If you browse around here, then you can see that "100% Baltic" Lithuanians have a lot of N1c1 and so do the Latvians. They have more of it than the Estonians.
My assumption is that the Estonian percentage of N1c1 has decreased because of the fact that the Estonians have almost 3 times more I1 than the Balts. But I would like to hear more theories.
Chart of FinN1Cness:
1. Finland, 58.5
2. Lithuania, 42
3. Latvia, 38
4. Estonia, 34
Here we go...
You posted this to prove, that actually we all are Baltic speaking finns, right?
No, I didn't. Please contribute to this thread or do not post at all. I intended to keep this thread to be completely high-brow, thus I would be pleased if your dumb post and my reply to your dumb post would both be removed from this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ēriks
It's just founder effect. These are small populations in large areas of land that were heavily forested and inpenetrable until recently.
In terms of genome-wide genetic structure Lithuanians don't resemble much any Finnic speaking population. They're like an isolated and genetically drifted version of Belorussians.
Of course we all know that no linguistic labels (like "Finnic" or "Baltic") can be attached to any haplogroup. There are different languages in every haplogroups, and different haplogroups within every language speakers.
The "Baltian" (areal, not linguistic label) N1c has probably nothing to do with the Finnic languages: it has been born in the area where no Finnic language has never been spoken (the limit goes across Latvia). Furthermore, new linguistic studies show that Uralic languages only started to expand later than earlier was thought, about 2000 BC. But Karl, as we know, will stubbornly resist these new results, because they do not fit into his belief that Estonian language is the oldest language in Europe...
:coffee:
What new results? The main theory, supported my the majority of the scientists and written in most books says that the proto-Uralic area was in Eastern-Europe, the Volga region, next to the Ural mountains. The Finno-Ugric languages in Northern-Europe predate the Indo-European languages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
At 2000 BC, Estonians were already living in modern-day Estonia. Estonian has loan words from Proto-Germanic starting from 2000 BC. But when believing you and saying that the Uralic languages didn't start expanding before 2000 BC, then Proto-Germanic loanwords existing in the Estonian language from already 2000 BC, wouldn't be possible.
These new results:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jäärapää
http://www.kotikielenseura.fi/viritt...tut/2006_2.pdf
http://www.sgr.fi/susa/92/hakkinen.pdf
In brief: Proto-Uralic started to expand about 2000 BC from the Volga-Kama area. So the Uralic languages cannot predate the Indo-European languages here near the Baltic Sea. You see, the Indo-European dating has not changed: it is still connected to the Corded Ware Culture, reaching the Baltic Sea region about 3200 BC.
And here is something in English to tell you what is wrong with the continuity argument you believe in:
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Uralic.html
More in Finnish:
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Jatkuvuus1.pdf
Many linguists have already agreed with these new results. During the present decade you will see these views also in English and in popular books, and at 2020's they are in the school books. I have told this to you earlier in ForumBiodiversity, but you just refuse to understand it.
1. Some ancestors of Estonians have of course lived in Estonia "forever". But some of the ancestors are later newcomers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jäärapää
2. You cannot claim that the Estonian language is inherited from the first inhabitants. Firstly, it is methodologically invalid (see the third link above), and secondly, it is against the linguistic results (see the first and second link above).
3. Proto-Germanic loanwords are not older than 500 BC, but there are Palaeo- and Pre-Germanic loanwords older than that. There is no need to consider them older than, say, 1500 BC, when the Uralic (Pre-Finnic) language had already reached the Baltic Sea.
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Jatkuvuus2.pdf
Jaska:
There were two waves of N1c that spread to the Baltic area and they both spread there from an area where no Uralic was spoken, so the haplotype may not be connected with the spread of Uralic languages. The first wave some 6-7000 years ago, was to modern day (roughly) Latvia, Lithuania and Ukraine and the second approx 4000 years ago to northwestern Russia.
As far as I know, tha majority of N1c in Estonia and western Finland spread north from the first wave. From the second wave the younger N1c was brought to eastern Finland. The younger spread may have brought with it Uralic languages to the region.
