# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  What language group did Europeans speak in the Neolithic? Vasconic languages? Uralic?

## Melancon

What was the original language group of Neolithic and Mesolithic Europeans?

Was it Vasconic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasconic_languages

Or even Uralic???:



Many here would say that they spoke their own dialects, within each cultural site. For example; (Cardium Pottery; Kongemose Culture)


However, I kind of doubt that this is true; considering all the cultures in Mesolithic Europe pretty much shared the same Y-DNA; around Europe. (I1, I2, G2a, E-V13, T.) etc. (which suggests that many of these migrant people assimilated; rather than slaughtered the indigenous people; like the Indo-Europeans did.)




What is interesting about the Basque language; as well as Uralic languages, is that their words tend to lack genders. It seems that only Indo-European languages carry gender nouns; and that this is mainly an IE thing.


It is very likely that there were many cultures who spoke different language groups- As suggested here before. But I am sure that there was an even bigger language group amongst these languages; that Europeans may have spoke, in the Mesolithic and Neolithic. Before the arrival of Indo-European dialects.


The high frequency of Haplogroup T in Estonian people and Komis (Uralic speaking peoples) may suggest to me that Uralic may have been dominant in Neolithic Europe; a few centuries before Indo-European conquest/assimilation.

It is also very possible that they spoke the extinct Tyrsenian languages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrsenian_languages

What is very interesting; is that Indo-European seems to be the only language group; where the majority of it's dialects have gender nouns. Whereas in Vasconic or Uralic languages; this is virtually none existent. And I am pretty sure Tyrsenian languages did not have genders in their languages either. It seems almost exclusively relative to Indo-European.

----------


## Melancon

It would be interesting to discover that Neolithic Europe spoke a wide array of Uralic languages. Even though this language group seemingly originated around the Ural Mountains (Urheimat) in Russia. However; this is only a hypothesis and has not been confirmed true.

It is possibly very unlikely; but if we found evidence; it would prove that there were Uralic languages in Europe long before Finnish and Hungarians migrated a few centuries after the Bronze Age. What is very interesting; is that many Uralic speakers; are of Neolithic origin on their Y-DNA paternal side; and their R1a and R1b seems to be only a recent contribution.

I am speculating that most Europeans in the Mesolithic and Neolithic; probably spoke languages Vasconic or Tyrsenian languages. It would be very exciting to discover if Uralic was spoken in Europe; far longer than the Bronze Age and Indo-European conquests.

*Edit: I know I am jumping too far in my conclusions and speculations; but I have often wondered if the Tyrsenian language group (that held languages like Etruscan or Raetic) may have actually been relative to Uralic languages; or these two dialects may have been a form of Uralic dialects. (or vice versa)

*It may explain why lots of Italians tend to share haplogroup T (and other Mesolithic Y-DNA like G2a) at a high frequency; with *Uralic speakers of Northeast Europe*. Like the *Estonians* and *Komis:

*Haplogroup-T.jpg

Italy has very unusual high frequency of Mesolithic Y-DNA. (*T, E-V13* and *G2a*) So do the Uralic speakers. (with *N1c* and *T*.)

----------


## LeBrok

I think that pre-Neolithic Europe spoke some language Isolate, not related to today's languages. Neolithic Europe spoke Afro-Asiatic, related to proto-proto-semitic. The East Europe and North West Asia could speak proto-Indo-European during Neolithic. I would imagine that Uralic language was spoken around Urals Mountains at that time.

----------


## gyms

http://www.continuitas.org/texts/alinei_etruscan.pdf


http://www.magtudin.org/magyaretruscan.htm

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...N-(Kalevi-Wiik)

----------


## Melancon

Do you know that for certain (that some of *Neolithic Europe* spoke *Afro-Asiatic*?)

It would be very interesting to see if Mesolithic Italy spoke languages from language groups that were quite bizarre; like even something as strange or outlandish as *Uralic*. 

I am thinking the two biggest language groups of Mesolithic Europe were probably *Vasconic (pre-Basque, Aquitanian etc)* or *Tyrsenian (pre-Etruscan, pre-Raetic etc)*

I am not sure where I heard this before; but I heard about 40% of the words in the *Germanic language group* are of *non-Indo-European* origin. That seems like a big estimate; not sure if it is true. I do know that the Germanic language does have words of non-IE origin.

----------


## Melancon

> http://www.continuitas.org/texts/alinei_etruscan.pdf
> 
> 
> http://www.magtudin.org/magyaretruscan.htm
> 
> http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...N-(Kalevi-Wiik)


Yes!! Thanks for this. For some reason I have always thought the *Tyrsenian* and *Uralic* languages; may have had a similarity of some sort. Both of their origins seem quite mysterious; and evidently were spoken by Neolithic Europeans. *Tyrsenian* may have been a *Western dialect* of this *broader language group*; while *Uralic* may have been an *Eastern dialect*. The Western dialects (like Etruscan and Raetic) became extinct while the Eastern morphed into *Uralic* and then into Finno-Ugric. (But I am sure I am going too far right now, in my hypothesis.)

----------


## Maleth

It will be nearly impossible to find out what Neolithic and Mesolithic Europeans spoke. The earliest form of symbols we find in Europe is in the Vinca culture and even those cannot determine a language as they are just symbols and shed no light on the phonetics of a language. If not mistaken there has also been some kind of Symbols in cave paintings but the same, they cannot determine anything about the language used.

----------


## sparkey

The presence of apparently native terms for agriculture and metallurgy in Basque is a good argument for Vasconic being a metal-age introduction to Europe, as opposed to the early Neolithic, much less the Mesolithic. I'm not sure about Tyrsenian or any arguments about how early Uralic and Afro-Asiatic are in Europe, but I'd be curious to hear from anyone more well read on those.

----------


## Melancon

> The presence of apparently native terms for agriculture and metallurgy in Basque is a good argument for Vasconic being a metal-age introduction to Europe, as opposed to the early Neolithic, much less the Mesolithic. I'm not sure about Tyrsenian or any arguments about how early Uralic and Afro-Asiatic are in Europe, but I'd be curious to hear from anyone more well read on those.


But here is the issue: if Uralic languages were spoken in Europe; as far back as Central Europe or even further...then the Uralic language group obviously did not develop among the Uralic mountains, at all. 

The reason I found it suspicious; and suggested that Neolithic Europeans may have spoke Uralic; is that many Uralic speaking people have Neolithic
DNA. It seems among Uralic speaking peoples; Bronze Age Y-DNA is often very small; and it is dominated by N1c. Sometimes T. The Udmurts also have a high proportion of haplogroup G at 1.5% frequency while the Maris have a frequency of 2%. 

Also; most Uralic speakers also carry Bronze Age Y-DNA at a very erratic frequency. It is almost exclusively R1a. Or smaller subclades of R1b. Yet no J1 or J2 seems to be prevalent. The R1a Y-DNA suggests that this is only a recent contribution; most likely brought to Uralic population from Indo-Europeans.

Another interesting thing about the Mordovian people, a Uralic speaking peoples; is that they carry Y-DNA I1 at a 12% frequency; while supposedly developing nowhere near Nordic Europe; and all the way in Southern Russia. Only their (Nordic/Uralic speaking) Estonians and Finnish counterparts carry I1 at a higher frequency; in their Uralic population.

If we take a look at the paternal DNA of the Magyar people; it is obvious that the modern Hungarians are not a Neolithic people. They also lack a high proportion of N1c in their Y-DNA; something that is almost exclusive to Uralic speakers ... which is quite interesting and may suggest that the original Hungarian men were killed by Indo-Europeans; while the Magyar mothers taught the Hungarian/Ugric tongue to their children; instead of the Indo-European one.

