Proto-Indo-european languague : R1a or R1b ?




Think of modern people in Greece. If Greek suddenly "boomed" and had a huge demographic and linguistic expansion, the spread of Greek would be correlated with the expansion of several haplogroups (J2, E-V13, R1b, R1a etc.), and it's probable that in some places one of those haplogroups would randomly become much more common than the others, creating several Greek groups with different Y-DNA makeup, but initially very similar autosomally, and after some time, as they mixed with other local populations of the places where they had migrated to, they'd become also genetically different people;
Think of modern people in Greece. If Greek suddenly "boomed" and had a huge demographic and linguistic expansion, the spread of Greek would be correlated with the expansion of several haplogroups (J2, E-V13, R1b, R1a etc.), and it's probable that in some places one of those haplogroups would randomly become much more common than the others, creating several Greek groups with different Y-DNA makeup, but initially very similar autosomally, and after some time, as they mixed with other local populations of the places where they had migrated to, they'd become also genetically different people.

Ygorcs, thank you for your experienced analysis, it helps me to understand many things
The "founder principle", the loss of genetic variety created by the spread of a small group belonging before to a bigger group often causes hasardous and surprising consequences, as the very good exemple you gave us (N and I spreading a language commonly linked with R1a populations, etc.).
Meanwhile the study of haplogroups and the tentative to connect their history to the history of languages, remains interesting.
Y-Dna says nothing about language, physical nor social specifications of a human group, that's right. But Y-Dna allows us to study migrations of some of ou ancestry without writed sources, and this is a revolution in historiography.
 
Merci Hrvclv
en effet je ne comprends toujours pas pourquoi les populations porteuses respectivement de R1a et R1b ne se sont pas tellement m?lang?es dans la steppe mais ont r?pandu la m?me langue. Ce n'est pas impossible mais c'est quand m?me assez ?trange.
 
I agree with your mark about what people believe,
But R1b is connected with Gedrosian, while R1a is not,
That makes them seperated origin, I think,

Well, the only possiblity to link Gedrosian admixture with an ancient component is with CHG. And Corded Ware did have CHG, in less proportion, so i dont know anymore. Gedrosian component seems so far away now about new datas of ancient components.
 
2) This mixed population ( roughly 50% EEF 50% Steppe eneolithic) then in the first half of the 4th millennium started to expand eastward ( to the Volga) to the south ( northern caucasus) and to the west . for all this read Rassamakin academia.eu. Genetic clearly confirms this because the Ukraine eneolithic genetic signal reaches both the Volga ( that is why Yamnaia Samara has circa 18% EEF ) and Afanasievo has ukraine eneolithic too ( 36%). Cultural package of Yamanaia is basically Sredni Stog ( aka Skelya) derived.

3) so to sum up: the real player in the development of the famous steppe culture ( and steppe pastoralism ) was not the Volga but the contact zone between Cucuteni and Dneper Donets native people If you consider that PIE has an agricoltural vocabulary and that east of the Dneper we have no agricolture till 2000 BC it is clear that if we have to remain in the steppe theory ( the dogma par excellence!) the western steppe makes more sense than the Volga-Caspian alternative.

Is it really certain that there was no agriculture east of the Dnieper till 2000 B.C.? I had read (in Anthony and others) that there is evidence of incipient agriculture since pretty early in the steppe cultures that would later give birth to Yamnaya (Chalcolithic or Early Bronze Age, I don't remember well now). PIE seems to have had only basic agricultural vocabulary, not a very extensive one, no wonder most of the individual IE branches usually have very large local non-IE substrate in their lexicon pertaining to agricultural life.
 
Is it really certain that there was no agriculture east of the Dnieper till 2000 B.C.? I had read (in Anthony and others) that there is evidence of incipient agriculture since pretty early in the steppe cultures that would later give birth to Yamnaya (Chalcolithic or Early Bronze Age, I don't remember well now). PIE seems to have had only basic agricultural vocabulary, not a very extensive one, no wonder most of the individual IE branches usually have very large local non-IE substrate in their lexicon pertaining to agricultural life.