Is this correct?
The links you provide are your theories. And you have some supporters. Wouldn't it be nice of you to mention this?
There are also other theories, and your theories (although strong in many ways) have been questioned.
There are plenty of rivers and lakes in northeastern Europe so the area was very accessible along them and that's why Uralic languages are spoken over such a vast territorium (Northern Norway to east of Urals and south along the Volga). Nevertheless, the population was low since the land was not open for agriculture (= population boom) until recently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
But isn't it a fact that Finnics resemble Balts quite a lot?Quote:
In terms of genome-wide genetic structure Lithuanians don't resemble much any Finnic speaking population. They're like an isolated and genetically drifted version of Belorussians.
Ah, the petty squabbles of Finnics, Balts, and other non-EuR1bns. :cool:
Yeah, but what about us kI1ngs? Back in the day the original R1b (peasant) Britons were dominated hard by the I1 carrying invading Germanic aristocracy if I´m not completely mistaken. The same is probably true even today. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gospatric
j/k :p
They are peer-reviewed articles, so it does not matter that I actually wrote some of them. And all who have considered the subject since, agree. Those articles which don't agree, are older - you cannot rely on them, because during their writing the new view was not yet presented. Nobody have questioned these new theories on any argumental ground since they were published, unless you have some secret knowledge?Quote:
Originally Posted by Motörhead Remember Me
Of course some people (like Jäärapää) may be stuck in the old views, but as in science only arguments count, such opinions have no value. Stubbornity is not a scientific argument. :)
So far it's hard to tell for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Motörhead Remember Me
With the 67-marker haplotree it looks like all the "northern N1c" (in Karelia, Finland and Scandinavia) is relatively young and descended from some wide-spread branch. There are of course some older groups in the north, too, but the great majority of Finns belong to the top branches 7, 8 and 9:
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/SukupuuN1c.pdf
I wasn't talking about Kalevi Wiik's theory of the Uralic people being the original Upper Paleolithic inhabitants of Northern-Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
I was talking about the main theory, that's written in school books and history books.
The Uralic people arrived to Northern-Europe in 4200BC, 1000 years before the Indo-Europeans. That's the main theory, Kalevi Wiik's theory is considerably different.
...Estonia was part of the Nordic bronze age and the Germanic loanwords started coming into our language since 2000BC. A lot of them are related to trade.Quote:
3. Proto-Germanic loanwords are not older than 500 BC, but there are Palaeo- and Pre-Germanic loanwords older than that. There is no need to consider them older than, say, 1500 BC, when the Uralic (Pre-Finnic) language had already reached the Baltic Sea.
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Jatkuvuus2.pdf
Some examples:
Proto-Germanic and Germanic loans 2000 BC – 13th century: agan, ader 'plough', humal, kana 'hen', kaer 'oats', rukis 'rye', lammas 'sheep', leib 'bread', põld 'field'; aer 'oar', mõrd 'fish trap', laev 'ship', noot 'seine, sweep net', puri 'sail'; kuld 'gold', raud 'iron', tina 'tin'; sukk 'stocking', katel 'kettle', küünal 'candle', taigen 'dough'; kuningas 'king', laen 'loan', luna 'ransom, bail', raha 'money', rikas 'rich', vald 'parish, community'; kalju 'rock', kallas 'shore', rand 'coast'; armas 'dear', taud 'disease', kaunis 'beautiful', ja 'and'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_vocabulary
You have earlier supported Wiik's views, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jäärapää
Yes, this "Uralic Combed Ware Culture" is the school-book theory. But as I said, scientists are in growing numbers turning to the new theory - but of course it takes some time before you can find it in the school books. Why don't you read scientific articles, instead?
It happens to be, that the view of the scientists end up into the school books, not vice versa.
You are wrong, the loanwords did not start to come into your language - they started to come in Early Proto-Finnic. They were also adopted in Middle Proto-Finnic and Late Proto-Finnic. I doubt there are any other Germanic loanwords than Swedish loanwords adopted directly to Estonian. Estonian - like all the other Finnic languages - has separated so recently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jäärapää
I repeat: there was no Estonian language 2000 BC.
