# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups >  IE language originated from who?R1a or R1b?

## kgnju

IE language originated from who?R1a or R1b?Thank you for any information!

----------


## Maciamo

Impossible to know at the moment. Proto-IE could possibly be a hybrid of North Anatolian R1b1b language and Pontic steppe R1a1a language, just like English is a hybrid of Anglo-Saxon and Medieval French. This would explain why Hittite, the oldest recorded IE language, is so different from other branches of IE languages. Hittite would be the direct descendant of Anatolian R1b1b's language. But that's just a hypothesis.

----------


## kgnju

Thank you for your information,Maciamo!Could it be possible that proto-IE is the language of the oldest HG R(included R1a and R1b of course) in about 25000ybp?

----------


## willy

I am not sure the Hittites were R1b1b2 ? but G2a3b1 more probably

----------


## Maciamo

> Could it be possible that proto-IE is the language of the oldest HG R(included R1a and R1b of course) in about 25000ybp?


25,000 years is too old for a language to survive. But it is possible that Proto-IE evolved from an ancestral tribal language of R* hunter-gatherers. Even if it did, there might not be any resemblance left with the original after so many millennia.

----------


## Maciamo

> I am not sure the Hittites were R1b1b2 ? but G2a3b1 more probably


The Hittite elite probably included R1b1b1, R1b1b2, G2a3b1 and perhaps even R1a1a. The people they ruled comprised many more haplogroups (E1b1b, J2, other clades of G and R1b1).

----------


## Yetos

well R1a is a strong candidate, 

But considering Europe I might say That I2 is very strong, 
as also the J2 that is spread from India to Europe, 

the question is that 
1) IE is a Caucasian language?
that spread from North and then to south?

2 is a Central asian (afgan) language that spread from North to south?

3) an Indian language?

4) a south caucas that created around Laz area and spread, crating Greco-Aryan Sansqrit and the other languages?
but from South to North replacing Saami Basques and other but kept elements and sounds.


5) a semi-caucas, semi-Antolian, or a semi caucas semi-Indian.

Personally I believe that it is a 2 wave expand language south Caucasian language that in old world expand from minor asia and middle east to east and west (mediterranean-India) , and then another wave (at least for europe) the Northen wave which came from East to west,

----------


## bertrand

Macimo,
the book "the Wheel, the horse and the language" shows, in my opinion convincing evidence that the PIE of Anatolia were in fact immigrants from the pontic-caspian steppes. So i believe that the steppes is the best candidate for the origin of PIE.

In addition, as i already pointed out, my research tend to indicate that among the steppe people (PIE) that evolved after 4000BC, two branches enventually appeared around 3000BC; a western branch (in western Ukraine) that would give birth to the Centum languages and an eastern branch (around the lower Volga) that would give birth the satem languages (Eastern European languages and Indo-iranian languages). 

The centum people appear to have been predominently R1b while the satem people appear to have been almost exclusively R1a.

----------


## Asturrulumbo

> The centum people appear to have been predominently R1b while the satem people appear to have been almost exclusively R1a.


That doesn't seem to be always the case, for example the Tocharians were Centum and they were predominantly R1a (for example, the Tarim Mummies were R1a).

----------


## Taranis

> That doesn't seem to be always the case, for example the Tocharians were Centum and they were predominantly R1a (for example, the Tarim Mummies were R1a).


This is true. In addition, there is reasonable reason to assume that the Centum-Satum split did not occur until the late 3rd / early 2nd millennium BC.

----------


## bertrand

Guys,
I already addressed the issue of the Tocharians in a previous post i believe.
The tocharians, as expected were R1a. The reason why they are centum is because the development of the Satem distinction happened later, around 3000BC, while the Tocharian emigrated around 3700BC.
(See "the Wheel the horse and the language")

----------


## Goga

Possible, but who was the first? Because there is 18,000 years distance between R1b and R1a and both haplogroups didn't mix with each other 3000 BCE, because there's very little R1a in Western Europe (Atlantic coast) and there is very little R1b in India!

So the carriers of *one* of these two haplogroups must be the first speakers of an proto-Indo-European language.
Once again, it's impossible that R1b and R1a lived togehter since there is very little R1b in India and very little R1a in West Europe!

----------


## Taranis

> Guys,
> I already addressed the issue of the Tocharians in a previous post i believe.
> The tocharians, as expected were R1a. The reason why they are centum is because the development of the Satem distinction happened later, around 3000BC, while the Tocharian emigrated around 3700BC.
> (See "the Wheel the horse and the language")


3000 BC is too early in my opinion, as this would predate the Corded Ware period.

----------


## bertrand

[QUOTE=Goga;385617]Possible, but who was the first? Because there is 18,000 years distance between R1b and R1a and both haplogroups didn't mix with each other 3000 BCE, because there's very little R1a in Western Europe (Atlantic coast) and there is very little R1b in India![QUOTE]




> Possible, but who was the first? Because there is 18,000 years distance between R1b and R1a and both haplogroups didn't mix with each other 3000 BCE, because there's very little R1a in Western Europe (Atlantic coast) and there is very little R1b in India!


Goga,
in his book David Anthony shows that the PIE language has strong commonalities with the proto language of the Finns who used to live in the Ural mountains. Myres et al also shows that R1bs left a mark in the territory of the Bashkirs. further back, you can see the origins of the R haplogroup in Nothern Pakistan (please study for instance the haplogroup R2).

As a result it seems pretty clear to me that after the end of the Ice Age, R1bs moved north from Northern Pakistan toward the Urals (bashkirs) where they stayed for a while. Around 8000BC they started moving down the Volga and then toward the Dnieper (Dnieper Rapids). Later, after the domestication of the horse they spread through the ukrainian plains. Evidence also suggests that they developed then the mutation of lactose tolerance which i believe gave them an edge in their conquest (around 3000BC) of the Danube valley.

R1a is a little more difficult to study because as you know there was a massive back migration around 2700BC from eastern Ukraine (Volga) toward the Ural and down toward India again. As a result, this back migration erased the signs of the first migration. Yet, since as you pointed out, R1a was also part of the PIE initial group, I suppose that their migration north from Pakistan to the Urals and down the Volga was in line with that of the R1bs, perhaps just a little later, perhaps as a second wave. They settled mostly in eastern Ukraine. After most of the R1bs had moved up the Danube toward northern and western Europe after 3000BC, R1a migrated toward Eastern Europe and back to the Urals. Of course Tocharians had left earlier (around 3700BC) and anatolians probably around 4000BC from the western end.

Taranis, 
David anthony also shows the steps of the migration up the Danube after 3000BC. The migration was very slow and went through the balkans, Carthatian mountains and later arrived in Eastern Hungary. There was probably several waves and the bulk of them (the Tumuli culture) only arrived in Western German and Alsace around 2500-2300BC.

----------


## Taranis

> Taranis, 
> David anthony also shows the steps of the migration up the Danube after 3000BC. The migration was very slow and went through the balkans, Carthatian mountains and later arrived in Eastern Hungary. There was probably several waves and the bulk of them (the Tumuli culture) only arrived in Western German and Alsace around 2500-2300BC.


It does not matter. There is a common Germanic-Balto-Slavic vocabulary (notably the word for 'gold') which must predate the Centum-Satem split because the words relevant to it are subject to Centumization and Satemization, respectively. The only archaeological culture that we can conceive to match with the above pattern is the Corded Ware Culture. As a result, the Centum-Satem split must have occured after the Corded Ware period.

On the flip side, the split cannot have occured much later because by the mid-2nd millennium BC, we do have both Centum and Satem languages attested (Mycenean Greek for the former, and Indo-Iranic loanwords found in Mitanni for the latter).

----------


## Yetos

Although I still keep believing that Centum and Satem has to do with a substractum of Earlier language, 

For example Europe, 
In south
the more west the more Basques so IE language is absorving sounds of elder languages and becomes Centum, 
the more North 
IE absorbs Saami sounds so becomes more Germanic with rr and other complicated forms, 

*ENVIROMENT HAS MUCH TO DO WITH LANGUAGE*, 

the more the cold areas the less the vowel
why? cause warm air leaves the body
the more the south the more the vowels 
why cause leaving warm air cools the body, 

that is why slavic languages are missing the ones in Greek called μακρα (makra) the 2 times long vowels exist in Greek
like the dative Greek τωι πηλωι (sounds like tooi peelooi) were ω is 1,5 o or 2 o
or big words like ωτορινιλαρυγγολογος (9 syllabes)

compare an African language how many vowels complex and a Slavic one complex,

----------


## NickP

I'm assuming R1a, but not necessarily. I heard the original Indo-European may have been a fusion of Caucasus language elements with even some Finno-Ugric input, but this is uncertain.

----------


## Goga

I believe it was J2 (+G2a & T). But if It wasn't J2 that Indo-Europized R1b and R1a, I think that R1b folks Indo-Europized R1a folks from the Balkans and Northern Caucasus. Indo-European R1b folks migrated into Europe via the Balkans and the Caucasus and settled in Central Europe first.

