GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-12 > 1291444660


From: "Lancaster-Boon" <>
Subject: [DNA] R1b and R1a fate
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 07:37:40 +0100


Dienekes

I am not sure I follow.

Are you saying Iranian is in fact NOT uncontroversially known to be a
relatively more recently language dispersal than Indo European overall?

In any case I do not know of any controversy about this and can not see how
there can be any.

Or is you point more to do with "wave upon wave" (your words) implying more
than 2 waves. My remarks only requite more than 1 wave. Iranian must have
spread, and that spread was a "wave".

Maybe you are questioning whether any wave of IE ever got to the steppes
before Iranian, but an earlier IE must also have apread as is shown by
Tocharian and loan words from early IE into Finno Ugric. What's more the
steppes are right there between all the branches of IE more generally. So
there are generally thought to be at least two waves.

Other waves might be Indo-Aryan as opposed to Iranian (an ancestor of
Iranian, but not the same; we know that such a language existed and
dispersed in a wave because in got to places as distant from each other as
Anatolia and India; I guess that leaves some question as to whether it was
on the Steppes, but that question is in any case not orthodox),

...and more tenuously the satem proposal which would be a kind of earlier
ancestor of Indo Aryan and Iranian, that was also ancestral to Baltic and
Slavic. But to repeat, this is not required for what I was suggesting in my
post.

Best Regards
Andrew

---
From: Dienekes Pontikos <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] R1b and R1a fate
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 23:00:56 +0200
References: <C28C4D8464DE4151A0217E554DEC7848@PC>
In-Reply-To: <C28C4D8464DE4151A0217E554DEC7848@PC>

That's why I said that only ONE branch of Indo-European, the Iranian
branch is attested for the steppe. That's why I don't think the
statement regarding of wave upon wave of Indo-European languages
expanding across is the steppe is not uncontroversial, and in fact I
disagree with it, for precisely the reason I mentioned.

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Lancaster-Boon
<> wrote:
> Dear Dienekes
>
> Please read my post again. I have avoided any speculation, controversial
or
> otherwise, about ORIGINS of R1a, R1b or IE languages. I have tried to
stick
> to branches. That seems to me a more solid subject to discuss.



This thread: