Question about R1b ?

[Borna]

Is it true that R1b-U106 carriers are Germanized Celts and not true Indo-European Germanic ? I have seen this theory several times, can someone confirm it ?

[Jackson]

It's unknown, it's distribution correlates quite well with Germanic speakers (particularly West Germanic speakers) but nobody really knows what groups originally spread it, as most of that area also contained Celtic speakers at some point. While R1b turned up in Bell Beaker remains in Germany, they weren't U106.

[Borna]

Bump

[Guapo]

Is it true that R1b-U106 carriers are Germanized Celts and not true Indo-European Germanic ? I have seen this theory several times, can someone confirm it ?

I think so, I've read that as well but it's most common with Germanics though.

[Cody Gearhart]

My Paternal Haplogroup is R-U198 which is a mutation from R-U106 as i have R-U106 as well.

[Vesuvian Sky]

Its a theory based naturally on limited data at the moment. But its basis partly stems from the notion that Baltic, Slavic and Germanic all broke break off from the Yamna culture during the Corded Ware culture. This rather famous IE phyologenetic tree illustrates this theory fairly well:

http://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/indoeuropean-language-family-tree.jpg

Likewise, Proto-Celtic and Italic naturally are considered from the same pre-proto source and nowadays are seen to be derived from the Bell Beaker culture.

[Proto-Shaman]

Is that R1b line one of the three founding lines for the IE centum Germanics? If yes, then it's native Germanic, if not, then Germanized.

[Cody Gearhart]

Is that R1b line one of the three founding lines for the IE centum Germanics? If yes, then it's native Germanic, if not, then Germanized.

are you replying to what i said earlier?

[TheForeigner]

Celts are Indo-European too and I thought that linguistically closer to Germanics than were Balts or Slavs.

[Vesuvian Sky]

Celts are Indo-European too and I thought that linguistically closer to Germanics than were Balts or Slavs.

It depends on which phylogenetic theory you follow. Some do suggest Celtic, Italic, and Germanic are indeed closer like this one:

http://www.fakulteti.mk/images/news/2013/09/20130928-kako-zvuchel-predokot-na-nashiot-jazik-pred-6-000-godini-m.jpg

The reasons for a closer Balto-Slavic-Germanic unity are complicated and in short, has to do with the notion that Balto-Slavic was an incompletely satemized sub-branch.

[Sacrificed Ram]

http://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/indoeuropean-language-family-tree.jpg


Why does indo-iranian branch gives a lace in balto-slavic branch? Satem relation? (I saw such discussion in this forum, but I don't remember where)
But the TochArian is the most weird.

I always thought Celto-Italo-Tocharian was Anatolian in origin, or etruscan and other semitics influenced them very early in europe (neolithic farmer multiple waves).

[TheForeigner]

Etruscans and Neolithic farmers were not contemporaries, nor Semitic.

[TheForeigner]

Also Indo-European early origins in Asia Minor is just one theory and not the dominant one. Kurgan hypothesis still is dominant.

[Vesuvian Sky]

Why does indo-iranian branch gives a lace in balto-slavic branch? Satem relation? (I saw such discussion in this forum, but I don't remember where)

Because some linguists view Balto-Slavic as satemized by the Proto-Indo-Iranian speakers or even the early 'Iranian' nomads of the steppes.



But the TochArian is the most weird.

I always thought Celto-Italo-Tocharian was Anatolian in origin,

That only works in accordance if you accept the Anatolian theory. There's a million ways to view this and Tocharian, Celtic, and Italic may have more to do with a complicated migratory process involving Botai, Mako phase Vucedol, and Bell Beaker cultures. See here and here for more info:

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/43356-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-148368.html


or etruscan and other semitics influenced them very early in europe (neolithic farmer multiple waves).

Etruscan is probably derived from the EEF folk as well as Basque - essentially Neolithic survivor languages. Semetic languages according to David Anthony influence IE in a very limited manner and may or may not have been a part of the EEF, G2a male led migrations from West Asia c. 6000 BC that brought farming to Europe.

[Sacrificed Ram]

Anatolian and Kurgan theories can work together:

Anatolian R1b carries and R1a Kurganics, "indo-europanized" Europe using different ways.

[TheForeigner]

Anatolian and Kurgan theories can work together:

Anatolian R1b carries and R1a Kurganics, "indo-europanized" Europe using different ways.

