Question about R1b and IE languages in Iberia

D

Degredado

Regular Member
Messages
136
Reaction score
29
Points
28
Everyone knows there is a fairly logical correlation between R1b-M269 and Indo-European languages in Western Europe. However, looking at linguistic maps of pre-Roman Iberia, and comparing them to current haplogroup distribution maps, one can't help noticing that the entire eastern Iberia and the Pyrenees, areas where non-EU languages were spoken (Iberian, Aquitanian/Proto-Basque), have an overwhelming presence of R1b (80-85%), whereas the West of the peninsula, which was an IE stronghold (Lusitanian & various Celtic languages), has a considerably lower rate of R1b (50-60%).

What could explain this? What went "wrong" in Iberia, in regards to the "R-M269 = IE" equation?

I know it has been proposed that the Basques, as the one exception to the general rule in Europe, were originally IE R1b's whose kids learned their mothers's native language, but is it reasonable to assume that this process happened in such a larger scale, in about 1/3 of Iberia + SW France? Confusing...:unsure:
 
Degredado said:
Everyone knows there is a fairly logical correlation between R1b-M269 and Indo-European languages in Western Europe. However, looking at linguistic maps of pre-Roman Iberia, and comparing them to current haplogroup distribution maps, one can't help noticing that the entire eastern Iberia and the Pyrenees, areas where non-EU languages were spoken (Iberian, Aquitanian/Proto-Basque), have an overwhelming presence of R1b (80-85%), whereas the West of the peninsula, which was an IE stronghold (Lusitanian & various Celtic languages), has a considerably lower rate of R1b (50-60%).

What could explain this? What went "wrong" in Iberia, in regards to the "R-M269 = IE" equation?

I know it has been proposed that the Basques, as the one exception to the general rule in Europe, were originally IE R1b's whose kids learned their mothers's native language, but is it reasonable to assume that this process happened in such a larger scale, in about 1/3 of Iberia + SW France? Confusing...:unsure:
Click to expand...
Great topic, ive also had a problem with this mother theory you speak of, it seems to all encompassing to be true, and considering that Basques have very similar Mtdna to other Western Europeans it just seems like story telling if anything else.
I have been researching studies on R1b, and my opinion on it being completely the result of the indo europeans has changed. I cant say for sure why its so prevelent, but I think the answer is more complex than most on this site would like to believe. Here is a recent study on R1b that says its the result of either a Neolithic or Holocene founder effect.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc3039512/#bib7
 
what is more confusing is that those areas that have old non-IE languages (basque, iberian etc), also have some of the newest R1b subgroups.
 
Anthro-inclined said:
Great topic, ive also had a problem with this mother theory you speak of, it seems to all encompassing to be true, and considering that Basques have very similar Mtdna to other Western Europeans it just seems like story telling if anything else.
I have been researching studies on R1b, and my opinion on it being completely the result of the indo europeans has changed. I cant say for sure why its so prevelent, but I think the answer is more complex than most on this site would like to believe. Here is a recent study on R1b that says its the result of either a Neolithic or Holocene founder effect.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc3039512/#bib7
Click to expand...

Interesting. I must say though that I think the theory of the Neolithic near-eastern expansion of R1b into Europe also seems a bit unconvincing, given that R1b just doesn't have that strong of a presence in most of the near east (a giant J2 founder effect from the near east, for instance, would appear more likely - of course, based on modern haplogroup data).

As a matter of fact, it seems every R1b theory has a gigantic hole in it.
 
The phylogenetic maps in the paper make central asia look like the most likely source of R1b, because all ancestors of european R1b can be found there (L23, M269). Even anatolian R1b seems younger in that figure 1 a) and does not actually look important. From the maps, IE-steppe-dispersal seems to fit best, especially M269 is still present in all these places, central asia - ukraine - western europe.
 
Degredado said:
Interesting. I must say though that I think the theory of the Neolithic near-eastern expansion of R1b into Europe also seems a bit unconvincing, given that R1b just doesn't have that strong of a presence in most of the near east (a giant J2 founder effect from the near east, for instance, would appear more likely - of course, based on modern haplogroup data).

As a matter of fact, it seems every R1b theory has a gigantic hole in it.
Click to expand...
Isnt it the truth. I think R1b is a mystery that will take a very long time to be solved. Im in the same boat as you, I cant think of one theory that seems plausible they all have their faults.
.
 
It's a slippery slope when you start comparing linguistics and culture to haplogroups. Mallory in a lecture brought up his skeptisim about DNA research and connecting it to any type of culture. He mentioned the Hungarian study where modern Hungarians were matched to an older population of Hungarian cemiteries (maybe 1000 to 1500 years old, I can't remember). The ancient population that brought the Uralic language and culture was not the same as the modern population who's culture is rooted with the ancient Hungarians. For me personally, this answers the Basque and Iberian R1b issue. The R1b people assumed and took over an ancient Basque substrata. The question is why did they give up their indo-European roots for Basque roots?