----------


## spongetaro

> I believe it was J2 (+G2a & T). But if It wasn't J2 that Indo-Europized R1b and R1a, I think that R1b folks Indo-Europized R1a folks from the Balkans and Northern Caucasus. Indo-European R1b folks migrated into Europe via the Balkans and the Caucasus and settled in Central Europe first.


Why don't you think that R1a are the original IE speakers? The proto IE culture originated on the Volga then after on the north Black sea shores, not the other way round. Also, Indo european is closer to Uralic languages than to Caucasian one (be it North Caucasian, Kartvelian etc). In fact, almost all the area asscoiated with J2 in the middle east were non IE (Kartvelian, Hurrian, Sumerian, Semitic, Elamite, North east Caucsian, Hattian etc...).

----------


## sparkey

Wojewoda at Forum Biodiversity posted this excellent correlation coefficient chart, relating haplogroups to IE vs. non-IE speaking groups in Iran (higher number = more correlation with IE):




> I M170 0,28
> R1a M17 0,24
> R M207 0,21
> L M357 0,14
> R1b M73 0,14
> J2 M12 0,13
> R1b M269 0,05
> L M76 0,03
> C M216 0,03
> ...


Basically, of the usual suspects, R1a has the strongest link to IE speaking in Iran, although J2b (not so much J2a), R1b-M73, and R1b-M269 have correlations, as well. That seems to support the idea that R1a is "the" IE marker, with J2b and certain R1b subclades being historically minority clades (or later absorbed clades) within the overall IE population, having their spreads also associated with the spread of IE, but not quite as exclusively.

----------


## Yetos

> Why don't you think that R1a are the original IE speakers? The proto IE culture originated on the Volga then after on the north Black sea shores, not the other way round. Also, Indo european is closer to Uralic languages than to Caucasian one (be it North Caucasian, Kartvelian etc). In fact, almost all the area asscoiated with J2 in the middle east were non IE (Kartvelian, Hurrian, Sumerian, Semitic, Elamite, North east Caucsian, Hattian etc...).


What about the lost Anatolian Languages Hettit etc, Greek Armenian Aryan (kurdish) Persian Indian (Sanshqrit) Tocharian etc who belong to the Near-East / Middle East group

On the other Hand what about Cabardinians who have significant R1a and the rest Turkic populations

----------


## ebAmerican

> IE language originated from who?R1a or R1b?Thank you for any information!


Impossible to tell. PIE originated in the womb of nations with proto kartvelian and proto Afroasiatic. The connection with Uralic is a lot later with the expansion of indo-Irainian into the step. PIE could be associated with any west Asian Haplogroup.

----------


## JFWR

> Wojewoda at Forum Biodiversity posted this excellent correlation coefficient chart, relating haplogroups to IE vs. non-IE speaking groups in Iran (higher number = more correlation with IE):
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, of the usual suspects, R1a has the strongest link to IE speaking in Iran, although J2b (not so much J2a), R1b-M73, and R1b-M269 have correlations, as well. That seems to support the idea that R1a is "the" IE marker, with J2b and certain R1b subclades being historically minority clades (or later absorbed clades) within the overall IE population, having their spreads also associated with the spread of IE, but not quite as exclusively.


I'm a bit confused here, Sparkey. You said the higher the number, the greater correlation, but the highest numbers are:

I M170 0,28
R1a M17 0,24
R M207 0,21
L M357 0,14
R1b M73 0,14

If I is so strongly associated with IE in Iran, why do you give preference to R? Do you think I came later? That it was part of historical migrations as it is part of a small minority in Iran? 

I certainly doesn't have the reach to be the Indo-European haplogroup, naturally, and almost all I haplogroup people speak an IE language today, but it is notable they have the highest correlation.

----------


## spongetaro

> What about the lost Anatolian Languages Hettit etc, Greek Armenian Aryan (kurdish) Persian Indian (Sanshqrit) Tocharian etc who belong to the Near-East / Middle East group


The Tarimm mummies were tested R1a, the Northern Indian (Aryan, Sanshqrit) are R1a, the Kurdish people have sizeable amount of R1a.

It is true that Hittites in Anatolia, Aemenian and Greeks lack R1a.





> On the other Hand what about Cabardinians who have significant R1a and the rest Turkic populations


Well for the Turks it is simple, they took most of the lands of the previous Indo Iranian people.
As for the Cantabrians, I have no idea. Maybe the two Iberians mesolithic folks that proved to be more "Northern Europe" than the current Iberians may hve been early R1a in the area.

----------


## Goga

> Why don't you think that R1a are the original IE speakers? The proto IE culture originated on the Volga then after on the north Black sea shores, not the other way round. Also, Indo european is closer to Uralic languages than to Caucasian one (be it North Caucasian, Kartvelian etc). In fact, almost all the area asscoiated with J2 in the middle east were non IE (Kartvelian, Hurrian, Sumerian, Semitic, Elamite, North east Caucsian, Hattian etc...).


According to me the proto-IE culture originated somewhere around the Caucasus with cultures related to Maikop and Yamna cultures.


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

Like the user 'ebAmerican' wrote the interaction between OLD Indo-European (and NOT 'proto')and Uralic languages occurred much later.

Also Dienkes explained this very well and according to him there're close links between proto-Indo-European and North Caucasian languages.

here you can find his theory and articles about it: http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/07/...caucasian.html

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/07/...atures-in.html


Also Northeast Europeans were already mixed with the Uralic East Asians before Indo-European folks arrived there.
*So Indo-Europeans (Caucasoids) Indo-Europized native European-Uralic (Europoid) folks!

*http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/07/...ixture-in.html

----------


## Ivan

> On the other Hand what about Cabardinians who have significant R1a and the rest Turkic populations


In today's Russian province called Kabardino/Balkaria Kabardins make 57.2% of the republic's population, followed by Russians (22.5%) and Balkars (12.7%). 
The same is in Adygeya where According to the 2010 Census,[8] ethnic Russians make up 63.6% of the republic's total population, while the ethnic Adyghe are only 25.2%. This area of today's Adigheya, is just a mere fraction of what used to be land of Adyghe people, and therefore much more people in N. Caucasus declare themselves as Adyghe. 


Kabardinians, a Circassian tribe, first joined forces with Russians in XVI century, and since then Kabarda was a part of Terek Cossack district made from local population mixed with Russian Cossacks, when R1a was probably, for the first time, introduced in significant numbers to this region. 

Since the formation of Terek district a mass settlement of Russian Cossacks and later of regular Russian population, became continuous. Soon after a war between Russian empire and Circassians broke out. Most of original Kabardinians who survived, like all other Circassians who lost a war with Russia, fled to Turkey Jordan and Syria. Local population of Circassian tribes was decimated by war and exodus. Since 1864 Kabarda is an integral part of Russia. 


Most of today's R1a looks like being of a relatively recent origin from populations like Cossacks, and later Russian settlers. 
Any older R1a, if present, will hopefully be found in ancient bones.

----------


## Yetos

May I ask why G2a is excluded from being proto IE Hg

----------


## Yetos

> In today's Russian province called Kabardino/Balkaria Kabardins make 57.2% of the republic's population, followed by Russians (22.5%) and Balkars (12.7%). 
> The same is in Adygeya where According to the 2010 Census,[8] ethnic Russians make up 63.6% of the republic's total population, while the ethnic Adyghe are only 25.2%. This area of today's Adigheya, is just a mere fraction of what used to be land of Adyghe people, and therefore much more people in N. Caucasus declare themselves as Adyghe. 
> 
> 
> Kabardinians, a Circassian tribe, first joined forces with Russians in XVI century, and since then Kabarda was a part of Terek Cossack district made from local population mixed with Russian Cossacks, when R1a was probably, for the first time, introduced in significant numbers to this region. 
> 
> Since the formation of Terek district a mass settlement of Russian Cossacks and later of regular Russian population, became continuous. Soon after a war between Russian empire and Circassians broke out. Most of original Kabardinians who survived, like all other Circassians who lost a war with Russia, fled to Turkey Jordan and Syria. Local population of Circassian tribes was decimated by war and exodus. Since 1864 Kabarda is an integral part of Russia. 
> 
> 
> ...



the search mainly is done in population that belongs to a group and not in a country, 
so the R1a that was found in Balkars is not a Balkaria R1a (Russian + kabardinian) but clear kabardinian. 

different population groups take different search,

----------


## spongetaro

> According to me the proto-IE culture originated somewhere around the Caucasus with cultures related to Maikop and Yamna cultures.
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamna_culture
> 
> Like the user 'ebAmerican' wrote the interaction between OLD Indo-European (and NOT 'proto')and Uralic languages occurred much later.
> 
> Also Dienkes explained this very well and according to him there're close links between proto-Indo-European and North Caucasian languages.
> 
> ...


Maykop looks merely like a Kurganized Caucasian culture but it was a total failure for its steppic invaders since they never achieved to impose their language. Maykop is not even considered the ancestor of the Anatolian languages by Archeologist. Most favour a Balkanic origin (Suvorovo-Novodanilovka, Cernavoda etc).

