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

Melancon

Banned
Messages
467
Reaction score
35
Points
0
Location
Lafayette, Louisiana
Ethnic group
Celto-Germanic (70% Cajun French - 30% English)
Y-DNA haplogroup
R1b (S21) - Nordic
mtDNA haplogroup
H (H1) - Atlantid
What was the original language group of Neolithic and Mesolithic Europeans?

Was it Vasconic:

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

Or even Uralic???:



Many here would say that they spoke their own dialects, within each cultural site. For example; (Cardium Pottery; Kongemose Culture)


However, I kind of doubt that this is true; considering all the cultures in Mesolithic Europe pretty much shared the same Y-DNA; around Europe. (I1, I2, G2a, E-V13, T.) etc. (which suggests that many of these migrant people assimilated; rather than slaughtered the indigenous people; like the Indo-Europeans did.)




What is interesting about the Basque language; as well as Uralic languages, is that their words tend to lack genders. It seems that only Indo-European languages carry gender nouns; and that this is mainly an IE thing.


It is very likely that there were many cultures who spoke different language groups- As suggested here before. But I am sure that there was an even bigger language group amongst these languages; that Europeans may have spoke, in the Mesolithic and Neolithic. Before the arrival of Indo-European dialects.


The high frequency of Haplogroup T in Estonian people and Komis (Uralic speaking peoples) may suggest to me that Uralic may have been dominant in Neolithic Europe; a few centuries before Indo-European conquest/assimilation.

It is also very possible that they spoke the extinct Tyrsenian languages:

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

What is very interesting; is that Indo-European seems to be the only language group; where the majority of it's dialects have gender nouns. Whereas in Vasconic or Uralic languages; this is virtually none existent. And I am pretty sure Tyrsenian languages did not have genders in their languages either. It seems almost exclusively relative to Indo-European.
 
It would be interesting to discover that Neolithic Europe spoke a wide array of Uralic languages. Even though this language group seemingly originated around the Ural Mountains (Urheimat) in Russia. However; this is only a hypothesis and has not been confirmed true.

It is possibly very unlikely; but if we found evidence; it would prove that there were Uralic languages in Europe long before Finnish and Hungarians migrated a few centuries after the Bronze Age. What is very interesting; is that many Uralic speakers; are of Neolithic origin on their Y-DNA paternal side; and their R1a and R1b seems to be only a recent contribution.

I am speculating that most Europeans in the Mesolithic and Neolithic; probably spoke languages Vasconic or Tyrsenian languages. It would be very exciting to discover if Uralic was spoken in Europe; far longer than the Bronze Age and Indo-European conquests.

Edit: I know I am jumping too far in my conclusions and speculations; but I have often wondered if the Tyrsenian language group (that held languages like Etruscan or Raetic) may have actually been relative to Uralic languages; or these two dialects may have been a form of Uralic dialects. (or vice versa)

It may explain why lots of Italians tend to share haplogroup T (and other Mesolithic Y-DNA like G2a) at a high frequency; with Uralic speakers of Northeast Europe. Like the Estonians and Komis:

Haplogroup-T.jpg

Italy has very unusual high frequency of Mesolithic Y-DNA. (T, E-V13 and G2a) So do the Uralic speakers. (with N1c and T.)
 
I think that pre-Neolithic Europe spoke some language Isolate, not related to today's languages. Neolithic Europe spoke Afro-Asiatic, related to proto-proto-semitic. The East Europe and North West Asia could speak proto-Indo-European during Neolithic. I would imagine that Uralic language was spoken around Urals Mountains at that time.
 
Do you know that for certain (that some of Neolithic Europe spoke Afro-Asiatic?)

It would be very interesting to see if Mesolithic Italy spoke languages from language groups that were quite bizarre; like even something as strange or outlandish as Uralic.

I am thinking the two biggest language groups of Mesolithic Europe were probably Vasconic (pre-Basque, Aquitanian etc) or Tyrsenian (pre-Etruscan, pre-Raetic etc)

I am not sure where I heard this before; but I heard about 40% of the words in the Germanic language group are of non-Indo-European origin. That seems like a big estimate; not sure if it is true. I do know that the Germanic language does have words of non-IE origin.
 
Yes!! Thanks for this. For some reason I have always thought the Tyrsenian and Uralic languages; may have had a similarity of some sort. Both of their origins seem quite mysterious; and evidently were spoken by Neolithic Europeans. Tyrsenian may have been a Western dialect of this broader language group; while Uralic may have been an Eastern dialect. The Western dialects (like Etruscan and Raetic) became extinct while the Eastern morphed into Uralic and then into Finno-Ugric. (But I am sure I am going too far right now, in my hypothesis.)
 
