Aquitanians and Iberians of haplogroup R1b are exactly like Indo-Iranians and Balto-Slavs of haplogroup R1a

The final paper on Indo-Iranian peoples, by Narasimhan and Patterson (see preprint), is soon to be published, according to the first author’s Twitter account.

One of the interesting details of the development of Bronze Age Iberian ethnolinguistic landscape was the making of Proto-Iberian and Proto-Basque communities, which we already knew were going to show R1b-P312 lineages, a haplogroup clearly associated during the Bell Beaker period with expanding North-West Indo-Europeans:

From the Bronze Age (~2200–900 BCE), we increase the available dataset from 7 to 60 individuals and show how ancestry from the Pontic-Caspian steppe (Steppe ancestry) appeared throughout Iberia in this period, albeit with less impact in the south. The earliest evidence is in 14 individuals dated to ~2500–2000 BCE who coexisted with local people without Steppe ancestry. These groups lived in close proximity and admixed to form the Bronze Age population after 2000 BCE with ~40% ancestry from incoming groups. Y-chromosome turnover was even more pronounced, as the lineages common in Copper Age Iberia (I2, G2, and H) were almost completely replaced by one lineage, R1b-M269.

iberia-admixture-y-dna
Proportion of ancestry derived from central European Beaker/Bronze Age populations in Iberians from the Middle Neolithic to the Iron Age (table S15). Colors indicate the Y-chromosome haplogroup for each male. Red lines represent period of admixture. Modified from Olalde et al. (2019).

The arrival of East Bell Beakers speaking Indo-European languages involved, nevertheless, the survival of the two non-IE communities isolated from each other – likely stemming from south-western France and south-eastern Iberia – thanks to a long-lasting process of migration and admixture. There are some common misconceptions about ancient languages in Iberia which may have caused some wrong interpretations of the data in the paper and elsewhere:

NOTE. A simple reading of Iberian prehistory would be enough to correct these. Two recent books on this subject are Villar’s Indoeuropeos, iberos, vascos y otros parientes and Vascos, celtas e indoeuropeos. Genes y lenguas.

Iberian languages were spoken at least in the Mediterranean and the south (ca. “1/3 of Iberia“) during the Bronze Age.

Nope, we only know the approximate location of Iberian culture and inscriptions from the Late Iron Age, and they occupy the south-eastern and eastern coastal areas, but before that it is unclear where they were spoken. In fact, it seems evident now that the arrival of Urnfield groups from the north marks the arrival of Celtic-speaking peoples, as we can infer from the increase in Central European admixture, while the expansion of anthropomorphic stelae from the north-west must have marked the expansion of Lusitanian.

Vasconic was spoken in both sides of the Pyrenees, as it was in the Middle Ages.

Wrong. One of the worst mistakes I am seeing in many comments since the paper was published, although admittedly the paper goes around this problem talking about “Modern Basques”. Vasconic toponyms appear south of the Pyrenees only after the Roman conquests, and tribes of the south-western Pyrenees and Cantabrian regions were likely Celtic-speaking peoples. Aquitanians (north of the western Pyrenees) are the only known ancient Vasconic-speaking population in proto-historic times, ergo the arrival of Bell Beakers in Iberia was most likely accompanied by Indo-European languages which were later replaced by Celtic expanding from Central Europe, and Iberian expanding from south-east Iberia, and only later with Latin and Vasconic.

Ligurian is non-Indo-European, and Lusitanian is Celtic-like, so Iberia must have been mostly non-Indo-European-speaking.

The fragmentary material available on Ligurian is enough to show that phonetically it is a NWIE dialect of non-Celtic, non-Italic nature, much like Lusitanian; that is, unless you follow laryngeals up to Celtic or Italic, in which case you can argue anything about this or any other IE language, as people who reconstruct laryngeals for Baltic in the common era do.

EDIT (19 Mar 2019): It was not clear enough from this paragraph, because Ligurian-like languages in NE Iberia is just a hypothesis based on the archaeological connection of the whole southern France Bell Beaker region. My aim was to repeat the idea that Old European hydro-toponymy is older in NE Iberia (as almost anywhere in Iberia) than Iberian toponymy, so the initial hypothesis is that:

  1. a Palaeo-European language (as Villar puts it) expanded into most regions of Iberia in ancient times (he considered at some point the Mesolithic, but that is obviously wrong, as we know now); then
  2. Celts expanded at least to the Ebro River Basin; then
  3. Iberians expanded to the north and replaced these in NE Iberia; and only then
  4. after the Roman invasion, around the start of the Common Era, appear Vasconic toponyms south of the Pyrenees.

