Indo-European origins. [Archive] - The Apricity Forum: A European Cultural Community

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 11:00 AM

Harappans were IE: http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-04-02.pdf

Indus Valley language is Aryan: My book Sanskrit Eloquent Indus Seals conclusively proves based on rigorous logical arguments that the language of the ancient Indus Valley is Sanskrit. The following text is from the Ebook,
Sanskrit Eloquent Indus Seals by R V Muraleedharan

An Indus Seal with 4 symbols and 30 readings

I have selected an Indus seal that was unearthed from the Indus Valley site of Kalibangan in the state of Rajasthan in India. The seal is mostly engraved with symbols of numerals that could be given uncontroversial phonetic values. The seal depicts a milieu of three characters, a man, a strange animal and a tree. The scene has many oddities that seem to be deliberately incorporated by the seal maker so that the depiction may conform to the text written on the seal.
1) A man sits on a tree. 2) The man has an unusually narrow belly. 3) The man sits with his legs crossed. 4) He sits on a leaf of the tree. 5) He raises his hand. 6) The strange animal has human-like face and legs.
In spite of the complexity of the depicted scenery the scripts on the seal are relatively simple; a human figure with additional markings on the body, 7 strokes and another 3 strokes. For now, we will neglect the additional markings on the human figure. Fortunately, the three symbols are clear-cut and noncontroversial; 3, 7 and a man. Though there are many terms for the word ‘man’ in Sanskrit, we will choose the most commonly used term mAnusha, of which man is a shortened English form. The combination of English terms (from the right to the left)
3 + 7 + man
three + seven + man
This, in Sanskrit, adds up as:
thra + sapta + mAnusha
(thra = 3; sapta = 7; mAnusha = man)
1) Sanskrit Reading: tharu sambaddha mAnusha
Meaning of Sanskrit words: (tharu = to a tree; sambaddha = attached; mAnusha = a man)
English Translation of the reading : A man attached to a tree.
2) Sanskrit Reading: udara sambAdha mAnusha
Meaning of Sanskrit words: udara = belly; sambAdha = narrow; mAnusha = man
English Translation of the reading: A man with a narrow belly.
The above scripts can be read in the reverse order too!

The combination of symbols in Sanskrit is:
mAnusha + sapta + thra
(mAnusha = man; sapta = 7; thra = 3)

........ Cont’d............

6) Sanskrit Reading: mAnushasya pAda thAra
Meaning of Sanskrit words: (mAnushasya = man’s; pAda = legs; thAra =crossing)
English Translation of the reading: Man’s legs are crossing.
7) Sanskrit Reading: mAnusha Asya pAda thAra
Meaning of Sanskrit words: (mAnusha = man; Asya = sits; pAda = leg; thAra = crossing)
English Translation of the reading: Man sits with legs crossed.
The vestiges of these ancient Sanskrit terms in modern English can be attested by reading the above symbols as “tree’s bound man” and “trans-foot man”!
We will now take into account the neglected extra markings on the human figure and examine how this changes the reading. The man seems to carry an open rectangular structure on his shoulders. The ingenuity of the script writer is manifested here. The man on the tree has his palm raised up; likewise the human figure in the script lifts up a contraption on his shoulder. The contraption looks like the beam of a balance. In Sanskrit the palm of the hand is called tAla. The prefix ud in Sanskrit denotes motion upwards. Adding this to the noun tAla, the term uttAla means the palm lifted up. A balance or the beam of a balance is termed by the word tola, rhyming with tAla, the palm. Following similar arguments, uttola denotes a lifted up balance or a beam of balance the man is depicted to hold.

........ Cont’d............

Well, in fact the above reading is true to the last letter! If you observe the Monster’s face closely you will find that there are holes around the neck suggesting that its face is indeed an attachment! The presence of the holes is confirmed in the next reading!
24) Sanskrit Reading: uttAla mAnusha Asyah bhiddha dhara
Meaning of Sanskrit words: (uttala = monster; mAnusha = man; Asyah = face; bhiddha = dissected; dhara = bears)
English Translation of the reading: The monster bears a dissected human face
We have, in fact, covered most of the peculiarities of the pictorial depiction encoded by the script of the seal. But there are still other readings that are not figuratively portrayed.
25) Sanskrit Reading: tAla mAnusha shabda dhara
Meaning of Sanskrit words: (tAla = palm-leaf; mAnusha = man; shabda = voice; dhara = bears)
English Translation of the reading: The palm-leaf bears man’s voice

........ Cont’d............

Now we will try to get a glimpse of the practical application of the seal. Apart from captioning the accompanying picture, does the script signify anything? The Harappan archaeologists claim that the seals are used to seal the goods produced in the Indus Valley. These seals, therefore, encode the identity of its owners. If we assume such a theoretical possibility does the above seal contain the identity of any person? Yes, there is an ancient name homophonous to uttAla mentioned in Mahabharata.
(From Adiparvam, Mahabharata)
yasmAd bhavAn kedArakhandam avadAryotthitas tasmAd bhavAn uddAlaka eva nAmnA bhavishyatIti
Translation: Since you have erected a dyke, you will be named Uddalaka.
28) Sanskrit Reading: uddAla mAnusha sampat dhara
Meaning of Sanskrit words: (uddAla = the name of a man; mAnusha = man; sampat = property, goods; dhara = bears)
English Translation of the reading: Carrying the goods of the man, Uddala.

........ Cont’d............
We read an obscure Indus seal scribbled with 2 numerals and 2 symbols in 30 different ways! This is proof enough that the Indus script is eloquent, and that too in the Aryan tongue of Sanskrit!

http://www.readindus.com/

Peyrol

07-07-2012, 11:00 AM

I do not necessarily think that it was the "Urheimat", but it was surely IE. I agree with you.

I think instead that this was the true origins: this civilization ended in 2500 B.C. circa...after this, probabily indoeuros migrated to the north, in the ancient North Caucasus/Volga regions, and after they widespread into all Europe and Caucasus, plus Anatolia; this would explain why legend talk about people "came from North" (doric, hittites,etc.).
Another group remained in the area and formed modern pakistani and indians indoeuropean speakers (Pashtuns, Khalas, Punjabi, etc), while others formed the proto-iranid people.

Peyrol

07-07-2012, 11:02 AM

I personally don't believe in Von Sebottendorf and Hitler theories about an ancient "north euro civilization", because there aren't any material, historical and mythological evidence of this theory.

Optimus

07-07-2012, 11:03 AM

I think instead that this was the true origins: this civilization ended in 2500 B.C. circa...after this, probabily indoeuros migrated to the north, in the ancient North Caucasus/Volga regions, and after they widespread into all Europe and Caucasus, plus Anatolia; this would explain why legend talk about people "came from North" (doric, hittites,etc.).
Another group remained in the area and formed modern pakistani and indians indoeuropean speakers (Pashtuns, Khalas, Punjabi, etc), while others formed the proto-iranid people.

That is just wishfull thinking.As i have already said all facts point a migration from Central-Eastern Europe toward Asia not the other way around.

There's a new paper out at PNAS covering the origin and spread of horse domestication, as inferred from the DNA of living horses from across the Eurasian steppes. According to the authors, Warmuth et al., horses were first domesticated on the western steppe - what is now Ukraine, Southwest Russia and Western Kazakhstan. Apparently, the people responsible then migrated deep into Asia, possibly on horseback, and added wild horses to their herds as they moved.

Source (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2012/05/horse-domestication-spread-from.html)

That is Indo-Europeans were the first to use the horse in their expansion and warfare,and that gived them a lot of advantage.

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 11:03 AM

^^ Yes, but where did those Indus Valley people come from? From the area of origin of J2 and G: Anatolia.

Peyrol

07-07-2012, 11:05 AM

That is just wishfull thinking.As i have already said all facts point a migration from Central-Eastern Europe toward Asia not the other way around.

Source (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2012/05/horse-domestication-spread-from.html)

That is Indo-Europeans were the first to use the horse in their expansion and warfare,and that gived them a lot of advantage.

But this can work with my theory: the region you mentioned were the second stop of the indoeuropean proto euro people.

Optimus

07-07-2012, 11:06 AM

^^ Yes, but where did those Indus Valley people come from? From the area of origin of J2 and G: Anatolia.

Highest diversity of J2 is found in Caucasus and the highest percentage of WestAsian/Caucasus component is found among non-Indo European speaking people in Caucasus so that is totally invalid.Moreover G or specifically G2a has absolutely nothing to do with IE people they were early Neolithic Sardinian like farmers.

Peyrol

07-07-2012, 11:08 AM

I've personally another theories about a common very ancient roots (9-8000 B.C. circa) of indoeuropeans and (ancient) semithic people.

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 11:09 AM

Optimus

07-07-2012, 11:11 AM

But this can work with my theory: the region you mentioned were the second stop of the indoeuropean proto euro people.

This is not about personal theories.It is about interpreting what scholars believe and what arguments and facts provide.So yours and Protospatha theories are not backed up by serious scholars except the fully biased Dienekes who wants to make Greeks as the most IE people.He is just butthurt because he speaks a language that has nothing to do with his ancestors.

Rereg

07-07-2012, 11:12 AM

I think real urheimat of IE languages was Central Asia and people from andronovo-culture were first IE speakers.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Indo-Iranian_origins.png

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 11:12 AM

Peyrol

07-07-2012, 11:14 AM

gold_fenix

07-07-2012, 11:19 AM

I personally believe thath Multan-Lahore (Indo Valley) civilization was the uhremeit of the Indoeuropeans people: take a look of the position...this would also explain why pseudo/para-white people are also diffused in the surrounding areas.

http://digilander.libero.it/corsinistoria/taifeng.vallindia.gif

Indo Valley civilization was very advanced, with lost knowleges and a mysterious end.

symbols in indo valley and Isle of pascua (older than 5000 years)
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/atlantida_mu/misterioatlan/imagenes/misterioatlan22.gif

Peyrol

07-07-2012, 11:21 AM

symbols in indo valley and Isle of pascua
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/atlantida_mu/misterioatlan/imagenes/misterioatlan22.gif

I read firstly this theory (Rapa Nui - Vallindian connection) here, when i was a child. :D

http://bvzm.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/m001.gif?w=460&h=612

Optimus

07-07-2012, 11:21 AM

The fact that Harappa civilization was the most ancient indoeuropean advanced civilization is an evidence, not a dienekes theory.
And no-one here has spoken of "greek purity".

You really believe that uber-weiss aryan Vrill inhabited Northern Europe after Thule island sinking, and after they mixed with untermenschen, unless in ancient Germany, like Von Sebottendorf Nietsche and after Hitler (but also Madame Blavatsky theorosphy) believed? I find this pseudo-science hard to believe, sincerely.

This has nothing to do with Aryan and Untermensch things.It is just that PIE people were extremely warlike and patriarchal so they didn't include any foreign male into their group meanwhile the female lineages were quite diverse.

http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l625/ft-d/R1a-chart.gif

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 11:23 AM

This has nothing to do with Aryan and Untermensch things.It is just that PIE people were extremely warlike and patriarchal so they didn't include any foreign male into their group.

http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l625/ft-d/R1a-chart.gif

Oh, really mister Aryan? And why is there J2 and G only in upper caste India?

http://dienekes.blogspot.it/2008/08/origin-of-hindu-brahmins.html

Take also a look at the frequencies of J2 and G in Indo-Iranian speaking groups.

J2 and G Aryans included (for their luck) R1a nomads.

Peyrol

07-07-2012, 11:24 AM

Let stay apart mDna...let's talk in a cultural and cultural-evolution way.

Also some nigerian yourba carry I2b haplogrup, but this don't mean that they're skandos.

Optimus

07-07-2012, 11:26 AM

Oh, really mister Aryan? And why is there J2 and G only in upper caste India?

God you are such annoying with J2 and G.I am telling you J2 was native to Iran-Caucasus and has nothing to do with PIE you are obsessed with these lineages.Upper caste India has also the R1a that explains things well.You just have found a miniscule universe here and repeat the J2/G thing constantly.Your opinion is based by obsessions not facts and arguments.

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 11:30 AM

God you are such annoying with J2 and G.I am telling you J2 was native to Iran-Caucasus and has nothing to do with PIE you are obsessed with these lineages.Upper caste India has also the R1a that explains things well.You just have found a miniscule universe here and repeat the J2/G thing constantly.Your opinion is based by obsessions not facts and arguments.

You said they didn't include foreign admixtures. You are annoying with Slavo-supremacy R1a. Try to find convincing arguments and show me why Indo-Europeans didn't originate in West Asia instead of repeating the same things every one other tells me all the time.

R1a in India is Z-93, not M458.

I've shown a lot of papers and proofs, I don't see yours.

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 11:50 AM

In this website you'll find hundreds of papers that demonstrates you all that Aryans were farmers. http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/en/default_en.asp

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 12:03 PM

Saraswati river mentioned by RgVeda proves that the Aryan culture in India is present at least by 4000-6000 b.C. This marries perfectly with the age of J2 and G in India.

Optimus

07-07-2012, 12:14 PM

You said they didn't include foreign admixtures. You are annoying with Slavo-supremacy R1a. Try to find convincing arguments and show me why Indo-Europeans didn't originate in West Asia instead of repeating the same things every one other tells me all the time.

R1a in India is Z-93, not M458.

I've shown a lot of papers and proofs, I don't see yours.

R1a is not Slavic haplogroup it is Proto Indo-European.Slavic is just linguistical notion and I2a2 is a more South Slavic marker than R1a therefore it has nothing to do with supremacy thing don't try to put words in my mouth.

Phylogeography of R1a1 Y-chromosomal haplogroup and genetic history of Indo-Europeans. V. A. Stepanov, V. N. Kharkov Institute for Medical Genetics, Tomsk, Russian Federation.

Recent discussion of the prehistoric spreading of the Indo-European language group has generally concentrated on two alternative hypotheses: so-called “Kurgan Culture” hypothesis, which places the homeland of proto-Indo-Europeans to the Steppe of Eastern Europe, and alternative hypothesis of the spread of farmers from the Near East (Anatolia) to Europe in the Neolithic times. Y-chromosomal haplogroup R1a1, lineage is thought to have originated in the Eurasian Steppes north of the Black and Caspian Seas, seems to be associated with the Kurgan culture. Three geographic areas with the highest frequency of R1a1 haplogroup were revealed: Eastern Europe; Southern Siberia and Hindustan where the highest diversity of microsatellite haplotypes was observed. Phylogenetic analysis of microsatellite haplotypes demonstrates the presence of three corresponding major clusters with the age of the generation of haplotytic diversity of 7.2-12.5 ky. The highest diversity in Hindustani is related to the presence of haplotypes of Indo-Pakistani and Southern Siberian clusters in the population from India and Pakistan, probably due to relatively recent migrations from Central Asia. The age of the cluster admittedly brought to Hindustan from Central Asia / Southern Siberia is 3,9 +/- 1,3 ky. Probably, the primary center of the generation of diversity and expansion of R1a1a was the territory of the Eastern European Steppe. With the spread of of R1a1 carriers, secondary centers of genetic diversity and population expansions were formed in the Southern Siberia and Hindustan.

...

Estimating a date of mixture of ancestral South Asian populations. P. Moorjani1,2, N. Patterson2, P. Govindaraj3, L. Singh3,4,5, K. Thangaraj3,5, D. Reich1,2,5 1) Dept Gen, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; 2) Broad Institute, Cambridge, MA; 3) Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad, India; 4) Genome Foundation, Hyderabad, India; 5) These authors co-directed the project.

