PDA

View Full Version : What is PIE - language or culture - clarification urgently needed



Tomenable
24-11-15, 18:48
I think the confusion is because many users here are from the USA, and they all speak English, but declare different "cultures" (for example - French, African, German, Italian, even "American"), so it's hard for them to grasp the importance of language in PIE studies. In the USA you can be Italian and speak English. But in case of PIEs it was different than with Americans - there could not be Proto-Indo-Europeans who did not speak PIE. Of essential importance for PIE origins is PIE language.

If some people spoke PIE language but - for instance - did not burry their dead in kurgans, they were PIE.

And if some people spoke Turkic language, but did burry their dead in kurgans, they were not PIE, but Turkic.

So language is more important for the issue of PIE origins, than is material culture.

And while Proto-Indo-European language contained words which indicated common culture (for example the word for wheel - which indicated that they had wheeled vehicles), this does not tell us anything about the beginning of PIE language, only about the end of it.

Because all IE languages have words for wheels which are cognates (derived from a common PIE root), it means that Proto-Indo-Europeans had wheels before they split into different groups and before their languages became differentiated into different IE languages.

What it does not mean, however, is that PIE was spoken only after PIEs acquired wheels.

It could be spoken also waaaay before the acquisition of wheels by that community. The so called "Wheel Line", dated to 3500 BC, only means that Late Proto-Indo-European was still a single language in year 3500 BC, but it does not tell us anything about when it originated (for example, it could had originated in 6000 BC, and then continued to be a single language for 2500 years, starting to split into what later became various Indo-European linguistic families and languages only after 3500 BC):

http://s23.postimg.org/fx3g45c2z/wheel.png

The "PIE cultural package" as defined by some users here, emerged during the existence of PIE speakers.

It did not initiate their existence.

LeBrok
24-11-15, 19:32
If some people spoke PIE language but - for instance - did not burry their dead in kurgans, they were PIE.

We don't know if there were such people.



So language is more important for the issue of PIE origins, than is material culture. I'm not sure. For some people genetics can me more important than language.
I would say, all Yamnaya folks spoke IE language and all Yamnaya folks had same customs, rode horses and had same material culture.


And if some people spoke Turkic language, but did burry their dead in kurgans, they were not PIE, but Turkic.There are instances were language could be a dominant factor.

I'm not sure if I can call myself IE, or any modern inhabitant of the world is IE. I can easily say that part of my genetics and some culture (language included) comes from IEs.

These are the dilemmas of nomenclature in ever changing environment.

bicicleur
24-11-15, 20:11
how about the wheel vocabulary in Anatolian language?

Rethel
24-11-15, 20:46
It could be spoken also waaaay before the acquisition of wheels by that community. The so called "Wheel Line", dated to 3500 BC, only means that Late Proto-Indo-European was still a single language in year 3500 BC, but it does not tell us anything about when it originated (for example, it could had originated in 6000 BC, and then continued to be a single language for 2500 years, starting to split into what later became various Indo-European linguistic families and languages only after 3500 BC):

http://s23.postimg.org/fx3g45c2z/wheel.png

The "PIE cultural package" as defined by some users here, emerged during the existence of PIE speakers.

It did not initiate their existence.

At least someone get it! - after couple of infractions for that :good_job:

I can add:

R1 = Indoeuropeans, especially, that they were patrylinear, so this rule rules.
R1-M173 tribe was developing this language which is called indoeuropean...
If some one was banned, and go to patagonia - he is still R1, so he is still IE.
If someone came as a slave to IE-country - he is still not R1, so he is not IE.
This two examples are tiny minority exeptions, because majority R1 always
was in one place and was speaking one language. And even, if they in this
so far past change their language - it does not change that they where who
they where - but no one can ever know this. Exept of language, R1 people
invent some culture(s) and after that they spread across the globe.

Indoeuropeans are only R1 people. Thier language is called indoeuropean,
becasue this is language by which their are comunicating with each other.
Aso, aso...

p.s. on that time line, there could be even earlier some lines with dialects,
but they where all dead after spreading the last stage wheel-language, all
but exept maybe one - lusitanian, which could be from this V-88 guys.

Tomenable
24-11-15, 22:27
I'm not sure. For some people genetics can me more important than language.

In pre-modern times there was a strong correlation between language and genetics because 95% of the time children learned to speak the same language as their parents spoke, and that process repeated itself in each generation. I'm talking about times before public education, when children did not learn languages in school from teachers, as there were no schools and no teachers.

In 95% of instances children inherited genes from their parents, and also learned to speak the language of their parents. The remaining 5% of instances can be considered cases of linguistic assimilation of individuals or entire groups collectively.


how about the wheel vocabulary in Anatolian language?
Does their wheel vocabulary have different origin than wheel vocabulary in other IE languages ???

Well, then maybe Proto-Anatolian branch split from the rest of PIE before PIE acquired wheels? If I recall correctly, it is usually considered that Proto-Anatolian was the first branch of IE that split from the rest (followed by Proto-Tocharian, IIRC).

Rethel
24-11-15, 22:53
Does their wheel vocabulary have different origin than wheel vocabulary in other IE languages ???


But by definition of some people here, it makes them not indoeuropean at all. :)

bicicleur
24-11-15, 23:05
Does their wheel vocabulary have different origin than wheel vocabulary in other IE languages ???

Well, then maybe Proto-Anatolian branch split from the rest of PIE before PIE acquired wheels? If I recall correctly, it is usually considered that Proto-Anatolian was the first branch of IE that split from the rest (followed by Proto-Tocharian, IIRC).

it was my question and it is yours

LeBrok
24-11-15, 23:11
In pre-modern times there was a strong correlation between language and genetics because 95% of the time children learned to speak the same language as their parents spoke, and that process repeated itself in each generation. I'm talking about times before public education, when children did not learn languages in school from teachers, as there were no schools and no teachers.

In 95% of instances children inherited genes from their parents, and also learned to speak the language of their parents. The remaining 5% of instances can be considered cases of linguistic assimilation of individuals or entire groups collectively.
I think it might have been the case in creation of IE culture in Yamnaya. From all the separate ethnic groups they mixed into one race, language and culture. That's why we can talk about IE cultural package, not just the language. This is in light of scientific developments of last 100 years. Before that only connection for IEs existed by language family. Just because they didn't know what we know now.