There was no Estonian language even 0 AD.
The Swedish language, Old Norse, nor Proto-Norse yet existed, when the first (Proto-Germanic) loanwords started coming into the Estonian language.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
At 2000 BC, the Finnic languages were certainly more similar than they are now, in the 13th century, Estonian was closer to Finnish than it is now. But we cannot talk about the Finnic people speaking an identical language.Quote:
I repeat: there was no Estonian language 2000 BC.
There was no Estonian language even 0 AD.
Anyone who says that there was no Estonian language at 0 AD, is an extremist and is more extreme than people like Kalevi Wiik.
Darling, can't you understand English? The first Germanic loanwords did not come into Estonian, they came into Early Proto-Finnic. Estonian was a separate language only well after the year 1 AD. Different Finnic languages are only little older than different Scandinavian languages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jäärapää
What is it here that you don't understand ?
And your view is, again, based on the schoolbooks? :thumbs upQuote:
Originally Posted by Jäärapää
My view is based on the scientific studies. I have given links to you earlier, but you rather keep your erroneous beliefs.
"Triangulation" between Germanic, Finnic and Saamic shows us that Late Proto-Finnic was contemporaneous with Saamic protodialects and Early Proto-Norse, and they all were spoken ca. at the Younger Roman Iron Age (some centuries after 0 AD). See table in page 6:
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Jatkuvuus2.pdf
I know well that you cannot understand any scientific argumentation contradicting your religious beliefs, but I write for those who can.
If the Finnic languages would be as old as the Scandinavian languages, then they should be mutually intelligible. Many Slavic languages and also the Scandinavian languages are mutually intelligible, because of their young age. Saying that Finnic languages are just as young, just doesn't add up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_vocabulary
My views are based on common sense and a wide array of books(not school books).Quote:
And your view is, again, based on the schoolbooks? :thumbs up
My view is based on the scientific studies. I have given links to you earlier, but you rather keep your erroneous beliefs.
"Triangulation" between Germanic, Finnic and Saamic shows us that Late Proto-Finnic was contemporaneous with Saamic protodialects and Early Proto-Norse, and they all were spoken ca. at the Younger Roman Iron Age (some centuries after 0 AD). See table in page 6:
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Jatkuvuus2.pdf
I know well that you cannot understand any scientific argumentation contradicting your religious beliefs, but I write for those who can.
[QUOTE=Jaska;368854]No, I don't have any secret knowledge. I refer to the debates betweeen you and others on i.e. tiede.fi (Note: I'm not arguing against your theories but it has caught my eye that you almost always refer to yourself) Maybe there are new theories in the making as science is not static? Waht we accept today may be debatable tomorrow.Quote:
They are peer-reviewed articles, so it does not matter that I actually wrote some of them. And all who have considered the subject since, agree. Those articles which don't agree, are older - you cannot rely on them, because during their writing the new view was not yet presented. Nobody have questioned these new theories on any argumental ground since they were published, unless you have some secret knowledge?
Sure, one man (approx 1800-1900 years ago) have had a lot of descendants. The Djingis Khan effect. We do not know much more than that.Quote:
So far it's hard to tell for sure.
With the 67-marker haplotree it looks like all the "northern N1c" (in Karelia, Finland and Scandinavia) is relatively young and descended from some wide-spread branch. There are of course some older groups in the north, too, but the great majority of Finns belong to the top branches 7, 8 and 9:
This is actually very true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jäärapää
The Scandinavian languages i.e. are mutually intelligble because the have rather recently spread from a small core area. But Finnic languages have been separated from each other for a longer period of time taking on greater differencies. They cannot have separated later than all Germanic languages!
There's a nice paper on this by a Swedish linguist. I'll find that soon.
The Language of southern Scandinavia in the Bronze Age:
Fenno-Ugric, Baltic, Germanic, or ...? Claes-Christian Elert. He's not your average Joe but a Professor Emeritus in linguistics.