Lusitanian obviously does not qualify as Celtic, lacking the most essential traits that define Celticness…Unless you define “(Para-)Celtic” as Pre-Proto-Celtic-like, or anything of the sort to support some Atlantic continuity, in which case you can also argue that Pre-Italic or Pre-Germanic are Celtic, because you would be essentially describing North-West Indo-European

If Basques have R1b, it’s because of a culture of “matrilocality” as opposed to the “patrilocality” of Indo-Europeans

So wrong it hurts my eyes every time I read this. Not only does matrilocality in a regional group have few known effects in genetics, but there are many well-documented cases of population replacement (with either ancestry or Y-DNA haplogroups, or both) without language replacement, without a need to resort to “matrilineality” or “matrilocality” or any other cultural difference in any of these cases.

In fact, it seems quite likely now that isolated ancient peoples north of the Pyrenees will show a gradual replacement of surviving I2a lineages by neighbouring R1b, while early Iberian R1b-DF27 lineages are associated with Lusitanians, and later incoming R1b-DF27 lineages (apart from other haplogroups) are most likely associated with incoming Celts, which must have remained in north-central and central-east European groups.

NOTE. Notice how R1a is fully absent from all known early Indo-European peoples to date, whether Iberian IE, British IE, Italic, or Greek. The absence of R1a in Iberia after the arrival of Celts is even more telling of the origin of expanding Celts in Central Europe.

I haven’t had enough time to add Iberian samples to my spreadsheet, and hence neither to the ASoSaH texts nor maps/PCAs (and I don’t plan to, because it’s more efficient for me to add both, Asian and Iberian samples, at the same time), but luckily Maciamo has summed it up on Eupedia. Or, graphically depicted in the paper for the southeast:

iberia-haplogroups
Y chromosome haplogroup composition of individuals from southeast Iberia during the past 2000 years. The general Iberian Bronze and Iron Age population is included for comparison. Modified from Olalde et al. (2019).

Does this continued influx of Y-DNA haplogroups in Iberia with different cultures represent permanent changes in language? Are, therefore, modern Iberian languages derived from Lusitanian, Sorothaptic/Celtic, Greek, Phoenician, East or West Germanic, Hebrew, Berber, or Arabic languages? Obviously not. Same with Italy (see the recent preprint on modern Italians by Raveane et al. 2018), with France, with Germany, or with Greece.

If that happens in European regions with a known ancient history, why would the recent expansions and bottlenecks of R1b in modern Basques (or N1c around the Baltic, or R1a in Slavs) in the Middle Ages represent an ancestral language surviving into modern times?

Indo-Iranians

If something is clear from Narasimhan, Patterson, et al. (2018), is that we know finally the timing of the introduction and expansion of R1a-Z645 lineages among Indo-Iranians.

We could already propose since 2015 that a slow admixture happened in the steppes, based on archaeological finds, due to settlement elites dominating over common peoples, coupled with the known Uralic linguistic traits of Indo-Iranian (and known Indo-Iranian influence on Finno-Ugric) – as I did in the first version of the Indo-European demic diffusion model.

The new huge sampling of Sintashta – combined with that of Catacomb, Poltavka, Potapovka, Andronovo, and Srubna – shows quite clearly how this long-term admixture process between Uralic peoples and Indo-Iranians happened between forest-steppe CWC (mainly Abashevo) and steppe groups. The situation is not different from that of Iberia ca. 2500-2000 BC; from Narasimhan, Patterson, et al. (2018):

We combined the newly reported data from Kamennyi Ambar 5 with previously reported data from the Sintashta 5 individuals (10). We observed a main cluster of Sintashta individuals that was similar to Srubnaya, Potapovka, and Andronovo in being well modeled as a mixture of Yamnaya-related and Anatolian Neolithic (European agriculturalist-related) ancestry.

Even with such few words referring to one of the most important data in the paper about what happened in the steppes, Wang et al. (2018) help us understand what really happened with this simplistic concept of “steppe ancestry” regarding Yamna vs. Corded Ware differences:

anatolia-neolithic-steppe-eneolithic
Image modified from Wang et al. (2018). Marked are: in red, approximate limit of Anatolia_Neolithic ancestry found in Yamna populations; in blue, Corded Ware-related groups. “Modelling results for the Steppe and Caucasus 1128 cluster. Admixture proportions based on (temporally and geographically) distal and proximal models, showing additional Anatolian farmer-related ancestry in Steppe groups as well as additional gene flow from the south in some of the Steppe groups as well as the Caucasus groups (see also Supplementary Tables 10, 14 and 20).”

