Printable View
All of F* descendants are originally Caucasoid.T is not Veddoid at all i don't know were are you pulling that.E3b might originate in Africa but E and DE as a whole originates in Eurasia but you have right they were not Caucasoid but distantly related to Australoid/Proto-Mongoloid D* carriers so they were intruders into Africa too where they substituted the older Negroid lineages A and B.Quote:
Originally Posted by CircassianWine
Neolithic farmers - IE; the others accompanied them later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Albion
They're good as a rough guide and the above is a decent generalisation of the point when the Y-DNA haplogroups entered Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by safinator
Neolithic farmers weren't IE, more likely Afro-Asiatic speakers as attested by various substratums in European language families (Celtic and Germanic as examples). Some of them could also be from earlier Mesolithic languages too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Protospatha
Some could have spoken other languages too such as South Caucasian or language related to Sumerian. Maybe Basque has its origin in one of those.
No, substratum in Celto-Germanic could be easily explained also with R1b, it raised in the same place as J and G etc... They were Indo-Europeanized by J2 and G. Otherwise, substratum could be from I1 and I2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Albion
Stop with your bullshit J2 and/or G has nothing to do with Indo-Europeans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Protospatha
It is widely accepted that R1a1a was the sole Indo-European marker.The Urhemait seems to be the Ukrainian steppes or near them.Also the domestication of horse and the spread of Indo-Europeans and the use of horse in warfare fits well.
Stop with your bullshit of R1a and slavic-supremacy, please. Even if a theory is widely accepted it doesn't mean it is the right one. Anyway; we are going off-topic, if you want to discuss you know how to contact me:coffee:Quote:
Originally Posted by Optimus
I see. But I don't think J and G have much to do with Indo-European. IE probably developed in either the Pontic Steppe, Central Asia or Anatolia (unlikely). I don't think J2 and G are so associated with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Protospatha
G is prominent in Caucasians and Iranian peoples but quite rare amongst most IE's (Iranians excepted). J2 and G carriers must have been quite some elite to be able to replace the languages like that, I think it is unlikely.
More likely is that G2a spread to Europe during the Neolithic and some latter with the Indo-Europeans, Iranian nomads and the Alans on their way to Iberia.
It is important to note that these haplogroups are both found in areas which retained non-IE languages the longest (Etruscans in Italy, Rhaetians in the Alps, etc...)
I see them as Neolithic survivals, it is likely that much of Neolithic Europe was a mixture of G2a and I1 / 2 IMO.
I won't reply here. Kindly sent me a message with all the proofs of your theory and I'll demonstrate you that all are wrong. You can visit again my thread on indo-aryan haplogroups to see hundreds of proofs for Anatolian hypothesis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Albion
I keep hearing this but never understand where R1b exists in this scheme of things. I've always held both R1a and R1b to be IE, R1b in Palaeolithic Iberia doesn't seem likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Optimus
My theory to explain Basque R1b is that they simply aquired language as children from their Neolithic mothers rather than the IE males. It makes sense when you consider that women raise the children. Perhaps IE males in that situation just never managed to teach their new wives the IE languages?
http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/4...tructurev2.png
Lol, you're the one with the unconventional theories here, why should I do all the work?Quote:
Originally Posted by Protospatha
I've seen one or two of your threads, R1a Indians doesn't have much to do with whether IE came to Europe with R1a or G IMO.
I think this whole J and G thing with you is because you've found out or suspect yourself to be J and don't want your ancestors to be some Neolithic farmers which were conquered by R1a Indo-Europeans. :rolleyes:
R1b=Western Europe>Bell Beakers R1a=Eastern Europe>Corded Ware.Quote:
Originally Posted by Albion
R1a1a are the Proto Indo-Europeans and some subclades of R1b got gradually Indo-Europeanized in Central Europe.So only a portion of R1b subclades are Indo-European and they backmigratted this time with a IE language.This can explain the predominantly R1b and almost none R1a among Italics-Celtics and mixed ratio of R1b and R1a among Germanics.
I'm not unconventional, I'm only seekibg the truth, not seeking an umprobable theory like I am blind, idiot and passively. I make myself questions, I don't listen to and quickly believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Albion
What Protospatha said is the first time I hear. Are there offical papers based on what you are saying?
hahaha funny one. Neolithic farmers were fairly more advanced than those uncivilized horse riders milk sucker R1a. Neolithic farmers are the real Aryans. I will happy to be J2, I hope it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Albion
Right, so what about the western subclades - what is their origin then? You don't support the Iberian theory do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Optimus
Personally I think R1b originated in Anatolia and the Armenian Highlands bringing a sort of proto-IE to Anatolia (the Anatolian languages). When R1b and R1a came into contact again IE was created as we know it (the R1a people speaking a related language to the R1b).