What's your opinion on this, Jaska?Quote:
The absence of any great dialect split in the Germanic language spoken in Scandinavia and northern Germany at the time of the earliest written sources (ca. 200-500 A.D.) indicates strongly that a Germanic language has been spoken over such a large area for only a short time. The late Bronze Age (ca. 700 B.C.) was a time of cultural change when the language(s) spoken earlier may have been replaced by the Germanic language.
..................
..................
On archeological, genetic and linguistic grounds the late Bronze Age language in Scandinavia could have been a Finnic or Baltic language (or both). However, from what can be inferred from parallels in history or ethnolinguistics a more complicated and varied pattern is the most likely one in subglacial Europe at the end of the Ice Age after tens of thousands of years of human settlement or, later, in Bronze Age Scandinavia, after 7-8 millennia. The better-known linguistic situation in early cultures, such as southern Europe and Anatolia in the first two millennia B.C., shows a complicated pattern of IE and non-IE languages together with languages with unknown relationship, most of them spoken over restricted areas, and often subject to swift change. This is true also about cultures of a similar level of development in many parts of the world. There is archeological evidence in Bronze Age Sweden of a tribal community which is not incompatible with this language pattern (Larsson 1986; Nordström 1992; Wigren 1987).
Yes, they are. Foreigner would immediately recognize the common features, just like in the case of Slavic or Scandinavian languages. Mutual intelligibility is the criteria only if we talk about the dialects of ONE language; it is not the criteria when we talk about a group of closely related languages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jäärapää
In the forum debates my opponents are on the level of Jäärapää – they are not linguists but laymen who have some early day fell in love with some theory and now opposite everything which contradicts it. I refer to my own writings, because I have done the collecting work; it is easier for everybody to read one article where all the points are, instead of reading dozen different articles where the points are. And it is easier to refer to an article than rewrite it again for the forum. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Motörhead
There are greater differences even between German and English than between any two Finnic languages – not to speak of the differences between Gothic, Swedish and English. So clearly the Finnic languages have differentiated later than Germanic languages, although earlier than the Scandinavian languages. And still you couldn’t understand Faroese (føroyskt) on the basis of Swedish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Motörhead
And there are also other arguments (than just comparing the difference between the languages of different branches) which testify for the late separation of Finnic languages; see the downmost link below (and I already gave it earlier).
Yes, he is a phonetician, just like Wiik. He is not comparative linguist. But of course the arguments are the only thing that matter, so let’s see:Quote:
Originally Posted by Motörhead
It’s true that majority of Scandinavia has only Scandinavized very late, only at the second millennium AD. And now (since 2004) we also know that there truly was a Palaeo-European substrate language (or even more of them) in northern Scandinavia. This language, however, seems to have had nothing in common with the Uralic, Finnic or Baltic languages (or Basque, or Sumerian, etc.).
What comes to the claim of Elert, that “On archeological, genetic and linguistic grounds the late Bronze Age language in Scandinavia could have been a Finnic or Baltic language (or both)”, this claim is just based on the invalid method, in which one assumes that archaeological or genetic continuity could testify for linguistic continuity, too. But this is a false assumption, and the invalidness of this method has been presented here:
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Uralic.html
Or in Finnish:
http://www.tieteessatapahtuu.fi/0106/hakkinen.pdf
So, what is the true linguistic evidence for the earlier Finnic or Baltic presence in Scandinavia? None. There is neither loanword stratum, nor place-name stratum from these languages in Scandinavia(n). Zero evidence. Nought. Nil. Saamic loanwords and place-names there are, of course, but they cannot predate the Proto-Saamic development which occurred in Southern Finland only 2 000 years ago. So, even the Saamic languages were not there during the Bronze Age, even though it was earlier thought so (based on the above-mentioned erroneous method).
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Jatkuvuus2.pdf
Based on my latest results, not really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Motörhead Remember Me
Western Finns and Balts do show affinity. But Western Finns are most similar Finns to North and Central Europeans, so this isn't a strong argument for Finnic influence in Balts, but rather Baltic and Germanic influence in Western Finns.
