Two Ancient Iberia DNA Papers with articles.

-- The Basque language usually does not have the sound f so the Romanized Basques pronounced the Latin words without that sound which gave origin to the basic and structural vocabulary of the Spanish continuing without that sound, this persistent phonetic limitation is characteristic of the tongues of the hunter gatherer populations. It may be a coincidence but if the other candidate languages for the European Neolithic have this phoneme is a point in favor of which at least this characteristic is inherited from the languages previous to the Neolithic.
--- Although I know that Mr. Sobrinho Simões is a great "goofy" (in addition to being an extraordinary pathologist) I go back to the Douro / Duero River as a genetic frontier: Heir of immemorial times the northern border of the territory of the Lusitanos and its associates was the final stretch of this river and so it continued when it became part of a province of the Roman empire whose administrative (provincial) boundaries continued to be used even in the time of the Arab empire, until they became stronger due to medieval fragmentation. At the beginning of the Christian reconquest the urban populations of this region (including the city of Oporto) due to this being no man's land nearly disappeared for more than a century while the more primitive and quasi-tribal root populations flourished free of the yoke of the cities. With the final Christian victory the administration and the urban populations return coming partly from the north but the rural populations continued to be the same of always although the dialect of the north will prevail. The coastlines are usually a genetic community, as such this border will not be seen near the mouth of the river for the rest it seems to me that Mr. Sobrinho Simões struck the pick in the row.
 
yesterday i look closely on https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6436108/

than i look in the supplementary table S1
list of mtdna found in remains in the study


and i was surprised to see my mtdna h3ap in the list
but not that surprised because i knew my mtdna came originally from iberia and spread to other parts
of europe from there so it should be older in iberia than anywhere else in europe { poland, england for example)

i1840 basque late bronze age 1600-1400 bc cool :)

i7458 andalucia granada 1100-1300 ad
muslim by faith but not morisco autosomally apperntly

i7688 iron age portugal coimbra 1200-700bc cool :)


p.s
by the way petreski tomenoble from the same table s1
i12034 girona 500-600 ce carry mtdna w6a like you this is a visogoth lady (y)
 
Last edited:
-- The Basque language usually does not have the sound f so the Romanized Basques pronounced the Latin words without that sound which gave origin to the basic and structural vocabulary of the Spanish continuing without that sound, this persistent phonetic limitation is characteristic of the tongues of the hunter gatherer populations. It may be a coincidence but if the other candidate languages for the European Neolithic have this phoneme is a point in favor of which at least this characteristic is inherited from the languages previous to the Neolithic.
--- Although I know that Mr. Sobrinho Simões is a great "goofy" (in addition to being an extraordinary pathologist) I go back to the Douro / Duero River as a genetic frontier: Heir of immemorial times the northern border of the territory of the Lusitanos and its associates was the final stretch of this river and so it continued when it became part of a province of the Roman empire whose administrative (provincial) boundaries continued to be used even in the time of the Arab empire, until they became stronger due to medieval fragmentation. At the beginning of the Christian reconquest the urban populations of this region (including the city of Oporto) due to this being no man's land nearly disappeared for more than a century while the more primitive and quasi-tribal root populations flourished free of the yoke of the cities. With the final Christian victory the administration and the urban populations return coming partly from the north but the rural populations continued to be the same of always although the dialect of the north will prevail. The coastlines are usually a genetic community, as such this border will not be seen near the mouth of the river for the rest it seems to me that Mr. Sobrinho Simões struck the pick in the row.

OK for Basques and /f/ -> /h/ (before disappearing in the most of the regions where castillan language was spred into) - but what authorizes you to say " this persistent phonetic limitation is characteristic of the tongues of the hunter gatherer populations " ? Maybe you have some clues about supposed resudual marks of preneolithical and neolithical languages in Europe? I know this very question is a bit out of topic but... THanks beforejand f you have some stuff.
 
sorry for my erratic typing!
 
