Indo-European origins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demhat

It started in the Neolthic going into Bronze Age right.

So it was most probably brought with people who came roughly at the same time as the "farmers and pastoralists". This means if R1b is an Indo-European marker, Neolthic farmers and pastoralists = Indo Europeans ?

I think the Bell beakers reached Western Europe through See or North Africa.

---

probably by sea there are indicious of a previous culture to celts in the coasts of British isles and North of Spain

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gold_fenix

probably by sea there are indicious of a previous culture to celts in the coasts of British isles and North of Spain

---

They came by sea for sure.But the question is whether they took a long maritime route from Anatolia to Iberia or short maritime route from North Africa to Iberia.The first point is far fetched to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Optimus

They came by sea for sure.But the question is whether they took a long maritime route from Anatolia to Iberia or short maritime route from North Africa to Iberia.The first point is far fetched to me.

---

good question but now is extremely difficult to know by genetic because amazight are been strongly alterated by mix but there is a isolated population (los pasiegos) in North of Spain,( cantabria, an amazing zone from a point of genetical and anthopological view) who have high often of R1b, R1a, E1b1b2 and G

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Optimus

@Demhat Hittite is not the oldest Indo-European language,it is the oldest attested/written Indo-European language.The Hittite elite was quite different phenotype wise from native Anatolians/WestAsians.That is what ancient Egyptians depicted them in the battle of Kadesh.So it is clear Indo-European Hittites were not native WestAsians but intruders.

---

Your misinterpreting what I wrote. I cleary stated it is the oldest atested Indo European language and no one knows how the proto Indo European language was in reality. There are some reconstructions based on assumings of linguists. So I asked you if the Steppes are the source of Indo European language why arent there any traces of it? Why cant we find traces of older Indo European languages in the steppes? And how did they please depicted the Hittites so differently from "other West Asians" (as if the Hattis and Hurrians are representative for whole West Asia).

Quote:

---

Also J2,G,R1b is a range of haplogroups.Accordingly Proto Indo-Europeans were quite patriarchal themself,they were quite homogenous in paternal haplogroups and heterogenous in maternal haplogroups.Maybe Proto Proto Indo-Europeans were WestAsians but PIE were EasternEuropeans for sure.J2,G has absolutely nothing to do with PIE,it is insane to even think about it.

---

All I see is that you base most of your arguments on assumptions. Come on friend is there any place in this world more patriarchal than West Asia?

And you still didnt bring me any arguments against the "Indo European=pastoralists, semitic loanwords, words for farming" connection. Where did they get all of these components?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demhat

Your misinterpreting what I wrote. I cleary stated it is the oldest atested Indo European language and no one knows how the proto Indo European language was in reality. There are some reconstructions based on assumings of linguists. So I asked you if the Steppes are the source of Indo European language why arent there any traces of it? Why cant we find traces of older Indo European languages in the steppes? And how did they please depicted the Hittites so differently from "other West Asians" (as if the Hattis and Hurrians are representative for whole West Asia).




All I see is that you base most of your arguments on assumptions. Come on friend is there any place in this world more patriarchal than West Asia?

And you still didnt bring me any arguments against the "Indo European=pastoralists, semitic loanwords, words for farming" connection. Where did they get all of these components?

---

This man is right.

Between forgot to mention. As I already said Hittites state that they came from a citty called Kussara, which lies somewhere in the Southeast according to scientist. Ever heard of Göbekli Tepe (A Neolthic side in Southeast)? The Skeletons found there are described as pretty Dolichocephalic and very different from what someone would call "Armenoid".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joseph Capelli

That's the old theory. R1a originated in West Asia.

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/4776/byeurogenes.png

---

The most likely place of origin for R1a is in south-central asia, around the region of Mehrgarh, in the Indus Valley. The diversity and frequency of R1a is the highest in this region.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehrgarh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Optimus

They came by sea for sure.But the question is whether they took a long maritime route from Anatolia to Iberia or short maritime route from North Africa to Iberia.The first point is far fetched to me.

---

I saw a documentary about the discovery of America this afternoon, and they were talking about the possibility of polynesian sailors reaching California in pre-historic times. Also apparently the japanese sailed to Ecuador in pre-historic times too. The pottery was the same and there's some virus that can only be found in japanese people and Ecuadorian mummies.

Also an european spear was found in America, which predates the crossing of the Bering strait by asians.


So, after that, that 1st point doesn't seem so far fetched. The sea was never a blockage, it was more like a highway.

Dienekes ignores the linguistic results, and so do the many voters here:
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphak...icEvidence.pdf

It is impossible to trace the language from genes: there are so many possible genetic lineages, and absolutely no reliable way to define which of them is connected to the IE language. The most frequent lineage is not necessarily any more probable than the less frequent lineage.

The only way to find out the right lineage is to look at which lineage best matches the linguistic results. West Asia might have been the homeland of Pre-Proto-Indo-European, but it cannot be the homeland of Proto-Indo-European - read the link above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demhat

So I asked you if the Steppes are the source of Indo European language why arent there any traces of it? Why cant we find traces of older Indo European languages in the steppes?