Linguistic and genetic studies have shown that most Indian groups have ancestry from two genetically divergent populations, Ancestral North Indians (ANI) and Ancestral South Indians (ASI). However, the date of mixture still remains unknown. We analyze genome-wide data from about 60 South Asian groups using a newly developed method that utilizes information related to admixture linkage disequilibrium to estimate mixture dates. Our analyses suggest that major ANI-ASI mixture occurred in the ancestors of both northern and southern Indians 1,200-3,500 years ago, overlapping the time when Indo-European languages first began to be spoken in the subcontinent. These results suggest that this formative period of Indian history was accompanied by mixtures between two highly diverged populations, although our results do not rule other, older ANI-ASI admixture events. A cultural shift subsequently led to widespread endogamy, which decreased the rate of additional population mixtures.

The Y-DNA of Tarim Basin mummies associated with the Indo-European speaking Tocharians.

Fifteen individuals' AMG amplicons were obtained from the 20 Xiaohe individuals (whose mtDNA was successfully amplified), among which seven individuals were identified as male and eight as female. The Y chromosome haplogroup of the seven males were all assigned to haplogroup R1a1a through screening the Y-SNPs at M89, M9, M45, M173 and M198 successively. Haplogroup R1a1a is widely distributed in Eurasia: it is mainly found in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, South Asia, Siberia, ancient Siberia, but rare in East Asia

Source (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2838831/?tool=pmcentrez)

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 12:29 PM

R1a is not Slavic haplogroup it is Proto Indo-European.Slavic is just linguistical notion and I2a2 is a more South Slavic marker than R1a therefore it has nothing to do with supremacy thing don't try to put words in my mouth.

The Y-DNA of Tarim Basin mummies associated with the Indo-European speaking Tocharians.

Source (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2838831/?tool=pmcentrez)

That happened because the Saraswati dried up and people migrated to other regions of India, simply.

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 12:34 PM

Another one:

"'The Horse and the Aryan Debate' by Michel Danino
This paper examines the latest evidence and shows that the horse was known and present in the Indus-Saraswati Culture in the mid-third millennium BCE and therefore was not brought by the hypothetical invasion/immigration of the Indoaryans into India c 1500 BCE."

PDF here: http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/The_horse_and_the_Aryan_Debate.pdf

And another:

"'Genetics and the Aryan Debate' by Michel Danino
This paper examines the latest genetic evidence which shows that there was no invasion or immigration into N-W India in significant numbers before 600 BCE. It was published in Puratattva, Bulletin of the Indian Archaeological Society, New Delhi, No. 36, 2005-06, pp. 146-154."

PDF: http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/Genetics_and_the_Aryan_Debate.pdf

"'The RV predates the Sindhu-Sarasvati Culture' by N. Kazanas
This paper was presented synoptically by Dr N. Kazanas at the Conference THE SINDHU-SARASVATI VALLEY CIVILIZATION: A REAPPRAISAL, in Los Angeles (Feb 2009).
Argument: There are misconceptions about rigvedic pur, ratha and samudra based on the Aryan Invasion/Immigration myth. Then, there are some 10 characteristic features of the Sarasvati-Sindhu Culture which are not found in the Rig Veda. Moreover palaeoastronomical evidence (mainly N. Achar's work) places some BrAhmaNa texts c 3000 and the oldest layers of the MahAbhArata 3067. All this (and more) suggests that the (bulk of the) Rig Veda should be assigned to well before 3200 BCE - however unpalatable to mainstream thought this may be."

PDF: http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/RPSSC.pdf

So, I've demonstrated that J2/G had the horse, no invasion until 600 B.C. and that the Rig Vedic Civilization was pre-Harappan, what else do you want?

Oh, Tarim mummies weren't neither Tocharian, nor Indo-European. Tocharian language is attested by 600-800 A.D., and ths fits well with the more recent mummies of 2000 years ago that were J2 and G.

Haplogroups frequency in modern Uyghur:

Uygur/Urumqi:
1/31 = 3.2% Y*(xA, C, DE, J, K) (This could be B, F*, G, H, or I, but, judging from other sources of Uyghur Y-DNA data, it is most likely G-M201.)
1/31 = 3.2% C*(xC1, C3) (This might be related to haplogroup C5-M356, which has been found in South Asia and Arabia.)
2/31 = 6.5% E
8/31 = 25.8% J
1/31 = 3.2% N1*-LLY22g(xN1a, N1b, N1c)
2/31 = 6.5% N1b
1/31 = 3.2% O1a
1/31 = 3.2% O3a3c*-M134(xO3a3c1-M117)
1/31 = 3.2% O3a3c1-M117
6/31 = 19.4% P*(xR1a) (This could be P*, Q, R*, R1b, or R2. I would guess that it is mostly R1b, mixed with smaller numbers of Q and R2.)
7/31 = 22.6% R1a

Uygur/Yili:
8/39 = 20.5% Y*(xA, C, DE, J, K) (This would be one of the highest frequencies of haplogroup G in the entire world if it were really all G-M201.)
1/39 = 2.6% C*(xC1, C3)
3/39 = 7.7% C3c
1/39 = 2.6% DE(xE)
5/39 = 12.8% K*(xNO, P)
1/39 = 2.6% N1*-LLY22g(xN1a, N1b, N1c)
2/39 = 5.1% N1c1
2/39 = 5.1% O3*
2/39 = 5.1% O3a3c*-M134(xO3a3c1-M117)
2/39 = 5.1% O3a3c1-M117
6/39 = 15.4% P*(xR1a)
6/39 = 15.4% R1a

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 01:18 PM

Albion

07-07-2012, 01:24 PM

This is not about personal theories.It is about interpreting what scholars believe and what arguments and facts provide.So yours and Protospatha theories are not backed up by serious scholars except the fully biased Dienekes who wants to make Greeks as the most IE people.He is just butthurt because he speaks a language that has nothing to do with his ancestors.

Greeks are one of the most Neolithic and least IE peoples of Europe based on genetics.

You really believe that uber-weiss aryan Vrill inhabited Northern Europe after Thule island sinking, and after they mixed with untermenschen, unless in ancient Germany, like Von Sebottendorf Nietsche and after Hitler (but also Madame Blavatsky theosophy) believed? I find this pseudo-science hard to believe, sincerely.

So claiming to the IE homeland in Central Asia or the Pontic Steppe is Nordicst is it?
Yeah, that's right - because us Northern Euros just love Kazakhstan and the ubermensch aryans like Borat... :rolleyes:

Sorry, but so far I haven't seen anyone claiming the IE homeland is Scandinavia so maybe you need to stop putting words in peoples mouths. Why are you bringing that daft north / south thing into this anyway?

Central Asia or India - neither are Europe and neither are very desirable as a homeland either.

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 01:27 PM

Greeks are one of the most Neolithic and least IE peoples of Europe based on genetics.

Then is the opposite, Greeks are 26,4% J2 and G (=26,4% IEs).

Smaug

07-07-2012, 01:32 PM

I personally believe in the Kurgan hypothesis as described by the Lithuanian archeologist Marija Gimbutas, wich states that the Proto-Indo-Europeans came from the Pontic Steppe. It it nohow a "Nordicist" theory, at least as I see. It is more likely that the PIE were a more Mediterranoid-looking population than Nordish.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/IE_expansion.png

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 01:33 PM

Albion

07-07-2012, 01:33 PM

This map of Swastikas shows clearly that a movement south-north happened in its diffusion, and the spreader must be Neolithic farmers:

http://www.richardcassaro.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Map-of-Europe-Swastikas-Yale-Study.png

Yes, how silly of us - of course regions which have never hosted farming or are unfarmable must have been settled by Neolithic farmers. Yes indeed, the Kola Peninsula, Sakhalin, the Tarim Desert, Northern Burkino Faso and Gujarat must all be absolutely teeming with J2 / G men. :rolleyes:

This is the daftest argument yet. Follow the swatsikas is like saying follow the wind. :rolleyes2:

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 01:35 PM

Yes, how silly of us - of course regions which have never hosted farming or are unfarmable must have been settled by Neolithic farmers. Yes indeed, the Kola Peninsula, Sakhalin, the Tarim Desert, Northern Burkino Faso and Gujarat must all be absolutely teeming with J2 / G men. :rolleyes:

This is the daftest argument yet. Follow the swatsikas is like saying follow the wind. :rolleyes2:

Obviously they spread also to non-IE people that came in contact with them. You can see two big sources for that: Middle East and India. Tarim desert has to do with it because the later mummies from 2000 years ao were J2 and G.

Albion

07-07-2012, 01:36 PM

Then is the opposite, Greeks are 26,4% J2 and G (=26,4% IEs).

No, these haplogroups were in Europe before IE was. Only R1a and possibly R1b are Indo-European.

I1, I2 = native
N, G, J2, E = Neolithic farmers (likely speaking Afro-Asiatic, South Caucasian or something akin to Sumerian)
R1a, R1b = the latecomers, Indo-Europeans.

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 01:37 PM

No, these haplogroups were in Europe before IE was. Only R1a and possibly R1b are Indo-European.

I1, I2 = native
N, G, J2, E = Neolithic farmers (likely speaking Afro-Asiatic, South Caucasian or something akin to Sumerian)
R1a, R1b = the latecomers, Indo-Europeans.

Totally wrong.

J2, G = Aryans Indo-Europeans
R1a, R1b, E, etc. = later Indo-Europeanized

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 01:42 PM

The neolithic Anatolian origin of Indo-European languages

Evolutionary biologists have waded into the stormy debate over when and where Indo-European languages originated.

Dr Russell Gray and PhD student Quentin Atkinson from the University of Auckland in New Zealand have calculated this group of 87 languages – as diverse as English, Lithuanian and Gujarati – arose between 8000 and 9500 years ago.

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/indomap.png?w=500

Their findings were reported in today’s issue of the journal Nature and support the theory that Indo-European languages arose around this time among farming communities in Anatolia, now known as Turkey.

The main competing theory to the Anatolian farmer theory is that these languages originated 6000 years ago among nomadic Kurgan horsemen sweeping down from the Russian Steppes. Some researchers say they spread their language and genes across Europe “through the sword” and through the use of horses and horse-drawn vehicles, Gray told ABC Science Online.

“People have been puzzled since at least Sir William Jones noticed in 1786 that Sanskrit, an ancient language in India, bore striking similarities to Greek and to Latin and to English. Where did all those languages come from and when did they split up?” he asked. “What we’ve been doing is to try and answer that question and in particular to test the two current major views about the origins of the European languages.”

While evidence of horse-drawn wheeled vehicles supported the “power of the sword” Kurgan theory, Gray said the fact that certain genes become rarer as you get further away from the Turkish region supported the “much kinder, gentler” Anatolian farmer theory.

“People have had huge arguments about that,” said Gray, who decided to try and settle the question using a technique from a branch of research called molecular phylogenetics. This computational and statistical method compares genes and builds family trees by inferring when different biological organisms diverged during evolution.

“Language like biological species diverge with time,” Gray said.

Using vocabulary and grammar instead of genes, the researchers used the same method to build a “family tree” of Indo-European languages. This was the first time methods like these have been applied to finding the roots of Indo-European languages.

Gray said his study came up with a root date that agreed with the Anatolian farmer theory “unbelievably closely”. The researchers checked and double-checked their findings: “We did everything we could possibly think of, like changing different assumptions, to try and see if we could get a different date range.”

Evolutionary biologist Gray said the findings were bound to inflame rather than settle the debate and said there had been some “fairly vigorous responses” to the findings so far: “Some linguists have been fairly kind of agitated I guess, having people come in from the outside and saying look we can solve these problems.

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/22/the-neolithic-turkish-origin-of-indo-european-languages/

Albion

07-07-2012, 01:42 PM

Obviously they spread also to non-IE people that came in contact with them. You can see two big sources for that: Middle East and India. Tarim desert has to do with it because the later mummies from 2000 years ao were J2 and G.

Right, so that's Tarim - now how about Finnic Kola and Ainu Sakhalin? Oh, and Burkino Faso - how did they get there? Don't tell me the Berbers took them.

It is likely that in many places such a simple symbol developed independently. Some Mississippi native Americans did just that:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Chromesun_4_uktenas_design.jpg

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 01:44 PM

Right, so that's Tarim - now how about Finnic Kola and Ainu Sakhalin? Oh, and Burkino Faso - how did they get there? Don't tell me the Berbers took them.

It is likely that in many places such a simple symbol developed independently. Some Mississippi native Americans did just that:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Chromesun_4_uktenas_design.jpg

All came from Indus-Sarasvati civilization since the most ancient were found there and in Middle East.

Albion

07-07-2012, 01:45 PM

Totally wrong.

J2, G = Aryans Indo-Europeans
R1a, R1b, E, etc. = later Indo-Europeanized

You're totally wrong. You have a strange Neolithic inferiority complex because you know Italy and much of Southern Europe is Neolithic in genes and so invent stories about IE being Neolithic.

God only knows why, the Neolithic cultures were more advanced than the Bronze Age ones in some respects.

Pallantides

07-07-2012, 01:48 PM

Central-East Europe most likely.

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 01:49 PM

You're totally wrong. You have a strange Neolithic inferiority complex because you know Italy and much of Southern Europe is Neolithic in genes and so invent stories about IE being Neolithic.

God only knows why, the Neolithic cultures were more advanced than the Bronze Age ones in some respects.

You have inferiority complex. If the R1b and R1a are in majority in Europe this doesn't mean that because they have to be satisfied people must tell them that they are Aryans. North-Euros are everything but not IEs.

Neolithic farmers were the most advanced human beings on the face of earth. Where did civilization arose at first? Indus Valey and Sumeria, both with high frequencies of J2 and G (Sumerians were mainly G and minor J2). Don't tell me civilization was born in the steppes:dielaughing:

Albion

07-07-2012, 02:12 PM

You have inferiority complex. If the R1b and R1a are in majority in Europe this doesn't mean that because they have to be satisfied people must tell them that they are Aryans. North-Euros are everything but not IEs.

Neolithic farmers were the most advanced human beings on the face of earth. Where did civilization arose at first? Indus Valey and Sumeria, both with high frequencies of J2 and G (Sumerians were mainly G and minor J2). Don't tell me civilization was born in the steppes:dielaughing:

Civilisation wasn't born on the steppes because steppe peoples are nomads. Indo-Europeans acquired civilisation when the settled down in Europe and Southern Asia.
I don't think anyone is doubting this, it is just you who is attempting to reinforce his identity based on fringe theories. Neolithics spread farming and civilisation to Europe, they did not spread IE languages or religion. Why is that an impossible concept?

gold_fenix

07-07-2012, 02:14 PM

Prince Carlo

07-07-2012, 02:14 PM

Well Oezti the copper age italian farmer was 0% west asian. So those West Asian guys must have come later.

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 02:17 PM

Civilisation wasn't born on the steppes because steppe peoples are nomads. Indo-Europeans acquired civilisation when the settled down in Europe and Southern Asia.
I don't think anyone is doubting this, it is just you who is attempting to reinforce his identity based on fringe theories. Neolithics spread farming and civilisation to Europe, they did not spread IE languages or religion. Why is that an impossible concept?

The spread of farming matches better the spread of IE languages than the steppe hypothesis.

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 02:18 PM

Well Oezti the copper age italian farmer was 0% west asian. So those West Asian guys must have come later.

Because he had mixed with indigenous I2 people, loosing all his West Asian component, as happens for a White that mixes with blacks generation after generation, he will lose all his "whiteness".

Prince Carlo

07-07-2012, 02:22 PM

Because he had mixed with indigenous I2 people, loosing all his West Asian component, as happens for a White that mixes with blacks generation after generation, he will lose all his "whiteness".

He was still 7% South West Asian and 3% North West African. His ancestors came from the Levant and North Africa, but they lacked the West Asian admix, which must have come later from somewhere else (Armenia?)-

Damião de Góis

07-07-2012, 02:25 PM

A possible explanation od Indo-Europeanization of Western Europe is that the West Asian component in Europe was (and is) found in significative presence among Westerners, with exception of Basques.

