drivers. Maybe some J2 further South.

**EDIT II**
And while it's nice to imagine that R and I live together in happy harmony-- you may find it of note that R1b occupies EVERY single royal family line in Northern and Western Europe as well as almost every U.S. Presidential seat I can find. (Except for Calvin Coolidge and of course Obama). Someone is paying close attention to this genetic stuff-- and they have been for a loooonng time.

Thank you for both of your posts, respectively, i learned alot.
I knew this about the royal leanings of R1b all over europe including the Akhenaten/Tutankhamun line. But, what struck me was that i wondered how this was the case, when seemingly all of the smartest and most physically imposing people i know personally are all I, including myself (not to toot my own horn).
Also like you mentioned the Anglo-Saxon and Norman invasions of the England/ the Isles, and this whole western meat-eating culture. Do you feel this would be a trait of hg I? Coming from a hunter-gatherer culture more recently, and i also read that hg I are more commonly affected by gluten and lactose intolerances?
My cousin is I1a, i'm i2b1 (he is 6'5 and i'm 6'2) Is hg I correlated with tallness?
What really got me thinking was this Germanic reputation for engineering, creativity and thinking "outside the box", so to speak. Not just limited to germany, but the entire germanosphere.

nordicwarrior
19-03-13, 06:31
Thank you for both of your posts, respectively, i learned alot.
I knew this about the royal leanings of R1b all over europe including the Akhenaten/Tutankhamun line. But, what struck me was that i wondered how this was the case, when seemingly all of the smartest and most physically imposing people i know personally are all I, including myself (not to toot my own horn).
Also like you mentioned the Anglo-Saxon and Norman invasions of the England/ the Isles, and this whole western meat-eating culture. Do you feel this would be a trait of hg I? Coming from a hunter-gatherer culture more recently, and i also read that hg I are more commonly affected by gluten and lactose intolerances?
My cousin is I1a, i'm i2b1 (he is 6'5 and i'm 6'2) Is hg I correlated with tallness?
What really got me thinking was this Germanic reputation for engineering, creativity and thinking "outside the box", so to speak. Not just limited to germany, but the entire germanosphere.

Personally I do think hg I can be correlated with tallness. Although height is an autosomal trait, the association shouldn't be ignored.

Now I am going to throw some cold water on your hg I theory being the "smartest and most physically imposing" (I too am an "I" member-- but I'm reporting what I know to be the truth). Haplogroup R, especially R1b, does seem to have some important advantages. Being more socially involved (like the hg R members tend to be) pays huge, life long dividends. I think modern science is going to find that there is a measurable difference in testosterone levels between some of the haplogroups, and that the "I"'s will have more than the "R"'s on average. This is I's great advantage... and also a large disadvantage.

Having higher testosterone enables increased drive and concentration, but it probably makes the carrier more taciturn and less likely to play well with others. Great on the football field and boardroom, not so great for navigating everyday life.

I do think there's something to the engineering association with hg I, but the trade off is that most of us might not want to apply for the job posting of cruise ship social director. When the results of Northern European genetic studies are released showing the career paths of hg I vs. hg R-- I think we will see more hg. I members in top level positions in sports and business, but also more members doing time in jail or prison.

Barrister
19-03-13, 08:39
Personally I do think hg I can be correlated with tallness. Although height is an autosomal trait, the association shouldn't be ignored.

Now I am going to throw some cold water on your hg I theory being the "smartest and most physically imposing" (I too am an "I" member-- but I'm reporting what I know to be the truth). Haplogroup R, especially R1b, does seem to have some important advantages. Being more socially involved (like the hg R members tend to be) pays huge, life long dividends. I think modern science is going to find that there is a measurable difference in testosterone levels between some of the haplogroups, and that the "I"'s will have more than the "R"'s on average. This is I's great advantage... and also a large disadvantage.

Having higher testosterone enables increased drive and concentration, but it probably makes the carrier more taciturn and less likely to play well with others. Great on the football field and boardroom, not so great for navigating everyday life.

I do think there's something to the engineering association with hg I, but the trade off is that most of us might not want to apply for the job posting of cruise ship social director. When the results of Northern European genetic studies are released showing the career paths of hg I vs. hg R-- I think we will see more hg. I members in top level positions in sports and business, but also more members doing time in jail or prison.

I would definitely agree with you. My cousin and i both are at a loss, socially but very capable. He's going into politics and i really cannot imagine him as a charismatic figure because of social awkwardness, lol. He seems to be doing okay though, already went with our Prime minister to APEC summit in Russia.
Warren Buffet is another prime example of this. Billionaire but so unsocial or even anti-social, that he crams himself into his tiny office without any computer and just reads quietly all day looking for investment opportunities.

Barrister
19-03-13, 08:50
Personally I do think hg I can be correlated with tallness. Although height is an autosomal trait, the association shouldn't be ignored.

Now I am going to throw some cold water on your hg I theory being the "smartest and most physically imposing" (I too am an "I" member-- but I'm reporting what I know to be the truth). Haplogroup R, especially R1b, does seem to have some important advantages. Being more socially involved (like the hg R members tend to be) pays huge, life long dividends. I think modern science is going to find that there is a measurable difference in testosterone levels between some of the haplogroups, and that the "I"'s will have more than the "R"'s on average. This is I's great advantage... and also a large disadvantage.

Having higher testosterone enables increased drive and concentration, but it probably makes the carrier more taciturn and less likely to play well with others. Great on the football field and boardroom, not so great for navigating everyday life.

I do think there's something to the engineering association with hg I, but the trade off is that most of us might not want to apply for the job posting of cruise ship social director. When the results of Northern European genetic studies are released showing the career paths of hg I vs. hg R-- I think we will see more hg. I members in top level positions in sports and business, but also more members doing time in jail or prison.

