What's the relationship between cultures, language families, and Y-dna

@Aspurg: But don't you think the AA root was dominated by E1b? We have the African branches with the Berber and Kushitic languages and they seem to be so clearly dominated by E1b that its hard to imagine another source. I'm not even sure about E coming from North Eastern Africa, though if it does, its Egypt, but that it could have come up in the Near East. What's your stance on that?
 
@Aspurg: But don't you think the AA root was dominated by E1b? We have the African branches with the Berber and Kushitic languages and they seem to be so clearly dominated by E1b that its hard to imagine another source. I'm not even sure about E coming from North Eastern Africa, though if it does, its Egypt, but that it could have come up in the Near East. What's your stance on that?

Indeed E1b1b, I mentioned proto-Semitic specifically.

For Native Americans it's the Q-M1107, yet the proto-Turkic is the most interesting case, likely candidate Q-L715 (proto-Hunnic), there are some other clades that are very distant, but might have been present in the same areal. Q-L715 is generally rare today. Q-L330 might fit too but they are very distant to each other, so similar to R1a/R1b someone was "assimilated".

I don't think R1a is the original PIE, R-PF7562 if it's Anatolian, then it is the R1b. Anatolian is the earliest branch off on the IE tree. But again in any case both R1a and R1b where part of the PIE Sphere..
 
I think R1b and R1a was present in many forager tribes of Eastern Europe long before PIE came up. So I think the clear dominance of an R1a clade here and a R1b clade there in later IE groups was the result of splits and drift, of quickly expanding clans branching off from the original PIE community already. If they will test more North Pontic samples from the late Mesolithic to early Neolithic, the most likely PIE candidates will contain R1b and R1a.
On the other hand there will be both R1b and R1a foragers in Eastern Europe which won't be closely related to these PIE, but being much older local hunter gatherer branches which were replaced during the steppe expansions.
 
Indeed E1b1b, I mentioned proto-Semitic specifically.

For Native Americans it's the Q-M1107, yet the proto-Turkic is the most interesting case, likely candidate Q-L715 (proto-Hunnic), there are some other clades that are very distant, but might have been present in the same areal. Q-L715 is generally rare today. Q-L330 might fit too but they are very distant to each other, so similar to R1a/R1b someone was "assimilated".

I don't think R1a is the original PIE, R-PF7562 if it's Anatolian, then it is the R1b. Anatolian is the earliest branch off on the IE tree. But again in any case both R1a and R1b where part of the PIE Sphere..

Original languages of R1a and R1b are kin? Those Y DNA descent from R1 and Their languages descent from language of R1?
 
Original languages of R1a and R1b are kin? Those Y DNA descent from R1 and Their languages descent from language of R1?

There were forager cultures dominated by R1b and R1a, with occasional J and I thrown in, from the White Sea to the Black Sea. That doesn't mean they spoke all the same languages, but the fairly large North Pontic hunter fisher cultures along the rivers are unlikely to have been exclusively R1b or R1a and its from these that the PIE portion of the foragers, which dominated the male lineages, came.
 
Last edited:
Whats up with the people quoting R1, O2, yet for E never a number is added. Due to its age the only appropriate thing is to use E1b1b etc. O2 formed 28100 years ago, R1 formed 28200 years ago, E formed 65k years ago, E1b1b separated from the Bantu E1b1a 41200 years ago, far earlier than either O2 or R1 were formed.. As for you suggesting J1 is "proto-Afro Asiatic"... J1-P58 spread primarily with the Proto-Semitic speakers. Older clades of J1 have nothing to do with the AA. Yet J-P58 is more AA in terms of numbers than any E-M35 branch. They played alot more role in spreading the proto-Semitic.

great post (y)
this is something that many people have hard time to understand ( or they don't want to ):unsure:
 
There were forager cultures dominated by R1b and R1a, with occasional J and I thrown in, from the White Sea to the Black Sea. That doesn't mean they spoke all the same languages, but the fairly large North Pontic hunter fisher cultures along the rivers are unlikely to have been exclusively R1b or R1a and its from these that the PIE portion of the foragers, which dominated the male lineages, came.

Not same language but related languages? Because those Y DNA (R1a,R1b) descent from same Y DNA (R1).

I think that in the beginning R1a and R1b spoke kin languages and they mixed with each other create PIE?
 
J1-J2 is CHG. they moved south and join the creating Afro-Asiatic languages which is mostly semitic branch.
 
Not same language but related languages? Because those Y DNA (R1a,R1b) descent from same Y DNA (R1).

I think that in the beginning R1a and R1b spoke kin languages and they mixed with each other create PIE?

R1a is the younger group and expanded quite rapidly from a small base. I think they were together since R1a came into existence and it was pure chance whether this or that group got dominant here or there.
 
I think that original R1a and original R1b languages are kin? I think mistake?
 
Whats up with the people quoting R1, O2, yet for E never a number is added. Due to its age the only appropriate thing is to use E1b1b etc. O2 formed 28100 years ago, R1 formed 28200 years ago, E formed 65k years ago, E1b1b separated from the Bantu E1b1a 41200 years ago, far earlier than either O2 or R1 were formed.. As for you suggesting J1 is "proto-Afro Asiatic"... J1-P58 spread primarily with the Proto-Semitic speakers. Older clades of J1 have nothing to do with the AA. Yet J-P58 is more AA in terms of numbers than any E-M35 branch. They played alot more role in spreading the proto-Semitic.

What number should be added to E for Basal Eurasians who lived somewhere without Neanderthals 54-49 kya whilst other non-Africans were interbreeding with Neanderthals?

My speculative hypothesis is that a language uniquely ancestral to proto-Niger-Congo may have separated from the languages ancestral to other language families (such as proto-Khoisan) as long ago as 65 kya when E formed. When I listed languages such as Niger-Congo and Afro-Asiatic it was shorthand for "language uniquely ancestral to proto-".

Another hypothesis is that the language uniquely ancestral to proto-Afro-Asiatic formed as long ago as 50 kya with J1. This language would have had other descendant branches, but I'm assuming those other branches went extinct through language replacement between 50 and 10 kya, leaving Afro-Asiatic as the only survivor because it was allied with neolithic and post-neolithic expansion.
 
I think proto-language which was spoken by R1 people, is very old formation Proto-Indo-European language.
Such as Proto-Proto-Proto-Proto-Indo-European. This language branch off and its variation is Proto-Indo-European.
 

This thread has been viewed 15221 times.

Back
Top