New map of R1b-S21 (U106)

The differences between Centum and Satem are not only because of some vowel and consonant changes. There're many words that both groups don't share with each other.

I've got this frim wiki: "Balto-Slavic is largely satem but evidences centum development in some words, suggesting that "Satemization" was incomplete or operated according to different principles than in the other Satem languages."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centum-satem_isogloss

So there can be a 'Satemization' or 'Centumization' of languages!

Sorry, did you even read what I wrote? The change is not just "some vowel and consonant changes". This is much more fundamental. Sound laws have no exceptions.

Also Centum languages are "nominative" and "accusative". But not all Satem languages are "nominative" and "accusative". Some West-Iranic languages, like Kurdish, are "ergative" in nature.

According some scholars the Proto-Indo-European language was an "ergative" language, but some scholars refute this hypothesis.

Stop throwing around words like these without even really knowing what they genuinely mean. It's the first time I've seen anybody claim Proto-Indo-European was an ergative language. Virtually all Indo-European languages are accusative, and those that show signs of ergativity clearly have developed this secondarily.

In any case, I fail to see how this relates to genetics and haplogroups.

Fact is that the Rigvedas were written in Sanscrit and Gathas in Zoroastrian scriptures were witten in Avestan. Both langauegs are Satem.

The only thing that this tells us is that the Centum/Satem split was already complete by the time these texts were written. Please consider that Satem is NOT the original state, and neither is it in Centum. However, the sound in the Centum languages is generally closer to the original than in Satem.
 
Stop throwing around words like these without even really knowing what they genuinely mean. It's the first time I've seen anybody claim Proto-Indo-European was an ergative language. Virtually all Indo-European languages are accusative, and those that show signs of ergativity clearly have developed this secondarily.

In any case, I fail to see how this relates to genetics and haplogroups.
Did you checked my references?

http://babaev.tripod.com/archive/article10.html

http://versita.metapress.com/content/r26389132nk67172/fulltext.pdf



The Indo-European folks even in Europe are not the same and have different origins. That's what I'm trying to tell you.
 
However, the sound in the Centum languages is generally closer to the original than in Satem.
How do you know it? Did you ever heard some folks speaking the PIE language? I don't exclude the possibility that you were there … maybe in your dreams…
 

I did not see them because you edited your post afterwards. However, I find the case for ergativity not very convincing at all. As I said, there is no evidence for ergativity whatsoever in most branches of Indo-European, even if these quite plausibly and likely had contact with Ergative languages. It just makes no sense.

The Indo-European folks even in Europe are not the same and have different origins. That's what I'm trying to tell you.

Short answer: no.

Longer answer: There are obviously substrate influences which obviously created considerable differences between various branches of IE, but if you say "they have different origins" what point is there to argue for the existence of a Proto-Indo-European language in the first place? If you claim they have different origins, the argument for a PIE language goes overboard... which doesn't really make any sense either.
 
How do you know it? Did you ever heard some folks speaking the PIE language? I don't exclude the possibility that you were there … maybe in your dreams…

Sorry, no. The evidence clearly is in the treatment of the palatovelars across the various branches of Indo-European. How could they suddenly be conditioned into velar sounds if they originally were fricatives? Bear in mind that sound laws have no exceptions. If the sounds originally were fricatives as in Satem, all fricatives of the same value would be turned to velars. This clearly isn't the case, and it only makes really sense if you assume that they originally were palatovelar sounds.

There is also the treatement of other sounds from PIE, such as aspirated sounds (Bh, Dh, Gh, G´h, Gwh). They are treated very differently in various branches of Indo-European. For instance, Classical Greek preserved aspiration, but it's obviously a Centum language and as such it merged the palatovelars with the plain velars.
 
The only thing that this tells us is that the Centum/Satem split was already complete by the time these texts were written.
And this also tells us that the proto-aryans were Satem speaking folks.

I think that the modern Germanic folks are an admixture of the nordic Celtic tribes (R1b), native nordic Euros and Satem speaking 'Aryans' that were related to the same aryans who invaded India!
 
Maybe is R-S21 not a Germanic but the most NORDIC Celtic subclade of the more archaic Celtic European R1b haplogroup. That the most of R-S21 folks are Germanic speakers in tongue doesn't mean they are Germanic.

I think that the modern Germans are partly Celtic, native European and partly aryan in origin. I know that being an aryan is a loaded term especially in Germany, but you can't deny the facts.

What is this term nordic celtic ?. I was always taught , nordic in scandinavian lands, and celtic originated in southern germany and the Alps.
I would love to know if the celtic hit the mecklenburg or Hinterpommern areas.

