PDA

View Full Version : Tthe language of paragroup R



Bulat
01-25-2017, 06:17 AM
Hello everybody!

In my opinion = proto-Indo-European-Kartvelians-Dravidian language was the language of paragroup R.

According to recent reports linguists, Indo-European languages together with Kartvelian languages and Dravidian languages ​​have a common proto-language - the Proto-Indo-European-Kartvelians-Dravidian. In my opinion, these data linguistics, indirectly confirmed by DNA genealogy data. Judge for yourself.

R1a - Indo-Europeans,
R1b - Proto-Basque and in my opinion also - Proto-Kartvelians. By the way, the part of the linguists thinks, that the Proto-Basque language was from Kartvelian. And now have ancient R1b into Kartvelians.
R2 - Dravidians.

rms2
01-25-2017, 12:52 PM
I wonder how many R1bs will have to be pulled out of Yamnaya kurgans dating from the 3rd millennium BC before these kinds of ruminations will cease and the connection between R1b and the early Indo-Europeans will be admitted.

What will it take exactly?

MitchellSince1893
01-25-2017, 03:58 PM
I wonder how many R1bs will have to be pulled out of Yamnaya kurgans dating from the 3rd millennium BC before these kinds of ruminations will cease and the connection between R1b and the early Indo-Europeans will be admitted.

What will it take exactly?

Time machine.

storm
01-30-2017, 12:00 AM
I wonder how many R1bs will have to be pulled out of Yamnaya kurgans dating from the 3rd millennium BC before these kinds of ruminations will cease and the connection between R1b and the early Indo-Europeans will be admitted.

What will it take exactly?

I'm not agreeing with OP, but I want to point out that the Yamna haven't been definitively linked to IE yet.

The spread of IE languages can be explained by Corded Ware migrations. The Yamna-like component in Corded Ware DNA could come from Sredny Stog which would've been genetically similar to Yamna.

The Yamna and Maykop may have spoken a language ancestral to Northwest and/or Northeast Caucasian. Yamna derived Bell Beakers then spread this language to western Europe. This would neatly explain the connections between the Basque language and Caucasian languages, the abundance of R1b and steppe admixture in the Basque, and the presence of a Vasconic substratum across western Europe. This could also be the source of Iberian languages.

Italic and Celtic languages are linked with Urnfield and Hallstatt migrations. The Urnfield are descended from a mix of Bell Beaker and Corded Ware in Central Europe. As it happened, a Corded Ware language (Northwest IE) was imposed on a mostly R1b (U152) population which then spread with the Urnfield culture.

This is one possible scenario I can see occurring with current evidence, but I agree that it is also possible that the Yamna and Bell Beakers were IE.

rms2
01-30-2017, 12:14 AM
I'm not agreeing with OP, but I want to point out that the Yamna haven't been definitively linked to IE yet.

The spread of IE languages can be explained by Corded Ware migrations . . .

Well, on the other hand, Corded Ware has not been definitively linked to IE either.

You probably understand that it is impossible to "definitively" link any ancient people to IE prior to the invention of writing. Without documentary evidence, we do not know what language any ancient people spoke, not "definitively" anyway.

A number of highly respected scholars connect Yamnaya to IE, and many of the same scholars assert that Corded Ware is also linked to IE. That is my view, as well.

Gravetto-Danubian
01-30-2017, 12:25 AM
Time machine.

LOL Beat me to it
It truly would solve all issues, though.

kinman
03-02-2017, 03:00 AM
Hi All,
I agree that the earliest Haplogroup R men spoke Proto-Indo-European. And furthermore, that they arose together in the Stans region. particularly in Tajikistan and/or adjacent areas of Krygyzstan and Uzbekistan.
Early members of Haplogroup R and their language spread north into Siberia (where MA1, the Mal'ta child, lived) and later and more importantly west across Kazakhstan and beyond (as Haplogroup R1) and south into Pakistan and India (as Haplogroup R2).

ADW_1981
03-02-2017, 03:55 AM
I'm not agreeing with OP, but I want to point out that the Yamna haven't been definitively linked to IE yet.

The spread of IE languages can be explained by Corded Ware migrations. The Yamna-like component in Corded Ware DNA could come from Sredny Stog which would've been genetically similar to Yamna.

The Yamna and Maykop may have spoken a language ancestral to Northwest and/or Northeast Caucasian. Yamna derived Bell Beakers then spread this language to western Europe. This would neatly explain the connections between the Basque language and Caucasian languages, the abundance of R1b and steppe admixture in the Basque, and the presence of a Vasconic substratum across western Europe. This could also be the source of Iberian languages.

Italic and Celtic languages are linked with Urnfield and Hallstatt migrations. The Urnfield are descended from a mix of Bell Beaker and Corded Ware in Central Europe. As it happened, a Corded Ware language (Northwest IE) was imposed on a mostly R1b (U152) population which then spread with the Urnfield culture.

This is one possible scenario I can see occurring with current evidence, but I agree that it is also possible that the Yamna and Bell Beakers were IE.

Kura-Araxes may not have spoken Proto-Kartvelian. OP seems to think that because an R1b turned up in a kurgan related culture in the Caucasus that they must have spoken Proto-Kartvelian - based on what exactly? Why is he sure of this, but not sure of cultures like Yamnaya speaking IE?

Also, absolutely no evidence Corded Ware culture imposed itself on a R-U152 dominant culture of central Europe. What evidence supports this? If CW imposed itself on LBK, which is seems to have, it would have been G2 and H2 males. (forgive me for not recalling the exact subclades here)

vettor
03-02-2017, 04:16 AM
Hello everybody!

In my opinion = proto-Indo-European-Kartvelians-Dravidian language was the language of paragroup R.

According to recent reports linguists, Indo-European languages together with Kartvelian languages and Dravidian languages ​​have a common proto-language - the Proto-Indo-European-Kartvelians-Dravidian. In my opinion, these data linguistics, indirectly confirmed by DNA genealogy data. Judge for yourself.

R1a - Indo-Europeans,
R1b - Proto-Basque and in my opinion also - Proto-Kartvelians. By the way, the part of the linguists thinks, that the Proto-Basque language was from Kartvelian. And now have ancient R1b into Kartvelians.
R2 - Dravidians.

so what language did the haplogroups in the same area as per the above R1a and R1b speak at the time of creation of PIE ?

kinman
03-02-2017, 11:30 PM
Hi All,
I use to like to use the term Proto-Indo-European language or perhaps Proto-Nostratic. However, a more general term like Proto-Prenostratic might be preferable for what was spoken by the earliest men of Haplogroup R.
------------Ken
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


so what language did the haplogroups in the same area as per the above R1a and R1b speak at the time of creation of PIE ?

vettor
03-03-2017, 06:18 AM
Hi All,
I use to like to use the term Proto-Indo-European language or perhaps Proto-Nostratic. However, a more general term like Proto-Prenostratic might be preferable for what was spoken by the earliest men of Haplogroup R.
------------Ken
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And again I state..........what language the other haplogroups speak who lived with and around R1a/b speak ?

kinman
03-03-2017, 03:45 PM
Other than Haplogroup R, the only other haplogroups living in that area would probably have been P and Q. And I would suspect that they spoke the same language as Haplogroup R.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And again I state..........what language the other haplogroups speak who lived with and around R1a/b speak ?

vettor
03-03-2017, 06:43 PM
Other than Haplogroup R, the only other haplogroups living in that area would probably have been P and Q. And I would suspect that they spoke the same language as Haplogroup R.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

really .............I doubt that, since R, Q are one of the youngest of Haplogroups markers and I find it doubtful that they arrived in lands ( North-Caucasus and Yamnaya areas ) which where empty of any other older haplogroup , like the haplogroups of J or G, L , T , N, O and many others

kinman
03-03-2017, 08:07 PM
We are talking about two different areas. As I stated in post 7, I believe Haplogroup R originated (and split into R1 and R2) in Tajikistan and/or adjacent areas of Krygyzstan and Uzbekistan. When Haplogroups Q and R arose about 32,000 years ago, Haplogroup P may have been the only other group in that area. This more isolated (and mountainous area) around Tajikistan would have been relatively unpopulated compared to the Caucasus region.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


really .............I doubt that, since R, Q are one of the youngest of Haplogroups markers and I find it doubtful that they arrived in lands ( North-Caucasus and Yamnaya areas ) which where empty of any other older haplogroup , like the haplogroups of J or G, L , T , N, O and many others

vettor
03-03-2017, 11:07 PM
We are talking about two different areas. As I stated in post 7, I believe Haplogroup R originated (and split into R1 and R2) in Tajikistan and/or adjacent areas of Krygyzstan and Uzbekistan. When Haplogroups Q and R arose about 32,000 years ago, Haplogroup P may have been the only other group in that area. This more isolated (and mountainous area) around Tajikistan would have been relatively unpopulated compared to the Caucasus region.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agree with your R origin .........but the area in question and the area of northern caspain sea area has IIRC a G1 origin ..............Haplogroup G is far more older then R , so settlement of G in the indo-european PIE lands already had settlements of other Haplogroups

kinman
03-04-2017, 12:41 AM
I was amazed to learn that although Haplogroup G originated about 48,500 years ago, according to YFull estimates, G1 and G2 did not originated until about 26,700 years ago. Haplogroup R1 and R2 originated about 28,200 years ago, 1,500 years BEFORE the split of G1 and G2. Therefore, R1 and R2 are older than G1 and G2. It was probably a long period of time after those splits before any Haplogroup R men lived near any Haplogroup G men.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/G/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R/

storm
03-16-2017, 05:24 PM
Kura-Araxes may not have spoken Proto-Kartvelian. OP seems to think that because an R1b turned up in a kurgan related culture in the Caucasus that they must have spoken Proto-Kartvelian - based on what exactly? Why is he sure of this, but not sure of cultures like Yamnaya speaking IE?


I agree, we cannot say with any certainty what languages these cultures spoke. That's why I wanted to point out in my post that other possibilities are still consistent with ancient DNA and shouldn't be thrown out yet.



Also, absolutely no evidence Corded Ware culture imposed itself on a R-U152 dominant culture of central Europe. What evidence supports this? If CW imposed itself on LBK, which is seems to have, it would have been G2 and H2 males. (forgive me for not recalling the exact subclades here)

Ah I apologize, I worded that badly. What I meant was that an R1b-U152 population adopted an IE language from a Corded Ware-related population.

So, CWC arrived with R1a and IE languages, replacing late Neolithic farmers that had mostly I2a and G2a. Then eastern Bell Beaker groups began expanding across central and western Europe, spreading R1b-P312 subclades and pre-Vasconic languages.

In the mixing zone between R1a CW-related groups and R1b BB-related groups in central Europe, a successful population carrying R1b-U152 had adopted an IE language ancestral to Italo-Celtic and began spreading it in the late Bronze Age. This could've happened during the Unetice, Tumulus, and/or Urnfield culture periods, but as always we need more aDNA to know for sure.

epp
03-16-2017, 06:31 PM
I agree, we cannot say with any certainty what languages these cultures spoke. That's why I wanted to point out in my post that other possibilities are still consistent with ancient DNA and shouldn't be thrown out yet.



Ah I apologize, I worded that badly. What I meant was that an R1b-U152 population adopted an IE language from a Corded Ware-related population.

So, CWC arrived with R1a and IE languages, replacing late Neolithic farmers that had mostly I2a and G2a. Then eastern Bell Beaker groups began expanding across central and western Europe, spreading R1b-P312 subclades and pre-Vasconic languages.

In the mixing zone between R1a CW-related groups and R1b BB-related groups in central Europe, a successful population carrying R1b-U152 had adopted an IE language ancestral to Italo-Celtic and began spreading it in the late Bronze Age. This could've happened during the Unetice, Tumulus, and/or Urnfield culture periods, but as always we need more aDNA to know for sure.
I agree this seems very feasible. A smaller, but expanding, dominant U152 population might have adopted the language of the pre-existing population. But where do you think any Eastern R1b BB and R1a CWC groups would have expanded to Central Europe from? (My data suggests L51 most likely arrived via the Upper Rhine before Z2103 arrived via Ukraine/Poland, with R1a unclear, but that all three spread relatively recently from the Turkey/Caucasus region) How and where do you think that R1a CWC's IE and R1b's pre-Vasconic might have diverged?

storm
03-16-2017, 07:07 PM
I agree this seems very feasible. A smaller, but expanding, dominant U152 population might have adopted the language of the pre-existing population. But where do you think any Eastern R1b BB and R1a CWC groups would have expanded to Central Europe from? (My data suggests L51 most likely arrived via the Upper Rhine before Z2103 arrived via Ukraine/Poland, with R1a unclear, but that all three spread relatively recently from the Turkey/Caucasus region) How and where do you think that R1a CWC's IE and R1b's pre-Vasconic might have diverged?

R1a was carried by forest-steppe hunter-gatherers between the Urals and the Baltic. The precursors of Corded Ware probably lived in the Dnieper-Don region so CWC R1a could come from the Dnieper-Donets and/or Dereivka cultures (we need aDNA). PIE could be the language of Dereivka and was then spread across a very large dialect continuum by Corded Ware and related cultures like Middle Dnieper, Fatyanovo, Balanovo, and Abashevo c. 3200-2500 BC.

R1b is a bit trickier. European Z2103 most likely comes from Yamna or post-Yamna groups like the Catacomb culture. Its sibling L51 can be best described as circum-Pontic. We really need to find some L51 in aDNA, but if I had to guess, L51 (or its parent L23) might be connected to Maykop and the early Yamnaya. The Vasconic-Caucasian connection may be related to the presence of R1b in other Caucasus groups such as Kura-Araxes. Eastern Bell Beaker groups have significant Yamna-like admixture, which is probably connected to the Yamnaya kurgans that appeared in the Carpathian basin c. 3000 BC.

Jean M
03-16-2017, 11:42 PM
PIE could be the language of Dereivka ....

Looks like an extract or two from the book I'm working on could come in handy. This is just unpolished draft at the moment, but you get the idea.


Language and DNA
Today there is a strong correlation between the native speaking of an Indo-European language and the genetic signals of ANE and the subclades of Y-DNA R1.1 So it is important to stress that DNA does not dictate language. Language is learned. If a child of Korean ancestry is adopted by English-speakers soon after birth, that child will grow up with English as a mother tongue. As a general rule, though, children learn their first language from their biological parents. That produces the greater-than-chance correlations we see between language and genetic markers, but it should not be seen as a cast-iron, one-to-one relationship. This is neatly illustrated by haplogroup R1b1a2 (V88), found most commonly in speakers of the Afro-Asiatic family of languages in the Middle East, North and Central Africa.1 This R lineage split away about 17,000 years ago from its brother R1b1a1 (L388), ancestor of the subclades common in Indo-European speakers. We know that pressure-blade makers entered the Near East as well as Europe.2 So we can picture a man with this useful skill being welcomed into a group of early farmers and adopting their Afro-Asiatic language to make himself understood. Some of his descendants evidently travelled with farmers as they spread into Europe and Africa. R1b1a2 (V88) was not common in Neolithic Europe. But one example has been found in Iberia.3 So we need to avoid sweeping generalisations about an entire branch of the Y-DNA tree.

We certainly should not make the mistake of thinking that Proto-Indo-European (PIE) must have begun at the calculated date of the birth of Y-DNA R 31,900 years ago.4 Languages have their own pace of development. They are shaped around what people of a particular time and place need to say. PIE can be dated by its lexicon to a period between c. 4,500 BC and c. 2500 BC. Scholars have painstakingly reconstructed as much as possible of its vocabulary, by comparison of words in its daughter languages. There are about 1,500 reconstructed PIE roots and words. This must fall far short of the full language. Yet the PIE lexicon reveals a great deal about the lifestyle of its speakers. They were familiar with agriculture. That alone proves that this language was not spoken by Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers.5

Moreover PIE speakers were familiar with the plough. The type of agriculture that entered Europe began about 11,000 years ago in the Middle East. These early farmers used digging sticks. The idea of using oxen to pull a plough came later. It was part of a Copper Age wave of realisation that some animals could be used not just as food, but to lessen human labour. Oxen could drag a sledge. With the invention of the wheel c. 3500 BC came the wagon. PIE-speakers were also familiar with metallurgy. They had a concept of social ranking, but few words for specific occupations and none for urban life. The lexicon reveals a Copper Age society, though not an urbanized state.1

The European steppe
PIE can be located geographically by its linguistic contacts. Where one language borrows several words from another at a time before writing, that suggests that they were neighbours. PIE speakers had contact with a language probably spoken at the time in the forest zone near the Ural Mountains. It also had contacts with Caucasian languages. So we can picture PIE north of the Caspian and west of the Urals, on the European steppe.1 Naturally this language did not come out of nothing. There must have been a pre-PIE language, or rather a gradual development as pottery-making foragers on the steppe adopted stock-raising, and then copper-working, horse-riding and wagons.

As mentioned above (p. 55), the earliest pottery to reach Europe is found in sites along the Middle Volga. Hunter-gatherers often camped close to a fresh water source, preferably one which would also provide fish, but they were mobile people. So it will come as no surprise that this type of pottery had spread west from there into other riverine niches across the steppe and forest-steppe zones by about 6200-6000 BC. The rivers Dniester, South Bug, Dnieper and Donets all run south across the steppe to the Black Sea. Archaeologists have identified two groups of pottery-making fisher-foragers making use of these rivers: the Bug-Dniester culture, and Dnieper-Donets I. Both gained by contact with farming cultures to the west, creating lifestyles with mixed influences. The most heavily populated part of the Pontic-Caspian steppe at the time was around the Dnieper Rapids, a stretch of the river with ten major cascades. Fish migrating upstream could be caught here in vast quantities. It was here that Dnieper-Donets I foragers transformed themselves into Dnieper-Donets II cattle-farmers about 5200 BC.2 ....

By around 4700-4600 BC, stock-breeding had spread as far east as the Volga, creating the Khvalynsk culture, which is particularly interesting for its copper-working, hints of horse domestication and social structure.... The men of Copper Age Khvalynsk were overall genetically similar to the early pottery-maker on the Volga (p. 55) with his ANE input, but also carried another component, perhaps from the nearby Caucasus. ...