Btw, that's really an amazing study, do you know when the results are expected?

nordicwarrior
19-03-13, 17:27
...When the results of Northern European genetic studies are released showing the career paths of hg I vs. hg R-- I think we will see more hg. I members in top level positions in sports and business, but also more members doing time in jail or prison.

There's no study (that I'm aware of anyway). This was a flippant comment about a subject matter that many choose to gloss over or ignore completely. Probably a healthy of majority of Eupedia contributors would actually catagorize my higher testosterone theory as bunk. I've been known to put my finger in the eye of commonly accepted mainstream thinking though -- I apologize for the confusion.

That being said, I'd bet a crisp twenty that some government agency somewhere is collecting stats (financial, criminal, mortality rates, etc.) on y-haplogroups. That's what big government does. Whether or not "the little people" get wind of these findings is another story.

sparkey
19-03-13, 20:14
spread of R1b

if it occurred during the Chalcolithic, what about the Bell beaker culture? west to east (non-indo-european) and existing in a region were most of the R1b carriers are today as well as a spread to Central Europe. It wasnt until the proper Bronze age that cultures from the Black sea area are clearly detected on the Baltic coast and in the Danubian region Tumulus-Urnfield cultures, and burial sites containing quantities of swords and daggers of an invading people.

We have an ancient Beaker sample that tested R1b. Unfortunately, we don't know what kind of R1b it was, so our analysis is drastically hampered. IIRC they testing nothing but U106.

I've generally envisioned Beaker culture as not spreading R1b west-to-east, as Beaker pottery did as a whole, but rather I've envisioned Beaker culture as a catalyst for an initial wave of R1b westward, which later expanded to near its modern percentages in the Bronze Age. That seems to fit the data best to me. Otherwise, it's difficult to explain the total lack of R1b in the early Neolithic, but the appearance of it in the Chalcolithic, despite the west-to-east spread of Beaker culture.


Basque Bust

There is either something fundamentally wrong with a people that have a paternal (Indo-European) lineage of over 80% yet have/share no Indo-European linguistic affiliations or culture; OR there is something fundamentally wrong with this theory.

Why is that? I2a-Din was once non-IE, yet it is dominant in certain modern IE populations, like Bosnians. Is there something fundamentally wrong with the Bosnians? I don't get why you don't think the opposite could have happened in a given case, in which R1b could have gone IE to non-IE. Especially because the Basques are a people who don't have locally ancient Y lineages outside of their I2a1a, and who are local full-genome outliers.

I'm not saying for certain that R1b in Basques descends from ancient IE speakers, but I'm still not seeing why we should rule it out.


(1847) ... (1841) ... (190) ... (1826) ... (98 AD) ... (1901)...

Ancient writers did not have any extensive knowledge about Britain, so Tacitus and the modern British scholars are all of the Documented history of Iberians in Britain.

Do you have any more recent scholarship that doesn't rely on ancient people observing that they looked similar to one another? Even nowadays, Monmouthshire is perhaps the darkest complexioned place in Britain, but genetic tests show no important similarity to Iberians. Stronger evidence would be genetic evidence, or linguistic evidence, or archaeological evidence, but none of those converge to show that the Aquitani or the Silures are branches of the Iberians AFAIK.

I could believe that the Aquitani and the Iberians were closely linked in some way, perhaps as branches of a common ancestor at some point. There may be evidence yet to find. The Silures, not so much... I have trouble imagining them as anything but coming from the same stock as the Ordovices, Demetae, Cornovii, etc.


There is however a vague passage in Caesar's war book.

Julius Caesar - De bello Gallico (50 BC)
"the interior of Britain was inhabited by those who were immemorially natives of the island, but the maritime parts by the Belgae."

So, the natives were not Gallic (Belgae) and since they were immemorially natives,prob. akin to the Silures Iberians.

The Belgae were Gallic peoples who came to southern Britain shortly before the time of Caesar. The natives were the rest of the tribes in Britain (Dumnonii, Catuvellauni, Iceni, Silures...). Rather than showing that the other tribes were "akin to the Silures Iberians," this quote rather seems to indicate that the non-Belgae, like the Silures, were akin to each other and not of foreign stock, including Iberian.

How in the world would you fit the distribution of Gaelic into your theories, or the position of the Brythonic languages as intermediate between Gaelic and Gaulish? Yikes. It becomes much more difficult if you assume a huge swath of Iberians who were not supplanted until the Belgae.


There are also endless quotes about the Irish Picts being Iberian.

Guh... from who?

Barrister
19-03-13, 21:43
There's no study (that I'm aware of anyway). This was a flippant comment about a subject matter that many choose to gloss over or ignore completely. Probably a healthy of majority of Eupedia contributors would actually catagorize my higher testosterone theory as bunk. I've been known to put my finger in the eye of commonly accepted mainstream thinking though -- I apologize for the confusion.

That being said, I'd bet a crisp twenty that some government agency somewhere is collecting stats (financial, criminal, mortality rates, etc.) on y-haplogroups. That's what big government does. Whether or not "the little people" get wind of these findings is another story.

Yeah, i understand now. It's just funny because when you mentioned prison i've had similar thoughts before about haplogroup I.
A few people i'd really like to see the Y-dna of, include Bill Gates and the German ww2 scientific teams, specifically the atomic scientists.

nordicwarrior
19-03-13, 22:54
I would guess that Gates is a R1b (surname ends in an "s" which is often seen in Wales), but this is a total shot in the dark. I've read Warren Buffet is an I1, but that's difficult to confirm. His paternal side is from Scandinavia though apparently.

Regarding the atomic scientists-- Einstein was an hg E member (but of course he wasn't fighting for the Germans). I would put those German rocket engineers as a mix of R1b and I1.

