Indo-European Urheimat in light of the DNA-Genealogy

[Proto-Shaman]

Theories of “Indo-European Urheimat” in light of the DNA-Genealogy

"Amazingly, all four main hypotheses localizing the “Indo-European homeland”, namely “Circumpontic localization”, “Kurgan”, “Anatolian”, and “Neolithic gap” turned out to be wrong at their core. They could not explain the direction of “Indo-Europeans”, including the path towards the India; they could not explain the timing of their movement and what preceded that movement; they were unable to point the location of the “pra-homeland” and where from the “Pra-Indo-Europeans” appeared there, especially since (the fallacious) notion of “primordial homeland” does not contain the previous localization, which is fundamentally wrong; they could not explain the prolonged contact of the “Proto-Indo-Europeans” with other language families (Kartvelian, North Caucasus, Semitic, Pra-Türkic), which clearly occurred in the 3rd and 2nd millenniums, when the carriers of the haplogroup R1a1 reached the Caucasus about 4,500 years ago, reached the Near East around 3,800-3,600 years ago, and reached the territories of the ancient Pit Grave Culture, Andronovo Culture, and Central Asia, with their probable Türkic-lingual population (haplogroup R1b1) approximately 4,000-3,600 years ago."

"The striations of the linguistic and haplogroup, or tribal (in terms of DNA genealogy) in the Eastern European Plain, in the Near East, and in Europe has led to erroneous linguistic and archaeological concepts such as the “Indo-European Kurgan Culture”, with its transposed languages (postulated” Indo-European”, when it was a Türkic language), the wrong direction of movement (the “Proto-Indo-European” was moving eastward, not westward, the Türkic was moving westward, the westward movement was seen by the creators and supporters of the “Kurgan Culture” as the “Indo-European movement, which was 180 degrees wrong), wrong periods (the Proto-Indo-European language advanced eastward across the Eastern European Plain in the 3rd millennium BC, while the ancient Pit Grave, or the “Kurgan” culture is mainly dated by the period of the 4th-3rd millenniums BC, and were moving westward)."

"Something similar also happened to the “Anatolian theory”, where a separate (So.Caucasian) branch of the Aryans' route, the southward movement of the R1a1 haplogroup carriers across the Eastern European Plain was mistaken for the “Indo-European homeland” in Anatolia. That led to a conceptual distortion and misunderstanding of the fundamental role of the Türkic languages in the Eastern European Plain (at least from the time 10,000 years ago), and in Europe, where it continued for two and a half thousand years (from the beginning of the 3rd millennium to the middle of the 1st millennium BC)."

Anatole A. Klyosov: Journal of Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy (ISSN 1942-7484), 2010, Vol. 3, No 1, pp. 3 - 58 (http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/Klyosov2010DNK-GenealogyEn.htm)

[Petros Houhoulis]

The trouble is that Klyosov is not a linguist but a geneticist... He doesn't understand shit about linguistics, and he wants to have an opinion!!!

[Proto-Shaman]

The trouble is that Klyosov is not a linguist but a geneticist... He doesn't understand shit about linguistics, and he wants to have an opinion!!!
Sometimes linguists are unmasked by DNA-Genealogy. Let's wait for further investigations.

[Jaska]

Sometimes linguists are unmasked by DNA-Genealogy. Let's wait for further investigations.
No, genetics can never disprove linguistics, and linguistics can never disprove genetics. Do you know why? Because they study different objects, which have no mutual dependency!

You should read this at last:
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Uralic.html

It is about Uralic, but the very same pseudo-arguments are seen in Indo-European conversation, too. Like Alinei, Renfrew etc. who have no understanding about the differences between language, genes and archaeological remains.

[Proto-Shaman]

No, genetics can never disprove linguistics, and linguistics can never disprove genetics. Do you know why? Because they study different objects, which have no mutual dependency!

You should read this at last:
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Uralic.html

It is about Uralic, but the very same pseudo-arguments are seen in Indo-European conversation, too. Like Alinei, Renfrew etc. who have no understanding about the differences between language, genes and archaeological remains.
If linguistics say A, but genetics say B. Who is right?

[Albion]

So where did Indo-European come from then?

[Proto-Shaman]

So where did Indo-European come from then?
Central-East Europe.

[Albion]

Central-East Europe.

Ukraine?

[blogen]

If linguistics say A, but genetics say B. Who is right?

Mostly the linguistics.

[Vesuvian Sky]

Ukraine?

Yes basically.

Which is still wellllll in accordance with the Pontic-Caspian theory or 'Kurgan culture' theory, which that 2010 paper by Kylosov did not unequivocally prove obsolete but for some reason the OP insists on throwing out every once in a while as if its something all that new or enlightening (:rolleyes:). Linguistic palenotology still supports Kurgan theory. Period.

Also, the 2013 Haak et al. paper does show genetic introduction from the east into Central Europe theoretically during the time of the CWC:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6155/257/F3.large.jpg

The story is turning out to be quite nuanced. Which prehistoric archaeology of Europe suggests and is only to be expected:


In the Late Neolithic, we identify two independent events (C and D), each associated with major contemporary Pan-European phenomena. Event C (~2800 cal BCE) is marked by the emergence of the CWC (movie S1), whose subgroups were widespread across Central and Eastern Europe (fig. S2) (2–4). The CWC is characterized by haplogroups I and U2 (4.6%), which are new maternal elements in Mittelelbe-Saale (Fig. 1C and fig. S3) and appear alongside other Late Neolithic/EBA lineages such as T1 (6.8%) and hunter-gatherer haplogroups U4 and U5 (20.5%), whereas Early/Middle Neolithic haplogroups further decrease (45.5%) (Fig. 3). The binomial probability that we missed I and U2 in 211 individuals of preceding cultures is very low (P = 0.00). Haplogroup U2 has been reported exclusively from Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Bronze Age samples from Russia (17–19), and PCA and cluster analyses reveal similarities of the CWC to two ancient Kurgan groups of South Siberia (19) and Kazakhstan (20) (Fig. 1, C and D), in which haplogroups I, U2, and T1 are frequent (18.2 to 37.5%) (table S9). Intriguingly, the Y chromosomal haplogroup R1a1a, frequent in ancient Siberian populations (19), has previously been detected in our CWC data set (21), suggesting additional paternal genetic links to Kurgan cultures. Together with the affinities of the CWC to present-day populations of Eastern Europe, the Baltics, and the Caucasus (figs. S4G to S7G), this suggests a genetic influx into Central Europe from the East, likely influenced by Kurgan cultures (movie S1) (2, 3).

Source (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6155/257.full)

[Proto-Shaman]

Mostly the linguistics.
And if genetics say that C is geneticaly part of family A, but linguistics says: no, they do not belong to us but they share our DNA. Who is then right?

[Proto-Shaman]

Yes basically.

Which is still wellllll in accordance with the Pontic-Caspian theory or 'Kurgan culture' theory, which that 2010 paper by Kylosov did not unequivocally prove obsolete but for some reason the OP insists on throwing out every once in a while as if its something all that new or enlightening (:rolleyes:). Linguistic palenotology still supports Kurgan theory. Period.
You can't set a period here, since the Anatolian hypothesis shares at least the same degree of support as the Kurgan theory. It looks more like this:

http://alterling2.narod.ru/English/Maps/IfutLtzEn.PNG

[blogen]

And if genetics say that C is geneticaly part of family A, but linguistics says: no, they do not belong to us but they share our DNA. Who is then right?

Linguistics. The languages do not have genes, the languages spread in the heads.

[HellLander87]

Klyosov doesn't count as either genetic genealogist or linguist.
The man is a bullshitologist.

[Proto-Shaman]

Linguistics. The languages do not have genes, the languages spread in the heads.
So why Turks belong to the Altaic group then without having any genetic kinship with Japanese and Koreans?

[Proto-Shaman]

Klyosov doesn't count as either genetic genealogist or linguist.
The man is a bullshitologist.
Thank you for your opionion :rolleyes:

[blogen]

So why Turks belong to the Altaic group then without having any genetic kinship with Japanese and Koreans?

Altaic languages do not exist. The Altaic language family was only an unproved hypothesis.

[Proto-Shaman]

Altaic languages do not exist. The Altaic language family was only an unproved hypothesis.
I know this. But this doesn't change the fact that most scholars (not a majority) are in favour to classify Turkic within Altaic. The question is why?

[Vesuvian Sky]

You can't set a period here, since the Anatolian hypothesis shares at least the same degree of support as the Kurgan theory. It looks more like this:

http://alterling2.narod.ru/English/Maps/IfutLtzEn.PNG


What was espoused in the Anatolian Hypo. was severly flawed from day one. I should know, I went through all of Renfrews initial presentation of it in his book. It was shit and didn't make a damn bit of sense. He managed to mangle the linguistics behind it thoughroughly. His re-presentation of it in the JIES was equally flawed. The Garmkrelidze and Ivanov version of it is also based on more dubious garbage. The people who pull for this theory still do so because they either

a) simply don't know any better (aka know anything about linguistic time depth theory or have gone through all the literature up-to-date)
b) its 'simple' enough so it just makes sense (farming and farmers = IE...:rolleyes:)

or

c) simply don't like the Kurgan theory and pull for the next best thing which throughout its various manifestatiosn has been shit (:rolleyes:)

Basically, it only has support to those who don't know any better.

[blogen]

I know this. But this doesn't change the fact that most scholars (not a majority) are in favour to classify Turkic within Altaic. The question is why?

Which scholars?

[blogen]

What was espoused in the Anatolian Hypo. was severly flawed from day one.

The divided theory the only real theory because of the European continuity of the archaeological cultures (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?103709-Proto-Indo-Europeans(Aryans)&p=2148663&viewfull=1#post2148663). These continous archaeological cultures were the fundation of the historical Indoeuropean cultures.

[Vesuvian Sky]

The divided theory the only real theory because of the European continuity of the archaeological cultures (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?103709-Proto-Indo-Europeans(Aryans)&p=2148663&viewfull=1#post2148663). These continous archaeological cultures were the fundation of the historical Indoeuropean cultures.

According to who? Gramkrelidze et al.? Some model by Atkinson-Grey? Internet keyboard forum warriors who do incomplete literature reviews (:rolleyes:)?


When will be the Kurgan theory extinct finally...

Never.

Its inheritantly stronger in presenation and theory then any farming theory or mixed/dual origins nonsense.

[blogen]

According to who? Gramkrelidze et al.? Some model by Atkinson-Grey? Internet keyboard forum warriors who do incomplete literature reviews (:rolleyes:)?

For example the archeological evidences of the continuity between the Starčevo-Körös and the LBK (http://epa.oszk.hu/01600/01613/00010/pdf/zm_10_2001_45-52.pdf) from Hungary:
"artifacts implied the typical characteristics of the Starcevo culture and the early LBK and these characteristics often on a pot visible"

This was a continuous history from the early Balkan neolithic (Karanovo) to the first historical Indoeuropean cultures. And the Hungarian and the Polish plain was the western border of the Kurgan expansions since the Chalcolithic. So the Indoeuropaization of considerable areas are not solved if the Eastern European steppe is the urheimat. But if the Indoeuropeans were part of the Balkan neolithic (steppe population = only Indoiranians) and the Central European cultural continuity is the spread of the Old Europeans, than everything is fine.

[Tanais]

Lets imagine Kurgan hyphothesis is the right originof Indo-Europeans. There comes one thought into question. Why Etruscans were not Indo-European? This doesn't fit into the model. If they weren't Indo-European, who were they?

[Vesuvian Sky]

For example the archeological evidences of the continuity between the Starčevo-Körös and the LBK (http://epa.oszk.hu/01600/01613/00010/pdf/zm_10_2001_45-52.pdf) from Hungary:
"artifacts implied the typical characteristics of the Starcevo culture and the early LBK and these characteristics often on a pot visible"

This was a continuous history from the early Balkan neolithic (Karanovo) to the first historical Indoeuropean cultures. And the Hungarian and the Polish plain was the western border of the Kurgan expansions since the Chalcolithic. So the Indoeuropaization of considerable areas are not solved if the Eastern European steppe is the urheimat. But if the Indoeuropeans were part of the Balkan neolithic (steppe population = only Indoiranians) and the Central European cultural continuity is the spread of the Old Europeans, than everything is fine.

The Balkan Neolithic is not considered 'indingenous'. Certainly not to all but only the most delusional think its totally indigenous. I should know, I've put trowel to earth in the Old World, reviewed the literature extensively, know the material culture and worked with these people. Furthermore, your genetic continuity notion for central Europe has recently been obliterated by Haak et al.

Everything is quite fine for the Kurgan culture, but in quite the dismay for your Anatolian.

