Genetyczne odkrycia 2010/2014 Nowa

Genealogia Sowian i innych ludw Biaego

Ldu !"uro#y$
%waga& '( Strona )e*t cigle uaktualniana )e)
*tan *i+ dyna,icznie z,ienia -a#i* .ie/cy na
dat+ 20 ,a)a 2014 roku
Na#rawd+ warto odwiedzi1 *trony hi*t,agu i inne aktualne na 20 02 2012 roku 3
4to linki
5N( 6oru,*& htt#&//dna78oru,*3org/
6a,ily tree 5N( 91a& htt#&//www38a,ilytreedna3co,/#u.lic/91a/de8ault3a*#:;*ection<re*ult*
=i*t,ag3org& htt#&//hi*t,ag3org/8oru,/inde:3#h#/to#ic>1001?303ht,l
@u#u)c !'"9(- '%'(AB$ Budu)e*z Colne Dedia Colnych LudziB
Erzed*tawia, na)now*ze i )ak *i+ wyda)e *olidnie ugruntowane wiado,oFci na te,at genetycznych
odkry1 dotyczcych #ochodzenia Sowian3 -acytowany tuta) rozdzia G z o#racowania dotyczy Cenedw
i ich udziau w tworzeniu SowiaH*zczyzny3 -aintere*owanych g+.ie) te,atyk genoty#w i ha#logru#
od*ya, na *tron+ wy)Fciow tego ,ateriau gdzie ,o/na znaleI1 na#rawd+ gruntowne analizy
#o*zczeglnych zagadnieH3 -a,ie*zczone tuta) 8rag,enty #ochodz ze
*trony htt#&//www3tro#ie3tarnow3o#oka3org3#l/#olacy3ht,
Jnna wa/na *trona na te,at w#ywu .adaH genetycznych na #ogldy hi*torykw i odczytanie #rze*zych
dzie)w #rzez w*#cze*n hi*tori+&htt#&//hi*t,ag3org/8oru,/inde:3#h#;.oard<21130
Da#a @ultur archeologicznych wytworzonych #rzez #rzed*tawicieli #o*zczeglnych ha#logru# z koHca
"#oki Brzuw Biay, Ldzie !"uro#ie$3 Da#a ta #rzed*tawia )ednoczeFnie #rze*trzeH za),owan #rzez
#o*zczeglne Ludy3 @ultura Ku/ycka !na ,a#ie Lu*itian$ oraz 'hrace !tracka$> Sru.na i @iukainen to
kultury Sowian lu. Sowian i 5awian !5rakw7'rakw$> oraz Sowian i Cenetw> al.o Sowian i Jndo7
JraHczykw !Scytw7Skootw i Sar,atw$> a tak/e Sowian i Batw3 Na ,a#ie wida1 ek*#an*)+
Sowiano75rack do (z)i Dnie)*ze) w okre*ie %#adku 'roi3 Na ,a#ie #oni/e) o#i*ano te *a,e kultury
!we wczeFnie)*zy, za*i+gu$ )ak i wczeFnie)*ze oraz rwnolege kultury n#3 'rzcinieck #rzy #o,ocy
ha#logru#3 Eokazano te/ ek*#an*)+ ha#logru#y *owiano7i*ty)*ko7 *koocko7dawiaH*kie) !*owiano7
.aty)*ko7*cyty)*ko7trackie)$ na tereny Dacedonii a na*t+#nie Grec)i )u/ w 1200 roku #3n3e3> czyli w
cza*ach #rzedtro)aH*kich3 Lzy to nie )e*t okre* wo)en Grekw z (,azonka,i i o#i*ane) #rzez nich
(,azono,achii; Lzy nie * to Dazonki znad Dorza Lzarnego i Dorza DazoH*kiego !(zow*kiego$ i
Dazonki z Dazow*za; Strzaka na ,a#ie wychodzi *#od #nocnych *tokw @ar#at z =arii7Lhro.ac)i
Biae)3 Na #oni/*zy, o#i*ie wida1 te/ /e @ultura Ku/ycka #ow*taa ze znaczny, udziae, Sowian i
Cenetw> a Sowianie ,ieli te/ du/y wkad genetyczny w @ultur+ Nordyczn> ktra #Inie) daa
#ocztek Ger,ano, ,ie*za)c *i+ z Lelta,i i Sowiana,i3 Ludy @rle*twa SJS we*zy te/ w *kad
@ultury Dino)*kie) na @recie> Jliry)*kie)> DacedoH*kie) i 'rackie) 91a1a1 to waFnie Ludy @rle*twa
SJS Cielkie) Scytii> #Inie)*ze) Cielkie) Sar,ac)i i )e*zcze #Inie)*ze) rwnie wielkie)
SowiaH*zczyzny3 Erzed*tawieni tuta) Eroto7Ger,anic Eeo#le za)+li tereny 5anii i i #rzyczek na
zachd od Ewy*#u 5uH*kiego ktre wczeFnie) .yy za)+te #rzez Ludy 91a1a1 czyli SJS3 C *kad
celtyckie) kultury 'u,ulu* tak/e wchodzia gru#a 91a o czy, warto #a,i+ta1 !warto7 .o to * Ludzie
z na*zego #Inie)*zego Ceneca> a tak/e w*#tworzyli t+ kultur+ Cenedowie$3
5.
Haplogrupa/RD R1a i jego gwne podgrupy.
Haplogrupy Sowian i ich najblisych !rewnych" indo#
ira$s!ich %riw.
- genez Sowian )ako etno*u !gr3 Metno*N #le,i+> rd$ *#rawa )e*t nie)a*na> #odo.nie )ak z inny,i
*taro/ytny,i luda,i3 Na #od*tawie o#i*w> )akie zo*tawili na, *taro/ytni #i*arze> ale do#iero
#oczw*zy od =erodota !O w3 #rzed Lhr3$> Sowianie odznaczali *i+ trze,a gwny,i cecha,i& MEo
#ierw*ze& lokalizac)a gdzieF w dorzeczu 5nie#ru> 5nie*tru> #o @ar#aty lu. ewentualnie u)Fcie 5una)u3
Eo drugie& u*ytuowanie na terenach o do.rze rozwini+te) *ieci wd Frdldowych> g+*tych la*ach>
.agnach> na o.*zarach wy.itnie nizinnych3 Eo trzecie& ,u*z .y1 w *en*owny *#o*. zwizane z
,od*zy,i kultura,i archeologiczny,i z okre*u wcze*nego Fredniowiecza> dla ktrych *tanowiy
#od*taw+ u8or,owania *ie i dal*zego rozwo)uN !(3 Ba/e)ew*ki$3 Na te) #od*tawie Sowiano, ,o/na .y
#rzy#i*a1 archeologiczne kultury wy*ock i woyH*k nad grny, Bugie, i 5nie*tre, !,o/e to dziea
=erodotowych Neurw i Budynw z okoo O w3 #rzed Lhr3$> a )u/ na #ewno zaru.inieck i
czerniachow*k !od JJJ w3 #rzed Lhr3$ oraz ki)ow*k !od JJJ w3 #o Lhr3$> na %krainie
!Nie*tety> z #rzy*ug+ #rawdzie naukowe) wyrzdzili o*tatnio *kra)ni allochtoniFci> zwani
ko**inowca,i7dnie#rowca,i> ktrzy na #od*tawie zacieFnione) de8inic)i archeologiczne) kultury
*owiaH*kie) #ocztek Sowian na zie,iach datu) )edynie na OJ w3> ich #rao)czyzn+ loku) )edynie
nad Frodkowy, i grny, 5nie#re,> a ich genez+ u*tala) ta, na cza* niewiele wczeFnie)*zy3 -a ni,i
#o*zli niektrzy #ol*cy genetycy z kr+gu ,edycyny *dowe)> n#3 @3 9+.aa i ze*#3 200?> ktrzy .ada)c
#ochodzenie dzi*ie)*zych Eolakw> nie rozr/nia) ich chro,o*o,owych ha#logru# SNE> a .iorc #od
uwag+ tylko ha#loty#y S'9> nieraz .ardzo #odo.ne ,i,o odlegych #ochodzenie, ha#logru# SNE>
ocenia) ich #odo.ieH*two czy r/norodnoF1 wzgl+de, ha#loty#w innych #o#ulac)i i na te) #od*tawie
orzeka) o dacie ich genezy wP O czy OJ w3 i ,ie)*cu ich oddzielenia *i+ od innych ludw nad
5nie#re,B Eodo.na ,etoda> o#arta na ,ie*zaniu ha#loty#w roz,aitych ha#logru# i korzy*taniu tak/e
z ,ateriau auto*o,alnego> zawioda )u/ wczeFnie) 93 Eo*kiego i ze*#3 2002 do *twierdzenia> w.rew
naukowe) genetyce> o wielkie) odr+.noFci Eolakw od innych ludw *owiaH*kichQ /e #od Mwzgl+de,
genetyczny, )e*teF,y #rawie tak *a,o oddaleni od Do*kwy> )ak i od BerlinaN$3
9zecz w ty, )ednak> /e rzetelna genetyczna genealogia R75N( i )+zykoznaw*two hi*toryczne nie
#ozwala) na takie> )ak wy/e)> cza*owe> terytorialne i kulturowe zacieFnienie de8inic)i Sowian
*taro/ytnych3 Eoucza o ty, analiza cza*u ich #ow*tania oraz geogra8icznego roz#rze*trzenienia *i+
#o#ulac)i Sowian> wyr/nia)ce) *i+ wa*ny, )+zykie, i genow ha#logru# 91a1a1 !znana do
niedawna )ako 91a1a$3 C li*to#adzie 200G z te) ha#logru#y wydzielono wa/n #odgru#+> oznaczan dziF
)ako 91a1a1g3
4t/ w #o#ulac)i hg 91 !D1?S$> o#rcz wy/e) o,wione) Mitalo7celtyckie)N DS4S !ha#logru#a 91.$>
dokonaa *i+ te/ ,utac)a D420> da)ca #ocztek wa/ne) indo7euro#e)*kie) ha#logru#ie 91a3 Ae)
#oto,kw> .ez kole)nych ,utac)i> czyli #aragru#+ 91aT .adania %nderhilla> o.e),u)ce ?224 o*. w
"uraz)i> zidenty8ikoway w kilku izolowanych regionach Bli*kiego C*chodu i @aukazu> cznie *iede,
o*. w Jranie> 4,anie> ",iratach (ra.*kich i 'urc)i3 C re)onie wi+c Bli*kiego C*chodu nale/y
u#atrywa1 kole.ki wielkie)> liczce) dziF #onad 2?0 ,ilionw #o#ulac)i 91a1a i )e) #odgru# w "uraz)i3
@ole)na ,utac)a> D44U !S9R12S232$ w ha#logru#ie 91a7D420> okreFla
ha#logru#+/#odgru#+ 91a13 'a ha#logru#a nie zo*tawia #o *o.ie licznie)*zych #o#ulac)i3 Badania D3
9eVueiro i ze*#3 2000> w*kazu) na Jran )ako ,ie)*ce #ochodzenia hg3 91a13 'a, D44U
zidenty8ikowano oglnie w SW .adanych> a w niektrych #le,ionach #nocnego Jranu nawet 12W !co
)ednak wy,aga wery8ikac)i$3 Eotwierdzao.y to wy*uni+te #rzy#u*zczenie o .li*kow*chodnie) kole.ce
91a i 91a1> czy dokadnie) Ea*kowy/ JraH*ki> )ak w*kazu)eC3 9y/kow na #od*tawie *woich .adaH
#aleokranio,etrii3
Nato,ia*t #o kole)nych ,utac)ach !D1?/D1GU$ #ow*taa euro7az)atycka ha#logru#a 91a1a> a
#od ni niedawno roz#oznana wielka ha#logru#a D41?> okreFlana )ako 91a1a13 Eote, w )e) cz+Fci
euro#e)*kie) do*zo do kilku ,utac)i L004 !nieliczni )e) no*iciele zidenty8ikowani w "uro#ie Elnocno7
-achodnie)$> D42U> ktra utworzya *koncentrowan wFrd Sowian Frodkowoeuro#e)*kich
ha#logru#+ 91a1a1g oraz ,utac)i L2003 '+ o*tatni zde8iniowano )ako zachodnio*owiaH*k
#odgru#+ 91a1a1g2> o.ecn *zczeglnie w Eol*ce> Lzechach i Sowac)i i okreFlan niekiedy )ako
#ol*k3
59-"C4 ,utac)i w rodzie 91a3
Eod*tawa& JS4GG i 6'5N( !'h3@rahn$ ora aktualnych danych3 (ktualizowano 1030S32012
97 D20?/%'R2> E224> E22?> E22G> E2S2> E2U0> E2U2> S4> SU> SG>O42
X 9T #o kilka #rocent w niektrych #le,ionach Enocnego Eaki*tanu
X 91 D1?S/E241> DS00/S1>E222> E2S1> E2SS> E2S4> E2S0> E2SU> E242>E242> E2U0>
E2G4
X X 91T 7
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP33
X X 91a L02/D21S> L0S/D211> L142/D44G> L140/D4203 Eow*tanie okoo20000
lat te,u3
X X X 91aT 7
X X X 91a1 7 L120/D210> L122/D44U> D42G> S9R12S232/S9R10US132>
X X X X 91a1T 7 kilka o*. w "uro#ie
X X X X 91a1a D1?> D1GU> D212> D214> D212> L10U> L44G w (z)iQ z
ok3 1U000 lat te,uQ w "uro#ie od ok3 0000 lat #rzed Lhr3
X X X X X 91a1a1 D41?> Eage0?> L42? ,utac)a Mindoeuro#e)*kaM> ale
#ochodzenia za#ewne euro#e)*kiegoQ
Gwnie w "uro#ie Yr37C*ch3 oraz w (z)i Yr3 i Eoudn3 Ciek okoo 4U00 lat #rzed Lhr3 !wg
ta.licy ELD$3
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP PP
Gru#y zidenty8ikowane wczeFnie> wy,aga)ce #onowne) identy8ikac)i i dal*zych te*tw&
91a1a1a D20 #rywatne
X X X X X X 91a1a1. D12?>1 7 #rywatne> kilka o*. w "uro#ie En7
-ach3
X X X X X X 91a1a1c D0432> DU?> D204 kilka o*. #nocny Jran i
"uro#a3
X X X X X X 91a1a1d EGU #rywatne
X X X X X X 91a1a1e E@2 #rywatne> w Eaki*tanie
X X X X X X 91a1a18 D4S4 cznie 14 W wFrd 91a1 w niektrych
#le,ionach #d3 Eaki*tanu i 4,anu
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
X X X X X X 91a1a1g 7 -2US 7 o)cow*ka euro#e)*kich rodw& D42U> -2U0 i
-2U43 Lza* od ok3 S200 lat #rzed Lhr3
X X X X X X X 91a1a1gT7
X X X X X X X 91a1a1g1 D42U gaI Frodk37euro#3 !N7ty#e$ i
-ach3 %kraina3 - ok3 SS00 lat #rzed Lhr3
X X X X X X X X 91a1a1g1T 7
X X X X X X X X 91a1a1g1a DSS4 7 #rywatne> w "*tonii3
X X X X X X X X 91a1a1g1. 7 L200 gaI zachodnio*owiaH*ka !E7
ty#e$> Eol*ka> Lzechy> Sowac)a3
X X X X X X X X 91a1a1g1: 7 L2G1 #rywatne w Lzechach
91a1a1g1: 7 L102G

X X X X X X X 91a1a1g2 7 -2U0 7 o)cow*ka wielkie) ga+zi .ato7

*owiaH*kich w "uro#ie3 - ok3 SS00 lat #rzed Lhr3
X X X X X X X X 91a1a1g2T
X X X X X X X X 91a1a1g2: 7 5RS422<2U gaI kar#acka JJJ !6 i
=7ty#e$3 - ok3 1?00 #rzed Lhr3
X X X X X X X X X 91a1a1g2a 7 E2?U32 gaI kar#acka JJJ>
zachodnia !6 i =7ty#e$
X X X X X X X X 91a1a1g2. 7 LS02 gaI #o,or*ka> ka*zu.*ka
X X X X X X X X X 91a1a1g2.: 7 L00G> L0?0 7
91a1a1g2c LS00 gaI #ru*ka
X X X X X X X X 91a1a1g2d -G2 #odgaI #nocno7w*chodnia3
X X X X X X X X X 91a1a1g2d: 7 L2S2 7
91a1a1g2: 7 LSGG 7 #rywatne
91a1a1g2: 7 L42U 7 #rywatne
91a1a1g2: 7 L?U4 gaI #nocno7w*chodnia
X X X X X X X X X 91a1a1g2: 7 L?US> L?U2> L?U0 7
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP3
X X X X X X X 91a1a1gS 7 -2U4 7 o)cow*ka dla ga+zi *kandynaw*kich
w "uro#3 EnQ z ok3 S000 lat #rzed Lhr3
X X X X X X X X 91a1a1gST 7
X X X X X X X X 91a1a1gSa 7 L44U #d7zach3 Skandynawia i
Cy*#y Bryty)*kie !gaI ,od*za *kandynaw*ka$
X X X X X X X X X 91a1a1gSaT