Don't you find strange that Indo European and Caucasian languages share so few similarities?
It seems that Uralic languages are the closest relatives. IE languages might have also borrowed from Semitic languages (which could have been the languge of Old Europe). Furthermore, it looks like the Caucasian languages share more similarities with Basque than with IE languages.

You may have noticed that all ancient Caucasian and Transcaucasian languages are non IE:
*Northwest Caucasian languages
*NorthEast Caucasian languages
*Kartvelian
*Hurrian
*Hattian

The only IE languages spoken here are later influx like Armenian (Greek-Phrygian branch of the IE), Kurdish etc.

----------


## Ivan

> the search mainly is done in population that belongs to a group and not in a country, 
> so the R1a that was found in Balkars is not a Balkaria R1a (Russian + kabardinian) but clear kabardinian. 
> 
> different population groups take different search,


Self designation has its value, but for me, less than a broader picture and historical facts, especially in today's populations, and populations with a relatively recent mix. How one feels and declares in terms of belonging to, is a fair contribution, but I can hardly forget a recent correlation and a historical fact that some Russians chose to live life close to Caucasian cultures and were clearly and strongly influenced by them.

The question of historical correlation between Russians and Kabardinians still holds its value. It speaks of times when a significant number of R1a and G correlated, and it happened relatively recently. Why this matters to me more than someones feeling of belonging to some group?

Well, one can argue that after the initial introduction of two different cultures, a realtively unknown but strongly influential in terms of dress code, manners, weapons and a way of live attracted the other group enough to make settlements alongside this group and eventually influenced ones self designation. 

So to me it is clear only to acknowledge the influence of Russian dna in parts of N Caucasus which is historically recent.

This does not mean that there were no R1a before that, but I believe a lot less than this survey found. Saying otherwise simply excludes recent historical influx of people. And clearly for me, that is not enough to believe a language contribution in Caucasian languages, if off course ancient bones don't prove otherwise. In that case I would believe.

----------


## Goga

> Maykop looks merely like a Kurganized Caucasianculture but it was a total failure for its steppic invaders since they never achieved to impose their language. Maykop is not even considered the ancestor of the Anatolian languages by Archeologist. Most favour a Balkanic origin (Cernavoda etc).
> 
> Don't you find strange that Indo European and Caucasian languages share so few similarities?
> It seems that Uralic languages are the closest relatives. IE languages might have also borrowed from Semitic languages (which could have been the languge of Old Europe). Furthermore, it looks like the Caucasian languages share more similarities with Basque than with IE languages.
> 
> You may have noticed that all ancient Caucasian and Transcaucasian languages are non IE:
> *Northwest Caucasian languages
> *NorthEast Caucasian languages
> *Kartvelian
> ...


No, you don't understand me. I believe that the cultures from the Caucasus and Mesopotamia heavily influenced Kurgan cultures in the Steppes.

Civilization started in West Asia and *NOT* in the Steppes.

Maykop culture influenced Yamna culture, and Maykop culture was in turn influenced by Kura–Araxes culture. Kura–Araxes culture was influenced by North-Mesopotamian cultures.

"_In the Armenian hypothesis of Indo-European origins, this culture (and perhaps that of the Maykop culture) is identified with the speakers of the Anatolian languages._"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kura-Araxes_culture



Writing exists not so long time and it was invented in West Asia. Nobody knows which languages existed in West Asia before the writing system was invented.

A lot Anatolian and West Asian Indo-European languages disappeared. It's believed that even before the Medes and other Iranic tribes arrived in Kurdistan, people in Kurdistan spoke a different Indo-European language. 

What I'm trying to say that mayor Indo-European (and Hurrian and Semitic civilizations) in West Asia exterminated all other small native Indo-European languages.

West Asia was homeland of many extinct Anatolian Indo-European languages.

----------


## spongetaro

> Civilization started in West Asia and *NOT* in the Steppes.



That is complete old fashion theory. Southeastern Europe culture of Varna and Cucuteni Triploje were more advanced that their mesopotamian counterpart (before the Uruk period). Vinca culture even invented writting before Sumer but unfortunately we can currently not decipher it.

The proto Kurgan people of Sredny stog had their copper from Southeastern Europe, not the Caucasus.
In fact all the Western branch of IE had direct contact withe late cucuteni Trypolje culture while the contact with Transcaucasia and Mesopotamia were indirect and distant. 





> Maykop culture influenced Yamna culture, and Maykop culture was in turn influenced by Kura–Araxes culture. Kura–Araxes culture was influenced by North-Mesopotamian cultures.


Where do you think maykop people had their Kurgan and their horses from??
Kurgan were first erected in the Steppe since Sredny Stog II that is to say before Maykop culture. Maykop culture is an ofshoot of the Steppe Kurgan culture over a Caucasian population that must have spoke a Caucasian language like today.
late Cucuteni Trypolje culture had far more effect on yamnaya people than maykop. Read david Anthony The Horse, the Wheel and the language. there is a chapter about the origin of Western ie language in which he never mentions the Maykop culture. The western IE languages originated in Yamnaya and its ofshoot, Usatovo (southern Ukraine) in particular.
And as I already said, Maykop culture is not even considered the ancestor of the Anatolian branch of the IE languages. It is an extinct branch of the eraly IE expansion. If Maykop culture really was the origin of any modern IE language, we should see Caucasian loanwords or cognates like we see with Uralic language family.





> and Maykop culture was in turn influenced by Kura–Araxes culture.


Kura Araxes stared after Maykop and it was even less kurganized than Maykop. The IE never managed to impose their language over the local folks that's why Indo European has never been spoken in the area.




> "_In the Armenian hypothesis of Indo-European origins, this culture (and perhaps that of the Maykop culture) is identified with the speakers of the Anatolian languages._"




Why didn't you quote the first part of theis wikipedia article? the languages of Maykop and Kuro Arax were more like:




> Ethno-Linguistic Makeup
> Hurrian and Urartian elements are quite probable, as are Northeast Caucasian ones. Some authors subsume Hurrians and Urartians under Northeast Caucasian as well as part of the Alarodian theory [23]. The presence of Kartvelian languages was also highly probable. Influences of Semitic languages and Indo-European languages are also highly possible, though the presence of the languages on the lands of the Kura-Araxes culture is more controversial.






> Writing exists not so long time and it was invented in West Asia.



It was probably invented earlier in Vinca culture, Southeastern Europe.





> What I'm trying to say that mayor Indo-European (and Hurrian and Semitic civilizations) in West Asia exterminated all other small native Indo-European languages.


OK and by accident they only kept the non Indo European languages alive.




> West Asia was homeland of many extinct Anatolian Indo-Euroepan languages.


 Not according to most scholars who favour a Balkanic hypothesis or west steppic : Suvorovo, Cernavoda...

----------


## Yetos

> Self designation has its value, but for me, less than a broader picture and historical facts, especially in today's populations, and populations with a relatively recent mix. How one feels and declares in terms of belonging to, is a fair contribution, but I can hardly forget a recent correlation and a historical fact that some Russians chose to live life close to Caucasian cultures and were clearly and strongly influenced by them.
> 
> The question of historical correlation between Russians and Kabardinians still holds its value. It speaks of times when a significant number of R1a and G correlated, and it happened relatively recently. Why this matters to me more than someones feeling of belonging to some group?
> 
> Well, one can argue that after the initial introduction of two different cultures, a realtively unknown but strongly influential in terms of dress code, manners, weapons and a way of live attracted the other group enough to make settlements alongside this group and eventually influenced ones self designation. 
> 
> So to me it is clear only to acknowledge the influence of Russian dna in parts of N Caucasus which is historically recent.
> 
> This does not mean that there were no R1a before that, but I believe a lot less than this survey found. Saying otherwise simply excludes recent historical influx of people. And clearly for me, that is not enough to believe a language contribution in Caucasian languages, if off course ancient bones don't prove otherwise. In that case I would believe.


that is the major problem of R1a M-17 
as IE it is considered as Scythian or even pre-Scythian but it is heavy in many non IE populations

----------


## Yetos

> That is complete old fashion theory. Southeastern Europe culture of Varna and Cucuteni Triploje were more advanced that their mesopotamian counterpart (before the Uruk period). Vinca culture even invented writting before Sumer but unfortunately we can currently not decipher it.
> 
> The proto Kurgan people of Sredny stog had their copper from Southeastern Europe, not the Caucasus.
> In fact all the Western branch of IE had direct contact withe late cucuteni Trypolje culture while the contact with Transcaucasia and Mesopotamia were indirect and distant. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you think maykop people had their Kurgan and their horses from??
> ...


that is one of the major 3 theories 

there are many 

read Colin renfrew

----------


## sparkey

> If I is so strongly associated with IE in Iran, why do you give preference to R? Do you think I came later? That it was part of historical migrations as it is part of a small minority in Iran? 
> 
> I certainly doesn't have the reach to be the Indo-European haplogroup, naturally, and almost all I haplogroup people speak an IE language today, but it is notable they have the highest correlation.


