>>660839 Check the Basques and the proposed 'Vasconic' languages. My question is whether the Picts are a non-IE group? they predated the Celts and were eventually Celticized. Perhaps Basques are distant relatives.
We don't know a hell of a lot for certain--there are a lot of interesting data points but a lot that we can't reach firm conclusions about. We know that agriculture was not an indigenous development; it spread to Europe through a major wave of migration from Anatolia. Oetzi was a representative member of this farmer population; Sardinians are the closest population today, though not as representative as is sometimes suggested. We don't really know the origins of the Vasconic or Tyrsenian language families. Vasconic could be indigenous or could be from the Anatolian farmers. Tyrsenian could be from them as well, or could be from a later wave of migration in the Copper Age. Hard to really say as of yet.
>>660839 >My question is whether the Picts are a non-IE group? Most reputedly Pictish place-names seem to make sense as being Brythonic. Most likely they were just an offshoot of Insular Celts. WE know that there were culturally and genetically Indo-European people deep in the British Isles by 2000 BC. For a non-IE language to survive there for another 2000 years is possible, but the evidence is very faint. (Bear in mind that the Celtic expansion effected a much larger genetic turnover than something like the arrival of the Angles.) Also, Basques are hard to use as much of a proxy for anything, since they appear to have had a lot of early IE influence through the Beaker Culture.
>homo sapiens (negroes) reach the middle east and levant >they interbreed with neanderthals >thus creating cro magnon >cro magnon enters Europe >aurignacian culture >neanderthals go exinct 22 000 bc in gibraltar >solutreans >they re-populate europe as the ice age ends >this is haplogroup I (I1 and I2) >tanned skin, big heads, tall
only Scandinavians and Bosnians are largely haplogroup I the vikings spread it to several places
so Nordics are literally the only true Europeans left start hatin', anti Viking posters
>>660896 Oddly enough, there's still an argument to be made for pre-IE Pictish – or rather, for a non-IE pre-Pictish language which formed a substrate for the later Celtic inhabitants.
Most peculiar is the infamous list of kings in the Pictish Chronicle. The oldest copy dates from only the 14th century, but it's generally accepted that the original was composed in the late 10th century. Despite copying errors and poor Gaelic-Latin translations throughout the text, there are still several words and phrases that stand out as decidedly non-IE, which manuscripts in both languages conserve.
Some of the royal names, such as Canutulachama and Bliesblituth, have defied translation as Celtic, while others have only been provided with tenuous roots. Even more peculiar is the oddity which is the "Brudes list," ostensibly a listing of kings following the mythical sons of Cruithne (two of which seem to begin the list, "Gest Gurid" and "Urgest"). >brude pont >brude urpont >brude leo >brude uleo >brude gnith >brude urgnith >brude feth >brude urfeichir The listing continues like this, for fifteen iterations of "brude X, brude ur-X." While presented as simply the names of ancient kings, there is clearly some sort of grammatical construct (so far uninterpretable as Celtic or IE) involved here.
Of course there are also various personal and settlement names from classical sources, particularly from the map of Ptolemy (which notably lists clearly Celtic settlement names next to others which appear to be non-Celtic, though not necessarily non-IE), in addition to the handful of modern place names which have continued to defy translation.
>>660896 I'd also like to note that before the introduction of the (presumably Celtic) Halstatt culture sometime between the 8th and 6th centuries BC, there was no provably IE material culture in the island. There was minor Urnfield culture influence in the far south just prior, but that's about it. So no, what you said isn't what we know.
>Absolutely barbarians, see the basques for example >The Basque Autonomous Community ranks first in Spain in terms of per capita income, with gross domestic product (GDP) per capita being 40% higher than that of the European Union and 33.8% higher than Spain's average in 2010, at €31,314. Not bad.
>>661769 >there was no provably IE material culture in the island. The Beaker Culture reached the British Isles in the Bronze Age. The Beaker Culture DNA we have, both from its original heartland and from its expansions into the Isles, is skewed dramatically in the direction of Yamnaya Kurgan people. At this point it's hard to see the case that the Beaker Culture wasn't Indo-European in character.
