Indo-European origins.

[Zorg]

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

[Bronze]

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]

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--Mallo...yth_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/jphak...icEvidence.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]

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]

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]

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).

Exept albanians who always spoke IE language

[Demhat]

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]

This map is pretty obvious to me.



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]

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]

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/jphak...icEvidence.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.