*My whole point being: is that Uralic seems to be a Neolithic language. While Indo-European was mainly Bronze Age. It is a wonder to me if many dialects of Uralic were spoken in Europe during the Neolithic; a few centuries before Indo-European invasion. It would partially explain why many Uralic cultures have very unusual Y-DNA patterns. Such as the unusually high frequency of Y-DNA I1 in the Mordovians; and the unusually high proportions of haplogroup T in Estonians.*

----------


## arvistro

This might be slightly on topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_European_hydronymy

----------


## gyms

What about I2a1b ?

More ancient Scandinavians (Skoglund, Malmström et al. 2014) 

http://dienekes.blogspot.se/2014/04/...-skoglund.html

Mesolithic Swedish hunter gatherers
StoraFörvar11 aka SfF11(Male), 7,500-7,250 cal. B.P, Stora Karlso Sweden : mtDNA=U5a1

6,873 ± 119 BC, Stora Karlso Sweden : mtDNA=U4b1

Motala1(Female), 6,000BC Motala Sweden: mtDNA=U5a1

Motala2(Male), 6,000BC Motala Sweden: Y DNA=I* (I P38+, I PF3742+, I L41+, I1 S108-, I1 L845-, I1 M253-, I2a1b CT1293-, I2a2 L37-), mtDNA=U2e1

Motala3(Male) 6,000BC Motala Sweden: Y DNA=I2a1b*(I M258+, I PF3742+, I2 L68+, I2a1 P37.2+, I2a1b CTS7218+, I2a1b CTS1293+, I2a1b CTS176+, I2a1b1 M359.2-, I2a1b3 L621-), mtDNA=U5a1 

Motala4(Female) 6,000BC Motala Sweden: mtDNA=U5a2d

Motala6(Male) 6,000BC Motala Sweden: Y DNA=? (Q1 L232- Q1a2a L55+), mtDNA=U5a2d

Motala9(Male) 6,000BC Motala Sweden: Y DNA=I* (I P38+, I1 P40-), mtDNA=U5a2 

Motala12(Male) 6,000BC Motala Sweden: Y DNA=pre-I2a1b or brother lineage to I2a1b(I PF3742+, I M258+, I M170+, I2 L68+, I2a L460+, I2a1 P37.2+, I2a1b CTS7218+, I2a1b CTS5985+. I2a1b L178+, I2a1b CTS1293+, I2a1b CTS176+, I2a1b CTS5375-, I2a1b CTS8486-, I2a1b1 M359.2-, I2a1b3 L621-), mtDNA=U2e1

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

Neolithic Swedish hunter gatherers of the Pitted Ware culture

Ajv52A(Male), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden: mtDNA=V

Ajv59(Male), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden: mtDNA=U

Ajv53(Female), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden: mtDNA=U4d

Ajv58(Male), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden: Y DNA=I2a1-P37.2, mtDNA=U4d

Ajv70(Male), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden: mtDNA=U4d

Ire8(Male), 5,100-4,150 cal. B.P, Ire, Hangvar, Gotland Sweden: mtDNA=U4d

Ajv13(?), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden: mtDNA=U4

Ajv52b(?), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden: mtDNA=U4

Ajv66(?), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden: mtDNA=U4

Ajv54(?), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden: mtDNA=U5

Ajv36(?), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden: mtDNA=U5

Ajv5(?), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden: mtDNA=U5a

Ajv29a(?), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden: mtDNA=U5a

Fir15(?), 2800-2000 BC,Fridtorp, Västerhejde, Gotland: mtDNA=U4 

Fir22(?), 2800-2000 BC,Fridtorp, Västerhejde, Gotland: mtDNA=U4 

Fir4(?), 2800-2000 BC,Fridtorp, Västerhejde, Gotland: mtDNA=U5

Fir27(?), 2800-2000 BC,Fridtorp, Västerhejde, Gotland: mtDNA=U5a 

Ire6b(?), 5,100-4,150 cal. B.P, Ire, Hangvar, Gotland Sweden: mtDNA=T2b

Ire9(?), 5,100-4,150 cal. B.P, Ire, Hangvar, Gotland Sweden: mtDNA=U4

Ire3(?), 5,100-4,150 cal. B.P, Ire, Hangvar, Gotland Sweden: mtDNA=U4



Neolithic Swedish Farmers of the TRB culture, Frälsegården, Gokhem Sweden


Gökhem4(Male), 5,050-4,750 cal. years B.P.: mtDNA=H

Gökhem2(Female), 5,050-4,750 cal. years B.P.: mtDNA=H1c

Gökhem7(Female), 5,050-4,750 cal. years B.P.: mtDNA=H24

Gökhem5(Female), 5,280-4,890 cal. B.P.: mtDNA=K1e

Ste7(Female), 5,280-4,890 cal. B.P.: mtDNA=T2b

Ste7(Female), 5,280-4,890 cal. B.P.: mtDNA=J 

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...*-I2-and-I2a1b*

----------


## Aberdeen

> http://www.continuitas.org/texts/alinei_etruscan.pdf
> 
> 
> http://www.magtudin.org/magyaretruscan.htm
> 
> http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...N-(Kalevi-Wiik)


Mario Alinei has also argued that Europeans are primarily descended from hunter gatherers who arrived in Europe during the Paleolithic Era and that Indo-European languages originated in Europe during the Paleolithic. One of the "authorities" cited by Alinei is Bryan Sykes, so I wouldn't take Alinei's ideas too seriously.

The Finns are over 60% N1c, with the only other major Finnish Y haplotype being I1, a fairly recent subclade of I. The three most common haplotypes among Hungarians are R1a, R1b and I2a, with I2a having been present in Hungary since early days. But the Hungarians seem to be just about the only Uralic speaking people without significant amounts of N1c. I suspect they got their language from a predominantly R1a group that learned Uralic near the Urals before migrating west to conquer Hungary.

----------


## Kristiina

However, it seems that N1c was more frequent among the ancient Hungarians compared to modern Hungarians.
(http://www2.sci.u-szeged.hu/fokozato...ol_CsanyiB.pdf)
”These data raise the question of whether the ancient Hungarians who settled in the Carpathian Basin at the end of the 9th century and spoke a Uralic language, possessed this polymorphism or not. To answer this question we attempted to screen for the Tat polymorphism in ancient DNA from skeletal remains from the (IX)-X th century. The 7 ancient samples were derived from 6 different well-documented archaeological excavations from the Carpathian Basi n, dating from the (IX)-X th century. The fact that two of seven ancient samples possessed the Tat C allele, is more than intriguing, considering that from the 197 modern Hungarian-speaking males only one had this polymorphism.

Ancient Hungarians 2/7, c. 29%
Modern Hungarians 1/197, c. 0.5%

I think that the language was transmitted by only a small number of conquerors.

In the recent paper ”Y‑SNP L1034: limited genetic link between Mansi and Hungarian‑speaking populations”, 2014, they detected a higher frequency of N1c in Seklers:
”Nevertheless, results proved that there is at least one Hungarian ethnic group, the Seklers with a non-negligible frequency of hg N-Tat (6.52 %) in Eastern Central Europe. Seklers (Hung.‘Székely’), one of the largest Hungarian-speaking populations in Transylvania with approximately 600,000 people, are settled mainly in Mures, Harghita, and Covasna counties in Central Romania. Seklers were considered the finest warriors of medieval Transylvania.”

----------


## Kristiina

I think that, originally, the Volga Hungarians had a considerable amount of yDNA N, but during their trip from Volga to the Carpathian basin they mixed heavily with Oghur Turks who probably had a lot of R1a1.

