R1b Africans: Are they related to Asian or European branch of R1b?

[LoLeL]

R1b has one primary branch, R1b1 (L278), which in turn has two primary branches: R1b1a (L754) and R1b1b (PH155). R1b1a is found mostly in Western Europe, although the Fula and Chadic-speaking peoples of Africa are dominated by R1b1a2 (PF6279/V88).


According to Tishkoff et al. (2009), the Fulani's genomic ancestry clusters near that of Chadic and Central Sudanic speaking populations. Based on this, the researchers suggest that the Fulani may have adopted a Niger-Congo language at some point in their history while intermarrying with local populations. Additionally, low to moderate levels of West Eurasian admixture was also observed in the Fulani samples, which the authors propose may have been introduced via the Iberian peninsula.

So do you think ancestor of R1b Fula and Chadic-speaking peoples were a European tribe? e.g. a Celtic, Romance, or Basque tribe from Iberia? Or they were from other regions of West Eurasia?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Haplogroup_R1b_%28Y-DNA%29.PNG

[Kriptc06]

The link is ancient, and when you say Celtic, Romance etc, you are referring to relatively modern populations, but they are distantly related yes.

I know very little about R1bs, please enlighten me if you think my statement is wrong.

But here is a tree.
https://texasmacleods.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/r1btree.jpg

[Bosniensis]

All R1b are related to R1b...

Just like all I2 people are I2 etc...

It just they ended on different continent.

[LoLeL]

The link is ancient, and when you say Celtic, Romance etc, you are referring to relatively modern populations, but they are distantly related yes.

I know very little about R1bs, please enlighten me if you think my statement is wrong.

But here is a tree.
https://texasmacleods.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/r1btree.jpg

Well, my question is: Did they migrate from Europe or Asia to Africa? The origin of their R1b.

[Kriptc06]

Well, my question is: Did they migrate from Europe or Asia to Africa? The origin of their R1b.

as far as I read, It is suggested that it could have expanded from West Asia, along Afro-Asiatic groups, E1b1bs, Js etc, hence their language being semitic related.

https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/71/23871-004-22EDE938.jpg
#
https://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/aae10.jpg?w=500

https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/gainst-an-african-origin-for-afro-asiatic/

[Kouros]

Maybe it's just WHG?

[Ülev]

http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1719/revisit-cruicani-backmigration-theory-r1b

[Kelmendasi]

Nah, its not related. European and most Asian R1b is IE whilst the Afro-Asiatic one is from the Middle East originally

[Kelmendasi]

as far as I read, It is suggested that it could have expanded from West Asia, along Afro-Asiatic groups, E1b1bs, Js etc, hence their language being semitic related.

https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/71/23871-004-22EDE938.jpg
#
https://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/aae10.jpg?w=500

https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/gainst-an-african-origin-for-afro-asiatic/
Yh it does come from west Asian expansion

[Kelmendasi]

Maybe it's just WHG?
Some WHG samples did have this type of R1b but it doesn’t seem to have an origin in them

[LoLeL]

Nah, its not related. European and most Asian R1b is IE whilst the Afro-Asiatic one is from the Middle East originally

So you say their R1b is archaic and very old? Related to the early days of R1b in West Asia?

[Kelmendasi]

So you say their R1b is archaic and very old? Related to the early days of R1b in West Asia?
Yh

[LoLeL]

Yh

Fair enough

[Rethel]

Fair enough

Not fair, becasue taken out of context and based on pure wishful thinking.

V88 is the same IE as the rest R1.
It came probably both ways, mostly through Spain from the Eastern Europe.
Even in this insane datation it is allready proved.

Second wave (Egyptian and mayb sudanian)
enter probably with first IE invasions on Egypt.

Btw, all African/Camerunian V88 is not old than +/-1700 years.
It means that it could be just one guy who traveled through the Sahara.
Or mabe even some Vandal, as they have two interesting tribe names: Wandala and Hausa.

[Kelmendasi]

https://indo-european.eu/tag/r1b-v88/

[Kelmendasi]

Not fair, becasue taken out of context and based on pure wishful thinking.