Now we are in position to expand meaning of IE to their whole culture.

I have my doubts about one well mix race of Yamnaya. Their territory was so vast that it would be hard for them to mix uniformly. I'm sure West Yamnaya will turn to be genetically distinct from East Yamnaya. Otherwise we wouldn't have strongly defined groups as per R1a and R1b subclades.

Perhaps we can only talk about IE horizon, as Yamnaya horizon, and never about exactly one monolith group?


If 10k years in the future someone would discover that I wrote in English, he would proclaim me English as per my spoken language. I would be much happier if he/she proclaimed me European as per my cultural heritage and place of origin. I guess in 1000 yeas when everyone in Europe speaks English it won't matter anymore. Or will it?

Tomenable
24-11-15, 23:46
I have my doubts about one well mix race of Yamnaya. Their territory was so vast that it would be hard for them to mix uniformly. I'm sure West Yamnaya will turn to be genetically distinct from East Yamnaya. Otherwise we wouldn't have strongly defined groups as per R1a and R1b subclades.

Y chromosome is one chromosome, while autosomal DNA is much more important in defining "races".

There are a lot of African-Americans with R1b-L51 (see: plantation rapes) who are autosomally over 90% Sub-Saharan West African and maybe up to 10% European, so you wouldn't classify them as "European race" or anything like this.


I guess in 1000 yeas when everyone in Europe speaks English it won't matter anymore.

Well, 2000 years ago most of the population of Europe spoke Latin, and now only few people know Latin.

What makes you so sure that in 1000 years we will still be speaking English, and not something else ??? I have no doubt that if you asked any Roman patriot in year 200 AD what language will Europe speak in 1200 AD, he would answer that Latin.

In 300 BC most of Western Europe spoke Celtic (except for coastal Greek etc. colonies), and now Celtic is almost extinct.

LeBrok
25-11-15, 00:16
Y chromosome is one chromosome, while autosomal DNA is much more important in defining "races".

There are a lot of African-Americans with R1b-L51 (see: plantation rapes) who are autosomally over 90% Sub-Saharan West African and maybe up to 10% European, so you wouldn't classify them as "European race" or anything like this.
I didn't mean it like this. You see by Y haplogroups you can learn who met who. Conversely by lack of Y DNA we can conclude that the carriers of these chromosomes didn't meet. R1b came without R1a to Western Europe. It could mean that there was part of Yamnaya (heritage of Italo-Celtic tribes) which didn't have mixed R1b and R1a. Also IE R1a Z283 didn't mix with Z93, though they are both IE.



Well, 2000 years ago most of the population of Europe spoke Latin, and now only few people know Latin.Even people from Rome don't speak Latin, but what does that mean?


What makes you so sure that in 1000 years we will still be speaking English, and not something else ??? Not sure, but it is a trend today. If not the collapse of Roman Empire we would speak Latin and maybe the whole world now.
More and more people communicate for work, pleasure, science in English in modern world. As long as our world doesn't collapse into Dark Ages, like Roman empire did, english will stay dominant. At the moment English has a critical mass to be the dominant one, and easy to learn. Furthermore, there are no serious attempts to dethrone it, and fewer with time.

Tomenable
25-11-15, 00:18
A list of dominant Eurasian (and Eurasian offshoot) civilizations according to A. Van Sloan and James Sheehan:

Time of domination (number of years) - civilization:

4300-2700 BC (1600) - Sumerians
2700-1075 BC (1625) - Egyptians
1075-745 BC (330) - Phoenicians
745-612 BC (133) - Assyrians
612-539 BC (73) - Babylonians
539-478 BC (61) - Persians
478-323 BC (155) - Greeks
323-197 BC (126) - Hellenistic
197 BC - 378 AD (575) - Romans
378-467 AD (85) - Gupta India
467-589 AD (122) - Byzantines
589-756 AD (167) - Tang China
756-976 AD (236) - Muslims
976-1071 AD (126) - Byzantines
1071-1294 AD (223) - Song China and Mongol China
1294-1527 AD (233) - Renaissance Italy
1527-1588 AD (61) - Spain
1588-1609 AD (21) - England
1609-1672 AD (63) - Netherlands
1672-1814 AD (142) - France
1814-1830 AD (16) - Austria
1830-1918 AD (88) - Great Britain
1918-2015 AD (97+) - the USA

After the fall of Rome, no civilization managed to be dominant / most advanced for more than ca. 250 years.

The longest unbroken period of dominance enjoyed by a single civilization was by Egypt in 2700 BC - 1075 BC.


Not sure, but it is a trend today.

There are more Chinese speakers than English speakers in the world, and China's economy is growing fast.

Tomenable
25-11-15, 00:31
R1b came without R1a to Western Europe.
There is at least one-digit percent of R1a in every corner of Western Europe and R1a-CTS4385 subclade is specific to that area.


It could mean that there was part of Yamnaya (heritage of Italo-Celtic tribes) which didn't have mixed R1b and R1a.

But we have no proof that Italo-Celtic tribes are descended from Yamnaya because there was no R1b-P312 found in Yamnaya.


Also IE R1a Z283 didn't mix with Z93, though they are both IE.

Yes indeed, and R1b-L51 didn't mix with R1b-Z2103 - in Yamnaya we found only the latter, but not the former. No P312 and U106.

By the way - I think this is because PIEs were mostly divided into clans (each clan sharing a common male ancestor), and those clans migrated in different directions. That's why different lineages were spreading PIE language in different directions.

Rethel
25-11-15, 00:35
There are a lot of African-Americans with R1b-L51 (see: plantation rapes)

This is a myth.
1. Slaves were offten concubines - in such cases
there was no need to raping over and over agian.
2. After manummission during last 150 years were
a lot of formal & unformal unions between whites
and blacks - especially white men + black women.


Roman patriot in year 200 AD what language will Europe speak in 1200 AD, he would answer that Latin.

And he would be right, because all Europe was speaking on latin
at that time as an international, religious and culture language:smile:

About english? He will be replaced by arabic during next 100 years http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/smile.gif

Tomenable
25-11-15, 00:37
As long as our world doesn't collapse into Dark Ages, like Roman empire did, english will stay dominant.

And what makes you think, that it won't collapse into Dark Ages?