The traffic of ideas and goods across the European steppe was not all in one direction. Influences from the Volga or nearby moved west to the Dnieper Rapids to become an element in the Sredni Stog culture about 4400 BC. ....So archaeology gives us evidence of contact between the various pockets of people along the European steppe that we imagine speaking a pre-PIE language. Linguistic developments would probably be shared. So when the Yamnaya cultural horizon rolled across the European steppe from around 3300 BC, putting its mark on local cultures, this would not bring a complete change of language everywhere.

epp
03-17-2017, 12:05 AM
R1a was carried by forest-steppe hunter-gatherers between the Urals and the Baltic. The precursors of Corded Ware probably lived in the Dnieper-Don region so CWC R1a could come from the Dnieper-Donets and/or Dereivka cultures (we need aDNA). PIE could be the language of Dereivka and was then spread across a very large dialect continuum by Corded Ware and related cultures like Middle Dnieper, Fatyanovo, Balanovo, and Abashevo c. 3200-2500 BC.

R1b is a bit trickier. European Z2103 most likely comes from Yamna or post-Yamna groups like the Catacomb culture. Its sibling L51 can be best described as circum-Pontic. We really need to find some L51 in aDNA, but if I had to guess, L51 (or its parent L23) might be connected to Maykop and the early Yamnaya. The Vasconic-Caucasian connection may be related to the presence of R1b in other Caucasus groups such as Kura-Araxes. Eastern Bell Beaker groups have significant Yamna-like admixture, which is probably connected to the Yamnaya kurgans that appeared in the Carpathian basin c. 3000 BC.
My calculations are based solely on modern day y-dna, which I have actually found makes R1a trickier. They suggest surviving European R1b relatively clearly as most likely Pontic in origin, with L51 and Z2109 both looking to have been relatively rapid migrations into Europe, perhaps making it likely that IE was either acquired at their Pontic point of origin or their Germanic destination. Meanwhile, the calculations suggest two possible scenarios for the origins of surviving European R1a - either a later migration from Turkey or an earlier migration from the Levant (i.e. migrations not dissimilar to R1b in time and geography)(whilst there may well have been lots of R1a forest-steppe people, there is little evidence from my large database to indicate that the bulk of surviving R1a descended from them) I suppose there is always the possibility that an incoming R1a CWC itself picked up some elements of IE from an even earlier European population that it displaced - possibly even another (now extinct) branch of R1a.

Arch
03-17-2017, 10:10 AM
Paragroup R spoke click language.

epp
03-17-2017, 01:32 PM
Looks like an extract or two from the book I'm working on could come in handy. This is just unpolished draft at the moment, but you get the idea.
If, as you say, proto-IE (the language spoken by the MRCA of IE-speaking people) had an agricultural lexicon, would this suggest that it was most likely limited to one or other of R1a & R1b, which had branched away from each other before agriculture had developed?
Perhaps it was simply R1a's language, which became adopted by the R1b minority population when it first moved in on R1a territory in Northern Europe?

rms2
03-17-2017, 01:44 PM
If, as you say, proto-IE (the language spoken by the MRCA of IE-speaking people) had an agricultural lexicon, would this suggest that it was most likely limited to one or other of R1a & R1b, which had branched away from each other before agriculture had developed?
Perhaps it was simply R1a's language, which became adopted by the R1b minority population when it first moved in on R1a territory in Northern Europe?

They branched away from each other genetically long before PIE developed, farming or no farming, but evidently they were still in close proximity to one another geographically on the Eurasian steppe. I don't think we're ever going to be able say who was speaking PIE first.

Things could have happened in exactly the reverse of what you described.

Jean M
03-17-2017, 03:32 PM
If, as you say, proto-IE (the language spoken by the MRCA of IE-speaking people) had an agricultural lexicon, would this suggest that it was most likely limited to one or other of R1a & R1b?

No. R1a and R1b were genetically speaking brothers. They both stem from R1. So we would expect them to stay in the same community and most probably continue to move together, more or less. They both occur in the men of Copper Age Khvalynsk.

By the way PIE did not just have an agricultural lexicon. It was a Copper Age language.

Jean M
03-17-2017, 03:43 PM
Perhaps it was simply R1a's language, which became adopted by the R1b minority population when it first moved in on R1a territory in Northern Europe?

I'm not sure which period you are thinking of. Both R1b and R1a were present on the European steppe at the time that PIE was forming. So men carrying both of these haplogroups would be part of the PIE speaking community. The Yamnaya move northward to create Corded Ware would have spread PIE. Most of the males in that movement seem to have carried R1a, but some R1b and I2 seem to have been fellow travellers.

epp
03-17-2017, 04:07 PM
They branched away from each other genetically long before PIE developed, farming or no farming, but evidently they were still in close proximity to one another geographically on the Eurasian steppe. I don't think we're ever going to be able say who was speaking PIE first.

Things could have happened in exactly the reverse of what you described.
Yes, I agree. In fact, I've failed to convince myself! My data still suggests that R1b was most likely in Central Europe first. If the hypothesis is correct, it would most likely have been the incoming R1a that imposed its IE on the indigenous R1b before going (or being pushed) back Eastwards.

I consider the author of the thread proposed reasonably that European R1b might have spoken a Kartvelian language, as the Turkish/Georgian border area is precisely where my data indicates is a most likely origin point for it.

epp
03-17-2017, 04:14 PM
I'm not sure which period you are thinking of. Both R1b and R1a were present on the European steppe at the time that PIE was forming. So men carrying both of these haplogroups would be part of the PIE speaking community. The Yamnaya move northward to create Corded Ware would have spread PIE. Most of the males in that movement seem to have carried R1a, but some R1b and I2 seem to have been fellow travellers.
I think it likely that R1a and R1b were for the most part separated by the time of the Copper Age, even if they lived in proximity. Otherwise, how would they have managed to extricate themselves from each other (East & West) so markedly today?

Jean M
03-17-2017, 04:30 PM
I think it likely that R1a and R1b were for the most part separated by the time of the Copper Age, even if they lived in proximity. Otherwise, how would they have managed to extricate themselves from each other (East & West) so markedly today?

The Indo-European speakers appear to have been patrilocal. That means that sons would stay in the same location as their father and wives would move to be with them. That way we would expect to find a variety of mtDNA haplogroups in each small (extended family) community, but only one Y-DNA haplogroup, barring exceptions. An exception might occur where an outside male was accepted as having a useful skill. So we could picture little groups across the steppe all speaking the same language, but Y-DNA R1b might dominate in one, R1a in another. Yet another might happen to be a mixture. Now when people started moving out of the steppe in different directions, we would expect them to move as families. So one group could go one way, another group would go another.

rms2
03-17-2017, 05:16 PM
Yes, I agree. In fact, I've failed to convince myself! My data still suggests that R1b was most likely in Central Europe first. If the hypothesis is correct, it would most likely have been the incoming R1a that imposed its IE on the indigenous R1b before going (or being pushed) back Eastwards.

What makes you think that? I guess you know that thus far all but one of the Yamnaya skeletons were R1b-L23.

Yes, I know none has been R1b-L51 yet, but we have no Yamnaya y-dna from the Pontic steppe or the Carpathian Basin. We do, however, have Bell Beaker y-dna. It has featured plenty of R1b-L51, and Gimbutas and Heyd have both said that Bell Beaker was derived from Yamnaya.

Given the formation time and tmrca of L23 and his sons, Z2103 and L51, it isn't likely that any of them arose very far from the others.



I consider the author of the thread proposed reasonably that European R1b might have spoken a Kartvelian language, as the Turkish/Georgian border area is precisely where my data indicates is a most likely origin point for it.

There is absolutely no evidence of any such thing.

Your data must be extremely interesting. They convince you that R1b arose both in central Europe and on the Turkish/Georgian border.

vettor
03-17-2017, 06:13 PM
No. R1a and R1b were genetically speaking brothers. They both stem from R1. So we would expect them to stay in the same community and most probably continue to move together, more or less. They both occur in the men of Copper Age Khvalynsk.

By the way PIE did not just have an agricultural lexicon. It was a Copper Age language.

firstly.....from the professors of linguistics that the first split of PIE language happened in Anatolia.

Can you clear up then , that the Anatolian split ~4000BC of PIE ( the very first split ) would indicate that the R1 moved in great numbers to Anatolia to maybe be a Proto-Hatti/Mitanni group of people............if this is correct then the R1 invasion of central Europe and beyond from the steppe would have excluded these R1 "anatolians " . This means that the split of Pie in Anatolia and central Europe cannot ever match linguistically. Or, was the invasion of R1 in central Europe only from these PIE R1 "anatolians " , again this seems wrong .

I still cannot come to terms that R1 was the only haplogroup that created PIE ....................was there no other Haplogroups with R1 when PIE was created?

Jean M
03-17-2017, 06:52 PM
firstly.....from the professors of linguistics that the first split of PIE language happened in Anatolia.

Not exactly. The earliest 'child' group (that we know about) to split away from the PIE 'mother' was that which developed the Anatolian branch of IE. This did not happen in Anatolia. It happened so far from Anatolia that the 'child' group could not talk to the 'mother' group. So the two languages developed separately. That is why the daughter language Proto-Anatolian developed.


Can you clear up then , that the Anatolian split ~4000BC of PIE ( the very first split ) would indicate that the R1 moved in great numbers to Anatolia to maybe be a Proto-Hatti/Mitanni group of people.

They did not necessarily move in large numbers.

The Mitanni are not part of the Anatolian branch of IE. These were a group of Indic-speaking charioteers who took over a Hurrian-speaking state. The Anatolian-speakers were Hittites, Luwians, etc.

Jean M
03-17-2017, 06:59 PM
I still cannot come to terms that R1 was the only haplogroup that created PIE ....................was there no other Haplogroups with R1 when PIE was created?

There pretty clearly were. The WHG people who had fished and hunted around the Pontic-Caspian steppe before the arrival of R1 men from Siberia seem to have carried variants of I2. Relevant section from AJ:


We should not assume that the Indo-Europeans were all descended from the R1 founder. Nor is the R1a1a/R1b1a2 division so neat that there is no overlap. The two could travel together. Certain other haplogroups appear to travel with subclades of R1 in the migrations of Indo-European speakers. A group of Bronze Age skeletons found in Lichtenstein Cave, in Lower Saxony, provide a concrete example of Y-DNA haplogroups mixed within one band. The men included two possibly of Y-DNA R1a1, one of R1b, but no fewer than twelve of I2a2b (L38/S154).1 The last two haplogroups still reflect the connection shown in the cave. The present-day distributions of I2a2b and R1b-L21 both flow along the Rhine and into the British Isles.

... I2a appears in a hunter turned farmer in Hungary c. 5780-5650 BC (p. 64). So Cucuteni-Tripolye farmers may have contributed I2a into the Yamnaya-with-Cucuteni-Tripolye cultural amalgam. If I2a2 was associated with Usatovo and the villages along the Dniester, that would explain why I2a2b (L38/S154) appears alongside R1a1a after apparently migrating up the river and around the Carpathians into present-day Germany (Lichtenstein Cave).

storm
03-17-2017, 09:01 PM
... The Yamnaya move northward to create Corded Ware would have spread PIE ...

Is this based on Haak et al. 2015? The way I understood it is the Corded Ware culture has about 75% Yamna-like admixture, but that doesn't mean that the CWC is descended from Yamnaya migrants. Based on archaeology, isn't it more likely that the CWC and the Yamnaya share admixture from a shared ancestral population such as Khvalynsk and/or Sredny Stog?

As for what language the Yamnaya spoke, I think it is still too early to assume that Yamna spread PIE. Other possibilities cannot be ruled out yet, such as the Vasco-Caucasian connection I've speculated about.

Jean M
03-17-2017, 09:28 PM
Based on archaeology, isn't it more likely that the CWC and the Yamnaya share admixture from a shared ancestral population such as Khvalynsk and/or Sredny Stog?

What moved north significantly enough to change the landscape via CW was the Yamnaya package, complete with single burial under a kurgan. Both Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog were stages on the way to the Yamnaya package, but not fully there. It is liable to be a complex story, which I am currently attempting to unravel. People could have been drifting north as individuals or in small groups some time before a main wave. But if so they have not been picked up in aDNA except for the pottery-making hunter-gatherers going up to the Baltic long before CW - Narva culture etc.

rms2
03-17-2017, 10:41 PM
Take a look at this graphic and try to imagine Z2103 at one end of the European continent and L51 at the other. I don't see how you can, unless you have some sort of preconceived agenda.

14596

epp
03-17-2017, 11:54 PM
What makes you think that? I guess you know that thus far all but one of the Yamnaya skeletons were R1b-L23.
You've misinterpreted what I said. I was just agreeing with you when you said things could be the reverse of what I initially described. When I wrote "my data still suggests that R1b was most likely in Central Europe first", I meant before R1a arrived there, rather than after it. Also, I don't think anything. I'm just saying what my the results of my data analysis indicate.


Given the formation time and tmrca of L23 and his sons, Z2103 and L51, it isn't likely that any of them arose very far from the others.
I don't see this as unlikely at all. In the current day, we have refugees walking a similar route in a matter of months. I can't see why we need to assume that people with horses would have taken hundreds of years to do it.



There is absolutely no evidence of any such thing. Your data must be extremely interesting.
I agree about the lack of evidence. There's no proof one way or another. I just said it was a reasonable proposition, especially given that my data indicates a most likely point of origin for the European branch of R1b at exactly the location where Kartvelian languages are most commonly found today.
And I wouldn't say my data is extremely interesting - personally, I'm not that emotionally attached to the FTDNA database!

epp
03-18-2017, 12:06 AM
The Indo-European speakers appear to have been patrilocal. That means that sons would stay in the same location as their father and wives would move to be with them. That way we would expect to find a variety of mtDNA haplogroups in each small (extended family) community, but only one Y-DNA haplogroup, barring exceptions. An exception might occur where an outside male was accepted as having a useful skill. So we could picture little groups across the steppe all speaking the same language, but Y-DNA R1b might dominate in one, R1a in another. Yet another might happen to be a mixture. Now when people started moving out of the steppe in different directions, we would expect them to move as families. So one group could go one way, another group would go another.
Yes, makes sense. If, however, R1a and R1b groups developed and grew in size together over a long period (rather than simply in proximity), I would expect to see more mixed populations today, rather than nearly all of the R1b groups proliferating in the West and nearly all of the R1a groups proliferating in the East.
The point is that just because they might have lived close to each other, it doesn't mean they grew a first language in common. It seems more credible to me that one group adopted the other's basic language when the two groups started to work together (whether cooperatively or with one as dominant over the other).

Jean M
03-18-2017, 07:58 AM
The point is that just because they might have lived close to each other, it doesn't mean they grew a first language in common.

Let us start again. If you have two sons, each might have a mutation which puts them in a subclade under you. But unless you put them up for adoption, they will both learn the language that you and your partner speak. In the days before DNA tests, you and they will have absolutely no idea that there is a small genetic difference. You are family. Eventually in any family, it might happen that one son went to place A and another went to place B, and both had sons and grandsons, so that the two lineages were separated. But they would speak the same language.

Now let us look at a real-life case. The men of Copper Age Khvalynsk were overall genetically similar to the early pottery-maker on the Volga with his ANE input, but also carried another component, perhaps from the nearby Caucasus.


One young man aged 20-30 was buried with 293 copper artifacts (mostly beads), which suggests a high status in his small community. He carried Y-DNA haplogroup R1b1 (M415).
Another man aged 30-35, buried with a copper ring and a copper bead, carried R1a1 (M459).
A third man is a mystery. Aged 45-5, he had wounds to the skull, one of which could have killed him. There were no grave gifts or animal sacrifices for him. Was he an outsider? He was not buried in the usual posture and his Y-DNA Q1a (F2676) is unique so far in the European steppe series.


Here is proof that both of the major branches of R1 were present in the culture. They would speak the same language.

Arame
03-18-2017, 08:45 AM
Kartvelians origin is most probably in one of Neolithic Eneolithic cultures upland West Asia. Which one adna will help to understand.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-18-2017, 09:33 AM
Yes, I agree. In fact, I've failed to convince myself! My data still suggests that R1b was most likely in Central Europe first. If the hypothesis is correct, it would most likely have been the incoming R1a that imposed its IE on the indigenous R1b before going (or being pushed) back Eastwards.

I consider the author of the thread proposed reasonably that European R1b might have spoken a Kartvelian language, as the Turkish/Georgian border area is precisely where my data indicates is a most likely origin point for it.

When you say "your data", do you mean to an as yet unpublishable population genetics study ?
Also, can you clarify what suggests that R1a recently expanded from turkey to Europe (what would make a path-breaking revelation)

epp
03-18-2017, 10:44 AM
Let us start again. If you have two sons, each might have a mutation which puts them in a subclade under you. But unless you put them up for adoption, they will both learn the language that you and your partner speak. In the days before DNA tests, you and they will have absolutely no idea that there is a small genetic difference. You are family. Eventually in any family, it might happen that one son went to place A and another went to place B, and both had sons and grandsons, so that the two lineages were separated. But they would speak the same language.

Now let us look at a real-life case. The men of Copper Age Khvalynsk were overall genetically similar to the early pottery-maker on the Volga with his ANE input, but also carried another component, perhaps from the nearby Caucasus.


One young man aged 20-30 was buried with 293 copper artifacts (mostly beads), which suggests a high status in his small community. He carried Y-DNA haplogroup R1b1 (M415).
Another man aged 30-35, buried with a copper ring and a copper bead, carried R1a1 (M459).
A third man is a mystery. Aged 45-5, he had wounds to the skull, one of which could have killed him. There were no grave gifts or animal sacrifices for him. Was he an outsider? He was not buried in the usual posture and his Y-DNA Q1a (F2676) is unique so far in the European steppe series.


Here is proof that both of the major branches of R1 were present in the culture. They would speak the same language.
This provides an interesting snap-shot of three men at one specific location at one specific point in time. Let's learn from it without inferring too much from it. What its (limited) evidence suggests is:
1. R1b was high-status, R1a middle status and Q1a lower status.
2. Co-existence, rather than unification.