No that significant. It's under 10% in most areas:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?authkey=COCa89AJ&key=0ArAJcY18g2GadDUyeEtjNnBmY09EbnowN3M3UWRyNnc&hl=en_US&authkey=COCa89AJ#gid=0

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 02:26 PM

No that significant. It's under 10% in most areas:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?authkey=COCa89AJ&key=0ArAJcY18g2GadDUyeEtjNnBmY09EbnowN3M3UWRyNnc&hl=en_US&authkey=COCa89AJ#gid=0

This because they were always a small minority.

Peyrol

07-07-2012, 02:43 PM

LoL at all the people who voted "Central-East Europe"

Pallantides

07-07-2012, 02:56 PM

LoL at all the people who voted "Central-East Europe"

More like lol at the people who vote West Asian:rolleyes:

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 02:57 PM

The discovery of Dwarka, city mentioned in RgVeda, has carried the date of Aryans in India at least at 4000 B.C.

http://genesisveracityfoundation.com/1327413834_d635629d49_o.jpg

http://genesisveracityfoundation.com/JB012077.jpg

http://genesisveracityfoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/dwarka.jpg

Peyrol

07-07-2012, 02:58 PM

More like lol at the people who vote West Asian:rolleyes:

:lol:

You really believe in the para-scientific theories about "german origin of aryan race"...c'mon guys...

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 03:01 PM

Hey, we are in parity, 7-7. People are becoming to wake up! :)

Prince Carlo

07-07-2012, 03:03 PM

Oetzi was a G2a carrier who lacked West Asian admix. Where is your God now?

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 03:04 PM

Oetzi was a G2a carrier who lacked West Asian admix. Where is your God now?

He mixed with I2 guys, where is your God now?:rolleyes2:

Pallantides

07-07-2012, 03:05 PM

:lol:

You really believe in the para-scientific theories about "german origin of aryan race"...c'mon guys...

The proto-Indo Europeans most likely originated on the East European Steppe and expanded from there into Asia and rest of Europe, what do that have to do with "German Aryan master race"?

This theory is backed by science and archaeological evidence.

Peyrol

07-07-2012, 03:06 PM

The proto-Indo Europeans most likely originated on the East European Steppe and expanded from there into Asia and rest of Europe, what do that have to do with "German Aryan master race"?

This theory is backed by science and archaeological evidence.

You're referring to the Kurgan culture, and Kazakhstan/southern Russia/Urales aren't definitely "Europe", but central-western Asia.

Prince Carlo

07-07-2012, 03:06 PM

He mixed with I2 guys, where is your God now?:rolleyes2:

Of course, but he was still 7% South West Asian so his middleastern admix didn't disappear.

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 03:07 PM

The proto-Indo Europeans most likely originated on the East European Steppe and expanded from there into Asia and rest of Europe, what do that have to do with "German Aryan master race"?

This theory is backed by science and archaeological evidence.

This thread is disseminated of proofs I linked, too, but given that no one cares to read it, I'll no read yours, so this conflict will never end. I have more proofs than you.

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 03:07 PM

Of course, but he was still 7% South West Asian so his middleastern admix didn't disappear.

Appunto. Cosa dici a fare "where is your God now"?

Prince Carlo

07-07-2012, 03:10 PM

Nel senso che veniva dal levante ma non aveva influenze West Asian. Quindi il West Asian non era ancora presente nel levante in quel periodo.

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 03:13 PM

Nel senso che veniva dal levante ma non aveva influenze West Asian. Quindi il West Asian non era ancora presente nel levante in quel periodo.

Non era presente in grandi quantità nel levante... Il West Asian è connesso al J2 per me, che allora probabilmente aveva solo una piccola influenza West Asian (non puoi dire che non le aveva perché non è possibile saperlo visto che tutto ciò che gli era rimasto della sua madrepatria è quella piccola percentuale Southwest Asian).

Prince Carlo

07-07-2012, 03:17 PM

Non era presente in grandi quantità nel levante... Il West Asian è connesso al J2 per me, che allora probabilmente aveva solo una piccola influenza West Asian (non puoi dire che non le aveva perché non è possibile saperlo visto che tutto ciò che gli era rimasto della sua madrepatria è quella piccola percentuale Southwest Asian).

Si ma gli Italiani del Nord moderni sono per l'appunto 6-7% South West Asian e 10-15% West Asian. Quindi il West Asian è aumentato mentre il South West Asian no. Ergo il West Asian è arrivato dopo, come il Baltic e il Gedrosia.

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 03:18 PM

Non possiamo basarci su un solo individuo per predire le admixures di un intero continente, non credi?

kabeiros

07-07-2012, 03:18 PM

Highest diversity of J2 is found in Caucasus and the highest percentage of WestAsian/Caucasus component is found among non-Indo European speaking people in Caucasus so that is totally invalid.Moreover G or specifically G2a has absolutely nothing to do with IE people they were early Neolithic Sardinian like farmers.
I'm not sure about who were the first Indo-Europeans but...your claim that J2 is found in Caucasus among non Indo-European speaking tribes means nothing. It is a well known fact that peoples of the Caucasus have very small diversity of J2 and G which means that their high percentage of this haplogroups is the result of a founder effect and subsequent isolation. Think about R1b and it's very high frequency in Britain while it's origin is in the Middle East or Anatolia. In fact eastern Anatolia and western Iran seem to be the birth place of many haplogroups (J2, G, R1b and some say even I and R1a!!!)

Albion

07-07-2012, 03:18 PM

The spread of farming matches better the spread of IE languages than the steppe hypothesis.

So that's why the most Neolithic, lacking in R1a/b areas of Europe preserved non-IE languages the longest is it?
So what were Rhaetian, Iberian, Basque, Aquitanian, Etruscan and Pelasgian languages then? Mistakes? :coffee:

In Northern Europe the only non-IE languages were Finnic (corresponding to haplogroup N area) and perhaps Pictish, although that may have been Celtic.

Refute please, and none of your bullshit this time.

Prince Carlo

07-07-2012, 03:19 PM

Be fin quando non trovano un altro Oezti allora io ho ragione. :)

Optimus

07-07-2012, 03:21 PM

LoL at all the people who voted "Central-East Europe"

Those people who voted WestAsia have no single clue that J2 and WestAsian component peaks at non Indo-European speaking Caucasus people.So i wonder how IE happened to carry J2 and WestAsian component.:lol:

Peyrol

07-07-2012, 03:21 PM

Oetzi was a kind of proto-sardinian.

Albion

07-07-2012, 03:21 PM

LoL at all the people who voted "Central-East Europe"

I voted for it because I wanted to vote for the Pontic Steppe.

You really believe in the para-scientific theories about "german origin of aryan race"...c'mon guys...

Yes, sure... because Germans are living in Ukraine and Kazakhstan and prefer these as an urheimat to places which actually had civilisation such as the Med or Anatolia... :rolleyes:

Please stop with the conspiracy theories already, it is getting old and you look petty.

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 03:24 PM

Those people who voted WestAsia have no single clue that J2a and WestAsian component peaks at non Indo-European speaking Caucasus people.

Again what I said! You not read my links, fuck, and want to be right and I must read your proofs?

This is the last time I re-link something:

A common ancestor of Indo-European and Hurrian

http://dienekes.blogspot.it/2011/02/common-ancestor-of-indo-european-and.html

Poor you, G peaks in IE Ossetians and other groups derived from IE speakers (Kalash) and descendandts of Tocharians (Uyghurs; that could have the maximum frequency in the world).

Read previous pages.

Albion

07-07-2012, 03:25 PM

This thread is disseminated of proofs I linked, too, but given that no one cares to read it, I'll no read yours, so this conflict will never end. I have more proofs than you.

Good argument - just refer to your evidence whilst completely ignoring his facts that ruin it. :rolleyes:

Maybe try looking for alternative theories as to why Otzi had G without West Asian admixture rather than just ignoring it.

Peyrol

07-07-2012, 03:26 PM

Again, what have Kazakhstan or Central Asia of "eastern Europe"?

Artek

07-07-2012, 03:27 PM

Refute please, and none of your bullshit this time.
I suppose that he scored J/G in the Y-DNA test and now he wants to get rid of the frustration because of that :D

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 03:29 PM

I suppose that he scored J/G in the Y-DNA test and now he wants to get rid of the frustration because of that :D

YOU MAD!:eek: I hope to be J2 or G!!! Are you kidding me?! Better to be an IE Neolithic farmer than a non-IE Turkic speaker R1a (a.k.a Afanasevo/Andronovo):D

Albion

07-07-2012, 03:30 PM

Poor you, G peaks in IE Ossetians and other groups derived from IE speakers (Kalash) and descendandts of Tocharians (Uyghurs; that could have the maximum frequency in the world).

Read previous pages.

Ossetians are just North Caucasians who adopted Indo-Iranian culture and language, silly. :rolleyes:
Tocharians possessing G actually points to the Pontic Steppe and thus R1a theory of IE - G can easily be explained as assimilated North Caucasians that ended up there via the IE nomadic migrations.
What would Neolithic farmers be doing in the barren Tarim? The Tocharians were goat herders!

Albion

07-07-2012, 03:32 PM

YOU MAD!:eek: I hope to be J2 or G!!! Are you kidding me?! Better to be an IE Neolithic farmer than a non-IE Turkic speaker R1a (a.k.a Afanasevo/Andronovo):D

Turkics were in East Asia back then. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 03:33 PM

Ossetians are just North Caucasians who adopted Indo-Iranian culture and language, silly. :rolleyes:
Tocharians possessing G actually points to the Pontic Steppe and thus R1a theory of IE - G can easily be explained as assimilated North Caucasians that ended up there via the IE nomadic migrations.
What would Neolithic farmers be doing in the barren Tarim? The Tocharians were goat herders!

Facts and genetics say that. Ossetians are truly a people of dominator made up of G2a1. Who are you to say they adopted everything? Show me the paper please:rolleyes2: :coffee:

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 03:34 PM

Turkics were in East Asia back then. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Stop supposing bullshits and show papers instead. Everything points out that R1a isn't IE, the RgVeda in primis.

Look at the map, I see it is in Northern East Asia too, stop making yourself stupid. You know the eastern ending of the culture comprised most of the Turkic and Mongoloid territory.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Indo-Iranian_origins.png/300px-Indo-Iranian_origins.png

Artek

07-07-2012, 03:37 PM

Facts and genetics say that. Ossetians are truly a people of dominator made up of G2a1. Who are you to say they adopted everything? Show me the paper please:rolleyes2: :coffee:
Ossetians (and other caucasian tribes)are a small and isolated populations, they shouldn't be even considered as a representative.
I told you previously, that many Neolithic G's and J's were assimilated with IE R1a people, not the other way round.

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 03:40 PM

Ossetians (and other caucasian tribes)are a small and isolated populations, they shouldn't be even considered as a representative.
I told you previously, that many Neolithic G's and J's were assimilated with IE R1a people, not the other way round.

I do not consider your words if you don't have a paper to confirm it or a minimal other proof. Everyone can say everything, but thethings are to be accepted with proofs, not with trust and blindness.

Albion

07-07-2012, 03:40 PM

Facts and genetics say that. Ossetians are truly a people of dominator made up of G2a1. Who are you to say they adopted everything? Show me the paper please:rolleyes2: :coffee:

I don't have one, just use your common sense. :rolleyes2:

Stop supposing bullshits and show papers instead. Everything points out that R1a isn't IE, the RgVeda in primis.

Look at the map, I see it is in Northern East Asia too, stop making yourself stupid.

R1a is IE, Turkics were latter invaders to Central Asia. You're the one rewriting history here with these fringe theories.

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 03:42 PM

I don't have one, just use your common sense. :rolleyes2:

R1a is IE, Turkics were latter invaders to Central Asia. You're the one rewriting history here with these fringe theories.

One have to have a good imagination to see that Turkics were comprised in Afanasevo culture:rolleyes2:, isn't it?

Artek

07-07-2012, 03:43 PM

I do not consider your words if you don't have a paper to confirm it or a minimal other proof. Everyone can say everything, but thethings are to be accepted with proofs, not with trust and blindness.
Proofs were shown previously by many knowledgeable scientists and it is confirmed by a genetics too.
I'm not so desperate to try to convince you with sources. If you are so eager to search for an information, you should have learned that your teory is biased.

Peyrol

07-07-2012, 03:43 PM

Keep the thread in the good-manner-way...no personal insults, please.

Optimus

07-07-2012, 03:45 PM

Again what I said! You not read my links, fuck, and want to be right and I must read your proofs?

This is the last time I re-link something:

A common ancestor of Indo-European and Hurrian

http://dienekes.blogspot.it/2011/02/common-ancestor-of-indo-european-and.html

Poor you, G peaks in IE Ossetians and other groups derived from IE speakers (Kalash) and descendandts of Tocharians (Uyghurs; that could have the maximum frequency in the world).

Read previous pages.

G peaks high in Caucasus because of founder effect Einstein,you forget that G is quite present among Georgians too.Also PIE had only single male lineage not two or more because they were quite patriarchal and didn't include foreign males into their groups.

Again, what have Kazakhstan or Central Asia of "eastern Europe"?

It is a scretch from Central-East Europe to Western Kazakhstan but the origin is Eastern Europe>Ukrainian steppes.

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 03:46 PM

Proofs were shown previously by many knowledgeable scientists and it is confirmed by a genetics too.
I'm not so desperate to try to convince you with sources. If you are so eager to search for an information, you should have learned that your teory is biased.

Until Dienekes lives, he will continue to find proofs on proofs and I'll support him. I will not yield.

Artek

07-07-2012, 03:48 PM

I wonder if Protospatha is trolling or he just started to have a rebellion connected with adolescence.

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 03:51 PM

I wonder if Protospatha is trolling or he just started to have a rebellion connected with adolescence.

I'm not like you that believe quickly to what a guy says you, I have a pulse to find that there could be another theory, a right one. R1a Aryan is going to an end.

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 03:55 PM

There are a lot of people with common sense around the net like me, I'm not alone, in primis with Dienekes.

Artek

07-07-2012, 03:55 PM

I'm not like you that believe quickly to what a guy says you, I have a pulse to find that there could be another theory, a right one. R1a Aryan is going to an end.
So could you tell me why there is a low frequency of G and J lineages in most IE populations so far? If the G's and J's were a rulers and a warriors connected with spreading IE languages, why they play so insignificant role in almost every modern European ethnicity.

Albion

07-07-2012, 03:56 PM

Stop supposing bullshits and show papers instead. Everything points out that R1a isn't IE, the RgVeda in primis.

Look at the map, I see it is in Northern East Asia too, stop making yourself stupid. You know the eastern ending of the culture comprised most of the Turkic and Mongoloid territory.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Indo-Iranian_origins.png/300px-Indo-Iranian_origins.png

FFS, now Central Asia is North East Asia just because you say so is it? Mongols and Turks crept into IE territory as they learned horse riding and weaponry from them and refined weapons such as the bow which they'd use against the IEs on the steppes latter on.

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 03:57 PM

So could you tell me why there is a low frequency of G and J lineages in most IE populations so far? If the G's and J's were a rulers and a warriors connected with spreading IE languages, why they play so insignificant role in almost every modern European ethnicity.

You are right. The cause of the modern political troubles in Europe is to be attributed to R1a communists and R1b:thumb001:

Albion

07-07-2012, 03:58 PM

One have to have a good imagination to see that Turkics were comprised in Afanasevo culture:rolleyes2:, isn't it?

Turkics were present in the east of it mainly because the Indo-Europeans expanded in that direction. They acquired their nomadic way of life from contact with the Indo-Europeans - they copied and refined the IE technology in other words.

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 04:01 PM

Artek

07-07-2012, 04:04 PM

You are right. The cause of the modern political troubles in Europe is to be attributed to R1a communists and R1b:thumb001:
Karl Marx, one of the founders of a communism,was a Jew.
He probably carried Neolithic G or J haplogroup.
Not to say that Lavrietnij Beria had similar ancestry.