Nobody1
19-03-13, 22:56
at Sparkey

R1b spread

none of the genetic maps i know correspond the Corded ware / Tumulus / Urnfield cultures with those areas in Europe with the highest frequencies of R1b. The NON-Indo-European Bell beaker culture on the other hand does almost perfectly and it was west to east, where as all Indo-European cultures are east to west (Kurgan III / Corded / Tumulus / Urnfield / Hallstatt)
therefor i still consider (Europe-Asia Iranian plateau link) R1b to be both PRE/Non and Indo-European.

Basques & Bosniaks

It is an established fact (Archaeology/Anthropology/Historic documentation) that the Indo-Europeans mixed with the pre-Indo-Europeans. The fact that the Bosniaks are today Indo-Europeans (of an Indo-European culture: slavic) clearly indicates such a connection. The fact that the basques are NOT Indo-European (no linguistic or any cultural affs.) clearly indicates NO such connection til this day.

Aquitani:

"I could believe that the Aquitani and the Iberians were closely linked in some way, perhaps as branches of a common ancestor at some point. There may be evidence yet to find."

The Accounts of Strabo and Caesar (the dude that conquered the Aquitani) are pretty solid evidence.

Charles Anthon - A classical dictionary (1841)
"The Aquitani, according to Strabo (190), differed from the Gallic race both in physical constitution and in language. They resembled, he tells us, the Iberians rather than the Gauls."

and Caesar divided Gaul into 3 races the Belgae (Teutonic/Keltic) the Gauls (Keltic) and the Aquitani (Iberian), it doesnt get any clearer than that concerning the Aquitani being Iberians.

Iberian Britain

Who do you think carried the Bell beaker (non-indo-european) culture into Britain? who created the Megalithic cultures in Brittany and Cornwall? if it wasnt PRE-Indo-European peoples, who was it?

Tacitus still records and Iberian (pre-indo-european) tribe in Britain as late as the 1st cen. AD. and clearly states they arrived in "former times".
Caesar (the dude that invaded Britain twice) couldnt declare much about the natives others than they were not Belgae (Gallic / Indo-European),
as for Cymric and Gaelic, you might want to read up on those languages and their evolution. Maybe they are remnants of the Gallic spoken by these Belgae, pushed west and inland by the Teutonic (Angles/Saxons) invasions.

"Guh... from who?" - your question about the picts,

modern Irish scholars for starters:

Agustus Henry Keane - Man: Past and Present (1899) Cambridge University
"This western branch of the Iberian family thus ranged north to the Garonne, beyond which were seated the Pictones, now also commonly regarded as Iberians, and most probably ancestors of the Picts who occupied Britain before the arrival of the Kelts"

Nobody1
19-03-13, 22:58
at Nordicfoyer

you mentioned all US presidents being R1b, is this also def. established about Eisenhower?

Taranis
19-03-13, 23:31
Nobody1, why do you keep posting obviously outdated (19th century) sources? I'd look the other way if it was 1988, but 1899 can be hardly considered a 'modern' scholar. I recommend you to read Forsyth (1997) (http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/2081/1/languagepictland.pdf), who prettymuch debunks the pre-Indo-European hypothesis of Pictish. I think the general consensus is that Pictish was a Celtic language.

Nobody1
20-03-13, 00:01
Nobody1, why do you keep posting obviously outdated (19th century) sources? I'd look the other way if it was 1988, but 1899 can be hardly considered a 'modern' scholar. I recommend you to read Forsyth (1997) (http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/2081/1/languagepictland.pdf), who prettymuch debunks the pre-Indo-European hypothesis of Pictish. I think the general consensus is that Pictish was a Celtic language.

why not? do you consider the scholars of the 19th cen. to be dumber than the ones today? all of the 19th cent. scholars and their literature is based on the original Latin and Greek works, for the most part nothing but translations from the likes of Strabo, Tacitus, Thucydides, Ptolemy, Livius, Herodotus, Scylax etc. And if you consider them and their classical works outdated, than good luck with Historic reality.

Yes, wonderful to know that Katherine Forsyth (just as valuable as Koch) out dates Bede. why she didnt receive the Nobel prize like the "outdated" Mommsen did [History of Rome] is beyond me. I mean to actually out date a person (Bede) that was contemporary with the Picts and noted that pictish is diff. from Brythonic, Gaelic and (Obviously) English is amazing to say the least.

In total; i just responded to questions from people that have never heard of Iberians in Britain, like you have never heard of the Sicani. Now if Strabo, Tacitus, Caesar are not good enough as refs. for your historical understanding, than thats just too bad.

Taranis
20-03-13, 00:32
why not? do you consider the scholars of the 19th cen. to be dumber than the ones today? all of the 19th cent. scholars and their literature is based on the original Latin and Greek works, for the most part nothing but translations from the likes of Strabo, Tacitus, Thucydides, Ptolemy, Livius, Herodotus, Scylax etc. And if you consider them and their classical works outdated, than good luck with Historic reality.

There's a difference between a primary source and the contemporary academic discussion. But you should consider that neither Julius Caesar nor Tacitus were linguists or anthropologists. Also, if you quote them, you should quote them more completely:


Ceterum Britanniam qui mortales initio coluerint, indigenae an advecti, ut inter barbaros, parum compertum. Habitus corporum varii atque ex eo argumenta. Namque rutilae Caledoniam habitantium comae, magni artus Germanicam originem adseverant; Silurum colorati vultus, torti plerumque crines et posita contra Hispania Hiberos veteres traiecisse easque sedes occupasse fidem faciunt; proximi Gallis et similes sunt, seu durante originis vi, seu procurrentibus in diversa terris positio caeli corporibus habitum dedit. In universum tamen aestimanti Gallos vicinam insulam occupasse credibile est. Eorum sacra deprehendas ac superstitionum persuasiones; sermo haud multum diversus, in deposcendis periculis eadem audacia et, ubi advenere, in detrectandis eadem formido. Plus tamen ferociae Britanni praeferunt, ut quos nondum longa pax emollierit. Nam Gallos quoque in bellis floruisse accepimus; mox segnitia cum otio intravit, amissa virtute pariter ac libertate. Quod Britannorum olim victis evenit: ceteri manent quales Galli fuerunt.