V88 is the same IE as the rest R1.
It came probably both ways, mostly through Spain from the Eastern Europe.
Even in this insane datation it is allready proved.

Second wave (Egyptian and mayb sudanian)
enter probably with first IE invasions on Egypt.

Btw, all African/Camerunian V88 is not old than +/-1700 years.
It means that it could be just one guy who traveled through the Sahara.
Or mabe even some Vandal, as they have two interesting tribe names: Wandala and Hausa.
I highly doubt that the R1b-V88 in Africa is of IE expansion or recent expansion. The type of R1b-V88 in Africa is R-Y18458 going by what I know and it has a formation of 5,300ybp and a TMRCA of 1,950ybp but it's father clade is a clade called R-Y7771 which probably has origin around SW Asia going by the fact that three samples containing basal R-Y7771* were found in Saudi Arabia also most of it's downstreams are found in SW Asia, this clade has a TMRCA of 5,300ybp and a formation of 7,100ybp. All of this suggests an origin from SW Asia among R1b-V88 in Africa, I may be wrong though. Also the European clades of R1b-V88 are under R-FGC20973 which is the brother clade of R-Y7771 but their split happened around 7,000 years ago. I know you may bot believe this as you believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

[Rethel]

I know you may bot believe this

Why do you belive, if you cannot know, if it is right datation, and many of such idiotic datation was prooved wrong.

Ba! R1b in Africa itself was proved wrong, from 12/17,000 to bearly 2,000 years as you yourself admitted.

Firstly understand how much it is 1000 years in human history, and then follow such retards
who claimed, that R1b was in Cameroon 17k years BC, and later they proved themselves idiots.
And this is not the only example of dating idiotism.

And remember - YOU DO NOT KNOW how old it is.
You only belive some people, who told you that.
More than that: they are making 90% mistakes.
In the case of I1 - 95% mistake in time length.

You can of course belive whatever you want, but it is only your faith
in people, who made fools from themselves allready - your pure naive
sectarian faith. So, do not laugh from others - especially those who
are vasing their faith on historical sources - not modern speculations
of people, who are changing their opinion every year and are failing
over and over again with their mostly freaky ideas.

BUT even if you belive in it, why do you assume,
that after 7000 years IEs will be not IEs anymore? :picard2:
The same as they will be in the future, they were
in the past - no matter when they did start to be,
and an logical and obvious fact is, that they start
with the guy whom you called R1M173 or R*M207.

[Kelmendasi]

Why do you belive, if you cannot know, if it is right datation, and many of such idiotic datation was prooved wrong.

Ba! R1b in Africa itself was proved wrong, from 12/17,000 to bearly 2,000 years as you yourself admitted.

Firstly understand how much it is 1000 years in human history, and then follow such retards
who claimed, that R1b was in Cameroon 17k years BC, and later they proved themselves idiots.
And this is not the only example of dating idiotism.

And remember - YOU DO NOT KNOW how old it is.
You only belive some people, who told you that.
More than that: they are making 90% mistakes.
In the case of I1 - 95% mistake in time length.

You can of course belive whatever you want, but it is only your faith
in people, who made fools from themselves allready - your pure naive
sectarian faith. So, do not laugh from others - especially those who
are vasing their faith on historical sources - not modern speculations
of people, who are changing their opinion every year and are failing
over and over again with their mostly freaky ideas.

BUT even if you belive in it, why do you assume,
that after 7000 years IEs will be not IEs anymore? :picard2:
The same as they will be in the future, they were
in the past - no matter when they did start to be,
and an logical and obvious fact is, that they start
with the guy whom you called R1M173 or R*M207.
But yet all of your basis is based on the bible which is farrrrrr more unreliable than scientists who study these things. You didn't understand what I wrote completely, I said that it came from the Middle East into Africa based on it's father clade, not that it was in Africa for 7,000 years. Your ideas will always conflict with scientific ones as you put all of your belief in what the bible says and close yourself from everything else

[KrashNick]

All R1b are related to R1b...