IIRC, the Germanic agricultural substrate as proposed by Leiden includes words like bull, goat and sheep. That always seemed to me like a good argument against an origin in a culture like CW. Why would they borrow those words from farmers who were less reliant on livestock?
 
I'm not sure about Crops east of the Dnieper, but we dont know clearly the extend of Globular Amphora toward East.
 
IIRC, the Germanic agricultural substrate as proposed by Leiden includes words like bull, goat and sheep. That always seemed to me like a good argument against an origin in a culture like CW. Why would they borrow those words from farmers who were less reliant on livestock?

I would not rely too much on this, because the original CWC language could have been post-influenced by Globular Amphora / Funnelbeaker somewhere.
 
I would not rely too much on this, because the original CWC language could have been post-influenced by Globular Amphora / Funnelbeaker somewhere.

But it contradicts the substrate hypothesis. Kroonen:

The Substrate Theory entails that when the Indo-Europeans settled in thefuture core of the Germanic linguistic area, they imposed themselves and theirlanguage on an indigenous population with very different cultural and linguisticcharacteristics (cf. recently Rifkin 2007: 57). The original language(s) of this areaultimately disappeared, because its speakers shifted to a form of Indo-Europeanspeech, though not without leaving a trace. The language shift did not happenovernight, but was probably completed through a longer period of bilingualism, perhaps lasting several generations. As a result, the Indo-European dialect, during its evolution into Proto-Germanic, may have become enriched with variousindigenous terms for local plants and animals, geographical phenomena, andcultural practices

That didn't happen in the Chalcolithic or the EBA.
 
But it contradicts the substrate hypothesis. Kroonen:



That didn't happen in the Chalcolithic or the EBA.

What you are calling a germanic substrate, is actually a CWC substrate. Modern Germanic languages mainly descend from a R1b-U106 population, while the Germano-Balto-Slavic pre-substrate was with R1a-M417. And it totally goes along what i'm saying, because most of territory of CWC encompass Globular Amphora and Funnelbeaker. There they took the agricultural vocabulary. The CWC IE substrate might be older than Chalcolithic or related with Sredny Stog movement towards Funnelbeaker and Cucuteni territtories. Then also keep in mind even tho ancestrally EEF, most of Funnelbeaker and Globular Amphora y-dna is of HG's origin. How would it make more sense for an EEF origin for Northern geographical and plants words, while there was ancestral local HG's to learn that to them.

Kroonen is totally projecting things with " Proto-Germanic, may have become enriched with various indigenous terms for local plants and animals, geographical phenomena, and cultural practices "

Because CWC landscape is actually exactly the same as southern scandinavia. It's like learning a word for tomato while already knowing tomato.
 
What you are calling a germanic substrate, is actually a CWC substrate. Modern Germanic languages mainly descend from a R1b-U106 population, while the Germano-Balto-Slavic pre-substrate was with R1a-M417. And it totally goes along what i'm saying, because most of territory of CWC encompass Globular Amphora and Funnelbeaker. There they took the agricultural vocabulary. The CWC IE substrate might be older than Chalcolithic or related with Sredny Stog movement towards Funnelbeaker and Cucuteni territtories. Then also keep in mind even tho ancestrally EEF, most of Funnelbeaker and Globular Amphora y-dna is of HG's origin. How would it make more sense for an EEF origin for Northern geographical and plants words, while there was ancestral local HG's to learn that to them.

Kroonen is totally projecting things with " Proto-Germanic, may have become enriched with various indigenous terms for local plants and animals, geographical phenomena, and cultural practices "

Because CWC landscape is actually exactly the same as southern scandinavia. It's like learning a word for tomato while already knowing tomato.

That explanation doesn't work, since proponents of the hypothesis think the substrate is exclusive to Germanic.
 
That explanation doesn't work, since proponents of the hypothesis think the substrate is exclusive to Germanic.

But to be fair, it's probably not.