There has to be one original homeland for the proto language.

[Vesuvian Sky]

Anatolian and Kurgan theories can work together:

Anatolian R1b carries and R1a Kurganics, "indo-europanized" Europe using different ways.

Well that's the thing. R1b may not actually originate from Anatolia. Many years ago Semino et al postulated an Iberian origin but we know that's wrong today. The Anatolian position for R1b origins says its there at 10,000 BC. However, new coalescence theory suggests R1a and R1b split apart from R1 only 10,0000 years ago:

http://www.unz.com/gnxp/r1a1a-what-is-best-in-life/

[Sacrificed Ram]

We need think even about not indo-european speaker R1b carries in Europe. How do we explain the Basques (high R1b and not indo european speakers)? And R1b in Africa?


There has to be one original homeland for the proto language.

My personal opinion is not conventional, such language branch emerged from an interaction of different peoples, like a creole languange, maybe because trader of livestock, fur, cereals, slaves, etc.

[TheForeigner]

We need think even about not indo-european speaker R1b carries in Europe. How do we explain the Basques (high R1b and not indo european speakers)? And R1b in Africa?



My personal opinion is not conventional, such language branch emerged from an interaction of different peoples, like a creole languange, maybe because trader of livestock, fur, cereals, slaves, etc.

I thought you were only thinking of early Indo-European peoples. Well the theory you state or support, has been mentioned as a possibility by scholars. It's possible the Proto-Indo-European language begun as a creole language and then also spread and branched off in part because on commerce and peaceful interaction and not just invasions and conquest. At least that is what I once read and understood as a possibility mentioned by one historian.

[Vesuvian Sky]

Part of understanding what's going on with R1b involves knowing latest research:



The point of origin of R1b is thought to lie in Eurasia, most likely in Western Asia. T. Karafet et al. estimated the age of R1, the parent of R1b, as 18,500 years before present.

Early research focused upon Europe. In 2000 Ornella Semino and colleagues argued that R1b had been in Europe before the end of the Ice Age, and had spread north from an Iberian refuge after the Last Glacial Maximum.[8] Age estimates of R1b in Europe have steadily decreased in more recent studies, at least concerning the majority of R1b, with more recent studies suggesting a Neolithic age or younger. Only Morelli et al. have recently attempted to defend a Palaeolithic origin for R1b1b2. Irrespective of STR coalescence calculations, Chikhi et al. pointed out that the timing of molecular divergences does not coincide with population splits; the TMRCA of haplogroup R1b (whether in the Palaeolithic or Neolithic) dates to its point of origin somewhere in Eurasia, and not its arrival in western Europe [1]. However, Michael R. Maglio argues that the closest branch of R1b is from Iberia and its small subclades found in West Asia, the Near East and Africa are examples of back migration, and not of its origin.[13]

While age estimates in these articles are all more recent than the Last Glacial Maximum, all mention the Neolithic, when farming was introduced to Europe from the Middle East as a possible candidate period. Myres et al. (August 2010), and Cruciani et al. (August 2010) both remained undecided on the exact dating of the migration or migrations responsible for this distribution, not ruling out migrations as early as the Mesolithic or as late as Hallstatt but more probably Late Neolithic.[7] They noted that direct evidence from ancient DNA may be needed to resolve these gene flows. Lee et al. (May 2012) analysed the ancient DNA of human remains from the Late Neolithic Bell Beaker site of Kromsdorf, Germany identifying two males as belonging to the Y haplogroup R1b.[16] Analysis of ancient Y DNA from the remains of populations derived from early Neolithic settlements such as the Mediterranean Cardium and Central and North European LBK settlements have found an absence of males belonging to haplogroup R1b. It has thus been suggested that the arrival of Y Haplogroup R1b coincided with the arrival of the Centum branch of the Indo-European languages in Western Europe.

So given that no R1b is found in among the aDNA of early Neolithic farmers plus revised coalescence theory suggesting a more recent split from R1 greatly hinders an Anatolian-Neolithic farmer migration at the moment. Also, we have to pay attention to subclades:


While Western Europe is dominated by the R1b1a2 (R-M269) branch of R1b, the mostly Chadic-speaking area in Africa is dominated by the branch known as R1b1c (R-V88). These represent two very successful "twigs" on a much bigger "family tree".