Just like all I2 people are I2 etc...

It just they ended on different continent.

Not really , I feel related only to R1b Balkanites.

[sailormoon]

Diverse hypotheses have been proposed to explain the process by which proto-Chadic speakers arrived to the Lake Chad region. Ehret46 has put forward a model for Afroasiatic languages with a primary division between the Omotic languages of Ethiopia and an Erythraean subgroup. This, in turn, has been subdivided into Cushitic and North Erythraean, the latter including Berber, Semitic, Ancient Egyptian, and Chadic. In his opinion, around 7000 kya proto-Chadic Afroasiatic speakers may have moved west through the Central Sahara and then farther south into the Lake Chad Basin.47 Blench,48 in turn, suggested that speakers of proto-Cushitic–Chadic language migrated east-to-west from the Middle Nile to the Lake Chad, and recent mtDNA data support this view.49 However, in contrast to the mtDNA, a strong connection between Chadic and other Afroasiatic populations from Northern Africa is revealed by the Y chromosome data. This finding would indicate the trans-Saharan47 a more likely scenario than the inter-Saharan hypothesis,48 at least as far as the male component of gene pool is concerned. In this view, it is tempting to speculate that the Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88 represents a preserved genetic record of gene flow along the same axis as the proposed spread of proto-Chadic languages.47 Indeed, geomorphological evidence4 from the paleolakes that existed in the Sahara during the mid-Holocene indicates that these lakes could have covered an area as large as about 10% of the Sahara, providing an important corridor for human migrations across the region.5

In summary, our data indicate a significant male contribution from northern Africa (and ultimately Asia) to the gene pool of the central Sahel. The trans-Saharan population movements resulting in this genetic pattern would seem to mirror the spread of the proto-Chadic languages, and most likely took place during the early mid Holocene, a period when giant paleolakes may have provided a corridor for human migrations across what is now the Sahara desert.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987365/


It's suggested by Cruciani et al. (2010) that proto-Chadic Afroasiatic speakers moved west through the Central Sahara and into the Lake Chad Basin around 7000 kya. The paleolakes that existed in the Sahara during the mid-Holocene may have provided a corridor for human migrations across the Sahara desert.

[Kelmendasi]

It's suggested that proto-Chadic Afroasiatic speakers moved west through the Central Sahara and into the Lake Chad Basin round 7000 kya. The paleolakes that existed in the Sahara during the mid-Holocene may have provided a corridor for human migrations across the Sahara desert.
I agree with this

[MercifulServant]

ja ja africans are euros :))))

[Rethel]

But yet all of your basis is based on the bible which is farrrrrr more unreliable than scientists who study these things.

How do you know this?
Becasue those scientists sayd such thing... :picard1:


I said that it came from the Middle East into Africa based on it's father clade, not that it was in Africa for 7,000 years.

Doesn;t matter, becasue I was comparing this to the previous statement of your false gods.


Your ideas will always conflict with scientific ones as you put all of your belief in what the bible says and close yourself from everything else

Will conflict only there, where they try to know better. Mostly it is about time.

Btw, I am not close - I only know, that it is impossible for these dates to be true.
Not because the Books says it, but because I chaked what the book claim, and it
is true - and even claims for humankind to be older are impossible in the light of a
scientifically gathered knowledge about the world. As long as you will blindly belive
people, who are commited purpously to spread lies, you will never get it. Why?
Just because you did not do any efort in that matter. I do, and I know. You don;t,
and you only belive - belive people, who often lied, just because they said you they
are right, and know everything better. You never even checked. You also valuate
the relevance of other sources (this time the Bible) on what they said. It is like the
judge in the court would listen only to this, what the criminal has to say about all
proves against him, and would read only the statements which makes his defender.

[LoLeL]

Not fair, becasue taken out of context and based on pure wishful thinking.

V88 is the same IE as the rest R1.
It came probably both ways, mostly through Spain from the Eastern Europe.
Even in this insane datation it is allready proved.

Second wave (Egyptian and mayb sudanian)
enter probably with first IE invasions on Egypt.

