What language group did Europeans speak in the Neolithic? Vasconic languages? Uralic?

[Aberdeen]

From what I know; the Hungarians are a mixture of all kinds of peoples. Not just the original Ugrics. They have possibly Scythian, Slavic, Caucasian (Avar), Germanic. Small traces of Celtic and Roman. All of these peoples were probably once enrolled in a large Ugric caste; and all the Indo-Europeans and Caucasians (for the Avars) languages were dropped in favor of the Hungarian (Uralic) one.

Yes. It seems to me that the modern Hungarians are mostly descended from Neolithic Europeans plus Indo-Europeans and other west Asians but, through a fluke of fate and as a result of political choices certain people made, they ended up speaking a Uralic language that doesn't relate to much of their ancestry.

 

[Aberdeen]

I may be defensive if that is how you want to see it, but personally I think that I am only interested in scientific research, logical thinking and getting new insights into the history and not only repeating the same old stereotypes over and over again without any supportive evidence.

I think that's the problem - you're still reacting to silly 19th century European notions about race wherein they said that Finns and other Uralic speaking people were "more primitive" because of their supposed Mongol ancestry. But that isn't at all what I'm saying. Not only is there nothing primitive about East Asians but also western Siberia seems to have been populated in the past by hunter gatherers (probably many of them N1c) who were genetically related to Europeans rather than East Asians.

 

[Aberdeen]

Good point,Kristiina.
Abedeen,I am still waiting for "Your" evidence!

https://hungarianspectrum.wordpress...ers-in-the-hungarian-population-then-and-now/

According to her this skull type shows great similarity to the "early Bulgarians who lived in Magna Hungaria, or in other words, in today's Bashkiria."

She (Erzsébet Fóthi)claims that the early Hungarian upper class's anthropological measurements show a great deal of similarity to the people of today's Bashkiria.

The evidence is to be found in Siberia among predominantly N1c people who speak various versions of Uralic languages. And to repeat, once again, the Hungarians are an example of a group of people where the link that once existed between haplotype and language has been destroyed, probably because of the downfall of the ruling elite that originally imposed the language.

 

[gyms]

The evidence is to be found in Siberia among predominantly N1c people who speak various versions of Uralic languages. And to repeat, once again, the Hungarians are an example of a group of people where the link that once existed between haplotype and language has been destroyed, probably because of the downfall of the ruling elite that originally imposed the language.

...the link that once existed...

Once again: please show me the scientific evidences.

 

[gyms]

According to the recent information and hypotheses the peoples speaking the Uralic languages have inhabited Europe for about ten millennia. Even before the Great Migration mainly the Uralic languages were spoken in Eastern and Central Europe.

http://www.suri.ee/r/index-eng.html

According to the linguist Janos Pusztay, Proto-Uralic was never one language but a Language Union or a chain of language contact.

 

[Aberdeen]

...the link that once existed...

Once again: please show me the scientific evidences.

I'm not interested in trying to open a closed mind. That's a really profitless task.

 

[gyms]

I may be defensive if that is how you want to see it, but personally I think that I am only interested in scientific research, logical thinking and getting new insights into the history and not only repeating the same old stereotypes over and over again without any supportive evidence.

To Aberdeen:

"..repeating the same old stereotypes over and over again without any supportive evidence."

"...repeating the same old stereotypes over and over again without any supportive evidence."

 

[LeBrok]

So it would make sense that these Y-DNA haplogroups may have mutated when most Out of Africa peoples were still Negroid.)

I'm sure this will got a bit more complicated in the near future. We are going to see two or three out of Africa migrations and every time from different corner of Africa. I think, in first migration we will see more "Archaic" looking people, then we will see the ones with more vertical foreheads, often called "Modern" getting into the mix. We are still not sure what part of Africa the Modern one comes from. We already know that as soon as they left Africa they have mixed with Neanderthals and Denisovans, and probably there will be one more, the one who was more of Mongoloid looking.
Then there was a very cold spell of Ace Age so people didn't move much and got separated through Eurasia for 20 thousand years. Thanks to this long separation, and separate mutations, we can distinguish 3 main groups, ANE, WHG and EEF. After Ice Age, all the Euroasiatic Homo Sapiens started mixing again, plus we have additional migration in and out of Africa.