Furthermore:
1. Because one Q1a man was present, this doesn't mean that Q1a too (or even this particular man) spoke IE as a first language, nor indeed that the R1a or R1b men did. Nor does it discount the possibility that one of these men spoke IE and introduced the others to it when they came to cooperate and co-exist.

2. yfull estimates that R1a and R1b separated around 20,000 BC. How can we know that they stayed together from then until the Copper Age, and only separated (coincidentally on y-dna lines that would presumably have been unknown to them) some time later in Europe? If proto-IE was a Copper Age language and at any stage since 20,000 BC some R1a and R1b groups did split off, even if before coming back together, their languages would have evolved apart. In which case, which group's evolved language was the main basis for the proto-IE that was only formed in the Copper Age and ended up dominating? That is the question that I ask myself.

3. We do not know whether any of these individuals are the ancestors of today's European R1a, R1b and Q1a populations (especially as we know that all three groups have migrated over large areas of the world). With the many y-dna bottlenecks that exist, all three lines could have completely died out and so have no bearing on where modern R1 or Q populations come from or what languages they spoke. I would be interested to know if these individuals' R1a, R1b and Q1a subclades have been identified - do you know? Does the non-identification of these imply that they were R1a*, R1b* and Q1a*?

Gravetto-Danubian
03-18-2017, 11:18 AM
This provides an interesting snap-shot of three men at one specific location at one specific point in time. Let's learn from it without inferring too much from it. What its (limited) evidence suggests is:
1. R1b was high-status, R1a middle status and Q1a lower status.
2. Co-existence, rather than unification.

Furthermore:
1. Because one Q1a man was present, this doesn't mean that Q1a too (or even this particular man) spoke IE as a first language, nor indeed that the R1a or R1b men did. Nor does it discount the possibility that one of these men spoke IE and introduced the others to it when they came to cooperate and co-exist.

2. yfull estimates that R1a and R1b separated around 20,000 BC. How can we know that they stayed together from then until the Copper Age, and only separated (coincidentally on y-dna lines that would presumably have been unknown to them) some time later in Europe? If proto-IE was a Copper Age language and at any stage since 20,000 BC some R1a and R1b groups did split off, even if before coming back together, their languages would have evolved apart. In which case, which group's evolved language was the main basis for the proto-IE that was only formed in the Copper Age and ended up dominating? That is the question that I ask myself.

3. We do not know whether any of these individuals are the ancestors of today's European R1a, R1b and Q1a populations (especially as we know that all three groups have migrated over large areas of the world). With the many y-dna bottlenecks that exist, all three lines could have completely died out and so have no bearing on where modern R1 or Q populations come from or what languages they spoke. I would be interested to know if these individuals' R1a, R1b and Q1a subclades have been identified - do you know? Does the non-identification of these imply that they were R1a*, R1b* and Q1a*?

I'd tend to agree with your general points. An extinct lineage of each R1b xM269 and R1axM417 in Khvalynsk doesn't prove that M417 and L51 were in spatial and/or linguistic community; but at the same time it does elevate the probability that other lines of R1b and R1a also existed together elsehwere.

But leading on, Ive mentioned before, before 4000 BC, groups living on the steppe were still largely fisher -foragers. For a range of sociolinguistic factors, the various groups clustering along major rivers of the steppe range could have feasibly spoken wholly different language families.

epp
03-18-2017, 11:19 AM
When you say "your data", do you mean to an as yet unpublishable population genetics study ?
I have no idea whether anyone would want to publish it, and have no particular interest in getting it published. Anyone could replicate the study, the data being freely available on FTDNA databases.

Also, can you clarify what suggests that R1a recently expanded from turkey to Europe (what would make a path-breaking revelation)
1. I don't want to drift off topic in this thread.
2. Whether I do suggest that R1a expanded recently depends on what you mean by "recently".
3. I don't suggest anything. I'm just saying what the results of my data analysis indicate as most likely.
4. These results don't in any case indicate that R1a expanded recently, merely that the surviving European branches of it expanded there relatively recently.
5. I have qualified these indications as "trickier" to draw reliable conclusions from (e.g. than R1b), due to the relative paucity of data.

Given these qualifications, the earliest splits between surviving R1a on the FTDNA database are only present in the Middle East. By comparison, y-dna in the modern day Steppes population looks rather uniform.

epp
03-18-2017, 11:22 AM
I'd tend to agree with your general points. An extinct lineage of each R1b xM269 and R1axM417 in Khvalynsk doesn't prove that M417 and L51 were in spatial and/or linguistic community; but at the same time it does elevate the probability that other lines of R1b and R1a also existed together elsehwere.

But leading on, Ive mentioned before, before 4000 BC, groups living on the steppe were still largely fisher -foragers. For a range of sociolinguistic factors, the various groups clustering along major rivers of the steppe range could have feasibly spoken wholly different language families.

Agreed.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-18-2017, 11:31 AM
I have no idea whether anyone would want to publish it, and have no particular interest in getting it published. Anyone could replicate the study, the data being freely available on FTDNA databases.

Ah yes, so we are all on the same ball park.



1. I don't want to drift off topic in this thread.
2. Whether I do suggest that R1a expanded recently depends on what you mean by "recently".
3. I don't suggest anything. I'm just saying what the results of my data analysis indicate as most likely.
4. These results don't in any case indicate that R1a expanded recently, merely that the surviving European branches of it expanded there relatively recently.
5. I have qualified these indications as "trickier" to draw reliable conclusions from (e.g. than R1b), due to the relative paucity of data.



The way I see it is that European R1a as a whole expanded from eastern Europe during the LN-EBA, as I imagine most other people do. Whether this was from Repin, or Dereivka or some yet ill-described forest-steppe Eneolithic group, is mere fine-detail. I agree that it isn;t from Yamnaya, but that's again just a fine-grained chronological issue.



Given these qualifications, the earliest splits between surviving R1a on the FTDNA database are only present in the Middle East. By comparison, y-dna in the modern day Steppes population looks rather uniform.

By 'modern steppe groups' what exactly do you refer to ? Non-Slavic Russian groups I presume ?
I would agree that the 'most ancient homeland' R1a isn't the steppes, but that's because I see R1a as expanding down to the steppe from more northerly parts of eastern Europe. Since at least the Mesolithic. Im not an expert on R1a, and I gather that's already been discussed elsewhere, but aren;t the early divergent groups of R1a in M.E also present in Europe ? They could stil derive from Europe, or a common third source. Given that we have yet to find R1a in M.E., it really doesn;t look like R1a is from ME looking at the big picture.

I also agree that the post-LGM story of R1b would be different to R1a. But I don;t think it'll be radically different on a global scale.

Jean M
03-18-2017, 05:12 PM
1. Because one Q1a man was present, this doesn't mean that Q1a too (or even this particular man) spoke IE as a first language, nor indeed that the R1a or R1b men did. Nor does it discount the possibility that one of these men spoke IE and introduced the others to it when they came to cooperate and co-exist.

You are assuming that the R1a and R1b man had somehow come together from other places. Why? As I explained R1b and R1a are from the same stem. They are family. They would not necessarily move apart. They could live together and travel together. In this case the R1a and R1b men were buried in the normal style for that community. So they were regarded as part of the community. A community needs to communicate. They have the same language. By contrast the Q-man was not buried as one of the community, and could have been an outsider from across the Urals. He may even have been killed by the community.

As I explained earlier, I deduce that the descendants of pottery-making hunter-gatherers on the steppe spoke a Pre-PIE language (a language on the way to PIE). This would include the people of the small Copper Age Khvalynsk community. That language became PIE with the addition of the wheeled vehicle vocabulary c. 3500 BC.

For a fairly quick update on the topic, I recommend David Anthony and Don Ringe, The Indo-European Homeland from Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives, The Annual Review of Linguistics, 2015, 1 199–219. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124812 (online in full.) Extract:


A homeland for PIE in the western Eurasian steppes of what is today Ukraine and southern Russia has a long history of support (Schrader 1890; Gimbutas 1970, 1977; Mallory 1989; Kortlandt 1990; Anthony 2007), initially because the reconstructed PIE vocabulary seemed to be a vocabulary of pastoralists (wool, horses, livestock, dairy foods) rather than farmers; and later because horses, domesticated in the steppes before 3500 bce (Outram et al. 2009, Anthony & Brown 2011), played a prominent role in IE ritual practices in almost every IE branch, and horses are native to and were frequently exploited by people in the Eurasian steppes. The steppe theory of PIE origins is consistent with a date for post-Anatolian PIE after 4000–3500 bce because the adoption of wheeled vehicles transformed steppe economies after this date, encouraging the rise and spread of a new form of highly mobile pastoralism that is thought to be associated with the spread of the IE languages.

epp
03-18-2017, 06:02 PM
You are assuming that the R1a and R1b man had somehow come together from other places. Why? As I explained R1b and R1a are from the same stem. They are family. They would not necessarily move apart. They could live together and travel together.
I don't assume that they had come together from other places. I'm just noting that it's a possibility. You might be right, and yes the R1a man and the R1b man were 'family', but families don't usually stay wholly together over a period of 16,500 years. An L21 carrier from Ireland and a V88 carrier from Cameroon are closer family than these two, but they wouldn't normally speak the same language.

That language became PIE with the addition of the wheeled vehicle vocabulary c. 3500 BC.
If PIE originated in 3500BC, my data calculations suggest that Western and Eastern R1b had already split before that point, so only one of these groups would have spoken it. Which one? That is the question. My gut instinct would tell me it was probably R1a, but I'm assuming and concluding nothing.

Jean M
03-18-2017, 06:18 PM
If PIE originated in 3500BC, my data calculations suggest that Western and Eastern R1b had already split before that point, so only one of these groups would have spoken it.

Why? Let's separate out the genetics from the linguistics. People need to communicate. They usually learn their first language from their parents. People don't suddenly start to speak a different language because a mutation occurred on their Y-Chromosome. For as long as the pockets of people on the steppe remained in communication with each other, all the descendants of the pottery-making foragers would speak the same Pre-PIE language. Then as the Yamnaya horizon absorbed them c. 3300 BC, they would all be speaking PIE.

epp
03-18-2017, 06:38 PM
The way I see it is that European R1a as a whole expanded from eastern Europe during the LN-EBA, as I imagine most other people do.
My data analysis suggests the same, with the early neolithic root of this expansion being either North West of it (NW Germany/Holland), South East of it (Turkey), or partly one and partly the other.


By 'modern steppe groups' what exactly do you refer to ? Non-Slavic Russian groups I presume ?All.


I would agree that the 'most ancient homeland' R1a isn't the steppes, but that's because I see R1a as expanding down to the steppe from more northerly parts of eastern Europe.
My data analysis suggests the same.


Aren;t the early divergent groups of R1a in M.E also present in Europe ?Not on FTDNA's large database. The most divergent samples are M11251 from Yemen and 310205 from Lebanon. And the analysis also suggests that R1a1a1b2 as a whole most likely spread to Europe (and elsewhere) from Turkey.

If PIE were as Jean M identfies and if it stemmed from R1a, my data analysis would suggest it originated along the Southern coast of the Baltic.

epp
03-18-2017, 07:06 PM
Why? Let's separate out the genetics from the linguistics. People need to communicate. They usually learn their first language from their parents. People don't suddenly start to speak a different language because a mutation occurred on their Y-Chromosome. For as long as the pockets of people on the steppe remained in communication with each other, all the descendants of the pottery-making foragers would speak the same Pre-PIE language. Then as the Yamnaya horizon absorbed them c. 3300 BC, they would all be speaking PIE.
My children already speak a different 'language' from me. Shakespearean English is virtually unintelligible to today's English people within 400 years. Belgium is a small country with two vastly different IE languages spoken almost alongside one another. Unless R1a & R1b populations all stayed within a single settlement for tens of thousands of years, I can't see that their languages would not have diverged.

I am interested in PIE, rather than the pre-PIE languages that died out, especially if PIE is as recent as you say it is. Exactly who were IE's MRCAs? Whoever they were, they seem to have been highly influential, and to identify them would help explain early history. If PIE fused with the Yamnaya, this would suggest it was predominantly the language of either Z2103 or the people they dominated; and would suggest that L51 perhaps spoke a pre-PIE language before later acquiring IE languages.

rms2
03-18-2017, 07:10 PM
. . . Also, I don't think anything. I'm just saying what my the results of my data analysis indicate.

You are interpreting whatever data there are that you are looking at. So, yes, in fact, you are telling us what you think about it.



I don't see this as unlikely at all. In the current day, we have refugees walking a similar route in a matter of months. I can't see why we need to assume that people with horses would have taken hundreds of years to do it.

Think about what is likely. When you say, "I don't see this as unlikely at all", you are saying it is likely.

So, you think it likely that L51 arose somewhere quite distant from the place Z2103 arose, even given the formation times and tmrcas of L23, Z2103, and L51?

Please recall the difference between likely and not impossible. Just because a thing is not impossible does not make it likely.

What is your y haplogroup, by the way? Just curious.




. . . I just said it was a reasonable proposition, especially given that my data indicates a most likely point of origin for the European branch of R1b at exactly the location where Kartvelian languages are most commonly found today . . .


I do not know where R1b originated, but I also don't believe there is any real evidence to indicate that it originated in the same vicinity where Kartvelian languages are spoken today.

There is also no kind of strong connection between R1b and Kartvelian languages. R1b is a very minor y haplogroup among speakers of Kartvelian.

ADW_1981
03-18-2017, 07:13 PM
Is this based on Haak et al. 2015? The way I understood it is the Corded Ware culture has about 75% Yamna-like admixture, but that doesn't mean that the CWC is descended from Yamnaya migrants. Based on archaeology, isn't it more likely that the CWC and the Yamnaya share admixture from a shared ancestral population such as Khvalynsk and/or Sredny Stog?

As for what language the Yamnaya spoke, I think it is still too early to assume that Yamna spread PIE. Other possibilities cannot be ruled out yet, such as the Vasco-Caucasian connection I've speculated about.

What evidence is there that CWC spoke a descended language of PIE? Yet you seem certain Yamnaya did not.

Afshar
03-18-2017, 07:46 PM
This is a speculative topic, language cannot be tied to a haplogroup as language can change and ydna not. If you want to know you have to invent a time machine (which is slightly more PIE-oriented).

rms2
03-18-2017, 07:46 PM
Interesting how two very similar posters have appeared on this thread, neither of them listing his y haplogroup, both of them apparently anxious to push R1b as a Kartvelian or "Vasco-Kartvelian" haplogroup and R1a as the original PIE haplogroup.

Coincidence, I guess.

vettor
03-18-2017, 08:23 PM
One will never know if another haplogroup created PIE and R1 learned it off them and where responsible for its expansion

Silesian
03-18-2017, 09:06 PM
..... neither of them listing his y haplogroup, both of them apparently anxious to push R1b ......Coincidence, I guess.

What else is new. That comes with the territory. Is PIE really that important in the grand scheme of things? For many of us, we just wanted to know where our ancestors fit in the grand scheme of things. Especially the more exotic lines of R1b. I have a better understanding since the last batch samples[Yamnaya/Sarmatian[Sintashta badass caper now turned into a dilema ]. Hopefully L51+ branch will have their questions resolved with the next batch of results.
Our distant ancestor's/relatives span a time frame and geographical region much larger than Vasco-Kartvelian region.
Italy[Villabruna L754+ @14KYBP+/-],Spain[ Els Trocs V88+ 7.5kYBP+/-]Latvia/Samara Russia[7.5k-YBP+/- M73+]Khvalynsk Russia[6.5k-YBP L754+]
Io443Yamnaya_Lopatino II, Sok River, Samarais the only known sample we share[L51+/Z2103+] in common; dating 5000 YBP+/- that is both -L51- and Z2103- > L23+ In the last couple of days I have seen posts of educated men[ones who have contributed to R1b research/debate, scientific papers and other etc.....]make assumptions without providing any "proof" actually surprised me.
Some of the posters, who used to make those types of posts are unfortunately no longer with us; for whatever reason, so we can't ask them how they reasoned a certain point/post.
Keep your chin up.

epp
03-18-2017, 09:38 PM
You are interpreting whatever data there are that you are looking at. So, yes, in fact, you are telling us what you think about it.
I'm not interpreting anything. I've calculated STR variances according to geographical origin within precise SNPs using entire FTDNA databases. I've applied FTDNA's data to a pre-defined algorithm and am simply noting the answers it comes up with.


Please recall the difference between likely and not impossible. Just because a thing is not impossible does not make it likely.
What is your y haplogroup, by the way? Just curious.
You don't seem "just curious" - you seem quite aggressive and patronising, for some reason. I'm R1b (subclade unknown). Does that mean I must be pushing some hidden agenda?


I do not know where R1b originated, but I also don't believe there is any real evidence to indicate that it originated in the same vicinity where Kartvelian languages are spoken today.
You can believe whatever you want.


There is also no kind of strong connection between R1b and Kartvelian languages. R1b is a very minor y haplogroup among speakers of Kartvelian.
So R1b might have spoken a Kartvelian-related language and lost it, just as no one in Anatolia speaks Hittite any more. And R1b is a minor y haplogroup in Romania, despite Romanians speaking a Latin (mainly R1b-derived) language. By the way, I have no idea whether early European R1b spoke Kartvelian. I just noted that it was a reasonable proposition, given my calculated most likely origin point for it.

epp
03-18-2017, 09:45 PM
This is a speculative topic, language cannot be tied to a haplogroup as language can change and ydna not. If you want to know you have to invent a time machine (which is slightly more PIE-oriented).
But y-dna does change, both in terms of SNPs and STRs. Indeed, there are some similarities between STR and linguistic variance over time. That is how we can analyse both without using a time machine, albeit without ever knowing anything for sure. For that, you really would need a time machine.

epp
03-18-2017, 09:51 PM
Interesting how two very similar posters have appeared on this thread, neither of them listing his y haplogroup, both of them apparently anxious to push R1b as a Kartvelian or "Vasco-Kartvelian" haplogroup and R1a as the original PIE haplogroup.