[Vesuvian Sky]

Lets imagine Kurgan hyphothesis is the right originof Indo-Europeans. There comes one thought into question. Why Etruscans were not Indo-European? This doesn't fit into the model. If they weren't Indo-European, who were they?

Etruscan is a heavily creolized language. It has many linguistic strata to it but hardly any evidence of it being firmly Indo-European. The population was almost certainly a mix of pre-agricultural elements, plus immigrant Neolithic farmers, plus a later source. All of which were almost certainly, non-IE.

[blogen]

The Balkan Neolithic is not considered 'indingenous'.

No, not. They come from Anatolia.


Certainly not to all but only the most delusional think its total indigenous. I should know, I've put trowel to earth in the Old World, reviewed the literature extensively, know the material culture and worked with these people. Furthermore, your genetic continuity notion for central Europe has recently been obliterated by Haak et al.

Haak obliterated nothing. He showed the inner mixing of the distant European groups. For example:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6155/257/F3.large.jpg

The late neolithic/EBA is identical with the spread of Balkan origin groups in the Carpathian basin (strong new Mediterranid strain in the Pécel culture, etc) or the expansion of the Funnelbaker and Corded Ware mixed HG+neolithic cultures were the origin of the strengthening of HG genes, etc. Nothing new.

[Vesuvian Sky]

No, not. They come from Anatolia.

'No ,not' what? No 'you have not any' idea what your talking about?




Haak obliterated my constant espousing of complete genetic continuity in Europe that I constantly keep pushing here in good old internet land..

fixed.

[blogen]

'No ,not' what? No 'you have not any' idea what your talking about?

The Balkan neolithic come from Anatolia.


fixed.

You insist on a unreal theory, what is in a conflict with your own sources (Haak for example). :D

[Vesuvian Sky]

The Balkan neolithic come from Anatolia.

Congratulations, you finally said something right.:thumb001:




I insist on a unreal theory,
Fixed.


...what is in a conflict with your own sources (Haak for example). :D

More like what is in congruence with your constant spinning of the Anatolian hypo.? The answer: nothing.

It was a mess since day one and your mincing and mixing of data sources does not do anything more to validate it.

[blogen]

Circumlocution what you do, but this is the facts, the basic outline of the European prehistory and the first proven Indoeuropeans (yes, there are more, but without early evidences or fundamental continuity):

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/8729/79fs.jpg

The Hallstatt culture originates from the not Kurgan influenced zone and the Greeks and Anatolians too! There are no Kurgan people settling on this area. For example the Hungarian Pit-grave culture is synchronous with the appearance of the Proto-European type in Eastern Hungary. But only in Eastern Hungary and this is true for the later invasions too! The line of Danube is a border between the Old European cultures and the Eastern influenced (Vatya culture for example) or directly Eastern cultures. The Celts do not have eastern background, yes there were some element in their culture, but without eastern ethnic connection.

The Kurgan theory fails on this, on the deficiency of the ethnic contact or considerable cultural presence.

The Kurgan influenced zones:
- Eastern part of the Corded Ware (probably Balts and Slavs)
- Eastern part of the Balkan origin cultures (probably Thracians)

[Proto-Shaman]

What was espoused in the Anatolian Hypo. was severly flawed from day one. I should know, I went through all of Renfrews initial presentation of it in his book. It was shit and didn't make a damn bit of sense. He managed to mangle the linguistics behind it thoughroughly. His re-presentation of it in the JIES was equally flawed. The Garmkrelidze and Ivanov version of it is also based on more dubious garbage. The people who pull for this theory still do so because they either

a) simply don't know any better (aka know anything about linguistic time depth theory or have gone through all the literature up-to-date)
b) its 'simple' enough so it just makes sense (farming and farmers = IE...:rolleyes:)

or

c) simply don't like the Kurgan theory and pull for the next best thing which throughout its various manifestatiosn has been shit (:rolleyes:)

Basically, it only has support to those who don't know any better.
I agree with your points absolutely, in every sense. But the Proto-Indo-European language advanced eastward across the Eastern European Plain in the 3rd millennium BC, while the ancient Pit Grave, or the "Kurgan" culture is mainly dated by the period of the 4th-3rd millenniums BC, and were moving westward. Even this circumstance is not consistent with Indo-Europeans at all. The main problems are that there is:

* no certain explanation of the direction of “Indo-Europeans”, including the path towards the India;
* no certain explanation of the timing of their movement and what preceded that movement;
* no certain explanation of the location of the “pra-homeland” and where from the “Pra-Indo-Europeans” appeared there;
* no certain explanation of the the prolonged contact of the “Proto-Indo-Europeans” with other language families (Kartvelian, North Caucasus, Semitic, Pra-Türkic), which clearly occurred in the 3rd and 2nd millenniums, when the carriers of the haplogroup R1a1 reached the Caucasus about 4,500 years ago, reached the Near East around 3,800-3,600 years ago, and reached the territories of the ancient Pit Grave Culture, Andronovo Culture, and Central Asia, with their probable Türkic-lingual population (haplogroup R1b1) approximately 4,000-3,600 years ago.

[Vesuvian Sky]

mangling theories and creating straw men and misleading people is what I do,.

fixed.


but this is the facts,


you rarely discuss facts. rather, you always discuss vague theoretically notions that have hardly any merit.





The Hallstatt culture originates from the not Kurgan influenced zone and the Greeks and Anatolians too!

The Halstatt culture is thousands of years removed from the primary pre-historic cultural impetuses related to the debate. Postulating that it alone disproves or proves a single theory is utter nonsense.



There are no Kurgan people settling on this area.

Haak et al 2013 suggest otherwise using genetics. You suggest otherwise using your own twisted logic.



For example the Hungarian Pit-grave culture.

Its called Yamna, Yamnaya, Pit-grave or sometimes even Kurgan culture simply. No need to try and nationalize it here.


is synchronous with the appearance of the Proto-European type in Eastern Hungary. But only in Eastern Hungary this is true for the later invasions too! The line of Danube is a border between the Old European cultures and the Eastern influenced (Vatya culture for example) or directly Eastern cultures..

And those 'borders' which you imagine were transgressed many times over the long duree.


The Celts do not have eastern background...

In what terms are you speaking of? In line with the Kurgan culture? Well then you negate yourself here:


yes there were some element in their culture,.



but without eastern ethnic connection. .

What eastern ethnic connection? To the Kurgan culture? To the DNA of a certain ethnicity? What are you getting at here? Talk about being vague or using circumlocution.:rolleyes:


The Kurgan theory fails on this, on the deficiency of the ethnic contact or considerable cultural presence.

On what? The origins of the Halstatt culture? That's poor logic. You seem highly confused.

[blogen]

no certain explanation of the direction of “Indo-Europeans”, including the path towards the India;

Not true. There are lot of archeological evidence of the Andronovo conquest of the BMAC for example and the Gandhara grave culture is a direct connection to this conquested post-BMAC culture!

[Proto-Shaman]

Not true. There are lot of archeological evidence of the Andronovo conquest of the BMAC for example and the Gandhara grave culture is a direct connection to this conquested post-BMAC culture!
Andronovos were mainly Proto-Turks. After the intricate analysis performed between the 1950's and 1990's by many archaeologists, particularly Salnikov (1967), Zdanovich, Matveyev, Kuzmina (1977), Potemkina (1985), etc, "Andronovo" cannot be regarded as a single unity, but rather as a conglomeration of several West Siberian cultures of the 2nd millennium BCE with quite indefinite temporal and geographical limits.

[Vesuvian Sky]

* no certain explanation of the direction of “Indo-Europeans”, including the path towards the India;.


The Gandhara grave culture emerged c. 1600 BC, and flourished in Gandhara, which lies in modern day Pakistan and Afghanistan c. 1500 BC to 500 BC (i.e. possibly up to the time of Pāṇini).

Relevant finds, artifacts found primarily in graves, were distributed along the banks of the Swat and Dir rivers in the north, Taxila in the southeast, along the Gomal River to the south. The pottery finds show clear links with contemporary finds from southern Central Asia (BMAC) and the Iranian Plateau. Simply made terracotta figurines were buried with the pottery, and other items are decorated with simple dot designs. Horse remains were found in at least one burial.

The Gandhara grave people have been associated by most scholars with early Indo-Aryan speakers, and the Indo-Aryan migration into the Indian Subcontinent, that, fused with indigenous elements of the remnants of the Indus Valley Civilization (OCP, Cemetery H), gave rise to the Vedic Civilization.

The Gandhara grave culture people shared biological affinities with the population of Neolithic Mehrgarh, which suggests a "biological continuum" between the ancient populations of Timargarha and Mehrgarh.[1] This is however not the opinion of Elena E. Kuz'mina, who notes remains similar to some from Central Asian populations.

Asko Parpola (1993: 54), argues that the Gandhara grave culture is "by no means identical with the Bronze Age Culture of Bactria and Margiana". Tulsa (1977: 690-692) argues that this culture and its "new contributions" are "nevertheless in line with the cultural traditions of the previous period", and remarks that "to attribute a historical value to ... the slender links with northwestern Iran and northern Afghanistan ... is a mistake", since "it could well be the spread of particular objects and, as such, objects that could circulate more easily quite apart from any real contacts." Antonini (1973), Stacul and other scholars argue that this culture is not related with the Beshkent culture of Kyrgyzstan and Vakhsh culture of Tajikistan (Bryant 2001). However, E. Kuz'mina, in her book "The origin of the Indo-Iranians, volume 3" (2007) argues the opposite on the basis of both archeology and the human remains from the sepultures.
In the centuries preceding the Gandhara culture, during the Early Harappan period (roughly 3200–2600 BCE), similarities in pottery, seals, figurines, ornaments etc. document intensive caravan trade between the Indian Subcontinent and Central Asia and the Iranian plateau.[3]



* no certain explanation of the timing of their movement and what preceded that movement;

See Anthony 2007.



* no certain explanation of the location of the “pra-homeland” and where from the “Pra-Indo-Europeans” appeared there;;

Anthony, 2007



* no certain explanation of the the prolonged contact of the “Proto-Indo-Europeans” with other language families (Kartvelian, North Caucasus, Semitic, Pra-Türkic), which clearly occurred in

Anthony 2007.

Everything will always be theoretical due to the inherent nature of the debate. But there are perfectly good explanations of things that are in line w/ the Kurgan culture.

[blogen]

fixed.

The trolling is boring.


Haak et al 2013 suggest otherwise using genetics. You suggest otherwise using your own twisted logic.

Where? :D


Its called Yamna, Yamnaya, Pit-grave or sometimes even Kurgan culture simply. No need to try and nationalize it here.

We called gödörsíros kultúra (Pit-grave culture)


In what terms are you speaking of? In line with the Kurgan culture? Well then you negate yourself here:
On what? The origins of the Halstatt culture? That's poor logic. You seem highly confused.

A German from the Bavarian homeland, German luxury car riders conquered this land recently and they formed an elite over the local Dubai peoples and assimilated them:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-12/16/xin_27212061611354843205124.jpg

This is a clear cultural connection. ;)

Some elements (rich burial traditions) of the Kurgan culture spread not the Kurgan peoples.


And those 'borders' which you imagine were transgressed many times over the long duree.
What eastern ethnic connection? To the Kurgan culture? To the DNA of a certain ethnicity? What are you getting at here? Talk about being vague or using circumlocution.:rolleyes:

Proto-Europid racial presence from the Kurgan culture, than in Eastern Hungary when the Pit-grave artifacts connected to the Proto-Europid conquerors.

[blogen]

Andronovos were mainly Proto-Turks. After the intricate analysis performed between the 1950's and 1990's by many archaeologists, particularly Salnikov (1967), Zdanovich, Matveyev, Kuzmina (1977), Potemkina (1985), etc, "Andronovo" cannot be regarded as a single unity, but rather as a conglomeration of several West Siberian cultures of the 2nd millennium BCE with quite indefinite temporal and geographical limits.

Then the contemporary Indians speak an Turkic language. :D

And yes, the Andronovo based on various West Siberian cultures, mainly on Uralic cultures. The Androvo culture was an synthesis between these cultures and the Yamna settlers/conquerors from West from the Altai. The Eastern Altaic Andronovo+local connection maybe effected the proto-Turkic peoples.

[Vesuvian Sky]

The trolling is boring.


So is explaining all your logic fallacies.





We called gödörsíros kultúra (Pit-grave culture)


Super.:thumb001:



A German from the Bavarian homeland, German luxury car riders conquered this land recently and they formed an elite over the local and assimilated them:

This is a clear cultural connection. ;)


Some elements (rich burial traditions) of the Kurgan culture spread not the Kurgan peoples.