X X X X X X X X X 91a1a1gSa17 L1?031/S1?G31 Szkoc)a> gaI
Dac5onalda7So,erleda
X X X X X X X X X X 91a1a1gSa1a 7 L1?2 #odgaI rodu
So,erleda
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
X X X X X X 91a1a1h -GS 7 ,utac)a o)cow*ka wielkie) ga+zi az)atyckie)
rodu 91a1a1> z ok3 S200 lat #rzed Lhr3
X X X X X X X 91a1a1hT 7
X X X X X X X 91a1a1h1 -G4 7 w (z)i
X X X X X X X X 91a1a1h1T
X X X X X X X X 91a1a1h1a 7 LS4232 7 (z)a Lentralna> Eoudniowa>
Ed37-achodnia oraz a*zkenazy)*cy /ydzi7lewici3
X X X X X X X X X 91a1a1h1aT
X X X X X X X X X 91a1a1h1a17 L02? 7 zwa*zcza w Jndiach i na na
Ewy*#ie (ra.*ki,
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP3
X X X X X X 91a1aa1i 7 L004 gru#a z 5RSSUU<10> tzw3 Mdzie*i+tnicyN> zw3
w NC "uro#yQ z ok3 SU00 lat #rzed Lhr3
X X X X X X X 91a1aa1: 7 LU?2> LU?S> LU?4 7
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP3
Nadto now*ze> tzw3 M#rywatneN> gwnie *#od ,utac)i -2U0
X X X X X X 91a1a1: LSGG 1 o*3 w 9o*)i !gaI B@$3
X X X X X X 91a1a1: L12 1 rodzina w 5anii3
X X X X X X 91a1a1: L420 1 o*3 w Eol*ce> z J7'y#e !gaI #nocno7
kar#acka$
X X X X X X 91a1a1: L421 1 o*3 w 9o*)i
X X X X X X 91a1a1: L42U 1 o*3 w 9o*)i ! L"(> .li*kie #ol3 6= $
X X X X X X 91a1a1: ES0U 7 13 o*3 na Biaoru*i3
X X X X X X 91a1a1: 7 L2?G 7 13 o*3 na C+grzech !gaI -"(72$
3 PPPPPPPPPPPPPPP33
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPP33 PPPPPPPPPPPPPP3
91. DS4S> itd3 to #ocztek wielkiego drzewa> .ratniego dla 91aQ #rzede
w*zy*tki, ludnoF1 zachodnioeuro#e)*ka>
zwa*zcza italo7celtyckaQ w "uro#ie od ok3 2200 lat #rzed Lhr33 Liczni w (8ryce
Su.*ahary)*kie) !n#3 @a,erun$3
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
%wagi
13 -nak : oznacza nazw+ i ,ie)*ce na drzewie dotd nieu*talone3
23 4.ok *y,.oli wy#i*ano #od*tawowe ,utac)e SNE w R75N(> okreFla)ce ha#logru#y3
S3 GwiazdkaT o.ok *y,.olu oznacza tzw3 #aragru#+ no*icieli *tare) o)cow*kie) ,utac)i
.ez kole)nych now*zych3
S3 @olore, r/owy, oznaczye, *wo)e ko,entarze3
43 Nazwy ga+zi zaczer#ni+to z Eoli*hEro)ect> 91a1 and Su.clade* i z drzewa RdnaJE
autor*twa J3 9o/an*kiego> zo.3 ni/e)
23 Nie w*zy*tkie 8ir,y> )ak n#3 Fwiatowa 6'5N(> na .ie/co aktualizu) drzewo
i w#rowadza) z,iany *y,.oli>
*td r/nice i #raktyczne nie#orozu,ienia3
Ero.le, #ochodzenia =a#logru#y 91a> a zwa*zcza wielkie) #odgru#y 91a1a i 91a1a1> )e*t )ednak nadal
dy*kutowany3 Cedug niedawne) #racy ze*#ou hindu*kich .adaczy !o*tatnio S3Shar,a i ze*#3> *tyczeH
200G$ uwa/ana do niedawna za o)cow*k dla 91a1a ha#logru#a 91a17S9R12S232 !8aktycznie )ednak 91a7
D420$ ,iaa.y *i+ wyoni1 w #nocnych Jndiach na terenie @a*z,iruQ al.o w Frodkowych Jndiach !w
#le,ieniu Saharia$ okoo 1U3400 lat te,u !liczc 22 lat na #okolenie$3 'a, wFrd #le,ion @a*h,iri
Eandit* zidenty8ikowano G o*. !4W *#oFrd .adanych$ z t ha#logru#> a w #le,ieniu Dadhya
Erade*h Saharia 1S o*. !2SW .adanych$3 Cedug tych .adaH> na terenie @a*z,iru lu. Jndii ,iaa.y
#ow*ta1 tak/e na*t+#na ,utac)a> D1? i D1GU> da)ca #ocztek ha#logru#ie 91a1a3 5aa ona zaraze,
#ocztek wedug tych autorw hindu*ki, Jndoeuro#e)czyko,> gwne) #o#ulac)i Jndii3 4.ecnie do
indoeuro#e)*kie) #o#ulac)i 91a1a w Jndiach nale/y do 1?W hindu*kiego *#oeczeH*twa !okoo 100
,ilionw ludzi$3 J co na)ciekaw*ze> ta gwnie #o#ulac)i utworzya na)wy/*z ka*t+ hindu*k>
ka#aH*kich .ra,inw al.o #rzyna),nie) ni licze.nie zawadn+a 3 Erzeci+tnie .li*ko #oowa> a w
gwne) ich gru#ie nawet ?2W ka#anw7.ra,inw wyr/nia *i+ hg 91a1a> #odkreFla) .adacze
hindu*cy3 5aty )ako.y *ugeru)> /e z hindu*kie) #o#ulac)i 91a1a ,iaa.y wywodzi1 *i+ #Inie)*ze
#o#ulac)e Sowian i innych #okrewnych ludw3 (utorzy za,ie*zcza) daty te) ha#logru#y na Bli*ki,
C*chodzie i w "uro#ie 113200 lat te,u> a w (z)i Lentralne) ok3 U000 lat te,u3
Aednak (3 @L4S4C> cz+Fciowo w*#ierany .adania,i innych genetykw> w*kazu)e Mkole.k+N 91a1a
oglnie w #oudniowe) Sy.erii> w #o.li/u Lhin3 Cedug @lo*owa #ow*tanie ,utac)i D420> a zate, i
ha#logru#y 91a> dokonao *i+ gdzieF w okolicach gr (ta)u> gdzie wFrd niektrych #le,ion> dziF
)+zykowo ata)*kich> tureckich i ro*y)*kich> wy*t+#u)e o)cow*ka ha#logru#a 917D1?S do 20W> czyli w
*to*unkowo na)wy/*zy, zag+*zczeniuQ cho1 wy*t+#u)e ona tak/e w (z)i Yrodkowe) i na Bli*ki,
C*chodzie w ,nie)*zy, #rocencie$3
4to #rzytaczane #rzez niego 8akty&
Alan Bittles et al. 2007
stwierdzi istnienie do znacznych zagszcze R1a1 (M17, M198, czy!i o"ecnie R1a1a, w dw#ch $#nocnych
$rowinc%ach &hin' (iaoning ($#nocnowschodnie &hiny i )ans* ($#nocne &hiny, zwaszcza w $!e+ionach ,onan,
-ong.iang, /*i (czyt0 /*e% i 1a!ar0 2 nie3t#rych z nich czstot!iwo R1a1a dochodzi do 45 60 7tno!odzy
ws3az*%8 na istnie%8ce * wi3szoci z tych $!e+ion $rze3onanie o ich o"cy+ $ochodzeni*, s$oza &hin0
Anatole Klyosov5999
w co do$iero o$*"!i3owany+ :;<=>?@ AB<<?C<@BC D@EF;G?? HIJKL;>;EMBL?? (Wiadomoci Rosyjskiej Akademii
genealogii Y-DNA NBG 5, O P 5999 EQLR<=, w arty3*!e HS;Q>;CT?; QB<=BU>BKEV?E=<@?; Q;=Q? LEWMBLSRWWX R1a
(Stare wschodnioazjatyckie gazi halogr!y R"a do3ona o"!icze i *sta!i, Ye
R1a1a wywodzi si z poudniowej Syberii !uta"ja #17$#1%& powstaa ta! 20.000 lat te!u
"owie+ na ta3i czas ws3az*%8 %e% ha$!oty$y 1ZR, 3t#re [!oso\ w swo%e% $racy o$*"!i3*%e0
-oszed do wnios3*, Ye %edna cz te% $o$*!ac%i z $o*dniowe% 1y"erii wye+igrowaa $rzez $#nocnowschodnie i rod3owe &hiny do
$o*dniowych ]ndii i ^a3istan*_ w ]ndiach stanowi star8 $o$*!ac% wr#d drawid#w, ze ws$#!ny+i $rzod3a+i z czas* 7999K15999 !at te+*0
-r*ga cz, 3t#ra $ozostaa `na +ie%sc*a w 1y"erii, daa $#bnie% $ocz8te3 "y +oYe nie3t#ry+ stary+ ta+te%szy+ 3*!t*ro+
archeo!ogiczny+, %a3 n$0 tasz"*atows3ie% (8999K7999 !at i cdanas%ewo (re%on cta%* eP99Ke999 !at te+*0
Zrzecia za cz wye+igrowaa na zach#d, dociera%8c o3oo 150999 !at te+* na ,a3any, "y $o 3i!3* tysi8cach !at o3oo P999Ke999 roze%
si $o 7*ro$ie, w ty+ ta3Ye do $onty%s3oK3as$i%s3ich ste$#w, oraz da!e% na wsch#d, za fra!, tworz8c 3*!t*r 1intaszta i cndronowo, gdzie
*dor+owaa sie $o$*!ac%a cri#w, 3t#ra w $#nocnych ]ndiach daa $ocz8te3 +odsze%, indoe*ro$e%s3ie% czci R1a1a (o czy+ niYe%0
-atowanie ha$!ogr*$y R1a1a na czas o3oo 590999 !at $oci8gnie za so"8 wczenie%sze datowanie $owstania ta3Ye +*tac%i M174, czy!i
ha$!ogr*$y R1, datowane% $rzez Z0 [aradet et a!0 5998 na czas 180P99!at te+*0
[!osow %edna3 doda%e, Ye 3onieczne s8 da!sze *sta!enia w te+acie datowania i +igrac%i hg0 R1 i R1a1a oraz %e% roz$rzestrzeniania si0
ga%nowsza $*"!i3ac%a o starych az%atyc3ich ha$!ogr*$ach, w ty+ R1a1a, zo"0 1ho* et a!0 5919 hcena arty3** w Rodstwo0r*
@lo*ow> #rze#rowadza)c rewiz)+ dotychcza*owego datowania ha#logru# euro#e)*kich i az)atyckich> w
ty, tak/e 91a1a> zauwa/y> /e dokonane #rzez hi*torykw> )+zykoznawcw i archeologw datowanie
inwaz)i #wy*#u Jndy)*kiego #rzez (riw z #nocy i zai*tnienie ta, indoeuro#e)*kiego )+zyka do#iero
na #oow+ drugiego ty*iclecia #3n3e3 )e*t zgodne tylko z #o#rawny, datowanie, i genealogi
hindu*kiego ha#loty#u 91a1a> wyraInie identycznego z ha#loty#e, w*chodnio*owiaH*ki,> lecz nieco
,od*zego3
Bowie, *#oFrd Era*owian w*chodnich> ktrych w*#lny #rzodek wyw+drowa okoo 2?20 lat #3n3e na
ukraiH*ko7ro*y)*kie *te#y> cz+F1 #o#ulac)i ,igrowaa dale) na w*chd> na teren dzi*ie)*zego #nocnego
@azach*tanu i #oudniowego %ralu> tworzc ta, rozleg kultur+ andronow*k !z centru, nad
Aeziore, (ral*ki,$3 Erawdo#odo.nie w te) #o#ulac)i #ow*taa wa/na Frodkowo i #oudniowoaz)atycka
oraz .li*kow*chodnia nutac)a L4S232> wykryta w li#cu 2011 r3
Niewielka gru#a z te) #o#ulac)i z.udowaa *o.ie okoo 1U00 r3 #3n3e ,3in3 ,ia*to/za,ek o nazwie
(rkai, na #oudniowy, kraHcu %ralu3 -o*ta on )ednak #orzucony #o okoo 200 latach3 Bowie, #o
)akie)F kata*tro8ie> ktr ,o/na ko)arzy1 z wy.uche, !okoo 102U lat #3n3e$ wulkanu Santorini !zwany,
te/ 'hera$ na Dorzu "ge)*ki, i ktry #ochon cywilizac)e ,ino)*k> a na *zerokie) #rze*trzeni
#nocne) #kuli na dugi cza* zakci #ogod+ !znaczne cie,noFci i o.ni/enie te,#eratury$ ludnoF1
(rkai, z 91a1a #orzucia grd i udaa *ie na #oudnie> zaludnia)c @irgiz)+ i 'ad/yki*tan !ta, dziF
wFrd ludnoFci do kilkadzie*it #rocent genetycznych e:7Sowian 91a1aB$ oraz #nocne Jndie> a
chy.a o*o.no #nocny Jran !.adania iraH*kie * dotd niewy*tarcza)ce$3
Lo do hindu*kie) #o#ulac)i 91a1a trze.a wiedzie1 i .ra1 #od uwag+> /e na #od*tawie tek*tw hindu*kie)
Fwi+te) k*i+gi 9ygwedy i innych .adaH> zwa*zcza archeologii i )+zykoznaw*twa> Fwiatowa nauka dotd
uwa/a indoeuro#e)*ki lud (riw> ktry da #ocztek ka*to, .ra,inw hindu*kich i hindu*ki,
Jndoeuro#e)czyko,> racze) za na)eIdIcw z #nocy w #oowie JJ ty*iclecia #3n3e3> co #otwierdza
genealogia genetyczna3 5latego Genetyka na #ortalu "u#edia #odkreFla& M@a#aH*ka ka*ta .ra,inw
*kada *i+ nie,al wycznie z ha#logru# 91a1> 92 i A2a !chocia/ 91a1a *tanowi dwie trzecie z linii$>
#rzy.yych w ra,ach indoary)*kie) ,igrac)i z zewntrz w e#oce .rzu S200 lat te,uN3 Genealogia R7
5N( w .adaniach (3@3 zda)e *i+ #otwierdza1 #ochodzenie )+zykowo indoeuro#e)*kich (riw od Sowian
w*chodnich> o czy, ni/e)> w rozdziale o ek*#an*)i Sowian3

'wa(a. )be"nie ju* wiado!o+ *e w tra,"ie !i(ra"ji ludno-"i z .aplo(rup/
R$#017 i jej synows,iej R$1203 z 4uropy 56rod,owej78 ,u Azji 9entralnej
i :oudniowej doszo do powstania synows,iej !uta"ji 1%;+ ,t<ra atwo
odr<*nia azjaty",/ "z-= rodu R1a od 4uropejs,iej i wyra>nie ws,azuje na
,ierune, !i(ra"ji ? od 4uropy ,u Azji@ Kir(izja+ Aran+ :a,istan i :<wysep
Andyjs,i.
@ole)ne .adania (3 @L4S4C(
213113200G r3 Aournal o8 Gnetic Genealog 2/2 200G3 o#u.likowa waFnie wa/n dwucz+Fciow #rac+ (3
@lyo*oZa na te,at roz#oznania intere*u)cych na* ha#loty#w w ha#logru#ie 91a1a !teraz 91a1a1$>
datowania #ierw*zych w*#lnych #rzodkw i ,igrac)i3 4dnotowu)e te/ i krtko o,awia rezultaty .adaH
%nderhilla et al3 200G3
5N( Genealogy> Dutation 9ate*P> cz3 J
5N( Genealogy> Dutation 9ate*P> cz3 JJ
Badania te nale/ nie)ako )u/ do hi*torii> gdy/ odkrycia nowych ,utac)i w 2011 r3 w#rowadziy
daleko idce #o#rawki3 %czciwoF1 naukowa ka/e )ednak )e tu za#rezentowa13
C cz+Fci 13 autor o,awia *wo)e *#o*o.y rozr/niania ha#loty#w i trzy ,etody o.liczania cza*u
#o*zczeglnych ha#loty#w od w*#lnego #rzodka !'D9L($Q *to*owane raze,> *#rawdza) *i+
wza)e,nie i da) znaczn dokadnoF1 i #ewnoF13
C cz+Fci 23 zna)du) *i+ #raktyczne za*to*owania tych ,etod do o.liczania cza*u gwnych
#o#ulac)i ha#logru#y 97D1? !teraz 97D41?$> .ez *zczegowego za),owania *i+ do#iero co wykryt
#odgru# 91a1a? !teraz 91a1a1g$ oraz inny,i wy.rany,i ha#logru#a,i i #o#ulac)a,i
)to .aplo(rupa R1a1a ? w(. Anatole Klyosov
200%
datowana z +iar8 $ewnoci 9P6
A1BA
20.000 lat ? (eneza w poudniowej Syberii lub
w 9.ina".