So would you agree with Tacitus that the Caledonii (ie, Picts) are of Germanic origin?


Yes, wonderful to know that Katherine Forsyth (just as valuable as Koch) out dates Bede. why she didnt receive the Nobel prize like the "outdated" Mommsen did [History of Rome] is beyond me.

Well, you could at least enlighten us why you think that Forsyth's arguments (which I find quite compelling, by the way), are invalid. I for one find her etymology for "Caledonii" (from the CELTIC root *kalet = 'hard') very convincing.


I mean to actually out date a person (Bede) that was contemporary with the Picts and noted that pictish is diff. from Brythonic, Gaelic and (Obviously) English is amazing to say the least.

To be fair, the same statement would have applied also to Old French and Classical Arabic (two contemporary languages of Bede). The statement says nothing about the relationship any of the languages towards each other. If you believe that Pictish was related with Iberian (or Basque), please demonstrate it to us. Show us your evidence.

Nobody1
20-03-13, 01:50
So would you agree with Tacitus that the Caledonii (ie, Picts) are of Germanic origin?

Sure, many tribes were considered (part of) Picts, Herodian wrote the most extensive documents about them and the Teutonic Caledonii were ONE of them. Tacitus was a Gaul that wrote the monumental work GERMANIA, so he would know.


Well, you could at least enlighten us why you think that Forsyth's arguments (which I find quite compelling, by the way), are invalid. I for one find her etymology for "Caledonii" (from the CELTIC root *kalet = 'hard') very convincing.

Because Caledonii wasnt their chosen name to begin with, it was a LATIN name from the Romans. Thats just how the Romans called them, and good to know (thanks Mrs. Forsyth) that the Romans had the CELTIC root *kalet = 'hard' in mind.

Extracting CELTIC roots from LATIN names/words does not make the Caledonii any Celtic, especially not when Tacitus considers them to be Teutonic. I think you wasted your money on that 1997 book.


To be fair, the same statement would have applied also to Old French and Classical Arabic

To be fair, Bede never applied such nonsense. But Bede was a Contemporary of Britain at a time where Pictish and Gaelic and Brythonic (Cymric) was still spoken and his clear testimony was that Pictish is a diff. language to Gaelic and Brythonic.


Show us your evidence.

And as for "My Evidence", unlike Mrs. Forsyth, i have not found the Scottish-Rosetta-stone. So i will content myself with Bede who clearly knows better than Mrs. Forsyth from the 90s.

But thats just the Picts, and again, i was asked about Iberians in Britain and my answer was Tacitus and the Silures and Caesar's vague statement about the immemorable natives being distinct of the Belgae. Hardly any other classical author bothered with Britain, so the rest is a guessing game.
But Archaeologically speaking, you do know that it wasnt the Celts that build Stone Henge, the Megalithic structures of Cornwall or had anything to do with the Bell Beaker culture.

Those [I]people were clearly PRE/NON-Indo-Europeans, whether you want to call them Natives or any other name is your choice. British scholars of the 19th cen. termed them Iberians due to the Classical Historical refs. and Archaeological (anthropological) evidence.
Classical History and Archaeology are pretty solid grounds.

nordicwarrior
20-03-13, 03:16
I like to read historical/political books from different eras-- it's amazing what you can pick up from bygone decades that aren't so drenched in political correctness.

It's kind of like watching the news today... each source has it's own bias, so I find myself flipping between various cable channels (and alternative media) to get the jist of what's really happening.

nordicwarrior
20-03-13, 03:47
...Extracting CELTIC roots from LATIN names/words does not make the Caledonii any Celtic, especially not when Tacitus considers them to be Teutonic. I think you wasted your money on that 1997 book...

Nobody your doing a fantastic job wrestling with a few of the larger brains on this site, and I don't want to pile on here... but the Teutons might be ALOT more Celtic than most realize. Check out the work of Dr. David Faux from California (I don't agree with everything he's come up with-- but he looks to be onto something here. So far the genetics from ancient remains in Jutland have matched his theory.) Minor point, but worth a mention.

Totally agree with your call on Stone Henge being built by Pre Indo-European Natives.

Nobody1
20-03-13, 04:51
at Nordicfoyer


Dr. David Faux

Of course, Caesar couldnt tell whether the Belgae (Maas-Rhine region) were Teutonic or Gallic.
But is Dr. Faux referring (im not familiar with his work) to all Teutonic/Germanic tribes or just to the Teutons (tribe) of the Cimbri-Teuton migration era? which would fit with Jutland.
I have read similar, that the Cimbri where in fact Gallic/Keltic (king Boirix), the Ambrones (Helvetii) and only the Teutons (king Teutobod) truly Germanic but all being akin to each other. But the Cimbri & Teutons are chapter of themselves.

Eisenhower

the reason i asked, was because i read (numerous times) that JFK was R1b, and if one compares the 2 presidents and by your social descriptions of Hg I and Hg R1b, just got me wondering about Eisenhower maybe being Hg I.

sparkey
20-03-13, 06:31
none of the genetic maps i know correspond the Corded ware / Tumulus / Urnfield cultures with those areas in Europe with the highest frequencies of R1b. The NON-Indo-European Bell beaker culture on the other hand does almost perfectly and it was west to east, where as all Indo-European cultures are east to west (Kurgan III / Corded / Tumulus / Urnfield / Hallstatt)
therefor i still consider (Europe-Asia Iranian plateau link) R1b to be both PRE/Non and Indo-European.