It will be nearly impossible to find out what Neolithic and Mesolithic Europeans spoke. The earliest form of symbols we find in Europe is in the Vinca culture and even those cannot determine a language as they are just symbols and shed no light on the phonetics of a language. If not mistaken there has also been some kind of Symbols in cave paintings but the same, they cannot determine anything about the language used.
 
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.
 
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.
But here is the issue: if Uralic languages were spoken in Europe; as far back as Central Europe or even further...then the Uralic language group obviously did not develop among the Uralic mountains, at all.

The reason I found it suspicious; and suggested that Neolithic Europeans may have spoke Uralic; is that many Uralic speaking people have Neolithic
DNA. It seems among Uralic speaking peoples; Bronze Age Y-DNA is often very small; and it is dominated by N1c. Sometimes T. The Udmurts also have a high proportion of haplogroup G at 1.5% frequency while the Maris have a frequency of 2%.

Also; most Uralic speakers also carry Bronze Age Y-DNA at a very erratic frequency. It is almost exclusively R1a. Or smaller subclades of R1b. Yet no J1 or J2 seems to be prevalent. The R1a Y-DNA suggests that this is only a recent contribution; most likely brought to Uralic population from Indo-Europeans.

Another interesting thing about the Mordovian people, a Uralic speaking peoples; is that they carry Y-DNA I1 at a 12% frequency; while supposedly developing nowhere near Nordic Europe; and all the way in Southern Russia. Only their (Nordic/Uralic speaking) Estonians and Finnish counterparts carry I1 at a higher frequency; in their Uralic population.

If we take a look at the paternal DNA of the Magyar people; it is obvious that the modern Hungarians are not a Neolithic people. They also lack a high proportion of N1c in their Y-DNA; something that is almost exclusive to Uralic speakers ... which is quite interesting and may suggest that the original Hungarian men were killed by Indo-Europeans; while the Magyar mothers taught the Hungarian/Ugric tongue to their children; instead of the Indo-European one.

My whole point being: is that Uralic seems to be a Neolithic language. While Indo-European was mainly Bronze Age. It is a wonder to me if many dialects of Uralic were spoken in Europe during the Neolithic; a few centuries before Indo-European invasion. It would partially explain why many Uralic cultures have very unusual Y-DNA patterns. Such as the unusually high frequency of Y-DNA I1 in the Mordovians; and the unusually high proportions of haplogroup T in Estonians.
 
What about I2a1b ?

More ancient Scandinavians (Skoglund, Malmström et al. 2014)

http://dienekes.blogspot.se/2014/04/...-skoglund.html

Mesolithic Swedish hunter gatherers
StoraFörvar11 aka SfF11(Male), 7,500-7,250 cal. B.P, Stora Karlso Sweden : mtDNA=U5a1

6,873 ± 119 BC, Stora Karlso Sweden : mtDNA=U4b1

Motala1(Female), 6,000BC Motala Sweden: mtDNA=U5a1

Motala2(Male), 6,000BC Motala Sweden: Y DNA=I* (I P38+, I PF3742+, I L41+, I1 S108-, I1 L845-, I1 M253-, I2a1b CT1293-, I2a2 L37-), mtDNA=U2e1

Motala3(Male) 6,000BC Motala Sweden: Y DNA=I2a1b*(I M258+, I PF3742+, I2 L68+, I2a1 P37.2+, I2a1b CTS7218+, I2a1b CTS1293+, I2a1b CTS176+, I2a1b1 M359.2-, I2a1b3 L621-), mtDNA=U5a1

Motala4(Female) 6,000BC Motala Sweden: mtDNA=U5a2d

Motala6(Male) 6,000BC Motala Sweden: Y DNA=? (Q1 L232- Q1a2a L55+), mtDNA=U5a2d

Motala9(Male) 6,000BC Motala Sweden: Y DNA=I* (I P38+, I1 P40-), mtDNA=U5a2

Motala12(Male) 6,000BC Motala Sweden: Y DNA=pre-I2a1b or brother lineage to I2a1b(I PF3742+, I M258+, I M170+, I2 L68+, I2a L460+, I2a1 P37.2+, I2a1b CTS7218+, I2a1b CTS5985+. I2a1b L178+, I2a1b CTS1293+, I2a1b CTS176+, I2a1b CTS5375-, I2a1b CTS8486-, I2a1b1 M359.2-, I2a1b3 L621-), mtDNA=U2e1