11.&30 lat ? wsp<lny przode, indo$sowiaCs,i
715P !at i ]ndie ^d, $!e+iona cndra ^radesh
795P !at i ^a3istan
Anne wybrane .aplo(rupy@
R1b+ A1+ A2+ D1+ 92+ E1
12.000 lat ? Daplo(rupa R1b 5#;0;8 K geneza
te% ha$!ogr*$y
j77P !at i R1" i w nie3t#rych $o$*!ac%ach
rosy%s3ich
Pe7P !at i RK(54 i $rao%ciec e*ro$e%s3ich gr*$
ce!tyc3ich
e47P !at i RKM5j9 i $rao%ciec e*ro$e%s3ich
gr*$ ce!tyc3ich
e9P9 !at i ]ndie ^n0zach, $!e+iona
indoe*ro$e%s3ie i criowie
4599 !at i ]ndie ^d0, $!e+iona &hench* (z
indoe*ro$e%s3ich cri#w
4P9 !at i ]ndie ^d0, w $!e+ieni* &hench*, %ecy
is!a+scy z 7*ro$y
47P9 !at i ^#wyse$ cra"s3i
4'R):A
11.230 lat ? Ba,any (Macedonia, [osowo,
1er"ia, ,onia,
a $ocz8te3 e3s$ans%i z re%on* ,a3an#w i o3oo
j999 !at te+*0
([0 gordt\edt t ga8b dat*%e %edna3 ty!3o na
P9P9 !atk
e7P9 !at i Ros%a i f3raina (ta3Ye ZadYy3istan i
[irgistan
e799 !at i gie+cy (ej99 i gro"y R1a1a w 7*!a*
0330 lat ? :ols,a
ee5P !at i ]nne 3ra%e rod3owe% i zachodnie%
7*ro$y
e15P !at i &zechy i 1owac%a
485P !at i gorwegia
447P !at i 1zwec%a
R1a1a7 5#03&8 w ^o!sce +oYe "y, wg
[!osowa, owoce+ $onownego za!*dniania tego
region* ze wschod* $o znaczny+ wy!*dnieni*
zwi8zany+ z inwaz%8 $o$*!ac%i ha$!ogr*$
R1"1"5 o3oo 4599K5P99
(i"ery%s3ich, "ryty%s3ich, ita!s3ich, a!$e%s3ich,
ger+as3ich
e55P !at i R1"1"5 w 1zwec%i
e17P !at i RKf19j &e!towie ger+ascy
e1P9 !at i R1"1"5 l!a+andowie
e15P !at i RKM1P5 &e!towie a!$e%s3oKita!scy
49P9 !at i RK^415, gr*$y ce!tyc3ie
4899 i 44P9 i R1"1"5 w ]r!andii, dwie !inie
4j5P !at i RKM1j7 w ]"erii
4j5P i 4P99 i RKM1P4 ,as3owie, dwie !inie
4j99 !at i RK(51 &e!towie a!$e%s3oK"ryty%scy
5e99 !at i R1"1"5 w ,rytanii
%200+ 2230+ 3700+ 3000 ? A2+ A2a2+ A2b1+
A2b2 ]r!andia
4e5P !at i ]1 w gie+czech
447P !at i ]1 w 3ra%ach s3andynaws3ich
455P !at i ]1 w 3ra%ach 7*ro$* 2schodnie%
9999 !at i m1 na ,!is3i+ 2schodzie
;%73 lat ? D1 Ro+owien&yganie w ]ndiach, w
$!e+ieni* [ora%a
115P !at i /1 Ro+owien&yganie w &horwac%i
PP9 !at i /1 Ro+owien&yganie w ,*garii
545P !at i &5Maorysi, ^o!inez%a0
12.000 lat ? E1a;a rdzenni c+ery3anie,
]ndianie
Badania innych autorw
(rcheolodzy zaF> n#3 5aZid (nthony !zo.3 5y*ku*)a n312 i ,a#y$> )ako #oFredni #rao)czyzn+
Sowian #rzed ich euro#e)*k ,igrac) w*kazu) teren *tare) kultury Boh75nie*tr> oraz horyzont Aa,na
!kurhanowy$> a z ktry,i trze.a )akoF #oczy1 tak/e kultur+ cera,iki *znurowe) !Lorded Care$3 'o
w*zy*tko na wielki, terenie od @ar#at C*chodnich #o %ral3 Na)now*ze .adania> ogo*zone #rzez
%nderhilla !43113200GQ zo.3 ni/e)> rozdz30$ )ednak nie .ardzo w*kazu) na ten w*chodni teren> lecz na
zie,ie #ol*kie3 Eotwierdza go @lo*ow i 9o/an*ki) !?3123200GQ zo.3 ni/e)> rozdz30$3 Ae*zcze dokadnie)>
cho1 ryzykownie> ten te,at rozwizu)e #aleokranio,etria C3 9y/kowa3
-adziwia)ca )e*t )ednolitoF1> licze.noF1> a zaraze, rozlegoF1 na ,a#ie "uraz)i ludnoFci z
ha#logru# 91a1a17D41? !z ich #odgru#a,i$& od %ralu na w*chodzie> #o lini+ Ka.y i w*chodnich (l# na
zachodzieQ od Batyku> a nawet wy.rze/y Norwegii i zachodnie) Szkoc)i na #nocy> #o Jndie> Dacedoni+
i Dorze Lzarne na #oudniuB Na)wi+k*z cz+*totliwoF1 te) ha#logru#y w "uro#ie> do #onad 00W
ludnoFci> *twierdza *i+ w #a*ie ,i+dzy Batykie, a Dorze, Lzarny,> o.e),u)cy, ca Eol*k+ i
%krain+3
Daplo(rupa R1a1a 5#178
na !apie 4urazji2idoczne zagszczenia w re%onie ^o!s3i,
f3rainy i Ros%i, $#nocnego ^a3istan* i ]ndii oraz cz%i
orod3owe% ([irgiz%a0wg0 &hiaroni et a!0 5999
=a#logru# 91a1a1 wyr/nia) *i+> )ak widzi,y> *zeroko roz#rze*trzenione na kontynencie
euro#e)*ki, ludy *owiaH*kie z .aty)*ki,i oraz te> ktre *i+ dowodnie z ich w*#lnoty wydzieliy
!cznie z @irgiza,i> 'ad/yka,i i indoeuro#e)*ki,i (ria,i/=indu*a,i> o czy, ni/e)$3 Da)c na uwadze
to> /e *#oFrd kulturowych wyr/nikw etno*u )+zyk )e*t na).ardzie) trway, do.re,> a wedug
niez,ienne) za*ady> zakcane) tylko nadzwycza)ny,i zdarzenia,i>
)+zyk otrzy,u)e *i+ w rodzinie od #rzodkw i #ra#rzodkw )ako #od*tawowe do.ro tradyc)i rodowe) i
#le,ienne)>
wi+c #ocztek *owiaH*kiego )+zyka wolno i trze.a czy1 z #ocztkie, nie tylko #ol*kiego oddziau 97
D42U> ale i euroaz)atyckiego 97D41?> a nadto )ego *u.*tratu trze.a do#atrywa1 *i+ w o)cow*kie)
ha#logru#ie 91a !gdzieF w (z)i Yrodkowe)$> a nawet )e*zcze wczeFnie) w ha#logru#ie 91 !ta,/e;> (z)a
-achodnia;$> w ktre) )+zyki *ate,owe hg 91a czyy *i+> )ako w )edny, Irdle> z kentu,owy,i
)+zyka,i hg 91. i w*zy*tkich )e) #odgru# !zo.3 ni/e)$3
03
Rowj europejs!iego Rodu R1a1a1
R1a1a1g" R1a1a1g&" R1a1a1i' S()*+%,+-
9d 97D41?> o.ecny od dzie*itego ty*iclecia #rzed Lhr3 !na)#ierw w *woich #rzodkach 97D1?$
za#ewne na Bakanach> nad 5una)e, lu. w ogle w "uro#ie Yrodkowe)> na #ewno ucze*tniczy )akoF w
#roce*ach rewoluc)i neolityczne) od okoo 2200 lat #rzed Lhry*tu*e,& w #ow*taniu i u#ow*zechnianiu
*i+ #rodukc)i cera,iki> hodowli zwierzt i rolnictwa> ktrego *kutkie, .y *zy.ki rozw) de,ogra8iczny
i ,igrac)e ludnoFci3 C ty, cza*ie w )ednoFci #o#ulac)i/rodu 91a1a ,u*ia *i+ dokona1 #roce*
k*ztatowania *i+ )+zyka i etno*u> na)#ierw o w*#lny, charakterze indo7*owiaH*ki,> a #o rozdzieleniu
*i+ etno*u #ra*owiaH*kiego3
1apewne w rejonie 4uropy naddunajs,iej o,oo 2000$7000 lat te!u w rodzie R$#17 pojawia
si !uta"ja #017+ ,t<ra daa po"z/te, wiel,ie(o rodu euro$azjaty",ie(o R1a1a1. 1e wz(ldu na jej
p<>niejsze+ tj. o,oo 1300 ro,u przed 9.r. pojawienie si na terenie Andii i Aranu z jzy,ie! po,rewny!
prasowiaCs,ie!u i pod szero,o w staro*ytny". >r<da". znan/ nazw/ FAriowieG+
(rup R1a$#017 !o*na by nazwa= ario$sowiaCs,/ lub o(<lnie
aryjs,/.
-o.3 u,ie)*cowienie ,utac)i D41?> ([> na nici chro,o*o,u R& U2?S?S2 k. !z 6'5N($

- tego te/> za#ewne nadduna)*kiego czy kar#ackioego terenu dokonay *i+ #o okoo S200 lat #rzed
Lhr3 ,igrac)e w r/ne re)ony "uro#y> na zachd> #noc i w*chd3 Lza* i kierunek w+drwek )e*t dziF
roz#oznawany #rzez warianty ha#loty#w w S'9 w ha#logru#ie 91a1a1> zakodowane w R75N(
dzi*ie)*zych ,ie*zkaHcw "uro#y lu. w znalezionych ko#alnych *zcztkach #ra#rzodkw> cho1 rzadko
!.owie, niektre now*ze #le,iona Era*owian #aliy *woich z,arychQ zre*zt nie tylko Era*owianie$3
"ta#y i kierunki ,igrac)i #ozwala) te/ roz#ozna1 kole)ne ,utac)e SNE> aktualnie wykrywane w
"uro#ie i (z)i> zwa*zcza #rzez 6'5N(3
Cynikie, tych ,igrac)i .y udzia 91a1a1 w #ow*taniu roz,aitych kultur archeologicznych nad
5una)e,> za#ewne n#3 cera,iki w*t+gowe)> oraz na #noc i w*chd od @ar#at> n#3 kr+gu cera,iki
*znurowe) z kultura,i gro.w )edno*tkowych i a,8or
kuli*tych3htt#&//en3wiki#edia3org/wiki/Glo.ular\(,#hora\culture
Eote, nad 5nie*tre,> Bohe, i 5nie#re, dochodzi .y1 ,o/e do *y,.iozy z o*tatni 8az kultury
Lucuteni7'ry#olie u w*chodnich @ar#at> od rzek Erut i Seret do 5nie#ru> a w *tre8ie #nocne) z
kultur Batw 8atianow*k3
Genealogia R75N( u*talia> /e #rzodek dzi*ie)*zych w*chodnich Sowian z hg 97D41? /y na
zie,iach %krainy i 9o*)i od okoo2U0072000 lat #rzed Lhr> Na*t+#u)e teraz rozw) kultury Era*owian
dale) w kierunku w*chodni,> ku Codze i %ralowi z )aki,F udziae, w rozwo)u kurhanowego kr+gu
kultury )a,owe) !ktr (3 @lo*oZ #rzy#i*u)e #o#ulac)i 91.1a2$3 Na *te#ach #onty)*ko7ka*#i)*kich
#raindoeuro#e)*ki, kulturo, #rzy#i*u)e *i+ te/ udo,owienie konia> *to*owanie #owozu i
u#ow*zechnianie hodowli zwierzt do,owych !zo.3 9en8rew> (rcheologia i )+zyk> ECN 2001> *3 24G$3
!%waga3 Nie znaleziono dotd w re)onie %krainy i 9o*)i oczekiwanych #rzez
naukowcw genetycznych Fladw *tar*ze) ludnoFci 91a1a> zwa*zcza takich> ktrych .y
,o/na datowa1 na cza*y ukraiH*kiego re8ugiu, #odcza* LGD> ktrego do,yFla *i+
)u/ 43Se,ino i ze*#3 2000> tak )ak )e znaleziono na Bakanach3 %kraina nie )e*t wi+c
#ierwotn kole.k w*zy*tkich Sowian3 -wa*zcza nie wolno ich genezy datowa1 ta, na
cza*y niedugo #rzed O wiekie, #o Lhr3> )ak to go*z niektrzy archeolodzy #ol*cy> tzw3
*kra)ni allochtoniFci !Mdnie#rowcyN$ n#3 @3 Godow*ki> a za ni,i tak/e niektrzy genetycy
!zo.3 5y*ku*)a n32$> chy.a w#rowadzeni w .d #u.likac)a,i znanego nie,ieckiego
archeologa i ra*i*ty Gu*tawa @o**iny ![1GS1$3 4koo OJ7OJJ w3 #o Lhr3> a wi+c )u/ w
cza*ach hi*torycznych> wczeFni Sowianie z %krainy *wo) ree,igrac) tylko ,o/e nieco
za*ilili o*adnictwo #oudniowych Sowian na Bakanach> #rzerzedzone kl+*ka,i w wo)nach
z ce*ar*twe, w*chodni, oraz na terenie Eol*ki i kra)w **iednich$3
5ziF na %krainie> Biaoru*i i w 9o*)i /y)e okoo 20W ludnoFci na*zych ha#logru# !w niektrych
*tarych ,ia*tach do ?0W$3 Genealogia R75N(> #rowadzona #rzez (3 @lo*owa i w*##racownikw>
zidenty8ikowaa nawet *taro/ytnych zao/ycieli dziewi+ciu #le,ion ru*kich z cza*u okoo 2000 lat #3n3e i
#Inie)*zego> nazwanych i,iennie do#iero we wcze*noFredniowiecznych za.ytkach #i*anych> ,3in3
.li*cy na, Coynianie> Bu/anie i Biali Lhorwaci !kilka ko#alnych *zcztkw ludzi owego o*adnictwa hg
91a1a zidenty8ikowano nawet w @ra*no)ar*ku w #oudniowe) Sy.erii$3
Nieco *tar*ze ni/ na %krainie i 9o*)i> .o z okoo 2U00 lat #3n3e3> korzenie #le,ion 91a1a1 zna)du)
*i+ na terenie Nie,iec> a wi+c rd w )e*t ta, daleko wczeFnie)*zy ni/ geneza Ger,anw> zwa*zcza
ta,> gdzie dziF nadal /y)e *konden*owane o*adnictwo tak/e *owiaH*kie) hg
91a1a1g/g2 Ser.ou/yczan !cho1 zwyko *i+ )e datowa1 do#iero na wiek OJJ #o Lhr3B$3 Eotwierdza to n#3
niedawne> dokonane w 2002 r3> *ynne odkrycie i genetyczne #rze.adanie c,entarzy*ka kilkuna*tu
z,arych> a wFrd nich trzech ,+*kich o*. z hg 91a1a w "ulau> 40 k, za Li#*kie, nad rzek Soaw
!nie,3 Saale$ w dorzeczy Ka.y w Sak*onii3 4we gro.y o8iar )akie)F *taro/ytne) #rze,ocy #ochodz z
okoo 2000 lat #3n3e i wyr/nia) *i+ Fwiadectwa,i .ogate) kultury /ycia rodzinnego i ,a/eH*twa
egzoga,icznego3 Ele,i+ to #rezentowao kulturowe Frodowi*ko tzw3 cera,iki *znurowe)> ko)arzone)
#ow*zechnie z Jndoeuro#e)czyka,i3 (rcheologiczny ha#loty# ,+/czyzny z "ulau genetycy ko)arz
o.ecnie ze *taroeuro#e)*k lu. *kandynaw*k ga+zi> wydzielon wczeFnie) z oglnego #nia3
Godni uwagi * Nada.*cy Ser.owie3 )e*t ,o/liwe> /e w )aki,F *en*ie oni> zanotowani #rzez tzw3
geogra8a .awar*kiego )ako -eriuani !Ser.ianie;$> .yli ty,i> Mz ktrych w*zy*tkie #le,iona *owiaH*kie
#ow*tay i rd *w) )ak za#ewnia) wywodzN3 CFrd ludnoFci nie,ieckie) do dziF okoo
10W wykazu)e ha#logru#+ 91a1a1> ktrych w*#lny #rzodek /y ta, )u/ ,o/e okoo 2?00 lat #3n3e3
Cyizolowani w nie,ieckie) *#oecznoFci Ser.ou/yczanie *yn o.ecnie z tego> ze )e*t u nich na)wi+k*ze
w "uro#ie zag+*zczenie hg3 91a1a1 !0SW$3 (le chy.a nie*u*znie> gdy/ )e*zcze wi+k*ze zg+*zczenie
zo*tao zauwa/one na Eol*ki, S#i*zu !?SW> zo.3$3
- rode, 91a1a1 ,o/na oF,ieli1 *i+ ko)arzy1 #ow*tanie i rozw) Frodkowoeuro#e)*kie) kultury
a,8or kuli*tych!htt#&//en3wiki#edia3org/wiki/Glo.ular\(,#hora\culture$> i*tnie)ce) w cza*ie S4007
2U00 #rzed Lhr3 z centru, na terenie Eol*ki> ktra okoo 2G00 lat #rzed Lhr3 Erzeo.razia *i+ ona w
rozleg kultur+ cera,iki *znurowe)> w ty, kultur+ gro.w )edno*tkowych i to#orw gadzonych
!htt#&//en3wiki#edia3org/wiki/Lorded\Care\culture$3 Ae) #oudniowy region rozciga *i+ od
Dao#ol*ki #rzez Yl*k i Lzechy #o Solaw+ !do#yw Ka.y$> z Ser.ou/ycki, "ulau3 Enocny region te)
kultury #rzylega do Batyku i rozciga *i+ od @u)aw i dolne) Ci*y> #rzez Cielko#ol*k+> re)on dolne)
4dry i Dekle,.urgi+ #o 5oln Ka.+ !z ty, horyzonte, ,o/na ko)arzy1 #Inie)*ze 91a1a w )a*kini
Lichtene*teinhohle z ok3 1000 #rzed Lhr3$> zo.3 5y*ku*)a> n3103 @ultury a,8or kuli*tych i cera,iki
*znurowe) #ow*zechnie uwa/ane * za #ierw*ze indoeuro#e)*kie kultury w "uro#ie3 'ak/e *ynna
kultura u/ycka ,o/e .y1 w znaczny, *to#niu #rzy#i*ana #ra*owiaH*kie,u rodowi 91a1a13
Eo#ulac)e ha#logru#y 91a1a1 i )e) #odgru#y /y) dziF w Eol*ce w na)wi+k*zy, w cae) "uro#ie
)ednorodny, zag+*zczeniu> .ookoo 2?W ludnoFci Eol*ki3
7*$edia0ta"!
ga ta"!icy roz+ieszczenie ha$!ogr*$ w dzisie%szych 3ra%ach
e*ro$e%s3ich_ zob. R1a1a1 w czwarte% 3o!*+nie0
(icz"y oznacza%8 $rocenty owe% ha$!ogr*$y w $oszczeg#!nych 3ra%ach0
R1" i to zachodnioe*ro$e%s3a0
po"acz s3ad etniczny (o%cows3i, $!e+ienny !*dnoci dzisie%sze% ^o!s3i
(^o!and i %e% s8siad#w
Eodo.nie )ak w Eol*ce> 91a1a1 !.ez uwzgl+dnienia #odziau na )e) #odgru#y$ #o)awia *i+
w Lzechach !dziF S0W$> w Sowac)i !40W$>na C+grzech !S2WQ #o#rzednia .+dna licz.a& 20W$>
w (u*trii dziF ok3 22W i w (nglii !2W ,ie*zkaHcw$> Jrlandii !dziF ,3in3 klany 5onaldw i
5ougla*w$> Szkoc)iQ Norwegii !do S0W ,ie*zkaHcw cz+Fci zachodnie)$3 Std waFnie o*adnictwo
91a1a1 e,igrowao na Cy*#y Bryty)*kie i do J*landii !dziF ta, 2SW ludnoFci$3 Nadto
na Litwie> Kotwie i "*tonii dziF od#owiednio SU> 40 i S2W3
C *u,ie> na ,a#ie geno7geogra8ii "uro#y na)wi+k*ze zag+*zczenie *owiaH*kie) !czy .ye)
*owiaH*kie)$ hg 91a1a1 cignie *i+ *zeroki, #a*e, od Batyku #o Dorze Lzarne !co )e*t wod na ,yn
ty,> ktry, ,arzy *i+ Eol*ka Mod ,orza do ,orzaNB$3
H ro,u 2011+ dzi,i badanio! :roje,tu 1000$Ieno!<w+ zidentyJi,owano wiele nowy". !uta"ji
SK:+ o,re-lany". ja,o (rupa 1 albo Fzet,iG. Besz"ze nie wszyst,ie z ni". dostpne s/ w powsze".ny!
testowaniu.