...this is assuming Basque is indigenous culture in Iberia, and wasn't part of a Kartvelian cultural group. Some have suggested an original homeland in the Caucasus for the Basque, which would explain their R1b.
 
ebAmerican said:
...this is assuming Basque is indigenous culture in Iberia, and wasn't part of a Kartvelian cultural group. Some have suggested an original homeland in the Caucasus for the Basque, which would explain their R1b.
Click to expand...
R1b isnt frequent in the Caucasus at all, what do you mean by this. I've also heard of the Kartvelian connection, but it was mostly based off the fact that there was a kingdom of Iberia in the Caucasus, and not really much linguistic evidence.
 
kamani said:
what is more confusing is that those areas that have old non-IE languages (basque, iberian etc), also have some of the newest R1b subgroups.
Click to expand...


Anthro-inclined said:
Isnt it the truth. I think R1b is a mystery that will take a very long time to be solved. Im in the same boat as you, I cant think of one theory that seems plausible they all have their faults.
.
Click to expand...

Yep... each of the main theories regarding the origins of R1b in Europe has a nearly insurmountable flaw to it.

Paleolithic continuity - The further west you go in Eurasia, the younger the R1b subclades, and vice-versa.

Bronze Age IE invasion - Why would so many P312 men, from Southern France down to the Strait of Gibraltar, holding conquerors' status, willingly give up teaching their language to their sons (and imposing it to the local women)? Sure, this phenomenon could possibly happen as a token exception to the general rule, in very isolated pockets, but what could explain it happening in such a widespread manner?

Neolithic Near-Eastern expansion - Where is the R1b in the Near East, except for Armenia (where in fact only about one third of the men are R1b) and Turkey (where I believe most of the R1b is U152, from Romans and Galatians) ? Sure, it's present at 5% - 10% rates elsewhere, but that's nowhere enough to explain peaks of 90% R1b in Western Europe (with a virtual absence of J2, G2a, E, etc), is it?
 
Or maybe simply not all R1b bronze-age invaders spoke IE? Why should they necessarily all have spoken the same language in their Urheimat. Basque language is isolated even in Iberia.
And the suspected eastern R1b source areas certainly were flooded several times by yet other lineages meanwhile, so frequencies should be again not overweighted.
 
ElHorsto said:
Or maybe simply not all R1b bronze-age invaders spoke IE? Why should they necessarily all have spoken the same language in their Urheimat. Basque language is isolated even in Iberia.
And the suspected eastern R1b source areas certainly were flooded several times by yet other lineages meanwhile, so frequencies should be again not overweighted.
Click to expand...


Fair enough. But then again, aren't "Basque" R1b and "Celtic" R1b too similar in terms of SNP's (they're all P312, with about 20% of Basque R1b being L21) and too close chronologically, for these groups to develop two language families that are as related as Arabic and Cherokee?

I do think the IE scenario makes more sense than the others, I'd just like to understand what happened in eastern Iberia and SW France. The idea that the majority of R1b's in Iberia were some sort of "absent fathers" who neglected their kids' upbringing and left it to the sole responsibility of conquered women just doesn't ring true to me.
 
Last edited:
Degredado said:
Fair enough. But then again, aren't "Basque" R1b and "Celtic" R1b too similar in terms of SNP's (they're all P312, with about 20% of Basque R1b being L21) and too close chronologically, for these groups to develop two language families that are as related as Arabic and Cherokee?
Click to expand...

That's true.

I do think the IE scenario makes more sense than the others, I'd just like to understand what happened in eastern Iberia and SW France. The idea that the majority of R1b's in Iberia were some sort of "absent fathers" who neglected their kids' upbringing and left it to the sole responsibility of conquered women just don't ring true to me.
Click to expand...

Hmm..or maybe there was a reconquista, deliberately eradicating all IE traces afterwards. It would be interesting to know the basque population size at that time, maybe they were a few clans only originally. I've read basques are still somehow uniquely inbred today and still very conservative to accept foreigners (I'm personally not sure if that is true though). What if their intependence tendency today is an old culturally inherited conciousness from that time. Their contrasting matriarchality today could also be a sign of opposition.
Just wild guesses in the late evening...sorry if there is some nonsense
 
Anthro-inclined said:
R1b isnt frequent in the Caucasus at all, what do you mean by this. I've also heard of the Kartvelian connection, but it was mostly based off the fact that there was a kingdom of Iberia in the Caucasus, and not really much linguistic evidence.
Click to expand...

You are stuck on modern distributions of haplogroups. The Hittites were an R1b people, believed to be descended from the Yamna culture through the destruction of the Maykop culture. If we could get more ancient DNA samples I think you would see a larger R1b population in Anatolia and the Caucasus. The Kartvelian was a swing in the dark, but it looks like a theory much disproved. The Basque truly are a mystery.
 