So far, the Asian Haplogroup I we've done precise tests on have indicated that they more likely represent gene flow from Europe to Asia, rather than the other way around, as we would expect with the spread of IE. Under that theory, it's mainly a coincidence that the highest Haplogroup I groups in Asia (Armenians and Kurds mainly) are IE.

----------


## ebAmerican

Sparkey - due to recent back-flow?

Most linguist believe in the close relationship PIE had with Proto-Kartvelian, but there is still tremendous debate on how close PIE was to Proto-Uralic. From my own readings I would side with a late interaction with Uralic (Scythian). PIE was a metal mountain folk language developed in the early bronze age around south eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, and northern Iran around the Caspian Sea. This is my personal opinion based on the readings I've done. I'm not a linguist, archeologist, or historian so I could be very wrong. I believe that the need for prestigious metal goods for ceremony and status drove the expansion of PIE as specialists first, then conquers second.

----------


## Goga

> That is complete old fashion theory. Southeastern Europe culture of Varna and Cucuteni Triploje were more advanced that their mesopotamian counterpart (before the Uruk period). Vinca culture even invented writting before Sumer but unfortunately we can currently not decipher it.
> 
> The proto Kurgan people of Sredny stog had their copper from Southeastern Europe, not the Caucasus.
> In fact all the Western branch of IE had direct contact withe late cucuteni Trypolje culture while the contact with Transcaucasia and Mesopotamia were indirect and distant.
> 
> Where do you think maykop people had their Kurgan and their horses from??
> Kurgan were first erected in the Steppe since Sredny Stog II that is to say before Maykop culture. Maykop culture is an ofshoot of the Steppe Kurgan culture over a Caucasian population that must have spoke a Caucasian language like today.
> late Cucuteni Trypolje culture had far more effect on yamnaya people than maykop. Read david Anthony The Horse, the Wheel and the language. there is a chapter about the origin of Western ie language in which he never mentions the Maykop culture. The western IE languages originated in Yamnaya and its ofshoot, Usatovo (southern Ukraine) in particular.
> And as I already said, Maykop culture is not even considered the ancestor of the Anatolian branch of the IE languages. It is an extinct branch of the eraly IE expansion. If Maykop culture really was the origin of any modern IE language, we should see Caucasian loanwords or cognates like we see with Uralic language family.
> ...


Sorry, but what are you talking about?

Thousands of years ago vegetation in West Asia on the map under the Southern Caucasus was completely different than nowadays.

Horses were first tamed in West Asia by Neolithic farmers and not in the steppes. Oldest example of that has been found in the Arabian Peninsula.

Oldest Civilizations has been found in the Mesopotamia on the banks of Tigris and Euphrates.




Indo-Europeans are very young compared to these Civilizations!

----------


## spongetaro

> Sorry, but what are you talking about




I'm just trying to tell you that Kurgan people were "civilized" from Southeastern Europe and not West Asia but you have apparently never heard of Cucuteni or Vinca so I will stop.

----------


## Goga

Mon ami,

According to the wiki Cucuteni-Trypillian culture is only from *5500 B.C. to 2750 B.C..*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuteni-Trypillian_culture

Hassuna and Halaf cultures are much older.


Also, did you know that the oldest religious "*artificial* *burial hills*" (_KURGANS_) were found in the Gobekli Tepe (9559 B.C.), West Asia?

There are a number of radiocarbon dates (presented with one standard deviation errors and calibrations to BC):

Lab-Number
Date BP
Cal BC
Context

Ua-19561
8430 ± 80
7560–7370
enclosure C

Ua-19562
8960 ± 85
8280–7970
enclosure B

Hd-20025
9452 ± 73
9110–8620
Layer III

Hd-20036
9559 ± 53
9130–8800
Layer III



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe

----------


## spongetaro

> Mon ami,
> 
> According to the wiki Cucuteni-Trypillian culture is only from *5500 B.C. to 2750 B.C..*
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuteni-Trypillian_culture
> 
> Hassuna and Halaf cultures are much older.


 Semitic would later be spoken on the territory of Halaf and Hassuna.

----------


## Goga

> Semitic would later be spoken on the territory of Halaf and Hassuna.


Doesn't say anything about the initial culture. Maybe there was some kind of language replacement? Semitic (AFRO-Asiatic) language sare from more to Southeast (the Levant).

There's also very much of R1b (among Assyrians) on the territory of Halaf and Hassuna. Maybe THOSE Indo-European hg. R1b folks migrated into the Europe.

----------


## spongetaro

> Doesn't say anything about the initial culture. Maybe there was some kind of language replacement? Semitic (AFRO-Asiatic) language sare from more to Southeast (the Levant).


Actually you see that nearly all West Asian area is unrelated to Indo European:
* On the Territory of Halaf and Hassuna: Akkadian, Semitic
*On the territory of Obeid: Sumerian
*In Transcaucasus: Hurrian
*In the Caucasus: Kartvelian, Northwestern Caucasian, Northeastern Caucasian
* In Anatolia: Hattian
*in Iran: Elamite

I think it's a bit too much for your theory that proto IE originated in West Asia.




> There's also very much of R1b (among Assyrians) on the territory of Halaf and Hassuna. Maybe THOSE Indo-European hg. R1b folks migrated into the Europe.


What makes you think that those R1b people were IE speakers?

----------


## JFWR

> Maykop looks merely like a Kurganized Caucasian culture but it was a total failure for its steppic invaders since they never achieved to impose their language. Maykop is not even considered the ancestor of the Anatolian languages by Archeologist. Most favour a Balkanic origin (Suvorovo-Novodanilovka, Cernavoda etc).
> 
> Don't you find strange that Indo European and Caucasian languages share so few similarities?
> It seems that Uralic languages are the closest relatives. IE languages might have also borrowed from Semitic languages (which could have been the languge of Old Europe). Furthermore, it looks like the Caucasian languages share more similarities with Basque than with IE languages.
> 
> You may have noticed that all ancient Caucasian and Transcaucasian languages are non IE:
> *Northwest Caucasian languages
> *NorthEast Caucasian languages
> *Kartvelian
> ...


It's highly unlikely that Old Europe's language was Semitic. If anything, Old Europe's languages were probably like the (now isolated) Basque, Etruscan, et cetera. These languages need derivations from earlier languages, and these languages were probably the languages that most Europeans spoke prior to IE languages spreading to populations.

----------


## NickP

^Yeah I gotta agree with that. I always thought it was things like Basque and Etruscan, as well as more obscure languages which pre-date IE. Whether these were related to each other is uncertain though; could've been many families throughout the continent. Some say Basque was similar to what Iberians spoke, and may have even had links to Berbers in North Africa; others link it to Caucasian languages.

----------


## LeBrok

Actually it would be weird if hg J, E and T didn't bring Afro-Asiatic (Semitic included) languages to Europe, especially with agricultural movement 10k years ago and seafaring cultures of Mediterranean. There was always a strong influx of tribes through Anatolia in later times too. Who knows what language hg G brought in too.
Basque language might be connected to first none IE R1b tribes coming before IE, and not necessarily related to original European languages.
Also it is very likely that Etruscans were Afro-Asiatic speakers.

----------


## spongetaro

Several languages families were spoken in the Middle East during the bronze age (Sumerian, Elamite, Hattian, Semitic...) so the first farmers carrying neolithic to Europe may have themselves spoken different languages. Before merging into similar cultures in Europe, EV13, G2a and I2a probably didn't speak the same language.

----------


## Yetos

> Actually you see that nearly all West Asian area is unrelated to Indo European:
> * On the Territory of Halaf and Hassuna: Akkadian, Semitic
> *On the territory of Obeid: Sumerian
> *In Transcaucasus: Hurrian
> *In the Caucasus: Kartvelian, Northwestern Caucasian, Northeastern Caucasian
> * In Anatolia: Hattian
> *in Iran: Elamite
> 
> I think it's a bit too much for your theory that proto IE originated in West Asia.
> ...



well that is the limit and mixing point 
but that does not exclude it from strting point

the most ancient known IE are in minor Asia (south west Asia?)
-Hettit 
-Luwang 

other known in area

-Thracian (Bithuni Myssian)
-Laz Colchian (north Aryan)
-Greek 
-Median - Aryan 
-Persian 
-Armenian 

-Sumerian maybe?



All Share G2a3 J2a J2b 
also all share R1b M-23 and spoted R1a M17

in Near East / middle east is the point of 3 language meet 
Semitic IE and Turkic (Azerbaijan-Caucas)

And I ask again 

why G2a3 is excluded from being IE ?

----------


## spongetaro

Greek is not an archaic Indo European language at all. Actually the Indo iranian and Greek-Armenian-Phrygian families are two branches of the IE family that separated the last from common IE. They have nothing to do with the proto Indo European.
All archeologist agree that the Indo Iranian family is derived from Central Asian Sintashta culture (2100–1800 BC), except Colin Renfrew who thinks that they both are the result of neolithization from the middle east. But the languages written in the Avesta and Rig Veda are so similar that it is impossible that they separated earlier than 2000 BC. Also, there are no clear links between Indian Neolithic and the Fertile Crescent.