Kajwa*niejsza z ty". !uta"ji to wspo!niana wy*ej 1%;+ "e".uj/"/ (<wnie azjaty",/ "z-= rodu
R1a1a1$#017.
Lru(a !uta"ja to 12&; jej powstanie !o*na datowa= na o,oo ;300 przed 9.r. H ty! rodzie zaistniay
trzy wa*ne !uta"je@
12&0+ "e".uj/"a (ownie wiel,/ (rup+ o,re-lan/ ja,o Bato$Slowianie. Bej synows,/+ p<no"no$
ws".odni/ !uta"ja jest 1%2.
#03& i M220 ? "e".uj/"e r<d -rod,owoeuropejs,i i r<d za".odniosowiaCs,i 5zwany tu pols,i!8.
Nrze"ia z ty". !uta"ji to 12&0+ od ,t<rej po".odz/ s,andynaws,ie 5i wyspiars,ie8 popula"je rodu R1a.
)d,rywanie ,olejny". !uta"ji i testowanie jest w to,u.
0a3 5rzewo genealogiczne
euro#e)*kiego oddziau
91a1a13
C*zy*tkie ,utac)e SNE lu. S'9 rozga+zia) drzewo genealogiczne R75N(3 Dutac)e SNE> )ako
za*adniczo )ednorazowe w dzie)ach czowieka w*#cze*nego> da) #ocztek #od*tawowy,> wi+k*zy,
ga+zio, drzewa genealogicznego3 Dutac)e S'9> )ako *zy.koz,ienne i rwnoczeFnie dwukierunkowe
!Mdo #rzoduN i Mdo tyuN #owrotne$> wytwarza) ga+zie dro.ne i krtkie3 (le w niektrych ,arkerach
S'9 dotd do*zo tylko do )edne)> dwch lu. trzech ,utac)i i wtedy * rwnorz+dne ,utac)o, SNE
!niektre z nich rwnie/ #o)awia) *i+ te/ dwu lu. trzykrotnie$3 Aedne wi+c i drugie> SNE i S'9> ,og
.y1 u/yte do .udowy drzewa genealogicznego R75N(3
Eod*tawa naukowa i Irda
13 J3 9o/an*ki) i (3 @lo*ow> li*to#ad 200G
7 ko,#endiu, aktualne) wiedzy o euro#e)*kie) cz+Fci #o#ulac)i 91a>
!ga+zie #rzed roz#oznanie, ,utac)i D42U i ha#logru#y 91a1a?$
M=a#logru#a 91a& ha#loty#y> linie genealogiczne> hi*toria> geogra8iaN
]3 ^_`abcdef e g3 hijc_k> lami_nopmma 91a& nami_qemr> nsbsai_netscdes iebee> ecq_oeu>
ns_noaveu>
w& wscqbed ^_ccefcd_f gdaxsyee z{h7nsbsai_nee t32> nr30 !li*to#ad$> 200G r3> *3 G?4710GG3
23 (3 @lo*ow i J3 9o/an*ki)> grudzieH 200G
o ha#logru#ie 91a1a1g> czyli ga+zi Frodkowoeuro#e)*kie) i zachodnio*owiaH*kie)
MEodgru#a 91a1a1g D42U #o#ulac)e> geogra8ia> hi*toriaN
w& wscqbed ^_ccefcd_f gdaxsyee z{h7nsbsai_nee t32> nr ? !grudzieH$> 200G r3> *31200712103
w )+zyku ro*y)*ki,> gruntowny ko,entarz do #racy %nderhilla et al3 200G !zo.3 ni/e)$ w te,acie
ha#logru#y 91a1a1g7D42U> uzu#enienie #racy 9o/an*kiego7@lo*owa
M=a#logru#a 91a& ha#loty#y> linie genealogiczne> hi*toria> geogra8iaN wscqbed t32> nr 0> 200G r3 !zo.3
wy/e)$3
S3 J3 9o/an*ki) i (3 @lo*ow> *tyczeH 2010
o .li/*zy, genealogiczny, zwizku ga+zi *kandynaw*kich z kirgi*k3
MDigrac)e z #oudniowe) Sy.erii i (z)i Yrodkowe) z #unktu widzenia genealogii R75N(N
wscqbed ^_ccefcd_f gdaxsyee z{h7nsbsai_nee> to, S> nr 1> 2010 r3
43 J3 9o/an*ki) 200G72010
kilkanaFcie ,a# roz,ie*zczenia ga+zi ha#loty#w 91a1a1
Google7,a#yQ
23 E3 Szwarew> 6oru, 9od*tZo3ru> o,wienie ,a# i drzew genealogicznych
lami_nopmma 91a& nami_qemr> nsbsai_netscdes iebee> ecq_oeu> ns_noaveu> ]3 ^_`abcdef e g3
hijc_k
03 J 9o/an*ki)> (3 @lo*ow> *tyczeH 2010
MDigrac)e z #oudniowe) Sy.erii i (z)i Yrodkowe) do #nocne) "uro#y z #unktu widzenia genealogii R7
5N(N
|enoa}ee e~ `b_f eeoe e osxbsf g~ee k csksobp ko_mp c q_tde ~osbeu z{h7nsbsai_nee
w& wscqbed ^_ccefcd_f gdaxsyee z{h7nsbsai_nee _y S> 1 2010 ubkao
htt#&//www3lulu3co,/ite,*/Zolu,e\0?/U04G000/U04G?22/2/#rint/U04G?223#d8
Erace ro*y)*kich genealogw R75N(
(naliz ,utac)i SNE i S'9> czyli ha#logru# i ha#loty#w> oraz .udow drzewa 8ilogenetycznego i
o#i*ywanie, )ego ga+zi za),u) *i+ gwnie ro*y)*ko7a,erykaH*cy naukowcy3 J3 94(NS@J i (3
@L4S4C w *woich o.*zernych #u.likac)ach dokonu) u#orzdkowania i genealogicznego o#racowania
o.ecne) wiedzy o #o#ulac)ach ha#logru#y 91a i )e) #odgru# oraz ich hi*torii w "uro#ie i "uraz)i3 (utorzy
,a) aktualnie do dy*#ozyc)i #onad 2000 ha#loty#w z .azy R*earch i geogra8icznych #ro)ektw
6'5N( oraz z la.oratoriw ro*y)*kich i #rywatnychQ na)wi+ce) 0?7,arkerowych3
Eraca E3 %nderhilla !%niwe*ytet Stan8ord$
Eu.likac)a %nderhill et al3 !#u.likac)a 43113200G$> znacznie z,ienia dane wczeFnie)*zych autorw>
w*kazay na okolice Eol*ki )ako na #rao)czyzn+ Sowian i ,ie)*ce #ow*tanie #ol*kie) ,utac)i 97D42U
dla *owiaH*kie) #o#ulac)i "uro#y3 4to niektre dane #ol*kie i wy.ranych kra)w3
Lza* w*#lnego #rzodka #odano w ty*icach lat te,u> o.liczony )e*t wedug *tawek -hiZotoZ*kyego> a
wi+c chy.a niewaFciwie o.liczonych i dwu7trzykrotnie zawy/onych3

Ka lewo@ +a$a
zagszczenia,
czas* ha$!ogr*$y
R1a1a (M17 i
drzewo
genea!ogiczne
gr*$y
i $odgr*$0 Ka
prawo@ +a$a
zagszczenia,

datowania i
zwi8z3* z
3*!t*ra+i
archeo!ogiczny+i
$o$*!ac%i
R1a1a1g (MeP8
i wed*g'
fnderhi!! et a!0
59990
htt#&//www3*cri.d3co,/doc/2SS222G1/%nderhill7"t7(l7200G7
Se#arating7the7Eo*t7Glacial7Loance*try7o87"uro#ean7and7(*ian7R7Lhro,o*o,e*7Cithin7
=a#7Lo7Grou#791a
4to kilka danych %nderhilla odnoFnie !nie*tety zawy/onego$ datowania #o#ulac)i 91a1a7D1? i
91a1a1g 7D42U w kilku kra)ach& Eol*ka lat 11S00 i 10?00Q Sowac)a 11200 i US00Q Lzechy 2?00Q
Nie,cy GG00 i ?2003
9o*)a euro#e)*ka U?00 i U000Q %kraina ?400 i 4?00Q Jndie 14000Q Eaki*tan 120003
EInie)*ze wykrycie w te) *owiaH*kie) #odgru#ie kole)ne) ,utac)i> oznaczone) )ako L200 !91a1a1g2$ i
nazwane) E !M#ol*kaN$ )e*zcze .ardzie) zwizao #ocztki Sowian z ty, re)one, "uro#y3
Erace #ol*ko7a,erykaH*kich genealogw E3 Gwozdzia i
L3 Dayki
C tych #racach 9o*)ano, dotrzy,u) kroku> a niekiedy #rzewodz #ol*ko7a,erykaH*cy
genealodzy w*##racownicy 6'5N(& Eeter GC4-5- !%S($ i Lawrence D(R@( !%S($> ktrzy
za),u) *i+ genealogi w*zy*tkich ha#logru# !a nie tylko 91a$> ale )akoF zwizanych z Eol*k3
L3 Dayka #rowadzi #rogra, 6'5N( Eoli*h Ero)ect 3 9e)e*tru)e ta, *i+ wyniki analiz
#rze#rowadzonych w #racowniach 6a,ily'ree5N( dotyczcych ,ateriaw z 5N(> do*tarczonych
#rzez EolakwQ internetowa *trona #rzed*tawia rezultaty .adaH i identy8ikac)e ha#logru# Eolakw> a w
ha#logru#ie 91a1a1g #odzia na kla*try> w zale/noFci od ha#loty#w S'93
5okadny, roz#racowanie, #ol*kich ha#loty#w z ha#logru# 91a1a i 91a1a1g za),u)e *i+ E3
Gwozdz3 Na *wo)e) internetowe) *tronie Eoli*h clade*#rowadzi analiz+ ha#loty#w> gru#u)e> o.licza cza*
#o#ulac)i i ich ,igrac)i3 C o#u.likowane) w A4GG Aournal o8 Gnetic Genealog 2/2 200G )ego #racy i
#o)awia *i+ wi+ce) in8or,ac)i na te,at ,etody #racy i )e) rezultatw !cz+F1 JJ$3 Lza* w*#lnego
#rzodka ha#loty#u E 3
Erace Kuka*za Ka#iH*kiego3
LaoFci ha#logru#y 91a )e) ,utac)i i #odgru# w Fwiecie oraz #odziae, na genetyczne ga+zie za),u)e
*i+ od czerwca 2011 r3 genealog Kuka*z Ka#iH*ki na *tronie 91a and Su.clade* R75N( Ero)ect3
Nato,ia*t #odziae, tego rodu na #o*zczeglne kra)e lu. wi+k*ze gru#y narodowoFciowe i
regionalne za),u)e *i+ *trona Lyndi!@anada$& 91a R7chro,o*o,e =a#logrou# Ero)ect3
6ilogenetyczne drzewa ha#logru#y 91a
(utorzy& (natole @lyo*oZ> Jgor 9ozhan*ky> EaZel ShZareZ> 201072011Q
Irdo& International Y-DNA Project (w skrcie: YdnaIP) z uwzgldnieniem wie!o
odkr"t"c# mutacji $gru%"& '(
-rzewo
genea!ogiczne $o$*!ac%i
R1a1a
(3!i3ni%
Ka dole obrazu@
$odzia3a s3a!i czas*
1999 !at d!a $nia i $oszczeg#!nych gazi0
-ost$ do wszyst3ich +a$'
)a*zie rodu +,a,a
- International Y-DNA Project
(w skrcie: YdnaIP)
fwaga0 c*torzy drzewa i +a$ a3t*a!iz*%8 %e czsto0
KA1HO IAPQ1A 5pols,ie i an(iels,ie8
i lin,i do !ap A. Ro*aCs,ie(o w I))IM4

10 ^#nocnoe*ro$e%s3a i (4jP, $o+ors3a, z +*tac%8
p589
50 orod3owoe*ro$e%s3a i R1a1a1gKMeP8
40 pachodniosowias3a i R1a1a1g5K(5j9
e0 ^o*dniowoKwschodnia e*razy%s3a
z +*tac%a+i p594 i (4e505_ ]ndie, cra"ia, [irgizi
ea0 csz3enazy%scy Yydzi i z +*tac%a+i p94 i (4e505_
P0 &entra!na e*razy%s3aK4 i zie!one (4jj i nie"ies3ie
(reszt3owe
j0 ^#!nocna e*razy%s3a i z +*tac%8 p589
70 pachodnio3ar$ac3a i ^57805_ z +*tac%8 p589
80 qodsza s3andynaws3a i (ee8, wszyst3ie, z +*tac%8
p58e
i 17j01 (%asnonie"ies3ie_ z +*tac%8 p58e
90 &entra!na e*razy%s3aK1 i Y#ta,0 $ierwotna
indoe*ro$e%s3a,
`o%cows3aa d!a $ozostaych &7c
190 ^#nocno3ar$ac3a i z +*tac%8 p589
110 ,atyc3oK3ar$ac3a i z +*tac%8 p589
150 &entra!na e*razy%s3aK5, $odga8b czerwona, z +*tac%8
p589
1e0 pachodnia e*razy%s3a i z +*tac%8 p589
1ea0 pachodnia e*razy%s3aK5 (`wschodnio3ar$ac3aa z
+*t0 p589
1P0 1tarsza s3andynaws3a i z +*tac%8 p58e
1j0 ^#nocnozachodnia i -r1488s19, `dziesitni3ia
170 1tare e*ro$e%s3ie' R1a, R1a1 i R1a1a (-r1495s14
#apa rozprzestrzenienia rod<w O$LKA w wiel,i! rodzie R1a1a1
ga%wi3sza rodzina, oznaczona szar8 !ini8 ci8g8 i to ga8b centra!na e*razy%s3a0
Re%on rod3owoe*ro$e%s3ie% R1a1a1gKMeP8 $o8czono z re%one+ zachodniosowias3ie%
R1a1ag5K(5j90
:rzy,ad drzewa (enealo(i"zne(o
R1a1a1 5i pod(rup8
na $odstawie "azy danych rsearch
(z nazwis3a+i testowanych0
htt$'nnwww0rodst\o0r*ndor*+ninde.0$
h$t
showto$ics47u\iewsdind$ostu$s1
5P75
1$orz8dzi' vEQ;M wQESxQ
(Rodst\o0r*
Kolejne wyobra*enie drzewa (enealo(i"zne(o
i $o8cze rodowych R1a1a10 ga 3oc#w3ach
$ro+ieni 3o!e%ne !icz"y tych, 3t#rzy zosta!i
$rzetestowani0 hd!ego od centr*+ oznacza
!icz" +*tac%i0 ^o8czenia +iedzy gazia+i
*%awnia ty!3o s$ec%a!ny $rogra+0
htt$'nnsP50radi3a!0r*ni147n1999ndan4d9d8ca19de9
0%$g
Eodzia> datowanie i ,a#y ga+zi
euro#e)*kich #o#ulac)i ha#logru#y 91a i )e)
#odgru#
!w*zy*tkie ,a#y zo.3& )a*zie rodu +,a,a - International Y-DNA Project. zo.3 te/
w 8oru, 9od*two3ru$3
Nowe drzewo 91a wedug Jgora
9o/an*kiego3
Stan wiedzy na dzieH 1230S32012 r3> htt#&//r1a3org/inde:3ht,
Dutac)e> ich #owizanie oraz nowe datowanieQ
nazewnictwo wg3 oFrodka 9u**ian (cade,y o8 R75N( Genealogy3

Ae*t to drzewo> o#racowane #o roz#oznaniu kole)nych w+zowych ,utac)i> )ak -2US> -2U0> -2U4>
a zwa*zcza Maz)atyckie)N -GS i )e) #odgru#y LS4232> ktra wyraInie oddziela od euro#e)*kich 91a1a1
wielkie #o#ulac)e 91a1a1 na Bli*ki, C*chodzie> (z)i Lentralne)> Ewy*#ie (ra.*ki, i Ewy*#ie
Jndy)*ki,3
-wr1,y uwag+ na dy*tan*e cza*owe ,i+dzy oddzielenie, *i+ ga+zi od w*#lnego #rzodka !M#niaN
drzewa$ i #ow*tanie, nowych ,utac)i> a cza*e, w*#lnego #rzodka !D9L($ dzi*ie)*ze) #o#ulac)i te)
ga+zi i )e) ek*#an*)i terytorialne)3 '+ odlegoF1 ,i+dzy oddzielenie, *i+ ga+zi a D9L( nazywa,y
de,ogra8iczn *zy)k .utelki3
Szara eli#*a w*kazu)e na #oczenie cza*u ek*#an*)i rodw 91a1a1 i cza*u ek*#an*)i )+zykw
indoeuro#e)*kich3
RRRRRRR3
(ktualne #rocentowe roz,ie*zczenie czterech #od*tawowych ,utac)i !rodw$ ha#logru#y 91a w
"uro#ie wedug diagra,u Jgora 9o/an*kiego
!Irdo& htt#&//www3rod*tZo3ru/8oru,/inde:3#h#;*howto#ic<1S12*t<?40$
5rzewo 8ilogenetyczne ha#logru#y 91a>
aktualny *tan wiedzy
wedug Kuka*za Ka#iH*kiego> w #ro)ekcie M91a1a and Su.clade*N

-o.3 w #ro)ekcie M91a1a and Su.clade*N !Kuka*z Ka#iH*ki$&
htt#&//www38a,ilytreedna3co,/#u.lic/91a/de8ault3a*#:;*ection<re*ult*
oraz htt#&//i,g243i,age*hack3u*/i,g24/G022/r1aclade**n#3)#g
T T T T
Na)*tar*ze ha#loty#y z ha#logru#y 91a w "uro#ie zo*tay w 200U r3 roz#oznane #rzez (3 @lo*owa