We (= people of native European descent) have low birth rates, and "barbarians" are already immigrating. These "barbarians" will eventually create a new wolrd, maybe even better than ours, but "Dark Ages" between the two eras are inevitable.

The so-called "Western Civilization" is already past its Golden Age.


About english? He will be replaced by arabic during next 100 years :)Quite possible (or MAYBE Arabs will adopt English just like Germanic barbarians learned Romance languages).

Rethel
25-11-15, 00:47
There is at least one-digit percent of R1a in every corner of Western Europe and R1a-CTS4385 subclade is specific to that area.

Almost everywhere where is R1b is a majority- R1a is a minotity.
And almost everywhere where R1a is majority R1b is in minority.
In some areas is even ~50:50. So, they always were together.



By the way - I think this is because PIEs were mostly divided into clans (each clan sharing a common male ancestor), and those clans migrated in different directions. That's why different lineages were spreading PIE language in different directions.

Right. And the same was at the beginning.:smile:

LeBrok
25-11-15, 00:48
A list of dominant Eurasian (and Eurasian offshoot) civilizations according to A. Van Sloan and James Sheehan:

Time of domination (number of years) - civilization:

4300-2700 BC (1600) - Sumerians
2700-1075 BC (1625) - Egyptians
1075-745 BC (330) - Phoenicians
745-612 BC (133) - Assyrians
612-539 BC (73) - Babylonians
539-478 BC (61) - Persians
478-323 BC (155) - Greeks
323-197 BC (126) - Hellenistic
197 BC - 378 AD (575) - Romans
378-467 AD (85) - Gupta India
467-589 AD (122) - Byzantines
589-756 AD (167) - Tang China
756-976 AD (236) - Muslims
976-1071 AD (126) - Byzantines
1071-1294 AD (223) - Song China and Mongol China
1294-1527 AD (233) - Renaissance Italy
1527-1588 AD (61) - Spain
1588-1609 AD (21) - England
1609-1672 AD (63) - Netherlands
1672-1814 AD (142) - France
1814-1830 AD (16) - Austria
1830-1918 AD (88) - Great Britain
1918-2015 AD (97+) - the USA

After the fall of Rome, no civilization managed to be dominant / most advanced for more than ca. 250 years.

The longest unbroken period of dominance enjoyed by a single civilization was by Egypt in 2700 BC - 1075 BC.
There will be no one dominant country in the future. The world will be all developed and run under Unions, or perhaps one global Union. Look around, there are no true empires anymore. The world changed, and we can't look into history to foresee our future.
There have been profound paradigm shift. You don't need to conquer others and enslave populations to live good life. You just need to grow your economy. Everyone is educated. We look into science to invent and understand world. We live in world of plenty with full belly every day.
Who wants to go and conquer, possibly die, to take stuff from others, if you already have job, family, kids, car, house, vacations, games, food from every corner of the world, etc, and you can enjoy all of it till you are 80. Well, not everybody has this yet, but it is coming to every human being soon. Thanks to advances in science and robotics.



There are more Chinese speakers than English speakers in the world, and China's economy is growing fast.[/QUOTE]
There will be more Indians soon than Chinese, they are growing fast too and half of them speaks English. Even to communicate between ethnic groups in India.
Anyway regardless if it is english or chinese, there will be one dominant language in the future, just because it is easy for all humans to communicate, work, travel, enjoy movies and music, etc.

Tomenable
25-11-15, 00:51
u don't need to conquer others and enslave populations to live good life.

If only "modern barbarians" such as ISIS fighters and their supporters (and many others!), understood this! :laughing: :grin:

Germanics entered the Western Roman Empire also as "poor refugees", and later destroyed it from within by causing internal turmoil:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcuVJUKZvx4

LeBrok
25-11-15, 00:54
Almost everywhere where is R1b is a majority- R1a is a minotity.
And almost everywhere where R1a is majority R1b is in minority.
In some areas is even ~50:50. So, they always were together. Genius! Did you notice it by yourself?




I think this is because PIEs were mostly divided into clans (each clan sharing a common male ancestor), and those clans migrated in different directions. That's why different lineages were spreading PIE language in different directions.
Now, if you could present a mechanism by which all these unmixed clans learned the same language, please?

Rethel
25-11-15, 00:54
These "barbarians" will eventually create a new wolrd, maybe even better than ours,

Comparing to this brave current world - certainly you are right.
Islamic civilisation is more superior than rainbow civilization.


Quite possible (or MAYBE Arabs will adopt English just like Germanic barbarians learned Romance languages).

As international in Europe? No. As local tounges? Probably.
Arabic is sacred and muslims are from many lands living in
many european countries. Arabic is the exellent choice for
them. Only some empire can change it, like Ottomans did.

LeBrok
25-11-15, 00:56
If only "modern barbarians" such as ISIS fighters and their supporters (and many others!), understood this! :laughing: :grin: you mean 30 thousand deranged people against the whole world?


Germanics entered the Western Roman Empire also as "poor refugees", and later destroyed it from within by causing internal turmoil:

At the end these migrants created something more advanced than Romans did, right?

Tomenable
25-11-15, 00:58
Now, if you could present a mechanism by which all these unmixed clans learned the same language, please?

They were mixed, autosomally they were the same and also similar mtDNA lineages. They just had different "fathers".

As for the mechanism - I'm not a linguist, you would need to consult some linguists and ask them why do languages emerge.

Apparently they do emerge, because if they didn't, we would all be speaking the same language as "Y-Adam and mt-Eve":


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqSGv8CnrWs

And if not the language of "Y-DNA Adam and mtDNA Eve", then at least that of the Out-Of-Africa Tribe:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3104569/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3656025/


The “out of Africa” hypothesis proposes that a small group of Homo sapiens left Africa 80,000 years ago, spreading the mitochondrial haplotype L3 throughout the Earth.1 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3104569/#R1)–10 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3104569/#R10) Little effort has been made to try to reconstruct the society and culture of the tribe that left Africa to populate the rest of the world.1 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3104569/#R1)

Rethel
25-11-15, 01:11
If only "modern barbarians" such as ISIS fighters and their supporters (and many others!), understood this! :laughing: :grin:

They undersand, that in life, are more important things than eating, drinking, sleeping and copulating. So, they'll win.
They have cause worth to die and they have also couse worth to live, they have lot of children, they know where are
they from and they are proud of that, and they know exactly what they want. Bravenewworldmen do not know any of
that stuff. They are only living for joy, and their only pourpose is to die by euthanasy. So, this (ex) civilization is dying
and must be replaced by better people: goddess' cults were replaced by patriarchal Indoeuropeans, demoralized Greeks
by Romans, Romans by christians, and primitive Indians by Europeans - this is the law. Period. It is only a matter of time.