Some time ago, the Homo Sapiens history was so much simpler. People left Africa, spread around the world, killed all the other hominids, and peacefully grew distinct in separate corners of continents, till pretty much modern times.

My point is that, before we have a clear and detailed picture of our past, things will become muddy and complicated for a while, with lots of mixing and remixing of humankind.

 

[oldeuropeanculture]

gyms, the coronation cap of Stephen is on the picture I posted. You can check in the Habsburg museum if you don't trust me.

I did say that Hungary is an example how a small but powerful minority speaking Magiar can force this language on the R1a majority speaking Slavic languges....

I Don't understand what is not clear here.

By the way you can't understand who Hungarians were without understanding who Szekelys were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Székelys

Is there any data for genetic type of this population?

 

[Melancon]

What I find very interesting about Vasconic languages (even the Iberian language) is that they are totally unrelated to Uralic languages; but they seem to share similar grammar and syntax.


Here is the old Iberian language dialect transcripts; which seems pretty related to Basque and Aquitanian:

http://www.euskararenjatorria.eu/15-HunkAngusJ.pdf

 

[gyms]

gyms, the coronation cap of Stephen is on the picture I posted. You can check in the Habsburg museum if you don't trust me.

I did say that Hungary is an example how a small but powerful minority speaking Magiar can force this language on the R1a majority speaking Slavic languges....

I Don't understand what is not clear here.

By the way you can't understand who Hungarians were without understanding who Szekelys were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Székelys

Is there any data for genetic type of this population?

I am Székely.

 

[gyms]

"The Martians" was the name of a group of prominent scientists (mostly, but not exclusively physicists and mathematicians) who emigrated from Hungary to the United States in the early half of the 20th century.^[1] They included, among others, Theodore von Kármán, John von Neumann, Paul Halmos, Eugene Wigner, Edward Teller, George Pólya, and Paul Erdős. They received the name from a fellow Martian Leó Szilárd, who jokingly suggested that Hungary was a front for aliens from Mars. (This is analogous to Enrico Fermi's answer to the question whether extraterrestrial beings exist: "Of course, they are already here among us: they just call themselves Hungarians.")


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martians_(group)

 

[Melancon]

According to the recent information and hypotheses the peoples speaking the Uralic languages have inhabited Europe for about ten millennia. Even before the Great Migration mainly the Uralic languages were spoken in Eastern and Central Europe.

http://www.suri.ee/r/index-eng.html

According to the linguist Janos Pusztay, Proto-Uralic was never one language but a Language Union or a chain of language contact.

Yes, I often wondered if Uralic was once part of a larger language group. It was probably an Eastern dialect and the only language group/dialectic of a larger language group in Europe; that was lost after the Neolithic; during the Indo-European invasion.

Mysteries of languages, such as this one; would also explain why so many East Asians (Mongoloids) look the same but speak different language groups. (i.e. Yakuts speaking Turkic, Koreans being a language isolate; Japanese speaking Japonic, Chinese speaking Sino-Tibetan - all part of the hypothetical unconfirmed Altaic language group.)


I just had a crazy idea that popped in my head one day; and I seemed to have come to a realization that Neolithic Europeans may have been Uralic or pre-Uralic speakers. It would explain why most Uralic peoples seem to share an extremely high abundance of Neolithic and Mesolithic Y-DNA rather than Bronze Age Y-DNA. The Mordvins/Mordovian peoples of Southern Russia seem to carry a high frequency of I1; despite being nowhere near Scandinavia. If DNA evidence and theory is correct; this couldn't have come from Indo-Europeans! It must mean that it originated in Scandinavia; or possibly the Mordovians migrated from there?

So how did I1 reach the Mordovians? It couldn't have come from Russians or Slavic peoples; as most of their frequencies are lower.

 

[gyms]

Yes, I often wondered if Uralic was once part of a larger language group. It was probably an Eastern dialect and the only language group/dialectic of a larger language group in Europe; that was lost after the Neolithic; during the Indo-European invasion.

Mysteries of languages, such as this one; would also explain why so many East Asians (Mongoloids) look the same but speak different language groups. (i.e. Yakuts speaking Turkic, Koreans being a language isolate; Japanese speaking Japonic, Chinese speaking Sino-Tibetan - all part of the hypothetical unconfirmed Altaic language group.)

Very interesting.