According to Wikipedia:
”The name of Hungary could be a result of regular sound changes of Ungrian/Ugrian, and the fact that the Eastern Slavs referred to Hungarians as Ǫgry/Ǫgrove (sg. Ǫgrinŭ) seemed to confirm that. Current literature favors the hypothesis that it comes from the name of the Turkic tribe Onogur (which means "ten arrows" or "ten tribes").

The Onogurs (and Bulgars) later had a great influence on the language, especially between the 5th-9th centuries. This layer of Turkic loans is large and varied (e.g. szó ‘word’, from Turkic, daru ‘crane’, from the related Permic languages), and includes words borrowed from Oghur Turkic, e.g. borjú ‘calf’ (cf. Chuvash pǝ̂ru vs. Turkish buzağı), dél ‘noon; south’ (cf. Chuvash těl vs. Turkish dial. düš). Many words related to agriculture, to state administration or even to family relations have such backgrounds.”

The Oghur, or Bulgar languages are a branch of the Turkic language family. It was historically spoken in the Hunnic Empire, Old Great Bulgaria (Magna Bulgaria/Onoguria), and later in Danube Bulgar Khanate (Danube Bulgaria) and Volga Bulgaria. Its only extant member is the Chuvash language. The modern Volga Ural Chuvash yDNA is the following:
R1a 31.6%, N1c 17.7%, N1b 10.1%, I1 11.4%, R1b 3.8%, C 1.3%, Q 0%
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...02929707618928)

----------


## Ike

> I think that the language was transmitted by only a small number of conquerors.”


I also support that one.

----------


## Aberdeen

> I think that, originally, the Volga Hungarians had a considerable amount of yDNA N, but during their trip from Volga to the Carpathian basin they mixed heavily with Oghur Turks who probably had a lot of R1a1.
> 
> According to Wikipedia:
> ”The name of Hungary could be a result of regular sound changes of Ungrian/Ugrian, and the fact that the Eastern Slavs referred to Hungarians as Ǫgry/Ǫgrove (sg. Ǫgrinŭ) seemed to confirm that. Current literature favors the hypothesis that it comes from the name of the Turkic tribe Onogur (which means "ten arrows" or "ten tribes").
> 
> The Onogurs (and Bulgars) later had a great influence on the language, especially between the 5th-9th centuries. This layer of Turkic loans is large and varied (e.g. szó ‘word’, from Turkic, daru ‘crane’, from the related Permic languages), and includes words borrowed from Oghur Turkic, e.g. borjú ‘calf’ (cf. Chuvash pǝ̂ru vs. Turkish buzağı), dél ‘noon; south’ (cf. Chuvash těl vs. Turkish dial. düš). Many words related to agriculture, to state administration or even to family relations have such backgrounds.”
> 
> The Oghur, or Bulgar languages are a branch of the Turkic language family. It was historically spoken in the Hunnic Empire, Old Great Bulgaria (Magna Bulgaria/Onoguria), and later in Danube Bulgar Khanate (Danube Bulgaria) and Volga Bulgaria. Its only extant member is the Chuvash language. The modern Volga Ural Chuvash yDNA is the following:
> R1a 31.6%, N1c 17.7%, N1b 10.1%, I1 11.4%, R1b 3.8%, C 1.3%, Q 0%
> (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...02929707618928)


I think it's quite possible that the people who introduced Hungarian to Hungary were people from the southern Urals who were predominantly R1a but ruled by an N1c elite that got thinned out by subsequent political events, including the Ottoman expansion into Hungary. And I think some of the Turkish loan words in Hungarian could be as recent as the Ottoman period, particularly those relating to state administration.

----------


## gyms

Lithuanians have 40% N1c1.Are they finno-ugric?!
The theoriy N1c1 equal finno-ugric is a pseudoscientific absurdity.

http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpN.html

----------


## Melancon

> Lithuanians have 40% N1c1.Are they finno-ugric?!
> The theoriy N1c1 equal finno-ugric is a pseudoscientific absurdity.
> 
> http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpN.html


They could have been originally Uralic speakers that were brought to an Indo-European dialect.

----------


## LeBrok

> They could have been originally Uralic speakers that were brought to an Indo-European dialect.


In this case we should be able to recognize Uralic language substratum, pronunciations, shifts, perhaps even complete words. I'm not a linguist, I can't answer it, but perhaps others are more familiar with Lithuanian and Latvian language structure.

----------


## oldeuropeanculture

They spoke many languages belonging to several different language groups each lined to a particular tribal group each linked to a certain male genetic group...Mixing of these tribal languages produced what we today call Indoeuropean languages...This is at least what I think...

----------


## Aberdeen

> Lithuanians have 40% N1c1.Are they finno-ugric?!
> The theoriy N1c1 equal finno-ugric is a pseudoscientific absurdity.
> 
> http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpN.html


Lithuanians have almost as much R1a as N1c, so it could have been a situation where two groups mixed, with the members of one group being IE speakers and the members of the other group being Uralic speakers and by whatever chance of fate the IE speakers were able to impose their language. Estonians are also a fairly equal mixture of R1a and N1c but speak a Uralic language, so I guess in their case the Uralic faction became dominant for whatever reason.

----------


## gyms

1.There is no evidnce that Ualic languages originated in W. Siberia.

2.There is no evidence today that N1c1 brought Uralic languages to Europe.

3. It has been proposed that the area where Proto-Finno-Ugric was spoken reached between the Baltic Sea and the Ural Mountains.

Abdeen:

"Lithuanians have almost as much R1a as N1c..."

Hugarians have aprox. the same amount of R1a but they are not slavic speaking.

----------


## oldeuropeanculture

gyms, Hungarians were majority Slavic speaking until the 17th century when the forced Magiarization started. There are documents in which Magiar nobles are complaing that no one speaks Magiar language. There are actually no old documents written in Magiar, only in Slavic, German and Latin. Even the coronation cap of the St Stephen of Hungary has text embroidered in Church Slavonic. Why? 

Hungarians are not an example of how language and genes are not related. They are an example of how a powerful minority can force a language on a majority....Another example is forcing of the English language on the Irish...

R1a population is directly linked to Indo Arian languages...

----------


## oldeuropeanculture

Here is the picture of the St Stephen's coronation cap. It is currently kept in Habsburg museum in Viena:

451b.jpg

----------


## oldeuropeanculture

St Stephen's original name was Vojk, meaning Soldier in Slavic languages....Why would a Magiar king have Slavic name?

----------


## Kristiina

N1c is divided mainly between speakers of Uralic, Turkic and Indo-European languages plus some northeast Siberian languages, and it is possible that these language groups can primarily be identified on the basis of the substrates they contain, and the language that a certain y DNA, e.g. N1c may have spoken in the remote past can be something very different from all above languages, and this applies to other yDNAs as well.

----------


## oldeuropeanculture

This is the helmet and coronation cap of the St Venceslaus which is identical in shape to the St Stephen's one. Venceslauses father was Borivoj. So the same name root like Vojk.
to663ike71se.jpg

----------


## gyms

> gyms, Hungarians were majority Slavic speaking until the 17th century when the forced Magiarization started. There are documents in which Magiar nobles are complaing that no one speaks Magiar language. There are actually no old documents written in Magiar, only in Slavic, German and Latin. Even the coronation cap of the St Stephen of Hungary has text embroidered in Church Slavonic. Why? 
> 
> Hungarians are not an example of how language and genes are not related. They are an example of how a powerful minority can force a language on a majority....Another example is forcing of the English language on the Irish...
> 
> R1a population is directly linked to Indo Arian languages...