As with Iberia (or any prehistoric region), the details of how exactly this language change happened are not evident, but we only need a plausible explanation coupled with archaeology and linguistics. Poltavka, Potapovka, and Sintashta samples – like the few available Iberian ones ca. 2500-2000 BC – offer a good picture of the cohabitation of R1b-L23 (mainly Z2103) and R1a-Z645 (mainly Z93+): a glimpse at the likely presence of R1a-Z93 within settlements – which must have evolved as the dominant elites – in a society where the majority of the population was initially formed by nomad herders (probably most R1b-Z2103), who were usually buried outside of the main settlements.

Will the upcoming Narasimhan, Patterson et al. (2019) deal with this problem of how R1a-M417 replaced R1b-M269, and how the so-called “Steppe_MLBA” (i.e. Corded Ware) ancestry admixed with “Steppe_EMBA” (i.e. Yamnaya) ancestry in the steppes, and which one of their languages survived in the region (that is, the same the Reich Lab has done with Iberia)? Not likely. The ‘genetic wars’ in Iberia deal with haplogroup R1b-P312, and how it was neither ‘native’ nor associated with Basques and non-Indo-European peoples in general. The ‘genetic wars’ in South Asia are concerned with the steppe origin of R1a, to prove that it is not a ‘native’ haplogroup to India, and thus neither are Indo-Aryan languages. To each region a politically correct account of genetic finds, with enough care not to fully dismiss national myths, it seems.

NOTE. Funnily enough, these ‘genetic wars’ are the making of geneticists since the 1990s and 2000s, so we are still in the midst of mostly internal wars caused by what they write. Just as genetic papers of the 2020s will most likely be a reaction to what they are writing right now about “steppe ancestry” and R1a. You won’t find much change to the linguistic reconstruction in this whole period, except for the most multicolored glottochronological proposals…

The first author of the paper has engaged, as far as I could see in Twitter, in dialogue with Hindu nationalists who try to dismiss the arrival of steppe ancestry and R1a into South Asia as inconclusive (to support the potential origin of Sanskrit millennia ago in the Indus Valley Civilization). How can geneticists deal with the real problem here (the original ethnolinguistic group expanding with Corded Ware), when they have to fend off anti-steppists from Europe and Asia? How can they do it, when they themselves are part of the same societies that demand a politically correct presentation of data?

This is how the data on the most likely Indo-Iranian-speaking region should be presented in an ideal world, where – as in the Iberia paper – geneticists would look closely to the Volga-Ural region to discover what happened with Proto-Indo-Iranians from their earliest to their latest stage, instead of constantly looking for sites close to the Indus Valley to demonstrate who knows what about modern Indian culture:

indo-iranian-admixture-similar-iberians
Tentative map of the Late PIE and Indo-Iranian community in the Volga-Ural steppes since the Eneolithic. Proportion of ancestry derived from central European Corded Ware peoples. Colors indicate the Y-chromosome haplogroup for each male. Red lines represent period of admixture. Modified from Olalde et al. (2019).

Now try and tell Hindu nationalists that Sanskrit expanded from an Early Bronze Age steppe community of R1b-rich nomadic herders that spoke Pre-Indo-Iranian, which was dominated and eventually (genetically) mostly replaced by elite Uralic-speaking R1a peoples from the Russian forest, hence the known phonetic (and some morphological) traits that remained. Good luck with the Europhobic shitstorm ahead..

Balto-Slavic

Iberian cultures, already with a majority of R1b lineages, show a clear northward expansion over previously Urnfield-like groups of north-east Iberia and Mediterranean France (which we now know probably represent the migration of Celts from central Europe). Similarly, Eastern Balts already under a majority of R1a lineages expanded likely into the Baltic region at the same time as the outlier from Turlojiškė (ca. 1075 BC), which represents the first obvious contacts of central-east Europe with the Baltic.

Iberia shows a more recent influx of central and eastern Mediterranean peoples, one of which eventually succeeded in imposing their language in Western Europe: Romans were possibly associated mainly with R1b-U152, apart from many other lineages. Proto-Slavs probably expanded later than Celts, too, connected to the disintegration of the Lusatian culture, and they were at some point associated with R1a-M458 and R1a-Z280(xZ92) lineages, apart from others already found in Early Slavs.

pca-balto-slavs-tollense-valley
PCA of central-eastern European groups which may have formed the Balto-Slavic-speaking community derived from Bell Beaker, evident from the position ‘westwards’ of CWC in the PCA, and surrounding cultures. Left: Early Bronze Age. Right: Tollense Valley samples.

This parallel between Iberia and eastern Europe is no coincidence: as Europe entered the Bronze Age, chiefdom-based systems became common, and thus the connection of ancestry or haplogroups with ethnolinguistic groups became weaker.