My typing may also be too correct!
Look for "absence of the sound" f "and the sound" v "in the languages ​​of the hunter-gatherers" on the internet.
I have no clues about supposed residual marks of pre-neolithic and neolithic languages ​​in Europe but I can think about it.
The nomadism of the moinantes is an indicator that they are anything radically different from us (sedentary) which should give priority to the investigation of their genetics. Even if they are a population that reverted to nomadism, genetics can say when we separated, the black plague was favorable to the nomadic groups (it was when the gypsies entered the europe) because the major infectious foci were the cities and the smell of horses removed the plague-carrying fleas, the Islamic invasion can also be invoked as well as the wandering bands of deserters of the last Roman legions (who had no other way of rejecting the usurper) or an aggregate from various sources. It seems to me that here the scientific truth has been conditioned by the alienation of our society from these populations.
As for the Douro river line as a genetic frontier, castro culture also flourished mainly north of this (once again the exception is the coast) as well as the Suevi (around the big cities) despite some warlike adventures in the south (and not only ) that they administered from Braga thus contributing to the dissemination of the dialect of the north (Galician Latin) south of the river. Other more diffuse factors may favor this thesis, only after a more focused study can one see how much it has diluted and altered.
I can not always have time to respond.
 
The non-Mediterranean European coast (where the Basque country is located) was the European region that resisted neolitization until later. In fact, fishermen (and shellfish farmers) continue to live by catching wild animals although they can live, trade, work and even integrate the armies of non-hunter gatherers, also the ones we consider to be truly hunter gatherers do it (in the last Portuguese colonial war the Bushmen were great soldiers and their women prostitutes). The Basques are a strongly fishing people, they already fished on the north coast of Canada around the 1500s and the Basque beyond the absence of the letter f has other archaic features like having only 5 vowels. As practically all early European farmers were from a very restricted region and genetically cohesive they should speak only one language, so while discounting the drift of millennia. The Etruscan (candidate language for Neolithic) have the sound f advocates for the absence of this sound in Basque be of previous origin. In any language in the world, the agricultural vocabulary and all other semantic fields in general should have much more the sound f then the words related to fishing , sea and perhaps to a lesser extent those related to navigation . Words related to fishing and the like, in Germanic are considered to originate from the northern European coast, especially Denmark, prior to the arrival of the Indo-European. The corresponding Basque words may be similar if they are just the southern variant of a single language of the entire European Atlantic coastline (or some thing like that) prior to the Indo-European or even neolitization. When the topic is Iberian peninsula the conversation tends to be diverted to the Basques even if off topic.
 
The non-Mediterranean European coast (where the Basque country is located) was the European region that resisted neolitization until later. In fact, fishermen (and shellfish farmers) continue to live by catching wild animals although they can live, trade, work and even integrate the armies of non-hunter gatherers, also the ones we consider to be truly hunter gatherers do it (in the last Portuguese colonial war the Bushmen were great soldiers and their women prostitutes). The Basques are a strongly fishing people, they already fished on the north coast of Canada around the 1500s and the Basque beyond the absence of the letter f has other archaic features like having only 5 vowels. As practically all early European farmers were from a very restricted region and genetically cohesive they should speak only one language, so while discounting the drift of millennia. The Etruscan (candidate language for Neolithic) have the sound f advocates for the absence of this sound in Basque be of previous origin. In any language in the world, the agricultural vocabulary and all other semantic fields in general should have much more the sound f then the words related to fishing , sea and perhaps to a lesser extent those related to navigation . Words related to fishing and the like, in Germanic are considered to originate from the northern European coast, especially Denmark, prior to the arrival of the Indo-European. The corresponding Basque words may be similar if they are just the southern variant of a single language of the entire European Atlantic coastline (or some thing like that) prior to the Indo-European or even neolitization. When the topic is Iberian peninsula the conversation tends to be diverted to the Basques even if off topic.

That makes absolutely no sense.
 
would a more detailed correction be useful? Thank you so much for giving me some of your attention Mrs Angela.
 
Would a more detailed correction be useful? Thank you so much for giving me some of your attention Mrs Angela.
 