Very old stuff... :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlKO3hnu14U

Tomenable
25-11-15, 01:13
The guy in that video from my previous post, makes some very good points which can apply also to expansion of PIEs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqSGv8CnrWs#t=200

"(...) Let's imagine there is a tribe of people, say a 1000, they all speak a language they mutually understand, and then a 100 people leave to migrate somewhere else. That 100 take with them all the sounds of the language. Yes, they are taking away only a fraction [10%] of the genetic diversity, but not of course a fraction of the sounds. (...)"

So this is why PIE clans which migrated in distinct directions, took different Y-DNA with them, but the same language.

=================================

Here he talks about Proto-Indo-European language (from 6:00 onwards):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqSGv8CnrWs#t=360

Rethel
25-11-15, 01:23
The “out of Africa” hypothesis proposes that a small group of Homo sapiens left Africa 80,000 years ago,

So, as linguists cailm, indoeuropean languages could have even 40.000,
hamito-semitic is officialy estimating as almost 20.000, AmerIndians are
considering to be a small - even 70 persons - group of people entering
America some 12.000 ya - so we have a quite conservative language :)

IE is not only half of beside Africa time old, but also still recognizable :smile:

This are not mine estimates, but scientific. :good_job:

Rethel
25-11-15, 01:27
"(...) Let's imagine there is a tribe of people, say a 1000, they all speak a language they mutually understand, and then a 100 people leave to migrate somewhere else. That 100 take with them all the sounds of the language. Yes, they are taking away only a fraction [10%] of the genetic diversity, but not of course a fraction of the sounds. (...)"

So this is why PIE clans which migrated in distinct directions, took different Y-DNA with them, but the same language.

Amen.
I would give you lubika for that, but I
already spend my whole limit today :)

Rethel
25-11-15, 01:33
Here he talks about Proto-Indo-European language (from 6:00 onwards):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqSGv8CnrWs#t=360

Here PIE = 10.000 years! :)

LeBrok
25-11-15, 02:07
The guy in that video from my previous post, makes some very good points which can apply also to expansion of PIEs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqSGv8CnrWs#t=200

"(...) Let's imagine there is a tribe of people, say a 1000, they all speak a language they mutually understand, and then a 100 people leave to migrate somewhere else. That 100 take with them all the sounds of the language. Yes, they are taking away only a fraction [10%] of the genetic diversity, but not of course a fraction of the sounds. (...)"

So this is why PIE clans which migrated in distinct directions, took different Y-DNA with them, but the same language.

=================================

Here he talks about Proto-Indo-European language (from 6:00 onwards):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqSGv8CnrWs#t=360
Mathematically and statistically it makes sens, but only on very small tribes. How big was population of Yamnaya, 100 thousand, 1 million? If one tribe is 10,000 people you would get a very good mixture of male Y hgs. Even in 1,000 strong clan. I think, after the split they would need to go through very intense bottle-necking, with just few mails surviving, and at the end one being successful in long term.

Other option is a strong dominance of one of the ethnic groups of Yamnaya. By dominance they forced their language on other tribes, though not transferring their Y much. Sort of like Hungarians and Turks speak languages of conquerors though genetically they don't look different than others from same area.

Tomenable
25-11-15, 02:23
How big was population of Yamnaya, 100 thousand, 1 million?

Well, certainly much closer to 100,000 than to 1 million. And in my opinion, it was well below 100,000.

Yamnaya culture emerged around 4000 BC (maybe a bit later).

It is estimated, that at that time entire European continent had just 2 million people (see the link below).

And of course the steppe, where Yamnaya lived, was rather sparsely populated:

https://www.ined.fr/fichier/s_rubrique/211/publi_pdf2_pop_and_soc_english_394.en.pdf


(...) At the height of the Late Palaeolithic Age, from 10,000 to 9000 BCE, the population of Europe may have stood at 200,000 people. The sudden climatic warming which occurred around 8650 BCE halted their growth, and the beginning of the Mesolithic era saw the population decrease then increase rapidly with the cultural adaptation to the new climate and the repopulation of Northern Europe as the ice melted. Around 7000 BCE, it is likely that Europe had close to 400,000 inhabitants. With the Neolithic era in the Middle East - from 10,000 to 8000 BCE - came sedentariness, hand-hoecropping, stock-rearing, pottery-making and navigation, resulting in a tenfold increase in the population from 0.5 to 5 million inhabitants. From Anatolia, Neolithic peoples migrated to Greece, settling near what would become Thessaloniki, and from this densely-populated settlement sent out two streams that propagated Neolithic culture in Europe: one sea-borne, investing the coastal regions as far as England, the other across land, moving up the Danube to occupy the central part of the continent. By around 4000 BCE, the Neolithic culture had spread across Europe, with a population of perhaps 2 million (...)

The same estimate of around 2 million Europeans in year 4000 BC can be found here:

https://books.google.pl/books?id=nmgNXoiAiU4C&pg=RA2-PA12&lpg=RA2-PA12&dq=Neolithic+Europe+had+2+million+inhabitants&source=bl&ots=uqXnxEXcyc&sig=jAVsHQbVF7N7Ek1PqSIe14gE6ys&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZro_7parJAhUGnnIKHTIwDUAQ6AEIMTAE#v=on epage&q=Neolithic%20Europe%20had%202%20million%20inhabit ants&f=false

Tomenable
25-11-15, 02:31
Estimates of population density for Neolithic Trypillian culture (and it was one of the most populous Neolithic cultures) say that it was probably no more than 5 people per one square kilometer, but in some regions it was still a much lower density:

"Giant Settlements and Some Demographic Problems Connected with the Tripolye Culture":

Part 1: http://s21.postimg.org/453ee13z9/Trypillian_1.png

Part 2: http://s9.postimg.org/wk6s9ozrh/Trypillian_2.png

5 people per 1 km2 was the peak density in the "Golden Age" of Trypillian culture and in its most populated area.