The only archaic Indo European languages of West Asia are indeed Hititte and Luwian but the Hittite kingdom was established upon the Hattian land which was not an IE speaking.

----------


## Yetos

> Greek is not an archaic Indo European language at all. Actually the Indo iranian and Greek-Armenian-Phrygian families are two branches of the IE family that separated the last from common IE. They have nothing to do with the proto Indo European.
> All archeologist agree that the Indo Iranian family is derived from Central Asian Sintashta culture (2100–1800 BC), except Colin Renfrew who thinks that they both are the result of neolithization from the middle east. But the languages written in the Avesta and Rig Veda are so similar that it is impossible that they separated earlier than 2000 BC. Also, there are no clear links between Indian Neolithic and the Fertile Crescent.
> 
> The only archaic Indo European languages of West Asia are indeed Hititte and Luwian but the Hittite kingdom was established upon the Hattian land which was not an IE speaking.



Correct 

but we still miss the colchian 
Colchis (south Georgia-Lazistan Lazgin) is the spread area of Hettit and Medean 

on the other hand that split which you say as happenned last 

lets see 

could the Greco-Brygian-Armenian come from Hettit-Luwan? 
since even in Greece Hattian had cities 

could Avestan come from Hettit-Luwan?

and Finally since Hettit is considered primitive language 

COULD HETTITS LEARN THE IE LANGUAGE AS THEY PASS FROM LAZGIN AREA?

the split from late PIE of Greco-Aryan families is done as you say if we exclude tocharian as a separate family 

But if we consider that Tocharian share Aorist and infinitives as all Greco Aryan languages 
Then Colin Renfrew is right 

the problem is when tocharian was split 

if we consider them as not connected with Near/middle East then your approach is correct 
But if we connect the Aorist forms and infinitives Then surely IE has nothing to do with North Caucas areas 
that puts Tocharian in Anatolian languages and in the Greco-Aryan family
PIE were spoken as colin Renfrew say and the split position are tottaly different if we consider AOrist of tocharian.


Part 2
On the other hand 

Hattian is not IE and we all know it 
But lets face the dilema

Hattian is an Akkadian para-Semitic or a Caucasian language
thats plays a big role, 
cause if we consider Hattian as Akkadian that means Hettits did not come with them 
But if we consider Hattian as NW caucas that means Hettits had connection with them

----------


## Taranis

> Actually it would be weird if hg J, E and T didn't bring Afro-Asiatic (Semitic included) languages to Europe, especially with agricultural movement 10k years ago and seafaring cultures of Mediterranean. There was always a strong influx of tribes through Anatolia in later times too. Who knows what language hg G brought in too.
> Basque language might be connected to first none IE R1b tribes coming before IE, and not necessarily related to original European languages.
> Also it is very likely that Etruscans were Afro-Asiatic speakers.


I actually have to disagree there regarding the Etruscans. What should be pointed out with J1 in particular is that it's rather frequent in the eastern Caucasus and it's possible that J1 may have been associated with the Northeast Caucasian-speaking peoples in addition to Afroasiatic-speakers. There have been attempts to link Etruscan (and it's even more poorly attested cousins Raetic and Lemnian) with the Northeast Caucasian languages.

So, while we know that Haplogroups E1b and G2a were in Neolithic Europe, we actually have no idea of the ethnolinguistic ascription of these folks.




> Greek is not an archaic Indo European language at all. Actually the Indo iranian and Greek-Armenian-Phrygian families are two branches of the IE family that separated the last from common IE. They have nothing to do with the proto Indo European.
> All archeologist agree that the Indo Iranian family is derived from Central Asian Sintashta culture (2100–1800 BC), except Colin Renfrew who thinks that they both are the result of neolithization from the middle east. But the languages written in the Avesta and Rig Veda are so similar that it is impossible that they separated earlier than 2000 BC. Also, there are no clear links between Indian Neolithic and the Fertile Crescent.
> 
> The only archaic Indo European languages of West Asia are indeed Hititte and Luwian but the Hittite kingdom was established upon the Hattian land which was not an IE speaking.


There is another source for Indo-Iranic languages namely the "Mitanni" loanwords (from around the 14th century BC): you have a considerable number of clearly Indo-Aryan (that is Indic, not Indo-iranic) derived loanwords that were borrowed into the Hurrian language.

My main point of criticism (which actually isn't just mine) with Colin Renfew's idea is that he can't explain how the Proto-Indo-European language is supposed to have had words for horses, the wheel, wheeled vehicles and metals if the first farmers (which Renfew identifies as the speakers of PIE) had none of that. At the same note, it should be added that *if* Renfew is right, then it must be clearly argued that G2a was the original Indo-European Haplogroup. But, what would this make of the Haplogroups R1a and R1b?

----------


## JFWR

> Actually it would be weird if hg J, E and T didn't bring Afro-Asiatic (Semitic included) languages to Europe, especially with agricultural movement 10k years ago and seafaring cultures of Mediterranean. There was always a strong influx of tribes through Anatolia in later times too. Who knows what language hg G brought in too.
> Basque language might be connected to first none IE R1b tribes coming before IE, and not necessarily related to original European languages.
> Also it is very likely that Etruscans were Afro-Asiatic speakers.


I was under the impression that Etruscan as a Semitic language was obsolete for quite a while. There's a lot of scholarship that dismisses it. 

I'm sure there was a small minority of Semitic languages coming into Europe, but there is no indication that Semitic languages predominated in Europe at any period. What we do have is a bunch of ancient language isolates.

----------


## Goga

> There is another source for Indo-Iranic languages namely the "Mitanni" loanwords (from around the 14th century BC): you have a considerable number of clearly Indo-Aryan (that is Indic, not Indo-iranic) derived loanwords that were borrowed into the Hurrian language.
> 
> My main point of criticism (which actually isn't just mine) with Colin Renfew's idea is that he can't explain how the Proto-Indo-European language is supposed to have had words for horses, the wheel, wheeled vehicles and metals if the first farmers (which Renfew identifies as the speakers of PIE) had none of that. At the same note, it should be added that *if* Renfew is right, then it must be clearly argued that G2a was the original Indo-European Haplogroup. But, what would this make of the Haplogroups R1a and R1b?


Proto-Indo-European language has nothing to do with Uralic languages and the Steppes. If that was the case proto-Indo-Europeans would carry also pretty much of Northeuropean-Uralo-Mongoloid hg. N1c1 and Europoid hg. I1.

----------


## Taranis

> Proto-Indo-European language has nothing to do with Uralic languages and the Steppes. If that was the case proto-Indo-Europeans would carry also pretty much of Northeuropean-Uralo-Mongoloid hg. N1c1 and Europoid hg. I1.


Why should Haplogroups N or I1 be connected with the steppe? Haplogroup N is far more probable to have moved along the taiga zone from Siberia, and Haplogroup I1 in the time of the Neolithic was basically a single male lineage (which presumably lived either in northern Germany or southern Scandinavia) which did not live in the steppe, either.

As for the Uralic languages, it's well-known that the Uralic-speaking peoples did have prolonged contact with Indo-European-speaking peoples over a very long time (including Indo-Iranic, Proto-Balto-Slavic, Proto-Germanic, Old Norse, etc.) due to the fact that there's numerous of such loanwords.

----------


## Goga

> Why should Haplogroups N or I1 be connected with the steppe? Haplogroup N is far more probable to have moved along the taiga zone from Siberia, and Haplogroup I1 in the time of the Neolithic was basically a single male lineage (which presumably lived either in northern Germany or southern Scandinavia) which did not live in the steppe, either. As for the Uralic languages, it's well-known that the Uralic-speaking peoples did have prolonged contact with Indo-European-speaking peoples over a very long time (including Indo-Iranic, Proto-Balto-Slavic, Proto-Germanic, Old Norse, etc.) due to the fact that there's numerous of such loanwords.


Because hg. N1c1 and Europoid hg. I* were in that region before hg. R1a. arrived!

Actually hg. N1c1 and hg. I* were pretty much more native to let me say Ukraine on the west side of the Steppes. 

The Steppes folkes had always very close ties with Finno-Turko-Mongoloid tribes in the northern parts of Eurasia.


If Proto-Indo-Europeans came from that area they would be at least partly (Finno-Turco-)Mongoloid.

----------


## Taranis

> Because hg. N1c1 and Europoid hg. I* were in that region before hg. R1a. arrived!
> 
> Actually hg. N1c1 and hg. I* were pretty much more native to let me say Ukraine on the west side of the Steppes.


Why? If you look at the distribution of Haplogroup N in Europe it's clear that it's tied to taiga zone, rather than the steppe. It's also clear that both Haplogroup N and the Uralic languages (which are very likely tied with each other) are immigrants to Europe. Early immigrants yes (in the sense that they may have arrived as early as the Mesolithic), but still immigrants.

Regarding Haplogroup I, if you take a look at Sparkey's map, a connection between Haplorgoup I and the steppe is also dubious.

