"Out of India Theory" and "Aryan Conquest theory" are BOTH wrong?

[Proto-Shaman]

discuss.

[Vesuvian Sky]

He's making a fundamental mistake: he's putting too much emphasis on race.

Most people know that the PIE debate is linguistic in nature. Off the bat he starts off with, 'these theories are emotionally driven, dey be waaaasict...blah, blah, blah....".

Granted, the IE debate has been politicized alot over the years. Its unfortunate. But his representation of what the debate is essentially about isn't really fair.

[Proto-Shaman]

He's making a fundamental mistake: he's putting too much emphasis on race.

He is actually saying the opposite.

[Vesuvian Sky]

He is actually saying the opposite.

no. he start's off at 2:55 by saying 'people are letting their personal feelings, emotions get in the way..." etc.

rather if he started off by saying, "these theories are flawed based on such and such linguistic analysis...." then he'd have more of a point.

Instead, he seems overly concerned with race and then even brings up the Out of Africa theory which is not really relevant to the PIE debate.

[Proto-Shaman]

no. he start's off at 2:55 by saying 'people are letting their personal feelings, emotions get in the way..." etc.

rather if he started off by saying, "these theories are flawed based on such and such linguistic analysis...." then he'd have more of a point.

Instead, he seems overly concerned with race and then even brings up the Out of Africa theory which is not really relevant to the PIE debate.

The basic mistake is that the Aryan Conquest/Migration theory argues as following: "Since Aryans and Europeans share common language root there must be an ethnic connection." Thus, the common misconception: "IE must have some origin with a common racial culture." The Out of India theory follows the same racist thought, only in reverse.

So, the problem lies in connecting race to the origin of the IE language. The main assumption that is false is that the IE language has some relatively recent origins. He is breaking down this racially based theory by using the Paleolithic Continuity Paradigm, which has proven that the IE languages originated from paleolithic Africa. At least this explains why Iranians are racially not related to the "Aryans", but to the people who have lived in southeastern Iran since 10.000 years.

[Vesuvian Sky]

Thus, the common misconception: "IE must have some origin with a common racial culture."

not everyone bases their understanding around the IE debate strictly around this premise though.

The main assumption that is false is that the IE language has some relatively recent origins.

I suppose it depends on what is meant by 'recent', though a dispersal starting from the very late Bronze age isn't really taken all that serious these days. Most revolve around 'Kurgan' or 'Anatolian farming' hypo in which the chronological scheme begins at either 8000 or 5000 BC and moves on from there.

He is breaking down this racially based theory by using the Paleolithic Continuity Paradigm, which has proven that the IE languages originated from paleolithic Africa..

I don't see how any of this shows that IE languages originate from Africa.

At least this explains why Iranians are racially not related to the "Aryans",...

The people of Iran do speak the language that was given to them by 'Aryans' as Darius was of course from the ruling Achamenid dynasty, and describes himself as 'son of an Aryan'. 'Aryan' is put in proper context as an ethno-linguistic designation not racial as far as I'm concerned. There can be racial differences though from a ruling or upper caste then from the rest. Take the upper castes of India for example compared to lower castes and Dravidian speakers further south.

...but to the people who have lived in southeastern Iran since 10.000 years.

but that alone can't prove Paleolithic continuance for a language let alone genetics. Even our upper Paleolithic genes are reduced. There can even be significant autosomal differences when comparing Mesolithic DNA from a region to the region's current population.

[Proto-Shaman]

Most revolve around 'Kurgan' or 'Anatolian farming' hypo

Could this maybe imply that early IE's intermingled with early Turks and Caucasus peoples in the eastern european plains? Since there are reasonable points for a Turkic substrate in Kurgan and for a southeastern Caucasian neighborhood of Kurgan, keyword Maykopians, a "kurganized" local culture with strong ethnic and linguistic links to the descendants of the Proto-Indo-Europeans.

I don't see how any of this shows that IE languages originate from Africa.

Do you have any info regarding this?

The people of Iran do speak the language that was given to them by 'Aryans' as Darius was of course from the ruling Achamenid dynasty, and describes himself as 'son of an Aryan'. 'Aryan' is put in proper context as an ethno-linguistic designation not racial as far as I'm concerned. There can be racial differences though from a ruling or upper caste then from the rest. Take the upper castes of India for example compared to lower castes and Dravidian speakers further south.

Then it must be assumed that the ruling classes at those times displayed a kind of Turko-Iranian synthesis, since racially 'Aryans' are rather related to Tamils, Kyrgyz and Bashkirs.

[Vesuvian Sky]

Could this maybe imply that early IE's intermingled with early Turks and Caucasus peoples in the eastern european plains? Since there are reasonable points for a Turkic substrate in Kurgan....

I'd change Turks to Proto-Altaic speaking people. Though I'm aware some don't favor a Proto-Altaic family all I can regarding Proto-Altaic theory is that its a developing body of knowledge, nowhere near
as much as developed as the theory concerned with Proto-Indo-European. As for Caucus people....

...and for a southeastern Caucasian neighborhood of Kurgan, keyword Maykopians, a "kurganized" local culture with strong ethnic and linguistic links to the descendants of the Proto-Indo-Europeans.

There's a debate of who is exaclty influencing who regarding the Maikop culture. Some have actually argued that the Kurgan style burial appearing in the Yamna culture was actually derived from steppe peoples interactions with Maikop people. Certainly, the metallurgical traditions of the Yamna culture were influenced by the Maikop culture people who were far more advanced in their metallurgical skills. The horses that appear in Maikop culture metallurgical traditions and in burials are believed to be imports from the steppes.

Do you have any info regarding this?

I don't know anyone else who advocates an out of africa origin for PIE. I certainly don't....

Then it must be assumed that the ruling classes at those times displayed a kind of Turko-Iranian synthesis, since racially 'Aryan' are rather related to Tamils, Kyrgyz and Bashkirs.

Is this based off the Kylosov paper?

[Proto-Shaman]

Is this based off the Kylosov paper?

Yes. Do you think he did wrong?

[Vesuvian Sky]

Yes. Do you think he did wrong?

Well, its a convoluted matter.....

Y-DNA lineage doesn't necessarily tell us anything about race per se. They're most accurately regarded as paternal lineages (of course). They can tell us something about migration. Autosomal components actually are far more suited to tell us something about race rather then y-dna. That being said, there can be positive correlations to certain genetics traits and langauge but not absolute.

Regarding Kyolosov, his genetic work isn't bad though keep in mind there are descrepencies on how to date these haplogroups properly. The calculations for temporality of these common ancestor clades are based on much assumption.

But what do the results mean for ethno-linguistic culture history exaclty? To effectively explain that, one has to know how linguistic paleontology, and the archaeological record relate. I'm not so sure if Kyolosov knows how to do this so well or really anyone else (that is sythesize the archaeology with the genetics). Consider this:

On a parallel note (and based on very limited research): Renfrew seems to be the source for geneticists’ imaginings of linguistic histories. In their 1994 magnum opus, The History and Geography of Human Genes, Cavalli-Sforza et al. relied heavily on Renfrew’s work. However, in Cavalli-Sforza’s more recent popular book, he advocated a Gimbutas + Renfrew model. Again, he does not work through any archaeological analyses, but in a “comparison” of “results” finds the linguistic model that best matches his own genetic model. Also interesting are the underlying perceptions of archaeology by other “scientists,” archaeology does not seem to be a theoretical, analytic, or methodological approach, but prehistory.

This of course has to do with the problem of who's who in prehistory and what methods we can use today in order to figure out where we came from. And of course the culture history of the steppes still leaves us many questions especially when we look at its present day demographic compositions. It is generally believed thought the main early historically known people of the steppes are people such as the Cimmerians, Scythians, and Sarmatians to which they are regarded somewhat vaguely as 'Iranian speaking'.

The question is though that I sense you may be most concerned with:

"Where do Proto-Altaic people come from"?

Unfortunately this body of knowledge is not well developed. I don't think they originate exclusively with the development of the 'Andronovo horizon' though. I suspect they may actually be pre-Andronovo people.