Coincidence, I guess.

Coincidence ... or a dark and sinister plot from shady conspirators with a hidden Kartvelian agenda?
(By the way, I didn't even know what Kartvelian was until I saw it on this thread.)

Silesian
03-18-2017, 10:19 PM
I'm not interpreting anything. I've calculated STR variances according to geographical origin within precise SNPs using entire FTDNA databases. I've applied FTDNA's data to a pre-defined algorithm and am simply noting the answers it comes up with......

So R1b might have spoken a Kartvelian-related language and lost it, just as no one in Anatolia speaks Hittite any more. And R1b is a minor y haplogroup in Romania, despite Romanians speaking a Latin (mainly R1b-derived) language. By the way, I have no idea whether early European R1b spoke Kartvelian. I just noted that it was a reasonable proposition, given my calculated most likely origin point for it.
Would you care to share some of those str's and snp's with us?

Silesian
03-18-2017, 11:11 PM
But y-dna does change, both in terms of SNPs and STRs. Indeed, there are some similarities between STR and linguistic variance over time. That is how we can analyse both without using a time machine, albeit without ever knowing anything for sure. For that, you really would need a time machine.
3 posts in a row?

Don't be shy share some of those str's and snp's.
I'll get the ball rolling if you like with regards to some R1b snp's and strs that interested me. I don't know, and did not intend for any type of association with languages.
Here is one coming up to almost four years ago- L277 that was from Samarra, a poster with a wonderful nature. I was able to compare my line 2110/9219>583 with his L277 using just strs with the help of some of the members back then[getting back to when the forum was in its infancy. That was when Rathna was around, before your time.


Quote Originally Posted by Rathna View Post
Of course your sample doesn’t fit at all....
This is very strange, how can NaXxXxXxrov be a genetic distance of 27 out of 37 and still be in the same L23+? This is a greater distance than my exact Shleswig-Holstein [L21+] P312+ M222-] match at 12, which is only distant by 19 out of 37?

A thread I started about my personal cluster of strs; and what we should name ourselves, like Carpithian cluster that was back in June/2014

Thread: R1b1a2a1 (L23+) - L23EE Type, Z2103+ Predicted_ [DYS-389II 31-33][DYS-464AB[14-15]

So how about you share a little of your knowledge?

epp
03-18-2017, 11:19 PM
Would you care to share some of those str's and snp's with us?
I don't really want to stray off-thread, but I've used the confirmed SNP categories on the ISOGG classifications (all of them) and the STRs and SNPs on the FTDNA databases (all of them).
Are there any particular SNPs you have in mind which relate to the thread?

Silesian
03-18-2017, 11:49 PM
I don't really want to stray off-thread, but I've used the confirmed SNP categories on the ISOGG classifications (all of them) and the STRs and SNPs on the FTDNA databases (all of them).
Are there any particular SNPs you have in mind which relate to the thread?
For sure. Thanks for having the courage to respond. If your not familiar with Kartvelian- Kartrvelian was one of the languages that professor Anthony mentioned of importance along with Uralic. Since it was demonstrated that both of these had some input. So if you have a look at modern day speakers roughly this region. Modern day Georgia=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kartvelian_languages
would you agree with these set of points?
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/2f/00/02/2f0002e85ad3ae9635790ed75bb1a9ae.jpg

storm
03-19-2017, 12:24 AM
Interesting how two very similar posters have appeared on this thread, neither of them listing his y haplogroup, both of them apparently anxious to push R1b as a Kartvelian or "Vasco-Kartvelian" haplogroup and R1a as the original PIE haplogroup.

Coincidence, I guess.

I'm not anxious, I'm just voicing another possibility that is still consistent with everything we know so far. Also, I'm not pushing for a Kartvelian connection but rather a North Caucasian one (either Northwest Caucasian or Northeast Caucasian, or possibly both). Maykop culture is a good candidate for the group ancestral to NW/NE Caucasian languages, and they definitely had a non-negligible impact on Yamna and nearby steppe cultures.

My Y-haplogroup is R1b-L21 but I have no recent connections to Europe and really don't care whether R1b was IE, non-IE, or Martian. Actually, I agree with nearly everything you post regarding genetics and archaeology except for Yamna = PIE. I don't see why Corded Ware = PIE and Yamna = non-PIE is so controversial when it still fits the current data and has been the linguistic consensus for a long time.

Silesian
03-19-2017, 12:27 AM
I'm not anxious, I'm just voicing another possibility that is still consistent with everything we know so far. Also, I'm not pushing for a Kartvelian connection but rather a North Caucasian one (either Northwest Caucasian or Northeast Caucasian, or possibly both). Maykop culture is a good candidate for the group ancestral to NW/NE Caucasian languages, and they definitely had a non-negligible impact on Yamna and nearby steppe cultures.

My Y-haplogroup is R1b-L21 but I have no recent connections to Europe and really don't care whether R1b was IE, non-IE, or Martian. Actually, I agree with nearly everything you post regarding genetics and archaeology except for Yamna = PIE. I don't see why Corded Ware = PIE and Yamna = non-PIE is so controversial when it still fits the current data and has been the linguistic consensus for a long time.
Do you know where some of the oldest wagon burials are; that is a burial with a wagon, distinct from a two wheeled chariot?

epp
03-19-2017, 12:37 AM
3 posts in a row?

Don't be shy share some of those str's and snp's.
I'll get the ball rolling if you like with regards to some R1b snp's and strs that interested me. I don't know, and did not intend for any type of association with languages.
Here is one coming up to almost four years ago- L277 that was from Samarra, a poster with a wonderful nature. I was able to compare my line 2110/9219>583 with his L277 using just strs with the help of some of the members back then[getting back to when the forum was in its infancy. That was when Rathna was around, before your time.


A thread I started about my personal cluster of strs; and what we should name ourselves, like Carpithian cluster that was back in June/2014

Thread: R1b1a2a1 (L23+) - L23EE Type, Z2103+ Predicted_ [DYS-389II 31-33][DYS-464AB[14-15]

So how about you share a little of your knowledge?

Since you asked so nicely - briefly, as I've no results relating to language - my calculations give the following "most likelys" for your paternal ancestors:
Migration from Turkey via Russia to Northern Germany c. 4,000 BC (Z2106)
Migration to Southern Germany/Southern Poland/Czech Republic c. 2,100 BC (Y5587)

This perhaps mirrors Yamna/Corded Ware, which I think Jean M associates with PIE? Nothing major or striking, I imagine, since the initial predicted migration out of Turkey.

Now I think we should get back to the thread.

epp
03-19-2017, 12:42 AM
For sure. Thanks for having the courage to respond. If your not familiar with Kartvelian- Kartrvelian was one of the languages that professor Anthony mentioned of importance along with Uralic. Since it was demonstrated that both of these had some input. So if you have a look at modern day speakers roughly this region. Modern day Georgia=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kartvelian_languages
would you agree with these set of points?
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/2f/00/02/2f0002e85ad3ae9635790ed75bb1a9ae.jpg
All I can say is that modern day Georgia ties up with what my algorithm calculates is the most likely origin point of surviving P297 (c. 11,300 BC).
I have no idea whether these people spoke Kartvelian, co-existed with Kartvelians or were replaced by Kartvelians.

Silesian
03-19-2017, 12:53 AM
All I can say is that modern day Georgia ties up with what my algorithm calculates is the most likely origin point of surviving P297.

What does your algorithim give for the date of R1a-Z93 and R1b-L23 and or R1b-Z2103 ?
Do you agree that Georgia aka proto- Kartvelians had a word for wine and so did the Hittites?
For example
woinos; Hittite: wiyana; Lycian

The facts in this paragraph in wikipedia are within reason to connect Kartvelian with Hittite?


mate Indo-European origin of the word is the subject of continued debate. Some scholars have noted the similarities between the words for wine in Indo-European languages (e.g. Armenian gini, Latin vinum, Ancient Greek οἶνος, Russian вино [vʲɪˈno]), Kartvelian (e.g. Georgian ღვინო [ɣvinɔ]), and Semitic (*wayn; Hebrew יין [jaiin]), pointing to the possibility of a common origin of the word denoting "wine" in these language families.[41] The Georgian word goes back to Proto-Kartvelian *ɣwino-,[42] which is either a borrowing from Proto-Indo-European[42][43][44][45][46][47] or the lexeme was specifically borrowed from Proto-Armenian *ɣʷeinyo-, whence Armenian gini.[48][49][50][51][42] An alternate hypothesis by Fähnrich supposes *ɣwino- a native Kartvelian word derived from the verbal root *ɣun- ('to bend').[52] See *ɣwino- for more. All these theories place the origin of the word in the same geographical location, Trans-Caucasia, that has been established based on archeological and biomolecular studies as the origin of viticulture.

Silesian
03-19-2017, 01:11 AM
Do you know where some of the oldest wagon burials are; that is a burial with a wagon, distinct from a two wheeled chariot?

Really not that difficult. Professor Anthony pegs it around 3000-3100 BC. Are there any wagon burials associated with Afanesievo culture?In other words how did they manage to get from point A to point B? Are there any wagon burials in Sintashta culture? What about wagon burials associated with Sarasvati River region, any?

https://books.google.ca/books?id=0FDqf415wqgC&pg=PA312&lpg=PA312&dq=oldest+wagon+burials+maykop&source=bl&ots=2Za4vVMJSw&sig=VgOGk2v_j07sV-H1fQgCKDN5cs8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNhbLLr-HSAhVG04MKHSMKCjAQ6AEIMjAF#v=onepage&q=oldest%20wagon%20burials%20maykop&f=false

epp
03-19-2017, 01:18 AM
What does your algorithim give for the date of R1a-Z93 and R1b-L23 and or R1b-Z2103 ?
Do you agree that Georgia aka proto- Kartvelians had a word for wine and so did the Hittites?
For example

The facts in this paragraph in wikipedia are within reason to connect Kartvelian with Hittite?
L23 - 5500 BC Turkey, Z2103 - 4100 BC Turkey, Z93 - 2,400 BC Turkey
You could be onto something with Kartvelian and Hittite. I don't know enough about it.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-19-2017, 01:28 AM
Do you know where some of the oldest wagon burials are; that is a burial with a wagon, distinct from a two wheeled chariot?

The Baden culture, Tripolje culture; Majkop culture etc

Gravetto-Danubian
03-19-2017, 01:35 AM
Delete

Silesian
03-19-2017, 01:38 AM
L23 - 5500 BC Turkey, Z2103 - 4100 BC Turkey, Z93 - 2,400 BC Turkey
You could be onto something with Kartvelian and Hittite. I don't know enough about it.
Have a look at the position of the only known L23[L51-2103-] about 5000 years ago. It is located on the Sok river[tributary of the Volga] You will have to really magnify the position because there are 7 samples lumped together. Two of the kurgans which are only separated by 122meters that is a true L23[L51-Z2105-] sample. The R1b 122 meters away is a Poltavka sample R1b Z2103+>KMS-75[same as Sintashta region Yamnaya and Sarmatian. Do you have an age for the range for I0432, Poltavka, 2900-2500 BC located adjacent[about 5,89km+/- North of the L23[51-2103]sample close to the R1b-M73 Hunter Gatherer grave?

http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/ancient-human-dna_41837#5/50.050/57.195

Silesian
03-19-2017, 01:38 AM
The Baden culture, Tripolje culture; Majkop culture etc
Two or four wheel burials?

Gravetto-Danubian
03-19-2017, 01:52 AM
Two or four wheel burials?

4. But to clarify, upon re-reading your question, the earliest burial with wagons is Majkop. Baden & C-T had wagons to be sure, but Im not sure if they were deposited in funerary contaxt, apart from clay models; which is probably different to the general look of Majkop & Yamnaya.

Silesian
03-19-2017, 01:57 AM
4. But to clarify, upon re-reading your question, the earliest burial with wagons is Majkop. Baden & C-T had wagons to be sure, but Im not sure if they were deposited in funerary contaxt, apart from clay models; which is probably different to the general look of Majkop & Yamnaya.
The difference between a King Tut chamber symbolic/ornamental[as in battle of Kadesh context] Hittite chariot and a Sintashta chieftan/battle chariot[in kurgan + weapons context] differentiate 3.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-19-2017, 02:19 AM
I'm not anxious, I'm just voicing another possibility that is still consistent with everything we know so far. Also, I'm not pushing for a Kartvelian connection but rather a North Caucasian one (either Northwest Caucasian or Northeast Caucasian, or possibly both). Maykop culture is a good candidate for the group ancestral to NW/NE Caucasian languages, and they definitely had a non-negligible impact on Yamna and nearby steppe cultures.

My Y-haplogroup is R1b-L21 but I have no recent connections to Europe and really don't care whether R1b was IE, non-IE, or Martian. Actually, I agree with nearly everything you post regarding genetics and archaeology except for Yamna = PIE. I don't see why Corded Ware = PIE and Yamna = non-PIE is so controversial when it still fits the current data and has been the linguistic consensus for a long time.

Following on: I think we really need seme actual aDNA through the ages of the north Caucasus. I suspect relying on Romantic & folkore-type ideas that the mountain people of the Caucasus are very ancient relicts could lead to erroneous conclusions. That way we can be in firmer footing about movements which we can tentatively link to north Caucasian languages

Silesian
03-19-2017, 12:14 PM
Tuts chariot 2 wheel swift. Hittite chariot designed broad for 3. Sintashta chariots various including design for one. Wagons on the other hand, 3500 bc,used by Yamnaya-Afanesievo[R1b-Z2103+ upper band 6000YBP+/-] 3000-3500bc range. Yfull estimate for R1a 93 upper band 5500ybp.Description in San skirt wide cart [: रथ, rátha, Avestan raθa) trivandhurá (1.41.2; 7.71.4) for 3 tri.Another for eight persons.Earliest burials with wide and 4 wheels wagon Maykop, region also connected with proto Kartvelian and Hittite word for wine.

rms2
03-19-2017, 01:32 PM
I'm not interpreting anything. I've calculated STR variances according to geographical origin within precise SNPs using entire FTDNA databases. I've applied FTDNA's data to a pre-defined algorithm and am simply noting the answers it comes up with.

You must be kidding.

Data do not interpret themselves. If the answers were as obvious as you seem to be claiming, there would be no controversy.

You're looking at modern STR variances and claiming they tell you where R1b originated. It's almost certain that you're wrong.



You don't seem "just curious" - you seem quite aggressive and patronising, for some reason. I'm R1b (subclade unknown). Does that mean I must be pushing some hidden agenda?

I'm always curious when I see members who do not list a y haplogroup. If that seems aggressive to you, well, you're too sensitive.



You can believe whatever you want.

I didn't need to be told that.



So R1b might have spoken a Kartvelian-related language and lost it, just as no one in Anatolia speaks Hittite any more. And R1b is a minor y haplogroup in Romania, despite Romanians speaking a Latin (mainly R1b-derived) language. By the way, I have no idea whether early European R1b spoke Kartvelian. I just noted that it was a reasonable proposition, given my calculated most likely origin point for it.

As you said to me above, you can believe what you want. I don't see any evidence to indicate that European R1b once spoke Kartvelian, and I don't see that you have really presented any.

Vague references to "my data", "str variances", and a "pre-defined algorithm" hardly amount to actual evidence. That would be like me saying that "books tell me" this or that without actually citing sources or presenting passages from them.

rms2
03-19-2017, 01:39 PM
Coincidence ... or a dark and sinister plot from shady conspirators with a hidden Kartvelian agenda?
(By the way, I didn't even know what Kartvelian was until I saw it on this thread.)

No one said anything about "shady" and "dark and sinister". That would be attributing more significance to this than it currently merits.

Every now and then someone pops up pushing the Basque thing once again, tying it to Kartvelian or what have you and denying that most of R1b in Europe is Indo-European in origin. This is just another instance of that.

rms2
03-19-2017, 01:49 PM
Would you care to share some of those str's and snp's with us?


I don't really want to stray off-thread, but I've used the confirmed SNP categories on the ISOGG classifications (all of them) and the STRs and SNPs on the FTDNA databases (all of them).
Are there any particular SNPs you have in mind which relate to the thread?

How would it be off-thread for you to actually present the evidence you claim shows you that R1b originated near the modern Turkish/Georgian border?

I'm sure we'd all like to see it.

rms2
03-19-2017, 02:02 PM
I'm not anxious, I'm just voicing another possibility that is still consistent with everything we know so far. Also, I'm not pushing for a Kartvelian connection but rather a North Caucasian one (either Northwest Caucasian or Northeast Caucasian, or possibly both). Maykop culture is a good candidate for the group ancestral to NW/NE Caucasian languages, and they definitely had a non-negligible impact on Yamna and nearby steppe cultures.

Okay. Maykop might have been Indo-European speaking, as well. Anthony doesn't seem to think so, but Gimbutas did.



My Y-haplogroup is R1b-L21 but I have no recent connections to Europe and really don't care whether R1b was IE, non-IE, or Martian. Actually, I agree with nearly everything you post regarding genetics and archaeology except for Yamna = PIE. I don't see why Corded Ware = PIE and Yamna = non-PIE is so controversial when it still fits the current data and has been the linguistic consensus for a long time.

There is no consensus among linguists that Yamnaya was non-PIE but Corded Ware was PIE. In fact, I would say the consensus is that Yamnaya was the chief vehicle for the spread of Indo-European into Europe west of the Dniester.

My own opinion is that Corded Ware and Yamnaya were closely related peoples and both of them spoke Indo-European languages. CW spread across the North European Plain, while Yamnaya spread around the south side of the Carpathians and up the Danube Valley. Its people mixed with others in the Carpathian Basin and gave rise to the Bell Beaker culture. BB subsequently spread Italo-Celtic west, all the way to the Atlantic, to places CW never penetrated and where R1a is scarce.