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

Neolithic Swedish hunter gatherers of the Pitted Ware culture

Ajv52A(Male), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden: mtDNA=V

Ajv59(Male), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden: mtDNA=U

Ajv53(Female), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden: mtDNA=U4d

Ajv58(Male), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden: Y DNA=I2a1-P37.2, mtDNA=U4d

Ajv70(Male), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden: mtDNA=U4d

Ire8(Male), 5,100-4,150 cal. B.P, Ire, Hangvar, Gotland Sweden: mtDNA=U4d

Ajv13(?), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden: mtDNA=U4

Ajv52b(?), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden: mtDNA=U4

Ajv66(?), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden: mtDNA=U4

Ajv54(?), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden: mtDNA=U5

Ajv36(?), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden: mtDNA=U5

Ajv5(?), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden: mtDNA=U5a

Ajv29a(?), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden: mtDNA=U5a

Fir15(?), 2800-2000 BC,Fridtorp, Västerhejde, Gotland: mtDNA=U4

Fir22(?), 2800-2000 BC,Fridtorp, Västerhejde, Gotland: mtDNA=U4

Fir4(?), 2800-2000 BC,Fridtorp, Västerhejde, Gotland: mtDNA=U5

Fir27(?), 2800-2000 BC,Fridtorp, Västerhejde, Gotland: mtDNA=U5a

Ire6b(?), 5,100-4,150 cal. B.P, Ire, Hangvar, Gotland Sweden: mtDNA=T2b

Ire9(?), 5,100-4,150 cal. B.P, Ire, Hangvar, Gotland Sweden: mtDNA=U4

Ire3(?), 5,100-4,150 cal. B.P, Ire, Hangvar, Gotland Sweden: mtDNA=U4



Neolithic Swedish Farmers of the TRB culture, Frälsegården, Gokhem Sweden


Gökhem4(Male), 5,050-4,750 cal. years B.P.: mtDNA=H

Gökhem2(Female), 5,050-4,750 cal. years B.P.: mtDNA=H1c

Gökhem7(Female), 5,050-4,750 cal. years B.P.: mtDNA=H24

Gökhem5(Female), 5,280-4,890 cal. B.P.: mtDNA=K1e

Ste7(Female), 5,280-4,890 cal. B.P.: mtDNA=T2b

Ste7(Female), 5,280-4,890 cal. B.P.: mtDNA=J

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1758-First-Mesolithic-ancient-Y-DNA-is-I*-I2-and-I2a1b*
 

Mario Alinei has also argued that Europeans are primarily descended from hunter gatherers who arrived in Europe during the Paleolithic Era and that Indo-European languages originated in Europe during the Paleolithic. One of the "authorities" cited by Alinei is Bryan Sykes, so I wouldn't take Alinei's ideas too seriously.

The Finns are over 60% N1c, with the only other major Finnish Y haplotype being I1, a fairly recent subclade of I. The three most common haplotypes among Hungarians are R1a, R1b and I2a, with I2a having been present in Hungary since early days. But the Hungarians seem to be just about the only Uralic speaking people without significant amounts of N1c. I suspect they got their language from a predominantly R1a group that learned Uralic near the Urals before migrating west to conquer Hungary.
 
However, it seems that N1c was more frequent among the ancient Hungarians compared to modern Hungarians.
(http://www2.sci.u-szeged.hu/fokozatok/PDF/Kovacsne_Csanyi_Bernadett/tezisfuzet_angol_CsanyiB.pdf)
”These data raise the question of whether the ancient Hungarians who settled in the Carpathian Basin at the end of the 9th century and spoke a Uralic language, possessed this polymorphism or not. To answer this question we attempted to screen for the Tat polymorphism in ancient DNA from skeletal remains from the (IX)-X th century. The 7 ancient samples were derived from 6 different well-documented archaeological excavations from the Carpathian Basi n, dating from the (IX)-X th century. The fact that two of seven ancient samples possessed the Tat C allele, is more than intriguing, considering that from the 197 modern Hungarian-speaking males only one had this polymorphism.

Ancient Hungarians 2/7, c. 29%
Modern Hungarians 1/197, c. 0.5%

I think that the language was transmitted by only a small number of conquerors.