What happened earlier (and who may represent the Pre-Balto-Slavic community) will be clearer when we have enough eastern European samples, but basically we will be able to depict this admixture of NWIE-speaking BBC-derived peoples with Uralic-speaking CWC-derived groups (since Uralic is known to have strongly influenced Balto-Slavic), similar to the admixture found in Indo-Iranians, more or less like this:

iberian-admixture-balto-slavic
Tentative map of the North-West Indo-European and Balto-Slavic community in central-eastern Europe since the East Bell Beaker expansion. Proportion of ancestry derived from Corded Ware peoples. Colors indicate the Y-chromosome haplogroup for each male. Red lines represent period of admixture. Modified from Olalde et al. (2019).

The Early Scythian period marked a still stronger chiefdom-based system which promoted the creation of alliances and federation-like groups, with an earlier representation of the system expanding from north-eastern Europe around the Baltic Sea, precisely during the spread of Akozino warrior-traders (in turn related to the Scythian influence in the forest-steppes), who are the most likely ancestors of most N1c-V29 lineages among modern Germanic, Balto-Slavic, and Volga-Finnic peoples.

Modern haplogroup+language = ancient ones?

It is not difficult to realize, then, that the complex modern genetic picture in Eastern Europe and around the Urals, and also in South Asia (like that of the Aegean or Anatolia) is similar to the Iron Age / medieval Iberian one, and that following modern R1a as an Indo-European marker just because some modern Indo-European-speaking groups showed it was always a flawed methodology; as flawed as following R1b for ancient Vasconic groups, or N1c for ancient Uralic groups.

Why people would argue that haplogroups mean continuity (e.g. R1b with Basques, N1c with Finns, R1a with Slavs, etc.) may be understood, if one lives still in the 2000s. Just like why one would argue that Corded Ware is Indo-European, because of Gimbutas’ huge influence since the 1960s with her myth of “Kurgan peoples”. Not many denied these haplogroup associations, because there was no reason to do it, and those who did usually aligned with a defense of descriptive archaeology.

However, it is a growing paradox that some people interested in genetics today would now, after the Iberian paper, need to:

  • accept that ancient Iberians and probably Aquitanians (each from different regions, and probably from different “Basque-Iberian dialects” in the Chalcolithic, if both were actually related) show eventually expansions with R1b-L23, the haplogroup most obviously associated with expanding Indo-Europeans;
  • acknowledge that modern Iberians have many different lineages derived from prehistoric or historic peoples (Celts, Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Jews, Goths, Berbers, Arabs), which have undergone different bottlenecks, the last ones during the Reconquista, but none of their languages have survived;
  • realize that a similar picture is to be found everywhere in central and western Europe since the first proto-historic records, with language replacement in spite of genetic continuity, such as the British Isles (and R1b-L21 continuity) after the arrival of Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, or Normans;
  • but, at the same time, continue blindly asserting that haplogroup R1a + “steppe ancestry” represent some kind of supernatural combination which must show continuity with their modern Indo-Iranian or Balto-Slavic language from time immemorial.
sintashta-y-dna
Replacement of R1b-L23 lineages during the Early Bronze Age in eastern Europe and in the Eurasian steppes: emergence of R1a in previous Yamnaya and Bell Beaker territories. Modified from EBA Y-DNA map.

Behave, pretty please

The ‘conservative’ message espoused by some geneticists and amateur genealogists here is basically as follows:

  • Let’s not rush to new theories that contradict the 2000s, lest some people get offended by granddaddy not being these pure whatever wherever as they believed, and let’s wait some 5, 10, or 20 years, as long as necessary – to see if some corner of the Yamna culture shows R1a, or some region in north-eastern Europe shows N1c, or some Atlantic Chalcolithic sample shows R1b – to challenge our preferred theories, if we actually need to challenge anything at all, because it hurts too much.
  • Just don’t let many of these genetic genealogists or academics of our time be unhappy, pretty please with sugar on top, and let them slowly adapt to reality with more and more pet theories to fit everything together (past theories + present data), so maybe when all of them are gone, within 50 or 70 years, society can smoothly begin to move on and propose something closer to reality, but always as politically correct as possible for the next generations.
  • For starters, let’s discuss now (yet again) that Bell Beakers may not have been Indo-European at all, despite showing (unlike Corded Ware) clearly Yamna male lineages and ancestry, because then Corded Ware and R1a could not have been Indo-European and that’s terrible, so maybe Bell Beakers are too brachycephalic to speak Indo-European or something, or they were stopped by the Fearsome Tisza River, or they are not pure Dutch Single Grave in The South hence not Indo-European, or whatever, and that’s why Iron Age Iberians or Etruscans show non-Indo-European languages. That’s not disrespectful to the history of certain peoples, of course not, but talking about the evident R1a-Uralic connection is, because this is The South, not The North, and respect works differently there.
  • Just don’t talk about how Slavs and Balts enter history more than 1,500 years later than Indo-European peoples in Western and Southern Europe, including Iberia, and assume a heroic continuity of Balts and Slavs as pure R1a ‘steppe-like’ peoples dominating over thousands of kms. in the Baltic, Fennoscandia, eastern Europe, and northern Asia for 5,000 years, with multiple Balto-Slavs-over-Balto-Slavs migrations, because these absolute units of Indo-European peoples were a trip and a half. They are the Asterix and Obelix of white Indo-European prehistory.
  • Perhaps in the meantime we can also invent some new glottochronological dialectal scheme that fits the expansion of Sredni Stog/Corded Ware with (Germano-?)Indo-Slavonic separated earlier than any other Late PIE dialect; and Finno-Volgaic later than any other Uralic dialect, in the Middle Ages, with N1c.
balto-slavic-pca
Genetic structure of the Balto-Slavic populations within a European context according to the three genetic systems, from Kushniarevich et al. (2015). Pure Balto-Slavs from…hmm…yeah this…ancient…region…or people…cluster…Whatever, very very steppe-like peoples, the True Indo-Europeans™, so close to Yamna…almost as close as Finno-Ugrians.