Here is the picture of the St Stephen's coronation cap. It is currently kept in Habsburg museum in Viena:

Jesus Christ,oldeuropeanculture!

America 30 years after the end of Second World War, in 1978. Since then, the mantle has been kept in the Hungarian National Museum in special light, humidity and security conditions. 

http://www.hnm.hu/en/kiall/kia_allando5.html

Is this slavic?
ANNo INcARNACIONIS XPI : MXXXI :INDICCIONE : XIIII A STEPHANO REGE ET GISLA REGINA CASULA HEC OPERATAET DATA ECCLESIAE SANCTA MARIAE SITAE IN CIVITATE ALBA. 
http://www.hnm.hu/en/kiall/kia_allando5.html

The Latin language was made official in the country—especially in the 11th to 15th centuries, the language of literature and religion was Latin. However, Hungarian was used in certain cases; sometimes it was fitted into Latin documents, to avoid later disputes about proprietary rights.
However, the first official document of Hungary is not in Latin, but in Greek—this is the "Charter of the nuns of Veszprémvölgy",[7] dated to 997. The text contains some Hungarian (and also some Slavic) place names: saɣarbrien (compound formed from saɣar 'shaft' + an obsolete Turkic loanword, brien 'coalition'—today _Szárberény_); saːmtaɣ 'plough'; meleɡdi (from _meleg_ 'warm' + -_di_ diminutive suffix); and so on.
The next most important document is the "Establishing charter of the abbey of Tihany", dated to 1055. In the Latin text, 3 Hungarian sentences, 58 words, and 33 suffixes are present. The longest sentence is "fɛhɛːrvaːru reaː mɛnɛɣ hodu utu reaː" (original transcript: _feheruuaru rea meneh hodu utu rea_; modern Hungarian: "Fehérvárra menő hadi útra"—the postposition "rea", meaning "onto", became the suffix "-ra/-re"—English: 'up to the military road going to Fehérvár'). Today, the vellum is kept in the abbey of Pannonhalma.
 
Hungarian words in the founding declaration of the Benedictine Abbey of Tihany, 1055


 
The Old Hungarian poem "Laments of Mary"


Skipping intermediate Hungarian relics, the next important point is the "Funeral Sermon and Prayer", from 1192. This is the first completely Hungarian text. The document is located on the 154th page of the Codex Pray (Pray here is not English; it is a name). The sermon begins with the words "laːtjaːtuk fɛlɛim symtyxːɛl mik voɟmuk iʃaː por eʃ xomou voɟmuk"[8]—"Do you see, my friends, what we are: truly, we are only dust and ash."
Literature in Hungarian is counted since the previous writing. The first known Hungarian poem has the title 'Laments of Mary'—its theme is the story of Jesus' crucifixion, from the viewpoint of Mary. It was denoted around 1300, but possibly it is not the first version—its text is clear, easy to understand and logical, free of latinisms. The first verse:
volɛːk ʃirolm tudotlon
ʃirolmol ʃɛpɛdik
buol osuk, ɛpedɛk
I was lament-ignorant;
I am suffering from lament,
I am suffering, languishing from sorrow.


The next important relic—with a cheerless history—is the "Fragment of Königsberg", dated approximately to the 1350s. This is the remain of the first known, explicitly proven Hungarian book. The codex had arrived at Wrocław, Poland, by the end of the century; there, because of it was not understandable to the Polish bookbinder, it was chopped and used to bind a Latin book. The other important book from the time is the Codex Jókay; a 15th-century copy of the original from 1372. The codex is about the life of Francis of Assisi.
 
A copy of the Hussite Bible, in the Codex of Munich, dated to 1466


In the early 15th century, some not comprehensive Latin-Hungarian dictionaries—or rather word listings—were composed. Some shorter texts are also known. Regardless of these, the most important work is the first translation of the Bible: this is the Hussite Bible, dated to 1430. The Bible was translated by Tamás Pécsi and Bálint Ujlaki; both were priests. They were affected by the concepts of Jan Hus during their university years (1399–1411) in Prague. The Inquisition pursued these concepts, and the translation was confiscated from the translators; anyway, it became such popular that there are several authentic copies of the original.
More and more Hungarian books were written; most of them is religious. Over and above the "Laments of Mary", the other important item of Old Hungarian poetry is the "Fight of Šabac".[9] Reputedly it was denoted in the year of the battle (1476); in this, Hungarian troops led by King Matthias of Hungary had a glorious victory over the Ottoman army—its issue is secular. Possibly it is a fragment of a longer poem. A quotation:
dɛ ɑz feʎːøːl mondot paːl keneʒi
aːroknɑk meːʎʃeːɡeːt iɡen nezi
ki ʃɑbatʃ erøːʃ voltaːt ɛlmeːlːeː
honːeːɡ minemøː aːlɟuː kel mɛlːeː
But, Pál Kinizsi said about the thing,
who was regarding the dike's depth;
who knew the powerfulness of Šabac:
what sort of cannons should be brought from where.


In the 1490s, Hungarian was spoken by about 3.2 million people; this number was fairly high at the time. The first examples of official and legal use are dated back to these years. Some personal letters and wills are known. Nevertheless, the Ottoman Empire put pressure on neighbouring nations, just like on Hungary—the latter was unstable at the time, due to internal lordship debates. This led to the Hungarian (led by Louis II of Hungary) loss of the Battle of Mohács (1526). In 1541, Ottomans finally captured the capital, Buda as well. The country was split up to three parts; the southern regions fell under Ottoman rule; the western parts officially remained "Kingdom of Hungary", with Habsburg kings; and the eastern area, mainly Transylvania and the Partium became independent.
Some Old Hungarian script inscriptions are also known, such as the "Alphabet of Nikolsburg" (1483) and a number of deciphered and undeciphered inscriptions. Historic linguists put the end of the Old Hungarian period to 1526, as it is a such important date in Hungarian history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...arian_language

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

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

Yuo are not Irish.

----------


## Aberdeen

> N1c is divided mainly between speakers of Uralic, Turkic and Indo-European languages plus some northeast Siberian languages, and it is possible that these language groups can primarily be identified on the basis of the substrates they contain, and the language that a certain y DNA, e.g. N1c may have spoken in the remote past can be something very different from all above languages, and this applies to other yDNAs as well.


Actually, neither N1c or any other Y haplotype speak any language. However, a language group may develop among a people who are predominantly of one particular haplotype and the evidence suggests that the Uralic languages developed among people who were predominantly N1c and who probably lived somewhere in western Siberia (although it could have happened on the west side of the Urals). However, over time, and as various groups migrate to different places and dominate over one another, the link between haplotype and language becomes less strong, so we eventually have a situation such as the one in modern Hungary where people who have very little N1c speak a Uralic language - it's just a fluke of history.

I don't know why Hungarians and Finns freak out about the possibility of Uralic having possibly originated in western Siberia or N1c migrating into Europe from the east. Haplotype R seems to have originated in the Altaic region and can still be found spread around Asia but R1a and R1b people in Europe certainly aren't considered Asian. And I don't understand why having some "Asian" ancestry would be considered a problem anyway.

----------


## gyms

Aberdeen:the evidence suggests that the Uralic languages developed among people who were predominantly N1c..."

What´s the evidence?

The exonym "Hungarian" is thought to be derived from Ugor or the Bulgar-Turkic _On-Ogur_ (meaning "ten" Ogurs),[22] which was the name of the Utigur Bulgar tribal confederacy that ruled the eastern parts of Hungary after the Avars. 