I've cited plenty sources that have shown cultural and genetic influence from Kurgan culture people. Your analogy is of little use here. Furthermore, one could easily say spread of neolithic cultural horizons associated with farming at best only show cultural influence yet does not prove linguistic change. Especially when the linguistic paleontology is not behind farming hypo.

So what's your 'real' or underlying point here?

Does Kurganid dudes crossing the 'border' you imagine hurt your feelings in any way?
:D;)

[Äike]

So where did Indo-European come from then?

Either Central-Asia or the Middle-East.

[Äike]

You can't set a period here, since the Anatolian hypothesis shares at least the same degree of support as the Kurgan theory. It looks more like this:

http://alterling2.narod.ru/English/Maps/IfutLtzEn.PNG

That's a completely BS map.

There are 2 main probable theories about Finno-Ugrians.

Main-stream textbook theory, we came from modern-day Eastern-Europe, the Volga river area, spreading west to Northern-Europe and eastwards to Siberia.

Finns and Estonians have lived here where we live, since 4000BC, for the past 6000 years. We lived here when Indo-europeans still weren't in Europe. Indo-Europeans are Asian invaders compared to us.

[blogen]

I've cited plenty sources that have shown cultural and genetic influence from Kurgan culture people.

Sorry but not. Where are the Proto-Europid Kurgan peoples on the Old-European area? That Kurgan genes carried these peoples. And these peoples are arrived with the Kurgan culture to the real Kurgan conquered area, for example to Eastern Hungary.

Or these genes spread without carriers? ;)


Your analogy is of little use here. Furthermore, one could easily say spread of neolithic cultural horizons associated with farming at best only show cultural influence yet does not prove liis nguistic change. Especially when the linguistic paleontology is not behind farming hypo.

There are a strong difference between the Indoeuropean and the Indoiranian agricultural and other special terms (metal names, etc.), even the name of the horse (ḱers/ekwo)! The Iranians did not take a part in the forming of the terminology of the agriculture (Harmatta). Two separated lingual group existed with a transition zone (Balto-Slav and Thracian languages).


Does Kurganid dudes crossing the 'border' you imagine hurt your feelings in any way?

No. They not crossed. This is not my feelings, simply there are no evidence onto the Kurgan invasion in Central and Western Europe.

[Proto-Shaman]

Then the contemporary Indians speak an Turkic language. :D
Aryan R1a = Bashkir & Kyrgyz :)


And yes, the Andronovo based on various West Siberian cultures, mainly on Uralic cultures. The Androvo culture was an synthesis between these cultures and the Yamna settlers/conquerors from West from the Altai. The Eastern Altaic Andronovo+local connection maybe effected the proto-Turkic peoples.
Turkic speakers are good candidates as well, since Proto-Turks are usually connected with the early archaeological horizon of west and central Siberia and in the region further south of it. I think Finno-Ugrians played a secondary role, but without question an important role (at least 40%). I.e. Saka was a kind of language when Ugric and Turkic were still very close to each other.

[blogen]

Aryan R1a = Bashkir & Kyrgyz :)

Today, after the Huns and other Turkic tribes conquered and assimilated the Central Asian Indoiranians.


Turkic speakers are good candidates as well, since Proto-Turks are usually connected with the early archaeological horizon of west and central Siberia and in the region further south of it. I think Finno-Ugrians played a secondary role, but without question an important role (at least 40%). I.e. Saka was a kind of language when Ugric and Turkic were still very close to each other.

The Ugric and Turkic is two different language and the Ugric language has lot of Iranian loanword with the Bronze age terminology of the Andronovo culture. These words are the linguistic evidence of the Ugric-Aryan cultura connections besides the strong archeological evidences in the northern edge (Andronoid cultures) of the Andronovo culture.

tehén - cow
tej - milk
hús - meat
nemez - felt
szekér - wagon
vám - toll
vár - fortress
vásár - sales
vászon - canvas
verem - pit (for the crop)
arany - gold
etc.

[Jaska]

If linguistics say A, but genetics say B. Who is right?
Both. Linguists can only tell about the spread of language, geneticists can only tell about the spread of genes. So, the answer depends on what are you talking about.

[Jaska]

And if genetics say that C is geneticaly part of family A, but linguistics says: no, they do not belong to us but they share our DNA. Who is then right?
Both, of course. There is no contradiction. Genes spread and populations get mixed. Originally one haplogroup was restricted to one language community, but very soon that changed. Along with language shifters new haplogroups were imported, and rapes and other mechanisms exported haplogroups to new populations.



You can't set a period here, since the Anatolian hypothesis shares at least the same degree of support as the Kurgan theory. It looks more like this:
No, the Anatolian hypothesis is clearly the weaker of the two main models:
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Problems_of_phylogenetics.pdf
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Review_Pagel2013.pdf



So why Turks belong to the Altaic group then without having any genetic kinship with Japanese and Koreans?
Certainly some Turkic peoples share some haplogroups with Japanese and Koreans. But Altaic is not proved family, it is an areal framework.



I know this. But this doesn't change the fact that most scholars (not a majority) are in favour to classify Turkic within Altaic. The question is why?
Because it shares many words and structural features with Mongolic and Tungusic. Those language families have been spoken adjacent to each other for many millennia.

[Proto-Shaman]

Today, after the Huns and other Turkic tribes conquered and assimilated the Central Asian Indoiranians.
blogen, your life, your rules, your way :cool:
http://sphotos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1474443_645758342129625_787460473_n.jpg


The Ugric and Turkic is two different language and the Ugric language has lot of Iranian loanword with the Bronze age terminology of the Andronovo culture. These words are the linguistic evidence of the Ugric-Aryan cultura connections besides the strong archeological evidences in the northern edge (Andronoid cultures) of the Andronovo culture.
Studying an alternative possibility of a more eastern location of the Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic Urheimat outside of the typical Andronovo horizon, we come across the Krotovo, the Samus, the Irmen and the Karasuk cultures. The Krotovo culture is basically similar to the core features of Andronovo with some differences characteristic of a more forested ecozone and fewer technological innovations. The identification of Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic with the Samus culture is much less likely due to its location in the southern taiga ecozone. The common view in the archaeology of West Siberia is that Krotovo-Samus were not connected with Andronovo. We may suppose that they were Samoyedic, which may be better substantiated in the case of Samus. The Irmen culture is dated too late for Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic, and by the time of its existence, PBT is supposed to have already split up. On the other hand, it would be much more tempting to associate it with the eastern movement of the early Turkic Proper tribes migrating towards the Altai Mountains and Yenisei.

The reconstructed Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic environment seems to be well within the limits set by the archaeological reconstruction of Andronovo. The main core of Andronovo corresponds to the Alakul culture in northern Kazakhstan, the location of the Alakul culture overlaps the calculated Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic area situated in the Tobol-Ishim-Irtysh demoregion by more than a half. The period of the Alakul culture (c. 1700-1200 BCE) matches the prediction for Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic Urheimat circa 1800-1000 BCE. The spatial and temporal location of the Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic (PBT) area matches the Alakul and, to some extent, the Fedorovo cultures within the Andronovo archaeological horizon.


arany - gold
Which is aquivalent with Turkic sari.

[Jaska]

This was a continuous history from the early Balkan neolithic (Karanovo) to the first historical Indoeuropean cultures. And the Hungarian and the Polish plain was the western border of the Kurgan expansions since the Chalcolithic. So the Indoeuropaization of considerable areas are not solved if the Eastern European steppe is the urheimat. But if the Indoeuropeans were part of the Balkan neolithic (steppe population = only Indoiranians) and the Central European cultural continuity is the spread of the Old Europeans, than everything is fine.

Actually everywhere the cultural continuity is evident. And at the same time everywhere can be seen discontinuity (infiltration of new cultural features) to some extent. Balkan is no exception. You can take Sinkiang and present exactly the same argumentation!

The very same argument can be used to support contradicting views. Therefore the "continuity card" cannot prove anything. It is all here:
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Uralic.html

Renfrew, Alinei, Makkay, Wiik and others have not yet understood this. Sadly, some of them maybe never will...


Lets imagine Kurgan hyphothesis is the right originof Indo-Europeans. There comes one thought into question. Why Etruscans were not Indo-European? This doesn't fit into the model. If they weren't Indo-European, who were they?

this has nothing to do with the Kurgan hypothesis. Of course there were Etruscans, Basques and many unknown peoples in many places. All this can prove is, that the Proto-Indo-European homeland probably cannot have been in an area, where there were ancient people talking some other language. Like Anatolia, Greece, Mediterranean Europe as a whole etc.

[Proto-Shaman]

this has nothing to do with the Kurgan hypothesis. Of course there were Etruscans, Basques and many unknown peoples in many places. All this can prove is, that the Proto-Indo-European homeland probably cannot have been in an area, where there were ancient people talking some other language. Like Anatolia, Greece, Mediterranean Europe as a whole etc.
That's not quite right:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_Continuity_Theory#Historical_reconstru ction

[Vesuvian Sky]

Sorry but not. Where are the Proto-Europid Kurgan peoples on the Old-European area? That Kurgan genes carried these peoples. And these peoples are arrived with the Kurgan culture to the real Kurgan conquered area, for example to Eastern Hungary.

Or these genes spread without carriers? ;)

Sorry but again, Haak et al 2013 has shown otherwise regarding Kurgan gene flow. Blogen et al 2013 = same old boring BS.;)




There are a strong difference between the Indoeuropean and the Indoiranian agricultural and other special terms (metal names, etc.),.

There is no common agricultural venacular that can be reconstructed to PIE between the Satem and Kentum IE language groups:

http://imageshack.us/a/img855/7756/ysk5.png

ergo, this greatly weakens the agro-wave of advance theory...from anywhere.


even the name of the horse (ḱers/ekwo)!

Wrong. There are all terms for the horse in all IE languages that can be reconstructed to PIE ekwos:

Horse from PIE ekwhos
Latin: equus (represents Italic)
Old Irish: ech (represents Celtic)
Old English: eoh (represents Germanic)
Tocharian: yakwe
Lithuanian: esva (represents Baltic definitely and perhaps Balto-Slavic)
Sanskrit: asva (represents Indo-Aryan)
Old Persian: asa (represents Iranian)






The Iranians did not take a part in the forming of the terminology of the agriculture (Harmatta)...

Of course not cause 'Iranians' are a modern day ethnicity.:p



No. They not crossed. This is not my feelings, simply there are no evidence onto the Kurgan invasion in Central and Western Europe.


Your wrong about Central Europe, but again I'm still waiting to see the thourough genetic analysis stemming from Blogen et al 2013 on this matter :laugh:. Regarding 'Western' Europe:




Bell Beaker Culture Origins
There have been numerous proposals by archaeologists as to the origins of the Bell Beaker culture, and debates continued on for decades. Several regions of origin have been postulated, notably the Iberian peninsula, the Netherlands and Central Europe.[8] Similarly, scholars have postulated various mechanisms of spread, including migrations of populations (“folk migrations”), smaller warrior groups, individuals (craftsmen), or a diffusion of ideas and object exchange.[9]

Recent analyses have made significant inroads to understanding the Beaker phenomenon, mostly by analysing each of its components separately.[10][11] They have concluded that the Bell Beaker phenomenon was a synthesis of elements, representing “an idea and style uniting different regions with different cultural traditions and background.”[12]

Radiocarbon dating seems to support that the earliest "Maritime" Bell Beaker design style is encountered in Iberia, specifically in the vibrant copper-using communities of the Tagus estuary in Portugal around 2800-2700 BC and spread from there to many parts of western Europe.[3][13] An overview of all available sources from southern Germany concluded that Bell Beaker was a new and independent culture in that area, contemporary with the Corded Ware culture.[14][15]

The inspiration for the Maritime Bell Beaker is argued to have been the small and earlier Copoz beakers that have impressed decoration and which are found widely around the Tagus estuary in Portugal.[16] Turek sees late Neolithic precursors in northern Africa, arguing the Maritime style emerged as a result of seaborne contacts between Iberia and Morocco in the first half of the third millennium BCE.[17] However, radiocarbon dating from North African sites is lacking for the most part.

AOO and AOC Beakers appear to have evolved continually from pre-Beaker period in the lower Rhine and North Sea regions, at least for Northern and Central Europe.[18]

Furthermore, the burial ritual which typified Bell Beaker sites was intrusive into Western Europe. Individual burials, often under tumuli burials, with the inclusion of weapons contrast markedly to the preceding Neolithic traditions of often collective, weaponless burials in Atlantic/Western Europe. Such an arrangement is rather derivative of Corded Ware traditions,[17] although instead of ‘battle-axes’, Bell Beaker individuals used copper daggers.