wFrd ludnoFci niektrych kra)w .akaH*kich& Ser.ia> BoFnia> @o*owo i Dacedonia> w ,ateriale> ktry
ze.rali i o#u.likowali D3 Eeri1i1 i L3Bara13 (3 @lo*ow datu)e )e na okoo dzie*ite ty*iclecie #rzed Lhr3
Nie*#rzy)a)ce warunki .ytowe !tzw3 *zy)ka .utelki$ lu. dry8 #o#ulac)i zdzie*itkoway ich licze.noF1 i
nie #ozwoliy i, na #eny rozw) de,ogra8iczny3 -ani, )ednak do tego kryzy*u do*zo> okoo #olowy
trzeciego ty*iclecia #rzed Lhr3> owe #o#ulac)e ha#logru# 91a1a ,iay za#ewne wydatny w#yw na
rozw) archeologicznych kultur nadduna)*kich> Frodkowoeuro#e)*kich i dal*zych3 (rcheogenetyka
za#ewne .+dzie ,iaa *zan*+ wy#owiedzie1 *i+ na ten te,at> )ak to *i+ *tao )u/ odnoFnie *zkieletw z
"ulau> Lichten*tein7=ohle> @ra*no)ar*k itd3
-danie, )ednak wielu genealogw genetycznych w ,ateria M.akaH*kiN> cho1 ze.rany #rzez *olidne
oFrodki naukowe> nie )e*t w #eni wiarygodny3
-e*# genetykw E3 %nderhill et al3 !li*to#ad 200G> zo.3 ni/e)$ wykry zaF wa/n euro#e)*k ,utac)+ 97
D42U> tworzc now ha#logru#+ 91a1a1g> datu)c )> z gru. #rze*ad> na dziewite ty*iclecie #rzed
Lhr3 i !doF1 tra8nie$ w*kazu)c na re)on Eol*ki )ak.y na teren )e) #ow*tania i )ak.y na #rao)czyzn+
znaczne) #o#ulac)i Sowian Frodkowoeuro#e)*kich> zwa*zcza #ol*kich3 @ole)no> #o wykryciu w
ha#logru#ie 91a1a1g ,utac)i L200 u*talono ha#logru#+ 91a1a1g2> ktra de8iniu)e wFrd Sowian gaI
M#ol*kN> a racze) zachodnio*owiaH*k3
-aF *zczegln za*ug genealoga genetycznego L3 Dayki !%S($ )e*t zidenty8ikowanie i zorganizowanie
te*towania wa/ne) ,utac)i Maz)atyckie)N> czyli LS4232> ktra w ol.rzy,i, rodzie 91a1a1!D41?$
wydzielia #o#ulac)e Frodkowo i #oudniowoaz)atyckie oraz /ydw7lewitw a*zkenazy)*kich3
4,wienie gwnych ga+zi drzewa
ha#logru#y 91a
(3 Ga+zie rodu 91a #rzed #ow*tanie,
,utac)i D41?3
'rzy ga+zie *tare euro#e)*kie !zo.3 ,a#a Stara euro#e)*ka gaI 91a1a$
'o .ardzo nieliczni i roz#ro*zeni #rzed*tawiciele trzech na)wczeFnie)*zych ,utac)i w rodzie 91a3
Eierw*za z ,utac) D420> czyli ha#logru#a 91a> datowana w "uro#ie na okoo G000 lat> czyli ?000 lat
#rzed Lhr3
5ruga 7 z ,utac) S9R10US132> czyli ha#logru#a 91a1> datowana na okoo ?00070000 lat #rzed Lhr3
'rzecia 7 z ,utac) D1GU !i D1?$> ale )e*zcze .ez ,utac)i D41?> wyr/nia)ca *i+ ,arkere, 5RSSG2<1S
!tu inne ga+zie ,a) #rzewa/nie 11$> czyli ha#logru#a 91a1a> datowana na okoo 4U00 lat !)ednak
na).li/*zy w*#lny #rzodek> D9L(> /y)ce) dziF na)*tar*ze) #o#ulac)i *#oFrd tych trzech ha#logru#
datowany )e*t zaledwie na 000 lat #rzed Lhr3$3
Nie*#rzy)a)ce warunki .ytowe !tzw3 *zy)ka .utelki$ lu. dry8 #o#ulac)i zdzie*itkoway ich
licze.noF1 i nie #ozwoliy i, na #eny rozw) de,ogra8iczny3 -ani, )ednak do tego kryzy*u do*zo>
okoo #olowy trzeciego ty*iclecia #rzed Lhr3> owe #o#ulac)e ha#logru# 91a1a !w ty, L1?0$> 91a1a1. i
91a1a1c ,iay za#ewne wydatny w#yw na rozw) archeologicznych kultur nadduna)*kich>
Frodkowoeuro#e)*kich i dal*zych3 (rcheogenetyka za#ewne .+dzie ,iaa *zan*+ wy#owiedzie1 *i+ na ten
te,at> )ak to *i+ *tao )u/ odnoFnie *zkieletw z "ulau> Lichten*tein7=ohle> @ra*no)ar*k itd3
B3 Na)wczeFnie)*ze ga+zie rodu 91a z
,utac) D41?791a1a1
1$ z ,utac) L004> na drzewie 8ilogenetyczny,
oznaczana )ako 91a1a1i3
GaI #nocno7zachodnia> #od o)cow*k D41?> z wyr/nia)cy, *i+
5RSSUU<10> czyli tzw3 dzie*i+tniki oraz z ,od*z ,utac) L0043 Cydzielia *i+> )ak o.licza J3 9o/aH*ki>
okoo 4200 lat #rzed Lhr3 i roz#rze*trzenia *i+ tak/e gwnie w #nocno7zachodnie) "uro#ie3 Skada
*i+ z kilku #odga+zi> ,a)cych *woi, w*#lnych #rzodkw> D9L(& 2200> U00 i 200 lat #rzed Lhr3 a
ich w*#lny #rzodek /y okoo 4200 lat #rzed Lhr3
2$ z ,utac) -042 !dotd )e*zcze nie te*towan$
C rodzie z ,utac) -042 #o)awiy *i+ dwie wa/ne ,utac)e& Meuro#e)*kaN -2US !L3$ i Maz)atyckaN -GS !53$
L3 Ga+zie Meuro#e)*kiegoN rodu 91a z
,utac) -2US791a1a1g
1$ z ,utac) D42U 91a1a1g1 !od S031232011$
13 Yrodkowoeuro#e)*ka !L"$ 91a1a1g1> wyr/nia *i+ wa*n ,utac)
7D42U> #ow*ta okoo 2200 #3n3e3 ktr odkry i o#i*a w roku 200G E3 %nderhill !%niwer*ytet
Stan8ord$3 4.ecna )e*t w kra)ach "uro#y Yrodkowe)> gwnie w tr)kcie od Lzech do ukraiH*kiego
-akar#acia i Ba*enu 5una)u !tak/e Dao#ol*ki i Yl*ka> a nawet Cielko#ol*ki> kra)u Eolan$Q )e*t liczna
#onad 10 ,ilionw ,+/czyzn w "uro#ie3 Cyonia *i+ #rawdo#odo.nie na #oudnie od @ar#at> za#ewne
w Ba*enie 5una)u3 Cyr/nia) ) rzadkie ,arkery 5RS404e787g> a zwa*zcza ,utac)a D742U> w*#lna z
ga+zi zachodnio*owiaH*k !zo.3 ni/e)$3 Cedug ,a#y J393Frodkowoeuro#e)*ka gaI ,a dwie
#odga+zie> ktrych w*#lny #rzodek /y okoo G00 lat #3n3e3
C te) #o#ulac)i> w duna)*ko7kar#ackie) o)czyInie te) ga+zi #rawdo#odo.nie zrodzi )akiF MkultN ce*arza
@arola nie,ieckiego i *td u#ow*zechni1 *i+ oglno*owiaH*kie *owo MkrlN3 'a, te/ ,oga .y1
#rao)czyzna Eolan #ol*kich i naddnie#rzaH*kich !zo.3 u Ne*tora$3 Jntere*u)ce )e*t i to> /e ek*#an*)a
cz+Fci te) #o#ulac)i !zw3 z 5RS404e787g$> za#ewne w #oowie J ty*iclecia n3e3> *za )ak w*kazu)e
drzewo genealogiczne w kierunku z zachodu na w*chd> na 9u*k 9wnin+ i ku Dorzu Biae,u> wi+c
w #rzeciwny, kierunku ni/ inne> znane w tradycy)ne) literaturze naukowe)> ,igrac)e w cza*ie w+drwek
ludw ze w*chodu na zachd !Cie*tnik> *31020$3
23 -achodnio*owiaH*ka !-S$ 91a1a1g1. !od S031232011$3 Cyr/nia
*i+ ,utac) L200> #od#orzdkowan ,utac)i D742U w ga+zi Frodkowoeuro#e)*kie) 91a1a1g3
Cydzielia *i+ z nie)> wedug ilu*tr3 J393 2400 lat #rzed Lhr3 9oz,ie*zczona )e*t gwnie w Eol*ce>
Lzechach> Sowac)i i na 9u*i -akar#ackie)3 Eow*taa za#ewne nieco na #noc od @ar#at3 Stanowi )
#o#ulac)e gwnie w dorzeczach Ci*y> 4dry i Ka.y !Eol*ka> Lzechy i Sowac)a$3 Erzodek /y)ce) dziF
#o#ulac)i ga+zi -S> wedug ,a#y J393> /y okoo ?00 #rzed Lhr3 4.ydwie ga+zie doF1 dugo /yy w
#ewne) od *ie.ie *e#arac)i> *koro Frodkowoeuro#e)*ka gaI w cz+Fci ,igrowaa na w*chd i #noc
racze) )ako *a,a3
%C(G(3 Ga+zie zachodnio*owiaH*ka i Frodkowoeuro#e)*ka> ,a)ce w*#ln ,utac)+ D42U z
okoo 2200 lat #rzed Lhr3 !zo.3 wy/e)> gaI L"$> oddzieliy *i+ wczeFnie)> okoo S200 lat #rzed Lhr3> od
ga+zi centralne) eurazy)*kie) !L"($Q znalazy *i+ )ednak w *ytuac)i dugo trwa)ce) de,ogra8iczne)
M*zy)ki .utelkiN> al.o znacznie zo*tay ek*ter,inowane i rozwin+y *i+ #onownie do#iero w
#ierw*ze) #oowie #ierw*zego ty*iclecia #rzed Lhr3
!'ak wi+c ewoluc)a i datowanie ga+zi zachodnio*owiaHkie) !-S$> Frodkowoeuro#e)*kie) !L"$ )ak i
wi+k*zoFci #ozo*taych z 91a1a1 w ty, re)onie "uro#y oraz ko)arzona z ni,i #aleokranio,etria kultur
nadduna)*kich i Frodkowoeuro#e)*kich !)u/ od kultury cera,iki liniowe) ryte) do kultury cera,iki
*znurowe) i #Inie)*zych$ nie #otwierdza) za#ocztkowane) #rzez nie,ieckiego archeologa 93 @o**in+
tezy *kra)nych allochtoni*tw o nieo.ecnoFci Sowian na na*zych zie,iach #rzed #oow #ierw*zego
ty*iclecia na*ze) ery i o )edyny, tylko kierunku ich ek*#an*)i& znad 5nie#ru ku CiFle i 4drzeB$3
2$ z ,utac) -2U0791a1a1g2 !od S031232011$3
13 GaI zachodniokar#acka3 Ae) wyr/nikie, )e*t 5RS422<2U oraz ,utac)a
SNE L2?U32791a1a1g2a3 Ae*t roz#rze*trzeniona gwnie od @ar#at i Sudetw #o Dekle,.urgi+ w
Nie,czech3 Cydzielia *i+ od #nia drzewa okoo 2000 lat te,u> a w*#lny #rzodek o.ecne) #o#ulac)i>
D9L(> /y okoo 000 lat #rzed Lhr3 Do/na t+ gaI czy1 z archeologiczn #o#ulac) M*znurowcwN z
"ulau z cza*u okoo 2000 lat #rzed Lhr3
23 Eo,or*ka !zwana te/ #nocnoeuro#e)*k$
Cyr/nia *i+ wa*n ,utac) LS02791a1a1g2.3 4.ecna )e*t gwnie na Eo,orzu> zwa*zcza na
@a*zu.ach3 5zie)a,i zwizana )e*t #rawdo#odo.nie z ga+zi zachodniokar#ack> *i+ga)c do
Dekle,.urgii i 5olnego Eoa.iaQ wiele Fladw *owiaH*kiego )+zyka ta,te)*zych Cieletw i
4.odrzycw zna)du)e,y w dialekcie #o,or*kich @a*zu.w3 -a#ewne Fwiadcz one tak/e o #o#rzedni,
roz#rze*trzenieniu *owiaH*kich Eo,orzan3 GaI ta wydzielia *i+ okoo 2000 lat te,u> cho1
de,ogra8icznie rozwin+a *ie do#iero okoo G00 lat #rzed Lhr3 Cidocznie )akieF nie*#rzy)a)ce warunki
!de,ogra8iczna M*zy)ka .utelkiN$ nie #ozwoliy )e) )ednak wczeFnie) roz,no/y1 *i+ i roz#rze*trzeni13
S3 C*chodnioeuro#e)*ka> roz#oznawalna #o ,utac)i LS00791a1a1g2c
43 Enocno7w*chodnia> roz#oznawalna #o ,utac)i -G2791a1a1g2d
Nadto .ez wyr/nia)cych *i+ wa*nych ,utac)i SNE&
23 Enocnokar#acka> roz#oznana gwnie na terenie Eol*ki3 Ae) D9L( datowany
)e*t na 200 lat #rzed Lhr3
03 Batycko7kar#acka> roz#rze*trzeniona )e*t a/ do wy.rze/y (driatyku3 Cyr/nia
*i+ w nie) trzy #odga+zie> ale )e*zcze .ez roz#oznanych wa*nych ,utac)i SNE3 5atowane * na okoo
2100> ?00 i 200 lat #rzed Lhr3> a ich w*#lny #rzodek /y okoo 2000 lat #rzed Lhr3
?3 -achodnioeurazy)*ka> waFciwie Frodkowoeuro#e)*ka> to wa/na gaI> za#ewne
o)cow*ka dla w*chodniokar#ackie)3 Kcznie ze w*chodniokar#ack roz#rze*trzeniona )e*t od zachodnie)
9o*)i i %krainy #o Brytani+3 Erzodek *tar*ze) )e) #odga+zi /y okoo 2000 lat #rzed Lhr3Q ,od*ze)
okoo cza*w Lhry*tu*a3 - nie) wydzielono gaI w*chodniokar#ack3
U3 C*chodniokar#acka> zwana #o#rzednio Mzachodnia eurazy)*ka72> zag+*zczona
)e*t gwnie w re)onie @ar#at3 Ae) D9L( ,o/na datowa1 na 000 lat #rzed Lhr3 C )edne) )e) #odga+zi
okoo #ocztku na*ze) ery /y #rzodek tzw3 Mklanu kar#ackiegoN> ktry )ak *ugeru)e J3 9o/an*ki> ,o/e .y1
identy8ikowany ze znany,i ze Irde dziewi+ciowiecznych CiFlana,i3
G3 Enocnoeurazy)*ka> .ez wykryte) dotd wa*ne) ,utac)i SNEQ ,oda>
roz#ow*zechniona zwa*zcza na #nocny7w*chd od Eol*ki& BiaoruF> %kraina i 9o*)a3 Ae) D9L(
datowany )e*t na okoo #rzeo,u ery *tare) i nowe)3
103 Lentralnoeurazy)*ka3 'o w*#lnota trzech #odga+zi> .li*ko *#okrewnionych>
#owizanych w*#lny, #rzodkie, z okoo 2U00 lat #rzed Lhr3 9e)on #ow*tania za#ewne w "uro#ie
Yrodkowe)& @ar#aty lu. Ba*en 5una)u3 Di,o wyczeniu z nie) cae) wielkie) ga+zi az)atyckie) z ,utac)
-GS> rozciga *i+ ona nadal od Cy*# Bryty)*kich> #o#rzez "uro#+ kontynentaln i re)on tzw3 9u*kie)
9wniny> do Jndii !zo.3 ,a#a 9o/an*kiego> ga+zie rozr/nione kolora,i$3 -wizane )e*t to z genez
)+zykowe) w*#lnoty indoeuro#e)*kie)3 - )e) gwne) i na)*tar*ze) #odga+zi !oznaczone) na ,a#ie
/ty,i #ine*ka,i$> do*zo do ,utac)i -GS> za#ewne w trakcie )e) ,igrac)i re)one, #oudniowego %ralu
!kultura (ndronowo ze *ynny, Mgrode,N (rkai,$ i dale) na C*chd i Eoudniowy C*chd> zwa*zcza
ku Jndio, i Jranowi3
4.ydwie z)ednoczone #o#ulac)e> )edna z ,utac) o)cow*k D741? !gaI /ta$> druga z *ynow*k
-GS !gaI #oudniowow*chodnia na o*o.ne) ,a#ie$ i #od nazw (riowie !M*zlachetniN$> ,o/e okoo
1000 roku #rzed Lhr3 #o)awili *i+ na Su.kontynencie Jndy)*ki, i na Cy/ynie JraH*kie)> da)c #ocztek
etno*o, indoeuro#e)*ki, w ta,tych re)onach !n#3 )+zyk gru#y hindi w Jndiach i Eaki*tanie oraz
,edy)*ki i *taro#er*ki na terenie dzi*ie)*zego Jranu$3 CnieFli ta, tak/e ary)*ki *y*te, wierzeH