The Greek cognate of _Tourkia_ (Greek: Τουρκία) was used by the Byzantine emperor and scholar Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus in his book _De Administrando Imperio_,[30][31] though in his use, "Turks" always referred to Magyars.[32]

----------


## Melancon

> Actually, neither N1c or any other Y haplotype speak any language. However, a language group may develop among a people who are predominantly of one particular haplotype and the evidence suggests that the Uralic languages developed among people who were predominantly N1c and who probably lived somewhere in western Siberia (although it could have happened on the west side of the Urals). However, over time, and as various groups migrate to different places and dominate over one another, the link between haplotype and language becomes less strong, so we eventually have a situation such as the one in modern Hungary where people who have very little N1c speak a Uralic language - it's just a fluke of history.
> 
> I don't know why Hungarians and Finns freak out about the possibility of Uralic having possibly originated in western Siberia or N1c migrating into Europe from the east. Haplotype R seems to have originated in the Altaic region and can still be found spread around Asia but R1a and R1b people in Europe certainly aren't considered Asian. And I don't understand why having some "Asian" ancestry would be considered a problem anyway.


I myself am still wondering whether some subclades of N1c and haplogroup Q are purely European. 

Most people think that haplogroup Q in Europe is from a Hun (Mongoloid) origin. But this theory to me; seems quite unlikely, or exaggerated. It may have possibly came with R1a and R1b Indo-Europeans at a very small frequency.

If haplogroup Q is purely Mongoloid; it still does not explain why Levantine peoples like the Phoenicians and Jews carry haplogroup Q1b; without ever coming in contact with Mongoloids.

And as history points out; Phoenicians were already in the Southern Iberian peninsula; and were probably the first tribe to claim Lisbon as a colony. And evidently; there are small traces of Q1b found in Southern Portugal and Spain; along with the lineages seen in Sicily. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehist..._and_influence Maybe all the way back as 10th Century BC; maybe. 

The Huns did not enter Europe until 5th century AD; with the Hunnic Empire.
*
If haplogroup Q is purely Mongoloid; how did these Phoenicians; isolated in the Near East/Levant area, pick up Y-DNA Q1b? So, some subclades of Q could be Caucasian. The same may apply for the rest of the Europeans who carry Q1a. An Indo-European origin theory might be a better alternative to a Mongoloid invasion (of Europe) origin.
*

----------


## LeBrok

> I don't know why Hungarians and Finns freak out about the possibility of Uralic having possibly originated in western Siberia or N1c migrating into Europe from the east. Haplotype R seems to have originated in the Altaic region and can still be found spread around Asia but R1a and R1b people in Europe certainly aren't considered Asian. And I don't understand why having some "Asian" ancestry would be considered a problem anyway.


I can feel this defensive attitude in some Finns and Hungarians.

----------


## Kristiina

I may be defensive if that is how you want to see it, but personally I think that I am only interested in scientific research, logical thinking and getting new insights into the history and not only repeating the same old stereotypes over and over again without any supportive evidence.

----------


## Aaron1981

> I myself am still wondering whether some subclades of N1c and haplogroup Q are purely European. 
> 
> Most people think that haplogroup Q in Europe is from a Hun (Mongoloid) origin. But this theory to me; seems quite unlikely, or exaggerated. It may have possibly came with R1a and R1b Indo-Europeans at a very small frequency.
> 
> If haplogroup Q is purely Mongoloid; it still does not explain why Levantine peoples like the Phoenicians and Jews carry haplogroup Q1b; without ever coming in contact with Mongoloids.
> 
> And as history points out; Phoenicians were already in the Southern Iberian peninsula; and were probably the first tribe to claim Lisbon as a colony. And evidently; there are small traces of Q1b found in Southern Portugal and Spain; along with the lineages seen in Sicily. 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehist..._and_influence Maybe all the way back as 10th Century BC; maybe. 
> ...


Q1b is highly likely to have been a Khazar indicator of East Asian "Turkic" stock, and spread with the jewish diaspora among some other eastern peoples. I'm not sure why you bothered to bring up Phoenicians since we don't have any ancient DNA from this era or historical region at all.

----------


## Melancon

> I can feel this defensive attitude in some Finns and Hungarians.


Indeed; it probably would upset them a little to know that they were not purely European and/or had Mongoloid origins. 

But then again; it seems almost all European cultures in the Neolithic may have carried E-V13; and E developed in Africa. It was replaced by R1a and R1b in the IE invasion. 

My only explanation (hypothesis) is that all these haplogroups mutated/developed when most races were concentrated to a single Negroid population; possibly in the Caucasus or Central Asia area. A few Negroids migrated West into Europe and became Europeans/Caucasians; the others may have migrated all over and developed into all the other races.

Which may explain why Finnish/Estonians and other Europeans are N1c; while Yakuts may carry N1c as well. As well as the Han Chinese. (at a very low frequency. But R1b is also seen in China at a lower frequency as well.)

(Also, there was a migration of R1b back into Africa; from Central Asia. Like black men in Cameroon; in particular. So it would make sense that these Y-DNA haplogroups may have mutated when most Out of Africa peoples were still Negroid.)

----------


## Melancon

> Q1b is highly likely to have been a Khazar indicator of East Asian "Turkic" stock, and spread with the jewish diaspora among some other eastern peoples. I'm not sure why you bothered to bring up Phoenicians since we don't have any ancient DNA from this era or historical region at all.


Uhm, yes we do! Read the page for Haplogroup Q on the genetics section of Eupedia; written by Maciamo. Phoenicians carried Q1b and may have spread it around Southern Portugal far longer than the Bronze Age! And Phoenicians lived no where near the Central Asian Khazars at all! Neither did Jews; who developed with Phoenicians in the Levant.

Haplogroup-Q.jpg

Notice the little spread of haplogroup Q in Southern Portugal and Southern Spain; which was brought by Phoenician colonists from North Africa. The ones in Southern Sardinia and Sicily are also of Q1b (Phoenician) extraction.

----------


## gyms

> I may be defensive if that is how you want to see it, but personally I think that I am only interested in scientific research, logical thinking and getting new insights into the history and not only repeating the same old stereotypes over and over again without any supportive evidence.


Good point,Kristiina.
Abedeen,I am still waiting for "Your" evidence!

https://hungarianspectrum.wordpress....-then-and-now/

According to her this skull type shows great similarity to the "early Bulgarians who lived in Magna Hungaria, or in other words, in today's Bashkiria." 

She (Erzsébet Fóthi)claims that the early Hungarian upper class's anthropological measurements show a great deal of similarity to the people of today's Bashkiria.

----------


## Melancon

From what I know; the Hungarians are a mixture of all kinds of peoples. Not just the original Ugrics. They have possibly Scythian, Slavic, Caucasian (Avar), Germanic. Small traces of Celtic and Roman. All of these peoples were probably once enrolled in a large Ugric caste; and all the Indo-Europeans and Caucasians (for the *Avars*) languages were dropped in favor of the Hungarian (Uralic) one.

----------


## bicicleur

> N1c is divided mainly between speakers of Uralic, Turkic and Indo-European languages plus some northeast Siberian languages, and it is possible that these language groups can primarily be identified on the basis of the substrates they contain, and the language that a certain y DNA, e.g. N1c may have spoken in the remote past can be something very different from all above languages, and this applies to other yDNAs as well.


can you make the split as follows ?