In contrast, older subclades of Haplogroup R1a may have very well been lurking somewhere in Eastern Europe. Since we have no really ancient (that is, Neolithic) samples from Eastern Europe this possibility cannot be ruled out at the moment.




> The Steppes folkes had always very close ties with Finno-Turko-Mongoloid tribes in the northern parts of Eurasia.


Well, had they really? A close linguistic connection between the Finnic and Turkic/Mongolic languages (the so-called Uralo-Altaic languages) has fallen out of favour. In comparison, the Turkic languages are a very young family (iron age, approximately comparable in age with the Germanic or the Romance languages - though the latter is more comparable because the difference between, say, Turkish and Uyghur is as big as say, between Spanish and Italian). It's very likely because of this that 2000 years ago, Turkic-speaking peoples were confined to East Asia.




> If Proto-Indo-Europeans came from that area they would be at least partly (Finno-Turco-)Mongoloid.


Well, as described above, there's really no particular reason to assume that.

----------


## Goga

If you follow the same logic, all Europeans are 'immigrants'. And I'm convinced that hg. N1c1 was one of the very first haplogroups in the northern parts of Eurasia and that it was there before hg. R1a arrived.

Also according to Dienekes there're hints of East/Central Asian admixture in Northern Europe. And I do see hg. R1a arrving into Northern Europe after hg. N1c1.

"*The northern dispersal route would have brought them into contact with the mixed Caucasoid/Mongoloid population of West Siberia and Eastern Europe, and they may have carried some of this DNA across their sweep over Northern Europe.*"

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/07/...ixture-in.html

Also it's also very impossible that Y-DNA hg. R1a lived for thousands of years separated from other groups. If It was the case there would be also just 1 mt-DNA haplogroup.

The proof that hg. R1a was not alone is proven by the fact that there’re a lot mt-DNA linages along with Y-DNA hg. R1a.


The only question for me remains: were proto-Indo-European 'Europoid' (from Europe) or 'Caucasoid' (from West Asia)? But since Europoids are somehow hybrids of native Europeans, Caucasoids and Finno-Ugric-Mongoloids, I'm pretty much convinced that proto-Indo-Europeans were just Caucasoids from West Asia!

----------


## Yetos

> My main point of criticism (which actually isn't just mine) with Colin Renfew's idea is that he can't explain how the Proto-Indo-European language is supposed to have had words for horses, the wheel, wheeled vehicles and metals if the first farmers (which Renfew identifies as the speakers of PIE) had none of that. At the same note, it should be added that *if* Renfew is right, then it must be clearly argued that G2a was the original Indo-European Haplogroup. But, what would this make of the Haplogroups R1a and R1b?


Correct that is the major problem of Renfrew 
except if explained by colours !!!!!

example is word axe Gr αχις -ινος 
and Iranic Axein (sory if spell wrong)
Black sea was name ΑΞεινος Pontos 
Axein (or something like that) means black 
and we all know that early iron was black 
or from black - red stones extract 

copper is yellow or dark Green 
modern Greek words for yellow is κιτρινος could be connection?
Greek word for Green is Χλωρος after χλοη Chloe compare Slavic Zeleno ch->Z 
But also prasino Πρασσινο (dark green colour of copper rust) 
prassino is consider that delivered from κυπρος (kupros is the copper not bronze) 
Κυπρος ->Κυπ(α)ρισσος-> (Κυ)Πρασσινος 

compare chalkos Bronze ka+ko = χαλκος
maybe copper after ko+pa+ro (Green stone)???
although unattested but possible 

now lets face what we see today 
the one who finds something BAPTISES the invention 

lets see Computers where found somewhere in US I think and name as Computer but the Greek word is Υπολογιστης. But not only Greeks even Chinese I believe or Maori in N zealand name it as Computer and not with their native language.

so what about Chariot invention has the name of the Inventor who could be not even IE and share the words to others as the Kurgan people expand

----------


## Yetos

> I was under the impression that Etruscan as a Semitic language was obsolete for quite a while. There's a lot of scholarship that dismisses it. 
> 
> I'm sure there was a small minority of Semitic languages coming into Europe, but there is no indication that Semitic languages predominated in Europe at any period. What we do have is a bunch of ancient language isolates.


Etruscan is about 900 BC +- statistical mistake, 
their language is connect with 2 languages 
one is Caucasian I think NW caucas 
and the other is Semitic 
their possible connection with Hattians and Pelasgians also leads towards Akkadian phoenician or Hath-languages of Caucas

----------


## Goga

http://www.exploringnature.org/db/de...D=44&detID=572

----------


## JFWR

> Etruscan is about 900 BC +- statistical mistake, 
> their language is connect with 2 languages 
> one is Caucasian I think NW caucas 
> and the other is Semitic 
> their possible connection with Hattians and Pelasgians also leads towards Akkadian phoenician or Hath-languages of Caucas


The connection with the Caucacus hasn't been proven, only postulated. Do you have some good sources that give compelling arguments?

Moreover, once again, I have read that the Semitic hypothesis has been entirely debunked. What sources do you have that revive it?

----------


## JFWR

> Why? If you look at the distribution of Haplogroup N in Europe it's clear that it's tied to taiga zone, rather than the steppe. It's also clear that both Haplogroup N and the Uralic languages (which are very likely tied with each other) are immigrants to Europe. Early immigrants yes (in the sense that they may have arrived as early as the Mesolithic), but still immigrants.
> 
> Regarding Haplogroup I, if you take a look at Sparkey's map, a connection between Haplorgoup I and the steppe is also dubious.


Haplogroup I as a whole, actually, does strongly correlate with the Ukrainian step as much as the rest of Europe. You were dealing only with I2 with that map, which is a sub-clade of the larger I haplogroup. I2 is not quite associated with that area.

----------


## sparkey

> Because hg. N1c1 and Europoid hg. I* were in that region before hg. R1a. arrived!
> 
> Actually hg. N1c1 and hg. I* were pretty much more native to let me say Ukraine on the west side of the Steppes.





> Haplogroup I as a whole, actually, does strongly correlate with the Ukrainian step as much as the rest of Europe. You were dealing only with I2 with that map, which is a sub-clade of the larger I haplogroup. I2 is not quite associated with that area.


Do you guys know of any particular evidence to link Haplogroup I to the steppes that I don't know about? The only Haplogroup I subclade that I know about that bucks the distribution pattern in my Paleolithic Remnants map is I2a1b2-Alghafaar, which is known by one sample in Iraq only... nothing tied to the steppes.

----------


## Goga

By the Steppes I mean a region on the west side of Volga river: Ukraine & South Russia. The European part of the Steppes so to speak. This is what the majority of people are talking about, right? Not the Steppes in Central Asia.

So there's lots of hg. I on the left (Euro) side of Volga river, the European parts of the Steppes...

----------


## Yetos

> The connection with the Caucacus hasn't been proven, only postulated. Do you have some good sources that give compelling arguments?
> 
> Moreover, once again, I have read that the Semitic hypothesis has been entirely debunked. What sources do you have that revive it?


their connection with Phoenician laphabet (Pyrgi tablets) and lemnean stele as also some remnants in Greek language and some written by ancients leads towards ether hattians either 'West'-Akkadians- Phoenicians 

We know Etruscans were minor Asian population.

there many posts in the forum about Thyrrenians.

----------


## sparkey

> So there's lots of hg. I on the left (Euro) side of Volga river, the European parts of the Steppes...


Nowadays, sure. But I'm pretty sure that it's dominantly I2a-Din-N, which got there about 2500 to 6000 years ago... surely more recently than some of the R1a there, am I right?

I guess it's possible that I2a-Disles is the geographic outlier on that branch, rather than I2a-Din (even though I2a-Din is farther from its other nearest known I2a cousins). That could push it back to 12,000 years old in the steppes at most. But surely that isn't known, and doesn't seem like a good assumption at all to me.

----------


## JFWR

> Do you guys know of any particular evidence to link Haplogroup I to the steppes that I don't know about? The only Haplogroup I subclade that I know about that bucks the distribution pattern in my Paleolithic Remnants map is I2a1b2-Alghafaar, which is known by one sample in Iraq only... nothing tied to the steppes.





> By the Steppes I mean a region on the west side of Volga river: Ukraine & South Russia. The European part of the Steppes so to speak. This is what the majority of people are talking about, right? Not the Steppes in Central Asia.
> 
> So there's lots of hg. I on the left (Euro) side of Volga river, the European parts of the Steppes...


Here's the Wikipedia page on the rough distribution of all types of haplogroup I. Plenty of I in European steppes, though not, of course, in Asiatic steppes: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ha..._I_(Y-DNA).PNG

----------


## JFWR

> Nowadays, sure. But I'm pretty sure that it's dominantly I2a-Din-N, which got there about 2500 to 6000 years ago... surely more recently than some of the R1a there, am I right?
> 
> I guess it's possible that I2a-Disles is the geographic outlier on that branch, rather than I2a-Din (even though I2a-Din is farther from its other nearest known I2a cousins). That could push it back to 12,000 years old in the Steppes at most. But surely that isn't known, and doesn't seem like a good assumption at all to me.