>>667289 If both genetics and material culture are turning over dramatically (as is clear happened), linguistic change is at least likely. And, by the way, Portugal has a fairly early presence for a basal Celtic or para-Celtic IE language.
No, what I meant is that material cultures can be associated with various languages/families, not just one.
BB seems to spread South to North and West to East based on what I remember from its dating but it's a pretty broad phenomenon anyway. How does it make sense for IE to be associated with something seemingly spreading from the opposite direction?
>>668233 We've found mesolithic HG with ancestral skin color alleles which basically no one has in Europe anymore so don't be so sure.
>>668443 BB is in Central Europe as early as the 26th century BC, so an east-to-west spread seems to fit the evidence. Bear in mind that the Central European BBs and Irish BBs (the Rathlin men) both have strong genetic affinities to the Yamnaya Kurgan people. The BB distribution is also a poor match to both of the known Old European language families. Aquitaine and the present Basque Country are not especially warm spots for BB industries, and Sardinia also looks like a latecomer--not good for the Vasconic languages. Tyrsenian is a poor match as well because of the lack of BB items in Greece. I think the most parsimonious reading, by far, is that the Beaker Culture was fundamentally Indo-European. Of course it's not 100% conclusive, but there's no real reason to prefer any of the alternatives.
>>661401 Etruscans are definitely non-Indo-European but where did they come from? Their language seems to be related to Rhaetian spoken in the Alps and Lemnian in the North Aegean. I wonder if there's any evidence of Etruscan loanwords in Ancient Greek...
>>669077 Greek has a large non-IE substrate. I'm not having any luck finding papers that connect Pre-Greek (as it's called) words with Tyrsenian cognates, but I don't know of any scholarly literature on the issue.
Georgians and their language are probably the closest to the neolithic farmers and Aegean and Tyrsenian peoples. Bosnians are last remaining population to somewhat resemble the hunter gatherers with a high prominence of Haplogroup I among them. The last remaining pre-Indo European language is Basque so that should give an idea as to what the languages of the stone age were like.
>>671920 >The last remaining pre-Indo European language is Basque so that should give an idea as to what the languages of the stone age were like. huh? while western dinarics have large amount of pre-indo-european dna, it is far from most. Most simmilar are far northern populations like scandianavians and baltics.
>>671920 >Georgians and their language are probably the closest to the neolithic farmers and Aegean and Tyrsenian peoples. The Caucasus appears to be quite different genetically from the European Farmer population, which seems to have its roots in Anatolia. >Bosnians are last remaining population to somewhat resemble the hunter gatherers with a high prominence of Haplogroup I among them. Although there's a concentration of haplogroup I in the former Yugoslavia, it's also common in a number of other regions in Europe, and autosomal DNA suggests that Bosnia is not particularly indigenous in character. >The last remaining pre-Indo European language is Basque so that should give an idea as to what the languages of the stone age were like. The Vasconic languages only appear in the historical record in the southwestern corner of Europe; we have no evidence that they were ever spoken across the rest of the continent.
>>671957 Ötzi the Iceman belongs to haplogroup G. Given some opinions that the neolthic famers weren't too keen on mixing with hunter gatherers, they probably maintained some degree of genetic uniformity. It's not farfetched to think that at one time these peoples were spread over a large territory in the same way later bronze age peoples had managed to spread out. Not to mention that all these groups stem from roughly the same geographical area so this adds support to the genetic relativity between these peoples. They certainly didn't appear out of thin air or after the Indo-European expansion.
>>671996 >Given some opinions that the neolthic famers weren't too keen on mixing with hunter gatherers But that's dead wrong. There are any number of ancient remains showing farmer/HG admixture in old Europe. And we know that modern Caucasus peoples and the European Neolithic farmers were dramatically different in autosomal DNA--a coincidence of y-DNA in one modern Caucasus group (not shared by most others) doesn't mean much of anything. Please do some research of your own. There's been a lot of movement in this field in the last couple of years.