==========================================

About nomadic herders (such as Yamnaya), maybe this can be useful:

"Climate-Induced Changes in Population Dynamics of Siberian Scythians (700-250 BC)":

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/260249780_Climate-Induced_Changes_in_Population_Dynamics_of_Siberian _Scythians_%28700-250_BC%29

Author estimates, that at the peak of their civilization and in the most densely populated region of their civilization, Altai Scythians had population density of no more than 3,8 people per 1 km2 (up to 260,000 people living in 68,000 km2 of land).

But those people lived much later than Yamnaya, and had much better technology.

Tomenable
25-11-15, 02:46
If one tribe is 10,000 people you would get a very good mixture of male Y hgs.

Many of those Y hgs would get extinct, or would leave very few male descendants (compared to other hgs).

Y-DNA lineages tended to be successful in reproduction even 17x less frequently than mtDNA lineages:

This is because men were dying frequently also in battles (not just in other cataclisms, such as plagues of epidemic diseases, times of starvation, floods, fires, and so on), and men were competing for access to multiple women (not the other way around):

http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/17-to-1-reproductive-success

"Once upon a time, 4,000 to 8,000 years after humanity invented agriculture, something very strange happened to human reproduction. Across the globe, for every 17 women who were reproducing, passing on genes that are still around today—only one man did the same.

"It wasn't like there was a mass death of males. They were there, so what were they doing?" asks Melissa Wilson Sayres, a computational biologist at Arizona State University, and a member of a group of scientists who uncovered this moment in prehistory by analyzing modern genes.

Another member of the research team, a biological anthropologist, hypothesizes that somehow, only a few men accumulated lots of wealth and power, leaving nothing for others. These men could then pass their wealth on to their sons, perpetuating this pattern of elitist reproductive success. Then, as more thousands of years passed, the numbers of men reproducing, compared to women, rose again. "Maybe more and more people started being successful," Wilson Sayres says. In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man."

Men (left) versus women (right), effective population size by sex over time:

A few men fathered lots of children, most men fathered a few or zero; but the number of reproducing women remained high:

The same pattern took place not just in Europe, also in other continents:

http://a2.files.psmag.com/image/upload/c_fit,cs_srgb,w_620/MTI4ODMwNDQ5ODU3MzY5MzYy.png

LeBrok
25-11-15, 02:55
Estimates of population density for Neolithic Trypillian culture (and it was one of the most populous Neolithic cultures) say that it was probably no more than 5 people per one square kilometer, but in some regions it was still a much lower density:

"Giant Settlements and Some Demographic Problems Connected with the Tripolye Culture":

Part 1: http://s21.postimg.org/453ee13z9/Trypillian_1.png

Part 2: http://s9.postimg.org/wk6s9ozrh/Trypillian_2.png

5 people per 1 km2 was the peak density in the "Golden Age" of Trypillian culture and in its most populated area.

==========================================

About nomadic herders (such as Yamnaya), maybe this can be useful:

"Climate-Induced Changes in Population Dynamics of Siberian Scythians (700-250 BC)":

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/260249780_Climate-Induced_Changes_in_Population_Dynamics_of_Siberian _Scythians_%28700-250_BC%29

Author estimates, that at the peak of their civilization and in the most densely populated region of their civilization, Altai Scythians had population density of no more than 3,8 people per 1 km2 (up to 260,000 people living in 68,000 km2 of land).

But those people lived much later than Yamnaya, and had much better technology.
Eyeballing the map of Yamnaya, I think it had a size of 1,000,000 square km. Even with 1 person per sq. km. that's 1 million people. Even if it had 100,000 people it was a very populous culture for that time period. That's why I can't get the distinct paternal hg by way of small tribes. They had big tribes. I would rather say, that language change happened by way of dominance.

Tomenable
25-11-15, 02:57
Even in 1,000 strong clan. I think, after the split they would need to go through very intense bottle-necking, with just few mails surviving, and at the end one being successful in long term.

Quite possible that it was like that. For example, let's remember how harsh was human history:

- some men died before they sired children (either due to diseases, starvation, or due to wars)
- some men were effete and could not sire children at all
- some men only had daughters and never had any sons* (= their Y-DNA got extinct even though their genes didn't)
- some men never married and never sired children, they remained childless
- some men had children, but those did not live long enough to become adults (child mortality was HUGE back then)

Finally, some men had extraordinarily high numbers of children, with many women (not just one!).

So in the end, it is no so impossible.

*Maciamo even wrote in some thread, that certain types of Y-DNA are statistically more likely to sire sons.

Tomenable
25-11-15, 03:01
Even with 1 person per sq. km. that's 1 million people

Europe has 10,18 million sq. km., and it had 2 million inhabitants in 4000 BC - that's 0,2 per 1 km2, so not even 1.

And I would say that crop farmers had higher density than herders - while Yamnaya were herders.

Of course the lowest density was among hunter-gatherers, but most of Europe was already Neolithic by 4000 BC.

LeBrok
25-11-15, 03:04
Many of those Y hgs would get extinct, or would leave very few male descendants (compared to other hgs).

Y-DNA lineages tended to be successful in reproduction even 17x less frequently than mtDNA lineages:

This is because men were dying frequently also in battles (not just in other cataclisms, such as plagues of epidemic diseases, times of starvation, floods, fires, and so on), and men were competing for access to multiple women (not the other way around):

Let's say we are starting with well mixed tribe of 5,000 men of 50% R1b and same for R1a. It would need to be quite a coincidence that only R1a would die off, right?







http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/17-to-1-reproductive-success

"Once upon a time, 4,000 to 8,000 years after humanity invented agriculture, something very strange happened to human reproduction. Across the globe, for every 17 women who were reproducing, passing on genes that are still around today—only one man did the same.

"It wasn't like there was a mass death of males. They were there, so what were they doing?" asks Melissa Wilson Sayres, a computational biologist at Arizona State University, and a member of a group of scientists who uncovered this moment in prehistory by analyzing modern genes.

Another member of the research team, a biological anthropologist, hypothesizes that somehow, only a few men accumulated lots of wealth and power, leaving nothing for others. These men could then pass their wealth on to their sons, perpetuating this pattern of elitist reproductive success. Then, as more thousands of years passed, the numbers of men reproducing, compared to women, rose again. "Maybe more and more people started being successful," Wilson Sayres says. In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man."