---

This is easy: the steppe has been an area of repeated linguistic expansion: PIE, Iranian, later Iranian, Bolghar Turkic (Hunnic), Avarian, Hungarian, Kipchak Turkic etc. Linguistic and migrational waves one after another! The steppe is the one particular region where linguistic continuity cannot have deep roots. It still is the region which best fits the linguistic results: it is the best candidate for Proto-Indo-European homeland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demhat

Yes they were introduced into Central Anatolia, early Hatti there is no doubt about that but from where? According to themselves from a city called Kussara and scientists place this area in the Southeast (which is basically Southeast Anatolia, North Mesopotamia and West Iran).

That the oldest R1a1a* clades today are in Central Asia and East Europe doesnt have to say much. Only if we speculate (like the supporters of the Kurgan Hypothesis do) that R1a1a* was the Proto Indo European marker, than this might say something. It looks different if you speculate that J2, R1b and G were the proto Indo European markers. I believe it is possible that Proto Indo European language was introduced to the steppes by People from West Asia which used to be high in J2, R1b and G. Than these Steppe Hunters and Gatheres adopted Indo European language and spread it into North, East Europa and Central Asia. It is well known that even the Indo Europeans from the steppes were pastoralists. And pastoralism is also an invention from West Asia. Also typical pastoralist and farmer words in Indo European languages show there have to had been contact.

Imo there are two scenarios how R1a* reached West Asia. Either it was already native to this area or it came through a second wave. Means. Proto Indo Europeans from West Asia introduced Indo European language into the steppes.These Indo Europinazed and mixed (with the West Asian Indo Europeans) Hunthers and Gatheres which adopted pastoralism made a second movement into Europe, Central and West Asia and brought the North European component and as well R1a lineages into West Asia.


This are my two Hypothesis.

1. Either R1a1a* originated in West Asia and there is simply not enough researchers on it.

2. Look at the explanation above.

---

The words words for flora and fauna in IE describe the forest zone and the steppes so it points to the edge of the steppes somewhere (Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Caucasus or maybe Cappadocia) but lacks words for things such as seas or Middle Eastern flora and fauna.

The Kurgan theory suggests that the people on the Pontic Steppe came into contact with the Cucuteni-Trypillian neolithic civilisation, at that time one of the most advanced in Europe.
The IE people (Yamna) acquired technology from them and would latter help destroy that civilisation.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...utline.svg.png

The Yamna culture is identified as being proto-IE in the Kurgan hypothesis. It was influenced by the settled civilisations around it - the Cucuteni and Maykop culture of the North Caucasus.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...5/IE5500BP.png

Then the Yamna expanded and formed the Corded Ware in NE Europe. Germanic, Slavic and Baltic (perhaps Celtic too) cultures probably have their origin in this.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...re_culture.png


About R1b:

I want to believe it's Indo-European but there's something that suggests otherwise - the presence of pre-IE languages in R1b strongholds well into historical times (Roman period and Basque survives to this day).

Before I've argued that the Basque language could have been an exception - acquired from Neolithic women by their kids with IE men. But with so many languages and an apparent lack of matriarchy I don't think this can be applied to all these languages and so am now of the belief that R1b didn't speak IE but acquired it latter.

I don't think G2a or J2 spoke IE either. Most non-IE languages survived in Southern Europe where these haplogroups were and still are at their largest concentration. It makes no sense.

In Northern Europe where the Neolithic haplogroups get less we see no evidence of pre-IE languages beyond the Neolithic (Finnic populations being the exception).

http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/3...elanguages.png
Feel free to point out any mistakes.

So R1b, G2a and J2 were no originally IE speakers, more likely Afro-Asiatic and South / North Caucasian.
In the past I've claimed that the Bell Beaker culture spread R1b and Celtic languages into Western Europe. It seems I may have discredited my own claim on that last bit, Celtic languages must have arrived latter. One has to accept when one is wrong. Theo Venneman's Vasconic theory probably applies to the Bell Beaker better.

I believe R1b spread by sea and is associated with the Bell Beaker culture in Western Europe still, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with this theory. It could have followed the earlier Neolithic migrants into the Megalithic cultural area. Indeed when the Bell Beaker showed up in Britain the Megaliths didn't suddenly stop being built but one of the newest and largest of them all was built - Stonehenge.
Gradually barrows started to show up which are associated with the Kurgans of the Indo-Europeans. This could have been through contact with the Corded Ware, perhaps a conquering elite moving in from Eastern Europe into the Bell Beaker area.
Indo-European languages probably arrived in Britain with the Celts in two waves - first Goidelic and then Brythonic which partially replaced the former. I don't think the Irish migration myths describe the change in language but rather the earlier migrations of people to the island.

Quote:

---

I would like to believe the Kurgan Hypothesis but the thing is there are too many facts and evidences for an West Asian connection. For example if the very first Indo Europeans came from the Steppes why isnt there any traces of Indo European language older than the Hittites. Why were most if not all Indo Europeans pastoralists and even have words for farming in their vocabulary. Why are there semitic loanwords in all Indo European languages? Something is weird here imo.

---

This may be because some of the Neolithic cultures of Europe spoke Afro-Asiatic (formerly called Hamito-Semitic) languages. The Cucteni which influence the Yamna (Indo-Europeans) could have been amongst them.
The Neolithic haplogroups and spread of farming suggest this is likely.