So you basically consider it conclusive that there were no IE speaking tribes within Beaker culture or the later Atlantic Bronze Age? I don't see why it's necessary to work on that assumption. Sure, if I have to believe that there was absolutely no IE within those, then R1b must have preceded IE. But then who else would have come to Western Europe during the time period following the early Neolithic farmers? R1b in Europe must be more recent than the early Neolithic farmers, given both ancient DNA results and diversity analysis of R1b subclades. The Western European subclades also don't seem to have expanded until toward the end of Corded Ware culture further east, and tracing the R1b tree step by step leads us eastward through Europe before that, so we know that R1b isn't much more ancient in the region than its expansion time (which furthermore seems to postdate the earliest Beaker developments). So I'm still settling on a catalyst theory, which leaves open the possibility of IE R1b.


It is an established fact (Archaeology/Anthropology/Historic documentation) that the Indo-Europeans mixed with the pre-Indo-Europeans. The fact that the Bosniaks are today Indo-Europeans (of an Indo-European culture: slavic) clearly indicates such a connection. The fact that the basques are NOT Indo-European (no linguistic or any cultural affs.) clearly indicates NO such connection til this day.

That doesn't logically follow based on your "established fact." They mixed, therefore one must have always dominated, and founder effects are impossible?


Who do you think carried the Bell beaker (non-indo-european) culture into Britain? who created the Megalithic cultures in Brittany and Cornwall? if it wasnt PRE-Indo-European peoples, who was it?

Megalithic culture seems likely to have been principally non-IE, although the disparity of time and place of the different megaliths makes it unlikely that all were necessarily connected by a common language family. I don't expect anything but a weak correlation between megaliths and language family; however I do expect a strong correlation between industries and megaliths, as well as between genetics and language families. I think we see both of these fairly well.


as for Cymric and Gaelic, you might want to read up on those languages and their evolution. Maybe they are remnants of the Gallic spoken by these Belgae, pushed west and inland by the Teutonic (Angles/Saxons) invasions.

I've read up, which is why I'm asking you how you work it out. You think that Gaelic descends from Belgic Gaulish? Really? To begin with, that would make it pretty much impossible to explain the P-Celtic nature of Gaulish but the more primitive Q-Celtic nature of Gaelic.


To be fair, Bede never applied such nonsense. But Bede was a Contemporary of Britain at a time where Pictish and Gaelic and Brythonic (Cymric) was still spoken and his clear testimony was that Pictish is a diff. language to Gaelic and Brythonic.

And as for "My Evidence", unlike Mrs. Forsyth, i have not found the Scottish-Rosetta-stone. So i will content myself with Bede who clearly knows better than Mrs. Forsyth from the 90s.

You're relying a lot on Bede, who said little other than it was a different language. All that implies is that it was not understandable to the speakers of the other languages, not that it was not P-Celtic.

zanipolo
20-03-13, 07:10
We have an ancient Beaker sample that tested R1b. Unfortunately, we don't know what kind of R1b it was, so our analysis is drastically hampered. IIRC they testing nothing but U106.

I've generally envisioned Beaker culture as not spreading R1b west-to-east, as Beaker pottery did as a whole, but rather I've envisioned Beaker culture as a catalyst for an initial wave of R1b westward, which later expanded to near its modern percentages in the Bronze Age. That seems to fit the data best to me. Otherwise, it's difficult to explain the total lack of R1b in the early Neolithic, but the appearance of it in the Chalcolithic, despite the west-to-east spread of Beaker culture.



Why is that? I2a-Din was once non-IE, yet it is dominant in certain modern IE populations, like Bosnians. Is there something fundamentally wrong with the Bosnians? I don't get why you don't think the opposite could have happened in a given case, in which R1b could have gone IE to non-IE. Especially because the Basques are a people who don't have locally ancient Y lineages outside of their I2a1a, and who are local full-genome outliers.

I'm not saying for certain that R1b in Basques descends from ancient IE speakers, but I'm still not seeing why we should rule it out.



Do you have any more recent scholarship that doesn't rely on ancient people observing that they looked similar to one another? Even nowadays, Monmouthshire is perhaps the darkest complexioned place in Britain, but genetic tests show no important similarity to Iberians. Stronger evidence would be genetic evidence, or linguistic evidence, or archaeological evidence, but none of those converge to show that the Aquitani or the Silures are branches of the Iberians AFAIK.

I could believe that the Aquitani and the Iberians were closely linked in some way, perhaps as branches of a common ancestor at some point. There may be evidence yet to find. The Silures, not so much... I have trouble imagining them as anything but coming from the same stock as the Ordovices, Demetae, Cornovii, etc.



The Belgae were Gallic peoples who came to southern Britain shortly before the time of Caesar. The natives were the rest of the tribes in Britain (Dumnonii, Catuvellauni, Iceni, Silures...). Rather than showing that the other tribes were "akin to the Silures Iberians," this quote rather seems to indicate that the non-Belgae, like the Silures, were akin to each other and not of foreign stock, including Iberian.

How in the world would you fit the distribution of Gaelic into your theories, or the position of the Brythonic languages as intermediate between Gaelic and Gaulish? Yikes. It becomes much more difficult if you assume a huge swath of Iberians who were not supplanted until the Belgae.



Guh... from who?

In regards to Aquitani, their language derived from Gascon, which derived from Basque. They both, aquitani and gascon belonged to the occitan language group.
Logic says these iberian basques moved into or originated in the gascon/aquitani area.
The aquitani if they where gallic would not be their true original etnicity.