Men (left) versus women (right), effective population size by sex over time:

A few men fathered lots of children, most men fathered a few or zero; but the number of reproducing women remained high:

The same pattern took place not just in Europe, also in other continents:

http://a2.files.psmag.com/image/upload/c_fit,cs_srgb,w_620/MTI4ODMwNDQ5ODU3MzY5MzYy.png
I agree that many Y hg disappeared for some reason. However, in case of IE, none of their dominant hgs disappeared. Therefore there is nothing wrong with them, they are fit. So why there is so much R1b in Western Europe without R1a, if they both come form well mixed IE of Yamnaya?

My hypothesis is that they were not very well mixed in vast Yamanya horizon but they learned language by way of dominance of just one group. I have no idea which one though.

Tomenable
25-11-15, 03:07
Eyeballing the map of Yamnaya, I think it had a size of 1,000,000 square km.

I just googled some maps of Yamnaya, and each of them shows a different area...

This one shows a rather small area, but some show much bigger areas:

http://www.peopleofar.com/wp-content/uploads/Indo-European-Homeland-hypothesis-738x355.jpg

Tomenable
25-11-15, 03:10
Google Maps has a tool which allows to measure area.

Indeed you were perfectly right LeBrok, Yamnaya was at least 1 million square km:

http://s28.postimg.org/7kt8g1tpp/1_million.png

BTW - now let's count how many samples of Yamnaya DNA we have, from how many sites.

It seems that we have still at least 990,000 square kilometers of Yamnaya area to check... :)

LeBrok
25-11-15, 03:10
Europe has 10,18 million sq. km., and it had 2 million inhabitants in 4000 BC - that's 0,2 per 1 km2, so not even 1.

I was taking a comparable figures from your Cucuteni population close by, even the lower range of 1 person per sq km. It was irrelevant nevertheless considering my further comment and conclusion.

Even if it had 100,000 people it was a very populous culture for that time period. That's why I can't get the distinct paternal hg by way of small tribes. They had big tribes. I would rather say, that language change happened by way of dominance.

LeBrok
25-11-15, 03:14
Google Maps has a tool which allows to measure area.

Indeed you werre right, Yamnaya was at least 1 million sq. km:

http://s28.postimg.org/7kt8g1tpp/1_million.png

BTW - now let's count how many samples of Yamnaya DNA we have, from how many sites.

It seems that we have still at least 990,000 square kilometers to check... :)
Cool, I knew about measuring a distance on Google maps, but not the area. Interestingly they mixed Yamnaya with Cucuteni territory. Supposedly it happened at the end. West Yamnaya + Cucuteni leftovers became CW?

Tomenable
25-11-15, 03:17
So why there is so much R1b in Western Europe without R1a
There is some R1a in Western Europe (also depends what do you mean by "Western").

And why is there so much of R1b-P312 without any U106 and Z2103 in Ireland, for example?

And all U106 which in Ireland, came very late with Vikings and English/British settlers - not with Celts.

As I wrote - some lineages became only successful in some branches of IE.

Shouldn't there be a 30/30/30 mix of U106/P312/Z2103 among all Indo-European groups ???

If you do not expect an even mix of all types of R1b, why do you expect a 50/50 mix of R1a/R1b ???

And within R1a there is also this pattern - for example among Indo-Aryans there is mostly R1a L657.

And BTW - there is no R1b in India, apart from some brought by British people in the 19th century.

Tomenable
25-11-15, 03:28
An autosomal map for Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer (CHG) - or "Teal" - admixture:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5833-Teal-discovered-!!/page42

http://s019.radikal.ru/i619/1511/96/6a5d57f4d459.png

And here a map for IBD sharing with Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers / Teal people:

https://verenich.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/kotiassnpc-100ibdext.png?w=1304

Seems to correlate well with Indo-European speakers (look e.g. at Germano-Slavic levels vs. Finno-Ugric levels).

Not only Finnic-speakers have low levels of CHG / Teal admixture & IBD sharing, but also for example Sardinians.

In India North Indians (who are IE-speakers) have high levels, while South Indians (Dravidian-speakers) not.

LeBrok
25-11-15, 03:31
There is some R1a in Western Europe (also depends what do you mean by "Western").

And why is there so much of R1b-P312 without any U106 and Z2103 in Ireland, for example?

And all U106 which in Ireland, came very late with Vikings and English/British settlers - not with Celts.

As I wrote - some lineages became only successful in some branches of IE.

Shouldn't there be a 30/30/30 mix of U106/P312/Z2103 among all Indo-European groups ???If you do not expect an even mix of all types of R1b, why do you expect a 50/50 mix of R1a/R1b ??? I don't expect this to be even Steven, but no successful R1a only successful R1bs?



And within R1a there is also this pattern - for example among Indo-Aryans there is mostly R1a L657.also suspicious and counter-intuitive if Yamnaya was well mixed.


And BTW - there is no R1b in India, apart from some brought by British people in the 19th century.See, only 200 years of British dominance and they so many speak English, mostly educated elite. Most importantly they use it as a lingua franca to communicate between ethnic groups and with the external world. As you noticed without introduction of conqueror,s R1b.
This is why I think it happened this way. So many real life, well documented examples from recent history.

Tomenable
25-11-15, 03:41
One more comment to those autosomal / IBD maps above:

Note that Uyghurs - who are thought to be Turkicized Tocharians and Iranians - have high CHG / Teal levels too.

I guess this CHG allows for distinguishing "pure Turks" from "Turks who assimilated genetic Indo-Europeans".


I don't expect this to be even Steven, but no successful R1a only successful R1bs?

Yes - and on the opposite fringe of Indo-European expansion, in India, there is no successful R1b.

In western fringe R1b dominated, in eastern fringe R1a dominated, and between the fringes there is a mix.

There is a similar situation within R1b and within R1a (L51 = west; Z2103 = east; Z283 = west; Z93 = east).


Most importantly they use it as a lingua franca to communicate between ethnic groups and with the external world. As you noticed without introduction of conqueror,s R1b.So maybe Western Europe was conquered by R1a Indo-Europeans who imposed their language without introduction of conqueror's R1a ??? But this claim seems to be erroneus considering that there is some "Steppe" autosomal admixture there as well.