Overall, all these elements (Iberian-derived maritime ceramic styles, AOC and AOO ceramic styles, and ‘eastern’ burial ritual symbolism) appear to have first fused in the Lower Rhine region.[10][17]

[Proto-Shaman]

Both, of course. There is no contradiction. Genes spread and populations get mixed. Originally one haplogroup was restricted to one language community, but very soon that changed. Along with language shifters new haplogroups were imported, and rapes and other mechanisms exported haplogroups to new populations.
What was the language of the female's ancestors, as well as the male contribution from the eastern lineages, may be clarified one day with the help of the ongoing genetic studies, but a linguistic mass-conversion of the noble IE speakers, without a grain of detected noble IE substrate in the body of the 42 mongrel Türkic languages, is a pathetic pipe dream.


No, the Anatolian hypothesis is clearly the weaker of the two main models:
This is correct. But what I wanted to imply is that many aspects are convincing as well. But the core of both models are incorrect.


Certainly some Turkic peoples share some haplogroups with Japanese and Koreans. But Altaic is not proved family, it is an areal framework.
Hanging by a very thin thread.


Because it shares many words and structural features with Mongolic and Tungusic. Those language families have been spoken adjacent to each other for many millennia.
Everything correct. But how can a people belong to a group of languages when there is not significant genetic kinship between them?

[Proto-Shaman]

the Hungarian Pit-grave culture
based on which scholars?

[blogen]

Sorry but again, Haak et al

The BS is boring too! Where are the Proto-Europid Kurgan invaders from Central Europe and Western Europe?

And the Corded Ware is not Kurgan culture and not direct descendants of the Kurgan culture and the western and Central European part of the Corded Ware was not Kurgan influenced.

ps. Yes, they have the ekwo origin world, but not this world was the dominant name of the horse between the Germanic peoples (you know, the western part of the Corded Ware!)

[Jaska]

The Hallstatt culture originates from the not Kurgan influenced zone and the Greeks and Anatolians too! There are no Kurgan people settling on this area.

No need for them. Language did not spread from point 0 to the present-day distribution in a moment - it took thousands of years, and multiple steps. In every step a new culture and new people could have spread the language.


Finns and Estonians have lived here where we live, since 4000BC, for the past 6000 years. We lived here when Indo-europeans still weren't in Europe. Indo-Europeans are Asian invaders compared to us.

Almost every population have lived where they live since the beginning – only new genes have spread in greater or lesser extent. But we must distinguish genes and language: according to the best-argued newest view the Uralic language spread from Volga-Ural-region only after 2000 BC.
http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust264/sust264_hakkinenj.pdf
http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust264/sust264_parpola.pdf


I.e. Saka was a kind of language when Ugric and Turkic were still very close to each other.

They have never been close to each other. They belong to different language families.



That's not quite right:

So you still haven't read this:
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Uralic.html

"By pleading the archaeological and/or genetic continuity, the original area of Proto-Indo-European has been "proved" to locate in India, Caucasus, Middle-Asia, Anatolia, Ukraine and Central Europe (see Mallory 1989: 143-185). Respectively the same method has been used to "prove" that the original Proto-Uralic area must be located in Siberia (Kosinskaja 2001), Upper Volga (Carpelan 2000) and Central Europe (Wiik 2002).

Naturally all these testimonies cannot be true, because the original area of every proto-language has been narrow (I'll return to this later). Not only the place, but also the time concerned is contradictory: Indo-European continuity in Central Europe has been "proved" to reach Neolithic (Renfrew 1987) and Palaeolithic Age (Makkay 2001), and Uralic continuity in Finland has been "proved" to reach Neolithic (Meinander 1984) and Mesolithic Age (Nuñez 1987).

And above all, the results gained by this method are contradictory also concerning the linguistic identity: the Late Palaeolithic inhabitation of Central Europe has been "proved" both as Indo-European (Makkay 2001) and Uralic (Wiik 2002).

In short: this method (making conclusions about language by the means of other disciplines than linguistics) is most unreliable and thus totally worthless."

[blogen]

based on which scholars?

The Pit-grave culture in Hungary? (not ethnic Hungarians if this was the question!)

[Proto-Shaman]

There are all terms for the horse in all IE languages that can be reconstructed to PIE ekwos:

Horse from PIE ekwhos
Latin: equus (represents Italic)
Old Irish: ech (represents Celtic)
Old English: eoh (represents Germanic)
Tocharian: yakwe
Lithuanian: esva (represents Baltic definitely and perhaps Balto-Slavic)
Sanskrit: asva (represents Indo-Aryan)
Old Persian: asa (represents Iranian)

Wide development of horse breeding among Türkic people is confirmed by linguistic data. Common Türkic words vocabulary has two words for the name of horse, in addition separately for mare and stallion, names for colts of several age, also mutual words for names of rider, saddles, bridles, stirrups, whip, manes, hoofs, amble. I am not sure if there is a relation between Turkic ipa ("horse") and Iranian asa.

[Jaska]

What was the language of the female's ancestors, as well as the male contribution from the eastern lineages, may be clarified one day with the help of the ongoing genetic studies, but a linguistic mass-conversion of the noble IE speakers, without a grain of detected noble IE substrate in the body of the 42 mongrel Türkic languages, is a pathetic pipe dream.
I think you took too many steps in a time - the logic does not follow. Could you tell me what are you arguing against?



This is correct. But what I wanted to imply is that many aspects are convincing as well. But the core of both models are incorrect.
Tell me what is wrong with the Steppe homeland?



Everything correct. But how can a people belong to a group of languages when there is not significant genetic kinship between them?
Between languages or people?
Altaic is not a genetic group, it is an areal group. The shared Altaic features are there because of intense, prolonged contacts. Therefore no need for even a single shared haplogroup, but of course there are always gene exchange between neighbours.

[Proto-Shaman]

They have never been close to each other. They belong to different language families.
Then I recommend you this one: http://menadoc.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/dmg/periodical/titleinfo/21486


So you still haven't read this:
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Uralic.html

"By pleading the archaeological and/or genetic continuity, the original area of Proto-Indo-European has been "proved" to locate in India, Caucasus, Middle-Asia, Anatolia, Ukraine and Central Europe (see Mallory 1989: 143-185). Respectively the same method has been used to "prove" that the original Proto-Uralic area must be located in Siberia (Kosinskaja 2001), Upper Volga (Carpelan 2000) and Central Europe (Wiik 2002).

Naturally all these testimonies cannot be true, because the original area of every proto-language has been narrow (I'll return to this later). Not only the place, but also the time concerned is contradictory: Indo-European continuity in Central Europe has been "proved" to reach Neolithic (Renfrew 1987) and Palaeolithic Age (Makkay 2001), and Uralic continuity in Finland has been "proved" to reach Neolithic (Meinander 1984) and Mesolithic Age (Nuñez 1987).

And above all, the results gained by this method are contradictory also concerning the linguistic identity: the Late Palaeolithic inhabitation of Central Europe has been "proved" both as Indo-European (Makkay 2001) and Uralic (Wiik 2002).

In short: this method (making conclusions about language by the means of other disciplines than linguistics) is most unreliable and thus totally worthless."
No word about Etruscans here?

[Proto-Shaman]

The Pit-grave culture in Hungary? (not ethnic Hungarians if this was the question!)
It would be nice if you could list at least some.

[Vesuvian Sky]

The BS is boring too!


LMAO!!!!

Haak et al. 2013 = boring nonsense? Do you have reading comprehension problems? Here it is yet again!"

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6155/257/F3.large.jpg



In the Late Neolithic, we identify two independent events (C and D), each associated with major contemporary Pan-European phenomena. Event C (~2800 cal BCE) is marked by the emergence of the CWC (movie S1), whose subgroups were widespread across Central and Eastern Europe (fig. S2) (2–4). The CWC is characterized by haplogroups I and U2 (4.6%), which are new maternal elements in Mittelelbe-Saale (Fig. 1C and fig. S3) and appear alongside other Late Neolithic/EBA lineages such as T1 (6.8%) and hunter-gatherer haplogroups U4 and U5 (20.5%), whereas Early/Middle Neolithic haplogroups further decrease (45.5%) (Fig. 3). The binomial probability that we missed I and U2 in 211 individuals of preceding cultures is very low (P = 0.00). Haplogroup U2 has been reported exclusively from Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Bronze Age samples from Russia (17–19), and PCA and cluster analyses reveal similarities of the CWC to two ancient Kurgan groups of South Siberia (19) and Kazakhstan (20) (Fig. 1, C and D), in which haplogroups I, U2, and T1 are frequent (18.2 to 37.5%) (table S9). Intriguingly, the Y chromosomal haplogroup R1a1a, frequent in ancient Siberian populations (19), has previously been detected in our CWC data set (21), suggesting additional paternal genetic links to Kurgan cultures. Together with the affinities of the CWC to present-day populations of Eastern Europe, the Baltics, and the Caucasus (figs. S4G to S7G), this suggests a genetic influx into Central Europe from the East, likely influenced by Kurgan cultures (movie S1) (2, 3).

Source (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6155/257.full)

And no this has nothing to do with Balkan Neolithic like you suggested before. If you can't accept this latest finding over your pseudo-scientific belief then you have absolutely no credibility to the discussion here. Your clearly not a geneticist and have no findings that negate this. Your basically Full Of Shit on this matter.



[B]And the Corded Ware is not Kurgan culture cause it hurts my little feelings even though many in the past have shown cultural similarity to the burial rite further east...waaaah!!!!

fixed


ps. Yes, they have the ekwo origin world, but it still doesn't count cause (insert various blogen related bullshit remark here)

ditto

[Proto-Shaman]

I think you took too many steps in a time - the logic does not follow. Could you tell me what are you arguing against?
Against a Turkification of so called "pure IE Central Asia".


Tell me what is wrong with the Steppe homeland?
The Proto-Indo-European language advanced eastward across the Eastern European Plain in the 3rd millennium BC, while the ancient Pit Grave, or the "Kurgan" culture is mainly dated by the period of the 4th-3rd millenniums BC, and were moving westward. Even this circumstance is not consistent with Indo-Europeans at all.


Between languages or people?
Altaic is not a genetic group, it is an areal group. The shared Altaic features are there because of intense, prolonged contacts. Therefore no need for even a single shared haplogroup, but of course there are always gene exchange between neighbours.
Ok if we go by this, to what kind of anthropological type Proto-Turks belonged to?

[Jaska]

Then I recommend you this one: http://menadoc.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/dmg/periodical/titleinfo/21486

No word about Etruscans here?
No need for Etruscans, they are irrelevant.
What I should see in that linked text? I don't get your point.

[blogen]

Actually everywhere the cultural continuity is evident. And at the same time everywhere can be seen discontinuity (infiltration of new cultural features) to some extent. Balkan is no exception. You can take Sinkiang and present exactly the same argumentation!
The very same argument can be used to support contradicting views. Therefore the "continuity card" cannot prove anything. It is all here:
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Uralic.html
Renfrew, Alinei, Makkay, Wiik and others have not yet understood this. Sadly, some of them maybe never will...
this has nothing to do with the Kurgan hypothesis. Of course there were Etruscans, Basques and many unknown peoples in many places. All this can prove is, that the Proto-Indo-European homeland probably cannot have been in an area, where there were ancient people talking some other language. Like Anatolia, Greece, Mediterranean Europe as a whole etc.

I agree with the problems of the cultural continuity. But there was not continuity everywhere and some cultures are traceable from the known historical folk's culture. For example the Celts -> Hallstatt -> Urnfield -> Tumulus culture -> etc.

[Jaska]

Against a Turkification of so called "pure IE Central Asia".

The Proto-Indo-European language advanced eastward across the Eastern European Plain in the 3rd millennium BC, while the ancient Pit Grave, or the "Kurgan" culture is mainly dated by the period of the 4th-3rd millenniums BC, and were moving westward. Even this circumstance is not consistent with Indo-Europeans at all.

Ok if we go by this, to what kind of anthropological type Proto-Turks belonged to?
1. I have never claimed any pure IE Central Asia.

2. PIE spread to both east and west, and at the right time so did also the Steppe Cultures. Read mallory, Anthony etc.

3. Anthropological types are irrelevant here. They are like genes: neighbours tend to mix. They have nothing to do with the linguistic relatedness.

[Jaska]

I agree with the problems of the cultural continuity. But there was not continuity everywhere and some cultures are traceable from the known historical folk's culture. For example the Celts -> Hallstatt -> Urnfield -> Tumulus culture -> etc.
Still, these cultures had other roots, too, not only this one you presented. There is no rule that always the language of the most important root of a culture wins. Any root of the culture could have spread its language among the speakers of the languages of the other cultural roots.