Would a more detailed correction be useful? Thank you so much for giving me some of your attention Mrs Angela.

I don't have a clue what you mean, or I would have responded in more depth.

Are you saying all languages world wide, no matter the language family, use the "f" sound for fishing and the sea? I know of no data to that effect. Or, are you saying that in all languages world wide agricultural words "have" an unusual percentage of "f" sounds or "should" have such an unusual percentage? Again, I don't know of any data to that effect or why on earth that "should" be the case?

If you "aren't" saying that, then what "are" you saying?
 
The google translator sometimes dribbles me, as English is not my mother tongue I am not in the secret of the language nor can I express myself with the flavor that I express in Portuguese.In the sentence in question «In any language in the world, the agricultural vocabulary and all other semantic fields in general should have much more the sound f then the words related to fishing, sea and perhaps to a lesser extent those related to navigation», where is "should have" maybe more correct to write "must have". Therefore, knowing only 3 languages and 2 of them with limitations, I risked the hypothesis that in all languages of the world, agricultural vocabulary and all other semantic fields in general have more "f" sounds, and the semantic field related to fishing , sea and perhaps to a lesser extent related to navigation has fewer "f" sounds. I hope I have been clear enough, If any further clarification is needed on this or anything else I have written, I am all ears.
The previous post was repeated because I had problems with the computer, which happen to me many times.
 
The Google translatorsometimes dribbles me, as English is not my mother tongue I am not in thesecret of the language nor can I express myself with the flavour that I expressin Portuguese. In the sentence in question «In any language of the world, theagricultural vocabulary and all other semantic fields in general should havemuch more the sound f then the worlds related to fishing, sea and perhaps to alesser extent those related to navigation» where is “should have” may be morecorrect to write “must have”. Therefore, knowing only 3 languages and 2 of themwith limitations, I risked without problems the hypothesis that in alllanguages of the world, agricultural vocabulary and all other semantic fieldsin general have more “f” sounds, and the semantic field related to fishing, seaand to a lesser extent those related to navigation has fewer “f” sounds. If anyfurther clarification is needed on this or anything else I have written, pleasetell me, the only problem is my computer it repeat posts and many times don’t communicatewhit the forum.
 
@Jose luis,

No one is going to take such a broad claim seriously unless you provide proof in the form of papers.

I'm aware of nothing which would indicate this is true.
 