Speaking of L21, Professor Dan Bradley has mentioned that there was a population replacement in Ireland sometime around the LN/EBA, and now we have the ancient dna evidence from Ballynahatty and Rathlin Island to support that. The Neolithic Ballynahatty woman lacked steppe dna and was basically a Near Eastern-derived Neolithic farmer. The three Bronze Age Rathlin Island men, on the other hand, had a substantial amount of steppe dna and were R1b-L21.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-19-2017, 08:41 PM
If only it were that simple- back deduction from a periphery isn't solid science ; not that I think R1b is "Kartellian"

rms2
03-19-2017, 08:46 PM
If only it were that simple- back deduction from a periphery isn't solid science ; not that I think R1b is "Kartellian"

I'm not sure to what you are referring.

Joe B
03-19-2017, 08:49 PM
Since you asked so nicely - briefly, as I've no results relating to language - my calculations give the following "most likelys" for your paternal ancestors:
Migration from Turkey via Russia to Northern Germany c. 4,000 BC (Z2106)
Migration to Southern Germany/Southern Poland/Czech Republic c. 2,100 BC (Y5587)

This perhaps mirrors Yamna/Corded Ware, which I think Jean M associates with PIE? Nothing major or striking, I imagine, since the initial predicted migration out of Turkey.

Now I think we should get back to the thread. I hope you're just a student trying to get up to speed. THE BS antenna is on alert. What is this great migration of R1b>M269>L23>Z2103>Z2106>Z2109>Z2110/CTS7822>CTS9219>Y5587 that you mysteriously calculated? It's certainly not based on current data. There's no great hot spot for Z2106 in northern Germany (no R1b-Z2106>CTS7763) and not much R1b-Y5587 in southern or northern Germany. The number of Z2106+ haplotypes in Germany are so few that it's impossible to tie them to any migration whatsoever. Take another look at the data and rethink the German angle.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-19-2017, 08:53 PM
I'm not sure to what you are referring.

The fact that L21 was present in 2400 BC Ireland, and that it was autosomally similar to modern Irish isn't definitive proof that the earliest L51 spoke PIE.
It could have reached Ireland with a later expansion - as indeed modern L51 in Europe descends from one specific founder effect, probably expanding with somewhat later from the continent

epp
03-19-2017, 08:58 PM
You must be kidding.
There you are - immediately aggressive again.


Data do not interpret themselves.
They do when you apply algorithms to them.


If the answers were as obvious as you seem to be claiming, there would be no controversy.
I'm not claiming the answers are obvious, and indeed don't think they are obvious.


You're looking at modern STR variances and claiming they tell you where R1b originated.
I'm not claiming they tell me where R1b originated. I'm just saying what comes out as the most likely point of origin when I use modern STR variances to estimate it.


I don't see any evidence to indicate that European R1b once spoke Kartvelian, and I don't see that you have really presented any.
I'm not presenting evidence that European R1b once spoke Kartvelian because I'm not arguing that it did, and (as I've already said) didn't even know what Kartvelian was until I read about it on this thread.


Vague references to "my data", "str variances", and a "pre-defined algorithm" hardly amount to actual evidence. That would be like me saying that "books tell me" this or that without actually citing sources or presenting passages from them.
I'm not here to submit evidence. I'm here to have a chat on a forum.

rms2
03-19-2017, 09:01 PM
The fact that L21 was present in 2400 BC Ireland, and that it was autosomally similar to modern Irish isn't definitive proof that the earliest L51 spoke PIE.
It could have reached Ireland with a later expansion - as indeed modern L51 in Europe descends from one specific founder effect, probably expanding with somewhat later from the continent

I didn't think I was back-deducing from the Irish periphery, as if the Neolithic Ballynahatty woman and the three Bronze Age Rathlin Island men were all we had, nor was I claiming they were proof that L51 spoke Indo-European. Cassidy et al is just a small piece in the larger puzzle, and I should not have to cite all the evidence each time I post something. That would be impossibly tedious. I should be able to count especially on Anthrogenica old-timers like you to know what most of it is. Besides, that last paragraph was merely in reference to storm's mentioning that he is L21.

I don't think there is "proof" of what language the first R1b-L51 men spoke. I think it likely they were born into the IE-speaking milieu and that the preponderance of the evidence points that way, but it is hardly proof.

epp
03-19-2017, 09:04 PM
Every now and then someone pops up pushing the Basque thing once again, tying it to Kartvelian or what have you and denying that most of R1b in Europe is Indo-European in origin. This is just another it instance of that.
It is not another instance of that. I have not tied it to Kartvelian, and I have not denied that it is Indo-European.
But that is what the thread is about - the language of paragroup R. Surely people can discuss it if they want to, without you blowing a fuse.

rms2
03-19-2017, 09:11 PM
There you are - immediately aggressive again.

You must be kidding! Your idea of aggressive and mine are different.



They do when you apply algorithms to them.

No. Data never interpret themselves. We look at them, make inferences and draw conclusions. There is always a subjective human element.

Not too long ago Dr. Anatole Klyosov, a man with an impressive and extensive c.v., looked at the data and concluded that R1b arose in central Asia, spoke Turkic, and worshiped Tengri. Unlike you, he actually cited his evidence and attempted to explain it. I don't agree with him (nor do many others), but what he did just goes to show that data do not interpret themselves. They are subject to interpretation.



I'm not claiming the answers are obvious, and indeed don't think they are obvious.

They must be though, if the data interpret themselves. Anyone should be able to look at the data and get the same answer.



I'm not claiming they tell me where R1b originated. I'm just saying what comes out as the most likely point of origin when I use modern STR variances to estimate it.

Okay, they tell you the most likely place of origin for R1b.



I'm not presenting evidence that European R1b once spoke Kartvelian because I'm not arguing that it did, and (as I've already said) didn't even know what Kartvelian was until I read about it on this thread.

All right. Fair enough.



I'm not here to submit evidence. I'm here to have a chat on a forum.

Okay, then what you have claimed amounts to bald assertions and nothing more.

rms2
03-19-2017, 09:12 PM
It is not another instance of that. I have not tied it to Kartvelian, and I have not denied that it is Indo-European.
But that is what the thread is about - the language of paragroup R. Surely people can discuss it if they want to, without you blowing a fuse.

I am pretty relaxed actually. No fuses blown.

Like I said, you and I have really different ideas of what aggressive is, and we must also have really different ideas of what blowing a fuse looks like.

Coldmountains
03-19-2017, 09:16 PM
I am not emotionally anymore attached to the R1a = PIE idea. I consider it more likely that the first PIE speakers were R1b people but R1a people of East Europe spoke likely languages close to PIE. R1a was found in the steppic regions of Dnieper Donets (Vovnigi) and R1b was also present in the Neolithic forest steppe and forest region of NE Europe so R1a/R1b lived very close to each other what makes it not so unlikely that they maybe indeed spoke the same languages atleast in some communities which later evolved into PIE.

rms2
03-19-2017, 09:23 PM
I am not emotionally anymore attached to the R1a = PIE idea. I consider it more likely that the first PIE speakers were R1b people but R1a people of East Europe spoke likely languages close to PIE. R1a was found in the steppic regions of Dnieper Donets (Vovnigi) and R1b was also present in the Neolithic forest steppe and forest region of NE Europe so R1a/R1b lived very close to each other what makes it not so unlikely that they maybe indeed spoke the same languages atleast in some communities which later evolved into PIE.

I agree with you and with what Jean M said earlier about both being R1 and being in the same geographic vicinity for a long time. I don't think we'll ever know which y haplogroup was the first to speak PIE. Probably they both acquired it at around the same time.

Jean M
03-19-2017, 09:36 PM
The fact that L21 was present in 2400 BC Ireland, and that it was autosomally similar to modern Irish isn't definitive proof that the earliest L51 spoke PIE. It could have reached Ireland with a later expansion

There are several reasons to suppose that the Bell Beaker culture was the vector for the earliest IE language to enter Britain and Ireland:


There is little sign in place-names of any non-IE language in these islands. The language that we presume was spoken by Neolithic farmers left almost no trace. So it was long gone.
There are a few place-names suggestive of an early type of IE ('Old European') arriving before Celtic. PIE is calculated to have been superceded by daughter languages about 2000 BC. So a Bell Beaker arrival c. 2400 BC would fit perfectly.
The type of Celtic spoke in Ireland once we have records was relatively archaic. It arrived prior to the Q>P shift which was apparent in Gaul and Britain by Roman times. So an arrival in the Late Bell Beaker period would fit, while Iron Age migrations would bring P-Celtic.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-19-2017, 09:46 PM
There are several reasons to suppose that the Bell Beaker culture was the vector for the earliest IE language to enter Britain and Ireland:


There is little sign in place-names of any non-IE language in these islands. The language that we presume was spoken by Neolithic farmers left almost no trace. So it was long gone.
There are a few place-names suggestive of an early type of IE ('Old European') arriving before Celtic. PIE is calculated to have been superceded by daughter languages about 2000 BC. So a Bell Beaker arrival c. 2400 BC would fit perfectly.
The type of Celtic spoke in Ireland once we have records was relatively archaic. It arrived prior to the Q>P shift which was apparent in Gaul and Britain by Roman times. So an arrival in the Late Bell Beaker period would fit, while Iron Age migrations would bring P-Celtic.


Yes, I quite agree with such a scheme on the whole (and that of RMS2)
I'm merely trying to reconcile some potential caveats (still rather hypothetical at this stage);

(1) The Kivisild study showing that modern S116-> descends from one specific sub-group of P312 BB, whilst the rest are dead ends, including those early Rathlin samples.

14615

(2) What if Bronze Age Greece has minimal if any steppe impact ?

(3) What if modern Irish autosomes are the product of a post-2000 BC migration fusing with an early northern Beaker group ?

epp
03-19-2017, 09:59 PM
How would it be off-thread for you to actually present the evidence you claim shows you that R1b originated near the modern Turkish/Georgian border?

I'm sure we'd all like to see it.
The thread is about the language of paragroup R, not where R1b originated.
And, by the way, I did not claim that R1b originated near the modern Turkish/Georgian border either.
I have lost interest in replying to your posts claiming I said things that I did not say. It's becoming tiresome and unproductive.

Jean M
03-19-2017, 10:09 PM
Yes, I quite agree with such a scheme on the whole (and that of RMS2). I'm merely trying to reconcile two potential caveats;

It is possible to get so involved in the detail of the complex IE story as to lose sight of the big picture. ;)


It is to be expected that a good many ancient Y-DNA lineages will have no modern descendants. Not every man leaves sons who survive long enough to breed. But we need to set these samples in context. Rathlin Island I carried L21/M529/S145 > DF13/S521 > DF21/S192, which is pretty common today in Ireland. I am not familiar with the specific reasons why you say he personally had no modern descendants. It is news to me. But where you find one DF21 man, you are likely to find others.
Greece has a very different history/prehistory from that of Britain and Ireland. The Greeks preserved knowledge of non-Greek speakers in Greece. Place-names tell the same story. Herodotus recorded that the Hellenes were weak initially, but expanded until they encompassed a great many peoples, in particular the Pelasgians, along with quite a few other non-Greek peoples. So we would expect what we find in the modern DNA of Greeks. This does not mean that there were no Bronze Age Greeks with a trace of Yamnaya and/or Y-DNA R1b1a2a2. We shall see.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-19-2017, 10:19 PM
It is possible to get so involved in the detail of the complex IE story as to lose sight of the big picture. ;)

As it is easy to come to potentially false conclusions via analyses which are too broad. :)


I am not familiar with the specific reasons why you say he personally had no modern descendants. It is news to me
That is why I referenced a recent study by someone who is an expert, having performed fine-grained analyses of ancient & modern full sequences side-by-side..


Greece has a very different history/prehistory from that of Britain and Ireland. The Greeks preserved knowledge of non-Greek speakers in Greece. Place-names tell the same story. Herodotus recorded that the Hellenes were weak initially, but expanded until they encompassed a great many peoples, in particular the Pelasgians, along with quite a few other non-Greek peoples. So we would expect what we find in the modern DNA of Greeks. This does not mean that there were no Bronze Age Greeks with a trace of Yamnaya and/or Y-DNA R1b1a2a2. We shall see.
[/LIST]

No doubt southeastern Europe will be a lot more complex than northern Europe. Yes, there'll be a lot heavier substrata in Greece, but that's not really the point I was making.
Anyhow, it's all rather speculative at this point, I must admit.

epp
03-19-2017, 10:38 PM
I hope you're just a student trying to get up to speed. THE BS antenna is on alert. What is this great migration of R1b>M269>L23>Z2103>Z2106>Z2109>Z2110/CTS7822>CTS9219>Y5587 that you mysteriously calculated? It's certainly not based on current data. There's no great hot spot for Z2106 in northern Germany (no R1b-Z2106>CTS7763) and not much R1b-Y5587 in southern or northern Germany. The number of Z2106+ haplotypes in Germany are so few that it's impossible to tie them to any migration whatsoever. Take another look at the data and rethink the German angle.
Thankfully, I'm not a "student", as being dismissed as slow and speaking BS would put me off participating in further study. Many people on this site seem not to see themselves as students any longer. They think they already know it all, and only wish to spout their own pet theories and deride other people's.
I have not mentioned any "great migration", nor have I written about the migration of many of the SNPs you have listed.
There are plenty of Z2016 positive samples in Germany and in countries North and West of Germany.
Yes, there is not much Y5587 in Germany. There is not much R1b in the Russian Steppes either, but that does not mean it did not originate there.
Shouldn't we now return to the subject of the thread - the language of paragroup R?

Gravetto-Danubian
03-19-2017, 10:42 PM
Shouldn't we now return to the subject of the thread - the language of paragroup R?

Yes. There was no 'language of paragroup R'. By 4000 BC, R was strewn across Eurasia, and they all spoke different langauges.
As far as most people's interest here is concerned, at some point L51, or perhaps M269, became or 'evolved' into IE.

We will continue to see quacks claiming that IE came from Siberia, or that Mal'ta, was pre-proto-IE, but we can just ignore that.


__________________
But if you have an interesting algorithm, why don't you share it, and the specific subset of kits you've analysed, for discussion & critique ?
Teaser's tend to frustrate people

Jean M
03-19-2017, 10:48 PM
That is why I referenced a recent study by someone who is an expert, having performed fine-grained analyses of ancient & modern full sequences side-by-side..

I see. So you are interpreting the graphs of Kivisild 2017 in such a way that all the ancient samples are without descendants, because he has placed them separately from the triangles with which he denotes the coalescent time estimates from high coverage genomes of present-day populations. He doesn't actually state that as his intention.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-19-2017, 10:50 PM
I see. So you are interpreting the graphs of Kivisild 2017 in such a way that all the ancient samples are without descendants, because he has placed them separately from the triangles with which he denotes the coalescent time estimates from high coverage genomes of present-day populations. He doesn't actually state that as his intention. Perhaps you could email him to check, before citing him for such a proposal.

Yes, that was whole point of his article.

But sure, I can email him.

epp
03-19-2017, 11:03 PM
I agree with you and with what Jean M said earlier about both being R1 and being in the same geographic vicinity for a long time. I don't think we'll ever know which y haplogroup was the first to speak PIE. Probably they both acquired it at around the same time.
Possibly, but if so, where did they acquire it from? Was it substantially a language of a R1a group, a R1b group, 50:50 between the two, or did all surviving R1a and R1b groups stay in such close contact over tens of millennia that their languages never diverged?
And would early R1b V88, R*, R1* and R2 also have spoken it?

epp
03-19-2017, 11:47 PM
But if you have an interesting algorithm, why don't you share it, and the specific subset of kits you've analysed, for discussion & critique ?
Teaser's tend to frustrate people
I don't want to derail the thread by using it to detail my algorithm, but this is how it basically works in principle. If there is an ISOGG-confirmed precise SNP classification and all FTDNA database samples of it are divided into 2 groups so that STR variances within each are minimised, the algorithm estimates that the most likely geographical origin for the SNP is a point between where the 2 groups arise.
A simplified example - SNP Z* has 3 samples, one of German origin, two of Polish origin, and intra-group variances are minimised by grouping the German and one of the Polish samples against the other Polish sample. The algorithm would estimate that the most likely point of origin is Poland. If, however, it groups the German sample against the two Polish samples, it would estimate the most likely point of origin as somewhere between Germany and Poland.
I am aware of the limitations of this methodology and realise its answers are merely indicators, but have found (i) it usually produces estimates that are closely consistent with each other, and (ii) this consistency increases with the size of the dataset.

I'm not looking to prove anything, to publish anything, to acquire academic respect or to defend my methodology against criticism.
I'm chatting on this forum, because I'm interested in the subject and hope I might learn something useful from communicating with others about it.

Joe B
03-19-2017, 11:52 PM
Thankfully, I'm not a "student", as being dismissed as slow and speaking BS would put me off participating in further study. Many people on this site seem not to see themselves as students any longer. They think they already know it all, and only wish to spout their own pet theories and deride other people's.
I have not mentioned any "great migration", nor have I written about the migration of many of the SNPs you have listed.
There are plenty of Z2016 positive samples in Germany and in countries North and West of Germany.
Yes, there is not much Y5587 in Germany. There is not much R1b in the Russian Steppes either, but that does not mean it did not originate there.
Shouldn't we now return to the subject of the thread - the language of paragroup R?

No pet theory. Just wanna correct some misinformation.
There are not plenty of R1b-Z2106 haplotypes in Northwest Europe. At best, it can be described as a dearth of R1b-Z2106 haplotypes there. They are extremely rare, an enigma. You should share if there's other haplotypes out there that we don't know about. Are you serious about considering one R1b-Y5587 haplotype from a live sample in Germany to the ~5000 year old samples of R1b-Z2103 found on the Russian steppe? If you want to stay on subject perhaps it would be better if you didn't misrepresent information.
Considering its age, haplogroup R's vocabulary probably consisted of a lot of grunts and pointing.

rms2
03-20-2017, 12:02 AM
Possibly, but if so, where did they acquire it from? Was it substantially a language of a R1a group, a R1b group, 50:50 between the two, or did all surviving R1a and R1b groups stay in such close contact over tens of millennia that their languages never diverged?