Anyway, thanks for the map , i can now say I am 10-15% of the area where my ancestors ( immediate and past ) came from(y)
 
Maybe is R-S21 not a Germanic but the most NORDIC Celtic subclade of the more archaic Celtic European R1b haplogroup. That the most of R-S21 folks are Germanic speakers in tongue doesn't mean they are Germanic.

I think that the modern Germans are partly Celtic, native European and partly aryan in origin. I know that being an aryan is a loaded term especially in Germany, but you can't deny the facts.

If that is true then Germany and the Netherlands are only 15-20% Germanic... As far as language is concerned, considering that hg I is pre-Indo-European, I think that Proto-Germanic language could have originated in R1b-S21, and that the spread of R1b-S21 to Scandinavia Germanised the region. It makes more sense to say that Germanic people originated with S21, because it is known historically (well, archaeologically) that Germanic culture expanded from North Germany and Jutland, and that linguistically Proto-Germanic is directly related to Proto-Italo-Celtic, also of the R1b branch. Culturally, the ancient Germanic mythology is also closely linked to the Celtic and Greco-Roman ones. I think that all the evidence is there to say that Proto-Germans were indeed R1b, and mostly R1b-S21, with some L21.
 
What is this term nordic celtic ?. I was always taught , nordic in scandinavian lands, and celtic originated in southern germany and the Alps.

I think that Goga just meant "North Celtic".
 
Culturally, the ancient Germanic mythology is also closely linked to the Celtic and Greco-Roman ones. I think that all the evidence is there to say that Proto-Germans were indeed R1b, and mostly R1b-S21, with some L21.

Don't forget that R1a was there probably before. Scandinavia and Germany could have been Indo European speaking since the Corded ware and before the spread of S21.
Also ancient Germanic mythology is also linked to Slavic or Hinduist Mythology (R1a)
 
And this also tells us that the proto-aryans were Satem speaking folks.

I think that the modern Germanic folks are an admixture of the nordic Celtic tribes (R1b), native nordic Euros and Satem speaking 'Aryans' that were related to the same aryans who invaded India!

You are making too much of an assumption here equating Haplogroups with linguistic affiliation. R1a is known to have already been in Europe by the time of the Corded Ware Culture (~2600 BC).

If the R1a-bearing peoples of Battle Axe Culture (the Scandinavian offshot of Corded Ware) would have already been Satem speakers, there should be Satem borrowings into Proto-Germanic, which there are not. The general assumption is that the Centum/Satem split must have occured later, early in the 2nd millennium BC, because we already have Greek (a Centum language) attested from the mid-to-late 2nd millennium BC (Mycenean Greek).

In my opinion, the people of Corded Ware spoke a language that must have been very close to PIE, primarily because of the number of what appear to be PIE borrowings into the Finnic languages.

Besides, if the Satem split occured as early as you think it was, how do you explain the existence of Tocharian, a Centum IE language, in western China?

Likewise, R1b can be hardly considered exclusively "Celtic", given it's wide scope and magnitude that includes considerable areas that never saw any significant Celtic settlements. The Celts certainly were majorly carriers of R1b, but that does not make R1b "Celtic".

It's tempting to think R1a = Satem, R1b is = Centum, but if you look at the distribution of R1a, the Greeks for instance (for are also speakers of Centum languages) are carriers of R1a to nearly the same extend as the Scandinavians.
 
indeed

in fact if check a variance of R1a we find it in Greece Norway and belarus and in Iranic and India
remember that Belarus has also E-V13

they moved independent or by hand?

following macciamo they moved independent,
but the existance of E-v13 in belarus who also shares same variance with Greece and also in Scandinavia who has tracks of south europe then is possible that a r1a branch was centum
 
If that is true then Germany and the Netherlands are only 15-20% Germanic... As far as language is concerned, considering that hg I is pre-Indo-European, I think that Proto-Germanic language could have originated in R1b-S21, and that the spread of R1b-S21 to Scandinavia Germanised the region. It makes more sense to say that Germanic people originated with S21, because it is known historically (well, archaeologically) that Germanic culture expanded from North Germany and Jutland, and that linguistically Proto-Germanic is directly related to Proto-Italo-Celtic, also of the R1b branch. Culturally, the ancient Germanic mythology is also closely linked to the Celtic and Greco-Roman ones. I think that all the evidence is there to say that Proto-Germans were indeed R1b, and mostly R1b-S21, with some L21.

