Bashkirs: What Subclades of R1b Were They?

The following excerpt is taken from the official, 450-year hallmark page of the Bashkortostan province joining the Russian Federation :

"The written sources of the IX-XI centuries A.D. let scientists advance the Turk theory of Bashkir ethnos. The head of ethnology department of the Institute of history, language and literature Rinat Usupov analyzed the ancient ethnic-genetic layer in the region. He studied written sources, archeological materials, toponymy and folklore. The scientist indicated the ancient Indo-Iranian platform of ancient population not only in South Ural but for many nations of Eurasian continent. It is surmised that in the epoch of early iron Indo-Iranian nomads had founded the ethnic-genetic basis, which ancient population of South Ural and later Bashkir nation was formed on."
 
Интересно было почитать про башкир башкиру. Они действительно по языку тюрки и в некоторых родах (племя) R1b (М269, М 73) доходит до 87 %, но есть рода, где этой гаплогруппы нет совсем. Согласно историческим данным башкиры родом из Алтая. Гаплогруппа R1b там известна (алтайцы, тувинцы, и рядом уйгуры - все тюрки по языку), но преобладает R1a и N. На Урал башкиры приходят сравнительно поздно - по моему мнению в XIII в. Письменные источники их фиксируют: в VIII-IX в. в Средней Азии (Приаралье), в Х в. - в Поволжье, в XI-XII вв. - в Северном Причерноморье, на Дунае (у венгров, вот почему у них большой процент R1b, сцбклады не смотрел, думаю, что как и у башкир М269 и М 73) и оттуда на Урал. Как R1b попал на Алтай? Думаю, что возможны такие варианты. Если действительно R1b - Майкопская культура, то с потоком R1a (андроновская, афанасьевская культуры, происходящие от ямной). Впрочем, других вариантов я пока не вижу. Да, еще тюркско-кельтское родство подтверждается лингвистически. Я еще не закончил сравнивать кельтские и тюркские языки по списку Сводеша, но более 20 параллелей уже нашел.
 
Goga I totally agree with you. It is good to see, that there are people with knowledge! Cheers!
 
Интересно было почитать про башкир башкиру. Они действительно по языку тюрки и в некоторых родах (племя) R1b (М269, М 73) доходит до 87 %, но есть рода, где этой гаплогруппы нет совсем. Согласно историческим данным башкиры родом из Алтая. Гаплогруппа R1b там известна (алтайцы, тувинцы, и рядом уйгуры - все тюрки по языку), но преобладает R1a и N. На Урал башкиры приходят сравнительно поздно - по моему мнению в XIII в. Письменные источники их фиксируют: в VIII-IX в. в Средней Азии (Приаралье), в Х в. - в Поволжье, в XI-XII вв. - в Северном Причерноморье, на Дунае (у венгров, вот почему у них большой процент R1b, сцбклады не смотрел, думаю, что как и у башкир М269 и М 73) и оттуда на Урал. Как R1b попал на Алтай? Думаю, что возможны такие варианты. Если действительно R1b - Майкопская культура, то с потоком R1a (андроновская, афанасьевская культуры, происходящие от ямной). Впрочем, других вариантов я пока не вижу. Да, еще тюркско-кельтское родство подтверждается лингвистически. Я еще не закончил сравнивать кельтские и тюркские языки по списку Сводеша, но более 20 параллелей уже нашел.

AkBulat: English please. ;)

My opinion is R1b-M73 is autochtonous to Central Asia and may indeed be tied with the Turkic peoples.

Celtic and Turkic languages are completely unrelated. The Celtic languages are part of the Indo-European languages, whereas Turkic are part of the Altaic languages, a group which in itself is disputed. What is clear is that the Turkic languages at least share a close relationship with the Mongolic languages. Also, I would advise you heavily against using Swadesh lists, I am pretty sure that what you discovered there are just coincidential similarities. Also, I wonder what you actually compared there, because none of the modern Celtic languages (Irish, Breton, Welsh) are particularly representative of what the ancient Celtic languages (Gaulish, Celtiberian) were like.

Otherwise, it is a misconception to think of R1b-M269 as "Celtic". The only subclades of R1b that seem to be linked with the spread of Celtic-speaking peoples are L21 and S28.