Where? On the Pontic-Caspian steppe. From whom? I don't think we'll ever know for sure. I suspect the R1b and R1a clades involved in the genesis of PIE were part of the steppe milieu in which PIE evolved from whatever pre-PIE language preceded it. I would not say that one R1 haplogroup preceded the other in speaking PIE.



And would early R1b V88, R*, R1* and R2 also have spoken it?

I suspect you're being facetious in asking that question. Naturally most of those were long extinct by the time PIE began to be spoken and were only represented at the time by their downstream descendants.

R1b-V88 is on an L389- P297- line long separated in time and space from R1b-M269 and not likely to have been involved in the genesis of PIE.

rms2
03-20-2017, 12:29 AM
The thread is about the language of paragroup R, not where R1b originated.
And, by the way, I did not claim that R1b originated near the modern Turkish/Georgian border either.
I have lost interest in replying to your posts claiming I said things that I did not say. It's becoming tiresome and unproductive.

Here is something you posted earlier in this thread:


. . .
I consider the author of the thread proposed reasonably that European R1b might have spoken a Kartvelian language, as the Turkish/Georgian border area is precisely where my data indicates is a most likely origin point for it.

I took "it" to refer to R1b, but if by "it" you meant a Kartvelian language, that is somewhat surprising, since you said you never heard of Kartvelian until coming across it in this thread, and when you referred to "my data" in other posts it did not seem to be in reference to Kartvelian but to R1b.

Perhaps you were referring to Kartvelian and you very swiftly went from never having heard of it to having your own data ("my data") on that language family that tell you that Kartvelian originated in the vicinity of the Turkish/Georgian border, but if so why would that place of origin be any kind of indicator that R1b in Europe once spoke Kartvelian?

That is why it seemed to me you were referring to the Turkish/Georgian border as the point of origin for R1b, since it is common knowledge that Kartvelian languages are spoken in parts of the Caucasus. Ergo, if R1b originated in the region of the Turkish/Georgian border, its bearers might have once spoken Kartvelian (never mind the fact that R1b is much older than Kartvelian, etc.).

Gravetto-Danubian
03-20-2017, 02:38 AM
Kartvellian speakers are dominated by haplogroup G2, arent' they ?
Surely R1b-M269 barely enters the equation here, apart from admixture.

kosmonomad
03-20-2017, 04:40 AM
Yes. There was no 'language of paragroup R'. By 4000 BC, R was strewn across Eurasia, and they all spoke different langauges.
As far as most people's interest here is concerned, at some point L51, or perhaps M269, became or 'evolved' into IE.

We will continue to see quacks claiming that IE came from Siberia, or that Mal'ta, was pre-proto-IE, but we can just ignore that.


I know the OP had a discussion with linguists, which impressed him so much. It was about 'languageS'.

Jean M
03-20-2017, 08:50 AM
Possibly, but if so, where did they acquire it from? Was it substantially a language of a R1a group, a R1b group, 50:50 between the two, or did all surviving R1a and R1b groups stay in such close contact over tens of millennia that their languages never diverged? And would early R1b V88, R*, R1* and R2 also have spoken it?

Most linguists feel that it is impossible to reconstruct any language spoken more than than 10,000 years ago. So we can't put a label on the language spoken by any Palaeolithic people.

But the key point to grasp is that Y-DNA haplogroup does not dictate language. Language is learned. It is spoken within a language community. We often find correlations between Y-DNA and language, because most people learn their first language from their biological parents, and even today people often stay fairly close to their parents, or at least within the language community familiar to them, and have children themselves within that community. So you have a language community continuing which is to some extent biologically related. But this is not some ironclad rule of nature.

Just as today individuals can move to another country, or another continent, so in the past we can picture an individual, or family, migrating. This might mean:


That they learn a different language, which could be completely unrelated to their first language, in order to communicate in the place they move to. This is most likely if there is no community speaking their first language in the place they go to, so the effort of learning a new language is worthwhile.
The language of them and their descendants gradually changes over many generations to become a daughter language of the one that the group of migrants spoke. This is most likely where people migrate in larger numbers, so that a language community is maintained, but they are far enough away from the language homeland that communication between the two is lost.

epp
03-20-2017, 10:39 AM
No pet theory. Just wanna correct some misinformation.
There are not plenty of R1b-Z2106 haplotypes in Northwest Europe.
Please don't get like rms2. I did not say there were plenty of Z2106 haplotypes. I said there were plenty of Z2106 samples.

Are you serious about considering one R1b-Y5587 haplotype from a live sample in Germany to the ~5000 year old samples of R1b-Z2103 found on the Russian steppe? If you want to stay on subject perhaps it would be better if you didn't misrepresent information.
I don't understand your question, and have not misrepresented anything. I've said my analysis is based on the FTDNA databases. Unless the 5000 year old samples are in these databases, they were not included in my analysis.

Considering its age, haplogroup R's vocabulary probably consisted of a lot of grunts and pointing.
You think the language of paragroup R was probably grunting and pointing? It would be funny if that was the correct answer.

epp
03-20-2017, 10:46 AM
I suspect you're being facetious in asking that question.
No, that is the question of the thread.

Naturally most of those were long extinct by the time PIE began to be spoken and were only represented at the time by their downstream descendants.
V88 and R2 are certainly not extinct, and I don't think we know with any confidence when, or even whether, R* and R1* became extinct. It would be interesting at least to have some information that might suggest anything about the language spoken by early V88 people or R2 people.

epp
03-20-2017, 10:49 AM
Here is something you posted earlier in this thread:



I took "it" to refer to R1b, but if by "it" you meant a Kartvelian language, that is somewhat surprising, since you said you never heard of Kartvelian until coming across it in this thread, and when you referred to "my data" in other posts it did not seem to be in reference to Kartvelian but to R1b.

Perhaps you were referring to Kartvelian and you very swiftly went from never having heard of it to having your own data ("my data") on that language family that tell you that Kartvelian originated in the vicinity of the Turkish/Georgian border, but if so why would that place of origin be any kind of indicator that R1b in Europe once spoke Kartvelian?

That is why it seemed to me you were referring to the Turkish/Georgian border as the point of origin for R1b, since it is common knowledge that Kartvelian languages are spoken in parts of the Caucasus. Ergo, if R1b originated in the region of the Turkish/Georgian border, its bearers might have once spoken Kartvelian (never mind the fact that R1b is much older than Kartvelian, etc.).
Oh, God. I don't know why you keep speculating wildly on what I'm thinking and claiming.

epp
03-20-2017, 10:58 AM
Kartvellian speakers are dominated by haplogroup G2, arent' they ?
Surely R1b-M269 barely enters the equation here, apart from admixture.
I thought G2a and J2a. Does anyone have any information to suggest whether either of these were instrumental in Kartvelian, so that R1b could be excluded as its potential originator?
(My analysis is that both G2a and J2a were likely in the same area going back to at least 4,000 BC, along with P297, although perhaps located slightly South of it - with J2a probably having been there for longer.)

epp
03-20-2017, 11:01 AM
Most linguists feel that it is impossible to reconstruct any language spoken more than than 10,000 years ago.
So the language of paragroup R is unreconstructable? Perhaps a fitting conclusion to this thread?

Jean M
03-20-2017, 11:21 AM
Considering its age, haplogroup R's vocabulary probably consisted of a lot of grunts and pointing.

Actually it could have been as complex as any modern language. Here's the theory. Art and craft are among the defining signs of human behaviour. Long before any Homo sapiens left Africa, they were burying their dead, engaging in exchange networks and generally acting in ways that require knowledge passed on within a community, and so imply language. We don't know what that language was, but existing hunter-gatherer languages are no less complex than our own.

Jean M
03-20-2017, 11:22 AM
So the language of paragroup R is unreconstructable? Perhaps a fitting conclusion to this thread?

Yes indeed. :)

rms2
03-20-2017, 01:15 PM
No, that is the question of the thread.

You asked if those haplogroups spoke PIE. I believe this thread actually began with Bulat's opinion rather than with a question.

It is impossible to say what language the bearers of haplogroup R spoke, but I think a number of people have already said that.



V88 and R2 are certainly not extinct, and I don't think we know with any confidence when, or even whether, R* and R1* became extinct. It would be interesting at least to have some information that might suggest anything about the language spoken by early V88 people or R2 people.

V88 and R2 are nowadays represented by downstream descendant clades. It is not likely that there are any modern men walking this earth who are truly V88* or R2* in the sense that V88 or M479 is their actual terminal SNP.

The same is true of R and R1.

In that sense, all of them are long gone, represented only by modern downstream descendants.

When you asked if V88, R2, R*, and R1* spoke PIE, I naturally thought you meant the originals or those reasonably close to the originals, all of whom lived long before PIE began to develop.

J Man
03-20-2017, 01:15 PM
I thought G2a and J2a. Does anyone have any information to suggest whether either of these were instrumental in Kartvelian, so that R1b could be excluded as its potential originator?
(My analysis is that both G2a and J2a were likely in the same area going back to at least 4,000 BC, along with P297, although perhaps located slightly South of it - with J2a probably having been there for longer.)

Well as you probably already know J2a has been present in the South Caucasus since at least the Mesolithic.

rms2
03-20-2017, 01:24 PM
Oh, God. I don't know why you keep speculating wildly on what I'm thinking and claiming.

A little clearer writing would have obviated the need for speculation, wild or domesticated. It looked like you were claiming R1b originated near the Turkish/Georgian border. If instead you were talking about Kartvelian, then you went very rapidly from never having heard of it to having, in your words, "my data" which showed you that Kartvelian originated near the Turkish/Georgian border.

In a subsequent post you claimed that you never said R1b originated near the Turkish/Georgian border, so evidently you meant that you are now in possession of your own data that tell you Kartvelian did.

epp
03-20-2017, 06:25 PM
To clarify by repeating a previous post of mine:
"All I can say is modern day Georgia ties up with what my algorithm calculates is the most likely origin point of surviving P297 (c. 11,300 BC). I have no idea whether these people spoke Kartvelian, co-existed with Kartvelians or were replaced by Kartvelians."

Jean M
03-20-2017, 07:52 PM
I expect that the reaction to Haak 2015 by linguist Asya Pereltsvaig has been noted on this forum before, but it is perhaps worth posting again: http://www.languagesoftheworld.info/historical-linguistics/massive-migration-steppe-source-indo-european-languages-europe.html

She illustrates her post with the IE tree from Ringe 2002.

14621


According to Haak et al. (2015), their study “document[…] a massive migration ~4,500 years ago associated with the Yamnaya and Corded Ware cultures”. Coming out of the southern Russian steppes, this population flow “replaced ~3/4 of the ancestry of central Europeans”....

The Yamnaya culture, however, postdates the Anatolian split separating Anatolian languages such as Hittite and Luvian from the rest of the Indo-European family, under both the Steppe and the Anatolian theories. Consequently, it cannot be associated with speakers of PIE itself, but rather with its descendant, so-called “Proto-Nuclear-Indo-European” (or PNIE), which is the ancestor of all Indo-European languages except the Anatolian ones. Haak et al. (2015) seem to acknowledge this point by stating that their “results provide support for the theory of a steppe origin of at least some of the Indo-European languages of Europe” (highlight mine). However, technically, if they are correct in associating PNIE with the Yamnaya culture, then all of the Indo-European languages of Europe descend from PNIE. Anatolian languages, which are the only ones that do not descend from PNIE, were spoken in the Asian part of present-day Turkey, not in Europe.

Joe B
03-20-2017, 08:19 PM
Please don't get like rms2. I did not say there were plenty of Z2106 haplotypes. I said there were plenty of Z2106 samples.

I don't understand your question, and have not misrepresented anything. I've said my analysis is based on the FTDNA databases. Unless the 5000 year old samples are in these databases, they were not included in my analysis.

You think the language of paragroup R was probably grunting and pointing? It would be funny if that was the correct answer.This is meant to be constructive. I should've been more clear. Haplotype refers to an individual's genetic test results. With modern genetic testing it's almost impossible for two individuals to have the same haplotype. Comparing haplotypes is how the Y-DNA phylogenetic haplotree is built. When a group of haplotypes shares the same SNP mutation like Z2106, they all belong to the same haplogroup like R1b-Z2106. I may be all wet on that explanation so if anybody can better clarify it please do. The definition can be confusing.
One of the things that we're not limited to is the FTDNA database. There is a fair amount of research data to go by, including ancient samples and their haplotypes. Take a look at the bottom of the YFull haplotree for some examples of other sources of information. https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2106/
Yes, it would be funny if grunting and pointing were the language of the day when R was formed. Thankfully, Jean M has provided us with some thoughtful insight about the age of language. Just because I like to grunt and point doesn't mean that's what the ancient people spoke.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?9611-Tthe-language-of-paragroup-R&p=221083&viewfull=1#post221083

rms2
03-20-2017, 08:58 PM
I expect that the reaction to Haak 2015 by linguist Asya Pereltsvaig has been noted on this forum before, but it is perhaps worth posting again: http://www.languagesoftheworld.info/historical-linguistics/massive-migration-steppe-source-indo-european-languages-europe.html

She illustrates her post with the IE tree from Ringe 2002.

14621

There is some interesting stuff there. Germano-Albanian? That's news to me. Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian sharing the same immediate stem? That's news also.

Pereltsvaig says Afanasievo was an offshoot of Yamnaya, but I recall Anthony saying Afanasievo went east from Repin before the formation of Yamnaya. Ah, well.

Megalophias
03-20-2017, 09:53 PM
There is some interesting stuff there. Germano-Albanian? That's news to me. Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian sharing the same immediate stem? That's news also.
:P You yourself have posted the same tree! :biggrin1:


Pereltsvaig says Afanasievo was an offshoot of Yamnaya, but I recall Anthony saying Afanasievo went east from Repin before the formation of Yamnaya. Ah, well.
Redating of Afanasievo has cast doubt on the really old dates, so maybe that's why.

Jean M
03-20-2017, 09:59 PM
Pereltsvaig says Afanasievo was an offshoot of Yamnaya, but I recall Anthony saying Afanasievo went east from Repin before the formation of Yamnaya.

He was stuck with dates for Afanasievo that turned out to be too early.

[Added] Sorry, I posted this before seeing that Megalophias had answered.

rms2
03-20-2017, 10:06 PM
:P You yourself have posted the same tree! :biggrin1:

No, I have a different tree by Ringe. The one posted by Jean was new to me.

Here's the one I had and have posted in the past.

14622



Redating of Afanasievo has cast doubt on the really old dates, so maybe that's why.

Thanks. I was going by what Anthony wrote in The Horse The Wheel and Language.

Megalophias
03-20-2017, 10:12 PM
The one you posted was from Warnow:

14623

rms2
03-20-2017, 10:41 PM
The one you posted was from Warnow:

14623

I did, and I guess I missed the Germano-Albanian connection (or did not remember it) because I was focused on the Italo-Celtic one.

Anyway, I did not have the tree Jean posted until today.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-20-2017, 11:03 PM
No, I have a different tree by Ringe. The one posted by Jean was new to me.

Here's the one I had and have posted in the past.

14622



Thanks. I was going by what Anthony wrote in The Horse The Wheel and Language.

I've said it before, but Im really not a fan or Ringe . I think his trees are too simplistic.
Anyhow, him and Athony will be forced to correct it now, given that we know that Italo-Celtic can;t have split beore 2000 BC.

rms2
03-20-2017, 11:10 PM
I've said it before, but Im really not a fan or Ringe . I think his trees are too simplistic.
Anyhow, him and Athony will be forced to correct it now, given that we know that Italo-Celtic can;t have split beore 2000 BC.

Split from each other or as Italo-Celtic from PIE?

If the latter, how is it that we know that?

Jean M
03-20-2017, 11:11 PM
Anyhow, him and Athony will be forced to correct it now, given that we know that Italo-Celtic can;t have split beore 2000 BC.

Why not?

Not that I think that the tree from Anthony and Ringe 2015 is actually attempting to show the date of the split of Italo-Celtic into Italic and Celtic. The date 3000 BC is simply for the departure of the group that developed Proto-Italo-Celtic. But perhaps you meant that.

The dates of splits are estimated on the tree from Nakhleh, Ringe and Warnow 2005.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-20-2017, 11:24 PM
Why not?



To begin, although some scholars (predominantly non-linguists) keep attempting to link Celtic to BB, most linguists very simply point out that Celtic isn't a Copper Age language. The sheer similarity of Celtic, even 'conservative' Goidellic, as well as the shared vocabulary for incipient Iron technology, chariots & horse accoutrements, necessitates a date from c. 1500 BC onward - based on the fact that such artefacts don't appear in western Europe prior to this (e.g. Mallory or Waddell - the Celticization of Ireland).

Then we have the 'physical restraint' of the northern Italy still being non-IE, MNE, as late as 1900 BC. So the ancestors of proto-Italic were still lurking around in central Europe, with the mass of 'NW Indo- Europeans', not physically or linguistically separated (but not to say there weren't differentiated dialects in existence)


Not that I think that the tree from Anthony and Ringe 2015 is actually attempting to show the date of the split. The date 3000 BC is simply for the departure of the group that developed Proto-Italo-Celtic. The dates of splits are estimated on the tree from Warnow

Yes, I have no issue if that is the case.

rms2
03-20-2017, 11:29 PM
Probably Bell Beaker people (at least some of them) were speaking Italo-Celtic that developed into Italic in the southern parts of its range and Celtic in the northern parts, each as a lingua franca easily adopted by those already speaking related dialects.

Kanenas
03-20-2017, 11:53 PM
It doesn't matter much because even if R1a was the Indoeuropean haplogroup some R1a spread with Turkic groups, much of the 'Iranic' Z93 for example.
I personally believe that I+J existed in PIE homeland, not that they were the PIE haplogroups but supporting that statement can be an interesting exercise.

Agamemnon
03-20-2017, 11:55 PM
What are we talking about here exactly?

Jean M
03-21-2017, 08:49 AM
What are we talking about here exactly?