Albion

07-07-2012, 04:07 PM

You are right. The cause of the modern political troubles in Europe is to be attributed to R1a communists and R1b:thumb001:

You must hate Europe then, R1a and R1b are the majority. Maybe the Maltese and Sardinians are more your type of people.

Albion

07-07-2012, 04:09 PM

I've taken a decision: I won't post in this thread anymore. {LIES AND BULLSHIT CENSORED} Bye all! Good dreams!:D

I hope so.

kabeiros

07-07-2012, 04:09 PM

People tend to be very absolute about what were the IE haplogroups...but different families of IE could have belonged to different y-dna. At least this is what I think because neither R1a nor J2 or G can explain were IE languages are spoken today.

Artek

07-07-2012, 04:10 PM

I've taken a decision: I won't post in this thread anymore. After all, why do I have to make you know the truth? The right thing is that I know the truth, yes, this is enough:). Bye all! Good dreams!:D
It's more wise to trust to many sources and experienced scientists than to one guy who is called a "couch anthropologist".

I'm sorry to hear that you've stopped posting in this thread, this discussion started to look interesting. I hope that you will make a new thread about this to enlighten our minds.

Rereg

07-07-2012, 04:15 PM

FFS, now Central Asia is North East Asia just because you say so is it? Mongols and Turks crept into IE territory as they learned horse riding and weaponry from them and refined weapons such as the bow which they'd use against the IEs on the steppes latter on.

That's right, in I century AD, before great migration of turkic Xiongnu-tribe, altaic people lived in Mongolia, Manchuria and East Siberia.

askra

07-07-2012, 04:20 PM

You must hate Europe then, R1a and R1b are the majority. Maybe the Maltese and Sardinians are more your type of people.

We Sardinians are in majority R1b and I2a (63 or 70 % of population according to different studies) (haplogroup I is one of the most ancient native european haplogroup and it constitutes the 37-40% of Sardinian population)
the G2a constitutes only the 11-15% of population, and it is spread also on the Alps (about 10%) where the Oetzi's mummy was found.

more infos about the g haplogroup distribution in Europe:

In Europe west of the Black Sea Haplogroup G is found at about 5% of the population on average throughout most of the continent.[19] The concentration of G falls below this average in Scandinavia, the westernmost former Soviet republics and Poland, as well as in Iceland and the British Isles. There are seeming pockets of unusual concentrations within Europe. In Wales, a distinctive G2a3b1 type (DYS388=13 and DYS594=11) dominates there and pushes the G percentage of the population higher than in England. In western Austria, in the Tirol (Tyrol) the G percentage can reach 8% or more (Otzi also had it). In the northern and highland areas of the island of Sardinia off western Italy, G percentages reach 11% of the population in one study[20] and reached 21% in the town of Tempio in another study. In the Greek island of Crete, approximately 7%[21] to 11%[22] of males belong to haplogroup G. In north-eastern Croatia, in the town of Osijek, G was found in 14% of the males.[23] The city is on the banks of the river Drava, which notably begins in the Tirol/Tyrol region of the Alps, another haplogroup G focus area in Europe. Farther north, 8% of ethnic Hungarian males and 5.1% of ethnic Bohemian (Czech) males have been found to belong to Haplogroup G.

kabeiros

07-07-2012, 04:28 PM

safinator

07-07-2012, 04:30 PM

Indeed, G2a must be very old in Europe...
Neolithic time.

Albion

07-07-2012, 04:35 PM

We Sardinians are in majority R1b and I2a (almost the 70% of population) (haplogroup I is one of the most ancient native european haplogroup and it constitutes the 40% of Sardinian population)
the G2a constitutes only the 15% of population, and it is spread also on the Alps (about 10%) where the Oetzi's mummy was found.

I do find R1a, R1b and I1 rather boring, but that is because of how predominant they are over Europe.
Neolithic and earlier haplogroups have interesting histories but I don't like to see misinformation about them.

safinator

07-07-2012, 04:36 PM

I do find R1a, R1b and I1 rather boring, but that is because of how predominant they are over Europe.
Neolithic and earlier haplogroups have interesting histories but I don't like to see misinformation about them.
If i get tested i want to be I2a2 Disles HG since it's uncommon outside of England.

Albion

07-07-2012, 04:43 PM

If i get tested i want to be I2a2 Disles HG since it's uncommon outside of England.

It has an interesting distribution:

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-I2b.gif

I wouldn't mind that too. Either that or some subclade or R1b or G2a. The FTDNA project for my surname is mostly R1b and I1, but there's one G2a ancestor from which my family may be ultimately descended from (I'm not sure yet, at the moment I'm just guessing).

G2a has a interesting distribution, G2a in Britain could either be Neolithic, Roman or both. I'd like to be a descendant of a Roman, that sounds good to me. :D

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_G2a.gif

I need to take a test but 23andme have put their prices up and I don't fancy just a Y-DNA test at FTDNA, I wanted the aDNA and Y-DNA with 23andme. :(
If I can trace my ancestry to that guy listed on FTDNA then I would know my Y-DNA haplogroup without taking the test.

Damião de Góis

07-07-2012, 04:54 PM

If i get tested i want to be I2a2 Disles HG since it's uncommon outside of England.

I2a isn't common in the British Isles at all, it's more common in Sardinia/Balkans.

http://rochelineages.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/haplogroup_i2a-edit.gif

safinator

07-07-2012, 04:56 PM

I2a isn't common in the British Isles at all, it's more common in Sardinia/Balkans.

http://rochelineages.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/haplogroup_i2a-edit.gif
That's why i specified Disles subclade ;)

Prince Carlo

07-07-2012, 04:59 PM

Maciamo maps use old denomination. I2a is surely more common in the UK than in those maps.

Damião de Góis

07-07-2012, 05:09 PM

Maciamo maps use old denomination. I2a is surely more common in the UK than in those maps.

No, that's I1. I1 is more common in northern Europe, I2 is more common in the Balkans and Sardinia.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

Prince Carlo

07-07-2012, 05:16 PM

Many I2b subclades have been renamed to I2a subclades.

Damião de Góis

07-07-2012, 05:19 PM

Many I2b subclades have been renamed to I2a subclades.

I2b, while having low frequencies everywhere, appears more around north Germany (it has its own column in the link i posted above). But he was talking about I2a2.

Prince Carlo

07-07-2012, 05:21 PM

I didn't quote his post so I don't know what he was talking about. I am talking about I2a.

Legion

07-07-2012, 05:27 PM

The second option. A origin in the Eurasian steppe, anywhere between Central EU-East EU-Kazakhstan sounds most plausible.

The ones who voted for west Asian are mostly advocating an Anatolian or Indian urheimat?

Zorg

07-07-2012, 05:47 PM

Come on guys we all know Protospatha has one of these:
Anhttp://simply-tango.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/lifeagenda.gif

Olavsson

07-07-2012, 05:57 PM

People tend to be very absolute about what were the IE haplogroups...but different families of IE could have belonged to different y-dna.

Yes, over time, the different Indo-European-speaking branches had obviously assimilated a quite wide range of haplogroups (I1 - the oldest Y-DNA haplogroup in Northern Europe, was assimilated into what would be the proto-Germanic branch, for instance).

But IE-languages haven't always been spoken by a wide range of people. It had to begin with smaller, specifically Indo-European tribes who first began to speak the proto-Indo European language. These first IE-speaking tribal groups didn't have to be 100% homogeneous with regards to Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroups, of course, but we can probably be pretty much sure that some haplogroups would have been much more prevalent among them than others. Many people believe R1a was most likely this haplogroup.

I was a bit too quick to vote in the poll here, and I'm not able to delete my vote unfortunately. Even the "experts" argue about different hypotheses, and I don't feel I know enough about the topic to be completely convinced about the truth of one of these theories. We will probably sort this out in the future.

Demhat

07-07-2012, 06:03 PM

According to Dienekes apparently Indo-Europeans were Bronze Age invaders from West Asia who carried the Y-DNA J2a and the WestAsian autosomal component.

While the second opinion which is supported by more geneticists is that Indo-Europeans originate somewhere from Central-Eastern Europe and carried the R1a1a male lineage.

What is your opinion,where did IE people originate?

Not by genetists but some linguists and archeologists who base this on chariots and horses which they believe where domesticated first in the steppes however. the first linguistic traces of Indo Europeans are from Anatolia (The Hethits) who are believed to have come from a city Southeast of Anatolia.

Olavsson

07-07-2012, 06:10 PM

Demhat

07-07-2012, 06:12 PM

The spread of R1a1a reflects well the spread of Indo-European languages from Central-East Europe.

http://www.tiggernut.com/Mito/R1a-map.jpg
http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/1320Hist&Civ/slides/07ie/IElanguagesmap.jpg

The Kurgan hypothesis your talking about does not support an "Central"- East European origin of Indo European language but an East European/North Caucasus/North Central Asian one.

http://www.dadamo.com/wiki/indo1.jpg

while the West Asian Hypothesis

http://people.musc.edu/~geesey/Images/EuropeImmigRoutes.jpg

Rereg

07-07-2012, 06:18 PM

Demhat

07-07-2012, 06:19 PM

That's the old theory. R1a originated in West Asia.

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/4776/byeurogenes.png

This is an idea which starts to get support by many geneticists. The two main R1a* subclades +z93 and +z283 where found together in East Anatolia/West Iran/North Iraq among Kurds.

Demhat

07-07-2012, 06:24 PM

Highest diversity of J2 is found in Caucasus and the highest percentage of WestAsian/Caucasus component is found among non-Indo European speaking people in Caucasus so that is totally invalid.Moreover G or specifically G2a has absolutely nothing to do with IE people they were early Neolithic Sardinian like farmers.

Highest North European/Atlanti-Baltic component is found among Finno-Ugric speaking Finns.

What I believe there were two Indo European waves. The first and original from West Asia into the steppes, where they mixed with North European Hunthers and Gatheres and become West Asian/North European by autosomal data. And the one which moved into North and Central Europe became more "North European" while the one moving into West Asia became more West Asian.

Demhat

07-07-2012, 06:37 PM

No, these haplogroups were in Europe before IE was. Only R1a and possibly R1b are Indo-European.

I1, I2 = native
N, G, J2, E = Neolithic farmers (likely speaking Afro-Asiatic, South Caucasian or something akin to Sumerian)
R1a, R1b = the latecomers, Indo-Europeans.

The first R1b in Europe where found among the late neolthic Bell Beakers which Skull structure were described as "Dinarized".

Ghost Knight

07-07-2012, 06:42 PM

Obviously Eastern Europe and not Asia. This takes fauna and flora in account. The caucus mountains could never support the population needed for the massive aryan invasion.

Demhat

07-07-2012, 06:43 PM

The Hittites didn't speak proto-Indo European, though, but a later linguistic development.

Where did I say something like that? I said the first and the oldest attested Indo European language was Hittite. And something like "proto Indo European" language was never found no where and was just reconstructed based on the "idea" of linguists how it might have been.

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 06:46 PM

Come on guys we all know Protospatha has one of these:
Anhttp://simply-tango.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/lifeagenda.gif

What the fuck do you want from me? Do you know me? Keep your stupid posts for you, piece of s**t. What stupid people exist in this world...:coffee:

Demhat

07-07-2012, 06:46 PM

According to a lot of scientists Hethits come to Anatolia from Central Asia, before foreign invasions in Anatolia had lived people from caucasian language group.

Never heard of that, only heard that according to Hittites themselves they came from Kuschara, which scientist believe was in the Southeast.

Demhat

07-07-2012, 06:50 PM

Obviously Eastern Europe and not Asia. This takes fauna and flora in account. The caucus mountains could never support the population needed for the massive aryan invasion.

Actually the Kurgan Hypothesis supports exactly this, the North Caucasus, Central Asian, East European origin. While the West Asian hypothesis does not settle the Urheimat in the Caucasus mountains but somewhere in East-Central Anatolia/West Iran and the fertile crescent.

Albion

07-07-2012, 07:29 PM

The first R1b in Europe where found among the late neolthic Bell Beakers which Skull structure were described as "Dinarized".

Yes, the transition period between Neolithic and Bronze Ages.

Optimus

07-07-2012, 09:12 PM

Not by genetists but some linguists and archeologists who base this on chariots and horses which they believe where domesticated first in the steppes however. the first linguistic traces of Indo Europeans are from Anatolia (The Hethits) who are believed to have come from a city Southeast of Anatolia.

You have right about that,but the highest diversity of R1a1a is found inbetween Central and Eastern Europe.I am talking about the original Urhemait which is most likely the Ukrainian steppes not Kazakhstan like some people want to believe.

Also Hitttites were clearly intruders into Anatolia.That is attested how the Ancient Egyptians made clear distinction(depictions in the Battle of Kadesh) between Hittite rulers and native Hattian population which were depicted as highly Dinarized probably they were Armenoids if we go taxonomy wise.

Demhat

07-07-2012, 09:48 PM

Yes, the transition period between Neolithic and Bronze Ages.

It started in the Neolthic going into Bronze Age right.

So it was most probably brought with people who came roughly at the same time as the "farmers and pastoralists". This means if R1b is an Indo-European marker, Neolthic farmers and pastoralists = Indo Europeans ?

I think the Bell beakers reached Western Europe through See or North Africa.

Demhat

07-07-2012, 09:58 PM

You have right about that,but the highest diversity of R1a1a is found inbetween Central and Eastern Europe.I am talking about the original Urhemait which is most likely the Ukrainian steppes not Kazakhstan like some people want to believe.

Also Hitttites were clearly intruders into Anatolia.That is attested how the Ancient Egyptians made clear distinction(depictions in the Battle of Kadesh) between Hittite rulers and native Hattian population which were depicted as highly Dinarized probably they were Armenoids if we go taxonomy wise.

Yes they were introduced into Central Anatolia, early Hatti there is no doubt about that but from where? According to themselves from a city called Kussara and scientists place this area in the Southeast (which is basically Southeast Anatolia, North Mesopotamia and West Iran).

That the oldest R1a1a* clades today are in Central Asia and East Europe doesnt have to say much. Only if we speculate (like the supporters of the Kurgan Hypothesis do) that R1a1a* was the Proto Indo European marker, than this might say something. It looks different if you speculate that J2, R1b and G were the proto Indo European markers. I believe it is possible that Proto Indo European language was introduced to the steppes by People from West Asia which used to be high in J2, R1b and G. Than these Steppe Hunters and Gatheres adopted Indo European language and spread it into North, East Europa and Central Asia. It is well known that even the Indo Europeans from the steppes were pastoralists. And pastoralism is also an invention from West Asia. Also typical pastoralist and farmer words in Indo European languages show there have to had been contact.

Imo there are two scenarios how R1a* reached West Asia. Either it was already native to this area or it came through a second wave. Means. Proto Indo Europeans from West Asia introduced Indo European language into the steppes.These Indo Europinazed and mixed (with the West Asian Indo Europeans) Hunthers and Gatheres which adopted pastoralism made a second movement into Europe, Central and West Asia and brought the North European component and as well R1a lineages into West Asia.

This are my two Hypothesis.

1. Either R1a1a* originated in West Asia and there is simply not enough researchers on it.

2. Look at the explanation above.

I would like to believe the Kurgan Hypothesis but the thing is there are too many facts and evidences for an West Asian connection. For example if the very first Indo Europeans came from the Steppes why isnt there any traces of Indo European language older than the Hittites. Why were most if not all Indo Europeans pastoralists and even have words for farming in their vocabulary. Why are there semitic loanwords in all Indo European languages? Something is weird here imo.