The genetics of what is called french-basque would be ideal to study

Nobody1
20-03-13, 08:13
at Sparkey

the fundamental dilemma (concerning R1b) in all of this, is obviously the timeline. But than again, how clearly is the LGM theory debunked? and how clearly is its recent arrival established. Because if it is fully established (recent arrival) than its simply a dilemma and R1b (spread) can not be explained. One can not simply model the NON-Indo-European Bell Beaker cult. Complex into an Indo-European one. The Corded ware was the first massive Indo-European culture complex and it collided with the Bell-Beaker cult. complex in Central Europe, with the subsequent Indo-European Bronze age cultures (Urnfield) pushing it back to the Atlantic.

Even your catalyst theory goes bust given the fact that Iberia has on average ~80% R1b (today). Now thats not a catalyst effect thats a full (dominating) migration. yet apart from the Celto-Iberians (mixed and only in certain regions) there is nothing Indo-European about Iberia. The Iberians being clearly (confirmed) NON-Indo-Europeans, And Iberia itself along with Aquitania were well into Roman times still largely IBERIAN (NON-Indo-European) with the Bsaques til this present day.

Cymric and Gaelic

Yes, Gaelic is Q-Celtic and Cymric being P-Celtic. Apart from Gaelic, the only other Q-Celtic lang. was that of the Celto-Iberians, and have you ever heard of the Mil Espaine? silly folk story or a story that might harbor some truth; who knows.
Cymric being P-Celtic:
There is a quote i posted in a different thread "Greek R1b" or something about Umbrians (ancient Gallic people) [quoted in the thread] having similarities with Cymric [quoted in the thread]
And how well examined is the Gallic of the Belgae when the Belgae were ignorant of an alphabet and had no written language?

The Venerable Bede

Of course i rely on him, since i have already mentioned before, first hand accounts about Britain and its people are very scarce.
He is a proper source and a contemporary. What he meant (specifically) however, can be a matter of interpretation. Agreed.

spongetaro
20-03-13, 11:31
Extracting CELTIC roots from LATIN names/words does not make the Caledonii any Celtic, especially not when Tacitus considers them to be Teutonic. I think you wasted your money on that 1997 book.

I didn't know that Tacitus considered te Caledonii Teutonic. It reminds me of the Irish tribe of the "Cauci" which was also considered germanic.


The Cauci (Καῦκοι) were a people of early Ireland, uniquely documented in Ptolemy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy)'s 2nd-century Geography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_%28Ptolemy%29), which locates them roughly in the region of modern County Dublin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Dublin) and County Wicklow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Wicklow).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauci#cite_note-1) From the early 19th century, comparative linguists, notably Lorenz Diefenbach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_Diefenbach), identified the Cauci with the Germanic Chauci (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauci) of the Low Countries and north-western Germany, a parallel already drawn by earlier antiquarian scholarship.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauci#cite_note-2) Proponents of this view also pointed to the fact that the Manapii (Μανάπιοι), who in Ptolemy's map border the Cauci to the south, likewise bear a name that is almost identical to that of another continental tribe, the Belgic Menapii (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menapii) in north-eastern Gaul.

Nobody1
20-03-13, 17:37
at spongetaro

as Taranis quoted above from Tacitus - (Agricola): "Namque rutilae Caledoniam habitantium comae, magni artus Germanicam originem adseverant;"

Cassius Dio mentioned the northern tribes of "hostile" Britain to be the "Caledonii and Maeatae" and claims that all other tribes (north of Hadrians wall) were merged into these two tribes;
It wasnt until ~300 AD that the Romans (Eumenius) considered the Caledonii to be Picts. "Caledonii et alii Picti"

So the Caledonii of Tacitus times were no longer present as such, the Caledonii were merged and simply just one tribe of the people later known as Picts.

Taranis
20-03-13, 17:51
Sure, many tribes were considered (part of) Picts, Herodian wrote the most extensive documents about them and the Teutonic Caledonii were ONE of them. Tacitus was a Gaul that wrote the monumental work GERMANIA, so he would know.

So you basically say that they were Germanic just because Tacitus says so? Have you ever even heard of Grimm's Law, for starters?


Because Caledonii wasnt their chosen name to begin with, it was a LATIN name from the Romans. Thats just how the Romans called them, and good to know (thanks Mrs. Forsyth) that the Romans had the CELTIC root *kalet = 'hard' in mind.

Extracting CELTIC roots from LATIN names/words does not make the Caledonii any Celtic, especially not when Tacitus considers them to be Teutonic. I think you wasted your money on that 1997 book.

That's amazing. You're basically throwing over board every piece of data (bear in mind that even names recorded by the Greeks and Romans qualifies as linguistic data), and ad-hoc dismiss it. If we go by that point of view, there is zero evidence - one way or another, mind you - about what language the Picts spoke. I still ask you, where is your evidence? You just assume - by foregone conclusion - that the Pictish language is somehow related with Iberian - without any linguistic data.


To be fair, Bede never applied such nonsense. But Bede was a Contemporary of Britain at a time where Pictish and Gaelic and Brythonic (Cymric) was still spoken and his clear testimony was that Pictish is a diff. language to Gaelic and Brythonic.

Bede's statement that Pictish was different from Gaelic or Brythonic makes no statement about how different it was. Mind you, Gaelic and Brythonic (obviously both Celtic languages) are very different from each other. The same would apply to a third Celtic language (eg. Pictish).


And as for "My Evidence", unlike Mrs. Forsyth, i have not found the Scottish-Rosetta-stone. So i will content myself with Bede who clearly knows better than Mrs. Forsyth from the 90s.

What linguists do when they have no samples of written texts available of a language is that they use a field of linguistics called onomastics, that is the analysis of names. This is precisely what Forsyth did. In case you didn't notice, for the majority of names analyzed by her she provides Celtic etymologies. It would be a different situation if you were to provide Iberian (or Basque) etymologies for the Pictish names in question, but you instead claimed that these are foreign names and their real names are unknown...