Also, Hungarian R1b is decisively not of Turkic origin.
 
Taranis:
Vielen Dank für Ihr Feedback. Mit Englisch, es ist mir egal, nur auf der Ebene der sowjetischen Schule. Deutsch besser wissen, liebte sie an der Universität, aber ich bin kein Philologe, Historiker und Archäologe. Kann ich überprüfen, die maschinelle Übersetzung.
In der Populationsgenetik, ich bin ein Amateur, aber ich bin daran interessiert, die Probleme der Ethnogenese der Baschkiren. Wie ich verstehe, dass es einen neuen Trend in der Wissenschaft noch auf materielle Gewinne und versucht, irgendwie zu systematisieren. Und ich glaube, ich war die Synthese von archäologischen, glotohronologii und Populationsgenetik Daten zum Nutzen aller.
Ihre Skepsis gegenüber den Türken in Westeuropa, ich verstehe. Aber heute, fertig zu vergleichen (Liste Swadesh) baskische Sprache mit türkischen Sprachen und haben 46 von 207 Parallelen und 6 weitere Worte noch in Frage. Hier in Westeuropa R1b. Ich habe ein Student macht eine vergleichende Analyse des britischen Sprache. Er sagt, dass die meisten Turkisms in Walisisch. Ich freue mich auf wenn du fertig bist. By the way, machte er eine interessante Idee: Runen sind nur bei den Türken und Westeuropäern (deutsch-slawischen) bekannt.
 
Taranis:
Vielen Dank für Ihr Feedback. Mit Englisch, es ist mir egal, nur auf der Ebene der sowjetischen Schule. Deutsch besser wissen, liebte sie an der Universität, aber ich bin kein Philologe, Historiker und Archäologe. Kann ich überprüfen, die maschinelle Übersetzung.

You're very welcome. I personally appreciate your reply in German, and I will reply in English however, because other board member should read this.

In der Populationsgenetik, ich bin ein Amateur, aber ich bin daran interessiert, die Probleme der Ethnogenese der Baschkiren. Wie ich verstehe, dass es einen neuen Trend in der Wissenschaft noch auf materielle Gewinne und versucht, irgendwie zu systematisieren. Und ich glaube, ich war die Synthese von archäologischen, glotohronologii und Populationsgenetik Daten zum Nutzen aller.

Glottochronology is a method that has been decisively debunked. It is not a scientifically sound method. It makes a lot of false assumptions about languages that can be easily disproven. In particular the method is largely based around the meaning of a word. It is typical that meanings of words can change (thereby rendering swadesh lists useless), while related languages retain cognates with different meanings. For example English "knight" vs. German "Knecht".

Ihre Skepsis gegenüber den Türken in Westeuropa, ich verstehe. Aber heute, fertig zu vergleichen (Liste Swadesh) baskische Sprache mit türkischen Sprachen und haben 46 von 207 Parallelen und 6 weitere Worte noch in Frage. Hier in Westeuropa R1b. Ich habe ein Student macht eine vergleichende Analyse des britischen Sprache. Er sagt, dass die meisten Turkisms in Walisisch. Ich freue mich auf wenn du fertig bist.

Well, the fact that you find the most apparent similarities in Welsh should make you suspicious, and it is telling of why glottochronology is so wrong. Welsh is a modern language, after all, and along with Breton and Cornish it is descended from a common Brythonic language that was spoken during the Migration Period. If there was a connection, one would expect it to be greater in the past, not less.

You also seem to ignore the fact that the Turkic languages as a whole are fairly young, and Proto-Turkic was only spoken around the 1st century AD.

By the way, machte er eine interessante Idee: Runen sind nur bei den Türken und Westeuropäern (deutsch-slawischen) bekannt.

No, the Turkic and Germanic runes are completely unrelated, even though many signs look similar. There is also the semi-syllabaries that were used by the Iberians and Celtiberians, also includes signs that look identical to certain Turkic and Germanic runes, but are also completely unrelated with these.
 
If proto-Indo-European were from Central Asia (East Russia) they would carry R1a, P*, Q* and other native Central Asian haplogroups with them.