Zorg

07-07-2012, 10:26 PM

What the fuck do you want from me? Do you know me? Keep your stupid posts for you, piece of s**t. What stupid people exist in this world...:coffee:

Hmm..http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/17747707.jpg

Optimus

07-07-2012, 10:33 PM

Demhat

07-07-2012, 10:33 PM

What is obviously like I mentioned, there was a connection from South East Anatolia, North Mesopotamia into the Steppes even some 4-5000 years ago before the Assyrians managed to conquer these areas and blur the traces.

"Kurgan" stelae where found in the Kurdish areas of Hakkari and Northern Iraq which have striking similarities to these found in the Ukrainian steppes.

from Hakkari
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6202/6088941772_a1a3b58aee.jpg

Ukraine
http://www.colourbox.com/preview/2010086-391700-kurgan-stelae-in-the-ukrainian-steppe.jpg

interestingly the one from Hakkari are older than their counterparts from Ukraine. So there is one of the many proves and evidences that there was contact between the two areas.

gold_fenix

07-07-2012, 10:33 PM

It started in the Neolthic going into Bronze Age right.

So it was most probably brought with people who came roughly at the same time as the "farmers and pastoralists". This means if R1b is an Indo-European marker, Neolthic farmers and pastoralists = Indo Europeans ?

I think the Bell beakers reached Western Europe through See or North Africa.

probably by sea there are indicious of a previous culture to celts in the coasts of British isles and North of Spain

Optimus

07-07-2012, 10:35 PM

probably by sea there are indicious of a previous culture to celts in the coasts of British isles and North of Spain

They came by sea for sure.But the question is whether they took a long maritime route from Anatolia to Iberia or short maritime route from North Africa to Iberia.The first point is far fetched to me.

gold_fenix

07-07-2012, 10:43 PM

They came by sea for sure.But the question is whether they took a long maritime route from Anatolia to Iberia or short maritime route from North Africa to Iberia.The first point is far fetched to me.

good question but now is extremely difficult to know by genetic because amazight are been strongly alterated by mix but there is a isolated population (los pasiegos) in North of Spain,( cantabria, an amazing zone from a point of genetical and anthopological view) who have high often of R1b, R1a, E1b1b2 and G

Demhat

07-07-2012, 10:45 PM

@Demhat Hittite is not the oldest Indo-European language,it is the oldest attested/written Indo-European language.The Hittite elite was quite different phenotype wise from native Anatolians/WestAsians.That is what ancient Egyptians depicted them in the battle of Kadesh.So it is clear Indo-European Hittites were not native WestAsians but intruders.

Your misinterpreting what I wrote. I cleary stated it is the oldest atested Indo European language and no one knows how the proto Indo European language was in reality. There are some reconstructions based on assumings of linguists. So I asked you if the Steppes are the source of Indo European language why arent there any traces of it? Why cant we find traces of older Indo European languages in the steppes? And how did they please depicted the Hittites so differently from "other West Asians" (as if the Hattis and Hurrians are representative for whole West Asia).

Also J2,G,R1b is a range of haplogroups.Accordingly Proto Indo-Europeans were quite patriarchal themself,they were quite homogenous in paternal haplogroups and heterogenous in maternal haplogroups.Maybe Proto Proto Indo-Europeans were WestAsians but PIE were EasternEuropeans for sure.J2,G has absolutely nothing to do with PIE,it is insane to even think about it.

All I see is that you base most of your arguments on assumptions. Come on friend is there any place in this world more patriarchal than West Asia?

And you still didnt bring me any arguments against the "Indo European=pastoralists, semitic loanwords, words for farming" connection. Where did they get all of these components?

Siginulfo

07-07-2012, 10:54 PM

Your misinterpreting what I wrote. I cleary stated it is the oldest atested Indo European language and no one knows how the proto Indo European language was in reality. There are some reconstructions based on assumings of linguists. So I asked you if the Steppes are the source of Indo European language why arent there any traces of it? Why cant we find traces of older Indo European languages in the steppes? And how did they please depicted the Hittites so differently from "other West Asians" (as if the Hattis and Hurrians are representative for whole West Asia).

All I see is that you base most of your arguments on assumptions. Come on friend is there any place in this world more patriarchal than West Asia?

And you still didnt bring me any arguments against the "Indo European=pastoralists, semitic loanwords, words for farming" connection. Where did they get all of these components?
This man is right.

Demhat

07-07-2012, 10:58 PM

Between forgot to mention. As I already said Hittites state that they came from a citty called Kussara, which lies somewhere in the Southeast according to scientist. Ever heard of Göbekli Tepe (A Neolthic side in Southeast)? The Skeletons found there are described as pretty Dolichocephalic and very different from what someone would call "Armenoid".

Bronze

07-07-2012, 11:35 PM

That's the old theory. R1a originated in West Asia.

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/4776/byeurogenes.png

The most likely place of origin for R1a is in south-central asia, around the region of Mehrgarh, in the Indus Valley. The diversity and frequency of R1a is the highest in this region.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehrgarh

Damião de Góis

07-08-2012, 01:10 AM

They came by sea for sure.But the question is whether they took a long maritime route from Anatolia to Iberia or short maritime route from North Africa to Iberia.The first point is far fetched to me.

I saw a documentary about the discovery of America this afternoon, and they were talking about the possibility of polynesian sailors reaching California in pre-historic times. Also apparently the japanese sailed to Ecuador in pre-historic times too. The pottery was the same and there's some virus that can only be found in japanese people and Ecuadorian mummies.

Also an european spear was found in America, which predates the crossing of the Bering strait by asians.

So, after that, that 1st point doesn't seem so far fetched. The sea was never a blockage, it was more like a highway.

Jaska

07-08-2012, 07:09 AM

Dienekes ignores the linguistic results, and so do the many voters here:
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/UralicEvidence.pdf

It is impossible to trace the language from genes: there are so many possible genetic lineages, and absolutely no reliable way to define which of them is connected to the IE language. The most frequent lineage is not necessarily any more probable than the less frequent lineage.

The only way to find out the right lineage is to look at which lineage best matches the linguistic results. West Asia might have been the homeland of Pre-Proto-Indo-European, but it cannot be the homeland of Proto-Indo-European - read the link above.

So I asked you if the Steppes are the source of Indo European language why arent there any traces of it? Why cant we find traces of older Indo European languages in the steppes?

This is easy: the steppe has been an area of repeated linguistic expansion: PIE, Iranian, later Iranian, Bolghar Turkic (Hunnic), Avarian, Hungarian, Kipchak Turkic etc. Linguistic and migrational waves one after another! The steppe is the one particular region where linguistic continuity cannot have deep roots. It still is the region which best fits the linguistic results: it is the best candidate for Proto-Indo-European homeland.

Albion

07-08-2012, 10:34 AM

Yes they were introduced into Central Anatolia, early Hatti there is no doubt about that but from where? According to themselves from a city called Kussara and scientists place this area in the Southeast (which is basically Southeast Anatolia, North Mesopotamia and West Iran).

That the oldest R1a1a* clades today are in Central Asia and East Europe doesnt have to say much. Only if we speculate (like the supporters of the Kurgan Hypothesis do) that R1a1a* was the Proto Indo European marker, than this might say something. It looks different if you speculate that J2, R1b and G were the proto Indo European markers. I believe it is possible that Proto Indo European language was introduced to the steppes by People from West Asia which used to be high in J2, R1b and G. Than these Steppe Hunters and Gatheres adopted Indo European language and spread it into North, East Europa and Central Asia. It is well known that even the Indo Europeans from the steppes were pastoralists. And pastoralism is also an invention from West Asia. Also typical pastoralist and farmer words in Indo European languages show there have to had been contact.

Imo there are two scenarios how R1a* reached West Asia. Either it was already native to this area or it came through a second wave. Means. Proto Indo Europeans from West Asia introduced Indo European language into the steppes.These Indo Europinazed and mixed (with the West Asian Indo Europeans) Hunthers and Gatheres which adopted pastoralism made a second movement into Europe, Central and West Asia and brought the North European component and as well R1a lineages into West Asia.

This are my two Hypothesis.

1. Either R1a1a* originated in West Asia and there is simply not enough researchers on it.

2. Look at the explanation above.

The words words for flora and fauna in IE describe the forest zone and the steppes so it points to the edge of the steppes somewhere (Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Caucasus or maybe Cappadocia) but lacks words for things such as seas or Middle Eastern flora and fauna.

The Kurgan theory suggests that the people on the Pontic Steppe came into contact with the Cucuteni-Trypillian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuteni-Trypillian_culture) neolithic civilisation, at that time one of the most advanced in Europe.
The IE people (Yamna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamna)) acquired technology from them and would latter help destroy that civilisation.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/CuTryOutline.svg/716px-CuTryOutline.svg.png

The Yamna culture is identified as being proto-IE in the Kurgan hypothesis. It was influenced by the settled civilisations around it - the Cucuteni and Maykop culture of the North Caucasus.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/IE5500BP.png

Then the Yamna expanded and formed the Corded Ware in NE Europe. Germanic, Slavic and Baltic (perhaps Celtic too) cultures probably have their origin in this.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Corded_Ware_culture.png

About R1b:

I want to believe it's Indo-European but there's something that suggests otherwise - the presence of pre-IE languages in R1b strongholds well into historical times (Roman period and Basque survives to this day).

Before I've argued that the Basque language could have been an exception - acquired from Neolithic women by their kids with IE men. But with so many languages and an apparent lack of matriarchy I don't think this can be applied to all these languages and so am now of the belief that R1b didn't speak IE but acquired it latter.

I don't think G2a or J2 spoke IE either. Most non-IE languages survived in Southern Europe where these haplogroups were and still are at their largest concentration. It makes no sense.

In Northern Europe where the Neolithic haplogroups get less we see no evidence of pre-IE languages beyond the Neolithic (Finnic populations being the exception).

http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/3495/r1bandpreielanguages.png
Feel free to point out any mistakes.

So R1b, G2a and J2 were no originally IE speakers, more likely Afro-Asiatic and South / North Caucasian.
In the past I've claimed that the Bell Beaker culture spread R1b and Celtic languages into Western Europe. It seems I may have discredited my own claim on that last bit, Celtic languages must have arrived latter. One has to accept when one is wrong. Theo Venneman's Vasconic theory probably applies to the Bell Beaker better.

I believe R1b spread by sea and is associated with the Bell Beaker culture in Western Europe still, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with this theory. It could have followed the earlier Neolithic migrants into the Megalithic cultural area. Indeed when the Bell Beaker showed up in Britain the Megaliths didn't suddenly stop being built but one of the newest and largest of them all was built - Stonehenge.
Gradually barrows started to show up which are associated with the Kurgans of the Indo-Europeans. This could have been through contact with the Corded Ware, perhaps a conquering elite moving in from Eastern Europe into the Bell Beaker area.
Indo-European languages probably arrived in Britain with the Celts in two waves - first Goidelic and then Brythonic which partially replaced the former. I don't think the Irish migration myths describe the change in language but rather the earlier migrations of people to the island.

I would like to believe the Kurgan Hypothesis but the thing is there are too many facts and evidences for an West Asian connection. For example if the very first Indo Europeans came from the Steppes why isnt there any traces of Indo European language older than the Hittites. Why were most if not all Indo Europeans pastoralists and even have words for farming in their vocabulary. Why are there semitic loanwords in all Indo European languages? Something is weird here imo.

This may be because some of the Neolithic cultures of Europe spoke Afro-Asiatic (formerly called Hamito-Semitic) languages. The Cucteni which influence the Yamna (Indo-Europeans) could have been amongst them.
The Neolithic haplogroups and spread of farming suggest this is likely.

Albion

07-08-2012, 10:42 AM

This may be because some of the Neolithic cultures of Europe spoke Afro-Asiatic (formerly called Hamito-Semitic) languages. The Cucteni which influence the Yamna (Indo-Europeans) could have been amongst them.
The Neolithic haplogroups and spread of farming suggest this is likely.

I think it is likely that Europe was covered by the following language families during the Neolithic. There would have been some amount of overlap which is indicated by the blurred divisions. The second map has lines to provide a better idea of the areas covered.

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/8413/languagefamiliesofneoli.jpg

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/8413/languagefamiliesofneoli.jpg

These in turn would have partially displaced the earlier hunter-gatherer populations of Europe which likely belonged to the I haplogroup. If haplogroup I was indeed descended from IJ then it is likely that Europe's hunter gatherers spoke what is now termed 'Afro-Asiatic' in my opinion.
This was latter pushed back as Neolithic farmers replaced and assimilated the earlier cultures, with Afro-Asiatic being latter reinforced in some areas with farmers, metalworkers and traders travelling along the coasts (Megalithic culture). Basically it is Venneman's Vasconic theory whilst Finnic in NE Europe makes sense and fits the 'Finnic northern Europe theory' and South Caucasian is my own theory and ultimately I think Basque may be a distant relative of it.

South Caucasian should really be South or North Caucasian, either or maybe even both groups could have been present.

Those maps aren't 100% accurate, I just knocked them together in a few minutes yesterday. I'd now shrink the South Caucasian area and have most of Europe south of Ukraine speaking Afro-Asiatic with just a few South Caucasians in the mountains.
Romania should be Afro-Asiatic, I may redraw the maps as I think about it more.

BTW, do look into some of Theo Venneman's theories - they're only controversial because people don't want to believe Europe may once have spoken languages akin to Arabic.

Prince Carlo

07-08-2012, 11:51 AM

The most likely place of origin for R1a is in south-central asia, around the region of Mehrgarh, in the Indus Valley. The diversity and frequency of R1a is the highest in this region.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehrgarh

Do you a link to that? Almost all the R1a in South Asia is R1a-Z93.

Demhat

07-08-2012, 11:56 AM

It is impossible to trace the language from genes: there are so many possible genetic lineages, and absolutely no reliable way to define which of them is connected to the IE language. The most frequent lineage is not necessarily any more probable than the less frequent lineage.
Here I agree, Such components from calculators do not exist in reality and can give just and idea how they might have been. I believe they were mostly West Asian like with some North Euro input.

The only way to find out the right lineage is to look at which lineage best matches the linguistic results.

So and which does? North European which is strongest among asian admixed (not even entirely Caucasoid to begin with) finno-Ugric people?

This is easy: the steppe has been an area of repeated linguistic expansion: PIE, Iranian, later Iranian, Bolghar Turkic (Hunnic), Avarian, Hungarian, Kipchak Turkic etc. Linguistic and migrational waves one after another! The steppe is the one particular region where linguistic continuity cannot have deep roots.

Your making it to easy for me friend. So West Asia has not been a area of repeated linguistic expansion? Iranics, Semites, Mongols, Sumerians, Caucasians and Turkic tribes did never set a foot on West Asian land?

Also most of your arguments are just based on assumptions not on facts.

It still is the region which best fits the linguistic results: it is the best candidate for Proto-Indo-European homeland.

Please clarify which linguistic "results" you mean. Are you talking about the highly speculative assumptions of some Linguists placing their assumed "Proto Indo European" language into the steppes simply for the laughable supposition horse domestication has started there, but not taking in account all the components among Indo Europeans which are clearly of West Asian origin.

There are only two ways of how Indo Europeans developed.

1. A Group of West Asian Pastoralists moved into the steppes, mixed with the local Hunthers and Gatheres and created a new language called "Indo-European"

2. A Group of West Asian, already Indo European Pastoralists moved into the steppes and the local Hunthers and Gatheres adopted the language and lifestyle. Later on the "Northern Indo European" (the Hunthers and Gatheres from the Steppes) groups Indo Europeanized vast areas of North- Central Europe, Central Asia and re Indo Europeanized parts of West Asia in form of Iranics, while the Southern Indo European (Proto Indo Europeans of West Asia took other roots from the Balkans and through See to Indo Europeanize West Europe, the Balkans parts of Central, East and South Asia.