M269 is the clade that is European and probably brings Kentum languages to Western Europe. While V88 somehow becomes Chadic.

Regarding convergence theory and creolization for IE, both really don't work because the lexicon has very specific words that are closesly related among much of the earliest attested daughter languages:

PIE for 'horse' - ekwhos
Latin: equus (represents Italic)
Old Irish: ech (represents Celtic)
Old English: eoh (represents Germanic)
Tocharian: yakwe
Lithuanian: esva (represents Baltic definitely and perhaps Balto-Slavic)
Sanskrit: asva (represents Indo-Aryan)
Old Persian: asa (represents Iranian)

PIE for 'Wheel' - kwékwlo
Greek: calks
Old English: hweogul, hweowul or hwēol
Old Indic cakra
Avestan: caxrem

PIE for 'metal' ayes
Latin for 'bronze, copper': aes
Old Norse for 'ore': air
Avestan for 'metal': ayah
Old Indic for 'copper, iron': ays.

Convergence or creole theories are usually heavily influenced by rather biased professors who were often dirty delusional socialist hippies before receiving their cushy tenure jobs. Languages usually don't spread without some force, especially when you enter the metallurgical ages.

Finally, Joseph Greenberg who wrote a book explaining the deeper origins of language families (Proto-Nostratic theory) felt that IE and Uralic were related to each other more then any other of the Eurasian languages:


The Eurasiatic and Nostratic hypotheses both consider Indo-European and Uralic (or Uralic–Yukaghir) to be genetically related. However, the Indo-Uralic hypothesis in the strict sense is distinct from this: it maintains that Indo-European and Uralic have an especially close genetic relationship, and does not necessarily include assertions that Indo-European and Uralic are related to any other language families.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Uralic_languages

Essentially this anchors PIE somewhere near Siberia where Proto-Uralic is said to have formed. The last sentence of course negates greatly the idea of creolization or even convergence.

[Not a Cop]

long text


Very interesting! So new theory is that R1b came with IE populations and IE language is a brother of Uralic?

[Hevo]

No, the R1b u106 guys were not Germanized Celts.

[Altaylardan Tunaya]

I belong to oldest subclade of r1b (M269+ L23- PF7563-). I don't think i'm the ancestor of all europeans :D

[Borna]

No, the R1b u106 guys were not Germanized Celts.

Thanks, thats all i wanted to know.

[Vesuvian Sky]

Very interesting! So new theory is that R1b came with IE populations and IE language is a brother of Uralic?

At least the m269 branch. And yes, working in accordance with Nostratic linguistic theory, in theory, IE is most closely related to Uralic than any other language. This is a good book to read regarding this theory:

Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family. 1: Grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 2000.

Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family. 2: Lexicon. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 2002.

Both are by Joseph Greenberg

[TheForeigner]

Proto-Italics and Proto-Illyrians also came fron Central Europe?

[Vesuvian Sky]

Proto-Italics and Proto-Illyrians also came fron Central Europe?

You'll find a number of opinions on this.

I think Proto-Italic forms in Italy after Bell Beaker culture. But even the Bell Beaker culture entered Italy from C. Europe. But at that point you're probably dealing with Proto-Italo-Celtic.

Older theories say Halstatt=Proto-Italic but that's erroneous. Halstatt was Proto-Celtic. Even the Celtic Lepontic script that's found in N. Italy c. 600 BC is connected to Halstatt culture:



The older Lepontic inscriptions date back to before the 5th century BC, the item from Castelletto Ticino being dated at the 6th century BC and that from Sesto Calende possibly being from the 7th century BC (Prosdocimi, 1991). The people who made these inscriptions are nowadays identified with the Golasecca culture, a Celtic culture in northern Italy (De Marinis 1991, Kruta 1991 and Stifter 2008).[8][9] The extinction date for Lepontic is only inferred by the absence of later inscriptions.

About Golasecca culture:


In 1865 Louis Laurent Gabriel de Mortillet, a founder of European archaeology, rightly assigned the same tombs to a pre-Roman culture of the early Iron Age, with a likely Celtic substratum given the similarities with the Hallstatt Culture. He made several trips there bringing back to France part of the Abbot Giani's collection to enrich the Musée des Antiquités nationales collections, of which he was Vice-curator.

Don't know about Proto-Illyrian.