religi)nych> ktrych wyraze, * Fwi+te k*i+gi 9ig7Cedy i ich *an*kryt !w Jndiach$ i k*i+gi (we*ty !w
Jranie$3
C #Inie)*zych wiekach z gru#y iraH*kie) wywodzili *i+ *ynni Scytowie i Sar,aci koczownicze i
#a*ter*kie ludy *te#w az)atyckich i w*chodnioeuro#e)*kich3
-a#ewne z re)onu nadwo/aH*kie) i nadka*#i)*kie) 9o*)i dokonaa *i+ te/ ek*#an*)a 97LS4232 ku @irgiz)i
w (z)i Lentralne)3
C ga+zi centralne) eurazy)*kie) okoo 1S00 lat #rzed Lhr3 wyonia *i+ tak/e euro#e)*ka #odgaI
czerwona !na ,a#ie J3 9o/aH*kiego$> zwana orientacy)nie Aa*a,i/(lana,i ze wzgl+du na
#okrewieH*two i o.ecnoF1 ha#loty#u w+gier*kich Aa*w> wywodzcych *i+ z ary)*kich (lanw
!(lan<(rian> #rzy regularne) z,ianie r/l$3
'rzecia> niewielka #odgaI !zielona na ,a#ie$ centralne) eurazy)*kie) wyr/nia *ie ,utac) LS003
S$ z ,utac) -2U4791a1a1gS !od S031232011$
13 Skandynaw*ka> z ,utac) L44U791a1a1gSa3 Ae) D9L( datowany )e*t na okoo 2100
#rzed Lhr3 Cyr/nia ) *zczeglnie ,utac)a ,arkera RL(JJ<1G>21> #odcza* gdy w "uro#ie wyno*i ona
#rzewa/nie 1G72S3 4#rcz tego ,arker 5RS202<1S3 5o te) ga+zi niektrzy do#i*u)> )ako o)cow*k>
#o#ulac)+ z "ulau nad Solaw w Nie,czech> datowan izoto#owo na rok okoo 2000 lat #rzed Lhr3>
no*icieli #rzy#i*ywane) Era*owiano, kultury cera,iki *znurowe)3 Skandynaw*ka gaI 91a1a za#ewne
wnio*a )akieF ele,enty )+zyka #raindoeuro#e)*kiego !od,iany *ate,owe)$ i tworzcego *i+ )+zyka
#ra*owiaH*kiego do #ow*ta)cego etno*u #rager,aH*kiego w Nie,czech Enocnych i #oudniowe)
Skandynawii !zo.3 ni/e)> w rozdz3 G$3
23 Skandynaw*ka z ,utac)a,i L1?031791a1a1gSa1 oraz kole)n L1?2791a1a1gSa1a3
Lzonkowie te) ga+zi ,igrowali tak/e na Cy*#y Bryty)*kie i J*landi+3 D9L( )e) dwch #odga+zi
datowane * na lata od 200 #rzed Lhr3 do ?00 #o Lhr3
5$ Ga+zie Maz)atyckiegoN rodu 91a z
,utac) -GS791a1a1h
13 Eoudniowo7w*chodnia> az)atycka> odznacza)ca *i+
,utac) LS4232791a1a1h13 4.ecna )e*t na *u.kontynencie
hindu*ki,> w Eaki*tanie> (8gani*tanie i Jranie> kra)ach
ara.*kich> na Bli*ki, C*chodzie i w (z)i Lentralne)3
23 @irgi*ka liczca do okoo ?0 #rocent ludnoFci @irgiz)i3 GaI wydzielona okoo 1200
lat te,u
S3 (*zkenazy)*ka> tak/e z ,utac) L4S232791a1a1ah1> roz#ow*zechniona zwa*zcza w
#a*ie ,i+dzy w*chodni, Batykie, a #nocno7zachodni, .rzegie, Dorza Lzarnego3 'a #o#ulac)a> ,a
*wo)ego w*#lnego #rzodka> konwertyt+ na )udaiz, z #o#ulac)i znanych z Bi.lii (*zkenazw
!#rzy*zych Lhazarw;$Q /y okoo G00 rok #o Lhr3
43 (ra.*ko7hindu*ka L02?791a1a1h1a3
I4K41A BQ1OKSH SAN4#)HO9D 5.indo$bato$sowiaCs,i".8
Ka oj"zysty! terenie+ zapewne (dzie- w rejonie Lunaju lub Karpat+ w popula"ji
R1a1a1 do,onaa si sate!iza"ja jzy,a 5dot/d zapewne ,entu!owe(o ja, nadal w
.aplo(rupie R1b8+ r<wnozna"zna z Jor!owanie! si jzy,a praindo$prabato$
prasowiaCs,ie(o.Sate!iza"ja pole(aa (<wnie na innowa"ji+ *e pierwotnie !i,,ie k u
sate!ow"<w przeszo w s 5u ,entu!ow"<w tyl,o utra"io z!i,"zenie8+ staj/" sie
zwy,y! k lub c. Hnet pote!+ od o,oo AAA tysi/"le"ia p.n.e. 5ale jesz"ze przed terytorialn/
e,spansj/ :rasowian8+ nast/pio oddzielenie si jzy,a indo$iraCs,i". Ari<w 5(<wnie z
!uta"j/ 1%;8+ a p<>niej oddzielenie si jzy,abatyjs,ie(o.
)state"znie rodowi z !uta"j/ 12&;+ *yj/"e!u na na niewiel,i! terenie 4uropy+ zapewne
w Kotlinie Lunajs,iej lub w rejonie Karpat+ nale*y przypisa= do,onanie podstawowy".
prasowiaCs,i". innowa"ji jzy,owy".+ ,t<ry". zaistnienie dopiero po rozprzestrzenieniu si
na ws".<d i rozproszeniu ludno-"i byoby ju* nie!o*liwe 5por. ]0 RoYans3i% i c0 [!osow,
2iestni3, t05, n0j8
%C(G(3
C re)onie "uro#y Yrodkowe) na*t#io *#otkanie ludnoFci hg3 91a1a z ludnoFci kultury #ucharw
le)kowatych !za#ewne hg3 J1 i J2$> oraz zainic)owanie i/lu. u#ow*zechnianie kilku innych kultur>
zwa*zcza kultury a,8or kuli*tych i cera,iki *znurowe) !"ulau$ z to#ora,i gadzony,i i gro.a,i
)edno*tkowy,i3 9egre* de,ogra8iczny> trwa)cy w drugi, ty*icleciu #rzed Lhr3 w re)onie "uro#y
Yrodkowe)> nie .y cakowity i nie oznacza kata*tro8y kulturowe)> zwa*zcza /e na **iednich zie,iach
dzi*ie)*ze) %krainy i 9o*)i "uro#e)*kie) tego regre*u nie .yo> co u,o/liwio #Inie)*ze w*#arcie
de,ogra8iczne i kulturowe dla zie, re)onu Yrodkowe) "uro#y3
Eo*t*cri#tu,3
Eowy/*ze .adania zda) *i+ nie #otwierdza1 tezy niektrych archeologw o naddnie#rzaH*ki,
#ochodzeniu Eolakw i ich ha#logru#y 91a> i to do#iero w O wieku #o Lhr3 Lo wi+ce)> wyraInie zauwa/a
*i+> /e Eol*ka le/y )ak.y w centru, *taro/ytnego o*adnictwa *owiaH*kiego ha#logru#y 91a3 C 9o*)i n#3
o rezultatach #o.ierania #r.ek 5N( w#ro*t #i*ze *i+& Eo*kro. 9u*kiego zna)dzie*z
Eolaka !_cdose opccd_n_ bafxs m_iuda> la~sqa3ru143013200U$ )ak #rzedte,> #odo.no
nie*u*znie> ta, *i+ ,awiao& _cdoss opccd_n_7 bafxs qaqaoeba Eodra#ie*z 9u*kiego>
zna)dzie*z 'atara3
T T T T T
..
/-,-0% 12034* +,D)#-5R)6-1S4+7H.
Sa8e9 i !en8u9 w :wie8le genealogii 3#D,%
-!a wst$*0 ga $ocz8t3* 3wietnia 5911 ro3* Zhe gew mor3 Zi+es zre!ac%onowa cie3aw8 $rac y0-0
ct3insona z gowe% pe!andii' h !adach e!e+ent#w donetycznych $ierwotnego %zy3a czowie3a ws$#czesnego
w dzisie%szych %zy3ach_ za3westionowanie g!ottochrono!ogii (3t#ra ograniczaa "adanie %zy3#w do o3oo
e999KP999 !at wstecz'
Ehone,ic 5iZer*ity Su##ort* a Serial 6ounder "88ect Dodel o8 Language ":#an*ion 8ro,
(8rica htt$'nnwww0nyti+es0co+n5911n9en1Pnsciencen1P!ang*age0ht+!tzrs5uh$
-o.3 relac)+ i dy*ku*)+ na .logu 5ieneke*a&
htt#&//dieneke*3.log*#ot3co,/2011/04/origin7o87language7in7*outhwe*t7a8rica3ht,l
9wnoczeFnie #u.likac)a o #ochodzeniu )+zykw indoeuro#e)*kich w re)onie (natoliiQ #onowne
zakwe*tionowanie dotychcza*owe) glottochronologiiQ zo.3 #rac+
Language eZolution and hu,an hi*tory Gray> (tkin*on> Greenhill 2011
oraz relac)+ i dy*ku*)+ nad ni na .logu 5ieneke*a&
htt#&//dieneke*3.log*#ot3co,/2011/04/indo7euro#ean7origin*7neolithic3ht,l3
Ca/na #raca 9yder7Nicholl* z 2010 r3 na te,at #ocztku )3 indoeuro#e)*kich w (natolii
htt#&//www3cere,ade3dau#hine38r/ryder/5Ehil3#d8
oraz o #ocztkach indoeuro#e)*kie) ,onoga,ii ,a/eH*kie) u =etytw w (natolii> 6ortunato 2011&
9econ*tructing the hi*tory o8 ,arriage *trategie* in indo7"uro#ean7*#eaking *ocietie*& ,onoga,y
and #olygyny
zo.3 relac)+ i dy*ku*)+& htt#&//dieneke*3.log*#ot3co,/2011/04/#roto7indo7euro#ean7,onoga,y3ht,l
'erytoriu, (natolii i #oudniowo7w*chodnie) 'urc)i na #ograniczach Syrii i Eale*tyny> ze *wy,i
*ynny,i #unkta,i #rotoneolityczny,i i #roto,ie)*ki,i> n#3 Go.ekli 'e#e i Latal7=oyuk> #rzyciga)
uwag+ archeologw> antro#ologw> hi*torykw i lingwi*tw3 Na)#rawdo#odo.nie) .ya to tra*a
trwa)ce) wiele ty*i+cy lat ,igrac)i z (z)i Yrodkowe) !od (ta)u;$ #o#ulac)i ha#logru# 91a i 91. ku
Bakano, i w ogle ku "uro#ie3 'ak na, od kilku lat #od#owiada genealogia R75N(3
( oto ilu*trac)a #ierwotnego z)awi*ka> zakon*erwowanego w *tarych i izolowanych
*#oeczeH*twach re)onu @aukazu&rwnolega ewoluc)i genw i )+zyka&
C*#zale/noF1 R75N( z geogra8i !w 00 W$ i z )+zykie, !w 04 W$ na terenie @aukazu
!#o#ulac)e *tare i /y)ce w izolac)i$3
- #racy& 9wnolega ewoluc)a genw i )+zykw w re)onie @aukazu> 43 Balanow*ki et al3 20113
4,wienie na .logach& 5ieneke* Blog oraz Gene ":#re**ion> 9azi. @han$
Eowy/*zy *che,at ilu*tru)e go*zon na tych *tronach za*ad+> /e Irde )+zyka nale/y *zuka1 #rzede
w*zy*tki, u #rzodkw3 5la indoeuro#e)*kich )+zykw *ate,owych u #rzodkw 91a> dla
indoeuro#e)*kich kentu,owych u #rzodkiw 91.3
3
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP3
CyraIne #odo.ieH*two )+zykw #rawie w cae) "uro#ie i gwnego )+zyka na Ewy*#ie
Jndy)*ki, *konio )+zykoznawcw do uznania ich #okrewieH*twa i nadania i, nazwy M)+zyki
indoeuro#e)*kieN !logicznie)> wi+c .ardzie) #o#rawnie> .yo.y #i*anie rozdzielne& )+zyki indo7
euro#e)*kie$3 'e zwizki )+zykowe * Fwiadectwe, i*tnienia u ich #odo/a )ednego )+zyka>
wytworzonego i u/ywanego #rzez )edn w*#lnot+ ludzk> /y)c w zwarte) gru#ie na *to*unkowo
niewielki, o.*zarze3 A+zykowi te,u nadano nazw+ M#ra7indo7euro#e)*kiN> a twrcw i u/ytkownikw
tego )+zyka nazwano MEra7indo7euro#e)czyka,iN !#i*ownia w r/nych kra)ach od,ienna$3
Cedug doF1 #ow*zechnie #rzy)+tego w )+zykoznaw*twie !cho1 )u/ zakwe*tionowanego$ #ogoldu>
#rawido ewoluc)i )+zykw> czyli glottochronologia> ,iao.y w*kazywa1 na trzecie ty*iclecie #rzed
Lhr3 )ako na cza* i*tnienia )e*zcze )ednego i nie#odzielonego )+zyka3
Gdy.y chodzio o o)czyzn+ )+zyka i w*#lnoty #randoeuro#e)*kie) to analiza na)*tar*zego *ownictwa>
w*#lnego dla w*zy*tkich )+zykw indoeuro#e)*kich> ,iaa.y w*kazywa1 na *te#y "uro#y Yrodkowe) i
#oudniowe) %krainy lu. 9o*)i !cho1 nie .rak uczonych w*kazu)cych na (z)+ Yrodkow> (natoli+ w
(z)i Dnie)*ze) lu. na Bakany$3
Eodzia )+zyka #raindoeuro#e)*kiego na znane na, dziF )+zyki od kraHcw "uro#y #o Ewy*e#
Jndy)*ki na*t#i na *kutek roz#rze*trzeniania *i+ i ,igrac)i ludnoFci oraz dokonywanych innowac)i
)+zykowych w nowy, ,aych gru#ach> od *ie.ie oddalonych i nara/onych na kontakty z zu#enie
o.cy,i )+zyka,i3
Gwny )ednak #odzia na gru#+ *ate,ow i kentu,ow ,ia.y .y1> wedug wielu )+zykoznawcw>
rezultate, innowac)i w tych )+zykach> ktre #ozo*taway w centru, o.*zaru )+zykw
indoeuro#e)*kich !)3 *ate,owe> zw3 *owiaH*kie i indoiraH*kie$ oraz .raku innowac)i w tych )+zykach>
ktre z #owodu ,igrac)i znalazy *i+ na #ery8eriach tego o.*zaru !)3 kentu,owe> zw3 celtyckie>
ro,aH*kie i ger,aH*kie$3
13 Lech #ierwotnego )+zyka #raindoeuro#e)*kiego .ya #alatalnoF1 *#go*ek tylno)+zykowych>
czyli z,i+kczonych k> g> gh3
23 Eo #odzieleniu i roze)Fciu *i+ w*#lnoty w )edne) )e) cz+Fci do*zo do *#irantyzac)i owych
*#go*ek tylno)+zykowych #alatalnych> czyli #rze*zy one w *#go*ki *zczelinowe ty#u F> *z> *3 Na
*kutek tego n#3 *owo kentu, #rzy.rao .rz,ienie *ate,!)3 awe*ty)*ki$ lu. *to !)3 *owiaH*kie$ i *td
nazwa te) gru#y )+zykw& *ate,owa3
S3 C drugie) zaF cz+Fci #ierwotne) w*#lnoty )+zykowe) do*zo tylko do od,i+kczenia
!dy*#atatalizac)i$ *#go*ek #ierwotnie #alatalnych3 Na *kutek tego n#3 *owo kentu, *to #rzy)+o
.rz,ienie kentu, *to i *td nazwa te) gru#y )+zykw& kentu,owa3
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR3
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP33
5o niedawna uwa/ano> /e do )+zykowe) innowac)i w #o*taci *ate,izac)i do*zo w centru,
#ierwotnego terytoriu, )+zykowegoQ a ta innowac)a nie dotara do nadal kentu,owe) #ery8erii3
Aednak teraz )+zykoznaw*two ,a )u/ do*konal*ze narz+dzie> u,o/liwia)ce dokadnie)*ze u*talenie
warunkw i okolicznoFci #ow*tania w*#lnoty )+zykw indoeuro#e)*kich oraz 8unda,entu #odziau3
'y, narz+dzie, )e*t genealogia R75N(3 4na .owie, w*kazu)e na i*tnienie konkretne)> .iologiczne) i
#ierwotne) w*#lnoty #raindoeuro#e)*kie) w #o*taci #o#ulac)i ha#logru#y 913 4.ecnie atwo do*trzec>