I cannot stress how much I do not believe the Hittites of hattusa (Hattushash pronounced) where NOT Germanic R1b men. Their empire stretched Anatolia to Armenia, encompassing Lebanon and Syria to the south. During their golden age, they clashed with the haplogroup E men of the Egyptian empire. These proto-ANATOLIANS where heavy in J2 , I would even say J2a ( J-M410) more specifically. The biblical Togarmah ( Armenians) Tubal/Tibarenoi and Meschech including kartvelians, where all later offshoots of the crumbled Hittites including Lydians, Lydians, Carians and the Javan that eventually moved into Europe to Crete parts of Greece, Rhodes and Cyprus heavily and parts of Italy, all at later/different migrations and time periods during which they where probably no longer referred to as the names above, instead as pelasgian a and such sea people's.
 
These "Javan" men that where high in J2 would eventually turn into Ionian Greeks that where barbarian pelasgian a and not "Hellenic" Greeks such as the Dorians where. Achaeans where also pelasgians, or middle eastern migrants turned sea people's of the Mediterranean east. They where the original Minoan and Mycenaean Greeks and where greatly reduced by later Dorian invasions and not volcanoes or environmental catastrophies, a Hellenic continental European people's that where probably R1b Germanic. The first Achaeans, for example where centred on Cyprus, from they had originally arrived from the Middle East, legacy of these Mesopotamian J2 men. Subsequently, they migrated to Greece where they set up successful colonies in their self-named land, Achaea. from there they colonized much of the eastern coast of Calabria but where expelled from Achaea by Dorian invaders....we must not forget though, that the Achaeans had expelled their Ionian brethren from Achaea even before, forcing the latter to establish themselves on the eastern coast of Asia Minor. Some of these people's moved to places such as Crete where their Mesopotamian blood thrived. For example, there is a region in ancient Italy named Iapygia, which corresponds to modern day apulia, in its entirety. The iapygians, in their three divisions ( messapi, peucetti and dauni) where said to derive from their hero, Iapyx, who found his origins in ancient times on the island of Crete. It is also noted in the date of founding of many iapygians cities that they where originally men from Crete who left in great numbers with their wives and children to conquer a fraction of Sicily from the Celtic sicani. They took all they had with them on their journey as a reminder that they MUST at all costs win the war. They where defeated and thrown off Sicily and back to the sea. The seas where rough and on their way ack to Crete, as they had no choice at this point, became shipwrecked off the western coast of apulia. Having not the means to return to Crete, they began a new life in apulia under the name of iapygians. Thus they where Cretans, and by longer extension, middle easterners as the men to settle Crete where also. Another side note is the Lydians. They may not have originally been positioned in Anatolia, for their neighbours to the south, the cArians and lycians, had Lon before set foot on Rhodes and island-hopped to Crete where they stayed, possibly for thousands of years, before returning to Anatolia. Still middle-easterners? Yes, because these original lycians and Carians went to Crete via the Middle East anyways, but their obvious middle easterners ties where lost due to their movement so as that for the average person analyzing it is difficult to see that very long ago they where akin to Hittites, speaking the same Luwian tongue before receiving indo-European linguistic influence, the Lydians are of the same kin, middle easterners through and through, even though their neighbours may have populated European only middle eastern bastion (Crete) at some time or another, considering the cultural similarities between these three people's. the tyrrhenians of Etruria, where of the same stock. These people's are and where all similar to mesopotamians, Urartians, probably the Sumerians, etc. and by extension, modern day Turks, Armenians, Georgians, Iraqis Lebanese, north eastern Iranians and as we can see certain modern day Greeks, Italians, Cypriots etc.
 
Last edited:
with the new findings recently, that Bell Beakers where iberian and pushed into central europe, the next question asked by scholars , is R1b a product of Iberia and IF so was it indo-european when it started out from Iberia
 
Zanipolo maks an excellent point, I also believe to a certain point Iberia is the point of origin of R1b, and I1a....and mtdna H and mtdna V, this is where they waited out the LGM, and must have subsequently spread to the rest of Europe via Iberia, which is why Ireland, Spain, England, France are highest in R1b also S-116 (P-312) is oldest as the father of both L-21 and U-152, they all originated in Iberia and then spread from there whereas R1a stayed in Ukraine on the outer limits of Eastern Europe from where it later moved into Central Europe much later. A possibility is that I2 waited out the LGM in the Balkans refuge whereas I1a waited it out in Iberia and then climbed from Spain through France to Germany where one branch divided went to England and the other branch proceeded through Denmark to Scandinavia.
 
adamo said:
Zanipolo maks an excellent point, I also believe to a certain point Iberia is the point of origin of R1b, and I1a....and mtdna H and mtdna V, this is where they waited out the LGM, and must have subsequently spread to the rest of Europe via Iberia, which is why Ireland, Spain, England, France are highest in R1b also S-116 (P-312) is oldest as the father of both L-21 and U-152, they all originated in Iberia and then spread from there whereas R1a stayed in Ukraine on the outer limits of Eastern Europe from where it later moved into Central Europe much later. A possibility is that I2 waited out the LGM in the Balkans refuge whereas I1a waited it out in Iberia and then climbed from Spain through France to Germany where one branch divided went to England and the other branch proceeded through Denmark to Scandinavia.
Click to expand...


Hasn't this hypothesis been largely abandoned by now? Considering the oldest R1b clades are found almost exclusively in West Asia, and the youngest, in Western Europe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 47620 times.

Back
Top