But thats just the Picts, and again, i was asked about Iberians in Britain and my answer was Tacitus and the Silures and Caesar's vague statement about the immemorable natives being distinct of the Belgae. Hardly any other classical author bothered with Britain, so the rest is a guessing game.
But Archaeologically speaking, you do know that it wasnt the Celts that build Stone Henge, the Megalithic structures of Cornwall or had anything to do with the Bell Beaker culture.

Those [I]people were clearly PRE/NON-Indo-Europeans, whether you want to call them Natives or any other name is your choice. British scholars of the 19th cen. termed them Iberians due to the Classical Historical refs. and Archaeological (anthropological) evidence.
Classical History and Archaeology are pretty solid grounds.

Well, let me play things backward for you: we don't know what language people spoke (this certainly holds true for the Copper Age or the Neolithic, since people in this time period in Europe were illiterate). By what arguments (or lack of arguments) couldn't the Bronze Age or Neolithic inhabitants of Britain have already been Celtic? Unless you get into linguistics in earnest instead of your insistence of the outermost credibility of classical sources, even asking the question is pointless in my opinion.


at Sparkey

the fundamental dilemma (concerning R1b) in all of this, is obviously the timeline. But than again, how clearly is the LGM theory debunked? and how clearly is its recent arrival established. Because if it is fully established (recent arrival) than its simply a dilemma and R1b (spread) can not be explained. One can not simply model the NON-Indo-European Bell Beaker cult. Complex into an Indo-European one. The Corded ware was the first massive Indo-European culture complex and it collided with the Bell-Beaker cult. complex in Central Europe, with the subsequent Indo-European Bronze age cultures (Urnfield) pushing it back to the Atlantic.

Even your catalyst theory goes bust given the fact that Iberia has on average ~80% R1b (today). Now thats not a catalyst effect thats a full (dominating) migration. yet apart from the Celto-Iberians (mixed and only in certain regions) there is nothing Indo-European about Iberia. The Iberians being clearly (confirmed) NON-Indo-Europeans, And Iberia itself along with Aquitania were well into Roman times still largely IBERIAN (NON-Indo-European) with the Bsaques til this present day.

Sorry, but your statement about Iberia is just plain wrong. The Iberian peninsula was, by place names, roughly divided into two parts, by characteristic naming conventions: in the northeast and south, you have the prefix 'ili-' (this, by the way, is taken as possible evidence that Basque and Iberian are indeed related, as 'ili-' may be a cognate with Basque 'hiri', meaning city). In the entire rest of the Iberian peninsula, you have Celtic place names (the most common ones are with the ending '-briga'). As you can see, over half of the Iberian peninsula was, by the time the Romans conquered it, firmly Celtic. Now the point is that this cannot be linked in any sensible way - especially not in the West of the Iberian peninsula - with the Central European cultures (La-Tene, Hallstatt, even Urnfield). Instead, there is a clear continuity from the Atlantic Bronze Age. In any case, the statement that the Iberian peninsula was "largely Iberian" or "largely non-Indo-European" is completely false. Even the Lusitanians, who's Celticity is debatable, were firmly Indo-European.

http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_10/images/fig04_600.jpg

Nobody1
20-03-13, 19:08
So you basically say that they were Germanic just because Tacitus says so? Have you ever even heard of Grimm's Law, for starters?

My post to spongetaro, and yes i do consider Tacitus credible in calling the Nordic Caledonii (pure caledonii of his age) Germanic.


that the Pictish language and Picts Picts Picts and Picts

Im not sure what exactly confuses you about this conversation, but i was asked about Iberians in Britain. I provided quotes from Tacitus and Caesar and modern 19th cen. British scholars. One of theim Keane (Cambridge University). that claims based on the Pictones (poss. Iberians) of Gaul that the Picts of Britan were equally Iberian. Bolstered by Bede's testimony that Pictish differs from Brythonic and Gaelic.


What linguists do when they have no samples of written texts available of a language is that they use a field of linguistics called onomastics, that is the analysis of names. This is precisely what Forsyth did. In case you didn't notice, for the majority of names analyzed by her she provides Celtic etymologies.

Correct, but my problem with this is the obvious, and that is that Forsyth didnt use Celtic etymologies she used LATIN etymologies, ignoring the fact that Italic (Latin) and Celtic have a common linguistic root. And therefor (clear) Latin terminologies of Britain are hardly any prove of anything Celtic.


Well, let me play things backward for you: we don't know what language people spoke (this certainly holds true for the Copper Age or the Neolithic, since people in this time period in Europe were illiterate). By what arguments (or lack of arguments) couldn't the Bronze Age or Neolithic inhabitants of Britain have already been Celtic? Unless you get into linguistics in earnest instead of your insistence of the outermost credibility of classical sources, even asking the question is pointless in my opinion.

Fantastic, you just described the "great unknown" of Linguistics, now could you answer my question based on the "knowledge" of Archaeology concerning Kurgan Indo-Europeans and Megalithic Britons. And doesnt that correspond with Pytheas (4th cen. BC) that states that Britain is north of the lands of the Celts. Classical History and Archaeolgy vs. guessing of Linguistics.


Sorry, but your statement about Iberia is just plain wrong.

Obviously you didnt read my post, i clearly said apart "from Celto-Iberians" there is nothing Indo-European about Iberia or Aquitania.


As you can see, over half of the Iberian peninsula was, by the time the Romans conquered it, firmly Celtic.

1.) Iberia based on your map and the grand total of 13 Celtic (linguistically) settlements, was not "firmly Celtic". Posidonius talks of a Celtic migration; and the Romans (that conquered Iberia) found in the East Iberians akin to the Aquitani (NON-Indo-European) and in regions of the west a mixed Celto-Iberian population (indicating a non-indo-european element to begin with). [Caesar, Appian, Diodorus Siculus]

2.) the Lusitani (west) were considered pure Celts by Diodorus Siculus, so your mysterious Indo-Europeans arent that mysterious considering they were Celts.

