I seriously thought I was one of the few people weird and crazy enough to care about this worthless shit. I'm amazed and overjoyed.
 
As I have explained in my R1b history, between 2500 and 1800 BCE Western Europe was invaded by Bronze-age Indo-European speakers carrying mostly the R1b paternal lineage.

It's a very possible scenario, but it's necessary to take into account also that there was a R1b1 man inhumated inside an early cardial cave in the high Pyrenees (Els Trocs), accoring to "Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe"... it's necessary so to think about other possibilities, as that Neolithic G's were agriculture practicers and R1b were herders, being the first group always more abundant; other possibility would be that G's had their own inhumation rites and by that the archaelogists are getting more G's...

The issue is yet open.
 
...it's necessary to take into account also that there was a R1b1 man inhumated inside an early cardial cave in the high Pyrenees (Els Trocs)...

Not M269, though (the kind of R1b that dominates Europe). We have that centuries prior to El Trocs, out in what's now Russia.
 
Have you guys looked at the DNA results from ancient Basque burial grounds?
 
all your writings dont explain why were basques speaking object-verb language and they have r1b . some writers say basques are asimilated celts or indo european people . at the time there isnt any power public who have assimilted indo-europeans in spain or south france . basques reality shows that oldest r1b forms werent speaking indo-european languages
 
Last edited:
all your writings dont explain why owere basques speaking ...
Sums it up pretty well, such explanations can not satisfy. Conquerors humping a hundred local women each, and then don't care about their offsprings is just too hilarious to be true. Not to mention that they had to slaughter almost completely the male population of the indigenous people, for which I see no evidence, especially if we cannot see such harsh breaks in the culture at the arrival of the newcomers. The R1b-cowboys seemed to be far less aggressive compared to their eastern brothers of the east-european forrest plains.

But most of all, I am absolutely certain that Daddy-King won't like Son-Prince to quibber in this strange local language to his subjects or even worse, to his 'soldiers'. That's a no-go for a conqueror. However you try to fit this theory in a conceivable manner, you have to fail.

Trying to solve the problem I want to make a few proposals, which have enough likelihood and are not in conflict with common sense:
1. The iberoceltic migrants never conquered the Basque country. No conquest, no 'occupation' of the language.
2. The Basques in their Pyreneaen valleys had some hard time living there with lots of disasters - illness, avalanches, floods, hunger , you name it. Regular bottlenecks will be the consequences.
3. Regularly the peopling of the valleys went down and people from the surrouding lowlands migrated into the mountain valleys. This is the way some R1b-farmers came into the Basque country.
4. The isolation of the people there lead to genetic degeneration. Genetic diseases, infertility, you know. The newcomers, (maybe even carrying diseases, with which the indigenous people had some distress) with better genes were certainly procreating more successfully and therefore gradually increase in size, got assimilated within 3-4 generations, and despite their different haplogroup they became Basques, culturally and languagewise. Continued repetition of this lets the percentage of R1b grow until they are by far the most frequent haplogroup. The language is kept intact, but it will be enhanced with a lot of foreign vocabulary imported by the migrants, which obviously is the case with the Basque language.
 
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com.es/2017_02_01_archive.html?m=1

A post from blogger Maju about the Basque / DF27 issue. I agree mainly except for the area of formation. The Gascon-French side of the clade can be explained by the expanding Wascones in the sixth century.

For those thinking that their R1b is debt by IE just is worth to look how Basques have 70% DF27 and their Cantabric neighbours (also in mountain isolated areas but allways Indoeuropean as Celtic or Latin) drop to 42%.
 
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com.es/2017_02_01_archive.html?m=1

A post from blogger Maju about the Basque / DF27 issue. I agree mainly except for the area of formation. The Gascon-French side of the clade can be explained by the expanding Wascones in the sixth century.

For those thinking that their R1b is debt by IE just is worth to look how Basques have 70% DF27 and their Cantabric neighbours (also in mountain isolated areas but allways Indoeuropean as Celtic or Latin) drop to 42%.

Basque_French
Lengyel_LN 0.563
Western_HG 0.082
Yamnaya_Samara 0.355
chisq 15.364 tail_prob 0.166411

Chalcolithic European Y DNA

Basque country, SW France=100% I2a, G2a, H2
Russia=90%+ R1b.
 