To sum up: Iberia, Italy, France, the British Isles, central Europe, the Balkans, the Aegean, or Anatolia, all these territories can have a complex history of periodic admixture and language replacement everywhere, but some peoples appearing later than all others in the historical record (viz. Basques or Slavs) apparently cannot, because that would be shameful for their national or ethnic myths, and these should be respected.

Ignorance of the own past as a blank canvas to be filled in with stupid ethnolinguistic continuity, turned into something valuable that should not be challenged. Ethnonationalist-like reasoning proper of the 19th century. How can our times be called ‘modern’ when this kind of magical thinking is still prevalent, even among supposedly well-educated people?

Related

Join the discussion...

You must be registered and logged in to comment.
Please keep the discussion of this post on topic.
For other topics, use the forum instead.
newest oldest
Notify of
trackback

[…] Aquitanians and Iberians of haplogroup R1b are exactly like Indo-Iranians and Balto-Slavs of haplogr… […]

trackback

[…] Aquitanians and Iberians of haplogroup R1b are exactly like Indo-Iranians and Balto-Slavs of haplogr… […]

trackback

[…] Sound familiar? Yep, it’s the kind of reasoning you might be reading right now about Iberian Bell Beakers, about Bell Beakers, or even about Yamna and their relationship to modern Basques. Another true […]

trackback

[…] YFull) may show now a clear identification with early acculturated Uralic speakers, with the main acculturated Balto-Slavic lineage remaining […]

Carlos Quiles

New paper on how social inequalities began to emerge in the Iberian Neolithic, before they grew to the known violence in the transition from the Neolithic to the Chalcolithic, which led – as we see in the Iberian case and everywhere in Europe – to a highly stratified society in the BA:

Gender Inequalities in Neolithic Iberia: A Multi-Proxy Approach

Carlos Quiles

Just a quick note on the “debates” (for lack of a better name) we are seeing on Iberia, which are led by (what seems like) an absolute ignorance and voluntary disregard of linguistic data on ancient Iberia. I’ll repeat it. The likely linguistic picture of Iberia based on topo-hydronymy (and then fragmentary languages), according to the latest studies on the subject (not Wikipedia maps) is as folllows: 1) [Chalcolithic] Palaeo-European (i.e. Old European, or ancient Indo-European), 2) [Bronze Age] Lusitanian in the west [Pre-Celtic language, probably remnant from a)] + Celtic in the Ebro basin and beyond + Iberian in… Read more »

Carlos Quiles

Booom! Keep ’em coming:

It may be that the Basque language actually derives from the steppe as non-Indo-European peoples expanded along with the Indo-Europeans, adopting similar cultural habits and characteristics. This is not a crazy position. The Magyars, for example, are not Turkic or Indo-European, but they adopted a lifestyle associated earlier and simultaneously with Turkic and Indo-European pastoralists.

Non-Indo-Europeans expanding from the steppe is officially not crazy anymore..

I wonder if this only applies to Yamna/Bell Beaker and R1b, tho. The Vasconic-Tyrsenian horse-riders?

Carlos Quiles

Booom! Keep ’em coming:

It may be that the Basque language actually derives from the steppe as non-Indo-European peoples expanded along with the Indo-Europeans, adopting similar cultural habits and characteristics. This is not a crazy position. The Magyars, for example, are not Turkic or Indo-European, but they adopted a lifestyle associated earlier and simultaneously with Turkic and Indo-European pastoralists.