If proto-Indo-European were from West Asia they would carry R1a and J2 (+ maybe some Indo-Europeanised R1b and G2a subclades) with them.

If proto-Indo-European were from Northwest Europe, they would carry I1 and R1b with them.

etc.
You seem to making a large assumptions that R1b (M343) is from Northwest Europe. This issue is debated and studied to great length. There is a very good case to be made that R1b came out of SW Asia, the Caucasus or even Central Asia. In fact the argument is generally between those locations with a Eastern European origin being only lightly considered.

Ironically, the effect is that is you just made a great argument for R1b spreading IE languages to Western Europe by laying out some basic geographically connected outcomes.

- PIE started somewhere along the edges of East Europe and West Asia.
- R1b probably started somewhere along the edges of East Europe and West Asia.
- IE languages, specifically Centum, absolutely dominate Western Europe.
- R1b subclades, specifically P312 and U106, absolutely dominate Western Europe.

What's the parsimonious explanation? Is it just a tremendous coincidence? Look at maps of Centum IE language distribution and R1b distribution. I don't think it is just a coincidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Centum_Satem_map.png
 
interesting points of view - someones have an apparently very high knowledge (more than me!)

some remarks:
Y-R1b came from East (Eurasia? Siberia?) almost everybody agree - but when and how? it's to be believed that sometimes R1b came alone, sometimes mixed with other HGs - the Danube river theory is "in the wind" for good reasons but I think in a northerner way also (S.Baltic coasts -
Y-R1b in Bashkirs appears to be basically upstreams to L51 (the so alone poor L51 in Eastern and Central Europe!)
the downstream (within a disrupted chain of SNPs) R1b (S28/U152 & S21/U106) could have reached the Volga region later from Europe - the presence of Y-I1 in surrounding regions East of Moscou seam being attached by some Russian scholars to an eastward migration from North-Eastern Europe (langage unknown) before the ages of metals, excluding future germanic speaking people - why it could not have send R1b-S21 & S28 too? it could explain the paucity of intermediary SNPs among Bashkirs?
according to some answers on this thread it appears Bashkirs knew a langage shift maybe from iranian I-E to Turkish - to say that the steppes peoples knew a lot of contrary movements and some language shifts*
Y-R1b could have been an I-E (the first maybe) bearer: it's not to say that all R1b spoke only an I-E language or a proto- one...
what is obvious is: in Western Europe the numeric dominance of Y-R1b is troubling and seams to exclude (whatever the date and the number of times of arrivasl there) an heavy mixing with others HGs...

*:(general personal hypothesis: the warlike patriarchal small tribes could have promoted their Y-DNA on the cost of the vanquished ones, but absorbing a lot of foreign mt-DNA and autosomals and loosing their languages? bigger ones did that too: see the Franks and some mixed ethnies of Pakistan where male I-E conquerors lost their language)
 
Bashkirs,Hazara and other "eastern" media R1b split from the"Western" her lines before the latter went to Europe.Where and when was this division, I, as an archaeologist, interested in most.
It isbelieved that R1b bearers spoke a Turkic language (if you want you can call iterbi - RB-language, but the essence remains the same). Based on thisassumption, I Population below poverty line speaker Western media R1b andTurkic languages in the complex. More than one language against another, andlooking for an analogy in several languages. The result was yet to find a fewparallels that can make the assumption that the separation probably occurred inthe Eneolithic, under the pastoral herding, when an even greater role playedhunting.

Bull
Бык

European and Caucasian


Meaning
Turkic languages
Irish
tarbh [tarev]
мал-тыуар
скот
Bashkir
Spanish
toro
туар
товар
Bashkir
Catalan
tawro
тартыу
тянуть, тащить, тягловый, тяговый
арба тартыу – тянуть телегу
Bashkir
Lithuanian
tauras (моста)
терек
скот
Bashkir
Swedish
tiur
тире
шкура
Bashkir
German
Stier
тау
стадо

Gothic
stiur
туар
скотина, скот
Crimean Tatar
Armenian
tabari mis (говядина)
табар
товар, имущество, домашние животные
Uigur, Turkish, Chagatai