Of course genetic admixture is certainly possible but it still doesn't dispel the visible trends. I didn't say they were directly descended, but they are the closest or most similar; the last remaining descendants of a relative group. Like I said they didn't appear out of thin air and their genetics do not point in any other direction.
>>672084 No, you're dead wrong. We have autosomal DNA from the Old European farmers. Georgians aren't the closest modern population, not by a long shot--Sardinians are far closer, and most Southern Europeans are comparably close. The presence of G2a in Georgians who are otherwise similar genetically to non-G2a Caucasus populations represents a Y-DNA introgression, not an identity with a Stone Age population in another area. You really need to get over this Y-DNA fixation and get a handle on the autosomal DNA evidence (which is not hard to do--scroll through the archives of any decent population genetics blog). >>672152 Those articles don't say anything except that Kartvelian is one of several wild guesses that have been made.
croats and bosnians are the exact same people, muslim bosnians just have percentage of turk in them, but even that is negligable, most difference is just based on local phenotypal difference, and theres lots of that in the balkans cauze populations were fairly isolated geographicaly and most people were dependent to the land so didnt move a bout much other than as refugees, which is how most serbs came west of drina
>>672242 J2 is strongly concentrated on the mountainous belt in the northern Middle East. It's pretty old, probably widespread for a long time, and it doesn't really have a strong association with any linguistic or cultural group beyond that. J1 is mostly associated with the Semitic peoples, but, again, is old and has probably been dispersed for a long time. >>673109 R1b1a2/R-M269 (the dominant subclade in Europe) spread from the Kurgan culture. Some other subclades show different patterns--e.g. R1b1c/R-V88 is mostly associated with Afro-Asiatic language speakers. R1b outside those two sublineages is fairly rare, but mostly seems to be Siberian/Central Asian/northern Middle Eastern.
>>673404 Genetic drift, in part – though doubtless there were other factors that we can only guess at.
Imagine the first group to ride in on horseback to that region – even if their horses all die in a generation, the social dominance they might establish would favor their direct lineage for some time. And if one of their descendants is particularly successful/rapey, you might see that lineage get an extra boost.
Or maybe this particular lineage was just lucky at having sons that lived, and at some point a war decimated the men of surrounding tribes – even though the full genetic contribution of a single R1b carrier would be vanishingly small, due to the direct way the Y chromosome is passed down you'd see the man's mark spread wide across the region, even if the autosomal genetics of the people are otherwise entirely native.
Think of Y haplogroups like a surname, they follow the same inheritance pattern. Assuming no gaps or name changes – if your direct paternal ancestor 500 years ago had the surname Arwunbee, you would have that name today. How much of your genetics would be inherited from him? Assuming four generations per century, he would make up .5^20 of your genetic code, or .000095 percent.
I probably screwed up the numbers but you get the point.
Anyway, someone with R1b would necessarily be the descendant of the original bearer, but it gets complicated after that. All it means for sure is that at some point, someone (most likely multiple someones) with that lineage migrated to the area. They wouldn't necessarily be of the "R1b culture," anymore than a modern Nigerian on your map would be, just descendants of someone in it.
R1b and R1a in particular tend to map quite well to the spread of IE language and culture... but of course genetic drift just confuses that all if you try to unite it into one unified pattern. As in your example, which doesn't particularly conform to one language group or culture, or any known historical migration or event.
>>673730 I haven't heard anything about it being that old, but I do know that R1b1c is generally considered to be predate Islamic expansion into the area. That would mean it predates the introduction of cavalry warfare, but not necessarily the horse.
It doesn't really matter though, I was just listing those examples to show how a certain haplotype might become established in an area non-contiguous with the rest of the haplogroup.
Basically, circumstance and genetic drift, or mass migration and long-term contact.
Sardinians may be closer to the particular subclade found in the known neolithic remains but it is no more distant from Georgians than western IEs are from eastern IEs. Your dead wrong if you exclude the likeliness of any possible relation between these people and Georgia is one of the last places to preserve a non Indo-European language unlike the Sardinians and other southern Europeans so it's probably the best candidate for something similar to the languages of the neolithic, Aegean and Tyrsenian peoples. If not; from where do you propose that South Caucasian languages and peoples are derived? Not to mention the fact that there is no consensus on the linguistic relationship between all the Caucasian languages so the Kartvelian languages may very will be a distinct group.
>>673890 Modern southern Europeans have heavy Kurgan-like autosomal admixture. They're nothing close to a case of simple Y-haplogroup introgression. I'm not talking about G2a subclades. I'm talking about autosomal DNA, which is a far more powerful and holistic tool for assessing genetic relationships. Drop the uniparental stuff and look at autosomal DNA. Sardinians are a better proxy for the Old European farmers than Georgians are. You can see this quickly and clearly with any tool for analyzing autosomal DNA that you like.
As for language families, I don't know the long-term connections of Kartvelian or Tyrsenian or Vasconic, and neither do you. There's certainly no linguistic evidence that suggests a close connection between any of them (and people have driven themselves mad looking for some).
>>673890 The language groups of the Caucasus are actually quite well established – Kartvelian, NE and NW Caucasian are accepted as three quite separate families. There's some debate on their origins, for example NE Caucasian is sometimes considered to have its origins in the region of the Armenian highlands in the south of the Caucasus, but it's all within a fairly restricted zone.
We know that Kartvelian speakers have inhabited the region since pre-classical times, as they were firmly established by the time of their 12th century BC documentation by the Assyrians. Considering the evidence of very ancient lexical contact with the proto-indoeuropean language, it would be safe to assume that they bordered the indoeuropean urheimat. Since that's generally accepted to be the steppe above the Caucasus, the Kartvelian languages are exactly where they should be.
Genetically as well, when we look at the complete genomes we see these people grouped more-or-less geographically, with the major difficulties of terrain (such as the Caucasus range and Black Sea) registering as a degree of relative genetic distance between the populations.
Quite frankly, saying that Kartvelian was the language of Old Europe isn't just a stretch, it's plain lazy. All you're doing is tacking on the closest non-IE language to fill in the gap left by Vasconic in the East. In that same sense, assuming that Vasconic was ubiquitous in western Europe prior to Indo-European is intellectual laziness as well.
As for the haplotype argument, that's pretty weak. It may be one of the easiest bits of the genome to track and map, but it also tells us the least about the genotype as a whole.
>>674251 Well, their nationality would be French, and I think few Corsicans would be displeased with that statement. I don't know whether the majority see themselves as part of the French people or part of the Italian people, or neither. Their language is Corsican, and part of the broader Italian family. Culturally they are much closer to Italy than to France.
Provincially and linguistically, I would think they'd identify as Corsican, and culturally/historically as part of the Corsican people.
So ethnically they'd be Corsican, I'd think. Likely to identify nationally with France (as they seem to be quite comfortable in that arrangement), and culturally with the Italians... but from what I've seen, they seem to have a pretty strong sense of their own "Corsican" identity.
Keep in mind that only 56% of Corsica is "native" and only ~65% and 10% know some Corsican or are native speakers, respectively. So I'm just talking about native Corsicans, as I would expect the (mostly continental French) immigrants to identify more as ethnically French.
>>674848 You're acting like no real effort has gone into them, and that's simply not true. Comparing it to the academic juggernaut which is Indo-European studies is simply unfair. While the internal structure of, for example, NE Caucasian is still somewhat amorphous, there's no debate about which languages belong in which families – really the only digression is the "North Caucasian" family theory, and that has almost no support and is almost entirely based on non-fundamental areal similarities.
Calling Northeast Caucasian by that name is no different than, say, Indo-European, Nilo-Saharan, or Tibeto-Burman. So technically yes, the name does come from the region.
Linguists didn't just look at a map of the Caucasus and draw a line down the middle, arbitrarily proclaiming everything on the west to be "Northwest Caucasian" and everything on the east to be "Northeast Caucasian." Come on.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.