[blogen]

"Haplogroup U2 has been reported exclusively from Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Bronze Age samples from Russia (17–19), and PCA and cluster analyses reveal similarities of the CWC to two ancient Kurgan groups of South Siberia (19) and Kazakhstan (20) (Fig. 1, C and D), in which haplogroups I, U2, and T1 are frequent (18.2 to 37.5%) (table S9). Intriguingly, the Y chromosomal haplogroup R1a1a, frequent in ancient Siberian populations (19), has previously been detected in our CWC data set (21), suggesting additional paternal genetic links to Kurgan cultures. Together with the affinities of the CWC to present-day populations of Eastern Europe, the Baltics, and the Caucasus (figs. S4G to S7G), this suggests a genetic influx into Central Europe from the East, likely influenced by Kurgan cultures (movie S1) (2, 3)."
Haak

Yes, the Kurgan peoples mixed with the local mesolithic peoples, as the East Europeans too (independently from the Kurgan peoples). And these Eastern Europeans are spread in the Corded Ware horizont. And?

Hazardous statement ascribe this to the Kurgan culture! When the Kurgan peoples spread, than we have remains from them. Remains of the Proto-Europid steppic peoples in the conquered lands.

[blogen]

Still, these cultures had other roots, too, not only this one you presented. There is no rule that always the language of the most important root of a culture wins. Any root of the culture could have spread its language among the speakers of the languages of the other cultural roots.

Yes, there is no rules, but mostly the language continuity followed the cultural continuity.

[Proto-Shaman]

No need for Etruscans, they are irrelevant.
According to Alinei the Paleolithic Continuity hypothesis is supported by the tentative linguistic identification of Etruscans as a Uralic, proto-Hungarian people that had already undergone strong proto-Turkic influence in the third millennium BC.


What I should see in that linked text? I don't get your point.
That the Saka language discovered in the Susa cuneiform inscriptions dating from the Achaemenid Empire is representative for the period in which Turko-Kypchak-Oghur and Ugric dialects formed 1 proto-type language.

[Vesuvian Sky]

Hazardous statement ascribe this to the Kurgan culture!....

:picard1:

Yeah based on Blogen et al 2013.:D


When the Kurgan peoples spread, than we have remains from them. Remains of the Proto-Europid steppic peoples in the conquered lands.

Talk about hazardous remarks!:D

Phenotypes/physical types can change overtime based on admixture with other populations, natural selection etc.

But I love it when people cling to the Coonian concepts like flies to you know what.:cool:

It displays a certain naivity or even innocence to this all.:laugh:

[Jaska]

Yes, there is no rules, but mostly the language continuity followed the cultural continuity.

It cannot be said, because everywhere we see both continuity and discontinuity (new influence).
It is a pure lottery, if you try to guess which cultural root is connected to the modern language.

Here is a presentation about how improbable it is that the old language still prevails in an area:

1. Language of the first settlers (8500 BC)
Language A = 100 %
2. Newcomer language (7000 BC)
Language B = 30 % | A = 70 %
3. Newcomer language (6000 BC)
Language C = 30 % | B = 21 % | A = 49 %
4. Newcomer language (5000 BC)
Language D = 30 % | C = 21 % | B = 15 % | A = 34 %
5. Newcomer language (4000 BC)
Language E = 30 % | D = 21 % | C = 15 % | B = 10 % | A = 24 %
6. Newcomer language (3000 BC)
Language F = 30 % | E = 21 % | D = 15 % | C = 10 % | B = 7 % | A = 17 %
7. Newcomer language (2000 BC)
Language G = 30 % | F = 21 % | E = 15 % | D = 10 % | C = 7 % | B = 5 % | A = 12 %
8. Newcomer language (1000 BC)
Language H = 30 % | G = 21 % | F = 15 % | E = 10 % | D = 7 % | C = 5 % | B = 4 % | A = 8 %
9. Newcomer language (0 AD)
Language I = 30 % | H = 21 % | G = 15 % | F = 10 % | E = 7 % | D = 5 % | C = 4 % | B = 3 % | A = 6 %
10. Newcomer language (1000 AD)
Language J = 30 % | I = 21 % | H = 15 % | G = 10 % | F = 7 % | E = 5 % | D = 4 % | C = 3 % | B = 2 % | A = 4 %



When the Kurgan peoples spread, than we have remains from them. Remains of the Proto-Europid steppic peoples in the conquered lands.

We don't need Kurgan people beyond the Eastern Central Europe. There cultures mixed, and the next generation cultures spread again; then they mix with the local cultures, and again the next generation cultures spread again. This is the process. We don't need Kurgan evidence in Britain, because we know that the IE language did not spread there so early!


According to Alinei the Paleolithic Continuity hypothesis is supported by the tentative linguistic identification of Etruscans as a Uralic, proto-Hungarian people that had already undergone strong proto-Turkic influence in the third millennium BC.

Alinei knows nothing about linguistics! His explanations contradict everything we know by the reliable methods of historical linguistics.


That the Saka language discovered in the Susa cuneiform inscriptions dating from the Achaemenid Empire is representative for the period in which Turko-Kypchak-Oghur and Ugric dialects formed 1 proto-type language.

And what evidence is there for such hypothesis? I saw nothing scientifically credible.

Here is how you should present your hypothesis:
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Hungarian.pdf

[Proto-Shaman]

1. I have never claimed any pure IE Central Asia.
But current western research.


2. PIE spread to both east and west, and at the right time so did also the Steppe Cultures. Read mallory, Anthony etc.
oooh! come on! :rolleyes: R1b-Kurgan westward migration was obviously Turkic.


3. Anthropological types are irrelevant here. They are like genes: neighbours tend to mix. They have nothing to do with the linguistic relatedness.
So, original Turks were neither Mongoloid nor Caucasoid, but originated as a hybrid nation?

[Proto-Shaman]

His explanations contradict everything we know by the reliable methods of historical linguistics.
This is good so!


And what evidence is there for such hypothesis? I saw nothing scientifically credible.

Here is how you should present your hypothesis:
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Hungarian.pdf
Thats rubbish, seriously. There is at least enough genetic, linguistic and archaeological evidence for early Ugric-Oghur-Kypchak contacts.

[blogen]

Talk about hazardous remarks!:D
Phenotypes/physical types can change overtime based on admixture with other populations, natural selection etc.
But I love it when people cling to the Coonian concepts like flies to you know what.:cool:
It displays a certain naivity or even innocence to this all.:laugh:

When the peoples spread, then they spread. The genes do not spread by the flies! :D

[blogen]

It cannot be said, because everywhere we see both continuity and discontinuity (new influence).
It is a pure lottery, if you try to guess which cultural root is connected to the modern language.

Here is a presentation about how improbable it is that the old language still prevails in an area:

1. Language of the first settlers (8500 BC)
Language A = 100 %
2. Newcomer language (7000 BC)
Language B = 30 % | A = 70 %
3. Newcomer language (6000 BC)
Language C = 30 % | B = 21 % | A = 49 %
4. Newcomer language (5000 BC)
Language D = 30 % | C = 21 % | B = 15 % | A = 34 %
5. Newcomer language (4000 BC)
Language E = 30 % | D = 21 % | C = 15 % | B = 10 % | A = 24 %
6. Newcomer language (3000 BC)
Language F = 30 % | E = 21 % | D = 15 % | C = 10 % | B = 7 % | A = 17 %
7. Newcomer language (2000 BC)
Language G = 30 % | F = 21 % | E = 15 % | D = 10 % | C = 7 % | B = 5 % | A = 12 %
8. Newcomer language (1000 BC)
Language H = 30 % | G = 21 % | F = 15 % | E = 10 % | D = 7 % | C = 5 % | B = 4 % | A = 8 %
9. Newcomer language (0 AD)
Language I = 30 % | H = 21 % | G = 15 % | F = 10 % | E = 7 % | D = 5 % | C = 4 % | B = 3 % | A = 6 %
10. Newcomer language (1000 AD)
Language J = 30 % | I = 21 % | H = 15 % | G = 10 % | F = 7 % | E = 5 % | D = 4 % | C = 3 % | B = 2 % | A = 4 %

The fundamental grammar and vocabulary remain. And this is enough to the lingual continuity.


We don't need Kurgan people beyond the Eastern Central Europe. There cultures mixed, and the next generation cultures spread again; then they mix with the local cultures, and again the next generation cultures spread again. This is the process. We don't need Kurgan evidence in Britain, because we know that the IE language did not spread there so early!

And what his evidence for the mixing? Yes, the remains of the newcomers.

[Vesuvian Sky]

When the peoples spread, then they spread. The genes do not spread by the flies! :D

Honesty, I have no idea what you are getting at here.
Regardless, here's some Velveeta Kraft spread:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Velveeta_Cheese.JPG

and a fly clinging to poop:

http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/21212324/2/stock-illustration-21212324-cartoon-fly-on-a-pile-of-shit.jpg

[Proto-Shaman]

ok guys, time to vote:
http://i33.tinypic.com/n3249v.jpg

[Vesuvian Sky]

ok, guys time to vote:
http://i33.tinypic.com/n3249v.jpg

wouldn't be a bad idea for an actual poll.

[Proto-Shaman]

wouldn't be a bad idea for an actual poll.
start a new thread.

[Vesuvian Sky]

start a new thread.

lol! I was going to suggest to you the same...but no worries. I will craft according to the more, let's say mainstream theories and will stick more to the geographic/cultural terminology since many of the shcholars on the map have overlapping ideas.

[Jaska]

oooh! come on! R1b-Kurgan westward migration was obviously Turkic.

On what basis? You cannot predict the language from genes or archaeology. Read the link I gave and quoted.
Clearly the most probable option in the time and place of Kurgan expansion is the Proto-Indo-European language. You have just decided that R1b is connected to it, and you have just decided that R1b was connected to Turkic speakers. No evidence so far, only faith!


So, original Turks were neither Mongoloid nor Caucasoid, but originated as a hybrid nation?

I still have no opinion on this irrelevant question.


Thats rubbish, seriously. There is at least enough genetic, linguistic and archaeological evidence for early Ugric-Oghur-Kypchak contacts.

Nobody denies contacts. Don't you even understand the difference between language relatedness and language contacts? Unbelievable.

And please, do not embarrass yourself: I'm a historical linguist, while you know nothing about historical linguistics. You have no competence to assess which linguistic argumentation is valid and which is nonsense. Ask me, I know.

Polls are meaningless, only argumentation is meaningful. People tend to love their views fanatically. You will never desert your fantasy, no matter how much arguments is put forth.


The fundamental grammar and vocabulary remain. And this is enough to the lingual continuity.

They remain, if the old language wins. If it loses, new language replaces it. There is no way to guess the process, nor to predict it from genes or archaeological remains. Only historical linguistics, place name studies, loanword studies etc. can answer.

[Vesuvian Sky]

start a new thread.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?106369-The-Proto-Indo-European-Urheimat-Poll-Thread&p=2202205#post2202205

[Proto-Shaman]

On what basis? You cannot predict the language from genes or archaeology. Read the link I gave and quoted.
Clearly the most probable option in the time and place of Kurgan expansion is the Proto-Indo-European language. You have just decided that R1b is connected to it, and you have just decided that R1b was connected to Turkic speakers. No evidence so far, only faith!

What is called “Türkic” or “ancient Türkic” language is based only on the fact that Turkologists call it Türkic. Analyzing the ancient texts they see specifically the agglutinative Türkic language, the Türkic ethnonyms in Europe. It is possible that this is a misunderstanding, and what they see is an agglutinative language of the haplogroup R1b ancient carriers, which can be called “Erbin” (after R1b). It could be, but not necessarily, a basis, a ground, a substrate for the modern Türkic languages; it could just be a related, lateral branch of the ancient Türkic language. It could be the agglutinative language of the ancient Basques. Was that Türkic language or not is a matter for the linguists to decide. In any case, it does not affect the discourse and conclusions. Those who find the term “Türkic language” in this context (as a pre-IE language in Europe, employing by R1b bearers 4,500-2,500 years before present, and some later) not acceptable may substitute it with the term “Erbin”.

[Petros Houhoulis]

Sometimes linguists are unmasked by DNA-Genealogy. Let's wait for further investigations.

Not really. All of the Ancient genetic samples are in the range of 10 people here, 10 people there... Klyosov is pushing his luck by proposing specific archaeologic locations as the homeland of this linguistic group or that linguistic group, the very moment he is neither archaeologist, nor a linguist...

In other words, he is venturing too far away from his field.

BTW, personally I would not accept ANY archaeologic proof in linguistics, without a decoded alphabet and a decoded language... There is no way in hell anybody could prove who lived in Andronovo or in a million other Andronovos which have been destroyed since several thousand years ago, and we'll never know anything about them.