I don't know about anyone else, but I have been trying to hold the fort until you turned up. ;)

rms2
03-21-2017, 11:29 AM
I don't know about anyone else, but I have been trying to hold the fort until you turned up. ;)

Fort Click, Grunt, and Point; named in honor of the language of "paragroup" R. ;)

Jean M
03-21-2017, 01:38 PM
Fort Click, Grunt, and Point; named in honor of the language of "paragroup" R. ;)

No that's not the fort I'm trying to hold. I'm against it in every way.

rms2
03-21-2017, 01:54 PM
No that's not the fort I'm trying to hold. I'm against it in every way.

I think humor is worth defending. I'm in favor of it in almost every way. ;)

Explanation: What I posted about Fort Click, Grunt, and Point was based on comments by others in prior posts and was what is known as a joke.



Paragroup R spoke click language.



. . . Considering its age, haplogroup R's vocabulary probably consisted of a lot of grunts and pointing.

R.Rocca
03-21-2017, 01:58 PM
What are we talking about here exactly?

An exercise in futility... some are trying to associate languages that are at least ten thousand years older than the first R mutation.

Jean M
03-21-2017, 02:03 PM
was what is known as a joke.

Yes I know. Haven't had my funny bone surgically removed over night. Don't worry. Just felt that I should make matters absolutely clear for anyone struggling to work out what on earth is going on in this thread. :):(

[Added] Just in case anyone is still wondering what we are talking about: I do not support the idea that we can know exactly what language was spoken by anybody in the Palaeolithic, let alone that we can imagine it as a click-language, or grunt-and-point language.

rms2
03-21-2017, 02:17 PM
H.G. Wells assures me "paragroup R" spoke Esperanto but did click, grunt, and point when exasperated by Vasco-Kartvelians. ;)

Gravetto-Danubian
03-21-2017, 08:46 PM
I don't know about anyone else, but I have been trying to hold the fort until you turned up. ;)

Defenders of orthodoxy against the Heathens

Kale
03-22-2017, 02:01 AM
To begin, although some scholars (predominantly non-linguists) keep attempting to link Celtic to BB, most linguists very simply point out that Celtic isn't a Copper Age language. The sheer similarity of Celtic, even 'conservative' Goidellic, as well as the shared vocabulary for incipient Iron technology, chariots & horse accoutrements, necessitates a date from c. 1500 BC onward - based on the fact that such artefacts don't appear in western Europe prior to this (e.g. Mallory or Waddell - the Celticization of Ireland).

I have very little knowledge of linguistics, but...

Imagine you've never seen a chariot before, now you see a chariot, what do you do?
A) Firmly and without question decide that you are going to call it a Horsey-Wheely-Funride
b) Ask the person on the chariot "hey what's that?" to which they will respond "It's a chariot", and as such you now begin to refer to this object as a "chariot"

Point being, I don't think shared words for technology or new things really mean much.

English: Gorilla
Japanese: Gorira

English and Japanese clearly diverged only last week.

Megalophias
03-22-2017, 03:00 AM
I have very little knowledge of linguistics, but...

Imagine you've never seen a chariot before, now you see a chariot, what do you do?
A) Firmly and without question decide that you are going to call it a Horsey-Wheely-Funride
b) Ask the person on the chariot "hey what's that?" to which they will respond "It's a chariot", and as such you now begin to refer to this object as a "chariot"

Point being, I don't think shared words for technology or new things really mean much.

English: Gorilla
Japanese: Gorira

English and Japanese clearly diverged only last week.
Ah, but that's the point. Words for most things in Japanese and English are totally dissimilar. So you can tell this word has spread recently.

How much has the word for 'chariot' changed in the different languages? Has in undergone the same sound changes as other words in the language? Then it was probably borrowed by the ancestors of those languages at the stage when they were almost the same, or were the same language. But if it hasn't, then it was borrowed later on, after the languages had separated and undergone different changes. Like, English has coffee and French has cafe, whereas in inherited vocabulary we have hound and chien. Of course there are various pitfalls, but that's the basic idea.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-22-2017, 03:40 AM
I have very little knowledge of linguistics, but...

Imagine you've never seen a chariot before, now you see a chariot, what do you do?
A) Firmly and without question decide that you are going to call it a Horsey-Wheely-Funride
b) Ask the person on the chariot "hey what's that?" to which they will respond "It's a chariot", and as such you now begin to refer to this object as a "chariot"

Point being, I don't think shared words for technology or new things really mean much.

English: Gorilla
Japanese: Gorira

English and Japanese clearly diverged only last week.

LOL.
But yes, it can be discerned. That's the whole point of comparative linguistics., as Megalophias described.

Kale
03-22-2017, 04:43 PM
How much has the word for 'chariot' changed in the different languages? Has in undergone the same sound changes as other words in the language? Like, English has coffee and French has cafe.

Fair enough, but I refer again to the mighty Gorira :P
Gorilla > Gorira...Has that not also undergone the same sound changes as other words in the language?

Imagine a chariot is shown to a person who speaks in a language that developed a habit of using a lot of u's and ch's.

Considering not everyone speaks perfectly proper, and we have accents, that person may do their best and call it a chariuch?
Wouldn't it then appear that the word developed with the language changes?

Megalophias
03-22-2017, 05:56 PM
Fair enough, but I refer again to the mighty Gorira :P
Gorilla > Gorira...Has that not also undergone the same sound changes as other words in the language?

Imagine a chariot is shown to a person who speaks in a language that developed a habit of using a lot of u's and ch's.

Considering not everyone speaks perfectly proper, and we have accents, that person may do their best and call it a chariuch?
Wouldn't it then appear that the word developed with the language changes?

Yup, that is something to watch out for. Worst of all is that in some cases when borrowing from a familiar and closely-related language people will straight-up translate the sound changes from that language into theirs, since they know how the other guys pronounce things funny.

Also you can translate the word itself. So normally you won't immediately coin the term "horsey-wheely fun-ride" for chariot, but if you speak the language of the guy who is showing you the chariot you might just translate his original term "horsey-wheely fun-ride" into your own language.

To take a couple of well-known examples, a good number of North American native languages use a compound word translating as "firewater" to refer to whiskey, due to a chain of loan-translations, so an unwary person could reconstruct the concept of "whiskey" to Proto-Algonquian and Proto-Siouan. And you can reconstruct the Proto-Bantu word for "peanut", despite the fact that peanuts only arrived from the New World after Columbus, due to a chain of transferring the term for "groundnut" or whatever local peanut-like crop to the peanut.

So basically you have to check each individual case.

epp
03-25-2017, 12:13 AM
I'm going to speculate.
The first major division in PIE seems most likely to have been between centum and satem, with centum spread over a wide arc from the Britain to Turkey to China, and satem slightly more localised. Accordingly, the greater likelihood is that proto-IE was closer to a centum language that became satemised when it expanded in certain regions.
Centum generally dominates in R1b majority areas, satem in R1a majority areas. Accordingly, the greater likelihood is that proto-IE was predominantly the language of R1b, which became satemised when and where R1a joined with it and substantially adopted its language.
The region in which the centum-satem split is least clearly defined seems to be Anatolia/Armenia. The majority view of IE linguists also seems to be that Anatolian was probably the first of the IE language branches to split from PIE. Accordingly, early R1b-L51’s centum language was probably slightly purer IE emerging directly from R1b in Anatolia, whilst early R1b-Z2103 and early R1a-Z645 partly co-existed and consequently spoke a more hybrid, satemised version of PIE (which originated somewhere between where its two satemised branches developed - the Slavo-Baltic and the Indo-Iranian regions).
Is there evidence of any PIE association with languages in areas in which R1b-L23’s more distant relations (such as R1b-M73) have a significant presence?

Jean M
03-25-2017, 01:12 AM
The first major division in PIE seems most likely to have been between centum and satem, with centum spread over a wide arc from the Britain to Turkey to China, and satem slightly more localised. Accordingly, the greater likelihood is that proto-IE was closer to a centum language that became satemised when it expanded in certain regions.

Linguists have now worked out that archaic PIE (from which the Anatolian branch descended) was neither centum nor satem. Centum was the result of a subsequent sound change in the PIE homeland. Several groups of people moved away from the homeland at the time that PIE was centum, and retained that sound. There was then a second sound change in Late PIE, which affected the rump of PIE speakers still near/in the homeland i.e. the group that would develop Balto-Slavic and the group that would develop Indo-Iranian.

kosmonomad
03-25-2017, 08:25 AM
An exercise in futility... some are trying to associate languages that are at least ten thousand years older than the first R mutation.

Do you refer to Dravidian? Because it is not the first time I observe how linguists jump on the opportunity to link it as soon as they learn R2 related stuff.

epp
03-25-2017, 11:14 AM
Linguists have now worked out that archaic PIE (from which the Antolian branch descended) was neither centum nor satem. Centum was the result of a subsequent sound change in the PIE homeland. Several groups of people moved away from the homeland at the time that PIE was centum, and retained that sound. There was then a second sound change in Late PIE, which affected the rump of PIE speakers still/near in the homeland i.e. the group that would develop Balto-Slavic and the group that would develop Indo-Iranian.
Thanks for this information. It's perhaps indicative that:
(i) centum developed fairly soon after PIE (the most recent common root of IE languages) established itself, as PIE's Copper Age origin would seem to approximately correspond with the dates when centum-speaking haplogroups (e.g. early or pre-L51) are estimated to have detached themselves from the PIE homeland,
(ii) R1a1a1 populations (all predominantly in satem areas) may have only come to use IE in late PIE as it was being affected by (or after it had been affected by) the second sound change referred to above ... although these populations may well have spoken a pre-PIE language of their own before adopting a satemised IE.

R.Rocca
03-25-2017, 12:07 PM
Do you refer to Dravidian? Because it is not the first time I observe how linguists jump on the opportunity to link it as soon as they learn R2 related stuff.

I was speaking about PIE, but you can probably make the point for all of them.

Jean M
03-25-2017, 12:56 PM
some are trying to associate languages that are at least ten thousand years older than the first R mutation.

I'm not with you. The mutation that created R has to be at least 24,000 years old, as it was found in Mal'ta Boy. It is estimated by Y-Full to date to 28200 ybp. Most linguists feel that it is impossible to reconstruct any language older than 10,000 years old.

Did you perhaps mean that people are trying to link to R* languages much younger than R*?

Jean M
03-25-2017, 12:59 PM
R1a1a1 populations (all predominantly in satem areas) may have only come to use IE in late PIE as it was being affected by (or after it had been affected by) the second sound change referred to above ... although these populations may well have spoken a pre-PIE language of their own before adopting a satemised IE.

And from whom would they adopt satemised PIE? Indeed, who would create satemised PIE? In your picture the R1b centum PIE speakers have all departed, leaving R1a men on their own and not speaking PIE. Bit of a conundrum.

Observer
03-25-2017, 02:29 PM
I found this interesting, might be helpful for discussion. Linguists suggest there was some kind of "Proto-Eurasiatic" language that connects various languages spoken today.

Linguists identify 15,000-year-old ‘ultraconserved words’ (2013)


It’s an odd little speech. But if you went back 15,000 years and spoke these words to hunter-gatherers in Asia in any one of hundreds of modern languages, there is a chance they would understand at least some of what you were saying.

That’s because all of the nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs in the four sentences are words that have descended largely unchanged from a language that died out as the glaciers retreated at the end of the last Ice Age. Those few words mean the same thing, and sound almost the same, as they did then.

The traditional view is that words can’t survive for more than 8,000 to 9,000 years. Evolution, linguistic “weathering” and the adoption of replacements from other languages eventually drive ancient words to extinction, just like the dinosaurs of the Jurassic era.

A new study, however, suggests that’s not always true.

A team of researchers has come up with a list of two dozen “ultraconserved words” that have survived 150 centuries. It includes some predictable entries: “mother,” “not,” “what,” “to hear” and “man.” It also contains surprises: “to flow,” “ashes” and “worm.”

The existence of the long-lived words suggests there was a “proto-Eurasiatic” language that was the common ancestor to about 700 contemporary languages that are the native tongues of more than half the world’s people.

“We’ve never heard this language, and it’s not written down anywhere,” said Mark Pagel, an evolutionary theorist at the University of Reading in England who headed the study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “But this ancestral language was spoken and heard. People sitting around campfires used it to talk to each other.”

In all, “proto-Eurasiatic” gave birth to seven language families. Several of the world’s important language families, however, fall outside that lineage, such as the one that includes Chinese and Tibetan; several African language families, and those of American Indians and Australian aborigines.


That a spoken sound carrying a specific meaning could remain unchanged over 15,000 years is a controversial idea for most historical linguists.

“Their general view is pessimistic,” said William Croft, a professor of linguistics at the University of New Mexico who studies the evolution of language and was not involved in the study. “They basically think there’s too little evidence to even propose a family like Eurasiatic.” In Croft’s view, however, the new study supports the plausibility of an ancestral language whose audible relics cross tongues today.

Pagel and three collaborators studied “cognates,” which are words that have the same meaning and a similar sound in different languages. Father (English), padre (Italian), pere (French), pater (Latin) and pitar (Sanskrit) are cognates. Those words, however, are from languages in one family, the Indo-European. The researchers looked much further afield, examining seven language families in all.


In addition to Indo-European, the language families included Altaic (whose modern members include Turkish, Uzbek and Mongolian); Chukchi-Kamchatkan (languages of far northeastern Siberia); Dravidian (languages of south India); Inuit-Yupik (Arctic languages); Kartvelian (Georgian and three related languages) and Uralic (Finnish, Hungarian and a few others).

They make up a diverse group. Some don’t use the Roman alphabet. Some had no written form until modern times. They sound different to the untrained ear. Their speakers live thousands of miles apart. In short, they seem unlikely candidates to share cognates.

Pagel’s team used as its starting material 200 words that linguists know to be the core vocabulary of all languages.

Other researchers had searched for cognates of those words in members of each of the seven Eurasiatic language families. They looked, for example, for similar-sounding words for “fish” or “to drink” in the Altaic family of languages or in the Indo-European languages. When they found cognates, they constructed what they imagined were the cognates’ ancestral words — a task that requires knowing how sounds change between languages, such as “f” in Germanic languages becoming “p” in Romance languages.


Those made-up words are called “proto-words.” Pagel’s team compared them among language families. They made thousands of comparisons, asking such questions as: Do the proto-word for “hand” in the Inuit-Yupik language family and the proto-word for “hand” in the Indo-European language family sound similar?

Surprisingly, the answer to that question and many others was yes.

The 23 entries on the list of ultraconserved words are cognates in four or more language families. Could they sound the same purely by chance? Pagel and his colleagues think not.

Linguists have calculated the rate at which words are replaced in a language. Common ones disappear the slowest. It’s those words that Pagel’s team found were most likely to have cognates among the seven families.

In fact, they calculated that words uttered at least 16 times per day by an average speaker had the greatest chance of being cognates in at least three language families. If chance had been the explanation, some rarely used words would have ended up on the list. But they didn’t.

As a group, the ultraconserved words give a hint of what has been important to people over the millennia.

“I was really delighted to see ‘to give’ there,” Pagel said. “Human society is characterized by a degree of cooperation and reciprocity that you simply don’t see in any other animal. Verbs tend to change fairly quickly, but that one hasn’t.”

Of course, one has to explain the presence of “bark.”

“I have spoken to some anthropologists about that, and they say that bark played a very significant role in the lives of forest-dwelling hunter-gatherers,” Pagel said. Bark was woven into baskets, stripped and braided into rope, burned as fuel, stuffed in empty spaces for insulation and consumed as medicine.

“To spit” is also a surprising survivor. It may be that the sound of that word is just so expressive of the sound of the activity — what linguists call “onomatopoeia” — that it simply couldn’t be improved on over 15,000 years.

As to the origin of the sound of the other ultraconserved words, and who made them up, that’s a question best left to the poets.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/linguists-identify-15000-year-old-ultraconserved-words/2013/05/06/a02e3a14-b427-11e2-9a98-4be1688d7d84_story.html?utm_term=.899f4a4a286f

Edit : Here is the study, Ultraconserved words point to deep language ancestry across Eurasia, Pagel et al (2013) (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/21/8471)

Fig 4 : Consensus phylogenetic tree of Eurasiatic superfamily
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/21/8471/F4.large.jpg

R.Rocca
03-25-2017, 02:35 PM
I'm not with you. The mutation that created R has to be at least 24,000 years old, as it was found in Mal'ta Boy. It is estimated by Y-Full to date to 28200 ybp. Most linguists feel that it is impossible to reconstruct any language older than 10,000 years old.

Did you perhaps mean that people are trying to link to R* languages much younger than R*?

Yes, that was I was trying to get to. Thanks for the correction Jean.

Agamemnon
03-25-2017, 03:34 PM
I see people talking about Celtic, Indo-Iranian, Turkic, PIE, Kartvelian... The point is that, if we're referring to Mal'ta, all of this is out of place.


I found this interesting, might be helpful for discussion. Linguists suggest there was some kind of "Proto-Eurasiatic" language that connects various languages spoken today.

Linguists identify 15,000-year-old ‘ultraconserved words’ (2013)



https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/linguists-identify-15000-year-old-ultraconserved-words/2013/05/06/a02e3a14-b427-11e2-9a98-4be1688d7d84_story.html?utm_term=.899f4a4a286f

Edit : Here is the study, Ultraconserved words point to deep language ancestry across Eurasia, Pagel et al (2013) (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/21/8471)

Fig 4 : Consensus phylogenetic tree of Eurasiatic superfamily
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/21/8471/F4.large.jpg

Remember reading this when it came out. While Eurasiatic (Greenberg came up with it) is worthy of consideration, it nevertheless fails in every single respect if you ask me. I mean, if Eurasiatic were a valid macro-family, it would've been endorsed as such decades ago, make no mistake about it.

Silesian
03-25-2017, 03:39 PM
L23 - 5500 BC Turkey, Z2103 - 4100 BC Turkey, Z93 - 2,400 BC Turkey
You could be onto something with Kartvelian and Hittite. I don't know enough about it.