Forget the word fishand its derivatives in English (in the Indo Europeans we have the Pisces). Not one "f" in the basic fishing vocabulary in all these languages. If you find the letter "f" in any other language and other related words, please tell me to try an explanation. You can confirm in Google translator:English: sea, tide,wave, swim, fish, octopus, squid, crab, sea urchin, seaweed, sand, fishing,boat, oar, paddling, hook, net.Scottish Gaelic:muir làn tonn snàmh iasg octopusgibearnach crùbag cuan-mara feamainn gainmheach iasgach bàta ràmh pleadhagdubhan lìon.Arabic:albahr almad mawjat alsabbahat al'asmak al'akhtubut alhibbarsalataeun qunfudh albahr al'aeshab albahriat alrimal alsayd qarib mijdhafaltajdif huk safiBasque:itsasoa marea olatua igeri arrainak olagarroaktxipiroiak karramarroa itsas trikua algak harea arrantza itsasontzia arraunaarrauna kakoa sarea.Traditional Chinese:Hǎi Cháoxī, bō, yóuyǒng, yú, zhāngyú, yóuyú, xiè, hǎi dǎn, hǎizǎo, shā, diàoyú, chuán, jiǎng, huà, gōu, wǎng.kannada:Samudra,ubbaraviita, ale, īju, mīnu,ākōpas, skvi, ēi, arcin samudra, kaalakae, marau, mīnugārike, dōi, ōr, pyālig, kokke, nivvaa.Sri Lankan language:muhuda, vaadiya bādiya, rælla, pihinīma, māu, būvallā, dællan, kakuuvan, muhudu ikiriyā, muhudu pælǣṭi, væli, masun ællīma, bōṭṭuva, haba, pǣḍli, kokka, dæla.Finnish:meri,vuorovesi, aalto, uida, kalat, mustekala, kalmari, rapu, merisiili, merilevä,hiekka, kalastus, vene, airo, melonta, koukku, verkko.Georgian:zghva, t'algha,t'algha, banaoba, tevzi, rvapekha, khakhvi, k'rabi, zghvis naq'opi, zghvismtsenareebi, kvisha, tevzaoba, navi, tsremli, satsobi, k'ak'ali,bade.kmer:samoutr, chomnor, rolk, heltuk, trei, te te yeav heu, muk, ktam,urchin samoutr, samoutr, ksasa, nesaeat, touk, samoutr, paddling, tompk,sotth.Malay:laut, air pasang, gelombang, berenang,ikan, sotong, sotong, ketam, landak laut, rumpai laut, pasir, memancing, bot,oar, mendayung, cangkuk, bersih.Swahili:bahari, wimbi, wimbi, kuogelea, samaki,pweza, squid, kaa, urchin ya bahari, mwani, mchanga, uvuvi, mashua, oar,paddling, ndoano, wavu.Samoan:sami, tide, galu, aau, iʻa, taʻavale, uʻu, fusi, uʻeti, seaweed, oneone bassoon, vaʻa, uʻu, faga, matau, net. samoano:
sami, tide, galu,aau, iʻa, taʻavale, uʻu, fusi, uʻeti, seaweed, oneone, fagota, vaʻa, uʻu, faga, matau, net.
thai:
Keī̀yw kb thale, kras̄æn̂ả, khlụ̄̀n, ẁāy n̂ả, plā, plāh̄mk yks̄ʹ̒, plāh̄mk, pū, mènthale, s̄āh̄r̀āy thale, thrāy, kār tk plā, reụ̄x, phāy reụ̄x, phāy reụ̄x lèn, tak̄hx, xwn
Vietnamese:
bin, thy triu, sóng, bơi, cá, bch tuc, mc, cua, nhím bin, rong bin, cát, câu cá, thuyn, mái chèo, mái chèo, móc, lưới.
xhosa:
ulwandle, umda,igagasi, ukubhukuda, iintlanzi, i-octopus, squid, crab, ulchin ulwandle,ulwandle lwaselwandle, isanti, ukuloba, isikhephe, i-oar, ukugoba, ukuloba,umnatha. palavras
 
at first sight, it's surprising!
But your basic hypothesis is surprising in itself: so in the world, there have been (in some way) a fishers universal language and a farmers universal language??? (half LOL)
&: some words in your list seem loans
&&: some languages discard /f/ in their core vocabulary, by instance Basque, or Finnish - even the reconstructed PIE ignored /f/ if I don't mistake, whatever the lexical field -
&&&: what is the frequency of /f/ in languages which have it and what is the chance to sea linked lexicon to lack words with /f/ by hazard? -
I cannot go further on because it would require time to compare and discuss - maybe later?
 
There is no one, no matter how septic, that do not fall to is knees with this. I just wanted to raise the hare. until this subject be removed to the linguistic forum and a world summit of artisanal fishermen, in honor of those who once left Africa, traversed the coastlines, climbed the river beds, explored the watersheds, reached the crest of the mountains, climb the sky and prepare to explore the planet mars and whatever else, perpetuating the spark of intelligent life and the miracle of the dna molecule, I continue, albeit with limitations, to answer:Finnish is a Uralic language of nomadic shepherds who can be perceived as just evolved hunters, that control the herds and defend them from predators, positively select some of their mutations and prune their sick, weak and non-reproductive elements .this herds continue to mate with their wild ancestors. the Uralics have the aggravation of being a large repository of ancient dna (ancient nort eurasian, paleo-siberian) as such they may not pronounce “f”. the same applies to proto-indo-european, they are nomadic shepherds and, in principle, Proto-Uralics whose children were taught to speak by their Caucasian mothers. Proto-Uralics must have condescended to their wives because they considered their culture somewhat superior, and so Proto-Uralic became unrecognizable and then named Proto-Indo-European.
 