Btw, all African/Camerunian V88 is not old than +/-1700 years.
It means that it could be just one guy who traveled through the Sahara.
Or mabe even some Vandal, as they have two interesting tribe names: Wandala and Hausa.

Do you think all R1* were originally Indo-European? It's wrong man. Underhill on R1a:


Although virtually absent among Romance, Celtic and Semitic speakers, the presence and overall frequency of haplogroup R1a does not distinguish Indo-Iranian, Finno-Ugric, Dravidian or Turkic speakers from each other.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987245/

R1a and R1b are Eurasian haplogroups. Not all R1* were IE.

[Rethel]

Do you think all R1* were originally Indo-European?

Of course. Probably even R*.


It's wrong man. Underhill on R1a:

Total raving.


R1a and R1b are Eurasian haplogroups. Not all R1* were IE.

All.
Everywhere else R1a came from IEs. There is no other way.
Ugrofinians lived in deep manchuria, when R1a and even R1b (yes!) lived on their present land.
R1a among Turks it is so obvious to be of previous IE steppe inhabitants, that Idk, how somebody ca claim differently.
Dravidians - after 3000+ years of living among them IEs, it is obvious, that there has to be also this clade.

[LoLeL]

A never forget there is still a chance that scholars decide to create a new homeland for the IEs. Like this one: :laugh:

http://armchairprehistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/backmap.gif

[LoLeL]

Of course. Probably even R*.



Total raving.



All.
Everywhere else R1a came from IEs. There is no other way.
Ugrofinians lived in deep manchuria, when R1a and even R1b (yes!) lived on their present land.
R1a among Turks it is so obvious to be of previous IE steppe inhabitants, that Idk, how somebody ca claim differently.
Dravidians - after 3000+ years of living among them IEs, it is obvious, that there has to be also this clade.

Underhill is a geneticist and his works are peer-reviewed so he knows more about DNA stuff than you. Should I trust him and other scientists or you?

Kyrgyz have a lot of R1a. Could you prove your claim that their R1a was IE? Also R1b is popular among non-IEs like Basques and some West Asians. I doubt their R1b has anything to do with IE R1bs.

It just shows all of the R1* people have same ancestors. I don't think it's a strong sign of IEness.

[Kelmendasi]

Underhill is a geneticist and his works are peer-reviewed so he knows more about DNA stuff than you. Should I trust him and other scientists or you?

Kyrgyz have a lot of R1a. Could you prove your claim that their R1a was IE? Also R1b is popular among non-IEs like Basques and some West Asians. I doubt their R1b has anything to do with IE R1bs.

It just shows all of the R1* people have same ancestors. I don't think it's a strong sign of IEness.
Tbf Kyrgyz R1a is most probably Indo-Iranian in origin as it belongs to R1a>Z93>Z94 which is an Indo-Iranian marker. Also the R1b in Basques and most West Asians is in fact IE derived, Basques carry R-DF27 which is also IE and is labelled as a "Gallic" haplgroup and is common among Iberians, they carry R1b even though they aren't IE in such high frequencies due to breeding biases that the R1b people had when compared to other haplogroups meaning that they were able to produce more sons than the others, replacing the previous haplos. Also the R1b most common in West Asians is R-Z2103 which was the main haplogroup in the Yamna.

[LoLeL]

Tbf Kyrgyz R1a is most probably Indo-Iranian in origin as it belongs to R1a>Z93>Z94 which is an Indo-Iranian marker. Also the R1b in Basques and most West Asians is in fact IE derived, Basques carry R-DF27 which is also IE and is labelled as a "Gallic" haplgroup and is common among Iberians, they carry R1b even though they aren't IE in such high frequencies due to breeding biases that the R1b people had when compared to other haplogroups meaning that they were able to produce more sons than the others, replacing the previous haplos. Also the R1b most common in West Asians is R-Z2103 which was the main haplogroup in the Yamna.

Source or nigga plz

Also haplogroups are older than languages. By your logic, then what is your J1-ZS241...? Semitic? Sumerian? Kartvelian? Northeast Caucasian or what? Are you an Albanianized or IEized X?