Only groups such as Sardinians and Finno-Ugric speakers have almost no such admixture.

And when you look at the map of CHG / Teal autosomal (see above), there is CHG all the way from Ireland to India.

If R1a introduced CHG to India, and R1b introduced CHG to Ireland - then apparently both haplogroups carried it.

Because who introduced CHG to India, if there is no R1b in India, and who to Ireland, if there is no R1a there?

Or were PIE women travelling alone, spreading CHG / Teal admixture and just their mtDNA ??? :P

LeBrok
25-11-15, 04:08
An autosomal map for Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer (CHG) - or "Teal" - admixture:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5833-Teal-discovered-!!/page42

http://s019.radikal.ru/i619/1511/96/6a5d57f4d459.png

And here a map for IBD sharing with Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers / Teal people:



Seems to correlate well with Indo-European speakers (look e.g. at Germano-Slavic levels vs. Finno-Ugric levels).

Not only Finnic-speakers have low levels of CHG / Teal admixture & IBD sharing, but also for example Sardinians.

In India North Indians (who are IE-speakers) have high levels, while South Indians (Dravidian-speakers) not.

Definitely took part in IE expansion. Interesting is this hot spot in Omen on Arabian Peninsula.

Tomenable
25-11-15, 04:10
So - Yamnaya culture covered at least around 1,000,000 (one million) square km.

Do you know how much of it has been examined so far? Only about 100,000 square km.

Just two "pockets" are well-tested by now - around Samara and north-east of Stavropol.

We have 900,000 square kilometers filled with Yamnaya burial sites still to be tested.

LeBrok
25-11-15, 04:17
One more comment to those autosomal / IBD maps above:

Note that Uyghurs - who are thought to be Turkicized Tocharians and Iranians - have high CHG / Teal levels too.

I guess this CHG allows for distinguishing "pure Turks" from "Turks who assimilated genetic Indo-Europeans".



Yes - and on the opposite fringe of Indo-European expansion, in India, there is no successful R1b.

In western fringe R1b dominated, in eastern fringe R1a dominated, and between the fringes there is a mix.

There is a similar situation within R1b and within R1a (L51 = west; Z2103 = east; Z283 = west; Z93 = east).

So maybe Western Europe was conquered by R1a Indo-Europeans who imposed their language without introduction of conqueror's R1a ??? But this claim seems to be erroneus considering that there is some "Steppe" autosomal admixture there as well.

Only groups such as Sardinians and Finno-Ugric speakers have almost no such admixture.

And when you look at the map of CHG / Teal autosomal (see above), there is CHG all the way from Ireland to India.

If R1a introduced CHG to India, and R1b introduced CHG to Ireland - then apparently both haplogroups carried it.

Because who introduced CHG to India, if there is no R1b in India, and who to Ireland, if there is no R1a there?

Or were PIE women travelling alone, spreading CHG / Teal admixture and just their mtDNA ??? :P
Did you forget that haplogroup J2 was discovered among CHG?
http://www.haplogruplar.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/J2-Y-DNA-Haplogroup-Map-J2-M172-Map-J2-Haplogrubu-Haritasi-v3.png

Tomenable
25-11-15, 04:24
And as you can see, there is even less of haplogroup J2 in West Europe than of R1a.

So once again this disproves the idea that it was even Steven in terms of Y-DNA.

But people suggested already before, that some subclades of J could also be IE.

However, we should go deeper into subclades because I don't think all of J2 is IE.

Tomenable
25-11-15, 04:27
BTW - are there any other instances of J2 in ancient DNA apart from that sample in CHG ???

=========================

Edit:

J2 as a whole is too old to be related to PIE - http://www.yfull.com/tree/J2/

J2 - formed 31400 ybp, TMRCA 27800 ybp

Maybe some specific subclades which are young enough, but not J2 as a whole.

R1a and R1b are often suggested as being PIE not only because they are found in aDNA samples from Indo-European cultures, but also because they are so young (I'm talking about M198/M417 and M269/L23 subclades of R1), and yet so widespread.

Young + widespread + correlating with IE speakers in aDNA and / or in modern DNA = possible PIE candidates.

R1b-V88 is not related to PIE at all, neither in ancient DNA (Neolithic Iberia) nor in modern DNA (Sub-Saharans).

R1b-M343 didn't speak PIE. R1b-M269 started to speak PIE language, older subclades (such as R1b-V88) didn't.

Tomenable
25-11-15, 04:56
LeBrok, you were probably right thay Yamnaya were not all identical autosomally.

Kurd from Anthrogenica wrote (about his autosomal runs with use of ADMIXTURE calculator):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5875-230-ancient-Eurasians-data-analysis-%28Mathieson-Reich-Haak-%29/page2


With ancients, you will notice considerable variation within the group itself. Some BA Armenians are very CHG shifted, others are very steppe shifted. You will also see much variation within Yamnaya. Whether this is from mislabeling a sample, or whether because the sample is an outlier, or whether substructure within a group arising from geography, time, or some other variable we can't be certain. (...) That seems to be the pattern I am seeing with ancient genomes. Even with Yamnaya, I believe some were very EHG shifted, whereas others Caucasus shifted. The more ancients we can sequence and include in our analysis, the smaller the gap will become between moderns and ancients in terms of overlap. By adding a second Karelian sample into the run, I noticed a slight increase in EHG score for some moderns

LeBrok
25-11-15, 05:00
And as you can see, there is even less of haplogroup J2 in West Europe than of R1a.I'm saying that J2 was implicated in distribution of CHG too, which your forgotten completely about this.

Because who introduced CHG to India, if there is no R1b in India
Is this true that J2 carried CHG?



However, we should go deeper into subclades because I don't think all of J2 is IE. Neither was all R1a or R1b.



So once again this disproves the idea that it was even Steven in terms of Y-DNA. And why not buy dominance like in India, Hungary, Turkey and many attested others. The point is that we don't know really how it happened. I'm just confused that you are so firmly believing in your hypotheses with complete lack of any evidence that such process, based on lack, takes place? It is possible, though very unlikely.
Mind you that level of many Neolithic hgs is higher than any R1a subclade in Western Europe, outside of reach of Corded Ware expansion. Not even one subclade of R1a was successful their? Isn't it more likely that R1a didn't take part in Western IE expansion?