The only ones who can seriously deal with linguistic issues are the linguists themselves, and nobody else. Even an idiot might have an opinion about archaeology, history or genetics, but linguistics is a hell of a science... And Klyosov only deals with the geographic origin of some language, not really much about the language itself... Which is basically bogus science. There shall never be a general agreement about the exact origin of any language or language family in prehistory. People cannot agree in the timing either. It's all wild speculation and nothing really beyond that.

[Petros Houhoulis]

If linguistics say A, but genetics say B. Who is right?

Everyone to his science! Geneticists cannot make scientific publications for linguistics, and Linguists cannot make scientific publications for genetics.

[Skerdilaid]

Not really. All of the Ancient genetic samples are in the range of 10 people here, 10 people there... Klyosov is pushing his luck by proposing specific archaeologic locations as the homeland of this linguistic group or that linguistic group, the very moment he is neither archaeologist, nor a linguist...

In other words, he is venturing too far away from his field.

BTW, personally I would not accept ANY archaeologic proof in linguistics, without a decoded alphabet and a decoded language... There is no way in hell anybody could prove who lived in Andronovo or in a million other Andronovos which have been destroyed since several thousand years ago, and we'll never know anything about them.

The only ones who can seriously deal with linguistic issues are the linguists themselves, and nobody else. Even an idiot might have an opinion about archaeology, history or genetics, but linguistics is a hell of a science... And Klyosov only deals with the geographic origin of some language, not really much about the language itself... Which is basically bogus science. There shall never be a general agreement about the exact origin of any language or language family in prehistory. People cannot agree in the timing either. It's all wild speculation and nothing really beyond that.

Spot on Petro!

[Petros Houhoulis]

And if genetics say that C is geneticaly part of family A, but linguistics says: no, they do not belong to us but they share our DNA. Who is then right?

Only problem, no linguist has claimed such a thing. Only your Klyosov makes those foolish assumptions about linguistics!!!

[Jaska]

What is called “Türkic” or “ancient Türkic” language is based only on the fact that Turkologists call it Türkic. Analyzing the ancient texts they see specifically the agglutinative Türkic language, the Türkic ethnonyms in Europe. It is possible that this is a misunderstanding, and what they see is an agglutinative language of the haplogroup R1b ancient carriers, which can be called “Erbin” (after R1b). It could be, but not necessarily, a basis, a ground, a substrate for the modern Türkic languages; it could just be a related, lateral branch of the ancient Türkic language. It could be the agglutinative language of the ancient Basques. Was that Türkic language or not is a matter for the linguists to decide. In any case, it does not affect the discourse and conclusions. Those who find the term “Türkic language” in this context (as a pre-IE language in Europe, employing by R1b bearers 4,500-2,500 years before present, and some later) not acceptable may substitute it with the term “Erbin”.
I don't doubt the presence of a Turkic language somewhere in some point of time. I doubt the evidence connecting it to R1b. How do you explain that there is no R1b in Yakuts, but there is C and R1a in Yakuts and Turkish?

[Proto-Shaman]

I don't doubt the presence of a Turkic language somewhere in some point of time. I doubt the evidence connecting it to R1b. How do you explain that there is no R1b in Yakuts, but there is C and R1a in Yakuts and Turkish?
The answer lies in the Bashkir R1b. Genetically, all Europeans descended from this people. From the very beginning on Europeans carried this DNA in them. Since then the Bashkirs changed their look, but retained their original DNA:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=41838&d=1387379936

Yakuts are the easternmost branch, which has split between 900-500 BC in the Mongolian corridor. The easternmost branch of the original Proto-Turkic population spread into the steppe regions of the Yenisei basin, thus forming the early Proto-Yakutic dialect. This migration seems to have been accomplished by the middle of the 1st millennium BCE. It is not really clear whether Proto-Yakutic bears any relation to the Uyuk culture in Tuva, though the horse burials in Uyuk, its similarity to the cultures of the Andronovo horizon, and of course its unique enclosed position within a mountain system suggests that Uyuk was either Proto-Yakutic, or, less likely, distantly related to Proto-Mongolic, or belonging to an unknown branch of Altaic languages.
http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/spread_of_turkic_languages_1.jpg

[Jaska]

So you have no arguments to explain why C is shared by more numerous Turkic peoples than R1b?
Thanks.

[Proto-Shaman]

Only problem, no linguist has claimed such a thing. Only your Klyosov makes those foolish assumptions about linguistics!!!
“The greatest history book ever written is the one hidden in our DNA.”
—Dr. Spencer Wells

[Proto-Shaman]

So you have no arguments to explain why C is shared by more numerous Turkic peoples than R1b?
Thanks.
Your point is not valid, since C is as good as absent from Turkic peoples.

[Black Wolf]

Klyosov is an idiot. That is very clear.

[Proto-Shaman]

Klyosov is an idiot. That is very clear.
I think its obviously you.

[Black Wolf]

I think its obviously you.

Your insult has no effect as you are wrong. Obviously you are just as stupid as Klyosov is then if you believe in his moronic ideas.

[Proto-Shaman]

Obviously you are just as stupid as Klyosov is then if you believe in his moronic ideas.
Which moronic ideas?




Your insult has no effect as you are wrong.
Short-term memory? No problem, I remind you:

Klyosov is an idiot.

[Black Wolf]

Which moronic ideas?




Short-term memory? No problem, I remind you:


Read any of his literature it is full of them. All it takes is a pair of eyes and half a brain to see them.

[Proto-Shaman]

Read any of his literature it is full of them. All it takes is a pair of eyes and half a brain to see them.
I wasn't able to detect any. Help me.

[Proto-Shaman]

Now, the problem with the study of Indo-European is that the groundwork was done over a century ago, and although exciting discoveries have been made since (notably Hittite and Tocharian), the basic story is still what it was then. You can tinker with the decorations, but the framework was set firmly in place by Bopp, Rask, Grimm, and the other punchily named nineteenth-century forefathers. Don't get me wrong, there's no shortage of people who want to tear everything up and connect it all differently (usually to Caucasian or Semitic or Ural-Altaic), but those people tend to have either an insufficient knowledge of the linguistic facts or an excessive willingness to throw the rules of historical linguistics overboard. Actual Indo-Europeanists tend to be commendably but boringly conservative. Early IE languages should be regarded as creoles.

In 1934 E.Forrer expressed an opinion that Indo-European language was formed as a result of hybridization of two unrelated languages. N.S.Trubetskoy, H.K.Ulenbek and B.V.Gornung propose that the conflating occurred between languages of the Ural-Altai type and a language such as Caucasus-Semitic.

Further passages: (http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/Klyosov2010DNK-GenealogyEn.htm)

As to the so-called “Kurgan theory”, it remains only to wonder how such a theory could emerge at all. Like, however, also the “Anatolian” theory” of the Indo-European Urheimat. In its entirety, the theory of the “Kurgan Culture” as an “Indo-European” was one ceaseless mishap. It seems that the desire of the authors and supporters of the Kurgan theory as “Indo-European” to persuade others in their accuracy did not allow them to consider alternatives, as is due in the science. Naturally, that mishap could not address the tribal affiliation, such information did not exist then. for R1a1 in Europe exists a gap starting from the middle to the end of the third millennium BC (4,500-4,000 years ago) that lasted for 1,000 - 1,500 years. At the same time in Europe exists no gap in respect to the R1b1b2, their settling goes in a continuous stream from the 4,000-4,200 years ago, without any interruptions.

It is unlikely that the displacement of the Türkic languages by the Indo-European in the Western and Central Europe was quick and painless, or peaceful. Typically, in such transitions are acting together a number of factors, especially the military, economic and political (ideological). The military factor is not always necessary, or rather, is not decisive, but the last two factors are mandatory. Apparently, the carriers of the Indo-European languages arriving from the east convincingly (this is a wide concept) demonstrated to the Türkic-lingual population of the last millennium in the past era Europe the benefits of their organization, the advantages of producing or more progressive economy, education and culture. Only that could lead to the assimilation of the alien (for then-Türkic population of Europe) material culture and to the transition to a different language. This area still awaits its researchers!!

The analysis of these markers, called SNP’s, or “snips” (Klyosov, 2009 a, b, c, d, and references therein), which determines the tribe of their carrier, and allows to trace the migration paths of each tribe separately, and with a calculation of the residence time for each tribe in the course of the migration, quickly demonstrated both the fallacy of the “Kurgan theory”, and the partial, limited significance of the Anatolian theory.

At first the Proto-Türkic haplogroup R1b appeared about 16,000 years ago in the Southern Siberia. After a long period of time the carriers of that tribe expanded, bringing along their language, to the Middle Volga and Volga-Kama region, which now also abounds with the carriers of the haplogroup R1b, which constitute a substantial proportion of their ethnic groups (Lobov, 2009). Generally, the ethnic Russians (i.e., those who are speaking Russian for many generations and consider themselves to be Russians at least for three generations), 5% of whom have R1b1 haplogroup, have a common ancestor who lived 6,775 ± 830 years ago, much earlier than time of the “Proto-Indo-European” tribe's arrival to the Eastern European Plain. That was the time of the Middle Volga, Samara, Khvalyn and the ancient Pit Grave or “Kurgan” culture. Neither the R1a1, nor the “Indo-Europeans” had any relation to them.

1. The “Circumpontic localization” hypothesis (Merpert, 1974, 1976) erroneously places the “homeland” in the Caspian-Black Sea steppes, and also erroneously times that by more than 5,000 years ago (second half of the 4th millennium BC). Apparently, here again for the “Indo-Europeans” are mistaken the Türkic-lingual carriers of the R1b1, who at that time were completing the movement across the Caucasus to Anatolia, and were already present in the Middle East. Not accidentally, this hypothesis suggests the “pastoral cultures of the Caspian-Black Sea steppes”. In connection with that, the author of the hypothesis rightly talks about “continuity and cultural integration”, from the zone of the ancient Pit Grave Culture to the Caucasus region and further to the south of the Black Sea, only on the contrary it belongs to the Türkic-lingual R1b1. The Balkan-Carpathian region, whence the “Proto-Indo-Europeans” came from, in this hypothesis is not even considered. Also not considered is the spread of the “Proto-Indo-Europeans” (haplogroup R1a1) in all directions in Europe, from the Balkans to the Atlantic, to the Scandinavia, to the south to Greece and the Mediterranean islands, all that mainly in the 4th millennium BC. That was the spread of the carriers of the Proto-Indo-European dialects. During all these contacts was ongoing a borrowing of the existing cultural lexicon, which is reflected in the Indo-European languages.

2. “Kurgan theory» (Gimbutas, 1964, 1974, 1977, 1980) interpreted the materials about the “Indo-Europeans” totally opposite the real movement of the “Indo-Europeans”, which took place millennia later, and in reality analyzed the most likely scenario of the southwestward move by the Türkic-lingual tribes (Haplogroup R1b1). The concept of the Eurasian steppes as a homeland of the “Indo-European community” is totally counterproductive and wrong. First, the “Proto-Indo-Europeans” could not appear in the steppes from a nowhere, no language “homeland” in that location can be real. In fact, they have not appeared out of nowhere. The Türkic-lingual R1b1 migrated from the east, the Aryan-speaking “Proto-Indo-Europeans” migrated from the west. In the depth of the ancient times, they both came from the Southern Siberia. The route of their arrival to the South Siberia is also adequately developed in terms of the DNA genealogy. This does not mean at all that the factual material collected by M. Gimbutas is incorrect. On the opposite, it is precisely accurate, like the findings on the increase in the share of the animal husbandry relative to the agriculture in the region of the ancient Pit Grave culture, and the further movement of the “Kurganians”, and the facts and conclusions about the type of the housing and settlements, about the physical type of the population, and the terminology related to the horse, but all that belongs to the Türkic-lingual R1b, and not to the “Pra-Indo-Europeans”, about which M. Gimbutas apparently even did not suspect. The same applies to the physical type of the population, because both the R1a “Proto-Indo-Europeans”, and the R1b “Pra-Türks” not only both are Caucasoids, but altogether belong both to the same upstream haplogroup R1.