N1c - Turkic (Yakut)
N1c1 :
- Uralic
- some people (in the Baltics) mixed with Indo-Europeans (mainly R1a)

----------


## gyms

*Y-DNA haplogroup N* is found throughout Northern Eurasia. Possible points of origin include south-western China, from which the population spread both toward the Baltic region and into Siberia about 10,000 years ago through the Altai region. The dominant N-M46 branch is found widely distributed in Siberia and in northern Europe. At its western extent, the greatest concentration is found among Finns, Latvians and Lithuanians. The N-L708 is the only branch of N-M178 which was found west of the Urals and the N-L550 is typical for the South-Baltic region of Lithuanians, Belorussians and Polish. Plus it is found in Scandinavians and at a concentration of less than 1 percent for the British Isles. N-L1034 is typical for Hungarian samples and indicates the Ugric marker within N-M46.
The less common N-M128 lineage shows a scattered distribution in Asia, with small concentrations in areas of Kazakhstan, Korea and China. The N-P43 branch shows two clusters, one in the Ural-Volga area and the other further east. The undifferentiated N1* population is widely distributed at low levels of occurrence with a weak concentration in Cambodia and southern China. Haplogroup N has also been found at moderate concentration in eastern Europe and at low concetration in Anatolia.

http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpN.html
*Based on our time to most recent common ancestor data, the L1034 marker arose 2,500 years before present. The overall frequency of the L1034 is very low among the analyzed populations, thus it does not necessarily mean that proto-Hungarians and Mansi descend from common ancestors. It does provide, however, a limited genetic link supporting language contact.* 
*http://dienekes.blogspot.se/2014/09/...een-mansi.html

*

----------


## Aberdeen

> From what I know; the Hungarians are a mixture of all kinds of peoples. Not just the original Ugrics. They have possibly Scythian, Slavic, Caucasian (Avar), Germanic. Small traces of Celtic and Roman. All of these peoples were probably once enrolled in a large Ugric caste; and all the Indo-Europeans and Caucasians (for the *Avars*) languages were dropped in favor of the Hungarian (Uralic) one.


Yes. It seems to me that the modern Hungarians are mostly descended from Neolithic Europeans plus Indo-Europeans and other west Asians but, through a fluke of fate and as a result of political choices certain people made, they ended up speaking a Uralic language that doesn't relate to much of their ancestry.

----------


## Aberdeen

> I may be defensive if that is how you want to see it, but personally I think that I am only interested in scientific research, logical thinking and getting new insights into the history and not only repeating the same old stereotypes over and over again without any supportive evidence.


I think that's the problem - you're still reacting to silly 19th century European notions about race wherein they said that Finns and other Uralic speaking people were "more primitive" because of their supposed Mongol ancestry. But that isn't at all what I'm saying. Not only is there nothing primitive about East Asians but also western Siberia seems to have been populated in the past by hunter gatherers (probably many of them N1c) who were genetically related to Europeans rather than East Asians.

----------


## Aberdeen

> Good point,Kristiina.
> Abedeen,I am still waiting for "Your" evidence!
> 
> https://hungarianspectrum.wordpress....-then-and-now/
> 
> According to her this skull type shows great similarity to the "early Bulgarians who lived in Magna Hungaria, or in other words, in today's Bashkiria." 
> 
> She (Erzsébet Fóthi)claims that the early Hungarian upper class's anthropological measurements show a great deal of similarity to the people of today's Bashkiria.


The evidence is to be found in Siberia among predominantly N1c people who speak various versions of Uralic languages. And to repeat, once again, the Hungarians are an example of a group of people where the link that once existed between haplotype and language has been destroyed, probably because of the downfall of the ruling elite that originally imposed the language.

----------


## gyms

> The evidence is to be found in Siberia among predominantly N1c people who speak various versions of Uralic languages. And to repeat, once again, the Hungarians are an example of a group of people where the link that once existed between haplotype and language has been destroyed, probably because of the downfall of the ruling elite that originally imposed the language.


...the link that once existed...

Once again: please show me the scientific evidences.

----------


## gyms

According to the recent information and hypotheses the peoples speaking the Uralic languages have inhabited Europe for about ten millennia. Even before the Great Migration mainly the Uralic languages were spoken in Eastern and Central Europe. 

http://www.suri.ee/r/index-eng.html

According to the linguist Janos Pusztay, Proto-Uralic was never one language but a Language Union or a chain of language contact.

----------


## Aberdeen

> ...the link that once existed...
> 
> Once again: please show me the scientific evidences.


I'm not interested in trying to open a closed mind. That's a really profitless task.

----------


## gyms

> I may be defensive if that is how you want to see it, but personally I think that I am only interested in scientific research, logical thinking and getting new insights into the history and not only repeating the same old stereotypes over and over again without any supportive evidence.


To Aberdeen:

"..repeating the same old stereotypes over and over again without any supportive evidence."

"...repeating the same old stereotypes over and over again without any supportive evidence."

----------


## LeBrok

> So it would make sense that these Y-DNA haplogroups may have mutated when most Out of Africa peoples were still Negroid.)


I'm sure this will got a bit more complicated in the near future. We are going to see two or three out of Africa migrations and every time from different corner of Africa. I think, in first migration we will see more "Archaic" looking people, then we will see the ones with more vertical foreheads, often called "Modern" getting into the mix. We are still not sure what part of Africa the Modern one comes from. We already know that as soon as they left Africa they have mixed with Neanderthals and Denisovans, and probably there will be one more, the one who was more of Mongoloid looking. 
Then there was a very cold spell of Ace Age so people didn't move much and got separated through Eurasia for 20 thousand years. Thanks to this long separation, and separate mutations, we can distinguish 3 main groups, ANE, WHG and EEF. After Ice Age, all the Euroasiatic Homo Sapiens started mixing again, plus we have additional migration in and out of Africa.

Some time ago, the Homo Sapiens history was so much simpler. People left Africa, spread around the world, killed all the other hominids, and peacefully grew distinct in separate corners of continents, till pretty much modern times.

My point is that, before we have a clear and detailed picture of our past, things will become muddy and complicated for a while, with lots of mixing and remixing of humankind.

----------


## oldeuropeanculture

gyms, the coronation cap of Stephen is on the picture I posted. You can check in the Habsburg museum if you don't trust me. 

I did say that Hungary is an example how a small but powerful minority speaking Magiar can force this language on the R1a majority speaking Slavic languges....

I Don't understand what is not clear here.

By the way you can't understand who Hungarians were without understanding who Szekelys were. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sz%C3%A9kelys

Is there any data for genetic type of this population?

----------


## Melancon

What I find very interesting about Vasconic languages (even the Iberian language) is that they are totally unrelated to Uralic languages; but they seem to share similar grammar and syntax. 


Here is the old Iberian language dialect transcripts; which seems pretty related to Basque and Aquitanian:

http://www.euskararenjatorria.eu/15-HunkAngusJ.pdf

----------


## gyms

> gyms, the coronation cap of Stephen is on the picture I posted. You can check in the Habsburg museum if you don't trust me. 
> 
> I did say that Hungary is an example how a small but powerful minority speaking Magiar can force this language on the R1a majority speaking Slavic languges....
> 
> I Don't understand what is not clear here.
> 
> By the way you can't understand who Hungarians were without understanding who Szekelys were. 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sz%C3%A9kelys
> ...


I am Székely.

----------


## gyms

*"The Martians"* was the name of a group of prominent scientists (mostly, but not exclusively physicists and mathematicians) who emigrated from Hungary to the United States in the early half of the 20th century.[1] They included, among others, Theodore von Kármán, John von Neumann, Paul Halmos, Eugene Wigner, Edward Teller, George Pólya, and Paul Erdős. They received the name from a fellow Martian Leó Szilárd, who jokingly suggested that Hungary was a front for aliens from Mars. (This is analogous to Enrico Fermi's answer to the question whether extraterrestrial beings exist: "Of course, they are already here among us: they just call themselves Hungarians.")