[Kelmendasi]

Source or nigga plz

Also haplogroups are older than languages. By your logic, then what is your J1-ZS241...? Semitic? Sumerian? Kartvelian? Northeast Caucasian or what? Are you an Albanianized or IEized X?
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml#Indo-Iranian, https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#DF27, https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#Greco-Anatolian. Sure the major haplogroups are older than a lot of languages but subclades aren't. As for my haplogroup, it is most probably Semitic/Levantine in origin but is older than the Albanian ethnos so was IEized.

[Rethel]

Underhill is a geneticist

He is a genetist, not historian.
The problem with scientists is this, that they do know only their
own field, and have usually no even basic knowlegde from other
fields, like history, lingustics, archeology aso.

More than that, guy is infected with evolution, what allready
perverted his mind, and make his not reasonable. When you
have wrong fundaments, then rest will be wrong anyway.


Kyrgyz have a lot of R1a. Could you prove your claim that their R1a was IE?

Of course.
Whole that area was IE not yet so long ago, probably yet in Middle Ages.
Keep also in mind, that Kyrgys yet 200-300 years ago counted only couple of thosand of people.

As you see, I am taking unto cosideretion everything at the same time: history,
race, geography, lingustics, demography aso. Pure genetics is nonsensical.


Also R1b is popular among non-IEs like Basques and some West Asians. I doubt their R1b has anything to do with IE R1bs.

You can doubt whatever you want, but it is allready admitted fact by your
gurus, that Basques get their R1b from IEs. Btw, how could be differently,
if they are surrounded by IEs and they are small closed population?
Ideal enviroment for founder effect.

And why do you think, that West Asia was not infiltrated by IEs?
Are you really so heavily totaly ignorant about history? :picard2:


It just shows all of the R1* people have same ancestors. I don't think it's a strong sign of IEness.

Very strong. do you really think, that people from the same family
speak different languages since the begining? They said, by pa, I
am going to our enemies - and such did every generation? :picard2:

[Rethel]

Also haplogroups are older than languages.

It would be hard to be otherwise, as languages couldn;t exist BEFORE their users were born... :laugh:


By your logic, then what is your J1-ZS241...? Semitic? Sumerian? Kartvelian? Northeast Caucasian or what? Are you an Albanianized or IEized X?

It is clearly Semitic, BUT it doesn;t mean, that semitic language
was the original language of Semites. Could be, but not have to.

[LoLeL]

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml#Indo-Iranian, https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#DF27, https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#Greco-Anatolian. Sure the major haplogroups are older than a lot of languages but subclades aren't. As for my haplogroup, it is most probably Semitic/Levantine in origin but is older than the Albanian ethnos so was IEized.

Don't you have better sources? I don't see any citation in those Eupedia articles and nobody cited the author Maciamo Hay's works on Wikipedia articles. As you see, I have provided a peer-reviewed paper about R1a and that's not my personal opinion but just some scientists' pov. I don't say you're 100% wrong but such big claims need good academic sources. So I prefer Underhill et al to Eupedia and Hay.

[LoLeL]

@Rethel

I'm familiar with your opinion about IEs and R1s. So... :ranger

[Rethel]

Don't you have better sources? I don't see any citation in those Eupedia articles and nobody cited the author Maciamo Hay's works on Wikipedia articles. As you see, I have provided a peer-reviewed paper about R1a and that's not my personal opinion but just some scientists' pov. I don't say you're 100% wrong but such big claims need good academic sources. So I prefer Underhill et al to Eupedia and Hay.

It is hardly to find someone, who is remembering everything what he read.
BUT Kalmendasi here is right abou R1 and IE, and papers were hundrets of
times quoted on the forum. If you want some short way, enter my thread
"INDOEUROPEICS" were I did oput many of such links to the relevant stuff
about the topic.