Armenian being a weird version of IE could stem from this IMO.
How could a West Asian haplogroup speak a similar language to one from Central Asia? West Europeans got Indo-Europeanized by the Neolithic farmers that at the time were present in a bit more frequence than now, even in the Isles. Armenian could be a hybrid language IE J2/G + non-IE R1b.Quote:
Originally Posted by Albion
Your rhetoric means I'm probably right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Protospatha
R1a and R1b succeeded in Europe where Neolithic farmers were failing. The Neolithic farming methods and technology were poorly suited to Europe beyond the Med and Balkans, in the British Isles, Scandinavia and the North European plain they were in rapid decline.
Natural climate change had made what was once a favourable climate largely hostile to them. Grapes were grown during the Neolithic in Sweden - it is only now that they're reappearing after thousands of years.
In Germany the LBK had turned to ritual cannibalism after crop failures. Basically the R1a and R1b people arrived and quickly saved the European population beyond the Med and Balkans. Better pastoral farming methods were well suited to Northern and Central Europe, without them I suspect much of Europe would have reverted to hunter-gatherers.
The R1a and R1b peoples were skilled herdsmen and metal workers whilst the Noelithic peoples were fairly good arable farmers and made nice stone temples.
In the end it was R1a and R1b people with superior weapons, greater mobility (horses) and farming practices better suited to Europe which won out.
Southern Europe and the Balkans don't have such diversity in haplogroups because of the Arabs, they have that from the Neolithic farmers. R1a and R1b peoples didn't have an advantage in these areas as they did in the north.
But in the end it was the Neolithic peoples that ended up speaking IE and following IE cultures and religions. Neolithic farmers weren't Aryans, they were just some earlier Afro-Asiatic and South Caucasian speakers who introduced early farming methods.
Their civilisations were more advanced than that of R1a and R1b people until those two groups settled down as the various cultures of Europe - Slavs, Germanics, Celts, Italics (before the entered Italy), Illyrians, etc...
Because the two had been one group that broke up, thus taking their original shared language(s) with them. Eventually these diverged, but not enough so as to be completely incompatible. When the two groups came into contact again their two languages or groups of languages formed IE.Quote:
How could a West Asian haplogroup speak a similar language to one from Central Asia?
http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/5108/64772075.jpg
The Isles were almost entirely Neolithic and Mesolithic haplogroups in Britain before R1b entered. (Mesolithic because Britain was only repopulated 10,000 years ago after the Last Glacial Maximum).Quote:
West Europeans got Indo-Europeanized by the Neolithic farmers that at the time were present in a bit more frequence than now, even in the Isles.
The Neolithics spoke Afro-Asiatic or South Caucasian.
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/img11/841...iesofneoli.jpg
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/841...iesofneoli.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.
I think this is going to be a fun topic. ;)
Yes i do,Bell Beakers started in Iberia but they had a strong maritime culture and migrated there with ships.The problem is how?Whether they had a long maritime route from Anatolia or they could have migrated via North Africa with a short maritime route.From Anatolia>SouthEasternEurope>WesternEurope via Mediterranean seems more plausible to me that is why we have in Balkans younger R1b subclades than WestAsia and older ones than Western Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Albion
Armenian language seems to originate in Balkans and their language can be explained from second-hand IE people.They have more Balkan YDNA than their neighbors afterall like EV13.
Here I don't see so many E-V13 http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...ction=yresultsQuote:
Originally Posted by Optimus
Those E1b1b in red didn't order deep clade test anyway i didn't said EV13 should be quite present there because it isn't it is like 5-7% as far as i recall.Anyway it is just a hypothesis regarding the origin of Armenian language from Balkans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Protospatha
But your theory of Indo-Europeans being J2 and G is laughable considering recent genetic studies.:lol:
Considering the recent study I sent you via PM a second ago, my theory (Anatolian Hypothesis) is less laughable than yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Optimus
Proceed here please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Protospatha
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...05#post1005005
I'd actually overlooked the sea lanes, I suppose this could be possible - R1b could have followed the earlier Megalithic culture into Western Europe. It might have still spoken a non-Indo-European language and latter acquired it from the Celtic culture I suppose since many pre-IE languages survived in R1b areas into the Iron Age.Quote:
Originally Posted by Optimus
I did wonder why R1b wasn't so common in the Balkans if there was a migration through there, so see lanes bypassing most of SE Europe does seem possible. Neolithic Northern and Western Europe was in decline as I mentioned earlier, climate change was killing off the Megalithic culture in Britain and NW Europe.