Archaeologically speaking the Celtic migration dates to ~700 BC, so that makes Iberia before 700 BC NON-Indo-European Iberian. and (700 BC migration) the only input of Indo-Europeans in Iberia.(Scarce and Mixed)

nordicwarrior
11-01-14, 18:18
...
Eisenhower

the reason i asked, was because i read (numerous times) that JFK was R1b, and if one compares the 2 presidents and by your social descriptions of Hg I and Hg R1b, just got me wondering about Eisenhower maybe being Hg I.

Nobody1, I've compiled and posted a list on Eupedia of as many U.S. Presidents and their paternal haplogroup as I could find. The majority are R1b, but there is one hg. I1 member, at least one hg. E member, and even an I2 member (Johnson).

Initially I estimated the Kennedy family would have overwhelming chances of being R1b (wasn't able to find any hard data), but since then I've lowered their chances of being R1b to around 70%

Sile
11-01-14, 20:31
Nobody1, I've compiled and posted a list on Eupedia of as many U.S. Presidents and their paternal haplogroup as I could find. The majority are R1b, but there is one hg. I1 member, at least one hg. E member, and even an I2 member (Johnson).

Initially I estimated the Kennedy family would have overwhelming chances of being R1b (wasn't able to find any hard data), but since then I've lowered their chances of being R1b to around 70%

you forgot the T ydna president

nordicwarrior
13-01-14, 01:54
Jefferson.

Sile
13-01-14, 03:33
Jefferson.

yep

a T1a1a ...............maybe related to adamo

Degredado
15-01-14, 17:54
I = Physical vigor, larger body size, pragmatism, resistance to cold (both a testament and a consequence of their success in dealing with about 40 thousand European winters);

R1b = dat wit
(and obsession with moving westwards)

LeBrok
15-01-14, 18:29
I = Physical vigor, larger body size, pragmatism, resistance to cold (both a testament and a consequence of their success in dealing with about 40 thousand European winters);

R1b = dat wit
(and obsession with moving westwards)
But if R1 comes from North Asia, from cold zone, and was hunter-gatherer for not less time than hg I, then shouldn't R1 folks be toll and robust like hg I people?

Aberdeen
15-01-14, 19:18
But if R1 comes from North Asia, from cold zone, and was hunter-gatherer for not less time than hg I, then shouldn't R1 folks be toll and robust like hg I people?

We I folk are tall and robust, and also very wise, but despite all that, you R folk won the day, if we're to judge by prevalence of haplotype. Sometimes things just happen that way.

bicicleur
15-01-14, 19:54
What's mysterious about it? I think the main open question about Sardinian I2-M26>L160 is how long after the L160 TMRCA (7000 YBP, IIRC) it got there. I don't think there's much question at this point that L160 is most ancient near the Pyrenees.

so Sardinian I2-M26>L160 expanded outside of Sardinia and much later migrated in large numbers into Sardinia
but if they make up 40 % of Sardinians nowadays there should be a trace somewhere in Sardinian history about this immigration?
(by the way Sardinia was practically uninhabited 8000 years ago when cardium pottery arrived there)

bicicleur
15-01-14, 20:17
Haplogroup I seems to be the most anciently European haplogroup that is still common. As a result, "When did Haplogroup I become IE?" is similar to answering the question, "When did IE get to Europe, and how long did it take to become dominant in Europe?". It's not an easy question to answer, although I think the most popular answer to "When did IE get to Europe?" is that it came first with Corded Ware culture. As for when it became dominant, it seems to have been a clear majority by the Classical Age, and the Classical Age helped solidify it.

An interesting twist is that there seems to be some I that may have never been IE... specifically the I2-M26 in Basques. (That doesn't mean, of course, that the pre-IE culture of Haplogroup I folks was Basque. We're not sure what it was.)



It's probably because I1 bottlenecked and spread from North Germany, close to Scandinavia, around the same time that the population of these regions expanded.

Mesolithic I seems to have been become more marginal after arrival of neolithic G2a, J, F, E1b1b and T.
With arrival of IE , some I-tribes seem to florish again, while neolthical tribes become marginal.
Why would I have been the natural allies of IE?

adamo
15-01-14, 20:27
Maybe it became more marginal because uhhh.....the pizza slice had to be divided with more elements? Lol. Also don't forget the men of I were hit hard when the ice-age broke out and were forced into refugiums, small cradles near the Atlantic or Adriatic coasts to survive; the chess board didn't exactly advantage them let me tell you that much.

adamo
15-01-14, 21:16
And how where the men of I beaten out by R1 men? Both I1 and R1b clades waited out the LGM on the Iberian peninsula. In fact I* diversity indicates older age in those few I men from Italy and France as compared to their younger Scandinavian counterparts. Did you know there was a HV once, and that both H and V waited out the LGM on the Iberian peninsula but most of the V women (and some H I'm assuming) probably followed the I1 men north to Scandinavia? This is the ultimate questions; what are the reasons? Why is I1 and V so rare other than on the Scandinavian peninsula where they are quite frequent? Why are H and R1b widespread all over Western Europe (even east for H but with lower frequencies as we move east.) what phenomenon explains this?

Degredado
15-01-14, 21:44
But if R1 comes from North Asia, from cold zone, and was hunter-gatherer for not less time than hg I, then shouldn't R1 folks be toll and robust like hg I people?

R1b appeared in SW Asia though, and spent a long time there before arriving in Europe. Hg I, on the other hand, never left their comfort zone (Europe), or at most, only went to immediately adjacent areas such as Anatolia and Caucasus. They couldn't bother to cross Gibraltar in 40k years.

adamo
15-01-14, 21:55
Very correct. 95% of hg I men (if not slightly more) live within the confines of Europe.

khufu
19-02-14, 09:17
Haplogroup I is indo-European nothing else