Oh, just from today and yesterday, was confirmed by Genetiker, that R1b
and R1a TOGETHER was in prehistoric Narva and Kunda cultures. Far north
Eastern Europe. Btw, the basal clade to all modern R1a was allready found
in mesolithic Ukraine not so long ago, so, even if you have chinese R1a it is
surely of Ukrainian origin.

And so on, and so on, and so on... can be enumerated, but I do not memorize
what and where did I read. Sorry. I am yet normal, and want to stay that way....

[Rethel]

Oh, just from today and yesterday, was confirmed by Genetiker, that R1b and R1a
TOGETHER was in prehistoric Narva and Kunda cultures.

R1b paternal to West and South Asian R1b. Do you want to tell me, that Ugrofinians invaded Syria and India? :rolleyes:
Also R1b paternal to african V88. Do you want to tell me, that Ugrofinians invaded Spain and Egypt? :bored:
R1a paternal to Z93 - do you want to tell me again, that Laponians invaded China and Bangladesh? :scratch:

[LoLeL]

And Mal'ta–Buret' culture:


The skeletal remains of MA-1 have been described as phenotypically East Asian ("Mongoloid"). Alexeev (1998, p. 323) in his later publication stated that this area was "inhabited by a population of Mongoloid appearance". Genomic study Raghavan et al. (2014) and Fu et al. (2016) found Mal'ta Buret had brown eyes, dark hair and dark skin.

MA-1 is the only known example of Y-DNA R* (R-M207*) – that is, the only member of haplogroup R* that did not belong to haplogroups R1, R2 or secondary subclades of these. The mitochondrial DNA of MA-1 belonged to an unresolved subclade of haplogroup U.

A people similar to MA-1 were important genetic contributors to Native Americans, Europeans, Central and South Asians, and minor contribution to East Eurasians. Lazaridis et al. (2016) notes "a cline of ANE ancestry across the east-west extent of Eurasia."

So Eurasian R1 is more legit than language-based R1. Or my Amerindian theory which I posted it several times.

[Rethel]

So Eurasian R1 is more legit than language-based R1. Or my Amerindian theory which I posted it several times.

Nope.

1. Malta boy did not have any issue.
2. He was a hybrid - a castizo who had an amerindian grandmother.
3. He was clearly from the West, as he had 50-70% EHG and a little bit of WHG.
4. He actualy is a proof for IE R*
5. People similar to MA, it is like saying, that people similar to Potentia or Crazy
Daisy contributed here and there... Having some components, doesn;t yet mean,
to be ancestor of someone. Malta Boy was from west, and his grandfather just
had the wish to have a redskin wife. Thats all.

[LoLeL]

Nope.

1. Malta boy did not have any issue.
2. He was a hybrid - a castizo who had an amerindian grandmother.
3. He was clearly from the West, as he had 50-70% EHG and a little bit of WHG.
4. He actualy is a proof for IE R*
5. People similar to MA, it is like saying, that people similar to Potentia or Crazy
Daisy contributed here and there... Having some components, doesn;t yet mean,
to be ancestor of someone. Malta Boy was from west, and his grandfather just
had the wish to have a redskin wife. Thats all.

There was no IE in 24,000 to 15,000 BP. And he may be very similar to Amerindians. Rs are related to Qs.

[Rethel]

There was no IE in 24,000 to 15,000 BP.

There was no 24,000 BP.

But even if - then there were IEs - R1-tribe. Indoeuropeans didn;t emerged in the bronze age.
They didn;t grow from the soil when the bronze was invented. They allready were, and had their history.

But, but - do you think, that after next 24,000 years there will be no x-people, even if they will kept their identity?

The time is irrelevant.


And he may be very similar to Amerindians. Rs are related to Qs.

I allready explain to you, why he wasn;t
basing on the stuff reveled by your gurus.
Do you not belive them now?

[LoLeL]

There was no 24,000 BP.

But even if - then there were IEs - R1-tribe. Indoeuropeans didn;t emerged in the bronze age.
They didn;t grow from the soil when the bronze was invented. They allready were, and had their history.

But, but - do you think, that after next 24,000 years there will be no x-people, even if they will kept their identity?

The time is irrelevant.