What about if you compare the age of TMRCA R1a-Z93 with R1b-KMS67 and KMS-75[4700 4800+/-TMRCA]. These were the markers from the Yamanaya-Sintashta-Arkaim-Poltavka-Scythian Sarmatian time/ region. R1a plotted slightly different from the R1b markers. Was there any interchange between these groups?
Also, have you considered the languages each group spoke and if they interchanged loanwords with each other? If they had contact with each other peaceful or in tribal warfare? Take for example R1a-93 speakers of Sanskrit or Brahui. How about a Sanskrit-Dravidian-Munda interchange? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substratum_in_the_Vedic_language

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R1/

Observer
03-25-2017, 04:20 PM
Remember reading this when it came out. While Eurasiatic (Greenberg came up with it) is worthy of consideration, it nevertheless fails in every single respect if you ask me. I mean, if Eurasiatic were a valid macro-family, it would've been endorsed as such decades ago, make no mistake about it.

I don't know much about linguistics but in terms of auDNA all these groups share good amount of ANE ancestry, so there could be some connection? Also authors suggests that Eurasitic "descended largely unchanged from a language that died out as the glaciers retreated at the end of the last Ice Age" and was spoken by hunter-gatherers in Asia 15,000 years ago, which sounds a lot like ANE or ANE-related population to me.

Those upcoming 20,000 year old and 10,000 year old samples from Kyrgyzstan being tested in Russia should be interesting, I don't expect them to be different from ANE/Mal'ta Buret.

Agamemnon
03-25-2017, 05:41 PM
I don't know much about linguistics but in terms of auDNA all these groups share good amount of ANE ancestry, so there could be some connection? Also authors suggests that Eurasitic "descended largely unchanged from a language that died out as the glaciers retreated at the end of the last Ice Age" and was spoken by hunter-gatherers in Asia 15,000 years ago, which sounds a lot like ANE or ANE-related population to me.

Those upcoming 20,000 year old and 10,000 year old samples from Kyrgyzstan being tested in Russia should be interesting, I don't expect them to be different from ANE/Mal'ta Buret.

I really doubt the presence of ANE warrants a genetic relationship between Kartvelian and Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages for example, but the problems with Eurasiatic are far more numerous and, in my opinion, simple:

- Altaic is not a valid family, there simply is no such thing as Proto-Altaic.
- There's a general lack of morphological links between, say, Dravidian (the reconstruction of Proto-Davidian is ongoing) and Inuit-Yupik-Unangan or Proto-Uralic and Proto-Kartvelian.
- For argument's sake, if we accept Eurasiatic's validity circa 15,000 yBP we should expect about as many morphological links between different branches as those we observe between the different families comprising Afroasiatic, which is most definitely not what we're seeing here.

This leaves us with PIE and PU, and IMO a fair case can be made in favour of a genetic relationship between the two (contact-induced areal convergence over a long period of time is the alternative to Indo-Uralic). As a rule of thumb, long-range genetic relationships of this kind are difficult to establish in the absence of overwhelming evidence, moreover much of it depends on the amount of contact, isolation and profusion of ressources, that's why we can reasonably suppose that Dordogne with its abundance of ressources which attracted and saw the emergence of complex hunter-gatherer societies 20,000 years ago had a lot of linguistic diversity, much like the northern parts of Australia and the North American Pacific coast, while the rest of Europe back then must've been far less diverse from a linguistic vantage point (again, much like Australia and North America). So we must keep in mind, for example, that the Manych-Kerch spillway and the Khvalynian sea have probably impeded movement from the Caspian steppe and Central Asia to the Pontic steppe and by extension the Caucasus:

http://paleogeo.org/flood_full_big_en.jpg

Finally, Kartvelian is likely to have initially arrived in the Caucasus with farmers from Anatolia or the Iranian plateau, making a genetic relationship to IE, Uralic-Yukaghir et al. even more unlikely.

epp
03-25-2017, 07:43 PM
What about if you compare the age of TMRCA R1a-Z93 with R1b-KMS67 and KMS-75[4700 4800+/-TMRCA]. These were the markers from the Yamanaya-Sintashta-Arkaim-Poltavka-Scythian Sarmatian time/ region. R1a plotted slightly different from the R1b markers. Was there any interchange between these groups?
Also, have you considered the languages each group spoke and if they interchanged loanwords with each other? If they had contact with each other peaceful or in tribal warfare? Take for example R1a-93 speakers of Sanskrit or Brahui. How about a Sanskrit-Dravidian-Munda interchange? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substratum_in_the_Vedic_language
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R1/
My best estimate (based on very limited data) is that the earliest members of these haplogroups were probably in similar regions at similar times, and my guess would be that they corresponded in a common predominantly-satemised IE language.

epp
03-25-2017, 07:59 PM
And from whom would they adopt satemised PIE? Indeed, who would create satemised PIE? In your picture the R1b centum PIE speakers have all departed, leaving R1a men on their own and not speaking PIE. Bit of a conundrum.
A bit of a conundrum, yes, but I don't see it quite as simply as you have painted it. My best guess would be that some centum IE speakers (both R1b and some R1a) spread out, and that other IE speakers (probably some centum, some not) became satemised - perhaps due to the increasing influence of their R1a populations - and then spread out themselves.

epp
03-26-2017, 12:28 AM
Is there any evidence of IE influence in languages spoken by populations with significant amounts of R1b-M73?
This might indicate that R1b-M269 generated PIE internally, rather than picking it up from elsewhere.

Evidence regarding M73 would be especially informative, as its origin and expansion both seem to have predated M269's - yfull's SNP-based analysis estimates that a secondary branching in it (5,200 BC) preceded the primary branching in M269; my own STR-based analysis estimates a most likely move of M73* into Western Europe as early as 8,500BC (several millennia before L51's).

Silesian
03-26-2017, 01:02 AM
Is there any evidence of IE influence in languages spoken by populations with significant amounts of R1b-M73?
This might indicate that R1b-M269 generated PIE internally, rather than picking it up from elsewhere.

Evidence regarding M73 would be especially informative, as its origin and expansion both seem to have predated M269's - yfull's SNP-based analysis estimates that a secondary branching in it (5,200 BC) preceded the primary branching in M269; my own STR-based analysis estimates a most likely move of M73* into Western Europe as early as 8,500BC (several millennia before L51's).
There are two instances of burials with R1b-M73 and R1a-93 next to each other Since R1a-93 is associated the Sintshta-Arkaim Proto-Indo-Iranian, it might be somewhat informative the language spoken in the region they are located.The language in both are probably not the same.
Using the map function from ancestraljourneys- http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/ancient-human-dna_41837#12/53.6822/50.7227
The first is 1.74 km distance. Modern day R1b-M73 and R1a-93 from Bashkir region. Language?
I0124, Samara HG, Russian Mesolithic, 5650-5555 BC mtDNA: U5a1d Y-DNA: R1b1a
×I0432, Poltavka, 2900-2500 BCmtDNA: U5a1cY-DNA: R1a1a1b2a
http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/
The second instance from Golden family in Tavan Tolgoi, Eastern Mongolia. Language most likely Mongolian.
Status R1b burial[cinnamon wood coffin; left ear earrings], accompanied by R1a warrior burial.

Members of the Mongol imperial family (designated the Golden family) are buried in a secret necropolis; therefore, none of their burial grounds have been found. In 2004, we first discovered 5 graves belonging to the Golden family in Tavan Tolgoi burial ground, Eastern Mongolia.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161622

Agamemnon
03-26-2017, 01:29 AM
Okay. Maykop might have been Indo-European speaking, as well. Anthony doesn't seem to think so, but Gimbutas did.

I don't think so either ;)

rms2
03-26-2017, 02:17 AM
I don't think so either ;)

No one knows. I know Anthony's reasons for thinking Maykop wasn't IE speaking.

I don't think I will spend any more time on this thread, because it strikes me as kind of doofus. That's not a reference to your posts, Agamemnon, but to much of the rest of the thread itself. It's just kind of more annoying than anything else.

Ultimately I think the ancient dna will have to tell the tale, but even then who knows what will be said about it?

Jean M
03-26-2017, 08:27 AM
Using the map function from ancestraljourneys-

Actually that map is not by me. It is the work of Rosenblatt. I just give a link to it.

Romilius
05-21-2017, 08:46 AM
R1a was carried by forest-steppe hunter-gatherers between the Urals and the Baltic. The precursors of Corded Ware probably lived in the Dnieper-Don region so CWC R1a could come from the Dnieper-Donets and/or Dereivka cultures (we need aDNA). PIE could be the language of Dereivka and was then spread across a very large dialect continuum by Corded Ware and related cultures like Middle Dnieper, Fatyanovo, Balanovo, and Abashevo c. 3200-2500 BC.

R1b is a bit trickier. European Z2103 most likely comes from Yamna or post-Yamna groups like the Catacomb culture. Its sibling L51 can be best described as circum-Pontic. We really need to find some L51 in aDNA, but if I had to guess, L51 (or its parent L23) might be connected to Maykop and the early Yamnaya. The Vasconic-Caucasian connection may be related to the presence of R1b in other Caucasus groups such as Kura-Araxes. Eastern Bell Beaker groups have significant Yamna-like admixture, which is probably connected to the Yamnaya kurgans that appeared in the Carpathian basin c. 3000 BC.

And now that R1b1a is found in Dereivka, we will face the great conversion: Dereivka won't be PIE anymore and will be another thing... like everything touched by the presence of R1b.

At first it was Yamna: surely PIE > oh no! There is R1b in Yamna!!!! > Yamna isn't PIE anymore, but perhaps Vasconic-like.

Then, be prepared: Dereivka could be linked to PIE speakers > oh my... There was R1b in Dereivka!!!! So unfortunate... > Dereivka isn't PIE anymore, but perhaps Vasconic.

And I will bet that, if geneticist will find in a big area of Corded Ware (I think a meridional one) only R1b... we will face another great conversion: Southern Corded Ware won't be IE anymore.

rms2
05-25-2017, 11:21 PM
And now that R1b1a is found in Dereivka, we will face the great conversion: Dereivka won't be PIE anymore and will be another thing... like everything touched by the presence of R1b.

At first it was Yamna: surely PIE > oh no! There is R1b in Yamna!!!! > Yamna isn't PIE anymore, but perhaps Vasconic-like.

Then, be prepared: Dereivka could be linked to PIE speakers > oh my... There was R1b in Dereivka!!!! So unfortunate... > Dereivka isn't PIE anymore, but perhaps Vasconic.

And I will bet that, if geneticist will find in a big area of Corded Ware (I think a meridional one) only R1b... we will face another great conversion: Southern Corded Ware won't be IE anymore.

There are already people suggesting that Bell Beaker arose because R1b-L51 Neolithic farmers married Corded Ware women, who evidently taught them how to ride horses, fight, speak Indo-European, adopt patriarchy, and worship a pantheon of male gods.

And this despite the results of the Olalde et al paper, which put to death the out-of-Iberia myth and showed the strong correlation between R1b-P312 and steppe dna.

When will it end?

Probably never.

Rethel
06-18-2017, 01:28 PM
If R* has ever its own language this was surly Indoeuropean. I said if, becasue
I am not 100% sure, if R2 is IE, so it can't be said with certaintity - maybe was,
maybe not. Time will show. On the other hand - the R1* is definitly IE, here are
no doubts and even cannot be allready (actually I never had since over decade).

Martiko3
06-23-2018, 03:00 AM
Il est pourtant prouvé qu'il n'y a aucun lien entre les langues vasconics et les langues caucasiennes. En attendant les langues les moins discordantes avec l'eushkara sont les langues IE.
Donc retour à la case départ !

Martiko3
06-23-2018, 03:18 AM
Quels sont les liens entre les langues vasconics et les langues caucasiennes ?
Les linguistes basques les plus réputés ne les ont pas trouvé, mais peut être parce que ils ne comprennent pas les langues caucasiennes, enlevé moi un doute !

Martiko3
06-23-2018, 03:35 AM
There are already people suggesting that Bell Beaker arose because R1b-L51 Neolithic farmers married Corded Ware women, who evidently taught them how to ride horses, fight, speak Indo-European, adopt patriarchy, and worship a pantheon of male gods.

And this despite the results of the Olalde et al paper, which put to death the out-of-Iberia myth and showed the strong correlation between R1b-P312 and steppe dna.

When will it end?

Probably never.
Les indiens des plaines d'Amérique du Nord n'ont pas eu besoin de femme IE pour apprendre à domestiquer les chevaux, ils ont fait ça tout seul.
Pourquoi R1b changerait de langue et de femme, ça n'a pas de sens !

Martiko3
06-23-2018, 06:47 PM
Hello everybody!

In my opinion = proto-Indo-European-Kartvelians-Dravidian language was the language of paragroup R.

According to recent reports linguists, Indo-European languages together with Kartvelian languages and Dravidian languages ​​have a common proto-language - the Proto-Indo-European-Kartvelians-Dravidian. In my opinion, these data linguistics, indirectly confirmed by DNA genealogy data. Judge for yourself.

R1a - Indo-Europeans,
R1b - Proto-Basque and in my opinion also - Proto-Kartvelians. By the way, the part of the linguists thinks, that the Proto-Basque language was from Kartvelian. And now have ancient R1b into Kartvelians.
R2 - Dravidians.

La langue basque eushkara ne présente pas de ressemblance avec quelconque langue caucasienne.
Morvan l'avait un moment prétendu mais il a renoncè après plusieurs années d'études, et a rejoint la thèse russe reliant l'ancêtre des langues vasconics aux langues palèo-siberiennes.
Le fait est qu'il n'est à ce jour toujours pas déterminé l'appartenance de la langue basque au groupe IE, bien que cela n'est pas exclu.
La génétique nous apprend que basque et irlandais sont des peuples sans génes caucasiens, et que ces peuples sont reliés forte aux anciens Yamna et ne sont pas indigènes anciens
À partir de là les artefacts et ossuaire ne montrent pas au delà de 2500 ans en arrière leur présence dans l'ouest Europe à partir des subclades L21/df27 qu'ils ont en commun et presque exclusivement, c'c'est subclades sont cousin des celtes U152/M65.

Martiko3
06-23-2018, 10:10 PM
H.G. Wells assures me "paragroup R" spoke Esperanto but did click, grunt, and point when exasperated by Vasco-Kartvelians. ;)

C'est quoi cette langue vasco-katvelian ?
C'est dans quel pays ?
J'ai beaucoup entendu parler en vashko ou eushkara au pays Basque mais sans doute c'est dans un autre pays.
Tellement de choses qu'on ne connaît pas et on apprend tous les jours.
Et parfois c'c'est affligeant.
Mil eshker !

Martiko3
06-24-2018, 02:10 AM
[QUOTE=rms2;221039]Where? On the Pontic-Caspian steppe. From whom? I don't think we'll ever know for sure. I suspect the R1b and R1a clades involved in the genesis of PIE were part of the steppe milieu in which PIE evolved from whatever pre-PIE language preceded it. I would not say that one R1 haplogroup preceded the other in speaking PIE.

Vous dites steppes pontique-caspienne ?!
La zone pontique c'est surtout la rive nord de la mer Noire, la mer Caspienne n'est presque pas dans cette zone qui s'étend du Danube jusqu'à l'Altaï.
La principale zone réputée pontique concerne les plaines du Kuban et du Don jusqu'à l'embouchure du Danube sur la façade nord de la mer Noire.
Je ne vois pas l'utilité de citer la mer Caspienne ça me semble décalé et pas que géographiquement.

Martiko3
06-24-2018, 02:56 AM
No one said anything about "shady" and "dark and sinister". That would be attributing more significance to this than it currently merits.

Every now and then someone pops up pushing the Basque thing once again, tying it to Kartvelian or what have you and denying that most of R1b in Europe is Indo-European in origin. This is just another instance of that.
Ce que je picore un peu partout sur ce que disent les grands spécialistes concernant l'IE est parfois très contrasté sinon opposé je ne suis pas un connaisseur mais un curieux.
Certains disent que R1a sur des chevaux apprend aux R1b l'IE.
D'autre disent la même chose et son contraire que c'c'est R1b sur le cheval.
Et d'autres que je trouve plus judicieux parlent d'une indo-européanisation des langages, une forme de standardisation si j'ai bien compris.
Concernant le basque j'ai lu sur de nombreux forums que ce n'était pas une langue IE, mais quand j'ai regardé les linguistes spécialisés de langue basque aucun ne fait cette affirmation et il semblent très prudents.,en fait le basque n'est classifié que par de confuses rumeurs.
Mais ce que disait Benevista (si je me souviens bien du nom), c'c'est que le basque est sans conteste plus proche des langues IE que d'autres langues, peut-être parce qu'il les côtoie ou peut-être pas.
Le problème c'est qu'on ne trouve pas dans l'adn ce type de réponse culturelle, ce qui laisse un vide.

rms2
06-24-2018, 02:58 AM
My youngest daughter is learning French in high school and has even won awards for it, but her poor father speaks only English, German, and some Russian.

Try the French subforum here (https://anthrogenica.com/forumdisplay.php?162-French).

Martiko3
06-24-2018, 04:27 AM
What makes you think that? I guess you know that thus far all but one of the Yamnaya skeletons were R1b-L23.

Yes, I know none has been R1b-L51 yet, but we have no Yamnaya y-dna from the Pontic steppe or the Carpathian Basin. We do, however, have Bell Beaker y-dna. It has featured plenty of R1b-L51, and Gimbutas and Heyd have both said that Bell Beaker was derived from Yamnaya.

Given the formation time and tmrca of L23 and his sons, Z2103 and L51, it isn't likely that any of them arose very far from the others.



There is absolutely no evidence of any such thing.

Your data must be extremely interesting. They convince you that R1b arose both in central Europe and on the Turkish/Georgian border.

Epp, pourrait avoir raison si on admettait que le fils a engendré le père, concernant l'origine caucase.
D'autre part Yamnc'est :
Ydna R-L23 (R1b)
MtDna U5b/T*/H1-3
Ce qui par les pourcentage désigne plus particulièrement d'abord les basques, puis les irlandais et ensuite nord-ouest européen.
Donc les basques, Irlande, anglais... sont des Géorgien et Yamna se situe à la frontière Turquie-Géorgie ?
C'est le foutoir !

Rethel
06-24-2018, 08:54 AM
That feeling, when you are on angloforum, and people start to speak french... :argue: