0
Thumbs Up |
Received: 25,622 Given: 21,626 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 25,622 Given: 21,626 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 2,820 Given: 11,619 |
Good video, but I can't find it in English.
Spoiler!
Thumbs Up |
Received: 210 Given: 273 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 210 Given: 273 |
Basque's were genetically Indo-euro-ized they have indo euro DNA but they kept their language regardless. We are learning more than ever that genetics doesn't always coincide with language... For example the Celtic in Iberia theory of having people with DNA almost identical to insular or continental celts is a bit outlandish now that we got iron age samples showing steppe is around the same in pre-Roman samples at that point in time.... Even moreso they basically were identical to bronze age autosomal profiles. Specifically, these samples were in Valencia and Cantabria (this one dates to the Cantabria wars with Rome) so Romans being supposedly fighting ginger Celts, or even celti-iberian people's (as I'd imagine heavily celticized profiles mixed with native Iberian) is probably overexaggerated heavily and the Celtic influence is more language-based not genetic-based. Now the question of why modern Spanish and Portuguese have higher steppe than their ancient profiles is a good one. The increased amount of steppe could be in part due to Romans sending Germanic legions, vandals + other Germanic tribes... And also northern immigration of some sort from reconquista. In Basque land they didn't get this romanization or Moor influence, but they still had the same steppe involvement that all of Iberia had longer ago.
Last edited by Ezio Auditore; 01-09-2022 at 03:19 AM.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 17 Given: 4 |
2000 years later online:
Why are most Minnesotans neo-English speakers when very few have Anglo-Saxon haplogroups?
The answer is obvious- because substantial gene flow is not necessary for languages to spread or go extinct.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks