Indo-European origins.

[Demhat]

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.




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]

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]

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.




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]

...

[Jaska]

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-Ind...pean_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]

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]

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

[Siginulfo]

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]

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]