Non-Indo-Europeans expanding from the steppe is officially not crazy anymore..

I wonder if this only applies to Yamna/Bell Beaker and R1b, tho. The Vasconic-Tyrsenian horse-riders?

Carlos Quiles

Booom! Keep ’em coming:

It may be that the Basque language actually derives from the steppe as non-Indo-European peoples expanded along with the Indo-Europeans, adopting similar cultural habits and characteristics. This is not a crazy position. The Magyars, for example, are not Turkic or Indo-European, but they adopted a lifestyle associated earlier and simultaneously with Turkic and Indo-European pastoralists.

Non-Indo-Europeans expanding from the steppe is officially not crazy anymore..

I wonder if this only applies to Yamna/Bell Beaker and R1b, tho. The Vasconic-Tyrsenian horse-riders?

Vinitharya
Vinitharya

Stop using the Iberian DNA map with location changed to back up your pet theories. And also you forgot one Indian shitstorm; that their beloved Sanskrit, which they believe to be the best and most perfect of all languages, is the descendant of a Indo-Euro-Uralic pidgin that was spoken first in a cold Siberian forest.

Chetan
Chetan

“Now try and tell Hindu nationalists that Sanskrit expanded from an Early Bronze Age steppe community of R1b-rich nomadic herders that spoke Pre-Indo-Iranian, which was dominated and eventually replaced by elite Uralic-speaking R1a peoples from the Russian forest, hence the known phonetic (and some morphological) traits that remained. Good luck with the Europhobic shitstorm ahead..”

I would have thought the addition of Uralic would “lessen the impact” so to speak. Since the Uralics are generally considered an Asian language group and would be less offensive to some? But anyway, ideally none of this should matter in a study like this.

Carlos Quiles

That’s a nice way of looking at it.

I guess it’s like showing these multiple (Central European, Mediterranean, North African) ancestries incoming in Iberia, it might smooth the image of ‘superior’ IE invaders, which is what generates the anti-steppist attitude here.

Carlos Quiles

That’s a nice way of looking at it.

I guess it’s like showing these multiple (Central European, Mediterranean, North African) ancestries incoming in Iberia, it might smooth the image of ‘superior’ IE invaders, which is what generates the anti-steppist attitude here.

Carlos Quiles

That’s a nice way of looking at it.

I guess it’s like showing these multiple (Central European, Mediterranean, North African) ancestries incoming in Iberia, it might smooth the image of ‘superior’ IE invaders, which is what generates the anti-steppist attitude here.

Chetan
Chetan

I had written a small post on my blog about IE numerals (not sure if you can call it a blog, more like a journal/diary). Do feel free to check it out !
https://archaelog.blogspot.com/2019/03/reckoning-indo-iranian-numerals-ugric.html

Carlos Quiles

That’s a nice way of looking at it.

I guess it’s like showing these multiple (Central European, Mediterranean, North African) ancestries incoming in Iberia, it might smooth the image of ‘superior’ IE invaders, which is what generates the anti-steppist attitude here.

Chetan
Chetan

I had written a small post on my blog about IE numerals (not sure if you can call it a blog, more like a journal/diary). Do feel free to check it out !
https://archaelog.blogspot.com/2019/03/reckoning-indo-iranian-numerals-ugric.html

Carlos Quiles

Very interesting, thank you. I have left a comment. If you want to read more on potential Uralic cognates, borrowings, etc. – the more eyes looking at data, the easier it is to spot something interesting like that – I recommend you, for active posters on Academia.edu, Pystynen (and also his blog), Holopainen, and Piispanen, apart from Kallio, Kümmel, Hyllested, Parpola, and other known academics interested in IE-Uralic connections. Also, the Facebook group on Proto-Indo-European has some known linguists as members, so discussions can get interesting, although it is recently being spammed by non-linguist (and even linguist) members who are… Read more »

Carlos Quiles

Very interesting, thank you. I have left a comment. If you want to read more on potential Uralic cognates, borrowings, etc. – the more eyes looking at data, the easier it is to spot something interesting like that – I recommend you, for active posters on Academia.edu, Pystynen (and also his blog), Holopainen, and Piispanen, apart from Kallio, Kümmel, Hyllested, Parpola, and other known academics interested in IE-Uralic connections. Also, the Facebook group on Proto-Indo-European has some known linguists as members, so discussions can get interesting, although it is recently being spammed by non-linguist (and even linguist) members who are… Read more »

Chetan
Chetan

I’ve made a reply to your comment on the post. I will repost it here (since no one is likely to read it there!) Thank you for the comment. I agree that a case for word contamination can be made, stronger than for pure borrowing from Proto-Ugric. Something else I found interesting from the Wiktionary for Proto-Uralic *ükte – “one” : “The Mansi and Mordvinic reflexes show no evidence of *-t- (contrast *kakta, *läkte-), which may indicate a more basic form of the root being *üke.” This is even more closer to Proto Indo-Aryan *aika I referred to your text… Read more »

Carlos Quiles

Yes, the comment about *s(u̯)á- being replaced is about strict reflexivity, and my wording is clearly misleading. If I had wanted to show an unattested form I would have used **s(u̯)á- instead, though, but this is clearly my mistake, thank you. I will correct it. Attached is one piece of the text I was referring to.