The first “wave of the Kurgan Culture carriers” M. Gimbutas attributed to the beginning of the 4th millennium BC, approximately 6,000 years ago, in the territory between the Volga and Dnieper. It is certainly the Türkic-lingual R1b1, since the carriers of the haplogroup R1a1 did not exist there at that time, they appeared there more than a thousand years later, and yet it took them several hundred more years to reach the Volga river. Besides, as M. Gimbutas pointed out, the “carriers of the first wave of the Kurgan Culture” developed from the Samara and Seroglazov cultures of the Volga Basin. These were definitely the Türkic-lingual R1b1. To the “Proto-Indo-Europeans” they have no relation neither in time, nor place, nor origin. A recent paper (Vybornov 2008) showed that radiocarbon dating of the pottery found in the Volga-Kama Neolithic monuments allows to date the encampments of the northern Caspian Sea area by the first half of the 6th millennium BC, that is about 8,000 years ago. The “Proto-Indo-Europeans” would appear there only 4,000 years later. The author (Vybornov 2008) notes that at the same time forms the Neolithic culture in the south of the Volga-Ural interfluve, which is where M. Gimbutas had placed the “homeland of the Indo-Europeans”. A few centuries later (second half of the 6th millennium BC) appear the settlements in the Lower Volga region (ibid.). Now we can definitely stipulate that all that is the areal of the Türkic languages.

Finally, as is known now, the domestication of the horse came about in the north of the Kazakhstan, in all certainty again by the carriers of the R1b1, about 5,500 years ago, long before the arrival of the “Proto-Indo-Europeans” (Archaeology, Jan-Feb 2010), and the use of the horses in the household economy by the “Kurganians” is an important stipulation of M. Gimbutas. That is again an argument in favor of the Türkic-lingual “Kurganians” who were expanding from the east to the west, and not vice versa, as did the “Proto-Indo-Europeans”. That applies without even allusion to the fact that the argument of a “mountain landscape” does not work at all in relation to the Dnieper-Volga region, although that did not bother M. Gimbutas a least.

It is clear that the migration of the haplogroup R1a1 amply satisfies the anticipation of some contact continuity and cultural integration associated with the migration of the R1a1 Proto-Indo-Europeans from the Balkans to the Eastern European Plain and beyond to the Caucasus, Middle Asia, and the Urals, and on to the India and Iran. The application of that obvious factor only in respect to the “Kurgan Culture” remains unclear. Naturally, this provision also worked in the migration of the Türkic “haplogroup R1b1.

The time for the “Indo-Iranian linguistic family” totally depends on a definition what the “Indo-Iranian” is referring to; however, at any rate it has nothing to do with the “Kurgan archaeological culture”, which was a culture of the R1b1 tribes. The “Indo-Iranian” linguistic family can extend in time as deep as around 9-12 thousand years BP in the Balkans, to as recent as 3,500 years BP, an actual time of transforming the languages of the “Indo-Iranian” territory into a linguistic family. In any case, the Aryan tribe and the Aryan language is directly related to the R1a1 tribe.

As noted Anthony (Anthony, 2007), every archeology student from the 1960s studied under a motto “The pots are not people”, and generally from the 1970s-1980s the concept of migration practically disappeared from the archaeology. In contrast, in the DNA-genealogy these attributes are the migration, directions, regions, and times. Therefore, from the standpoint of the (Russian) archaeology, the “Eurasian Indo-European continuum” looks like Catacomb-Timber Grave-Petrov-Andronovo-Sintashta cultures, and they are not migrations, but a “chain transmission of the cultural traits”, together with the language. And archaeologists even note that in the anthropological relation, this chain is practically homogeneous.

But from the standpoint of the DNA genealogy that approach is fundamentally defective. Here the archaeologists have mixed up, have transposed two migration counterflows of two tribes, a Türkic-lingual R1b from the east to the west, and an Aryan-speaking, “Proto-Indo-European” R1a from the west to the east. The anthropology of these two streams is in fact close or almost identical, because they are two kindred tribes, both Caucasoids, both formed from the same R1 type haplotype. And then archeologists have that the cultures of one tribe, the Türkic-lingual R1b from the Khvalyn, Sredny Stog, and ancient Pit Grave and then the Catacomb Cultures, with a general direction to the west, suddenly jumped over to the “Proto-Indo-European” Andronov and Sintashta Cultures, formed by the movement of the future Aryans (haplogroup R1a1) to the east.

DNA genealogy helps to solve, or at least to suggest solutions for many questions that archeology and linguistics have not been able to resolve.

For example, questions of the “ethnogenesis of the ancient Celts, the time of whose appearance in the Western Europe, like their paths of settlement, the most “traditional” theory can not explain” (Rubin, “Localization problems of the Indo-European homeland: a critical review of the modern concepts, pp. 84-92), despite the fact that “migration of Celtic tribes is only recorded in the direction from west to east, not vice versa” (Alinei, 2004a, b). The DNA genealogy gives an immediate response: the Pra-Celts, the haplogroup R1b1b2, arrived on the European continent by a roundabout migrational path, from the Eastern European Plain across the Caucasus, Middle East and North Africa, on to the Iberian Peninsula, and further into the Continental Europe, 4,800-4,500 years ago (see above). Naturally, the movement from the Pyrenees (and from the British Isles, the next phase of R1b1b2 advancement from the Pyrenees) to Europe went from the west to the east. The Celts were carrying Türkic languages across the Europe.

In conclusion, a brief pause on the Scythian issue. From the above, it is clear that the Scythian people - in fact, a collective term, were both Türkic-lingual, and “Iranian-lingual”, or more accurately, Aryan-lingual. They were both nomadic pastoralists (which is typical for the Türkic tribes), and farmers (which is often typical for the Aryans). They had both haplogroups R1a1, and R1b1. They lived in felt yurts (many of those who lived in them, were carriers of R1b1), and also in stationary buildings (many of those were farmers, R1a1). Unfortunately, neither the specialists in the Indo-European languages, nor the Turkists are willing to recognize the duality (at least) of the Scythians, Sarmatians, and many other steppe (and not only steppe) tribes of the 1st millennium BC and the beginning of our era.

The sooner both sides, the “Iranists” and “Türkists” recognize these facts, or at this point only considerations, the sooner linguistics would be enriched by new findings and discoveries. Especially, if in addition they would adopt in their research arsenal the DNA genealogy. I dare to hope that this article would facilitate that.

[Jaska]

Now, the problem with the study of Indo-European is that the groundwork was done over a century ago, and although exciting discoveries have been made since (notably Hittite and Tocharian), the basic story is still what it was then.

That is so absurd. Because a discipline is old, you think that it is wrong? Please, wake up.
The basic story is that Indo-European languages are related, and that will never change. But if you look at the development of the Proto-Indo-European reconstructions, there have been much evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleicher%27s_fable

Many pseudoscientists like Marcantonio use the same lame argument. Nobody believes that old stuff anymore, it only laid a basis for the evolution of modern studies. I bet that if Turkology was so old, you wouldn't claim that it is so wrong.

[Proto-Shaman]

That is so absurd. Because a discipline is old, you think that it is wrong? Please, wake up.
The basic story is that Indo-European languages are related, and that will never change. But if you look at the development of the Proto-Indo-European reconstructions, there have been much evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleicher%27s_fable

Many pseudoscientists like Marcantonio use the same lame argument. Nobody believes that old stuff anymore, it only laid a basis for the evolution of modern studies. I bet that if Turkology was so old, you wouldn't claim that it is so wrong.
Absurd?! :rolleyes: not at all:

http://www.haluktarcan.com/UserFiles/Image/avrupadilleri.jpg
http://www.haluktarcan.com/UserFiles/Image/avrupadilleri2.jpg
http://www.haluktarcan.com/UserFiles/Image/avrupadilleri3.jpg

"The linguistic research on the Indo-European theory at the end of the 18th and early 19th century arose completely from the necessity of lies and denials. [...]. As a result, the Indo-European languages are ​found within a common upper group with the Altaic languages​. Languages such as French, Turkish and Manchurian are found within the upper-family of the same stock." (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; Notice: Nr.386, Sept. 2000)

[Jaska]

Show me that they talk about language relatedness, not just dynamics, as I think. I think you have misunderstood something.

[Proto-Shaman]

I don't doubt the presence of a Turkic language somewhere in some point of time. I doubt the evidence connecting it to R1b. How do you explain that there is no R1b in Yakuts, but there is C and R1a in Yakuts and Turkish?
The answer lies in the pre-historic haplogroup NOP. N and O went their own way and P mutated into Q & R. So Yakuts are a good example of this development in which N was isolated in the northern parts of Eurasia.

"As described (Klyosov & Rozhanskii, 2012b), Europeoids (Caucasoids) appeared ~58,000 ybp. They gradually branched to downstream haplogroups and their subclades, and migrated to the north, west, south and east. Haplogroup NOP, which was among them, arose ~48,000 ybp, and moved eastward, pre-sumably towards South Siberia and/or adjacent regions. Hap-logroup P split off ~38,000 ybp, presumably in South Siberia, and gave rise to haplogroup R and then R1 ~30,000 - 26,000 ybp (see the diagram in Klyosov and Rozhanskii, 2012b). Hap-logroup R1b arose ~16,000 ybp, as it will be shown further in this paper."

Source: Anatole A. Klyosov: Ancient History of the Arbins, Bearers of Haplogroup R1b, from Central Asia to Europe, 16,000 to 1500 Years before Present (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19567)

[Jaska]

The answer lies in the pre-historic haplogroup NOP. N and O went their own way and P mutated into Q & R. So Yakuts are a good example of this development in which N was isolated in the northern parts of Eurasia.
Actually you didn't answer to my question.
My point is, that the best candidate for the carriers of Proto-Turkic language is that haplogroup which is found in most Turkic peoples. R1b loses in this respect to N or R1a, as far as I know.

[Proto-Shaman]

Actually you didn't answer to my question.
My point is, that the best candidate for the carriers of Proto-Turkic language is that haplogroup which is found in most Turkic peoples. R1b loses in this respect to N or R1a, as far as I know.
I know this topic is very complicated, but ironically Turkic peoples have the oldest R1a, R1b and N haplotypes, not Uralic peoples nor IE-peoples. All of those haplogroups originated somewhere in Eurasia.

[Artek]

ironically Turkic peoples have the oldest R1a, R1b and N haplotypes, not Uralic peoples nor IE-peoples.
Since when they have the oldest R1a haplotypes? They have it mostly under Z93

[blogen]

Since when they have the oldest R1a haplotypes? They have it mostly under Z93

This is common, but baseless pan-Turkist theory (Yamna = proto-Turks or something similar). Anyway, the Z93 was not Turk originally, the ancestors of the proto-Turks were Eastern Eurasians genetically. In the Bronze and Iron age, their ancestors heavily mixed with Indoeuropean settlers in Mongolia and the Iron age proto-Turks were mostly Europo-Mongoloid, but genetically rather East Eurasian population.

[Proto-Shaman]

Since when they have the oldest R1a haplotypes? They have it mostly under Z93
"Apparently, the most ancient source of R1a1 haplotypes is provided by the people now living in northern China. It was shown (Bittles et al., 2007) that for a number of Chinese populations, such as Hui, Bonan, Dongxiang, Salars, a percentage of R1a1 haplotypes reached 18% - 32%." (see 1st source below)

Hui, Bonan and Dongxiang are known to be Mongolized Turks. Tu, Xibe, Tatars, Uyghurs, Yugurs, Salars, Bonan etc. have their R1a1 common ancestor by 6900 ybp.

South Siberian & North China R1a1 common ancestor: 20,000 ybp.

Indian R1a1 common ancestor: 12,000 - 11,000 ybp. (Aryan source: 4600-4000 ybp; South Siberian/Central Asian source: 20,000-10,000 ybp.)

Tuva R1a1 common ancestor: 10,000 ybp.

Altayan & Tuva R1a1 common ancestor: 10,000-10,400 ybp.

Altayan R1a1 common ancestor: 8600 ybp.

Comoros Island (Africa) R1a1 common ancestor: 8500 ± 1190 ybp.

Altayan & Russian Plain R1a1 common ancestor: 8100 ybp + 7300-10,4000 ybp.

Old European (non-IE) R1a1 common ancestor: 7700-7400 ybp.

Tubalars & Chelkans R1a1 common ancestor: 7600-7250 ybp.

Tuva & Russian Plain R1a1 common ancestor: 7300 ybp.

Uyghur R1a1 common ancestor: 6900 ybp.

Russian Plain R1a1 common ancestor: 4800-4600 ybp.

Central Asians R1a1 common ancestor: 4300 ± 940 ybp. (only 4 mutations in 67 markers away from Russian Plain btw.)

Kumandin R1a1 common ancestor: 3800 ybp.

Kyrgyz R1a1 common ancestor: 2200 ybp.

Central Asians & Russian Plain R1a1 common ancestor: 7200 ybp.

north-western Central Asian & Russian Plain R1a1 common ancestor: 9350 ybp or 7925 ybp.

Bashkir R1a1 common ancestor: 1300 ± 250 ybp.