You should rename your "Finnic" group into Finnish. It's currently misleading. You might as well do a test with the Germanic people, but only use an Austrian sample. It would make as much sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
In a way, Finns are peripheral Baltic-Finnish people, the proto-Finnic area was south-east of Finland and Estonians are less peripheral. There was a good article about this somewhere.
If anything it was I1 who were the docile peasents of Scandinavia being dominated by the aR1an's, :P btw R1b is quite frequent in Germanic speaking populations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper
R1b1b2a1a1(R-U106)
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT...s1600/u106.jpg
Sure sure. Only a jealous baR1ba(wannabe)R1an would come with such nonsense. :p Let the haplogroup wars begin! It was about time! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Pallantides
Thanks, this was what I meant. The influence goes from the Balts to Finns and not the opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
But, what is the component in Balts which make them Balts (Latvians/Lithuanians --> Livs/Estonians --> Finns/Karelians)?
Clearly, it must be partially linked to the N1c (and the U5a) which is in fact is this ancient root population of Proto-Ur-Balto "Fininics".
It's only because the swarthy one's aren't as N1ce as the KI1ngs of the North.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper
Not everything in Wiik's theories is wrong, I think you agree wtih me here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
The idea to track a language, people and culture is best done by a multidisciplinary approach. It give contradicting results but it should do that! History is not simple, it's full of twists and turns.
I for sure don't understand a shit in Komi language but German and English is a piece of cake so I don't really understand this statement of yours (you don't have to tell me, I am a layman). Maybe you refer to the similiarities in grammar?Quote:
There are greater differences even between German and English than between any two Finnic languages
But you must take the Finnic languages icebox effect into consideration !! The Finnic languages evolves slower.Quote:
– not to speak of the differences between Gothic, Swedish and English. So clearly the Finnic languages have differentiated later than Germanic languages, although earlier than the Scandinavian languages. And still you couldn’t understand Faroese (føroyskt) on the basis of Swedish.
Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
N1c is still something of a mystery. There were probably a couple waves of it from the east into Europe, the first one possibly during the late Mesolithic. It was then probably connected to the proto-Finns moving into the Baltic area during the Bronze Age, possibly thanks to the Seima-Turbino phenomenon. But no one really knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Motörhead Remember Me
In any case, modern Balts seem to be the most Mesolithic Europeans in terms of mtDNA and autosomal DNA, and if their N1c is the early version from the "late Mesolithic", then that would fit as well. They have the least amount of Neolithic influence, which is actually much higher in Northwestern Europeans, like Brits and even Scandinavians. You can see why on the map below, with the Neolithic movements seemingly going from Anatolia straight for Germany and France, and not really bothering with the east Baltic, where the land wasn't suitable for agriculture. Finns are also very "Mesolithic", but you guys have the later stuff from the east that the Balts largely lack (except, to some degree, Latvians from around Livonia).
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/LBK.gif
Haak W, Balanovsky O, Sanchez JJ, Koshel S, Zaporozhchenko V, et al. (2010) Ancient DNA from European Early Neolithic Farmers Reveals Their Near Eastern Affinities. PLoS Biol 8(11): e1000536. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000536
And recent work with ancient crania backs that up...
Noreen von Cramon-Taubadel and Ron Pinhasi, Craniometric data support a mosaic model of demic and cultural Neolithic diffusion to outlying regions of Europe, Proc. R. Soc. B published online 23 February 2011, doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.2678Quote:
The extent to which the transition to agriculture in Europe was the result of biological (demic) diffusion from the Near East or the adoption of farming practices by indigenous hunter–gatherers is subject to continuing debate. Thus far, archaeological study and the analysis of modern and ancient European DNA have yielded inconclusive results regarding these hypotheses. Here we test these ideas using an extensive craniometric dataset representing 30 hunter–gatherer and farming populations. Pairwise population craniometric distance was compared with temporally controlled geographical models representing evolutionary hypotheses of biological and cultural transmission. The results show that, following the physical dispersal of Near Eastern/Anatolian farmers into central Europe, two biological lineages were established with limited gene flow between them. Farming communities spread across Europe, while hunter–gatherer communities located in outlying geographical regions adopted some cultural elements from the farmers. Therefore, the transition to farming in Europe did not involve the complete replacement of indigenous hunter gatherer populations despite significant gene flow from the Southwest Asia. This study suggests that a mosaic process of dispersal of farmers and their ideas was operating in outlying regions of Europe, thereby reconciling previously conflicting results obtained from genetic and archaeological studies.