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martians_(group)

----------


## Melancon

> According to the recent information and hypotheses the peoples speaking the Uralic languages have inhabited Europe for about ten millennia. Even before the Great Migration mainly the Uralic languages were spoken in Eastern and Central Europe. 
> 
> http://www.suri.ee/r/index-eng.html
> 
> According to the linguist Janos Pusztay, Proto-Uralic was never one language but a Language Union or a chain of language contact.


Yes, I often wondered if Uralic was once part of a larger language group. It was probably an Eastern dialect and the only language group/dialectic of a larger language group in Europe; that was lost after the Neolithic; during the Indo-European invasion.

Mysteries of languages, such as this one; would also explain why so many East Asians (Mongoloids) look the same but speak different language groups. (i.e. Yakuts speaking Turkic, Koreans being a language isolate; Japanese speaking Japonic, Chinese speaking Sino-Tibetan - all part of the hypothetical unconfirmed Altaic language group.)


I just had a crazy idea that popped in my head one day; and I seemed to have come to a realization that Neolithic Europeans may have been Uralic or pre-Uralic speakers. It would explain why most Uralic peoples seem to share an extremely high abundance of Neolithic and Mesolithic Y-DNA rather than Bronze Age Y-DNA. The *Mordvins/Mordovian* peoples of Southern Russia seem to carry a high frequency of *I1*; despite being *nowhere near Scandinavia*. If DNA evidence and theory is correct; this couldn't have come from *Indo-Europeans!* It must mean that it originated in Scandinavia; or possibly the *Mordovians* migrated from there?

So how did *I1* reach the *Mordovians*? It couldn't have come from Russians or Slavic peoples; as most of their frequencies are lower.

----------


## gyms

[QUOTE=Melancon;449642]Yes, I often wondered if Uralic was once part of a larger language group. It was probably an Eastern dialect and the only language group/dialectic of a larger language group in Europe; that was lost after the Neolithic; during the Indo-European invasion.

Mysteries of languages, such as this one; would also explain why so many East Asians (Mongoloids) look the same but speak different language groups. (i.e. Yakuts speaking Turkic, Koreans being a language isolate; Japanese speaking Japonic, Chinese speaking Sino-Tibetan - all part of the hypothetical unconfirmed Altaic language group.)

Very interesting.

Simo Parpola (Helsinki) 

In the early days of Assyriology, Sumerian was commonly believed to belong to the Ural-Altaic language phylum. This view originated with three leading Assyriologists, Edward Hincks, Henry Rawlinson and Jules Oppert, and other big names in early Assyriology such as Friedrich Delitzsch supported it (Fig. 1). The Frenchman Fran�ois Lenormant, who wrote on the subject in 1873-78, found Sumerian most closely related to Finno-Ugric, while also containing features otherwise attested only in Turkish and other Altaic languages.

http://users.cwnet.com/millenia/Sumerian-Parpola.htm

----------


## MOESAN

> The presence of apparently native terms for agriculture and metallurgy in Basque is a good argument for Vasconic being a metal-age introduction to Europe, as opposed to the early Neolithic, much less the Mesolithic. I'm not sure about Tyrsenian or any arguments about how early Uralic and Afro-Asiatic are in Europe, but I'd be curious to hear from anyone more well read on those.


_
I'm rather, spite it was conterintuitive to me at first, for a late enough arrival of proto-Vasconians (same as Aquitanians?) there -
but we cannot completely exclude possible loans done by Vasconians to a later arrived more evolved ethny not colonizing them but only merging them and passing them these sort of skills and knowledges? an ethny from Eastern Mediterranea (Iberes? Proto-Helladics ?...)
_

----------


## MOESAN

> Lithuanians have almost as much R1a as N1c, so it could have been a situation where two groups mixed, with the members of one group being IE speakers and the members of the other group being Uralic speakers and by whatever chance of fate the IE speakers were able to impose their language. Estonians are also a fairly equal mixture of R1a and N1c but speak a Uralic language, so I guess in their case the Uralic faction became dominant for whatever reason.


things are sometime a bit complicated but here we can see Estonia "backed" by Finnland, Veps and others, and the Baltic lands "backed" by a HUGE sea of I-Ean speakers (first genuine Balts + Slavs) ???

----------


## MOESAN

> gyms, Hungarians were majority Slavic speaking until the 17th century when the forced Magiarization started. There are documents in which Magiar nobles are complaing that no one speaks Magiar language. There are actually no old documents written in Magiar, only in Slavic, German and Latin. Even the coronation cap of the St Stephen of Hungary has text embroidered in Church Slavonic. Why? 
> 
> Hungarians are not an example of how language and genes are not related. They are an example of how a powerful minority can force a language on a majority....Another example is forcing of the English language on the Irish...
> 
> R1a population is directly linked to Indo Arian languages...


_interesting; it's true I find overall Y-DNA of today Hungary seems very more central Europe Slav (so some Neolithic + a bit of other I-Eans heritages) than everything else - the finnic-ugric group of languages appears very heterogenous, compared to I-Eans groups, at my level (low) of knowledge - but it's true Magyars found so numerous tribes on their way westwards... inSeteppes I can suppose their language survived because it serves to ciment?_

----------


## gyms

gyms, Hungarians were majority Slavic speaking until the 17th century when the forced Magiarization started. 

What are you talking about?!Would you like to present som document supporting this myth?

----------


## gyms

*Old Church Slavonic* was the main language used for administrative (until the 16th century) and liturgical purposes (until the 17th century) by the Romanian principalities, being still occasionally used in the Orthodox Church until the early 18th Century.

After the Slavic migrations, Slavonic became the liturgical language of the Eastern Orthodox Church in present-day Romania, under the influence of the South Slavic feudal states. The exact timing of this change happened is not known, but it was probably in the 10th century.[3] While the language was not understood by most Romanians, it was a language known by the bishops, the monks, some of the priests, the clerks, the merchants, the boyars and the Prince.[4]
Old Church Slavonic was also used as a literary language, for example in chronicles, story-books, law codexes (known as _pravila_), property documents (_hrisov_), decrees of the voivodes or boyars, diplomatic correspondence and sometimes even in private letters.[5] It also led to an integration of the written Romanian culture into the Slavic culture of the neighbours.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Chu...nic_in_Romania

Hungary is not Romania!

----------


## Ike

@gyms So, what was the lanaguge of Hungarians in 10th century? Here it says:

"_The oldest rune-shaped inscription in Hungary dates from the 9th and 10th centuries CE, but these earliest texts are poorly understood and maybe even not in the Hungarian language but perhaps in an unidentified Turkic dialect._"

http://www.ancientscripts.com/old_hungarian.html

----------


## gyms

> @gyms So, what was the lanaguge of Hungarians in 10th century? Here it says:
> 
> "_The oldest rune-shaped inscription in Hungary dates from the 9th and 10th centuries CE, but these earliest texts are poorly understood and maybe even not in the Hungarian language but perhaps in an unidentified Turkic dialect._"
> 
> http://www.ancientscripts.com/old_hungarian.html


Epigraphic evidence for the use of the Old Hungarian script in medieval Hungary dates to the 10th century, for example, from Homokmégy[11] The latter inscription was found on a fragment of a quiver made of bone. Although there have been several attempts to interpret it, the meaning of it is still unclear.
In 1000, with the coronation of Stephen I of Hungary, Hungary (previously an alliance of mostly nomadic tribes) became a Kingdom. The Latin alphabet was adopted as official script, however Old Hungarian continued to be used in the vernacular.

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

The hungarian conquerors where supposedly bilingual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungari...rpathian_Basin

http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2007/07...ent-hungarian/

----------


## MOESAN

> Yes,I often wondered if Uralic was once part of a larger language group.It was probably an Eastern dialect and the only languagegroup/dialectic of a larger language group in Europe; that was lostafter the Neolithic; during the Indo-European invasion.