табаар
товар
Yakut


тавар
товар
Chuvash


tabar/tavar
добро, имущество, богатство
Old Turk д


тууар эт
говядина
Karachai-Balkaria


tuvar eti
говядина
Crimean Tatar

​​ Wool
Шерсть

Irish
olann
yun

Azerbaijan
Bulgarian
вьлна
йөн

Bashkir
Spanish
lana
жуын

Kazakh
Catalan
ilana
жюн

Karachai-Balkaria
Latvian
lana
yün

Crimean Tatar, Turkish
Lithuanian
vilna



German
Wolle



Serbian
вуна



Ukrainian
вовна



Estonian
villane löng




Boom
Стрела

Irish
Saighead [said]
садак окь

Karachai-Balkaria


hаđак
колчан
Bashkir
Catalan
sageta
Çiginti

Crimean Tatar
Roman (Etruscan?)
sagitta
cоған

Shor

Hunting
Охота

Irish
seilg [Selэg]
avcilig

Crimean Tatar
Lithuanian
medžiokle
аусылык

Bashkir

Sail
Парус

Spanish, Portuguese
vela
желкин

Kahzah
Latvian
velum
yelken

Crimean Tatar, Turkish
French
voile
елкəн

Bashkir

Sword
Меч

Irish
сlaiomh [kli:v]
qilinc

Azerbaijan
Catalan
glavi
кьылыч

Karachai-Balkaria
Roman (Etruscan?)
gladius
kiliÇ

Turkish
Lithuanian
kalavijas
кылыш

Shor


кылыс

Bashkir



The lastword struck me most, because there is no intimacy in the names of metals. Theword "sail" suggests that before the separation, they both livedsomewhere near the sea (the Black? Caspian? Persian?).
Of course,this is the most cursory examination of the vocabulary. I watched until theonly word which could make the chronological anchor (classes, metal, objects ofmaterial culture). I can still say that there is a similarity in terms of"land," "Fire," "cheese" (?), "Sheep,""Wave".

By the way:

The name 'Herman' (german) into its componentparts is divided as follows: Ger-man. In the first part of the initial soundrep goes back to the sound [h], which was designated a thick breathingGreek transcription tyurkskoyazychnogo words eras. In this context, it has thesemantics of the word er 'real man' or 'real man'. The second component of May- this is somewhat distorted by the personal pronoun myeon 'I'. The originalform of this name was Ermen the semantics of 'I - a true man' or 'I - a realman. " Accordingly, the title was etnoterritorii 'Ermen'. Now remark ofStrabo that the "language of the Romans' word germani means" genuine"is understandable only if the language was Turkic language, not Latin.

Quote from:

ДроздовЮ.Н.
Тюркская этнонимия древнеевропейскихнародов. - М., 2008. - 392 с.The bookpresents research results ethnonymy ancient European tribes and peoples accordingto the ancient and early medieval written sources. It is established thatethnonymy these tribes and peoples were tyurkskoyazychnoy. The same hassurvived to the present time, but in a much distorted form. The resultsobtained suggest that the majority of the European population from ancienttimes to the X-XII centuries was tyurkskoyazychnoy.
ISBN 978-5-904215-04-0


Do notthink that I pan-Turkists. You just went on, and the Turks own language"frozen." That's it. This property aglyutinativnyh languages.
 
Bashkirs,Hazara and other "eastern" media R1b split from the"Western" her lines before the latter went to Europe.Where and when was this division, I, as an archaeologist, interested in most.
It isbelieved that R1b bearers spoke a Turkic language (if you want you can call iterbi - RB-language, but the essence remains the same). Based on thisassumption, I Population below poverty line speaker Western media R1b andTurkic languages in the complex. More than one language against another, andlooking for an analogy in several languages. The result was yet to find a fewparallels that can make the assumption that the separation probably occurred inthe Eneolithic, under the pastoral herding, when an even greater role playedhunting.

You're making too much of an assumption here of a 1:1 connection between language and genetics, which is not the case. People can swap their languages, but they cannot swap their genes. For example, R1b is also found in Africa (specifically Cameroon and northern Nigeria), specifically predominantly amongst Chadic? Does that mean that there must be a language connection between, say, the Hausa language (which is a Chadic language, and thus, an Afroasiatic language) and Turkic, or Basque, or Indo-European? It does not work like that.


The Catalan word for bull is "toro", not "tawro". Likewise, it's Swedish "tjar".

Gaulish "tarvos"
Welsh "tarw"
Breton "tarv"
Lusitanian "taurom"
Latin "taurus"
Greek "tauros"

It is clear that the root word is *tauro-, which is quite different from Turkic "tabar".

​​ Wool
Шерсть

Irish olann yun Azerbaijan
Bulgarian вьлна йөн Bashkir
Spanish lana жуын Kazakh
Catalan ilana жюн Karachai-Balkaria
Latvian lana yün Crimean Tatar, Turkish
Lithuanian vilna
German Wolle
Serbian вуна
Ukrainian вовна
Estonian villane löng

Old Irish "olann"
Welsh "gwlan"
Latin "lana"
Classical Greek "lēnos"
Hittite "hulana"
Avestan "varna"

It is pretty clear that this is from a common PIE root, and it is not even slightly similar to the Turkic word "yun".

Boom
Стрела

Irish Saighead [said] садак окь Karachai-Balkaria
hаđак колчан Bashkir
Catalan sageta Çiginti Crimean Tatar
Roman (Etruscan?) sagitta cоған Shor

Hunting
Охота

Irish seilg [Selэg] avcilig Crimean Tatar
Lithuanian medžiokle аусылык Bashkir

Also Welsh "helfa". The Proto-Celtic root word is "selgo-".

Sail
Парус

Spanish, Portuguese vela желкин Kahzah
Latvian velum yelken Crimean Tatar, Turkish
French voile елкəн Bashkir

Sword
Меч

Irish сlaiomh [kli:v] qilinc Azerbaijan
Catalan glavi кьылыч Karachai-Balkaria
Roman (Etruscan?) gladius kiliÇ Turkish
Lithuanian kalavijas кылыш Shor
кылыс Bashkir

The word for "sword" is 'claideb' in Old Irish, 'cleddyf' in Welsh and 'cladios' in Gaulish.

The lastword struck me most, because there is no intimacy in the names of metals. Theword "sail" suggests that before the separation, they both livedsomewhere near the sea (the Black? Caspian? Persian?).
Of course,this is the most cursory examination of the vocabulary. I watched until theonly word which could make the chronological anchor (classes, metal, objects ofmaterial culture). I can still say that there is a similarity in terms of"land," "Fire," "cheese" (?), "Sheep,""Wave".

I am sorry to say this, but what you have here are just superficially similar terms. There is no regularity whatsoever behind that.

By the way:

The name 'Herman' (german) into its componentparts is divided as follows: Ger-man. In the first part of the initial soundrep goes back to the sound [h], which was designated a thick breathingGreek transcription tyurkskoyazychnogo words eras. In this context, it has thesemantics of the word er 'real man' or 'real man'. The second component of May- this is somewhat distorted by the personal pronoun myeon 'I'. The originalform of this name was Ermen the semantics of 'I - a true man' or 'I - a realman. " Accordingly, the title was etnoterritorii 'Ermen'. Now remark ofStrabo that the "language of the Romans' word germani means" genuine"is understandable only if the language was Turkic language, not Latin.


I'm very sorry to say this, but you are completely on the wrong track there. The name "Herman" is the Germanized version of the Latin name "Arminius", and didn't exist in this shape until the 16th century or so. It is completely unrelated to the Latin word "Germani". This word in turn is Celtic in etymology, which is derived from a Celtic word for "short" or "near".

Compare:
- Old Irish "gerr" (short)
- Modern Irish "gearr" (short)
- Welsh "ger" (near)

In this sense, the word "Germani" can be understood to have originally meant something like "neighbours". Besides, it does not make sense in the slightest to assume the Romans would borrow a Turkic word for describing the Germanic peoples when at that point they had no contact with the Turkic peoples. Also, the Germanic peoples did not designate themselves as "Germani", but as something akin to "Theudones" (hence modern-day German "Deutsch").
 
