What language did ancient, blond(e)-haired peoples speak?

Question

If blond(e) hair developed between 7000BC and 8000BC, and the Indo-European language family hadn't developed/spread till starting around 4000BC...doesn't that imply that the peoples of northern climes didn't speak Germanic or Slavic or Celtic or w/e language we know today till it was finally spread up to the north by other people? If so, we can't really say the first blond(e) people were "Germanic" or "Slavic"...they were their "own" people first and didn't embrace an Indo-European language till thousands of years afterwards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8th_millennium_BC

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article735078.ece

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_Languages

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:IE5500BP.png

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:IE4500BP.png

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:IE3500BP.png

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:IE2500BP.png

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:IE1500BP.png

Answer 1

Wikipedia is not a credible source. It is just a political tool created by a

man named Jim Wales, and maintained by his hand-picked like-minded

allies. It mixes facts in with biased omissions and blatant falsehoods,

so as to deceive the people that read it.

A study by Peter Frost showed that blonde hair and blue eyes originated

in southwest Finland. The modern people of the area speak a uralic

language (which was imposed upon Finland from the east), and nearby

people in Sweden speak a germanic language (germanic languages probably

originated in southernmost Sweden). If you want to learn the language of the

original blondes, then compare the finnic language to other uralic languages,

to find what is unique about finnish. Likewise, compare swedish with other

germanic languages to find what is unique about swedish.

Answer 2

first of all, winkipedia is a non-credible source... any one could change what it says... but anyway, propr to languages like Geman and Russian, there were no formal languages, simply the forebearers, noises that developed into words.

Answer 3

bimbo

Answer 4

Sweden

Answer 5

They just grunted and squeeled. Language hadn't devoloped by then

Answer 6

I don't follow your reasoning. The blondes coexisted and continue to coexist with the brunettes in Europe. Blondes have never been seperated from Brunettes for long enough to develop a seperate language.

Answer 7

Oh My God

Answer 8

I think you might want to rephrase the question. First, I am not sure why you would suggest that blonde hair only evolved 9,000-10,000 years ago. Surely, it is a much, much older trait in humans, perhaps even 40-50 thousands years old. Second, languages are never set in stone. They evolve all the time. Therefore, a 9-10K year old language would not resemble its counterpart today. A good example of this is English. Think of how it has changed even within our lifetime, or consider how Olde English differs from modern English. Can you read Beowulf and understand it all? No, neither can I. And that's a relatively recent text compared to the time frames you are asking about. Finally, there is a real problem equating language (or culture or religion or any other sort of learned behavior) with so-called "racial" characteristics.

I would check out an introductory book on what anthropologists would call "modern human variation". Jared Diamond wrote an easy to read book called The Third Chimpanzee on the topic. I would also suggest checking out this website, created by the American Anthropological Association, which discusses some of these issues:

http://www.understandingrace.org/