> Mysteriesof languages, such as this one; would also explain why so many EastAsians (Mongoloids) look the same but speak different languagegroups. (i.e. Yakuts speaking Turkic, Koreans being a languageisolate; Japanese speaking Japonic, Chinese speaking Sino-Tibetan -all part of the hypothetical unconfirmed Altaic language group.)
> Ijust had a crazy idea that popped in my head one day; and I seemed tohave come to a realization that Neolithic Europeans may have beenUralic or pre-Uralic speakers. It would explain why most Uralicpeoples seem to share an extremely high abundance of Neolithic andMesolithic Y-DNA rather than Bronze Age Y-DNA.The *Mordvins/Mordovian*peoplesof Southern Russia seem to carry a high frequency of *I1*;despite being *nowherenear Scandinavia*.If DNA evidence and theory is correct; this couldn't have comefrom *Indo-Europeans!* Itmust mean that it originated in Scandinavia; or possiblythe *Mordovians* migratedfrom there?
> Sohow did *I1* reachthe *Mordovians*?It couldn't have come from Russians or Slavic peoples; as most oftheir frequencies are lower.




_myanswer (MOESAN)__Isuppose frontiers were very va__gueat the different old ethnies mergins, what doesn't exclude theircenters of gravity were well separated - s__o,possible exchanges of DNA, even Y-DNA (+ some words!) -__concerningthe topic, I red in a "surface" russian abstract (Alex.Shtrunov) that Y-I1 AND Y-I2a2 (ex I2b) were found at higher levelsin N-E Russia than elsewhere in Russia : for Y-I1 :territories of Kranoyarsk-Arkhangelsk (12,1%, 14,2%) Vologda (11,6%),Unza, Kostroma (11,5%) Ryazan (14,0%) Tatarstan (13,0%),Starodnayga-Moscow (12,0%) Penza (12,0%) -_ 
_Shtruovcites the (H)ermanaricempire hypothesis : Amari Gothicclan supposed to have submitted : Golthescythia, Thiudos,Inaunxis, Vasinabroncae, Merens,Mordens,Imniscaris, Rogas, Tadzans, Athaul, Navego, Bubegenae and Cordaetribes, whre we could recognize Mordvins and Mari, at least... butShtrunov discardsthis hypothesis, too vaste territories for him to have been deeplypopulated by Goths. Contrary to Maciamo opinion..._ 
_Theauthor linked these Haplos Y to a West to East move from maglemoseand other late Mesolithic 'Ahrensbergian) cultures along SouthernBaltic lands -
hewrote they had at first a 'cromanoid' broad faced type beforeencounter leptodolichomorphic men there, in N and N-C Russia (he doesnot give any precision : ? future 'nordic' not to beconfused with 'eurafrican types' from East caspian ???no answer fornow) - 
thatbefore the arrival of Saami (beforetoday Finns) an unkown non-finniclanguagewas spoken in Finland, which left traces more in lexiconthan inmorphology or syntax - 
Ired elsewhere (I cannot find my sources again) there were 2substrata, non-finnic,inlappish: one unknown but showing some possible common traits withbasque, one I-Ean, on the satem way... we know Saami didn'treached their today dwellings too early in History - but herethe way to Lappland could be a western one, not an eastern one...
allthat to say Finnic-ugric languages DOES NOT SEEM SO OLD IN EUROPE? ATLEAST IN CENTRAL NORTH EUROPE -
thatcould put basque or proto-basque language present in N-Europe for along time, and linked to Y-I (*) in some way - 
analternative hypothesis could be: this proto-basque language, even ifpassed in far North-East at the Neolithic times, was not itself anative language of the Mesolithic North, only a more spred languageof Neolithic agricultors from South replacing the smotted languagesof H-Gs -
2possibilities here again: if continental and southern by origin,itcould explain if true some proper names for metals (introduced after,but through S-E Europe) and agriculture - BUT the DNA making ofBasques, their occidental atlantic sort of 'mediterranian', theirhigh enough level of WHG push me to think they were more martitimethan continental, and this language could have been passed to them bya maritime megalithic culture well separated from other Neolithicpeople (here I "see" the phantom or spectre of the 'LongBarrows' but have these last people been in long enough contact withpost Maglemose (Ertebolle?) people to pass language to them?(5000/3950 BC >< supposed begin 3500?) - the dates can be aproblem here, spite the introgression of megalitihc people in basquecountry distinct from predecessors is proved - the problem is linkingthem to the british and northern Europe Long Barrows... and linkingLong Barrows to metals : but the « Neolothic »naming is confusing : the last Neolithic men from S-E knewmetals if they were not rich of - the 'sumerian' physical tendanciesof some Long Barrows bearers could naivelyexplain the 'gedrosia' presence among Celts, N-Germans and evenBasques but its absence in S-E Europe points to a later presence of'gedrosia' among West Asians, and the allover distribution of it fitsbetter a northern road for 'gedrosia' - OR we have to imagine the'westasian' in S-E Europe is an other set of Near-Easterner comethere at Neolithical times, not later, and not with I-Eans nor anyother kind of metallurgists for the most??? uneasy to swallow atfirst sight - 
whatI think is that the HGs languages, spite they covered long distancessometimes, were very spotted, subdialectal and rapidlynon-between-understandable (quick endogamic evolution of language) -mobility helps homogeneity of language when the density is highenough, but when it is so low? -plus : mobility of HGs was nolonger so wide - so surely the pre-I-E languages were for the mostNeolithic languages (more than one I think: proto-semito-hamitic forsomeones, proto-"tyrrhenian" for others, as said, (proto)-basquestaying a question-_


_RESUME_
_Basquehalf-mesolithic-half neolithic in North Europe ? How explainY-R1b ?_
_EITHERIt had « long-barrows »like ancestors (part) who send him'gedrosia' and 'metals and agriculture words ? (because lastmegalithers were already in contact with the world of metals(Near-East) How explain Y-R1b ? How explain 'gedrosia' soearly ?_
_ORBasques were North, largely spred and in contact with Y-R1b bearers(at the mergins, without loose their proper language) with a bit ofnorthern 'gedrosia'/ANE (less than I-Eans) they were pushed by I-Eansto West, and took their metals / farming worlds from megalithers LBsor later BBs_
_theirlinks with North all the way are remarkable compared to othersoutherners: autosomes and mtH1/H3 but the direction of move isuncertain – Southwest>Northeast after LGM (the most sensible) orthe opposite at Late Neolithic OR BOTH ??? Very unsatisfactoryguesses !_
_ALLTHE WAY FINNIC-UGRIC languages SEEM ABSENT of the most OF EUROPEBEFORE -3000 ...

JUST A SHIVERING OPINION_

----------


## Twilight

> I think that pre-Neolithic Europe spoke some language Isolate, not related to today's languages. Neolithic Europe spoke Afro-Asiatic, related to proto-proto-semitic. The East Europe and North West Asia could speak proto-Indo-European during Neolithic. I would imagine that Uralic language was spoken around Urals Mountains at that time.


Resurrecting this thread because this hypothesis is interesting and I wanted to test this out. 

Both Basque and Etruscan are the two language isolates in Europe. How related is Proto-Afroasiatic to Basque or Etruscan languages? 

I found a Proto-Afro-Asiatic dictionary :)
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/res...afaset&first=1


Etruscan Dictionary
http://www.etruskisch.de/pgs/vc.htm


Proto-Basque Dictionary
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prot...age#Vocabulary

----------