Last edited:
Granted, thecarriers of genes can change the language (in the history of this happened morethan once), but are carriers of the genes are not at the same time, nativespeakers? Or the genes themselves are walking without speakers. You seem to bedifficult to accept the idea that the Bashkirs and other Asian carriers R1bdistant "relatives" of modern Europeans, and that all carriers of R1bspoke a language which is best preserved Turks (not to be confused with theTurks).Until recently Ihad a very skeptical of the various reconstructions of the names of the ancientpeoples of Europe in terms of the Turkiclanguages: Savromat, Sarmatians, etc.

But in light of population genetics hasrevised its presentation.
Yes, again, forour branch to discuss the problem: where in Europe L21 subclade and others thatare found and the Bashkirs. I give the information to ponder. In 1813-1814.Bashkirs took part in the Russian army in the war against France. About ayear of their tents were in Paris.And also like Goethe has notes of meetings with the Bashkirs. You understand -the men are men. A whole year without women ...And, once againremind the Hungarians were Cumans (Coman, Kipchaks - native R1b). This is wheresome 13-14 centuries. and placed them on the Danube.

Now, regardingthe term "Germany":is Tacitus (98 AD. E.) Not written «De origine et situ Germanorum», so like theLatin name of his work. In addition, the Germans still Strabo mentions (I century.BC. E..) He wrote that the Romans called the Germans «germani» (Latin for"real, real"). That is, the term appears much earlier. Or am I again,something is messed up? Perhaps it ekzoetnonim, which is easily explained bythe Turkic language.


The word «gerr»= Eng.SIR = Turks IR, ER, AR (man).


Bashkir:
ғər [g: er] - honor, pride, conscience.I think it's better than a "short".

MAN = MANN = min(Turks: I).

Also like toask, we will continue to communicate in English (machine translation, almostwithout revisions) or switch to German.
 
I don't think kooks should be encouraged on this forum.
 
Granted, thecarriers of genes can change the language (in the history of this happened morethan once), but are carriers of the genes are not at the same time, nativespeakers? Or the genes themselves are walking without speakers. You seem to bedifficult to accept the idea that the Bashkirs and other Asian carriers R1bdistant "relatives" of modern Europeans, and that all carriers of R1bspoke a language which is best preserved Turks (not to be confused with theTurks).Until recently Ihad a very skeptical of the various reconstructions of the names of the ancientpeoples of Europe in terms of the Turkiclanguages: Savromat, Sarmatians, etc.


You're accusing me and everyone else of some kind of racism and xenophobia which is non-existent. I've stated before, R1b is also found predominantly amongs the Hausa people in Africa, but this is yet a different subclade. As I said, you're confusing language and genetics, and have the ad-hoc assumption that R1b (as a whole, it seems?) must somehow be tied to the Turkic languages.

By the way, the Sarmatians were not Turkic-speaking peoples but Iranic-speaking (Indo-European) peoples. They spoke a languages represented today only with Ossetian, and (much, much more distantly) related with Persian, Kurdish and Pashtoo. There were no Turkic peoples in eastern Europe until the Migrations Period.

Now, regardingthe term "Germany":is Tacitus (98 AD. E.) Not written «De origine et situ Germanorum», so like theLatin name of his work. In addition, the Germans still Strabo mentions (I century.BC. E..) He wrote that the Romans called the Germans «germani» (Latin for"real, real"). That is, the term appears much earlier. Or am I again,something is messed up? Perhaps it ekzoetnonim, which is easily explained bythe Turkic language.

The word «gerr»= Eng.SIR = Turks IR, ER, AR (man).


No offense, but that really makes no sense. I explained before that the Latin name "Germani" derives from Celtic. What makes more sense, that the Romans used a Celtic term (people whom they conquered) to describe those who were the neighbours of the Celts ("short distance" > "neighbours"), or to use a Turkic term, which certainly weren't in Central Europe by the 1st century BC / AD.

ғər [g: er] - honor, pride, conscience.I think it's better than a "short".

MAN = MANN = min(Turks: I).


It does not metter if you like it better, it makes no sense. It is also obvious to me that you have no understanding of linguistic methodology. I highly recommend you to check out these:

Comparative method
Principles of sound change

Also like toask, we will continue to communicate in English (machine translation, almostwithout revisions) or switch to German.