Thank you for the Dravidian link, too, I will look into it. But, a priori, the reflexive use of *tanū́- in both Indo-Aryan and Iranian, reconstructible thus for a common Proto-Indo-Iranian stage, doesn’t give the Dravidian hypothesis much strength.

Carlos Quiles

Yes, the comment about *s(u̯)á- being replaced is about strict reflexivity, and my wording is clearly misleading. If I had wanted to show an unattested form I would have used **s(u̯)á- instead, though, but this is clearly my mistake, thank you. I will correct it. Attached is one relevant piece of the text I was referring to.

Thank you for the Dravidian link, too, I will look into it. But, a priori, the reflexive use of *tanū́- in both Indo-Aryan and Iranian, reconstructible thus for a common Proto-Indo-Iranian stage, doesn’t give the Dravidian hypothesis much strength.
comment image

trackback

[…] This, which was already suspected for many populations, has been confirmed recently for Basques in Olalde et al. (2019) and will be confirmed soon for Finns with a study of the Proto-Fennic populations in the Gulf of […]

trackback

[…] Aquitanians and Iberians of haplogroup R1b are exactly like Indo-Iranians and Balto-Slavs of haplogr… […]

trackback

[…] longing for days of yore. I don’t want to spoil that fun with actual linguistic data (which I already summarized) so let’s review in the meantime one of the main Uralic-Indo-European interaction zones: […]

trackback

[…] Aquitanians and Iberians of haplogroup R1b are exactly like Indo-Iranians and Balto-Slavs of haplogr… […]

trackback

[…] confirmed by the pre-Iberian sample from Vilars I, Els Vilars4618 2672 (ca. 700-550 BC), likely of Iberian Beaker or Urnfield provenance (most likely both), showing a lineage older than the Indo-Iranian […]

trackback

[…] outlier Finno-Permic expansion R1b-L23 in Khvalynsk The origin of R1b-L51 "Siberian ancestry" Vasconic R1b = Indo-European R1a The origin of R1a-Z645 N1c-L392 a Baikalic expansion R1b-L23 – […]

trackback

[…] Aquitanians and Iberians of haplogroup R1b are exactly like Indo-Iranians and Balto-Slavs of haplogr… […]

trackback

[…] Aquitanians and Iberians of haplogroup R1b are exactly like Indo-Iranians and Balto-Slavs of haplogr… […]

trackback

[…] Aquitanians and Iberians of haplogroup R1b are exactly like Indo-Iranians and Balto-Slavs of haplogr… […]

trackback

[…] grouping related to Corded Ware ancestry from Andronovo, similar to the Celto-Ibero-Basques of elevated CEU BA ancestry and hg. R1b-P312 to the south of the Pyrenees during the Iron Age in Olalde et al. (2019), and to the […]

trackback

[…] Aquitanians and Iberians of haplogroup R1b are exactly like Indo-Iranians and Balto-Slavs of haplogr… […]

trackback

[…] about the role of I1, I2, or (more recently) R1a linked to the Proto-Indo-European expansion, R1b with Vasconic, or N1c with […]

trackback

[…] This is a comment made by the author about Krahe‘s data and his opinions, frequently used against his compiled data, which I find paradoxically applicable to Villar’s data and his tentative assignment of the relative linguistic chronology to an absolute one – including the expansion of a “Mesolithic” Indo-European vs. a “Neolithic” Basque / Iberian vs. a Bronze Age Celtic – when it is now clear that the sequence of events was much later than that: […]

trackback

[…] outlier Finno-Permic expansion R1b-L23 in Khvalynsk The origin of R1b-L51 "Siberian ancestry" Vasconic R1b = Indo-European R1a The origin of R1a-Z645 N1c-L392 a Baikalic expansion R1b-L23 – Proto-Indo-EuropeanTweets by […]

trackback

[…] outlier Finno-Permic expansion R1b-L23 in Khvalynsk The origin of R1b-L51 "Siberian ancestry" Vasconic R1b = Indo-European R1a The origin of R1a-Z645 N1c-L392 a Baikalic expansion R1b-L23 – Proto-Indo-EuropeanTweets by […]

