Haplogroup E3b1a2 as a Possible Indicator of Settlement in Roman Britain by Soldiers of Balkan Ori

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CircassianWine

I think the true Caucasoid lineage is R1b, R1a, I and J. An SSA diluted Y-lineage E3b, and possibly diluted Veddiod lineage T. The latter two became Caucasoid because of their mixing with Euro/Caucasian females. Since T peaks among the Indian tribals. T is also found in the Caucasus especially common among Ossetians and North Caucasians in general, parts of SouthEastern Europe.

---

All of F* descendants are originally Caucasoid.T is not Veddoid at all i don't know were are you pulling that.E3b might originate in Africa but E and DE as a whole originates in Eurasia but you have right they were not Caucasoid but distantly related to Australoid/Proto-Mongoloid D* carriers so they were intruders into Africa too where they substituted the older Negroid lineages A and B.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Albion

What is?

---

Neolithic farmers - IE; the others accompanied them later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by safinator

Eupedia dilethantistic maps aren't serious IMO

---

They're good as a rough guide and the above is a decent generalisation of the point when the Y-DNA haplogroups entered Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Protospatha

Neolithic farmers - IE; the others accompanied them later.

---

Neolithic farmers weren't IE, more likely Afro-Asiatic speakers as attested by various substratums in European language families (Celtic and Germanic as examples). Some of them could also be from earlier Mesolithic languages too.
Some could have spoken other languages too such as South Caucasian or language related to Sumerian. Maybe Basque has its origin in one of those.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Albion

Neolithic farmers weren't IE, more likely Afro-Asiatic speakers as attested by various substratums in European language families (Celtic and Germanic as examples). Some of them could also be from earlier Mesolithic languages too.
Some could have spoken other languages too such as South Caucasian or language related to Sumerian. Maybe Basque has its origin in one of those.

---

No, substratum in Celto-Germanic could be easily explained also with R1b, it raised in the same place as J and G etc... They were Indo-Europeanized by J2 and G. Otherwise, substratum could be from I1 and I2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Protospatha

No, substratum in Celto-Germanic could be easily explained also with R1b, it raised in the same place as J and G etc... They were Indo-Europeanized by J2 and G. Otherwise, substratum could be from I1 and I2.

---

Stop with your bullshit J2 and/or G has nothing to do with Indo-Europeans.

It is widely accepted that R1a1a was the sole Indo-European marker.The Urhemait seems to be the Ukrainian steppes or near them.Also the domestication of horse and the spread of Indo-Europeans and the use of horse in warfare fits well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Optimus

Stop with your bullshit J2 and/or G has nothing to do with Indo-Europeans.

It is widely accepted that R1a1a was the sole Indo-European marker.The Urhemait seems to be the Ukrainian steppes or near them.Also the domestication of horse and the spread of Indo-Europeans and the use of horse in warfare fits well.

---

Stop with your bullshit of R1a and slavic-supremacy, please. Even if a theory is widely accepted it doesn't mean it is the right one. Anyway; we are going off-topic, if you want to discuss you know how to contact me:coffee:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Protospatha

No, substratum in Celto-Germanic could be easily explained also with R1b, it raised in the same place as J and G etc... They were Indo-Europeanized by J2 and G. Otherwise, substratum could be from I1 and I2.

---

I see. But I don't think J and G have much to do with Indo-European. IE probably developed in either the Pontic Steppe, Central Asia or Anatolia (unlikely). I don't think J2 and G are so associated with it.
G is prominent in Caucasians and Iranian peoples but quite rare amongst most IE's (Iranians excepted). J2 and G carriers must have been quite some elite to be able to replace the languages like that, I think it is unlikely.

More likely is that G2a spread to Europe during the Neolithic and some latter with the Indo-Europeans, Iranian nomads and the Alans on their way to Iberia.
It is important to note that these haplogroups are both found in areas which retained non-IE languages the longest (Etruscans in Italy, Rhaetians in the Alps, etc...)

I see them as Neolithic survivals, it is likely that much of Neolithic Europe was a mixture of G2a and I1 / 2 IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Albion

I see. But I don't think J and G have much to do with Indo-European. IE probably developed in either the Pontic Steppe, Central Asia or Anatolia (unlikely). I don't think J2 and G are so associated with it.
G is prominent in Caucasians and Iranian peoples but quite rare amongst most IE's (Iranians excepted). J2 and G carriers must have been quite some elite to be able to replace the languages like that, I think it is unlikely.

More likely is that G2a spread to Europe during the Neolithic and some latter with the Indo-Europeans, Iranian nomads and the Alans on their way to Iberia.
It is important to note that these haplogroups are both found in areas which retained non-IE languages the longest (Etruscans in Italy, Rhaetians in the Alps, etc...)

I see them as Neolithic survivals, it is likely that much of Neolithic Europe was a mixture of G2a and I1 / 2 IMO.

---

I won't reply here. Kindly sent me a message with all the proofs of your theory and I'll demonstrate you that all are wrong. You can visit again my thread on indo-aryan haplogroups to see hundreds of proofs for Anatolian hypothesis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Optimus

Stop with your bullshit J2 and/or G has nothing to do with Indo-Europeans.

It is widely accepted that R1a1a was the sole Indo-European marker.The Urhemait seems to be the Ukrainian steppes or near them.Also the domestication of horse and the spread of Indo-Europeans and the use of horse in warfare fits well.

---

I keep hearing this but never understand where R1b exists in this scheme of things. I've always held both R1a and R1b to be IE, R1b in Palaeolithic Iberia doesn't seem likely.
My theory to explain Basque R1b is that they simply aquired language as children from their Neolithic mothers rather than the IE males. It makes sense when you consider that women raise the children. Perhaps IE males in that situation just never managed to teach their new wives the IE languages?

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/4...tructurev2.png