Well, the Balkans themselves housed refuge populations of I haplogroups during the LGM, and the Ukraine is just a spit's throw East of there...

I mean it is pretty telling that the European IE homeland is right near high concentration of Haplogroup I, too. This is, again, not to say that IE developed with I, but there is certainly evidence to suggest that IE developed with I's all around if not part of the culture that spawned it.

----------


## JFWR

> their connection with Phoenician laphabet (Pyrgi tablets) and lemnean stele as also some remnants in Greek language and some written by ancients leads towards ether hattians either 'West'-Akkadians- Phoenicians


The tablets were written in dual languages and make sense considering the Phoenicians had dealings with Italians from previous to the Romans till the Romans destroyed them. 

The Greeks and Romans said the Etruscans spoke no language that anyone else could understand nor knew where it derived.




> We know Etruscans were minor Asian population.
> 
> there many posts in the forum about Thyrrenians.


I don't think that is well attested in scholarly resources. The Etruscans show no signs of being themselves Asiatic, but obviously influenced by other mediterrenean cultures, including the Greeks most prominently.

----------


## sparkey

> Here's the Wikipedia page on the rough distribution of all types of haplogroup I. Plenty of I in European steppes, though not, of course, in Asiatic steppes: 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Haplogroup_I_(Y-DNA).PNG


We're talking about when Haplogroup I arrived in the steppes, though, and whether or not it's older than R1a there. Obviously there has been some I2a-Din-N expansion there, as well as some apparent Germanic introductions (I1, I2a2a-Cont, etc.) as you get closer to places like Crimea, but the point is, it all seems to be young there.

----------


## sparkey

> Well, the Balkans themselves housed refuge populations of I haplogroups during the LGM, and the Ukraine is just a spit's throw East of there...


It may have, but nowadays, the Balkans has very low Haplogroup I diversity, so if it did, modern populations don't give an obvious indication of it. Most Balkans Haplogroup I is of the I2a-Din-S variety, which looks to be a 1st millennium CE introduction, probably as a result of gene flow from around Ukraine via southern Poland. We've talked about this a lot on this forum, here and elsewhere.




> I mean it is pretty telling that the European IE homeland is right near high concentration of Haplogroup I, too. This is, again, not to say that IE developed with I, but there is certainly evidence to suggest that IE developed with I's all around if not part of the culture that spawned it.


I think that IE was in Europe long before I2a-Din-S was introduced to the Balkans, so I don't think that your observation tells a lot. But, I concede that Haplogroup I-dominant populations being absorbed into IE populations has been an important part of the history of the development of different IE cultures in Europe (and even a bit outside Europe--see the minor expansion of Haplogroup I in Kurds and Armenians).

----------


## ebAmerican

IJ originated around Iran, and split to I* that took a path through the Steppe and made it to the Balkans by the Upper Paleolithic and spread across Europe where it bottlenecked in the Baltic and created I1. So, I* was probably represented in the Steppe HG population. J* stayed in Iran and took a west Asian route along the Mediterranean. All this happened way before PIE which is postulated at 5700-6000BP. I would guess that the steppe HG population was I* and N* who spoke an Uralic and Altaic language. From what I've read most populations didn't live in the Steppe (but the periphery), that is was a supper highway for constant migration.

----------


## Taranis

> The tablets were written in dual languages and make sense considering the Phoenicians had dealings with Italians from previous to the Romans till the Romans destroyed them. 
> 
> The Greeks and Romans said the Etruscans spoke no language that anyone else could understand nor knew where it derived.
> 
> I don't think that is well attested in scholarly resources. The Etruscans show no signs of being themselves Asiatic, but obviously influenced by other mediterrenean cultures, including the Greeks most prominently.


There is genetic evidence (from cattle, amongst other things) that the Etruscans arrived from Asia Minor. Additionally, there is the Lemnian language which was apparently similar to Etruscan. Beyond that, I agree that a Semitic or Afroasiatic connection for Etruscan is spurious, other than the fact that the Etruscans traded heavily with the Phoenicians, and as a result the Etruscan language also borrowed Semitic words. But by their grammatical structure and core vocabulary, Etruscan was very different from the Semitic languages.

----------


## sparkey

> IJ originated around Iran, and split to I* that took a path through the Steppe and made it to the Balkans by the Upper Paleolithic and spread across Europe where it bottlenecked in the Baltic and created I1. So, I* was probably represented in the Steppe HG population.


You're sure of all of this? There's too much time between the three IJ branches to be sure where IJ originated, although I agree that West Asia, "around Iran" (as long as "around Iran" is a very big area) is by far the most likely candidate. As for I*... modern Haplogroup I has its center of diversity closer to Central Europe than West Asia, so why assume that it had split from IJ in the steppes? Although I can't say for certain, I find it at least as likely that IJ was introduced to Europe, and then differentiated into I*.




> I would guess that the steppe HG population was I* and N* who spoke an Uralic and Altaic language. From what I've read most populations didn't live in the Steppe (but the periphery), that is was a supper highway for constant migration.


Who are the I* and N* remnants? Anybody?

----------


## ebAmerican

Sorry, I was using the * incorrectly. I meant a commonly known snp mutation for I and N found in current populations (like the ancestor of I1a or N1b).

----------


## Yetos

I think after all these debates we all gain something but we must recosinder and put the problem again in a new questions

----------


## spongetaro

> There is genetic evidence (from cattle, amongst other things) that the Etruscans arrived from Asia Minor. Additionally, there is the Lemnian language which was apparently similar to Etruscan. Beyond that, I agree that a Semitic or Afroasiatic connection for Etruscan is spurious, other than the fact that the Etruscans traded heavily with the Phoenicians, and as a result the Etruscan language also borrowed Semitic words. But by their grammatical structure and core vocabulary, Etruscan was very different from the Semitic languages.


The Etrsucan god Tarchon was inspired from Luwian god Tarhunt. Moreover, Etruscan were famous for practising Haruspicy which originated in Mesopotamia. So I would localize their Heimat in the Border region between Anatolia and Mesopotamia, in one of the NeoHittite state. Their language was maybe a remanant of the old Hattic dialect.


638px-Luwian_Language_de.svg.pngDistribution of the Luwian language

NeoHittite states

----------


## ebAmerican

"The Annual Review of Anthropology article by Hammer and Zugura (Vol.31,
2002, pp. 303-321) gives estimates of the age of the various y-chromosome
clads (Table 1). For I (P19/M170), the estimate is 5,950 years (standard
deviation 2,450)" 

I find it interesting that based on their calculation (I) didn't enter Europe until 3950BC. It looks like everybody who lives in Europe today came with the Neolithic expansion from the east. So, did R1A push (I) from the Steppes to Central Europe where it mutated into I1 north and I2 south?

----------


## sparkey

> "The Annual Review of Anthropology article by Hammer and Zugura (Vol.31,
> 2002, pp. 303-321) gives estimates of the age of the various y-chromosome
> clads (Table 1). For I (P19/M170), the estimate is 5,950 years (standard
> deviation 2,450)" 
> 
> I find it interesting that based on their calculation (I) didn't enter Europe until 3950BC. It looks like everybody who lives in Europe today came with the Neolithic expansion from the east. So, did R1A push (I) from the Steppes to Central Europe where it mutated into I1 north and I2 south?


Hammer and Zugura 2002 is the only publication I know of to have given anywhere near that low an estimate, so I'm quite sure that it's inaccurate. Every other publication I've seen has given something in the 20,000s. Nordvedt's tree is my favorite... it gives ~22,000, corresponding closely to Karafet's 22,200 YBP estimate.

----------


## Taranis

> Hammer and Zugura 2002 is the only publication I know of to have given anywhere near that low an estimate, so I'm quite sure that it's inaccurate. Every other publication I've seen has given something in the 20,000s. Nordvedt's tree is my favorite... it gives ~22,000, corresponding closely to Karafet's 22,200 YBP estimate.


Not to mention that I2a (wasn't it even I2a1a, I can't seem to remember?) was found in samples from Treilles (dated to ca. 5000 YBP).

----------


## ebAmerican

"The I1 subclade of Haplogroup I is estimated to be 4000 to 5000 years old (the old _"15,00-20,000years ago in Iberia"_ information was wrong), and confirmed by the single nucleotide polymorphism, SNP, known as M253."

Another source - from Family Tree DNA

----------


## sparkey

> "The I1 subclade of Haplogroup I is estimated to be 4000 to 5000 years old (the old _"15,00-20,000years ago in Iberia"_ information was wrong), and confirmed by the single nucleotide polymorphism, SNP, known as M253."
> 
> Another source - from Family Tree DNA


You switched from I to I1 here. The "age" (specifically TMRCA, not the clade age) of I1 is indeed generally estimated at between 4000 and 5000 years, per Nordtvedt and others. Also, its center of diversity is somewhere around northern Germany, and its closest relative is the very European I2 clade, with which it shares a common ancestor who lived about 22,000 years ago.