I allready explain to you, why he wasn;t
basing on the stuff reveled by your gurus.
Do you not belive them now?

You mix scientific fields (genetics, languages, history and ...) with your own personal stuff. You may have some good points but since I'm familiar with your posts, then let's agree to disagree.

[Proto-Shaman]

So do you think ancestor of R1b Fula and Chadic-speaking peoples were a European tribe? e.g. a Celtic, Romance, or Basque tribe from Iberia? Or they were from other regions of West Eurasia?
Neither nor.

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19567

*The Arbins have apparently established the Sumer culture and the state and migrated westwards to Europe by several routes, carrying mainly the R-M269 subclade and its downstream L23 subclade. One route is the northern route, from the Russian Plain to the west, ~4600 - 4400 ybp; another, concurrently along Asia Minor and the Middle East westward with the same two subclades; and yet another which will populate Europe the most, migrating along North Africa-Mediterranean Sea via ancient Egypt to the Pyrenees, to arrive ~4800 ybp. On this route the R1b-V88 tribe split off and went south, eventually to Central Africa (mainly Cameroon and Chad judging by their present-day distribution), where a common ancestor of the current R1b-V88 haplotype lived ~4400 ybp.

[Kelmendasi]

Don't you have better sources? I don't see any citation in those Eupedia articles and nobody cited the author Maciamo Hay's works on Wikipedia articles. As you see, I have provided a peer-reviewed paper about R1a and that's not my personal opinion but just some scientists' pov. I don't say you're 100% wrong but such big claims need good academic sources. So I prefer Underhill et al to Eupedia and Hay.
Basques R1b-DF27: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-07710-x, Paper which shows R1b-Z2103 which is common in West Asians being found among the Yamna:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433 and paper on R1a-Z93 and other R1a clades: https://file.scirp.org/pdf/AA20120300005_14498334.pdf


Distribution of R1b-DF27:
http://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/ADN/DF27T.png

Distribution of R1b-Z2103 and ancient samples:
http://www.r1b.org/imgs/Z2103_Yamnaya.png

[Natufian Kang]

as far as I read, It is suggested that it could have expanded from West Asia, along Afro-Asiatic groups, E1b1bs, Js etc, hence their language being semitic related.

https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/71/23871-004-22EDE938.jpg
#
https://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/aae10.jpg?w=500

https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/gainst-an-african-origin-for-afro-asiatic/

Afro-Asiatics were/are E1b1b and CT(most likely slaves) not J nor R1b.

http://i68.tinypic.com/27zese9.png

[Dandelion]

Immigrants from Chad welcome in Rethel's Poland, after a Y-DNA test.

EDIT: Nah, all of those men drooling over Polki. I can't even joke about it...

[Rethel]

Immigrants from Chad welcome in Rethel's Poland, after a Y-DNA test.

The real amount of them is probably lower, than people think.
Population which were tested contain sometimes group of 4
(sic!) to 20 guys from one village. So, the error is probably
huge - but no matter how many there are of them, they
would be welcome - of course if they would be baptized.

Polish nationalistic thought gladly see even E1b Africans
or O2 Chinese, so, why not Indoeuropeans from Africa?


EDIT: Nah, all of those men drooling over Polki. I can't even joke about it...

If we have to have white R1 again, they have to be able
to whitenning themselves some way. Btw, we have allready
30% of total strangers, who whitened themselves, so the
more deserve this the lost sons of Indoeuropea. :)

[Taiguaitiaoghyrmmumin]

R1b africans dont even care if they are R1b. Only TA people do.

[LoLeL]

Basques R1b-DF27: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-07710-x, Paper which shows R1b-Z2103 which is common in West Asians being found among the Yamna:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433 and paper on R1a-Z93 and other R1a clades: https://file.scirp.org/pdf/AA20120300005_14498334.pdf


Distribution of R1b-DF27:
http://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/ADN/DF27T.png

Distribution of R1b-Z2103 and ancient samples:
http://www.r1b.org/imgs/Z2103_Yamnaya.png

Perfecto amigo