Mistic

07-08-2012, 12:07 PM

A lot of this has to do with migration because of the Ice Age.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolithic_europe_map.shtml

When the ice melted, the people returned to their ancestral homelands. I've always believed in the idea that Aryans inhabited the north for a much earlier period and the Atlantean idea is cool. The elements pushed people in certain directions.

Demhat

07-08-2012, 12:12 PM

The words words for flora and fauna in IE describe the forest zone and the steppes so it points to the edge of the steppes somewhere (Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Caucasus or maybe Cappadocia) but lacks words for things such as seas or Middle Eastern flora and fauna.

As I already mentioned such a thing as "The Middle Eastern flora and fauna" doesnt exist because the Near East is to diverse in this and has changed many times over time.

"Steppes/Grasslands " are the best places to se pastoralism. And the Near East is where pastoralism developed.

Look at this map here. Grasslands are not absent in the Near East at all, interesting enought Grassland is strong in the area of former Halaf Culture (fertile crescent)
http://www.exploringnature.org/graphics/biomes/map_grasslands_steppes.jpg

Forests are also not absent in West Asia.

http://foris.fao.org/static/data/fra2005/maps/2.2.jpg

This mght be indication that they meant some more Northern regions but not real evidences imo.

The Kurgan theory suggests that the people on the Pontic Steppe came into contact with the Cucuteni-Trypillian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuteni-Trypillian_culture) neolithic civilisation, at that time one of the most advanced in Europe.
The IE people (Yamna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamna)) acquired technology from them and would latter help destroy that civilisation.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/CuTryOutline.svg/716px-CuTryOutline.svg.png

I heard about that and this is the Group which I think they have adopted Indo European languages from. Why and how could they adopt so much of Neolthic lifestyle without being under the pressure to adopt also the language spoken to be able to communicate with the Neolthic Group.

Demhat

07-08-2012, 12:22 PM

Albion

07-08-2012, 12:24 PM

Optimus

07-08-2012, 12:26 PM

Those maps aren't 100% accurate, I just knocked them together in a few minutes yesterday. I'd now shrink the South Caucasian area and have most of Europe south of Ukraine speaking Afro-Asiatic with just a few South Caucasians in the mountains.
Romania should be Afro-Asiatic, I may redraw the maps as I think about it more.

BTW, do look into some of Theo Venneman's theories - they're only controversial because people don't want to believe Europe may once have spoken languages akin to Arabic.

I think Afro-Asiatic substratum has been found only in Western Europe like in Celtic languages.Also we are not sure yet whether I is Mesolithic haplogroup.Haplogroup I2 was found in Neolithic sites.It could well be Neolithic marker.

Demhat

07-08-2012, 12:30 PM

Here are my revised linguistic maps of Neolithic Europe before the spread of IE:

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/7207/languagesofneolithiceur.jpg

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/7207/languagesofneolithiceur.jpg
Yamna - Proto-Indo-Europeans
Maykop and Cucteni - settled civilisations which greatly influenced the Yamna.

Interesting maps :thumb001:

But too speculative and something entirely new which only works if we assume Europe and the Neolthic farmers were "Afro Asiatic" speakers before. And there are no evidences for this. In fact it cant work because Most of the lineages connected with Neolthic Groups throughout Europe have developed somewhere between East Anatolia, the Caucasus and West Iran, where the Afro Asiatic languages were introduced very lately. Haplogroup G and R1b have no connection to Afro Asiatic languages at all.

Optimus

07-08-2012, 12:41 PM

I saw a documentary about the discovery of America this afternoon, and they were talking about the possibility of polynesian sailors reaching California in pre-historic times. Also apparently the japanese sailed to Ecuador in pre-historic times too. The pottery was the same and there's some virus that can only be found in japanese people and Ecuadorian mummies.

Also an european spear was found in America, which predates the crossing of the Bering strait by asians.

So, after that, that 1st point doesn't seem so far fetched. The sea was never a blockage, it was more like a highway.

Yes, but i meant why exactly sailing directly from WestAsia to Southern Portugal!?I have read that North African route is plausible too.

Albion

07-08-2012, 12:54 PM

As I already mentioned such a thing as "The Middle Eastern flora and fauna" doesnt exist because the Near East is to diverse in this and has changed many times over time.

"Steppes/Grasslands " are the best places to se pastoralism. And the Near East is where pastoralism developed.

I don't think anyone doubts that pastoralism developed in the Near East, but where people can settle to farm arable crops they will do.
The Indo-Europeans were nomadic pastoralists until they settled in Europe and Southern Asia. The closest the Near East would have ever got to this would have been transhumance and a few goat herders in the mountains.

Look at this map here. Grasslands are not absent in the Near East at all, interesting enought Grassland is strong in the area of former Halaf Culture (fertile crescent)
http://www.exploringnature.org/graphics/biomes/map_grasslands_steppes.jpg

I already mentioned this when I mentioned Cappadocia.

Forests are also not absent in West Asia.

http://foris.fao.org/static/data/fra2005/maps/2.2.jpg

And this when I mentioned the Caucasus.

I heard about that and this is the Group which I think they have adopted Indo European languages from. Why and how could they adopt so much of Neolthic lifestyle without being under the pressure to adopt also the language spoken bei the Neolthic groups to communicate with them.

They adopted what they needed from the Cuceteni but being pastoralists there was a limit to how much they could adopt.
The Yamn didn't adopt the language of the Cucteni because it was of little use to them, their societies were too different.

When the Cuceteni declined members of it may have adopted the Yamna way of life:

Cultures that rely on nomadic herding, where the livestock may be moved around to greener pastures freely, survive much better in arid regions than cultures that have permanent settlements that are based on subsistence farming techniques. With verified evidence that Kurgan pastoralists were living cheek-to-jowl with the Cucuteni-Trypillian settlements throughout their entire region for many centuries before the end of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, it is becoming very difficult to support Gimbutas' claim of a military conquest of a peaceful civilization. Rather, it is much more believable and logical to conclude that the members of the Cucuteni-Trypillian society that were facing starvation by farming their dry and barren plots of depleted soil chose instead to take up the practice of their neighbors, and became pastoralists instead.

Optimus

07-08-2012, 01:02 PM

This map is pretty obvious to me.

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/9681/ydnar1a1a.jpg

I am sorry but everyone arguing that WestAsian J2/G are the PIE-s need to check the psychiatrist.

Albion

07-08-2012, 01:26 PM

This doesnt make much sense by any meanings. Neolthic expansion took place in an area where people are known to have spoken formerly "isolated languages"

They became isolated latter and are only isolated today because links to other languages are not known or have died out.
All languages must ultimately have a common origin if people have a common origin.

We can assume that much of the Near East (including Levant) would have been Afro-Asiatic and South Caucasian speaking by then. Thus as neolithic farmers spread into Europe they'd have spread Afro-Asiatic and replaced earlier languages.
Sumerian is an isolate because we don't know languages it is linked to yet. Some people say Dravidian, but I find that hard to believe.
Isolates don't just appear out of nowhere, they become isolated via isolation and divergence, not because people wake up speaking a different language one day.

While Afro Asiatic languages where clearly introduced into West Asia (the northern part where Farming and Pastoralism developed) from an area somewhere between North Africa and the Levant and is associated with the spread of E1b1b* Haplogroup and came in contact with Neolthic Groups with the spread more into the Levant and Mesopotamia by taking some J* and G* lineages.

Yes, and thus Afro-Asiatic would very likely have been spread throughout much of Europe by Neolithic farmers.
Earlier languages from the Mesolithic wouldn't have survived if the Mesolithic peoples adopted the way of life of the farmers that spoke Afro-Asiatic. However Basque and a few of the pre-IE languages could have been exceptions.

If we assume that Afro-Asiatic was the language of Neolthic farmers than we would have to assume that Neolthic lifestyle was introduced to West Asia through North Africa and the Levant, while it actually is the other way around and a strong Caucasoid input into Africa came from the Near East.

The Horn of Africa, particularly the area of Ethiopia and Eritrea, has been proposed by some linguists because it includes the majority of the diversity of the Afroasiatic language family and has very diverse groups in close geographic proximity, sometimes considered a telltale sign for a linguistic geographic origin. Within this region there are several variants:

Christopher Ehret has proposed the western Red Sea coast from Eritrea to southeastern Egypt. While Ehret disputes Militarev's proposal that Proto-Afroasiatic shows signs of a common farming lexicon, he suggests that early Afroasiatic languages were involved in the even earlier development of intensive food collection in the areas of Ethiopia and Sudan. In other words, he proposes an even older age for Afroasiatic than Militarev, at least 15,000 years old and possibly older, and believes farming lexicon can only be reconstructed for branches of Afroasiatic.
In the next phase, unlike many other authors Ehret proposed an initial split between northern, southern and Omotic. The northern group includes Semitic, Egyptian and Berber (agreeing with others such as Diakonoff). He proposed that Chadic stems from Berber (some other authors group it with southern Afroasiatic languages such as Cushitic ones).

The Levant/Near East. Supporters of a non-north or north east African origin for Afroasiatic are particularly common among those with a background in Semitic or Egyptological studies, or amongst archaeological proponents of the "farming/language dispersal hypothesis" according to which major language groups dispersed with early farming technology in the Neolithic.[13][14] The leading linguistic proponent of this idea in recent times is Alexander Militarev. Arguments for and against this position depend upon the contested proposal that farming-related words can be reconstructed in Proto-Afroasiatic, with farming technology being widely thought to have spread from the Levant into Africa.

Militarev, who linked proto-Afroasiatic to the Levantine Natufian culture, that preceded the spread of farming technology, believes the language family to be about 10,000 years old. He wrote (Militarev 2002, p. 135) that the "Proto-Afrasian language, on the verge of a split into daughter languages", meaning, in his scenario, into "Cushitic, Omotic, Egyptian, Semitic and Chadic-Berber", "should be roughly dated to the ninth millennium BC".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Asiatic_Urheimat

IMO Afro-Asiatic could have been spread by neolithic farmers to Europe. I don't see any contradictions yet.

Albion

07-08-2012, 01:32 PM

I think Afro-Asiatic substratum has been found only in Western Europe like in Celtic languages.Also we are not sure yet whether I is Mesolithic haplogroup.Haplogroup I2 was found in Neolithic sites.It could well be Neolithic marker.

There's a non-IE vocabulary in Celtic but also Germanic (although that could be Mesolithic - Finnic, Afro-Asiatic or some language group we don't know about).

I'm not sure about the languages in Southern Europe but there were non-IE languages right into the Iron Age. I think some may have been very early offshoots of Afro-Asiatic.

The I haplogroup I've always thought of as native to Europe - Palaeolithic (Mesolithic in Northern Europe - we were recolonised after the Last Glacial Maximum).
I'm not sure how it would be Neolithic when it isn't really present outside of Europe.

Albion

07-08-2012, 01:44 PM

Interesting maps :thumb001:

But too speculative and something entirely new which only works if we assume Europe and the Neolthic farmers were "Afro Asiatic" speakers before. And there are no evidences for this. In fact it cant work because Most of the lineages connected with Neolthic Groups throughout Europe have developed somewhere between East Anatolia, the Caucasus and West Iran, where the Afro Asiatic languages were introduced very lately. Haplogroup G and R1b have no connection to Afro Asiatic languages at all.

Yes, that's where they began, but spread South to the Levant where haplogroup E speaking Afro-Asiatic could have assimilated these groups.
Then they spread with farming to Europe.

Some E in Europe could be directly from North Africa, some from the Levant IMO.

It's not hard to imagine - look at the Baltic peoples with their Finno-Ugric N haplogroup speaking some of the most archaic forms of IE.

Siginulfo

07-08-2012, 02:23 PM

THE WORDS DESCRIBING AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY

We can learn more about the earliest Indo-Europeans from other aspects of their reconstructed vocabulary. Some words, for example, describe an agricultural technology whose existence dates back to 5000 B.C. By that time the agricultural revolution had spread north from its origins in the Fertile Crescent, where the first archaeological evidence of cultivation dates back to at least 8000 B.C. From this region agriculture also spread southward to sustain the Mesopotamian civilizations and westward to Egypt. The Indo-European words for "barley," "wheat" and "flax"; for "apples," "cherries" and their trees, for "mulberries" and their bushes; for "grapes" and their vines; and for the various implements with which to cultivate and harvest them describe a way of life unknown in northern Europe until the third or second millennium B.C., when the first archaeological evidence appears.

THE LANDSCAPE DESCRIBED BY THE INDO-EUROPEAN PROTOLANGUAGE

The landscape described by the reconstructed Indo-European protolanguage is mountainous—as evidenced by the many words for high mountains, mountain lakes and rapid rivers flowing from mountain sources. Such a picture cannot be reconciled with either the plains of central Europe or the steppes north of the Black Sea, which have been advanced as an alternative homeland for the Indo-Europeans. The vocabulary does, however, fit the landscape of eastern Anatolia and Transcaucasia, backed by the splendor of the Caucasus Mountains. The language clothes its landscape in the flora of this region, having words for "mountain oak," "birch," "beech," "hornbeam," "ash," "willow" or"white willow," "yew," "pine" or"fir," "heather" and "moss." Moreover, the language has words for animals that are alien to northern Europe: "leopard," "snow leopard," "lion," "monkey" and "elephant."

The presence of a word for "beech tree," incidentally, has been cited in favor of the European plains and against the lower Volga as the putative Indo -European homeland. Beech trees, it is true, do not grow east of a line drawn from Gdansk on the Baltic to the northwest corner of the Black Sea. Two species of beech ( Fagus orientatis and F. sylvatica) flourish, however, in modern Turkey. Opposing the so-called beech argument is the oak argument: paleobotanical evidence shows that oak trees (which are listed in the reconstructed language's lexicon) were not native to postglacial northern Europe but began to spread there from the south as late as the turn of the fourth to the third millennium B.C.

THE TERMINOLOGY FOR WHEELED TRANSPORT, SMELTING OF METALS

Another significant clue to the identification of the Indo-European home land is provided by the terminology for wheeled transport. There are words for "wheel" (*rotho-), "axle" (*hakhs-), "yoke" (*iak'om) and associated gear. "Horse" is *ekhos and "foal" *pholo. The bronze parts of the chariot and the bronze tools, with which chariots were fashioned from mountain hardwoods, furnish words that embrace the smelting of metals.Petroglyphs, symbols marked on stone, found in the area from the Transcaucasus to upper Mesopotamia between the lakes Van and Urmia are the earliest pictures of horse-drawn chariots.

Optimus

07-08-2012, 02:59 PM

To help unravel some of the early Eurasian steppe migration movements, we determined the Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial haplotypes and haplogroups of 26 ancient human specimens from the Krasnoyarsk area dated from between the middle of the second millennium BC. to the fourth century AD. In order to go further in the search of the geographic origin and physical traits of these south Siberian specimens, we also typed phenotype-informative single nucleotide polymorphisms. Our autosomal, Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA analyses reveal that whereas few specimens seem to be related matrilineally or patrilineally, nearly all subjects belong to haplogroup R1a1-M17 which is thought to mark the eastward migration of the early Indo-Europeans. Our results also confirm that at the Bronze and Iron Ages, south Siberia was a region of overwhelmingly predominant European settlement, suggesting an eastward migration of Kurgan people across the Russo-Kazakh steppe. Finally, our data indicate that at the Bronze and Iron Age timeframe, south Siberians were blue (or green)-eyed, fair-skinned and light-haired people and that they might have played a role in the early development of the Tarim Basin civilization. To the best of our knowledge, no equivalent molecular analysis has been undertaken so far.

Source (http://www.springerlink.com/content/4462755368m322k8/)

Siginulfo

07-08-2012, 03:02 PM

Source (http://www.springerlink.com/content/4462755368m322k8/)

What's the link with what I linked above? That the mummies of 2000 B.C. were part of Afanasevo? Yes, it's very probable, but the mummies from 2000 years ago tell that they are J2 and G, and the Tocharian language is more linked to these later mummies, given that the language is documented by 600-800 A.D.