Sorry, but I have to straighten up a few issues there:

Proto-Germanic is not as closely related with Italo-Celtic as the Italic languages and Celtic languages are towards each other. In particular the shift of "p" to "kw" before another "kw" in the same word was not done by Proto-Germanic (though it was probably done by a few other Italo-Celtic languages such as Lusitanian and Venetic). This shift is best visualized in the word for five ("Penkwe" in PIE):

Latin "quinque"
Old Irish "Cóic"
Gaulish "Pimpetos"
Welsh "Pump"

This is somewhat paradoxial because the P-Celtic languages at a later point shifted "kw" to "p". In any case, in contrast Proto-Germanic retained "p" before "kw", and shifted "p" to "f" and "k" to "h", which is why it's "fi(h)ve" in English.

The only real commonality that (Pre-)Proto-Germanic has with Italo-Celtic (other than a significant number of Celtic borrowings, which in my opinion occured later, during the contact with the Hallstatt period, see the "Celtic and Pre-Germanic" thread for that) is the fact that it is actually a Centum language. This, I think, also curiously actually fits with the R1b subclades, because U-106 diverged first from P-312.

I must also add this: I admit the term "Pre-Germanic" has confused a lot of people. More accurate would be "Proto-Germanic before the First Germanic sound shift", but that term is obviously too unwieldy.

Also, let's not forget that the Beaker Culture (the most probably source of R1b-U106, in my opinion) extended into Jutland. In any case, I kind of think Goga has a sort of a point saying that the Germanic languages are "hybrid", but he does not exactly understand the skope of that and wrongly labels the Corded Ware people as "Satem", which by that time they certainly were not. Where (in my opinion) Corded Ware influence is evident in Germanic is with metal words like "gold" and "silver", which have cognates in Balto-Slavic but not in Italo-Celtic (compare Latin "aurum" and "argentum") The critical part here is that in particular the word "Gold" is subject to the Centum/Satem split (compare Latvian "Zelts" and Russian "Zoloto").
 
Greece is a very bad example. Greeks have more R1b than R1a and they're predominately E and J2 folks. R1a is only at the 5th place in their DNA haplogroup distribution, after J2, E, R1b and I.


Exactly. It's widely accepted that the Bell-Beaker culture was a proto-Celtic one. So I think that they were predominately R1b folks. I've got this from wiki: “However Bell Beakers have now been radiocarbon dated to 2900 to 1800/1700 BC, which would make them contemporary with Corded Ware.

They moved northwards into the land of the Corded Ware culture folks, and I think that the Corded Ware culture (R1a) had links with the 'Kurgan' cultures (R1a) in the northern Caucasus area.

So Bell-Beaker folks lived at the same time as Corded Ware folks. Maybe that was the time when the admixture emerged. I think that Aryan Satem speaking tribes related to Kurgan were in Germany before the Celtic tribes, but got eventually 'replaced' by them after the proto-Celts (R1b) moved northwards.

Or maybe they met each other in Germany when one group moved into Germany from the east and other group moved into Germany from the southwest...
 
Yes, maybe they met each other in Germany when one group moved into Germany from the east (R1a) and other group moved into Germany from the southwest (R1b). And after that collision emerged a new proto-Germanic ethnicity was born!
 
It's widely accepted that the Bell-Beaker culture was a proto-Celtic one. So I think that they were predominately R1b folks. I've got this from wiki: “However Bell Beakers have now been radiocarbon dated to 2900 to 1800/1700 BC, which would make them contemporary with Corded Ware.

The wide geographic extend (into Italy and Jutland) and also the earliness of Beaker-Bell makes it very unlikely for carriers of the Proto-Celtic language, but it is a good candidate for introducing R1b in Western Europe.

Also, consider that although they coexisted in the same time, the spreading pattern of Beaker Bell and Corded Ware was not simultaneous, and Beaker-Bell arrived in southern Scandinavia about 500-1000 years after Corded Ware.
 
Your work on this is much appreciated, Maciamo. Thanks.
 
R-U106 peaks in northern Europe. Its frequency (including the R-U198 sublineage) is 36.8% in the Netherlands, 20.9% in Germany and Austria, 18.2% in Denmark, 18.2% in England, 12.6% in Switzerland, 7.5% in France, 6.1% in Ireland, 5.9% in Poland, 5.6% in north Italy 4.4% in Czech Republic and Slovakia, 3.5% in Hungary, 4.8% in Estonia, 4.3% in south Sweden, 2.5% in Spain and Portugal, 1.3% in eastern Slavs, 0.8% in south Italy, 0.6% in Balkan Slavs, 0.5% in Greeks (i.e. 2 of 193 Cretans, and no mainland Greeks), 0.4% in Turks, 0% in Middle East.

These percentages are from December 2010

 
I love this input. My Schulz R1b U 106, L 48 came from Lower Silesia in present day Poland, of course most ethnic Germans were forced out at the end of WWII, leaving me to wonder if the map would have been very different before the war? Any insight on this?
 

This thread has been viewed 132387 times.

Back
Top