Simo Parpola (Helsinki)

In the early days of Assyriology, Sumerian was commonly believed to belong to the Ural-Altaic language phylum. This view originated with three leading Assyriologists, Edward Hincks, Henry Rawlinson and Jules Oppert, and other big names in early Assyriology such as Friedrich Delitzsch supported it (Fig. 1). The Frenchman Fran�ois Lenormant, who wrote on the subject in 1873-78, found Sumerian most closely related to Finno-Ugric, while also containing features otherwise attested only in Turkish and other Altaic languages.

http://users.cwnet.com/millenia/Sumerian-Parpola.htm

 

[MOESAN]

The presence of apparently native terms for agriculture and metallurgy in Basque is a good argument for Vasconic being a metal-age introduction to Europe, as opposed to the early Neolithic, much less the Mesolithic. I'm not sure about Tyrsenian or any arguments about how early Uralic and Afro-Asiatic are in Europe, but I'd be curious to hear from anyone more well read on those.

I'm rather, spite it was conterintuitive to me at first, for a late enough arrival of proto-Vasconians (same as Aquitanians?) there -
but we cannot completely exclude possible loans done by Vasconians to a later arrived more evolved ethny not colonizing them but only merging them and passing them these sort of skills and knowledges? an ethny from Eastern Mediterranea (Iberes? Proto-Helladics ?...)

 

[MOESAN]

Lithuanians have almost as much R1a as N1c, so it could have been a situation where two groups mixed, with the members of one group being IE speakers and the members of the other group being Uralic speakers and by whatever chance of fate the IE speakers were able to impose their language. Estonians are also a fairly equal mixture of R1a and N1c but speak a Uralic language, so I guess in their case the Uralic faction became dominant for whatever reason.

things are sometime a bit complicated but here we can see Estonia "backed" by Finnland, Veps and others, and the Baltic lands "backed" by a HUGE sea of I-Ean speakers (first genuine Balts + Slavs) ???

 

[MOESAN]

gyms, Hungarians were majority Slavic speaking until the 17th century when the forced Magiarization started. There are documents in which Magiar nobles are complaing that no one speaks Magiar language. There are actually no old documents written in Magiar, only in Slavic, German and Latin. Even the coronation cap of the St Stephen of Hungary has text embroidered in Church Slavonic. Why?

Hungarians are not an example of how language and genes are not related. They are an example of how a powerful minority can force a language on a majority....Another example is forcing of the English language on the Irish...

R1a population is directly linked to Indo Arian languages...

interesting; it's true I find overall Y-DNA of today Hungary seems very more central Europe Slav (so some Neolithic + a bit of other I-Eans heritages) than everything else - the finnic-ugric group of languages appears very heterogenous, compared to I-Eans groups, at my level (low) of knowledge - but it's true Magyars found so numerous tribes on their way westwards... inSeteppes I can suppose their language survived because it serves to ciment?

 

[gyms]

gyms, Hungarians were majority Slavic speaking until the 17th century when the forced Magiarization started.

What are you talking about?!Would you like to present som document supporting this myth?

 

[gyms]

Old Church Slavonic was the main language used for administrative (until the 16th century) and liturgical purposes (until the 17th century) by the Romanian principalities, being still occasionally used in the Orthodox Church until the early 18th Century.

After the Slavic migrations, Slavonic became the liturgical language of the Eastern Orthodox Church in present-day Romania, under the influence of the South Slavic feudal states. The exact timing of this change happened is not known, but it was probably in the 10th century.^[3] While the language was not understood by most Romanians, it was a language known by the bishops, the monks, some of the priests, the clerks, the merchants, the boyars and the Prince.^[4]
Old Church Slavonic was also used as a literary language, for example in chronicles, story-books, law codexes (known as pravila), property documents (hrisov), decrees of the voivodes or boyars, diplomatic correspondence and sometimes even in private letters.^[5] It also led to an integration of the written Romanian culture into the Slavic culture of the neighbours.^[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Church_Slavonic_in_Romania

Hungary is not Romania!

 

[Ike]

@gyms So, what was the lanaguge of Hungarians in 10th century? Here it says:

"The oldest rune-shaped inscription in Hungary dates from the 9th and 10th centuries CE, but these earliest texts are poorly understood and maybe even not in the Hungarian language but perhaps in an unidentified Turkic dialect."

http://www.ancientscripts.com/old_hungarian.html