Tomenable
25-11-15, 10:40
Neither was all R1a or R1b.

But 99% of R1a in the world is young M417, and it correlates very well with PIE expansion, both in aDNA and now.

Just like most of I1 is young and correlates with Germanic migrations (are there any subclades of I1 which aren't Germanic)?

As for R1b - here indeed we have some major subclades which do not correlate with IE. For example Chadic V88:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chadic_languages

We also have V88 in Neolithic Iberia, and those people didn't speak PIE (maybe they spoke Chadic, maybe something else).


Is this true that J2 carried CHG?

There are many areas with more CHG than India, but very low percent of J2 and R1b, look carefully at those maps.


I'm just confused that you are so firmly believing in your hypotheses with complete lack of any evidence

So far I have 71+ Ancient samples of R1a as evidence, and overwhelmimg majority of them are from IE cultures.

On the other hand R1b (45+ Ancient pre-Medieval samples) is a little bit more ambiguous. Not to mention J2.


Mind you that level of many Neolithic hgs is higher than any R1a subclade in Western Europe, outside of reach of Corded Ware expansion. Not even one subclade of R1a was successful their? Isn't it more likely that R1a didn't take part in Western IE expansion?

Well you say that R1a is low in West Europe, but so is autosomal PIE. Autosomal PIE is high in Norway, Lithuania, North-East Europe, etc.

Why do Norway, Lithuania, North-East Europe - all of which have a lot of R1a - also happen to have more "steppe PIE" autosomal DNA ???

BTW - we can say the same thing about R1b in India. And as you also noticed, recently English language expanded without British DNA.

Also the highest percent of R1b is among Non-IE Basques and Genetiker found R1b-M269 in Neolithic Iberia (and several other researchers confirmed his calls, AFAIK - Maciamo also thinks that it is legit). This is kind of troublesome, unless you want to claim that PIE homeland was Iberia.

Also vast majority of R1b from Yamnaya is Z2103, which is Eastern R1b. There is not a single sample of R1b-L51 from there.

According to some researchers, if R1b-L51 really came from the steppe, then it did so before the emergence of Yamnaya culture.

So people who insist that Khvalynsk wasn't PIE, but only Yamnaya was, will need to acknowledge that R1b-L51 is not PIE.


And why not buy dominance like in India, Hungary, Turkey and many attested others.

Because "Steppe PIE / Yamnaya" autosomal DNA is high in R1a-rich areas - and lower in Western Europe.

By contrast, "Original East Asian Turkic" autosomal DNA is indeed low in Turkey.

High steppe Y-DNA + low steppe autosomal fits better a "dominance by a few steppe chieftains" model, than the opposite.

Women are actually more important in passing down autosomal DNA. But they don't have Y-DNA.

Basques have a lot of R1b-L51, yet autosomally they are pretty much Non-Indo-European (linguistically too).

Tomenable
25-11-15, 12:19
By the way - Bichon (new WHG sample) and Loschbour combined; so WHG admixture:

http://s018.radikal.ru/i524/1511/8c/36e36c8180a7.png

Rethel
25-11-15, 18:36
R1b-V88 is not related to PIE at all, neither in ancient DNA (Neolithic Iberia) nor in modern DNA (Sub-Saharans).

How can you possibly know, that in Iberia (or before) they do not speak IE-related language?


R1b-M343 didn't speak PIE. R1b-M269 started to speak PIE language, older subclades (such as R1b-V88) didn't.

The same as above.

LeBrok
25-11-15, 18:49
But 99% of R1a in the world is young M417, and it correlates very well with PIE expansion, both in aDNA and now.

Just like most of I1 is young and correlates with Germanic migrations (are there any subclades of I1 which aren't Germanic)?

As for R1b - here indeed we have some major subclades which do not correlate with IE. For example Chadic V88:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chadic_languages

We also have V88 in Neolithic Iberia, and those people didn't speak PIE (maybe they spoke Chadic, maybe something else).



There are many areas with more CHG than India, but very low percent of J2 and R1b, look carefully at those maps.



So far I have 71+ Ancient samples of R1a as evidence, and overwhelmimg majority of them are from IE cultures.

On the other hand R1b (45+ Ancient pre-Medieval samples) is a little bit more ambiguous. Not to mention J2.

I never said that R1b and R1a wasn't CHG carriers as IEs. I only pointed to missing J2. I'm not sure why you want to convince me to what I'm agreeing to?




Also vast majority of R1b from Yamnaya is Z2103, which is Eastern R1b. There is not a single sample of R1b-L51 from there.

According to some researchers, if R1b-L51 really came from the steppe, then it did so before the emergence of Yamnaya culture.

So people who insist that Khvalynsk wasn't PIE, but only Yamnaya was, will need to acknowledge that R1b-L51 is not PIE. Yamnaya was big, about 1 million sq km. Lets wait for samples from west Yamnaya, or better from every corner of it. I'm sure we'll find few surprises.

RobertColumbia
29-11-15, 15:31
I think the confusion is because many users here are from the USA, and they all speak English, but declare different "cultures" (for example - French, African, German, Italian, even "American"),....

That's an interesting point. Fischer (http://www.amazon.com/Albions-Seed-British-Folkways-cultural/dp/0195069056)'s thesis is that 'American culture' as such does not actually exist, and that the USA has retained at least four of the cultures of early settler groups.

Rethel
29-11-15, 17:28
That's an interesting point. Fischer (http://www.amazon.com/Albions-Seed-British-Folkways-cultural/dp/0195069056)'s thesis is that 'American culture' as such does not actually exist, and that the USA has retained at least four of the cultures of early settler groups.

But the difference is, that IE were 1) one patrydescendent tribe which
2) has one original language and 3) developed some culture. This is the
only right order. Everything else is non existing problems.

Tomenable
06-12-15, 17:42
How do languages evolve:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWDKsHm6gTA

Arame
08-12-15, 07:21
IE is not the only group where two different "father" clans are part of a same linguistic group.
Look at the Nakh-Dagestani linguistic family.
The Daguestani branch is almost purely J1-Z1828 branch (75% of males ). J2 is very low, lower than 3-4%.
While the Nakh branch is very high in J2-M67. Some Nakh groups like Ingushes has no J1.