In the recent paper ”Y‑SNP L1034: limited genetic link between Mansi and Hungarian‑speaking populations”, 2014, they detected a higher frequency of N1c in Seklers:
”Nevertheless, results proved that there is at least one Hungarian ethnic group, the Seklers with a non-negligible frequency of hg N-Tat (6.52 %) in Eastern Central Europe. Seklers (Hung.‘Székely’), one of the largest Hungarian-speaking populations in Transylvania with approximately 600,000 people, are settled mainly in Mures, Harghita, and Covasna counties in Central Romania. Seklers were considered the finest warriors of medieval Transylvania.”
 
I think that, originally, the Volga Hungarians had a considerable amount of yDNA N, but during their trip from Volga to the Carpathian basin they mixed heavily with Oghur Turks who probably had a lot of R1a1.

According to Wikipedia:
”The name of Hungary could be a result of regular sound changes of Ungrian/Ugrian, and the fact that the Eastern Slavs referred to Hungarians as Ǫgry/Ǫgrove (sg. Ǫgrinŭ) seemed to confirm that. Current literature favors the hypothesis that it comes from the name of the Turkic tribe Onogur (which means "ten arrows" or "ten tribes").

The Onogurs (and Bulgars) later had a great influence on the language, especially between the 5th-9th centuries. This layer of Turkic loans is large and varied (e.g. szó ‘word’, from Turkic, daru ‘crane’, from the related Permic languages), and includes words borrowed from Oghur Turkic, e.g. borjú ‘calf’ (cf. Chuvash pǝ̂ru vs. Turkish buzağı), dél ‘noon; south’ (cf. Chuvash těl vs. Turkish dial. düš). Many words related to agriculture, to state administration or even to family relations have such backgrounds.”

The Oghur, or Bulgar languages are a branch of the Turkic language family. It was historically spoken in the Hunnic Empire, Old Great Bulgaria (Magna Bulgaria/Onoguria), and later in Danube Bulgar Khanate (Danube Bulgaria) and Volga Bulgaria. Its only extant member is the Chuvash language. The modern Volga Ural Chuvash yDNA is the following:
R1a 31.6%, N1c 17.7%, N1b 10.1%, I1 11.4%, R1b 3.8%, C 1.3%, Q 0%
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707618928)
 
I think that, originally, the Volga Hungarians had a considerable amount of yDNA N, but during their trip from Volga to the Carpathian basin they mixed heavily with Oghur Turks who probably had a lot of R1a1.

According to Wikipedia:
”The name of Hungary could be a result of regular sound changes of Ungrian/Ugrian, and the fact that the Eastern Slavs referred to Hungarians as Ǫgry/Ǫgrove (sg. Ǫgrinŭ) seemed to confirm that. Current literature favors the hypothesis that it comes from the name of the Turkic tribe Onogur (which means "ten arrows" or "ten tribes").

The Onogurs (and Bulgars) later had a great influence on the language, especially between the 5th-9th centuries. This layer of Turkic loans is large and varied (e.g. szó ‘word’, from Turkic, daru ‘crane’, from the related Permic languages), and includes words borrowed from Oghur Turkic, e.g. borjú ‘calf’ (cf. Chuvash pǝ̂ru vs. Turkish buzağı), dél ‘noon; south’ (cf. Chuvash těl vs. Turkish dial. düš). Many words related to agriculture, to state administration or even to family relations have such backgrounds.”

The Oghur, or Bulgar languages are a branch of the Turkic language family. It was historically spoken in the Hunnic Empire, Old Great Bulgaria (Magna Bulgaria/Onoguria), and later in Danube Bulgar Khanate (Danube Bulgaria) and Volga Bulgaria. Its only extant member is the Chuvash language. The modern Volga Ural Chuvash yDNA is the following:
R1a 31.6%, N1c 17.7%, N1b 10.1%, I1 11.4%, R1b 3.8%, C 1.3%, Q 0%
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707618928)

I think it's quite possible that the people who introduced Hungarian to Hungary were people from the southern Urals who were predominantly R1a but ruled by an N1c elite that got thinned out by subsequent political events, including the Ottoman expansion into Hungary. And I think some of the Turkish loan words in Hungarian could be as recent as the Ottoman period, particularly those relating to state administration.
 
They could have been originally Uralic speakers that were brought to an Indo-European dialect.
In this case we should be able to recognize Uralic language substratum, pronunciations, shifts, perhaps even complete words. I'm not a linguist, I can't answer it, but perhaps others are more familiar with Lithuanian and Latvian language structure.
 
They spoke many languages belonging to several different language groups each lined to a particular tribal group each linked to a certain male genetic group...Mixing of these tribal languages produced what we today call Indoeuropean languages...This is at least what I think...
 

This thread has been viewed 47190 times.

Back
Top