Read what I linked, there you'll find the definitive proofs of the Anatolian Hypothesis.

Optimus

07-08-2012, 03:12 PM

Or according to 2012 study.

The prevailing Y-chromosome lineage in Pashtun and Tajik (R1a1a-M17), has the highest observed diversity among populations of the Indus Valley [46]. R1a1a-M17 diversity declines toward the Pontic-Caspian steppe where the mid-Holocene R1a1a7-M458 sublineage is dominant. R1a1a7-M458 was absent in Afghanistan, suggesting that R1a1a-M17 does not support, as previously thought, expansions from the Pontic Steppe , bringing the Indo-European languages to Central Asia and India.

Source (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0034288)

What's the link with what I linked above? That the mummies of 2000 B.C. were part of Afanasevo? Yes, it's very probable, but the mummies from 2000 years ago tell that they are J2 and G, and the Tocharian language is more linked to these later mummies, given that the language is documented by 600-800 A.D.

Read what I linked, there you'll find the definitive proofs of the Anatolian Hypothesis.

Please drop it with the J2/G and Anatolia nonsense.Those scholars that support it are quite in minority.

Siginulfo

07-08-2012, 03:17 PM

Or according to 2012 study.

Source (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0034288)

Please drop it with the J2/G and Anatolia nonsense.Those scholars that support it are quite in minority.

"Eppur si muove" said Galilei, and no one cared to listen him.

Albion

07-08-2012, 03:18 PM

So at what point did you switch from India to West Asia Protospatha?

I think we're looking for a homeland around the Black Sea somewhere whether north or south of it.

We can learn more about the earliest Indo-Europeans from other aspects of their reconstructed vocabulary. Some words, for example, describe an agricultural technology whose existence dates back to 5000 B.C. By that time the agricultural revolution had spread north from its origins in the Fertile Crescent, where the first archaeological evidence of cultivation dates back to at least 8000 B.C.

Were they IE or just early loan words from the Neolithic civilisations?

The Indo-European words for "barley," "wheat" and "flax"; for "apples," "cherries" and their trees, for "mulberries" and their bushes; for "grapes" and their vines; and for the various implements with which to cultivate and harvest them describe a way of life unknown in northern Europe until the third or second millennium B.C., when the first archaeological evidence appears.

Barley, wheat and Flax are all from West Asia.

Domestic Apples are native to the mountains of Kazakhstan - the steppes but Crab Apples are native everywhere in many species and there's evidence for their consumption in the Ertobolle and Swiss lake villages.

Cherries are native to most of Europe. Prunus avium from England to the Caucasus and Prunus cerasus from Germany to the Caucasus - those are the two species which people eat (that and Black Cherries but they came from America latter on).

Cherries would have been consumed from the wild trees until they were domesticated around the South Caucasus somewhere.

Mulberries are in different areas of East Asia (the ones which are eaten anyway) and likely spread along the trade routes, perhaps the Silk Road.

Grapes are native to most of the northern hemisphere. Most species occur in the Americas but it is Vitis vinifera which has always been consumed and made into wine in the Near East and Europe.
That is native to Southern Europe to the Caucasus, the furthest north it gets naturally is on the Rhine. They were likely domesticated around the Caucasus too.

So only the grains point to West Asia specifically, Maykop next to the Yamna was noted for the cultivation of fruit - they could easily be West Asia or the edge of the Pontic Steppe.

THE LANDSCAPE DESCRIBED BY THE INDO-EUROPEAN PROTOLANGUAGE

The landscape described by the reconstructed Indo-European protolanguage is mountainous—as evidenced by the many words for high mountains, mountain lakes and rapid rivers flowing from mountain sources[/B][/I][/U]. Such a picture cannot be reconciled with either the plains of central Europe or the steppes north of the Black Sea, which have been advanced as an alternative homeland for the Indo-Europeans. The vocabulary does, however, fit the landscape of eastern Anatolia and Transcaucasia, backed by the splendor of the Caucasus Mountains. The language clothes its landscape in the flora of this region, having words for "mountain oak," "birch," "beech," "hornbeam," "ash," "willow" or"white willow," "yew," "pine" or"fir," "heather" and "moss."

It described well the Caucasus, the region at the edge of both West Asia and the Steppes. Thus this proves nothing in itself, just that Indo-Europeans lived on one side of the Caucasus.

Moreover, the language has words for animals that are alien to northern Europe: "leopard," "snow leopard," "lion," "monkey" and "elephant."

Ukraine and Southern Russia aren't Northern Europe. This article seems to be arguing against IE being native to Northern Europe which nobody here has even suggested anyway.
The Pontic Steppe is Eastern Europe.

Leopards could be the Persian Leopard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_leopard) found in the Caucasus and Turkmenistan as well as Iran.

Snow leopards are found in Kazakhstan.

European Lions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_lion) were formerly found in the Caucasus and Southern Europe, being a subspecies of Asiatic Lions which are still found in India.

The presence of a word for "beech tree," incidentally, has been cited in favor of the European plains and against the lower Volga as the putative Indo -European homeland. Beech trees, it is true, do not grow east of a line drawn from Gdansk on the Baltic to the northwest corner of the Black Sea. Two species of beech ( Fagus orientatis and F. sylvatica) flourish, however, in modern Turkey. Opposing the so-called beech argument is the oak argument: paleobotanical evidence shows that oak trees (which are listed in the reconstructed language's lexicon) were not native to postglacial northern Europe but began to spread there from the south as late as the turn of the fourth to the third millennium B.C.

I don't think this proves anything, both species are as common as muck everywhere from England to the Caucasus.
Oak spread north - from Iberia and the Balkans back into post glacial northern Europe.

Again, the Pontic Steppe is Eastern Europe and right next to the Caucasus.

Another significant clue to the identification of the Indo-European home land is provided by the terminology for wheeled transport. There are words for "wheel" (*rotho-), "axle" (*hakhs-), "yoke" (*iak'om) and associated gear. "Horse" is *ekhos and "foal" *pholo. The bronze parts of the chariot and the bronze tools, with which chariots were fashioned from mountain hardwoods, furnish words that embrace the smelting of metals.Petroglyphs, symbols marked on stone, found in the area from the Transcaucasus to upper Mesopotamia between the lakes Van and Urmia are the earliest pictures of horse-drawn chariots.

Indo-Europeans could have easily copied and refined the technology. The Sumerians had wagons but not horses which came latter from the steppes.

Optimus

07-08-2012, 03:18 PM

"Eppur si muove" said Galilei, and no one cared to listen him.

Either be serious or don't troll this thread please.

Siginulfo

07-08-2012, 03:19 PM

So at what point did you switch from India to West Asia Protospatha?

I think we're looking for a homeland around the Black Sea somewhere whether north or south of it.

Were they IE or just early loan words from the Neolithic civilisations?

Barley, wheat and Flax are all from West Asia.

Domestic Apples are native to the mountains of Kazakhstan - the steppes but Crab Apples are native everywhere in many species and there's evidence for their consumption in the Ertobolle and Swiss lake villages.

Cherries are native to most of Europe. Prunus avium from England to the Caucasus and Prunus cerasus from Germany to the Caucasus - those are the two species which people eat (that and Black Cherries but they came from America latter on).

Cherries would have been consumed from the wild trees until they were domesticated around the South Caucasus somewhere.

Mulberries are in different areas of East Asia (the ones which are eaten anyway) and likely spread along the trade routes, perhaps the Silk Road.

Grapes are native to most of the northern hemisphere. Most species occur in the Americas but it is Vitis vinifera which has always been consumed and made into wine in the Near East and Europe.
That is native to Southern Europe to the Caucasus, the furthest north it gets naturally is on the Rhine. They were likely domesticated around the Caucasus too.

So only the grains point to West Asia specifically, Maykop next to the Yamna was noted for the cultivation of fruit - they could easily be West Asia or the edge of the Pontic Steppe.

It described well the Caucasus, the region at the edge of both West Asia and the Steppes. Thus this proves nothing in itself, just that Indo-Europeans lived on one side of the Caucasus.

Ukraine and Southern Russia aren't Northern Europe. This article seems to be arguing against IE being native to Northern Europe which nobody here has even suggested anyway.
The Pontic Steppe is Eastern Europe.

Leopards could be the Persian Leopard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_leopard) found in the Caucasus and Turkmenistan as well as Iran.

Snow leopards are found in Kazakhstan.

European Lions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_lion) were formerly found in the Caucasus and Southern Europe, being a subspecies of Asiatic Lions which are still found in India.

I don't think this proves anything, both species are as common as muck everywhere from England to the Caucasus.
Oak spread north - from Iberia and the Balkans back into post glacial northern Europe.

Again, the Pontic Steppe is Eastern Europe and right next to the Caucasus.

Indo-Europeans could have easily copied and refined the technology. The Sumerians had wagons but not horses which came latter from the steppes.

They lived on the southern side of Caucasus (Transcaucasia), the article specifies it.

From anywhere the IE had to arrive in India, no? Well, Anatolia is that place.

Albion

07-08-2012, 03:23 PM

They lived on the southern side of Caucasus (Transcaucasia), the article specifies it.

I'm not sure if I believe 19th century articles, people back then sometimes wrote any old crap.

Siginulfo

07-08-2012, 03:25 PM

I'm not sure if I believe 19th century articles, people back then sometimes wrote any old crap.

Yeah, this is the case of that shitty jewess Marija Gimbutas. Did you even read the article? All that it says is true.

Albion

07-08-2012, 03:31 PM

Albion

07-08-2012, 03:34 PM

Yeah, this is the case of that shitty jewess Marija Gimbutas. Did you even read the article? All that it says is true.

Marija was just some feminist, her only false claim was that all of Europe was matriarchal. The rest she was mostly right on though.

I read that what you posted and refuted much of it except the grains. But then the Cucuteni would have been growing grains too and they and the Maykop influenced the Yamna (proto-Indo-Europeans) quite a lot.

Siginulfo

07-08-2012, 03:38 PM

I'm not sure how you can argue about R1b, G2a or J2 being Indo-European when large areas of Southern and Western Europe where these are the majority spoke non-IE languages well into the Iron Age.

Where G2a peaks in Europe there's been Rhaetian, Etruscan, Pelasgian and Caucasian languages in the present day Caucasus.

J2's distribution is on the periphery of Indo-European speaking areas areas rich in R1b have had pre-IE languages lasting long into the Iron Age (Aquitanian, Rhaetian, possibly Pictish and modern Basque).

1 = Etruscan is IE: http://www.maravot.com/Indo-European_Table.html

2 = Rhaetian is related to Etruscan according to recent studies, so it is IE too.

3 = R1b is not IE, and the remaining non-IE languages were spoken probably by them, or by I1 and I2.

4 = J2 and G were much more present in Europe in ancient times.

Albion

07-08-2012, 04:40 PM

1 = Etruscan is IE: http://www.maravot.com/Indo-European_Table.html

2 = Rhaetian is related to Etruscan according to recent studies, so it is IE too.

3 = R1b is not IE, and the remaining non-IE languages were spoken probably by them, or by I1 and I2.

4 = J2 and G were much more present in Europe in ancient times.

I'd rather believe real linguists than amateurs on the internet. Courtesy of The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. (http://www.knaw.nl/Content/Internet_KNAW/publicaties/pdf/20021051.pdf) See pages 6, 7 and 9.
Yes, that's possible but if Etrsucan isn't IE then a Rhaetic dialect wouldn't be either.
I1 isn't prominent in those areas nor is I2. I2 is prominent in the Balkans, not so much in the Basque country, Alps or Tuscany.
Yes, G2a is found in many neolithic graves. This is beyond the point - why where G2a and J2 are in high concentrations is IE relatively recent?

member

07-08-2012, 06:28 PM

Edit: Protospatha is somewhat funny

Zorg

07-08-2012, 07:27 PM

Masterful refutation by Albion.
Trusted scholarly evidence always trumps fringe speculators.

Bronze

07-08-2012, 09:45 PM

Do you a link to that? Almost all the R1a in South Asia is R1a-Z93.

Im not talking about diversity of subclades (although South asia does have R1a in addition to R2), because that will heavily be dependant on the fact that they have tested far more samples from eastern europe compared to south asia.

im mainly talking about the STR diversity which indicate that the age of R1a is older in the indus valley compared to anywhere else in the world.

The ages of accumulated microsatellite variation in the majority of Indian haplogroups exceed 10,000–15,000 years, which attests to the antiquity of regional differentiation. Therefore, our data do not support models that invoke a pronounced recent genetic input from Central Asia to explain the observed genetic variation in South Asia. R1a1 and R2 haplogroups indicate demographic complexity that is inconsistent with a recent single history. Associated microsatellite analyses of the high-frequency R1a1 haplogroup chromosomes indicate independent recent histories of the Indus Valley and the peninsular Indian region.

i cant be bothered to find the direct link to the study, but its somewhere in here:

http://new-indology.blogspot.se/search/label/genetics

Jaska

07-09-2012, 08:18 AM

So and which does? North European which is strongest among asian admixed (not even entirely Caucasoid to begin with) finno-Ugric people?
These genome-wide components like North European are not “real” in the same sense than the uniparental haplogroups are: different analyses with different amount of components may interpret the results differently, so the amount of North European component varies analysis by analysis.

So, I believe that we have better chance to connect paternal or maternal lineages to the expansions of languages.

Your making it to easy for me friend. So West Asia has not been a area of repeated linguistic expansion? Iranics, Semites, Mongols, Sumerians, Caucasians and Turkic tribes did never set a foot on West Asian land?
Of course West Asia has also seen repeated linguistic expansions. I only answered why we cannot find any linguistic continuity in Ukraine.

Also most of your arguments are just based on assumptions not on facts.
Oh, really? Please disprove them, if you have the competence. :)
Linguistic results very clearly point to the Pontic Steppe homeland for Indo-European. If you disagree, you should disprove the linguistic evidence. And remember, genetic or archaeological evidence cannot disprove linguistic evidence.

You should read Mallory; after you have read this book twice or thrice, you may try to disprove the steppe homeland:
http://www.ebook3000.com/J--P--Mallory-_-In-Search-of-the-Indo-Europeans--Language--Archaeology--and-Myth_36083.html

Here are my revised linguistic maps of Neolithic Europe before the spread of IE:
How do you explain all the ancient European languages which were spoken still some 2 000 years ago and which are not Afro-Asiatic, Indo-European or Uralic? Tartessian, Iberian, Basque, Sican, Siculian, Rhaetian, Etruscan, Pelasgian, and many Palaeo-European substrate languages in the more northern parts.

Therefore it is impossible that Afro-Asiatic could have been so wide-spread in the Neolithic era. It is not even certain if there truly is Afro-Asiatic influence in Celtic or Germanic: Vennemann’s linguistic evidence is vague.

From anywhere the IE had to arrive in India, no? Well, Anatolia is that place.
IE only arrived in India late, and only one branch: Indo-Aryan. As there are Early, Middle and Late Proto-Aryan loanwords in Uralic languages, the Aryan development must have occurred in the North-Caspian steppes.
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/UralicEvidence.pdf

So, the IE language did not spread to India from Anatolia but from Caspian steppes.

im mainly talking about the STR diversity which indicate that the age of R1a is older in the indus valley compared to anywhere else in the world.
It must be remembered that STR diversity is valid ONLY when true subhaplogroups are measured. For example, if they calculate the diversity of R1 and R2, it would be higher in India than in Europe, because Europe lacks R2. Similarly, there are many different R1a1-subgroups/clades in India, and their diversities should be calculated separately.

More important than diversity is the descending: where are the most ancestral haplotypes of every R1a1 subgroup/clade?