Did you click my link to Nordtvedt's tree?

----------


## JFWR

> We're talking about when Haplogroup I arrived in the steppes, though, and whether or not it's older than R1a there. Obviously there has been some I2a-Din-N expansion there, as well as some apparent Germanic introductions (I1, I2a2a-Cont, etc.) as you get closer to places like Crimea, but the point is, it all seems to be young there.


It seems fairly odd that the Ukraine should have no older examples of I than simply recent, historical movements of people. I shall try to do a bit of research later on about this tos ee if there is any existent examples of older clades and sub-clades that may account for what seems to be a big gap in I's expansion if not.

----------


## JFWR

> It may have, but nowadays, the Balkans has very low Haplogroup I diversity, so if it did, modern populations don't give an obvious indication of it. Most Balkans Haplogroup I is of the I2a-Din-S variety, which looks to be a 1st millennium CE introduction, probably as a result of gene flow from around Ukraine via southern Poland. We've talked about this a lot on this forum, here and elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that IE was in Europe long before I2a-Din-S was introduced to the Balkans, so I don't think that your observation tells a lot. But, I concede that Haplogroup I-dominant populations being absorbed into IE populations has been an important part of the history of the development of different IE cultures in Europe (and even a bit outside Europe--see the minor expansion of Haplogroup I in Kurds and Armenians).


As with my last post, I'll do some research as it seems intuitively disarming that I should not have some presence previous to the first millennium AD in this area.

----------


## JFWR

> There is genetic evidence (from cattle, amongst other things) that the Etruscans arrived from Asia Minor. Additionally, there is the Lemnian language which was apparently similar to Etruscan. Beyond that, I agree that a Semitic or Afroasiatic connection for Etruscan is spurious, other than the fact that the Etruscans traded heavily with the Phoenicians, and as a result the Etruscan language also borrowed Semitic words. But by their grammatical structure and core vocabulary, Etruscan was very different from the Semitic languages.


Having cattle from Asia Minor does not imply deriving from Asia Minor. There is no native European domesticated cattle. Must all Europeans then be Mesopatamians? No, we can speak of trade wedded to some population movements. 

Considering the epicentre of the Etruscan language family is in Italy, it may be just as likely as the Lemian language was associated with Etruscan movements Eastward. If Asia-Minor was the homeland of the Etruscans, we would find evidence of their influence in that area, and outside of the Lemnian language, we find very little.

----------


## JFWR

> The Etrsucan god Tarchon was inspired from Luwian god Tarhunt. Moreover, Etruscan were famous for practising Haruspicy which originated in Mesopotamia. So I would localize their Heimat in the Border region between Anatolia and Mesopotamia, in one of the NeoHittite state. Their language was maybe a remanant of the old Hattic dialect.
> 
> 
> 638px-Luwian_Language_de.svg.pngDistribution of the Luwian language
> 
> NeoHittite states


Adonis was a Middle Eastern, too. Must we then say the Greeks were ultimately from Babylon? 

Mediterrenean religion, even amongst Indo-European peoples, has some admixture from the Middle and Near East. We see this throughout classical religion, and we do see it in Etruscan religion and customs, also. 

Exchange of people, trade, war, and all other factors alter the means of worship amongst the people.

----------


## Taranis

> Having cattle from Asia Minor does not imply deriving from Asia Minor. There is no native European domesticated cattle. Must all Europeans then be Mesopatamians? No, we can speak of trade wedded to some population movements. 
> 
> Considering the epicentre of the Etruscan language family is in Italy, it may be just as likely as the Lemian language was associated with Etruscan movements Eastward. If Asia-Minor was the homeland of the Etruscans, we would find evidence of their influence in that area, and outside of the Lemnian language, we find very little.


I should have provided you with links earlier, here they are:

The mystery of Etruscan origins: novel clues from Bos taurus mitochondrial DNA

The Etruscan timeline: a recent Anatolian connection

Also, I didn't imply that there was an easy solution to the problem. The way I see it though, there's no particular reason either to assume that the Etruscan language(s) are native to Italy.

----------


## JFWR

> I should have provided you with links earlier, here they are:
> 
> The mystery of Etruscan origins: novel clues from Bos taurus mitochondrial DNA
> 
> The Etruscan timeline: a recent Anatolian connection
> 
> Also, I didn't imply that there was an easy solution to the problem. The way I see it though, there's no particular reason either to assume that the Etruscan language(s) are native to Italy.


Thanks for these links, these are quite interesting.

The second is very odd, though. According to it, they identify Tuscan lineages as only going back to 700-300 BC. However, we have evidence that Etruscans were almost certainly in Italy by 900 BC. Might the Anatolian lineage then be something aside from the Etruscan cultural progenitors, and be later assimilators into the picture?

Also, whereas clearly Etruscans have a high degree of Near East Y and MTDna haplogroups, most of these haplogroups were in Southern Europe by the neolithic at latest. As domestication of the cow occurred during the later neolithic, it could be conceivable that the Etruscan progenitors were in Europe by the 6th millennium B.C.

The question that all that raises is this: Did they bring with them Proto-Etruscan? If so, it would place the group language elsewhere from Italy, but it would retain Italy as the source for Etruscan and Rhaetic (if maybe not Lemnian?).

----------


## Goga

"_Combining this insight with an analysis of Y chromosome variation within the Graeco-Armeno-Aryan group, it appears that Graeco-Armenian is characterized predominantly by J2+R1b related lineages, while Indo-Iranian by J2+R1a related lineages. The evidence for Tocharian would involve J2+R1b related lineages. Overall, it would appear that the earliest J2 core of PIE affected two different groups of populations living on complementary sides of the Caspian:_"

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/07/...e-in-east.html

----------


## Taranis

> "_Combining this insight with an analysis of Y chromosome variation within the Graeco-Armeno-Aryan group, it appears that Graeco-Armenian is characterized predominantly by J2+R1b related lineages, while Indo-Iranian by J2+R1a related lineages. The evidence for Tocharian would involve J2+R1b related lineages. Overall, it would appear that the earliest J2 core of PIE affected two different groups of populations living on complementary sides of the Caspian:_"
> 
> http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/07/...e-in-east.html


This is very interesting (although I'm sceptic, read below), but the bit about Tocharian clearly shows that apparently some people cannot think outside of the Centum/Satem box, given how we do have R1a from the Tarim Basin mummies. If the Graeco-Armenian-Aryan grouping is valid, this alone criss-crosses the Centum-Satem split, so why should Tocharian be grouped with R1b? Besides, the subclade of R1b (M73) that is usually thought by people to be associated with the Tocharians is simply too old to be reasonably associated with the spread of the Indo-Europeans in any scenario (note that this includes both Neolithic and Bronze Age scenarios). From that perspective, I'd like to pinpoint that Dienkes statement that 'There is also no reason to assign R1a to "Tocharians"...' is just wrong. We do have the Tarim basin DNA samples, plus R1a is frequent enough nowadays in the areas formerly inhabited by the Tocharians.

----------


## spongetaro

> This is very interesting (although I'm sceptic, read below), but the bit about Tocharian clearly shows that apparently some people cannot think outside of the Centum/Satem box, given how we do have R1a from the Tarim Basin mummies. If the Graeco-Armenian-Aryan grouping is valid, this alone criss-crosses the Centum-Satem split, so why should Tocharian be grouped with R1b? Besides, the subclade of R1b (M73) that is usually thought by people to be associated with the Tocharians is simply too old to be reasonably associated with the spread of the Indo-Europeans in any scenario (note that this includes both Neolithic and Bronze Age scenarios). From that perspective, I'd like to pinpoint that Dienkes statement that 'There is also no reason to assign R1a to "Tocharians"...' is just wrong. We do have the Tarim basin DNA samples, plus R1a is frequent enough nowadays in the areas formerly inhabited by the Tocharians.



According to David Anthony the Tocharian separation from proto IE took place around 3700 BC and started from the Samara river.


afanasievo.jpg



Sinstashta (2100-1800 BC) is the culture ancestral to the Indo Iranien branch. Sintshta itself formed out of Abashevo (2500-1900 BC) and Poltavka cultures. Even if the author is not sure, the Western catacomb culture around 2500 BC is likely to be ancestral of the Greek branch.



I guess that Tocharian, Proto Indo Iranian, Proto Armanian and Greek all carried R1a. R1b M73 is in my opinion the haplogroup of the hunter gatherers of the Botai culture.

----------


## Mkk

> Hammer and Zugura 2002 is the only publication I know of to have given anywhere near that low an estimate, so I'm quite sure that it's inaccurate. Every other publication I've seen has given something in the 20,000s.Nordvedt's tree is my favorite... it gives ~22,000, corresponding closely to Karafet's 22,200 YBP estimate.


In another paper including the same authors, they come to a different conclusion for I:

(Table 2)

22,200 (15,300–30,000) YBP

New binary polymorphisms reshape and increase resolution of the human Y chromosomal haplogroup tree. Genome Res. 2008 May;18(5):830-8

----------