According to Polako, the native Finnic people of Northern-Europe disappeared under the ground and they didn't leave a single genetic mark to the modern-day Balts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Motörhead Remember Me
In reality, the Balts have a lot of Finnic influence, this is visible by their genetic closeness to the Estonians. For Polako, Finnic = Finnish. While in reality, at one point, the Veps lived so far east that they bordered the Komi. There were also populations(that disappeared/assimilated without a trace) further south and west.
Latvia is a good example to take, 1000 years ago it was quite Livonian, but the Latvians gradually assimilated the Livonians. I am rather certain if I say that every single Latvian has some Livonian blood running in his/her veins. When Riga was founded it was a Livonian/Finnic town, not a Baltic town.
Thus claims by Polako that the Balts do not have any Finnic influence at all, 0%, but the Finnics have Baltic influence, are very surprising for me. In reality, it is the opposite, the Balts have recently assimilated the native Finnic populations.
Saying that the Balts do not have Finnic influence is the same as saying that Englishmen are 100% Anglo-Saxon and do not have any Celtic influence, although they assimilated the native Celtic populations.
Riga was founded by crusaders.
It was not likely that native people lived in towns/cities as they didn't had the right to leave their rural areas.
The lower classes in the towns were always natives and the Livonians weren't automatically turned into serfs in 5 years. It took 500 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Balticus
The Latvian people should embrace their Finnic heritage and revive the Livonian language and culture.
^ That's total overkill with the dots and the aa's in your nick. I can already see you have two pairs of aa's, so there's no need to put the dots there.
Anyway, the Uralic migrants from the Volga-Ural, or even Siberia, did assimilate the older Indo-Europeans of Eastern Europe on their way to the east Baltic. That's why there are Tocharian loanwords in Finnish and Mordvin for native plants...and that's why there's only about 5% more East Eurasian influence in Southern Finland than in Central Europe.
What? "Jaarapaa" isn't a word, at least in the Estonian language.Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
Migrants? Us Basques and Finno-Ugrians are natives of our land, you Indo-Europeans, are migrants.Quote:
Anyway, the Uralic migrants from the Volga-Ural, or even Siberia, did assimilate the older Indo-Europeans of Eastern Europe on their way to the east Baltic. That's why there are Tocharian loanwords in Finnish and Mordvin for native plants...and that's why there's only about 5% more East Eurasian influence in Southern Finland than in Central Europe.
Saying that the Indo-Europeans were in North-Eastern Europe before the Finno-Ugrians, is extreme Indo-European chauvinism. Nothing backs it up. It is practically a fact that we were here before, but there's only one question. Have we been here for 6000 years or 12 000 years.
Riga was founded in 1201.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jäärapää
Livonians were conquered in 1208.
What are you trying to do? The Livonians became a part of Riga in a matter of years after it was founded. Or are you saying that fancy German crusaders and priests who came to Riga, cleaned the streets and were servants?Quote:
Originally Posted by Balticus
Not exactly. Most speakers of Indo-European languages in Western Europe are not descended from the Indo-Europeans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jäärapää
Unless you really believe that a Basque is a native of his land while a Cantabrian is an Indo-European migrant, of course.
I was talking about this in general, but you do have a point. For instance, the Scandinavians may speak Indo-European languages, but they're actually native Northern-Europeans who took over Indo-European languages through cultural(not demic) diffusion. The same applies to Western-Europeans. The most "Indo-European" Europeans live in the Balkans, that's where the demic diffusion happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gospatric