I commend your German-speaking skills, but this forum here is in English. Most people who participate in the discussions, here do not speak German. Go figure for yourself.
 
It's possible what AkBulat is saying. Turkic tribes have always been living from Central Asia up to north and east of China. If R1b is from Central Asia than R1b could be also a proto-Tutkic haplogroup! Why not?

Why must R1b only be linked to the Indo-Europeans speakers? R1b is much older for that and goes beyond the known language families...
 
According to me both R1b & R1a could potentially make part of the proto-Turkic tribes!
 
It's possible what AkBulat is saying. Turkic tribes have always been living from Central Asia up to north and east of China. If R1b is from Central Asia than R1b could be also a proto-Tutkic haplogroup! Why not?
Sure, I don't think anyone is saying that R1b had to be pure of any single language group.

Why must R1b only be linked to the Indo-Europeans speakers? R1b is much older for that and goes beyond the known language families...
There is no "must" to it, but if you look at the at the age of Western European R1b, which is really most R1b-L11(S127/P310) it is quite young and aligns very nicely time-wise with the Bronze Age and the spread of IE languages. The other factor, which was already pointed out, is the coincidence that Western R1b is very predominant in very predominant IE speaking areas.

None of this proves anything, but I think it is reasonable to say if the timing is right and the geography is right, which they both are, then the probability that R1b rode along with IE languages is increased.
 
It's possible what AkBulat is saying. Turkic tribes have always been living from Central Asia up to north and east of China. If R1b is from Central Asia than R1b could be also a proto-Tutkic haplogroup! Why not?

What does not make even the slightest sense is the claim of a linguistic connection between Celtic and Turkic languages. It has absolutely no basis, especially because it's based on superficial, vague similarities between modern languages.

Why must R1b only be linked to the Indo-Europeans speakers? R1b is much older for that and goes beyond the known language families...

Nobody here claimed that.

The Middle Eastern and African branch of R1b (V88) is clearly not tied with the migrations of the Indo-Europeans, and neither is the Central Asian branch (M73). The only branch of R1b that is (apparently) tied with the Indo-European migrations appears to be M269, and there really only L23. See also this tree by Maciamo. But the claim that S28, which is clearly part of the expansion in Western Europe, and which also has it's greatest diversity in Europe, is of Turkic origin, or comes from Central Asia, is just ludicrous.

I would think it is far more plausible to be the other way round: that the Bashkirs have (partially) Central European origins, and adopted a Turkic language only later. After all, S28 is clearly significantly older than Common Turkic.
 
Last edited:
Ok, but isn't possible that the Huns brought some subclades of R1b & R1a into Central Europe?

The Huns were not entirely of Easter Eurasian stock, but according to me they had a lot genes of Western Eurasia.

European R1b is almost of the same age as the Hunnic invasions!
 
Ok, but isn't possible that the Huns brought some subclades of R1b & R1a into Central Europe?

S28? Certainly not. As I said, I actually think that Bashkir M73 is probably of Turkic origin.

The Huns were not entirely of Easter Eurasian stock, but according to me they had a lot genes of Western Eurasia.

European R1b is almost of the same age as the Hunnic invasions!

That's like saying that Cicero and William Shakespeare lived almost at the same time. R1b has been in Europe since at least the Bronze Age (the oldest find thus far, and I believe that is still accurate, is from the Urnfield Culture from ca. 1000 BC).
 
I do really think that you don't understand me very well. I'm not saying that R1b folks are Turkic or of the Turkic origin. I'm not saying that folks in Europe are actually of Turkic stock.

The only thing what I'm saying is that it's possible that some Turkic tribes (not Mongols, but real Turks) in Russia share the same ancestors as Indo-European 'speakers' all over the world.

It doesn't matter and it's not the point now that R1b or R1a in Central Asia differ from that in Europe. Of course it is different because they separated many years ago. I've here only about the 'common' ancestors.

Turks that have been living in the Nordic areas of Eurasia are very 'light' in appearance...
 

This thread has been viewed 57905 times.

Back
Top