Bashkir & Russian Plain R1a1 common ancestor: 4700 ± 500 ybp. (This is the Aryan R1a1 common ancestor on the Russian Plain.)

Szekely R1a1 common ancestor: 675 ± 260 ybp.

Szekely & Bashkir R1a1 common ancestor: 3500 ± 400 ybp. (This reflects migrations of R1a1-L342 bearers from the Ural region west-ward to Transylvania along with Finno-Ugric migrations of those times.)

Source:

Anatole A. Klyosov, Igor L. Rozhanskii, The Academy of DNA Genealogy, Newton, USA, Haplogroup R1a as the Proto Indo-Europeans and the Legendary Aryans as Witnessed by the DNA of Their Current Descendants (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=17707), Advances in Anthropology 2012. Vol.2, No.1, 1-13. [PDF (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=17707) in English]

Anatole A. Klyosov, Haplotypes of R1a in Altai: “autochthonous” and “Indo-Europeans” (http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/Klyosov/Klyosov2012R1aDNAAltaiEn.htm), Proceedings of the Academy of DNA Genealogy (ISSN 1942-7484), Volume 5, No. 12, December 2012 [PDF (http://aklyosov.home.comcast.net/~aklyosov/5_12_2012.pdf) in Russian]

[Proto-Shaman]

This is common, but baseless pan-Turkist theory (Yamna = proto-Turks or something similar). Anyway, the Z93 was not Turk originally, the ancestors of the proto-Turks were Eastern Eurasians genetically. In the Bronze and Iron age, their ancestors heavily mixed with Indoeuropean settlers in Mongolia and the Iron age proto-Turks were mostly Europo-Mongoloid, but genetically rather East Eurasian population.
Seriously, you are still a noob in this topic. I would recommend you to stop to proclaim the non-Turkicness of the CAUCASOID Turanid anthropological type. If you were able to do so, you can come again and talk to us in a educated and non-populist way.

P.S. And don't forget Altaic horse terminology in the components of IE's ;)

[Artek]

This is common, but baseless pan-Turkist theory (Yamna = proto-Turks or something similar). Anyway, the Z93 was not Turk originally, the ancestors of the proto-Turks were Eastern Eurasians genetically. In the Bronze and Iron age, their ancestors heavily mixed with Indoeuropean settlers in Mongolia and the Iron age proto-Turks were mostly Europo-Mongoloid, but genetically rather East Eurasian population.
I agree. He is just spreading total bullsh*t.

[Proto-Shaman]

I agree. He is just spreading total bullsh*t.
Of course you agree with him, such phantastic myths stem from the European longing to secure for itself an illustrious ancestry, fitted with exceptional mental endowments and promoters of true progress, when there is none.

[Albion]

P.S. And don't forget Altaic horse terminology in the components of IE's ;)

Proof?

[Proto-Shaman]

Proof?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%81%C3%A9%E1%B8%B1wos
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Slavic/kobyla#Proto-Slavic
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Slavic_languages&oldid=63645173#Loanwords
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/mark%28%27%29-#Proto-Indo-European

edit:
also worth to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_Continuity_Theory#Horse_terminology

[Artek]

Of course you agree with him, such phantastic myths stem from the European longing to secure for itself an illustrious ancestry, fitted with exceptional mental endowments and promoters of true progress, when there is none.
Blah blah, using of quasi-sophisticated words can't hide your ignorance about the spread of an R1a and it's phylogeny among various populations

[Proto-Shaman]

Blah blah, using of quasi-sophisticated words can't hide your ignorance about the spread of an R1a and it's phylogeny among various populations
Sorry but I was the one who provided the evidence, now the burden of evidence to falsify me lies on you. Geddit?

[EliasAlucard]

The trouble is that Klyosov is not a linguist but a geneticist... He doesn't understand shit about linguistics, and he wants to have an opinion!!!He's not really a geneticist either.

[Artek]

Sorry but I was the one who provided the evidence, now the burden of evidence to falsify me lies on you. Geddit?
Evidence based on what? TMRCA calculations on 12 markers? Where is the deep SNP study of this R1a haplotypes?
As far as I know, the oldest R1a haplotypes found so far with confirmed position on phylotree belong to the West Asia and Europe. Some exceptions are probably for the region around Himalayas.

[Proto-Shaman]

Evidence based on what? TMRCA calculations on 12 markers? Where is the deep SNP study of this R1a haplotypes?
As far as I know, the oldest R1a haplotypes found so far with confirmed position on phylotree belong to the West Asia and Europe. Some exceptions are probably for the region around Himalayas.
copy-editing:

Assignments of haplotypes to haplogroups and subclades were based on their SNP classification. In some instances it was additionally supported calculating their position on the phylogenic trees from their respective STR data. The deep SNP says: The most ancient common ancestors of R1a1 lived in northern and northwestern China (in particular, Xinjiang region, which is the south Altai area), in southern Siberia, in the Eastern Himalayas, India and Pakistan, the Comoros Islands, and in Europe, where their bearers apparently migrated from the east during both the remote past and later, for example, with the Scythians.

Reference data were selected according to SNP assignment from YSearch database (http://www.ysearch.org) and public projects of FTDNA (http://www.familytreedna.com).

[Proto-Shaman]

He's not really a geneticist either.
He is a chemist and biochemist.

[Kale]

copy-editing:

Assignments of haplotypes to haplogroups and subclades were based on their SNP classification. In some instances it was additionally supported calculating their position on the phylogenic trees from their respective STR data. The deep SNP says: The most ancient common ancestors of R1a1 lived in northern and northwestern China (in particular, Xinjiang region, which is the south Altai area), in southern Siberia, in the Eastern Himalayas, India and Pakistan, the Comoros Islands, and in Europe, where their bearers apparently migrated from the east during both the remote past and later, for example, with the Scythians.

Reference data were selected according to SNP assignment from YSearch database (http://www.ysearch.org) and public projects of FTDNA (http://www.familytreedna.com).

So let's see here...number 1, we are looking at age of R1a clades, whether it's oldest in South Siberia/Altai/whatever or Europe is fun debate, all fine and dandy, nothing terribly surprising either way...but Comoros islands!??! Isn't that, you know, like fucking Madagascar/East Africa!??! What is a 10,000 year old R1a presence doing there? Either that study went horribly wrong or we should be talking about that!

[EliasAlucard]

He is a chemist and biochemist.Yeah, which is why he's not a geneticist.

[Proto-Shaman]

Yeah, which is why he's not a geneticist.
:picard1: which is why he is still an expert in his field.

[Proto-Shaman]

Comoros islands!??! Isn't that, you know, like fucking Madagascar/East Africa!??! What is a 10,000 year old R1a presence doing there? Either that study went horribly wrong or we should be talking about that!
Well, these are the results. Evidence has been obtained that the oldest R1a1 lived circa 20,000 years before the present (ybp) in South Siberia.

[Artek]

Reference data were selected according to SNP assignment from YSearch database (http://www.ysearch.org) and public projects of FTDNA (http://www.familytreedna.com).
So it's based mostly on 12 Y-STR results. Thanks, I was afraid that this study may be reliable indeed.

[Proto-Shaman]

So it's based mostly on 12 Y-STR results. Thanks, I was afraid that this study may be reliable indeed.
Wishful thinking, this happens when people have no arguments. I have to disappoint you, but it's the oppsite of what you said you clever dick :yawnee20: so at the end your nightmare became tr00. Sorry for that. STR 20.000 ybp? maybe in another reality...

[Artek]

Wishful thinking, this happens when people have no arguments. I have to disappoint you, but it's the oppsite of what you said you clever dick :yawnee20: so at the end your nightmare became tr00. Sorry for that. STR 20.000 ybp? maybe in another reality...
:picard1:The problem is that those Chinese haplotypes were never an SNP-confirmed M420+ SRY1532.2-, SRY1532.2+ M17- or whatever. Those were a 5-marker:yuck: haplotypes according to the thesis of Kloysov.

Anyway, I don't negate a presence of old R1a haplotypes around Central Asia, because it basically originated there.
What I negate is your pan-turkism you always serve us with in several occasions, even in such threads.

By reading your posts between the lines I think that you consider Indo-Europeans as a distinctive subset of Turkish people or at least I perceive it like that:D. Maybe you have any other concept but I suspect it's not much different. This is ridiculous and that's why I don't even bother myself too much with forming an arguments.
Turkic Yamna, Sredny Stog and Andronovo? You have an answer why I don't treat you seriously.

[Proto-Shaman]

:picard1:The problem is that those Chinese haplotypes were never an SNP-confirmed M420+ SRY1532.2-, SRY1532.2+ M17- or whatever. Those were a 5-marker:yuck: haplotypes according to the thesis of Kloysov.
Where is the problem with 5-marker haplotypes?


By reading your posts between the lines I think that you consider Indo-Europeans as a distinctive subset of Turkish people or at least I perceive it like that:D
Nostratic is the keyword here ;) or even haplogroup NOP-tic ;)


Turkic Yamna, Sredny Stog and Andronovo? You have an answer why I don't treat you seriously.
Racist dogmas are hard to die ;)

[Artek]

Nostratic is the keyword here ;)
That's right, proto-Indo European must have been from the same-root language as a proto-Turkish. But something seems to be clearly..privileged


Racist dogmas are hard to die ;)
So who they were and why do you call that as a racist dogma? Most probably they were an Indo-European-speaking people.

[Proto-Shaman]

So who they were and why do you call that as a racist dogma? Most probably they were an Indo-European-speaking people.
Because efforts to associate Yamna with IE R1a is kinda diffcult to prove (keep in mind there was even non-IE R1a). Time and place of R1a doesn't really fit. In contrast R1b does. Klyosov calls these ancient R1b carriers "agglutinative Arbin speakers" (Celts, Basques, Turkics, Sumerians, Dene-Caucasian etc...). So, a mixure of IE's, Turkics, North Caucasians + some isolated peoples.

[EliasAlucard]

:picard1: which is why he is still an expert in his field.He's not that either, he's an expert compared with you.

[Proto-Shaman]

He's not that either, he's an expert compared with you.
Compared to him you are a gnat.

[EliasAlucard]

Compared to him you are a gnat.You should perhaps check out the word 'round the campfire:

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/30731-Anatole-Klyosov-s-R1a-Proto-Indo-Europeans-and-Legendary-Aryans-paper

^^ He's not a serious population geneticist, and that you regard him as some sort of authority with real expertise, also makes you a joke. But we knew that already :)

[Proto-Shaman]

You should perhaps check out the word 'round the campfire:

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/30731-Anatole-Klyosov-s-R1a-Proto-Indo-Europeans-and-Legendary-Aryans-paper

^^ He's not a serious population geneticist, and that you regard him as some sort of authority with real expertise, also makes you a joke. But we knew that already :)
Talking out of your ass won't hide your mental backwardness. Aryan R1a haplotypes are close to those of the Kyrgyz and Bashkir Turks.

[EliasAlucard]

Talking out of your ass won't hide your mental backwardness. Aryan R1a haplotypes are close to those of the Kyrgyz and Bashkir Turks.Obviously, because Kyrgyz and Bashkir Turkic speakers are formerly Indo-European populations who were race mixed and linguistically pwned.

That doesn't change the fact that if the word on Klyosov is correct, he's a joke, and so are you for taking him seriously. That he says R1a is proto-Indo-European doesn't make him an omniscient scientist; he wasn't even the first to point out that connection, it's been known since the early 2000s, when the M17 mutation was discovered.

And yes, you're a moron. Don't let anyone make you believe otherwise.

[Proto-Shaman]

Obviously, because Kyrgyz and Bashkir Turkic speakers are formerly Indo-European populations who were race mixed and linguistically pwned.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/l6WNeu-sHc2lxL2CqDD1vqwHdwpoAez4nDPKvvV5P7NV=w410-h230


That doesn't change the fact that if the word on Klyosov is correct, he's a joke, and so are you for taking him seriously. That he says R1a is proto-Indo-European doesn't make him an omniscient scientist; he wasn't even the first to point out that connection, it's been known since the early 2000s, when the M17 mutation was discovered.

And yes, you're a moron. Don't let anyone make you believe otherwise.
So, let me guess... you are Uncle Chris? no wait... Santa Claus? No, seriously, I need some scientific arguments, I don't have time for out of the ass arguments.

[BasicallyNone]

According to Alinei the Paleolithic Continuity hypothesis is supported by the tentative linguistic identification of Etruscans as a Uralic, proto-Hungarian people that had already undergone strong proto-Turkic influence in the third millennium BC.

Holy damn cow, I have never but NEVER heard such an insane bullshit, Etruscan = Thracians and Thracians = non-Turkic people. you should seriously step back from civilisation and cultures at this point if you're thinking whatever you're thinking is right.