trackback

[…] Aquitanians and Iberians of haplogroup R1b are exactly like Indo-Iranians and Balto-Slavs of haplogr… […]

trackback

[…] because of the late and different association of Corded Ware ancestry and haplogroups with both Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian, in turn corresponding to the different satemization processes found in both dialects, which may […]

trackback

[…] The Greece Neolithic outlier R1b-L23 in Khvalynsk The origin of R1b-L51 "Siberian ancestry" Vasconic R1b = Indo-European R1a The origin of R1a-Z645 N1c-L392 a Baikalic expansion R1b-L23 – Proto-Indo-EuropeanTweets by […]

trackback

[…] Aquitanians and Iberians of haplogroup R1b are exactly like Indo-Iranians and Balto-Slavs of haplogr… […]

trackback

[…] Aquitanians and Iberians of haplogroup R1b are exactly like Indo-Iranians and Balto-Slavs of haplogr… […]

trackback

[…] Aquitanians and Iberians of haplogroup R1b are exactly like Indo-Iranians and Balto-Slavs of haplogr… […]

trackback

[…] Aquitanians and Iberians of haplogroup R1b are exactly like Indo-Iranians and Balto-Slavs of haplogr… […]

trackback

[…] the relevance of its findings for the Indo-European question in an initial assessment, then in a more detailed post about its consequences, then about the arrival of Celtic languages with hg. R1b-M167, and later in combination with the […]

trackback

[…] Scepters, Horses, and War The Greece Neolithic outlier The origin of R1b-L51 "Siberian ancestry" Vasconic R1b = Indo-European R1a The origin of R1a-Z645Tweets by […]

trackback

[…] Aquitanians and Iberians of haplogroup R1b are exactly like Indo-Iranians and Balto-Slavs of haplogr… […]

trackback

[…] late, long-term admixture of Poltavka herders with incoming R1a-rich Abashevo chiefs of Corded Ware ancestry to form Sintashta-Potapovka-Filatovka, representing the transition of a […]

trackback

[…] think the Narasimhan, Patterson et al. (2019) paper is well-balanced, and surprisingly centered – as it should – on the spread of Yamnaya-related ancestry (now […]

trackback

[…] Aquitanians and Iberians of haplogroup R1b are exactly like Indo-Iranians and Balto-Slavs of haplogr… […]

trackback

[…] Aquitanians and Iberians of haplogroup R1b are exactly like Indo-Iranians and Balto-Slavs of haplogr… […]

trackback

[…] Aquitanians and Iberians of haplogroup R1b are exactly like Indo-Iranians and Balto-Slavs of haplogr… […]

Rei
Rei

Amigo Carlos, me podrías indicar cuál es la teoría de los protoceltas, como se supone que llegaron antes que los Yamna a la península??y porqué se opusieron unos a otros?

Carlos Quiles

Buenas. Tal y como parece ahora mismo: 1) Yamna perdió coherencia interna a partir de ca. 2700 BC, al mismo tiempo que se expandían asentamientos de vanguardia en Centroeuropa desde Yamna en la llanura panónica por vía del Danubio y hacia el norte en Alemania. 2) Una vez ‘transformados’ los migrantes Yamna en la cultura campaniforme oriental (una mezcla entre la cultura Yamna y el simple paquete proto-campaniforme), se expandieron como campaniformes orientales por toda Europa. Especialmente llamativo es el reemplazo poblacional en Europa Occidental. De ahí vienen los pueblos mal llamados “pre-celtas”, que se expandieron con un origen cercano… Read more »

Xabier
Xabier

This genetic study is based on obsolete linguistic concepts and diffused from the traditionalist point of view of the “Escuela de Salamanca”. 1.- For about four decades the Ligurian has been considered Celtic, from which the Celtic-Alpine languages come (cf. Delamarre, Patrizia de Bernardo, etc. and with the exception of the Escuela de Salamanca). 2.- The definition of Celt is practically linguistic (and cultural), since the so called Celts not belong to a single genetic group (cf. Stephen Leslie et alii, 2015). There are only two areas where the Greeks specifically mention the Celts: a) The Keltiké which refers to… Read more »

trackback

[…] Aquitanians and Iberians of haplogroup R1b are exactly like Indo-Iranians and Balto-Slavs of haplogr… […]

trackback

[…] Aquitanians and Iberians of haplogroup R1b are exactly like Indo-Iranians and Balto-Slavs of haplogr… […]

trackback

[…] Aquitanians and Iberians of haplogroup R1b are exactly like Indo-Iranians and Balto-Slavs of haplogr… […]