/e )+zyka,i kentu,owy,i wyr/nia) *i+ #rzede w*zy*tki, #o#ulac)e ha#logru#y 91. !celtyckie>
ro,aH*kie i ger,aH*kie$3 Nato,ia*t )+zyka,i *ate,owy,i wyr/nia) *i+ #o#ulac)e ha#logru#y 91a
!*owiaH*kie i indoiraH*kie$3 Ylade, tego> /e od,iana kentu,owa .ya wczeFnie)*z #rzed *ate,ow
8or, )+zyka #raindoeuro#e)*kiego )e*t n#3 kentu,owa #o*ta1 *taro/ytnego )+zyka tochar*kiego w
-achodnich Lhinach3 Badania genetyczne Li et al3 2010 archeologicznych *zcztkw *ied,iu
,+/czyzn w iaohe !in)iang$> identy8ikowanych> cho1 nie#ewnie> z 'ochara,i> wykazay o.ecnoF1
tylko ha#logru#y 91a1a3
Do/na wnio*kowa1> /e do #odziau )+zyka #raindoeuro#e)*kiego na dwie #od*tawowe gru#y
do*zo wi+c do#iero wtedy> gdy *ynow*kie ha#logru#y 91a i 91. roze*zy *i+ de,ogra8icznie i
terytorialnie3 'en #odzia #o#ulac)i ,u*ia na*t#i1 wnet #o #ow*taniu ha#logru#y 91.> okoo 10000
lat te,u> *koro nie do*zo do znacznego z,ie*zania *i+ #o#ulac)i co do R75N(3
4kreFlenie wi+c MJndoeuro#e)czycyN> a racze) .ardzie) logicznie& MJndo7"uro#e)czycyN>
w*kazu)ce dotd tylko na geogra8iczn rozlegoF1 #okrewnych )+zykw i ich u/ytkownikw> )e*t teraz
uza*adnione tak/e #ierwotn )ednoFci ich )+zyka i w*#lny, #ochodzenie, .iologiczny, )ego
twrcw3
4)czyzny zai*tnienia i #ocztkowego rozwo)u w*#lnoty #raindoeuro#e)*kie) trze.a *zuka1 zwa*zcza
ta,> gdzie #ozo*ta)e do dziF na)wi+k*ze zag+*zczenie o)cow*kie) ha#logru#y 917D1?S3 Do/e to .y1 n#3
w (z)i Yrodkowe)> gdzie/ w re)onie #a*,a (ta)u i #ogranicza Eoudniowe) Sy.erii> Dongolii> Lhin>
@irgiz)i i @azach*tanu3 N#3 o.ecne zag+*zczenie ha#logru#y 91T> *i+ga)ce do 20W !5erenko et al3
2000$ w niektrych *tarych #le,ionach> n#3 'eleuci> Szorowie i 'o8alarowie w Eoudniowe) Sy.erii
#od (ta)e, !u Irde rzeki 4. i Aeni*e)$ #od granic z Lhina,i i Dongoli> Fwiadczyo.y racze) za
ty, regione,> cho1 #Inie) )+zykowo doF1 gruntownie *turkizowany, !zo.3 te/ 5y*ku*)a n310$3
5rugi, terene, #ierwotne) w*#lnoty #raindoeuro#e)*kie) to re)on na)wi+k*zego zag+*zczenia 91a7
D4203 'a ha#logru#a nie zo*tawia #o *o.ie licznie)*zych #o#ulac)i i )e*t .ardzo roz#ro*zona3 Badania
D3 9eVueiro i ze*#3 2000> w*kazu) na Jran )ako ,ie)*ce #ochodzenia *ynow*kie) hg3 91a13 'a,
S9R12S232 zidenty8ikowano oglnie w SW .adanych> a w #nocny, Jranie nawet 12W3
Eotwierdzao.y to wy*uni+te #rzy#u*zczenie o .li*kow*chodnie) kole.ce 91a i 91a1> czy dokadnie)
Ea*kowy/ JraH*ki> )ak w*kazu)e C3 9y/kow na #od*tawie .adaH #aleokranio,etrii3
'rzeci, regione, zai*tnienia i #ocztkowego rozwo)u w*#lnoty #raindoeuro#e)*kie) ,o/e .y1
,ie)*ce #ow*tania i oddzielenia *ie ha#loru#y 91.7DS4S3 (le gdzie to .yo; 4*tatnio @lo*ow i ludzie z
)ego kr+gu ha#logru#ie 91. a/ do #oowy J ty*iclecia #3n3e3 #rzy#i*u) #o*ugiwanie *i+ )+zykie,
aglutacy)ny,> #rototurki)*ki,3 5owode, na to ,a) .y1 )+zyki aglutacy)ne w niektrych #o#ulac)ach
z gru#y 91.> n#3 Ba*kowie> "tru*koVwie !;$> #le,iona #nocnokauka*kie nale/ce do rodziny
)+zykw *ino7kauka*kich lu. dene7kauka*kich !w ty, )eni*ie)*kich i dene wFrd Jndian Enocne)
(,eryki wedug teorii Staro*tina$3
Aednak #rzeciwko korelac)i *taro/ytnych ha#logru# chro,o*o,owych R75N( 91a i 91. z
)+zyka,i #raindoeuro#e)*ki,i nie ,o/e Fwiadczy1 8akt niektrych niekon*ekwenc)i w te) dziedzinie3
N#3 Ba*kowie> wyr/nia)cy *i+ doF1 ,oda ga+zi ha#logru# 91.1a2> zatraciy *w) #ierwotny )+zyk
indoeuro#e)*ki> co ,ogo *i+ *ta1 #rzecie/ w trakcie #rze.ywania w re)onie @aukazu al.o na *kutek
wy)tkowe) inic)atywy *trony /eH*kie) w #ierwotne) ,ae) gru#ie rodzinne)3 Eodo.nie )ak /y)ca w
Ba*enie 5una)u ludnoF1> wyr/nia)ca *i+ ha#logru#a,i 91a1a> J2a> 91.1.2 i " !O71S$> #rzy)+a )+zyk
,ae) gru#y wo)enne) Dadziarw !czyli #rzy.yych ze w*chodu %grw<C+grw$ z ha#logru# NQ a
,ogo do tego do)F1 na *kutek #r+/ne) #olityki kulturowe) zdo.ywcw te) zie,i wo.ec .raku
)ednolitoFci )+zykowe) #od.ite) ludnoFci wielo#le,ienne)3 Eodo.nie ,o/na wytu,aczy1 k*ztat
greckiego )+zyka indoeuro#e)*kiego> u/ytkowanego gwnie #rzez #rzy.ye do Frodowi*ka
euro#e)*kiego na Bakanach #o#ulac)e ha#logru#y "1.1.1 o genezie a8rykaH*kie)Q ciekawa )e*t wer*)a
tego )+zyka> .o .li*ka indoiraH*kie,u> ale .ez *ate,izac)i3 Eodo.nie )+zyk (l.aHczykw>
wyr/nia)cych *i+ gwnie ha#logru# 91.1.2> )e*t *ate,owy> co )e*t za#ewne *#owodowane
.ardzie) #ierwotny, o*adnictwe, *owiaH*ki, w ty, re)onie i aktualny, otoczenie,3
Rozu!na i z(odna z )",.a!a zasad/ osz"zdno-"i jest przestro(a+ by >r<de
dzisiejszy". jzy,<w indoeuropejs,i". szu,a= ra"zej u i". bli*szy". i dalszy". przod,<w+
,t<rzy tworz/ i prze,azuj/ poto!ny! swe jzy,i+ a dla pojedyn"zy". i !niejszo-"iowy".
od".yleC 5Bas,owie+ 4trus,owie8 szu,a= inny". przy"zyn i odrbny". o,oli"zno-"i.
Kiea,tualne jest te* powoywanie si na (lotto".ronolo(i+ ,t<ra opiera si tyl,o na
le,sy,alny". "z/st,owy". dany".+ nieuwz(ldniaj/"y". niejednolity". "e". jzy,a+
bo(a"twa Jone!<w i z!ienny". warun,<w je(o rozwoju w (bo,iej staro*ytno-"i.
Jntere*u)ce )e*t> /e )+zyk *io*trzane) wzgl+de, 91 ha#logru#y 92 w #oudniowych Jndiach>
drawidy)*ki> )e*t uwa/any za #okrewny )+zyko, indoeuro#e)*ki, w ra,ach tzw3 gru#y )+zykw
no*tratyckich3 Bardzie) dog+.ne .adania ,ogy.y #ra)+zykw ludnoFci ha#logru#y 92 !w (z)i
Lentralne) i w Jndiach$ ,ogy.y okaza1 *ie #o/yteczne w te) kwe*tii3
pasadniczo nie s8 znane $rzyczyny roze%cia si dr#g +igracy%nych 3rewniaczych ha$!ogr*$ R1a i R1", a
waciwie ich $odgr*$, oznaczanych g#wnie %a3o R1a1 i R1"1"5, z cz%i &entra!ne% 3* 7*ro$ie0 )enety3a, %a3 %*Y
wie+y (zo"0 wyYe%, $3t 1, czciowo zna +echaniz+y $owstawania +*tac%i, s$ontanicznych, a ta3Ye
s$owodowanych $rzyczyna+i zewntrzny+i, czy!i +*tagena+i, czsto nie"ez$ieczny+i d!a zdrowia, a nawet
istnienia cae% $oto+ne% $o$*!ac%i0
2o!no na+ wic $rzy$*szcza, Ye te sa+e $rzyczyny $owodoway $owstanie +*tac%i w rK-gc, a czsto i
zdziesi8t3owanie o%cows3ie% $o$*!ac%i, wraz z roz$roszenie+ si $owstaych gr*$ synows3ich (to wy+owne'
nie!iczne s8 !ady hg R{, hg R1{, a ta3Ye $ierwszych %e% $odgr*$, R1a{ i R1"{k0
C ka/dy, razie wraz z oddalenie, *i+ od *ie.ie tych dwch #o#ulac)i> dry8oway tak/e i ich
)+zyki> r/nicu)c *i+ wolnie) wFrd gru#y w*chodnioeuro#e)*kie) 91a> a .ardzie) inten*ywnie wFrd
zachodnioeuro#e)*kie) gru#y 91.> co .yo uzale/nione zwa*zcza od .ardzo zr/nicowanych
warunkw /ycia i za#ewne du/*zego #rze.ywania wFrd ludw turki)*kich3
5u/y w#yw na #Inie)*zy k*ztat )+zykw #oudniowych> zachodnich i #nocnych w "uro#ie
,iay .li*kie kontakty i ,ie*zanie *i+ ludnoFci *owiaH*kie) 91a1a i italoceltyckie) 91.1a2 z
wczeFnie)*z> tzw3 *taroeuro#e)*k> czyli z #o#ulac)a,i wenecki,i ha#logru#y J !J1 i J2$3 C
#oudniowe) Skandynawii do#rowadzio to do kreolizac)i )+zykw i #ow*tania )+zyka
#rager,aH*kiego3 -a#ewne te/ znaczny .y w#yw tzw3 Staroeuro#e)czykw na #ozo*tae )+zyki gru#y
celtyckie) czy ital*kie)3 Dg te/ .y1 )akiF w#yw no*icieli dynar*kie) ha#logru#y J2a2 na k*ztat
)+zykw *owiaH*kich3 Eodo.nie ,o/na .y Fledzi1 w#yw )+zykw nieindoeuro#e)*kich #o#ulac)i
.li*kow*chodnich A1 i A2> kauka*kie) G2a i #nocno7w*chodnioa8rykaH*kie) "> ktre do "uro#y>
zwa*zcza #oudniowe)> na#yway w ,ezolicie lu. na #ocztku neolitu !zo.3 ni/e)$3
'ak/e w #o#ulac)i indy)*kich (riw> liczce) dziF #onad 100 ,ilionw ludzi z ha#loty#e, *owiaH*ki,
91a1a !10W *#oeczeH*twa Jndii i nieco ,nie) w Jranie$> #ow*tay nowe> daleko idce ,ody8ikac)e
)+zykowe #ra*owiaH*ko7#raindoiraH*kie3 C ty, )+zyku> zwany, *an*kryte, wedy)*ki,> uo/ono
#rzed trze,a ty*ica,i lat w Eend/a.ie Fwi+te hy,ny 9ygwedy> wzywa)ce .ogw do udzielenia
#o,ocy wo)owniczy, (rio, w walce z lokalny,i wroga,i !za#ewne #le,iona,i drawidy)*ki,i$3 C
tych tek*tach> wiernie #rzekazywanych u*tnie od ty*icleci do cza*u ich *#i*ania okoo JO w3 #o Lhr3>
wyczuwa *i+ re,ini*cenc)+ dokonanego #rzez (riw #od.o)u3 Eo#ulac)a 91a1a w Jndiach .ya
na)#rawdo#odo.nie) twrc tak/e *y*te,u ka*towegoQ w na)wy/*ze) kaFcie> wFrd .ra,inw>
wy*t+#u) oni do okoo ?2WB
!Nienaukowa wi+c> krzywdzca dla innych ludw euro#e)*kich> a zaraze, .ardzo *zkodliwa dla
*zacunku Eolakw w "uro#ie> )e*t teza> *zerzona na niektrych #ortalach www3 o to/*a,oFci
Jndoeuro#e)czykw tylko ze Sowiana,i> wywy/*zanie )+zyka i kultury Sowian> ich *iy i rzeko,e)
wo)owniczoFci> z wyraIn nutk *zowiniz,u i #ogardy dla innych narodw> ktre rzeko,o tylko
dzi+ki Sowiano, *tay *i+ indoeuro#e)*kie3 Eodo.ne go*y odzywa) *ie i w niektrych Frodowi*kach
nac)onali*tw 9o*)i czy %krainy3 Ae*t to #r.a za*t#ienia gu#iego #rzedwo)ennego #anger,aniz,u
nie,ieckiego rwnie gu#i, i nie.ez#ieczny, #an*lawiz,e, genetyczny,$3
;.
/-,-0% S()*+%,
2y$owiedb ^awa 1zwarewa, genea!oga rK-gc
i ad+inistratora na*3owego $orta!* rosy%s3ie% genea!ogii genetyczne% Rodst\o
na te+at $rao%czyzny 1owian R1a1a i w re%onie ^o!s3i
(25.1.2011, 13:07)
` H , , R1a ,
, ,
,
.
,
r- ,
yr , -
y
,
x. P a x
, a
, k
a .
:awe Szwarew 523.1.2011+ 1;@078.
Nu!a"zenie.
` gie za$o+ina%cie, Ye +y, 1owianie
R1a, przyszli-!y tu, %a3 si o3az*%e, z zachod*, to
%est od strony :ols,i i $onad $oowa ^o!a3#w to
nasi dosownie "racia0 ^ochodzi+y od tych sa+ych
$rzod3#w0 ^o $rost* %edni "racia 3iedy
$ostanowi!i *da si na wsch#d, a dr*dzy zosta!i
`w do+*a0 ^o %a3i+ czasie ich dzieci i i ci
e+igranci, i ci, co zosta!i w do+* i zacz!i
za$o+ina o $o3rewiestwie, a $ote+ $rzysza
wrogo0 Za wrogo nie $owstaa wr#d nas_ to
nasze rz8dy dzie!iy terytoria i wo%owa!i z nasz8
$o+oc8 o te terytoria 0
ga dor*+ Rodst\o wy$owiedb ]gora RoYans3iego, a*tora drzewa rod* R1a1a
oraz +a$ +igrac%i i roz+ieszczenia $oszczeg#!nych gazi R1a1a,
na te+at $rao%czyzny 1owian R1a1a i w |*ro$ie orod3owe%
Igor1961, (10.02.2011).
. Cy qr
R1a11 (417+), x -
(.). K-
r Br
y E
x.
Igor1961, (22.02.2011).
,O ,
y e rk
k H. H

rrq ,
, x
A(or Ro*ans,i 510.02.20118. Nu!a"zenie.
` 18dz8c $o di!ogenii gazi R1a1a1
(Me17} 3ier*ne3 ich +igrac%i z zachod* na
wsch#d (0 ma3ich za*waYa!nych +igrac%i od
"asen* 2ogi w 3ier*n3* ,aty3* dotychczas
nie stwierdzonoa0
A(or Ro*ans,i 522.02.20118. Nu!a"zenie.
` pa*waYcie, %a3 ci!e zachodniosowias3ie
(1g^ o+i%a%8 terytori*+ (itwy0 Mi+o swo%ego w
$eni so!idnego wie3* i cisego s8siedztwa
geogradicznego zachodniosowias3a, a ta3Ye %e%
"!is3a 3rewna rod3owoe*ro$e%s3a ga8b sa"o %est
re$rezentowana $or#d etnicznych (itwin#w0
2idocznie %e% nosicie!e *da!i si 3* "rzego+
-

a
. H ,
y r
E , r
y yy
.
HBQBM~>B <;S~;V>XC ESLRG;>= Q WBM~VR
FR>EC<@BC WSESBF?>X <MEQ>, >E GBC
QVLMF0 vS?W=<@?; BMB=E >; WSBBF=,
WB<@BM~@R B>? ?VB?MR= WSB=BEM=<@BC
=BWB>?G?@BC, E =B >; <=X@R;=< < >?V@?G
WSB;>=BG >B<?=;M;C <R@MEFE R1a1a1gK
MeP8 R EM=BQ0
B y y
r r
C. E re
r, r y
, a y

x
r . B
k -
-2 R1a1,
x kx N1c1,
R1a1a1g, x
R1a1a1i. Hx,
, yr
a. B: x r-
, r
.
