4
Greek relationship to r1b y-dna and indo-European language?
It's cruel of me to "troll" the greeks when MrMalus is under the banhammer, but I feel it's time to stop beating around the bush and go right for the throat as it were, since the whole Indo-European language question has reached a quite fervered pitch of insanity in the last few months.
Where does this language group come from?! How much does it represent a genetic identity, and how much acculturation was involved in its spread?
This is probably the biggest largely open anthropology question, and probably the most important to anyone who has European origins.
There's an awful lot to suggest this is an actual identity. The biggest thing, perhaps is that indo-european and indo-iranian are very closely related, and the r1b and r1a that dominate these respective language groups are also closely genetically related to each other (though separated by at least 10k years and likely twice that). However there are some puzzling exceptions.
The biggest one people mention is that the Basque language is NOT Indo-European even though they have some of the highest levels of r1b. Yet perhaps this doesn't matter. Perhaps the original inhabitants of this mountainous region were I or even J y-dna clade peoples who came at some unknown time. Being almost impassable they could not really be conquered by celts, proto-celts or megalithic peoples. But even so over many thousands of years surrounded by r1b people, slowly the surrounding genes would trickle in and the contained genes would trickle out. As populations grew this process would become even faster, and eventually little of the remaining blood would be left.
A more seldom mentioned exception is the Greeks. Greeks only have about 15%-25% r1b y-dna, but at the same time they don't have more than about 25% of ANY y-dna. THIS IS MAJOR. If the Greeks or anatolians are the origin of IE languages then everything we ever heard about "Indo-europeans bla bla" is complete are utter horseshit. This means that the languages that people in europe speak has ZERO bearing on their origin. We'd really have no idea what we are talking about with european origins and cultural development, it's all crap. Or is it? On the other hand maybe IE languages DID come from the south to the north, but THE PEOPLE WHO INVENTED THEM WERE CELT-LIKE IN GENETICS, nothing like how we think of Greeks today. Supporting this theory are the brahmin. We know that's basically what happened with those indo-iranian people, also at the border between other language groups - they mixed with them. IF THIS IS THE CASE IT MEANS PEOPLE LIKE MODERN EUROPEANS ARE THE FATHERS NOT ONLY OF THE MODERN AGE BUT CIVILIZATION AS A WHOLE! That is the inescapable consequence of the idea that there was an IE homeland which spawned all of europe!
Of course you still can't discount complete acculturation. Maybe IE languages don't come from an r1b-dominated society at all. Just look at how widespread English is today. This is a Germanic language spoken by a tiny group called saxons from west germany which evolved into a much different and simpler sort of language called English, which is now spoken by a billion or more people. Of course the big foil here is that r1b is highly linked to IE and r1a is highly linked to II, making this option seem incredibly coincidental.
So which origin story is the real one in your opinion, gentle reader?
1. Indo-European is a genetic identity or very close to it, obviously. R1b y-dna is the true western european origin and always has been. Ancient Greeks started off Celt-like and browned up over time.
2. Greeks are the true Indo-European peoples! Northern savages took on their language due to trade routes and became acculturated. Greeks have always been just as they are!
3. All this language/culture stuff is bullshit. People change religions and languages with the seasons and it's pointless to even try to sort out the origins of any of it beyond historic times.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Ultra
Bookmarks