Albion

07-09-2012, 09:22 AM

How do you explain all the ancient European languages which were spoken still some 2 000 years ago and which are not Afro-Asiatic, Indo-European or Uralic? Tartessian, Iberian, Basque, Sican, Siculian, Rhaetian, Etruscan, Pelasgian, and many Palaeo-European substrate languages in the more northern parts.

Therefore it is impossible that Afro-Asiatic could have been so wide-spread in the Neolithic era. It is not even certain if there truly is Afro-Asiatic influence in Celtic or Germanic: Vennemann’s linguistic evidence is vague.

It is my opinion that some of these languages could have been very early offshoots of Afro-Asiatic, their very archaic character disguising their origin somewhat.
Earlier languages could have survived too but I think most of Southern and Western Europe would have spoken Afro-Asiatic before Indo-European.

I suppose you can call it an assumption rather than a theory based on much evidence at the moment.

Optimus

07-09-2012, 09:42 AM

It is my opinion that some of these languages could have been very early offshoots of Afro-Asiatic, their very archaic character disguising their origin somewhat.
Earlier languages could have survived too but I think most of Southern and Western Europe would have spoken Afro-Asiatic before Indo-European.

I suppose you can call it an assumption rather than a theory based on much evidence at the moment.

Well Jaska has right.If Afro-Asiatic was spoken that doesn't mean it was the sole Pre Indo-European language but other language family were present too like Proto-Basque,Iberian,Pelasgian,Etruscan etc etc.

Drawing-slim

07-09-2012, 10:03 AM

Demhat

07-11-2012, 01:37 AM

They became isolated latter and are only isolated today because links to other languages are not known or have died out.
All languages must ultimately have a common origin if people have a common origin.

We can assume that much of the Near East (including Levant) would have been Afro-Asiatic and South Caucasian speaking by then. Thus as neolithic farmers spread into Europe they'd have spread Afro-Asiatic and replaced earlier languages.
Sumerian is an isolate because we don't know languages it is linked to yet. Some people say Dravidian, but I find that hard to believe.
Isolates don't just appear out of nowhere, they become isolated via isolation and divergence, not because people wake up speaking a different language one day.

Yes, and thus Afro-Asiatic would very likely have been spread throughout much of Europe by Neolithic farmers.
Earlier languages from the Mesolithic wouldn't have survived if the Mesolithic peoples adopted the way of life of the farmers that spoke Afro-Asiatic. However Basque and a few of the pre-IE languages could have been exceptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Asiatic_Urheimat

IMO Afro-Asiatic could have been spread by neolithic farmers to Europe. I don't see any contradictions yet.

I respect your opinion but I have to say just like most explanations your arguments are based on speculations. Your scenario makes only sense if we believe that Afro Asiatic languages are older than 10000 years and that most of the Near East was "Afro Asiatic" speaking at the time. But as we all know Afro Asiatic languages developed somewhere between North Africa and the Levant.and the first recorded Semitic language is Akkadian.

I as a speaker of Indo-European language can say that we use to have own words for Forests, Steppes AND the mountains. Forests and Steppes are common in the area of Pontic-Caspian steppes but the combination of Steppes, Forests and Mountains is more for West Asia. I have never came across Finno-Ugric loanwords in my language and I dont know if there are any in West European languages. IF this is not the case than its only common in East European languages which can be explained through later areal influence. While Afro-Asiatic (Semitic) influence is common in Indic, Armenian, Celtic, Italic, Iranic, Greek and other languages.

Demhat

07-11-2012, 01:41 AM

This map is pretty obvious to me.

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/9681/ydnar1a1a.jpg

I am sorry but everyone arguing that WestAsian J2/G are the PIE-s need to check the psychiatrist.

My friend try to be a bit more respectful you came here while Albion and I where giving each other evidences while you disappeared for some while. I do consider the Anatolian Hypothesis as the bigger possibility and I surely dont need and psychiatrist.

Han Cholo

07-11-2012, 01:54 AM

Proto-Indo-European is not Proto-Indo-Aryan. Don't confuse the terms. Indo Aryan was a protolanguage that is ancestor to modern Iranian and Indian branches. Proto-Indio Iranian was likely spoken in Northern Central Asia whereas the ones that stayed became the Iranics and those who moved further south became Proto-Indians.

Proto-Indo-European, however, was likely started to be spoken around central Ukraine.

Your Indian and West asian theories don't make sense. All Andronovo and Corded Ware Kurgans have Eastern Euro looking mummies, not west asians or veddoids.

All Indo-european speakers have r1a1 and an admixture of Corded Ware. That's why you can find Northern Euro admix in upper castes in India and places of Pakistan and not Paki(South Asian) admixture in most other Indo-european groups.

Demhat

07-11-2012, 02:03 AM

These genome-wide components like North European are not “real” in the same sense than the uniparental haplogroups are: different analyses with different amount of components may interpret the results differently, so the amount of North European component varies analysis by analysis.

You dont need to explain me this. I already know that and am probably one of the few persons who mentioned this many times. I was just being "as intelligent as some other Users" who tried to argue "look West Asian peaks in non Indo-European people".

So, I believe that we have better chance to connect paternal or maternal lineages to the expansions of languages.

Thats for sure and taken all Indo-European speaking populations together, J2a, G* and R1b exceed the frequency of R1a*. In all Iranic speaking Groups J2a, R1a, R1b and R2 are the most frequent Haplogroups. ONLY in Slavic languages R1a is predominant so how can we come to the conclusion that R1a1a has to be the only founder of Indo-European languages. People who support the Kurgan Hypothesis and really believe that from 5000-3000 b. c. their was still a people so highly homogeneous in Haplogroup (Largely R1a) are the only one who really need to visit a psychiatrist and this is my honest opinion. Haplogroups developed some 30000-5000 years ago and we are to believe in a world so connected (even to that time) to each other, the Indo-Europeans managed to stay so homogenous by 5000-3000 b. c.?

Of course West Asia has also seen repeated linguistic expansions. I only answered why we cannot find any linguistic continuity in Ukraine.

Oh, really? Please disprove them, if you have the competence. :)
Linguistic results very clearly point to the Pontic Steppe homeland for Indo-European. If you disagree, you should disprove the linguistic evidence. And remember, genetic or archaeological evidence cannot disprove linguistic evidence.

And I asked you to give me an example of this "Linguistic results" , of an reconstructed ( not real ) Proto-Indo European language.

How do you explain all the ancient European languages which were spoken still some 2 000 years ago and which are not Afro-Asiatic, Indo-European or Uralic? Tartessian, Iberian, Basque, Sican, Siculian, Rhaetian, Etruscan, Pelasgian, and many Palaeo-European substrate languages in the more northern parts.

In which more "northern parts" and which are they?

IE only arrived in India late, and only one branch: Indo-Aryan. As there are Early, Middle and Late Proto-Aryan loanwords in Uralic languages, the Aryan development must have occurred in the North-Caspian steppes.
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/UralicEvidence.pdf

So, the IE language did not spread to India from Anatolia but from Caspian steppes.

Read what I wrote again and you will see that it does not stand in contrast to the Anatolian hypothesis. I believe that Aryan and Slavic languages developed in the steppes but that they belong to a different wave. They where most probably local Hunthers and Gatheres in the steppes which mixed with the West Asian Proto-Indo Europeans and adopted the language. And later as a second wave moved into Central- South- and West Asia.

Demhat

07-11-2012, 02:14 AM

Your Indian and West asian theories don't make sense. All Andronovo and Corded Ware Kurgans have Eastern Euro looking mummies, not west asians or veddoids.

Wow some of you Guys complain about using "components" from Calculators as evidence but at the same time use pseudo science s.... talk like "The Corded and Kurgan mummies look different from West Asians" because they are Indo-Europinized Hunthers and Gatheres. The Indo European people living in West, Central and South Asia look also different from your Corded Indo Europeans. So what?

And all of you seem to forget or most probably ignore that there is a mutation in R1a which divides the two most common lineages. Almost all of the R1a in Central and South Asia is different from that in the Steppes!

Dont ignore facts and start to use pseudo science thinks like "pigmentation and headshape can change with different forms of diets, living standards and environment.

Look at these Kalash.

http://unsafeharbour.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/young-kalash-girl-3.jpg
http://www.sublime.ag/things/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/girl-from-kalash-pakistan-with-facial-tattoos.jpg

They look like your typical "Corded Ware" mummies dont say? Yet they are genetically much more distant to Europeans than most other West Eurasian populations.

Demhat

07-11-2012, 02:20 AM

It was a nice debate and it was a joy to discuss with most of the Users. I have brought up most of my arguments and its up to the readers to decide what they want to believe. I dont want and cant (too much to do) invest more time into this "endless" debate.

Han Cholo

07-11-2012, 02:21 AM

Wow some of you Guys complain about using "components" from Calculators as evidence but at the same time use pseudo science s.... talk like "The Corded and Kurgan mummies look different from West Asians" because they are Indo-Europinized Hunthers and Gatheres. The Indo European people living in West, Central and South Asia look also different from your Corded Indo Europeans. So what?

These Kurgan people were not hunter gatherers but the innovators who domesticated horse, created the chariot, did bronze weapons, etc... West Asia at the moment had Elamites, Sumerians, etc..

And all of you seem to forget or most probably ignore that there is a mutation in R1a which divides the two most common lineages. Almost all of the R1a in Central and South Asia is different from that in the Steppes!

R1a1 in Kyrgyzstan is similar clade to that in Sweden and Norway.

Dont ignore facts and start to use pseudo science thinks like "pigmentation and headshape can change with different forms of diets, living standards and environment.

This diet and living standars shit sounds more like pseudo-science. Accept proto-Indo Europeans did not look like Kurd/Turks.

Look at these Kalash.

http://unsafeharbour.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/young-kalash-girl-3.jpg
http://www.sublime.ag/things/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/girl-from-kalash-pakistan-with-facial-tattoos.jpg

They look like your typical "Corded Ware" mummies dont say? Yet they are genetically much more distant than most other West Euroasian populations.

No, they don't. They're depigmented Pakis and they're not common. However they likely have some original Indo-European admixture.

Drawing-slim

07-11-2012, 02:22 AM

...

Jaska

07-11-2012, 06:00 AM

I as a speaker of Indo-European language can say that we use to have own words for Forests, Steppes AND the mountains. Forests and Steppes are common in the area of Pontic-Caspian steppes but the combination of Steppes, Forests and Mountains is more for West Asia.
Ural Mountains and Caucasus Mountains border the Pontic-Caspian steppes.

I have never came across Finno-Ugric loanwords in my language and I dont know if there are any in West European languages. IF this is not the case than its only common in East European languages which can be explained through later areal influence. While Afro-Asiatic (Semitic) influence is common in Indic, Armenian, Celtic, Italic, Iranic, Greek and other languages.
We were not talking about Uralic loanwords in Indo-European, but different layers of Aryan loanwords in Uralic, so I don’t relate the relevance of your point.

Thats for sure and taken all Indo-European speaking populations together, J2a, G* and R1b exceed the frequency of R1a*. In all Iranic speaking Groups J2a, R1a, R1b and R2 are the most frequent Haplogroups. ONLY in Slavic languages R1a is predominant so how can we come to the conclusion that R1a1a has to be the only founder of Indo-European languages.
You are right, there may have been other lineages among the Proto-Indo-European speakers than mere R1a1. But I think that most of the R1a1-fans are not denying this; they just consider R1a1 having the best evidence supporting it.

And I asked you to give me an example of this "Linguistic results" , of an reconstructed ( not real ) Proto-Indo European language.
Horse-related vocabulary excludes the Anatolian homeland.

In which more "northern parts" and which are they?
There are many substrate languages found beneath Germanic and Balto-Slavic, for example “language of geminates” and “language of bird names”, known also by different names. Unfortunately the articles are not found in Internet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Indo-European_languages

There is an unknown substrate beneath Saami, and most probably beneath Finnic, too.

Read what I wrote again and you will see that it does not stand in contrast to the Anatolian hypothesis. I believe that Aryan and Slavic languages developed in the steppes but that they belong to a different wave. They where most probably local Hunthers and Gatheres in the steppes which mixed with the West Asian Proto-Indo Europeans and adopted the language. And later as a second wave moved into Central- South- and West Asia.
I answered to a message where it was proposed that Aryan languages went straight from Anatolia to India – that is impossible.

It is not just as impossible to think the clockwise route from Anatolia to the Pontic-Caspian steppes and further to South Asia, but that contradicts BOTH the direction of expansion we see in the archaeological record AND the inter-branch relationships: Slavic is included in the Northwest Indo-European group, and the Balto-Slavic satemization is seen as a secondary, areally spread (from Aryan to Balto-Slavic) development.

And all of you seem to forget or most probably ignore that there is a mutation in R1a which divides the two most common lineages. Almost all of the R1a in Central and South Asia is different from that in the Steppes!
Even R1a1a (not to speak about R1a) is too old to be the match for the Proto-Indo-European expansion; it should be rather some subgroups of it.

It was a nice debate and it was a joy to discuss with most of the Users. I have brought up most of my arguments and its up to the readers to decide what they want to believe. I dont want and cant (too much to do) invest more time into this "endless" debate.
Why don’t you read the book from Mallory I linked?
Then you could yourself decide what to believe. Now you have only read the views of your own faith.

Prince Carlo

07-11-2012, 08:13 AM

Im not talking about diversity of subclades (although South asia does have R1a in addition to R2), because that will heavily be dependant on the fact that they have tested far more samples from eastern europe compared to south asia.

im mainly talking about the STR diversity which indicate that the age of R1a is older in the indus valley compared to anywhere else in the world.

i cant be bothered to find the direct link to the study, but its somewhere in here:

http://new-indology.blogspot.se/search/label/genetics

This study sounds like propaganda to me. They even try to refute the West Asian origin of Dravidians.

Peyrol

07-11-2012, 12:19 PM

Nuristani and Khalash people are 400,000 in a region inhabited by 60,000,000 people...

Siginulfo

07-11-2012, 12:47 PM

For Jaska. Anatolians/Sumerians and related people knew very well both horses and chariots, so I don't think that it should not confirm Anatolian Hypothesis.

Jaska

07-23-2012, 09:30 PM

For Jaska. Anatolians/Sumerians and related people knew very well both horses and chariots, so I don't think that it should not confirm Anatolian Hypothesis.
Both horse and wheeled vehicle were older in Europe. Horse is not a native animal in West Asia, and the oldest traces of wheel are from Poland, at the 4th millennium BC.

Besides, Sumerian and Semitic words for wheel seem to be Indo-European borrowings from *kwekwlos.

Gaijin

10-08-2012, 09:57 PM

http://www.stclairresearch.com/images/HaplogroupRouteMap.jpg

Albion

10-09-2012, 11:12 AM

http://www.stclairresearch.com/images/HaplogroupRouteMap.jpg

That map is a bit old now. Now the generally held theory is that the ancestors of R1a and R1b were still part of haplogroup R during the last Ice Age. Haplogroup R probably arose somewhere in Asia during the Last Glacial Maximum ("Ice Age") and then R1a and R1b seem to have broke off as it was ending. R1a would have been from people moving into the European steppes and R1b probably came about around the Southern Caucasus or Anatolia.
So R1a would have been north of the Black Sea and spread into Eastern Europe whereas R1b was south of it and spread through Southern Europe and then reached the west where it went in all directions and gradually became the majority.

http://jowsey.com/genealogy/genetic/R1b-migration.png
R1b map

The area the ancestral R people lived in would have either temperate desert (an area with stable, mid-range temperatures like Britain or France - but lacking in rain) or a grassland. Most of the extinct megafauna of Eurasia would have been found on grasslands.
R1a seems to have spread into Eastern Europe with the Corded Ware, R1b in Western Europe with the Bell Beaker. R1b probably followed similar routes that the earlier megalithic and first farmer peoples had.