It's notable that Stonehenge, perhaps the greatest and one of the newest stone circles in England was constructed as the Bell Beakers started to show up. I think the Beaker Culture may have led to a Megalithic revival, but gradually it came to subsume the Neolithics in a new culture.
It does make some sense. The Irish have migration myths about different races which settled the island, the last ones (the ancestors of the Irish) were said to have come from Troy (Anatolia) via NW Iberia (Galicia). 'Troy' is just the latter Irish mixing in Greek history for prestige, but it is possible that they could have passed this way.
It's interesting to note that both Ireland and Galicia spoke Q-Celtic instead of P-Celtic like Britain and Gaul. Q-Celtic is presumed to be the older version.
Britain has a similar myth to the Irish but it is a Welsh tale. The English technically speaking claim descent from Odin the wonderer who I believe originally led a real tribe and eventually was immortalised as a god as tales got passed on over the centuries.
Odin ~ Zeus, Asgard ~ Olympos - I think it goes back very far indeed, back to the Steppes. How else would IE religions be so similar?
For those who think the E haplogroup is Negroid: then also R1b is Negroid, given that it's found in Negroids.
Lol, such a stupid argument:Quote:
Originally Posted by Protospatha
E came from Africa, R1b went to Africa.
I don't think anyone is saying Albanians or other people rich in E haplogroup are Negroids in the same way as nobody is suggesting that Nigerians are Caucasians because of some R1b.
Lol Negroids didn't even exist at the time of origin of E.Quote:
Originally Posted by Albion
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Protospatha
One thing that bugs me is how people act like the current Negroid Africans have never done any wrong, that they never invaded anybody.
It seems these idiots forget / haven't heard of the Bantu expansions. Most Sub-Saharan Africans used to be Capoid until they were forced out by the Negroid Bantus much latter. Had the Dutch not turned up at the Cape I think it is likely that Capoids would have died out completely as the Bantu-speaking peoples slowly crept into the Cape.
It's ironic that last part too - the Bantu speakers could travel by land easily and only had a few Khoisan Capoids to deal with plus they'd been expanding south for centuries.
Europeans on the other hand had the Sahara, the sea, the Muslims and the Bantu as a barrier and yet they managed to get to the Cape before the Bantu! :rolleyes: It's ridiculous, and yet the Negroid Bantu speakers of today, the Black Africans claim that all Africa is their property. :rolleyes2:
http://www.visualphotos.com/photo/1x...98ALA00463.jpg
When you look at Capoids it becomes clear that the other races didn't evolve from Negroids as the multiculturalists would have us believe. They claim we're all descended from Africans and in their mind these early Africans were the black Bantu - a race originally adapted to the West African rainforests, not the arid Great Rift Valley where humans are supposed to have evolved.
Capoids look closer to Caucasians and Mongoloids than Negroids, if the out of Africa theory is to be believed then we would have originally looked more like the Capoids than the latter Negroid invaders the multiculturalist idiots want us to worship.
It seems to me those who call us preservationists "ignorant" are much more ignorant of things themselves.
Perfectly agreed.
http://www.familytreedna.com/group-j...px?Group=E-V13Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
This project attempts to link E-V13 individuals from three regions - Balkans (specifically high E-V13 concentration areas such as Kosovo & Macedonia) - England - German/Swiss border area (Hegau, Thurgau) The project attmepts to collect genetic evidence, that all three regions are linked by means of Roman auxiliary troup movements between 15 AD and 260 AD. The hypothesis is based on the fact that Roman legions systematically recruited Balkan populations for expeditions into Western Europe. Some hard archeological hard facts suggest that after 250 AD up to 50% of all Roman auxiliary troups were from the Balkans.
thx loki for this information
Indeed that Hypothesis is very likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Bump
http://www.jogg.info/32/bird_files/image033.jpg
This tells something. :rolleyes2:
Isn't surprising tbh, since many Roman soldiers either were Illyrian or Thracian origin, same could be said about Emperors. :)
British are long lost Albanians? :lightbul:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Illyrian Warrior
E-V13 is very ancient in Europe, an association with Romans is a very weak way of accounting for its presence in the British Isles.
The further research on EV-13 subclades is necessary to prove some hypothetical links. Because the highest frequency somewhere means nothing to me...