Yes there are some loans in the languages of the former English colonies in this lexicon. By putting a language of each family or language isolate on the list I forgot that Basque has no "f". What nomadic herders do, hunter peoples also do in a more rudimentary way by wince predators to protect herds and try not to slaughter reproductive or young animals, although they have contributed to the extinction of Australian, American and northern Eurasian megafaunas pastoralists/farmers estinguished much more wild life. The absence of "f" in Indo-European is another point in favor that it was not the language of early European farmers but of a people similar to hunter peoples. I do not advocate a single language for fishermen or another for farmers. Because a lexical family is transverse to all language families (the computer léxicon for example) does not mean that all language families are one. I would like to discern, however: The homo sapiens flocks that left Africa about 60 000 years ago were more seafarers than fishermen (fish hooks, etc. are from the upperPaleolithic). The invention of the eyed needle (decisive in the history of mankind alongside agriculture, and both certainly the work of femina sapiens) maybe behind this migration, as it makes it possible to make vessels with hermetically stitched hides with wood or bone structure (kayaks…) more light and maneuverable than dug trunks, rafts and the like, for go up and down rivers for example (going up a river with a wooden boat at the head is verypainful, in the time of Babylon the boats that went down the great rivers never made the way back). These flocks that exploited the Indian ocean, were few and of a restricted region (African margin of the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait). They almost "instantly" reached Australia and Melanesia populating all the coasts and rivers along the way. Up the coast of the western Pacific they explored the more frigid regions and may have traveled the Eurasian steppe/tundra corridor from there to the Pontic steppe (the Paleo-Siberian, Nivkh and neighbor languages have many similarities with Indo-European) with the help of hermetically stitched fur clothing (thanks again to the eyed needle).Thus during this flash migration there must have been a dialectal continuum in all these regions, which may still echoate mainly in the languages of the Andaman Islands (because the inhabitants do not have denisovan DNA), but also among the Papua and the remaining melanesia, negritos of the Philippines and isolated groups from south-east Asia/north-east India, and diffusely on the Indian subcontinent, mainly to the south. The flocks that crossed the Sinai desert would also be few and from a well-defined region (Nile Delta) as such the levant Mediterranean would have a certain linguistic unit (which later evolved into the levant neolithic?). Although Europe is a neighbor of Africa, anatomically modern man only began to penetrate it 20,000 years after reaching the other side of the planet (Austalia and western pacific) certainly due to the resistance of the Neanderthals, which was only broken decisively, circumventing them by the tundra and using its huge herds, again because of our well-sewn fur garments,for the Neanderthals would at most drill holes in furs where they roughly passed sinews, for their sporadic summer expeditions to the tundra. Thus the Atlantic would be a linguistic area implanted from the north. These human tundra groups and all the waves that followed them were crushed in the peninsulas of the northern Mediterranean by the last glacial maximum. We would then have 3 linguistic areas that were eventually swept away by one of them,the balcanic/anatolia of the early European farmers, in turn swept by theIndo-Europeans. All of this has fragmented into today's languages.
 
from the third paper
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6436108/

SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE 1 :

i7427 individual is e1b1a
for me personally it is the first time i see y dna e1b1a in ancient remains
he is dated to 900-1000 CE

yes he was a muslim from granda
that shows that e1b1a-m2 was present in the invading muslim forces to some dagree
 
from the third paper
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6436108/

SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE 1 :

i7427 individual is e1b1a
for me personally it is the first time i see y dna e1b1a in ancient remains
he is dated to 900-1000 CE

yes he was a muslim from granda
that shows that e1b1a-m2 was present in the invading muslim forces to some dagree

We can see it in the autosomal results as well.
 
Il23CIa.png

30-untitled-leo-cullum.jpg
 

This thread has been viewed 53226 times.

Back
Top