Your results are quite different than that of Genetiker... someone might fail, or both.
Your Russian R1b are still in the steppes. They didn't change address.
 
no answer of mine
- Y-R1b still appears recent in Iberia, and FOR THE MOST come from just North (South France? earlier from Alps?); I don't exclude some rarest R1b subclades (archaic forms and other lineages) came to Iberia before that at very low rates - the "Basque" Y-R1b seems to me come from North as others
- the question of language is still there - since long ago I think, without any certainty, in a possible non-IE speaking part of more western Y-R1b; NO affirmation here -
- why some western tribes of Y-R1b from somewhere in Western Steppes (rather than Anatolia) would not have reached western Europe without IE language when their relatives stayed in East has been lately indo-europeanized somewhere in Eastern Europe / Western Steppes ? - some tribes were in contact in the Steppes, with DNA exchanges I think, and some stayed finno-ugric when others spoke IEan and maybe others farther East some kind of turkic - not to say a language change is done in a short time what I don't believe at all.
 
...why some western tribes of Y-R1b from somewhere in Western Steppes (rather than Anatolia) would not have reached western Europe without IE language when their relatives stayed in East has been lately indo-europeanized somewhere in Eastern Europe / Western Steppes ? - some tribes were in contact in the Steppes, with DNA exchanges I think, and some stayed finno-ugric when others spoke IEan and maybe others farther East some kind of turkic - not to say a language change is done in a short time what I don't believe at all.
I think there is overwhelming evidence that all R1-people were Indoeuropean speakers from the beginning. Wherever they went, you find the traces of IE languages throughout the whole Eurasian continent. There is no need to twist ones mind to justify a different thesis.

Linguists have tried a lot to find a connection between languages of the East and Basque - caucasian, uralic, turkic languages - and failed completely. The most probable explanation is still that Basque is an autochthonic language which has gathered some portion of its vocabulary from surrounding IE and nonIE languages.

To account for the strange fact that old Iberian languages had retained their integrity despite the R1b-'invasion' we must look at the geography of western Europe. While the west and north of Europe has little barriers for the R1b migrants except for the Channel separating the UK from the continent, the European south has the Alpes and the Pyrenean mountains. You can't simply run over them with a big horde of people and cattle (or whatever). So the immigration was slow and the local population could not be outnumbered easily. The population density and the social organisation of the indigenous people on one hand, and the amount of newcomers and the time intervall, in which they came, decided, whose language became the dominant one. If the immigrants' population size grew slow compared to the population of the local population, they were assimilated before they outnumbered them, accepted the language of them and were already locals, before the next wave of newcomers arrived.

It's not a coincidence that almost all known nonIE languages of ancient Europe (Tartessian, Iberian, Basque, Rhaeto-Etruscan, North-Picenic, Ligurian, Sikanic) were located south of the Alps and the Pyrenean mountains. The invaders couldn't move fast enough into the territories to force their language and culture upon the residents before they were assimilated.
 
I think there is overwhelming evidence that all R1-people were Indoeuropean speakers from the beginning. Wherever they went, you find the traces of IE languages throughout the whole Eurasian continent. There is no need to twist ones mind to justify a different thesis.

It's one thing to say that the European clades of R1b & R1a were involved in the spread of Indo-European languages, but it's simply impossible that R1 was Indo-European speaking from the beginning.
 
It's one thing to say that the European clades of R1b & R1a were involved in the spread of Indo-European languages, but it's simply impossible that R1 was Indo-European speaking from the beginning.
Then my question:
Which known R1-folk(s) did NOT speak an IE language from the beginning of their existence? (Evidence required!)
 
Then my question:
Which known R1-folk(s) did NOT speak an IE language from the beginning of their existence? (Evidence required!)

Apart from them many Turkic groups (who might have inherited their Y-DNA from Indo-Iranian speakers), there appear to be old clades of R1 all over Central & South Asia as far as Bhutan with no ovious association to Indo-European languages.

That's not the real problem with the R1 = Indo-European equation though. It's the 15,000+ year gaps between the emergence of R1 and the breakup of PIE.

That's not to say that your conclusions about R1b in Basques aren't reasonable, btw.
 
That's not the real problem with the R1 = Indo-European equation though. It's the 15,000+ year gaps between the emergence of R1 and the breakup of PIE.
I see that my use of the term 'R1-people' lacks precision. Let me list an hierarchical order: person->family->clan->tribe->people (or folk if you like). Hunter-gatherer groups of the glacial times are in my view no peoples at all. They are at best several clans together. As for the language: I would rather call itheir communication 'clan-speak' than language. I can't imagine that a language, which is understood by all members of the folk, can develop if there is not a certain degree of social organisation over a wider area, with meeting centers for exchange of experience, trade, common projects etc. So the time frame I'm thinking here is less than 10.000 years BP, maybe even considerably less. In that context I can't see that we have R1a or R1b peoples who certainly did not speak an IE/protoIE or pre-protoIE language apart for the enigmatic African example and some side clades for which we don't have cultural evidence of their existenceas a defined people.
 
Your results are quite different than that of Genetiker... someone might fail, or both.
Your Russian R1b are still in the steppes. They didn't change address.

I added all of Geneticker's results to my spreadsheet.
 