It's well known that Indo-Europeans languages are full of Epithets, sometimes used as proper Noun, other times as Nickname. The thing is, there is " IE words " in non-Steppe territory probably even before Steppe was a thing. Pretty sure all words considered as a substrate might have an equivalent in Balto-Slavic or Italo-Celtic one. And if not, well obviously the original Balto-Slavic land was never Driven by Admixture so the substrate could come from all West of the Vistula CWC territory and only affected the Germanic part of Germano-Balto-Slavic continuum.
 
I think that R1 speak Western ANE languages. Eastern-Hunter-Gatherer languages descent from Western ANE languages and This language(EHG languages) split several branch. R1a languages descent from northern EHG languages and R1b languages descent from Southern EHG languages. Proto-Indo-European descent from Southern EHG languages and cousin, sister languages or para language of Proto-Indo-European descent from northern EHG languages. Proto-Indo-European language descent from R1b languages, Para-Proto-Indo-European languages descent from R1a languages.
 
Hello everybody! I am very interested in linguistic and genetics (at very amateur level!). Related to the tree shown in your post, Jovialis, I note that the Central Europe R1b haplogroup is R1b1a1a2a1. However, its Proto-Italo-Celto-Germanic branch is labeled R1b1a2a1a. Is there a typo and the label should be R1b1a1a2a1a? Thank you in advance.
 
To me it seems curious too. Look at Eupedia R1B and Wikipedia. Two different systems? It changed more than a time.
 
To me it seems curious too. Look at Eupedia R1B and Wikipedia. Two different systems? It changed more than a time.

It seems curious and confusing either. Yes, there are different systems and for that reason I concentrated in the Eupedia nomenclature, but even in that case I found a typo, if I am not wrong.
 
To me it seems curious too. Look at Eupedia R1B and Wikipedia. Two different systems? It changed more than a time.

I have found the system ISOGG2019. There is a page for the 2019-2020 Haplogroup R Tree in the web isogg dot org slash tree. It is very complete and seems updated. It is different to the Eupedia R1B. For example, R1b-P310 is R1b1a2a1a in Eupedia and R1b1a1b1a1a2 in ISOGG2019.
 
When you say " i've heard " and " some people ". Are you sure you are not projecting what you internally wants to be the reality?

IE languages with y-dna E and Horse domestication with Cart 'n' Wheel invention in Arabia... The only place those hypothesis could came from are realhistoryww and egyptsearch.

I tried once upon a time to find who built the chariots, and the search took me to the land of the Hurrians which had Mitanni overlords. Hurrians were not IE people as far as I can tell. But Mitanni were. Are we really sure that the overlords built the chariots? Try as I might, I cannot picture a king of kings with a hammer and anvil. Stealing from the Hurrians seemed to have been commonplace, back in the day, from statecraft at Nuzi to philosophy at Ugarit. But how many people know this about the Hurrians today?
 
I haven't found any article or research about the question to know how R1a and R1b in the Stepp Pontic had the same language, or a similar language.

Can someone help me with that question ?

The answer has to do with the head-shapes of these two people.
R1b is in the Pelasgians and the Ligurians, both of whom are long-headed.
R1a is round-headed as Central Asia seems to have always been.
Language can be learned... and certainly was, as long ago as Mitanni overlords taking Hurrian names.
The whole answer almost certainly has to rest upon this three-legged stool.
... I found an answer on quora who tried to pretend to himself that the Germans and Sarmatians were indigenous to Europe. ;) Who's who may be the most important question of our entire existence, given the great lengths people will go to try to change history.
 
The answer has to do with the head-shapes of these two people.
R1b is in the Pelasgians and the Ligurians, both of whom are long-headed.
R1a is round-headed as Central Asia seems to have always been.
Language can be learned... and certainly was, as long ago as Mitanni overlords taking Hurrian names.
The whole answer almost certainly has to rest upon this three-legged stool.
... I found an answer on quora who tried to pretend to himself that the Germans and Sarmatians were indigenous to Europe. ;) Who's who may be the most important question of our entire existence, given the great lengths people will go to try to change history.

Pelasgian DNA?
 

This thread has been viewed 23218 times.

Back
Top