Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
As I have explained in my R1b history, between 2500 and 1800 BCE Western Europe was invaded by Bronze-age Indo-European speakers carrying mostly the R1b paternal lineage.
...it's necessary to take into account also that there was a R1b1 man inhumated inside an early cardial cave in the high Pyrenees (Els Trocs)...
Sums it up pretty well, such explanations can not satisfy. Conquerors humping a hundred local women each, and then don't care about their offsprings is just too hilarious to be true. Not to mention that they had to slaughter almost completely the male population of the indigenous people, for which I see no evidence, especially if we cannot see such harsh breaks in the culture at the arrival of the newcomers. The R1b-cowboys seemed to be far less aggressive compared to their eastern brothers of the east-european forrest plains.all your writings dont explain why owere basques speaking ...
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com.es/2017_02_01_archive.html?m=1
A post from blogger Maju about the Basque / DF27 issue. I agree mainly except for the area of formation. The Gascon-French side of the clade can be explained by the expanding Wascones in the sixth century.
For those thinking that their R1b is debt by IE just is worth to look how Basques have 70% DF27 and their Cantabric neighbours (also in mountain isolated areas but allways Indoeuropean as Celtic or Latin) drop to 42%.
I think there is overwhelming evidence that all R1-people were Indoeuropean speakers from the beginning. Wherever they went, you find the traces of IE languages throughout the whole Eurasian continent. There is no need to twist ones mind to justify a different thesis....why some western tribes of Y-R1b from somewhere in Western Steppes (rather than Anatolia) would not have reached western Europe without IE language when their relatives stayed in East has been lately indo-europeanized somewhere in Eastern Europe / Western Steppes ? - some tribes were in contact in the Steppes, with DNA exchanges I think, and some stayed finno-ugric when others spoke IEan and maybe others farther East some kind of turkic - not to say a language change is done in a short time what I don't believe at all.
I think there is overwhelming evidence that all R1-people were Indoeuropean speakers from the beginning. Wherever they went, you find the traces of IE languages throughout the whole Eurasian continent. There is no need to twist ones mind to justify a different thesis.
Then my question:It's one thing to say that the European clades of R1b & R1a were involved in the spread of Indo-European languages, but it's simply impossible that R1 was Indo-European speaking from the beginning.
Then my question:
Which known R1-folk(s) did NOT speak an IE language from the beginning of their existence? (Evidence required!)
I see that my use of the term 'R1-people' lacks precision. Let me list an hierarchical order: person->family->clan->tribe->people (or folk if you like). Hunter-gatherer groups of the glacial times are in my view no peoples at all. They are at best several clans together. As for the language: I would rather call itheir communication 'clan-speak' than language. I can't imagine that a language, which is understood by all members of the folk, can develop if there is not a certain degree of social organisation over a wider area, with meeting centers for exchange of experience, trade, common projects etc. So the time frame I'm thinking here is less than 10.000 years BP, maybe even considerably less. In that context I can't see that we have R1a or R1b peoples who certainly did not speak an IE/protoIE or pre-protoIE language apart for the enigmatic African example and some side clades for which we don't have cultural evidence of their existenceas a defined people.That's not the real problem with the R1 = Indo-European equation though. It's the 15,000+ year gaps between the emergence of R1 and the breakup of PIE.
Your results are quite different than that of Genetiker... someone might fail, or both.
Your Russian R1b are still in the steppes. They didn't change address.
I see that my use of the term 'R1-people' lacks precision. Let me list an hierarchical order: person->family->clan->tribe->people (or folk if you like). Hunter-gatherer groups of the glacial times are in my view no peoples at all. They are at best several clans together. As for the language: I would rather call itheir communication 'clan-speak' than language. I can't imagine that a language, which is understood by all members of the folk, can develop if there is not a certain degree of social organisation over a wider area, with meeting centers for exchange of experience, trade, common projects etc. So the time frame I'm thinking here is less than 10.000 years BP, maybe even considerably less. In that context I can't see that we have R1a or R1b peoples who certainly did not speak an IE/protoIE or pre-protoIE language apart for the enigmatic African example and some side clades for which we don't have cultural evidence of their existenceas a defined people.
I don't have this conflict, simply because I do not believe the consensus of the linguists, that there was only one principal proto-IE language. My thinking is lazy and simple, so I dislike a top down proto language, which can't even produce a proper tree; can't answer the pre-Big Bang question; gets a ridiculous accumulation of linguistic components (and therefore is almost impossible to learn),when converged back in time; and only tongue acrobats can form even simple sentences out of these hmpf-grmbl-mrks PIE constructs; and has no explanation why some base vocabulary is almost strictly conserved and others is not, without any understandable pattern; and best of all needs to dig Missis Gimbutas out of her grave, shove her in a time-capsule and send her to the folks, which separated before the building of the protoIE language (but today speak IE despite their great separation to the other IE-speakers), throw an IE-dictionary onto them and tell them "From now on you speak IE! Basta!"A scenario in which PIE emerges from a mixed group of R1b and R1a I consider rather unlikely, because it would require two sharply differentiated haplogroups to meet and stay put in one place only to become neatly seperated again after expansion. Assimilation requires fewer coincidences and has a stronger explanatory power with regards to Y-DNA patterns observed today. The hypothetical pre-Proto-IE clade need not necessarily have been very successful in this case.
This thread has been viewed 258299 times.