I see that my use of the term 'R1-people' lacks precision. Let me list an hierarchical order: person->family->clan->tribe->people (or folk if you like). Hunter-gatherer groups of the glacial times are in my view no peoples at all. They are at best several clans together. As for the language: I would rather call itheir communication 'clan-speak' than language. I can't imagine that a language, which is understood by all members of the folk, can develop if there is not a certain degree of social organisation over a wider area, with meeting centers for exchange of experience, trade, common projects etc. So the time frame I'm thinking here is less than 10.000 years BP, maybe even considerably less. In that context I can't see that we have R1a or R1b peoples who certainly did not speak an IE/protoIE or pre-protoIE language apart for the enigmatic African example and some side clades for which we don't have cultural evidence of their existenceas a defined people.

As I see it, there are three problems when it comes to our undestanding of paragroup R and its relationship with Eurasian languages: (i) historic expansions that considerably reduced language diversity, namely the Roman, Iranian, Turkic & Arabic expansions, (ii) the glaring lack of ancient DNA from South-East Asia to Central Asia, i. e. the most likely trajectory of R and by extension P1 and (iii) the low occurence of literacy in Central Asia and the larger Eurasian plain before the Iranian expansions (the Iberian peninsula is an exception in this sense, because pre-Roman language diversity could be preserved due to early Phoenician contacts). One Central Asian isolate survives in Burushaski, whose speakers seem to have both old and young clades of R.

A scenario in which PIE emerges from a mixed group of R1b and R1a I consider rather unlikely, because it would require two sharply differentiated haplogroups to meet and stay put in one place only to become neatly seperated again after expansion. Assimilation requires fewer coincidences and has a stronger explanatory power with regards to Y-DNA patterns observed today. The hypothetical pre-Proto-IE clade need not necessarily have been very successful in this case.
 
offtopic
A scenario in which PIE emerges from a mixed group of R1b and R1a I consider rather unlikely, because it would require two sharply differentiated haplogroups to meet and stay put in one place only to become neatly seperated again after expansion. Assimilation requires fewer coincidences and has a stronger explanatory power with regards to Y-DNA patterns observed today. The hypothetical pre-Proto-IE clade need not necessarily have been very successful in this case.
I don't have this conflict, simply because I do not believe the consensus of the linguists, that there was only one principal proto-IE language. My thinking is lazy and simple, so I dislike a top down proto language, which can't even produce a proper tree; can't answer the pre-Big Bang question; gets a ridiculous accumulation of linguistic components (and therefore is almost impossible to learn),when converged back in time; and only tongue acrobats can form even simple sentences out of these hmpf-grmbl-mrks PIE constructs; and has no explanation why some base vocabulary is almost strictly conserved and others is not, without any understandable pattern; and best of all needs to dig Missis Gimbutas out of her grave, shove her in a time-capsule and send her to the folks, which separated before the building of the protoIE language (but today speak IE despite their great separation to the other IE-speakers), throw an IE-dictionary onto them and tell them "From now on you speak IE! Basta!"

So in my view it didn't need R1a and R1b clashing together, founding PIE and then off they go. For me IE was an oligocentric language group from the beginning, never a single language.
/offtopic
 
Last edited:
Tying to simplificate the question, I will try to make some affirmations that could be accepted for all (or almost all) of us to get to a conclusion.


1- Basque people have little indoeuropean origin if we look at mitochondrial and autosomic information: there is a lack of Red Sea, Southwest Asian and Caucasian admixtures and an absence of original indoeuropean mitochondrial haplogroups in basque people.

2- The basque language is non-indoeuropean, which agree with the previous assertion. I have only been able to find one linguist that classifies basque as indoeuropean language: Gianfranco Forni, and he received a lot of critics from other linguists. Besides, if one accepts that basque is indoeuropean, should be explained how is possible the point 1. It complicates the things more than simplify them.

3- The Y chromosome haplogroup of basque people is mainly R1b-P312 and, not only it is the most frequent haplogroup but that haplogroup is more frequent in basque people (toghether with people from Brittany) than in other part of the world.
This point can be explained by two ways:

3.1: The R1b is not an indoeuropean origin haplogroup. This argument is against all current accepted studies. If that were true then or the conclusions about the movements of haplogroups through Europe or about the indoeuropean invasions would be false.

3.2: The Y chromosome haplogroup has changed without a considerable alteration of the autosomic admixture and mitochondrial haplogroups. This is too difficult to accept because 90% of basques are R1b-P312, which is a too big proportion, but could be explained, for example, by a poligamous celtic ruling class.


My opinion: is easier to accept a small exception (3.2) than to make a big change in global hipothesis based in only one argument (3.1).

Anyway, only new data would be able to clarify the question.
 

This thread has been viewed 261673 times.

Back
Top