,aty3* stos*n3owo $#bno, d!atego nie zd8Yy!i
$rze+iesza si z $rzyszy+i (itwina+i0
Zo, +oi+ zdanie+, do $owaYny arg*+ent
na rzecz nadd*na%s3ie% $rao%czyzny 1owian0
^ry$ec3ie "ota od$ada%8, $oniewaY one izo!*%8
$ra"atyc38 to$oni+i38, 3t#ra nie 8czy si
nawet z nis3i+ $rocente+ nosicie!i s*"3!ad*
R1a1a1gKMeP8 * ,at#w0
Zen s*"3!ad do3adnie 3ore!*%e nato+iast ze
sowias3i+i +igrac%a+i wczesnego
redniowiecza0 )dy"y ta +igrac%a zacza sie z
region* "!is3iego area* "atyc3ich %zy3#w,
oznaczao"y to wczenie%sze d*gotrwae
s8siedztwo ^ra"at#w i ^rasowian, owoc*%8ce
roz+ywanie+ granic tych gazi0 MoYna to
$rzy$*szcza odnonie gazi "atoK3ar$ac3ie% i
zachodnie% e*razy%s3ie%K5, a!e nie odnonie
R1a1a1g, a ta3Ye $#nocnoe*ro$e%s3ie%
$o+ors3ie% R1a1a1i0 p $ewnoci8 ani ta, ani
ta+ta nie wchodziy w s3ad $ra"atyc3ich
etnos#w0 2niose3' Yyy gdzie da!e%, "ez
"ez$oredniego 3onta3t*0
]gor RoYans3i na Rodst\o 3o!e%ny raz wyraYa swo%e stanowis3o w s$rawie genezy %zy3#w
indoe*ro$e%s3ich i sowias3ich0
5RS@%SA(
Eytanie&
Badania takich narodw )ak 'urcy i C+grzy waFnie do*konale #okazu) oderwanie genw od )+zyka3
CeI,y zre*zt #od lu#+ tak Grec)+3 'en *a, )+zyk )e*t ta, od #onad S ty*i+cy lat3 ( co ,a,y z R7
5N(; @o,#letny ,i*z7,a*z3 !P$ S#)rz,y na Ba*kw> te/ o*iadych3 4gro,na do,inac)a r1.3
-a)rzy),y do Leltw !Jrlandia> Calia i Szkoc)a$3 'e/ do,inac)a r1.3 ( ty,cza*e, ich )+zyki nie ,a)
nic w*#lnego z .a*ki)*ki,3 BaB Ba*ki)*ki nie )e*t nawet )+zykie, indoeuro#e)*ki,> a celtyckie *3
Gdzie tu )akaF logika;3
4d#owiedI&
'ak> )ak na).ardzie) )e*t logikaB Au/ *a, 8akt> /e (rcheowieFci #owoay *i+ tylko na wy)tki> )e*t
#otwierdzenie,> /e #oza ni,i za*ada )akiegoF zwizku )+zyka z roda,i genetyczny,i i*tnie)e3
Aaki to zwizek; C#rawdzie nie ,a .ez#oFredniego !M.iologicznegoN$ zwizku 5N( z )+zykie,> ale R7
5N( tworzy #rzecie/ o)cow*kie gru#y rodowe> a )+zyki tworzyy *i+ kiedyF tylko w #ierwotnych
o)cow*kich w*#lnotach rodowych oraz #le,iennych3 Jnacze) ,wic&
Nie R75N(> ale #ierwotne rody i #le,iona> tworzce *i+ MwokN R75N(> ,a) zwizek z
)+zyka,i i na odwrt3
a$ Eierwotne w*#lnoty rodowe niekiedy ulegy roz.iciu #rzez na#yw i w,ie*zanie *i+ nowych
#o#ulac)i !Grec)a> Bakany .+dce na korytarzu ,igrac)i (z)a7"uro#a$3 A+zyk nato,ia*t #rzez
roz,aite czynniki zewn+trzne !tak/e #olityczne$ w ,aych gru#ach #odlega #roce*o, u)ednolicenia3
.$ C *#oecznoFciach genowo wy,ie*zanych )+zyk ,o/e .y1 narzucony #rzez ,nie)*zoFciowa elit+
!n#3 C+grzy$> ktra #ote, ,o/e zo*ta1 zdzie*itkowana> zo*tawiw*zy )ednak #o *o.ie )+zyk na trwae3
c$ 4 )+zyku ,ae) izolowane) *#oecznoFci ,og zadecydowa1 tak/e inne czynniki> n#3 czynnik /eH*ki3
Eierw*zy #rzodek #le,ienia Ba*kw ,g n#3 odda1 inic)atyw+ *tronie /eH*kie) i )e) otoczeniu>
wzi+tych z )akiegoF #le,ienia kauka*kiego3 (le to w*zy*tko tylko wy)tkiB
EJ"9CS-( J N(AS'(9S-( N(-C( SK4CJ(N SE49-R
Sorzy (s !iczni, +nodzy, dzie!ni
^ro3o$ z &ezarei ^a!estys3ie%, history3 "izanty%s3i, na$isa o3oo PP9 ro3* o
1owianach' `-a!sze 3rainy na $#noc za%+*%8 nie$rze!iczone narodycnt#w (0
^rzedte+ 13!awinowie i cntowie +ie!i %edno i+i_ a!"owie+ o"ydwa
narody za dawnych czas#w zwano Sorio_ +y!, Ye to d!atego, iY w roz$roszeni*
$o wios3ach swoich +iesz3a!i0 p tego $owod* za%+*%8 o"szerne zie+ie_ w ich
$osiadani* %est "owie+ wi3sza cz 3rain z ta+te% strony ]str* (-*na%*a0
1a+ ^ro3o$, %a3 widzi+y, ow8 star8 i %*Y nie*Yywan8 nazw Sori n Sorzy#
nieznaj$c sowias3iego %zy3a, 3o%arzy so"ie na drodze `ety+o!ogii !*dowe%a z grec3i+
sowe+ soraden s$oradyczny, rzad3i0 gowoczeni za a*torzy, n$0 m0 -o"rows3i czy ^0
1zadarzy3, $rzewaYnie widz8 w ni+ ze$s*te o3re!enie Ser%owie0
c!e $rzecieY w %zy3ach sowias3ich d*n3c%on*%e sowo sporzy (!"0+n0, oznacza%8ce
!iczni, dzie!ni, s$rawni, szy"3o rosn8cy, od $rasowias3iego sowa {sor& (!"0 $o% i 'sori,
(!"0+n oraz $raindoKe*ro$e%s3iego rdzenia {ser_ n$0 ac0 -ser, staronord0 sarr,
staroind0 shiraK, o $odo"nych znaczeniach0 1t8d wanie dzisie%sze soro, sory# sorzy i
rzysorzy( oraz staro$o!s3ie sorzy( )si* +$owi3szy (si, +noYy (si_ n$0 w w0'
,#g sorzy $rzy+naYa do"ro, "ogosawi0
Za3 wic'
H sowie Sporzy znajduj/ si podstawowe ele!enty+ odpowiadaj/"e du*e!u+
pr*ne!u rodowi+ ple!ieniu+ ludowi lub narodowi. Llate(o przez tysi/"le"ia !o(o ono
Jun,"jonowa= ja,o pierwszy+ wasne(o po".odzenia etnoni! Sowian+ dla Ire,<w
niezrozu!iay i dlate(o w-r<d ni". ju* nieu*ywany ? ja, zanotowa :ro,op z 9ezarei.
E4S-%@JC(NJ( @9(NJ4D"'9RL-N" C3 9y/kowa
!zo.3$
@ranio,etria w*kazu)e na #ow*tanie odr+.nego ha#loty#u )ako ary)*kiego> identy8ikowanego z
ha#logru# 91a1a> na #oudniu od D3 @a*#i)*kiego> na terenie Ea*kowy/u JraH*kiego !n#3 =otu7
LaZe;$ datowanego #rzez @3 Loona na okoo 20000 lat te,u3 Sta,td #o okoo 10000 latach
na*t#ia ,igrac)a #rzez (natoli+ !Latal7=o)uk$ i Bakany !ok3 ?000 #3n3e3$ ku Yrodkowe) "uro#ie> a
okoo 2S20 #3n3e3 na Nizinie 9o*y)*kie) !zwa*zcza %kraina -achodnia i .a*en Coga74ka$3 @ranioty#
ary)*ki zdecydowanie widoczny )e*t w kulturach cera,iki w*t+gowe) ryte)> cera,iki w*t+gowe) kute)>
cera,iki #ucharw le)kowatych> kulturze cera,iki *znurowe) !*twierdzone) na Eodkar#aciu w
Szczytne) )u/ *#rzed 4000 #3n3eB$3
%5-J(K SK4CJ(N C 'C49-"NJ% S'(94R'NRL=
@%L'%9 (9L="4L4GJL-NRL=
Eo#ulac)e ha#logru#y 91a z )e) #odgru#a,i * wraz z #o#ulac)a,i ha#logru#y 91. gwny,i
twrca,i nie tylko )+zykw z rodziny indoeuro#e)*kie)> ale tak/e wielkiego dziedzictwa kultur
duchowych i ,aterialnych Fwiata *taro/ytnego i nowo/ytnego> zwa*zcza "uro#y3
%.ogi i #ry,itywny ,ateria cera,iczny tzw3 kultury #ra*kie)> korczakow*kie) czy
#ienkow*kie) i #odo.nych> #rzez archeologw wzore, @o**iny #rzy#i*ywany Sowiano, )ako ich
rzeko,o #ierw*zy wytwr> w Fwietle wiedzy o ha#logru#ach 91a1a i 91a1a1g *ta)e w zu#enie inny,
Fwietle3 'a kulturowa #ro*tota ,oga .y1 wytwore, tylko niektrych> do O w3 za#ewne )akoF
od*e#arowanych> niewielkich #o#ulac)i *owiaH*kich> #oru*zonych wcze*ny,i ,igrac)a,i i
z,iana,i de,ogra8iczny,iQ nie ,o/e ona wi+c Fwiadczy1 o #ry,itywiz,ie cae) ol.rzy,ie) #o#ulac)i
91a1a wczeFnie) i w #oowie #ierw*zego ty*iclecia #o Lhr3> o.ecne) #rzecie/ w ,nie)*zy, lu.
wi+k*zy, #rocencie na terytoriu, od Eirene)w> J*landii> wy.rze/y Norwegii !Cikingowie$ i
Bakanw #o %ral i dale) na w*chd> twrcw wielu wielkich> znanych i wyra8inowanych kultur3
Li waFnie> /y)cy na terenach "uro#y Yrodkowe)> Eoudniowo7C*chodnie) i C*chodnie)
Era*owianie 91a1a i 91a1a1g !oraz #o#ulac)e z nich wydzielone$ .yli na tych zie,iach twrca,i lu.
w*#twrca,i wielu kultur archeologicznych !)ak to ukazu) ,a#y na #ortalu "u#edii> zo.3 5y*ku*)e
1U$3
)#wne archeo!ogiczne 3*!t*ry,
tworzone zwaszcza $rzez $o$*!ac%e R1a1a1 i R1a1a1g sa+odzie!nie !*" z
*dziae+ innych,
zwaszcza w 7*ro$ie ^o*dniowoK2schodnie%, orod3owe% i 2schodnie%
Nu trzeba z niewiel,i!i z!iana!i powt<rzy= to+ "o wy*ej powiedziano o popula"ji
R1b+ *e zdeJiniowan/ (enety"znie popula"j R1a trzeba /"zy= z sate!owy! wariante!
jzy,a indoeuropejs,ie(o+ pewny! zubo*enie! Jor! "era!i,i na rze"z "era!i,i
sznurowej+ po"z/t,ie! epo,i br/zu w 4uropie+ obni*enie! ,ultury rolnej na rze"z
.odowli zwierz/t i pasterstwa+ przej-"ie! od !atriar".atu do patriar".atu+
wprowadzenie! (rob<w jednost,owy". i ,ur.an<w na(robny".+ udo!owienie! i
wy,orzystanie! ,onia oraz rozwoje! "e". wojenny"..
No wszyst,o od o,oo ;000 lat p.n.e.+ nie"o poprzedzaj/" w,ro"zenie popula"ji R1b do
4uropy 1a".odniej. Kon,retne ,ultury ar".eolo(i"zne wy!ienia ta,*e i ilustruje !apa!i
portal '4 4upedia.!ap. Bedna, nie,t<re !apy s/ "o naj!niej dys,usyjne.
Kaj(biej+ ".o= !o*e zbyt ryzy,ownie+ te sprawy tra,tuje H. Ry*,ow+ ,t<ry na
podstawie paleo,ranio!etrii przypisuje ,lanowi R1a1a tworzenie nastpuj/"y". ,ultur w
4uropie@ ,. "era!i,i wst(owej rytej+ ,. "era!i,i wst(owej ,utej+ ,. "era!i,i pu".ar<w
lej,owaty".+ a zwasz"za ,. "era!i,i sznurowej. H ,ulturze uniety",iej 5(<wnie zie!ie
Austrii+ 9ze". i 6l/s,a8 propor"je udziau ,lanu aryjs,ie(o R1a1a wa*/ si wz(lde!
udziau ,ultury pu".ar<w dzwonowaty". ,lanu R1b1b2 od 10T do %0T 5np. na 6l/s,u8
udziau aryjs,ie(o. 1 ,ultury uniety",iej ewoluowaa ,ultura u*y",a.
1e zna"zny! udziae! ,lanu R1a1a byy tworzone ta,*e inne ,ultury naddunaj",ie+ np.
,ultura badeCs,a 5"o potwierdzi jedyny osi/(alny ,raniotyp8 i ,ultura 9u"uteni$
Nrypols,a ? o,oo 30T udziau.
Na,*e w 4uropie Hs".odniej@ w za".odni! areale ,ultury Ba!na na p<no" od #orza
9zarne(o 5Sredni Sto(8 stwierdza si o,oo ;0T udziau ,lanu aryjs,ie(o 5we ws".odni!
? bra,8 + w ,ulturze oliCs,iej 31T i zrbowej 00T. H pasie bardziej p<no"ny!+ od
rejonu Ho(a$),a 5#os,wa8 do 'ralu -rod,owe(o i poudniowe(o+ to jest w ,ulturze
Jatianows,iej+ baanows,iej i abaszews,iej udzia ,ranio!etrii ,lanu R1a1a wzrasta z
"zase! i wynosi odpowiednio ;1$3;T+ 32T oraz 01T. Nen udzia upodabnia <w rejon
Kiziny Rosyjs,iej do 1a".odniej ',rainy 5,ultura Nrypols,a i ,ultura Ba!na ? za".odni
jej area8. H wiel,iej ,ulturze Andronowo 5z ,oleb,/ na poudniowy! 'ralu+ s,/d
rozpo"zyna si e,spansja ,u Atajowi+ Azji 6rod,owej i :oudniowej8 udzia ,ranio!etrii
,lanu R1a1a wzrasta do o,oo 3%T ? &0T. Na! poto!,owie ,ultury "era!i,i sznurowej
wyra>nie nie sprzyjali ob"y! etnoso!.
%wzgl+dniw*zy dotychcza*owe dane antro#ologii> archeologii i )+zykoznaw*twa hi*torycznego> wielu
,o/e odczuwa1 ogro,ne za*koczenie do*tarczony,i #rzez genealogi+ genetyczn> zwa*zcza geno7
geogra8i+ dany,i i #owy/*zy,i wnio*ka,i3 (le trze.a te/ zachowa1 o*tro/noF1> #rzyna),nie) do
cza*u #rze.adania ludzkiego ,ateriau archeologicznego oraz udo*konalenia ,etod datowania> ktre
nadal do#rowadza) do wielu roz.ie/noFci #ozo*tawia) wiele nie#ewnoFci chronologicznych3
C ka/dy, razie teraz od wielu archeologw> zwa*zcza *kra)nych *owiaH*kich allochtoni*tw>
#owy/*ze 8akty .+d wy,agay wiele #rzy*owiowe) wielkodu*znoFci i #rzyznania *i+ do #o,yek>
zrozu,iaych #rzecie/ z #owodu dotychcza*owe) niewy*tarczalnoFci narz+dzi do u*talania etnicznego i
cza*owego znakowania kultur3
< < < < <
C nowy, i korzy*tny, dla na* Fwietle *ta)e tak/e wy)tkowa zwartoF1 i licze.noF1 etniczna oraz
to/*a,oF1 *owiaH*ka Eolakw> o.ecnych od wielu ty*i+cy lat na te) zie,i !%nderhill u*tali nawet
.li*ko 12 ty*i+cy lat$> cho1 ,o/e z okre*a,i znacznego regre*u de,ogra8icznego> tzw3 #u*tki
o*adnicze)3 Cida1 to *zczeglnie na tle **iednich kra)w> zwa*zcza Nie,iec !gdzie Ger,anw z
nor,aH*kie) ha#logruo#y J71 nieco #onad 40W> ze zger,anizowane) cz+Fci celtyckie) hg 91. 40W>
a ze *owiaH*kie) 91a1a i 91a1a1g 20W$ oraz ,ie*zkaHcw Lzech i Sowac)i !gdzie o#rcz Sowian
/y)e doF1 liczna gru#a celtycko7ger,aH*ka z 91. od#owiednio Lzechy 2UW i Sowac)a 1?W oraz hg
#oudniowoeuro#e)*ka J72> #o 1UW$3 J zadziwia nadto> zwa*zcza wo.ec genetyczne) r/norodnoFci w
ha#logru#ie zachodnioeuro#e)*kie)> genetyczna )ednolitoF1 cae) ha#logru#y *owiaH*kie) 91a1a> w
ktre) dotd nie do*zo do /adne) dal*ze) ,utac)i i wydzielenia *i+ o*o.ne) #odgru#y genowe)Q na
kontynencie euro#e)*ki, !Eolacy> Sowacy> DacedoHczycy> %kraiHcy> 9o*)anieP$ r/ni,y *i+ tylko
o*o.niczy,i allela,i w S'93
Szkoda tylko> /e ci Sowianie> cho1 tak liczni> nie utworzyli wczeFnie)> )u/ w *taro/ytnoFci> )edne)
zwarte) gru#y #olityczne) i wa*nego wielkiego i trwaego #aH*twa3 'eraz trze.a ich identy8ikowa1 nie
tylko z #Inie)*zy,i Sklawina,i> (nta,i i Ceneda,i!odOJ w3 #o Lhr3$> ale i #od wielo,a inny,i>
wczeFnie)*zy,i nazwa,i ludw *taro/ytne) "uro#y> ,o/e cznie z niektry,i MSar,ata,iN !od JJJ
w3 #rzed Lhr3 #o #Ine Fredniowiecze$> niektry,i MScyta,iN !znany,i co na),nie) od OJJ w3 #rzed
Lhr3$>(or*a,i> Neura,i> Budyna,i> Delanchla)na,i> a zwa*zcza (ria,i !ok3 1200 lat #rzed #3n3e3$3
'rze.a ich wi+c widzie1> i to )u/ w *taro/ytnoFci> na Bakanach i nad 5una)e,> na rozlegy, terenie od
Batyku #o Dorze Lzarne> od zie, 9u*i #o Dorze (ral*kie> a nawet od %ralu #o zie,ie #nocnych
Jndii> Eaki*tanu i Jranu w*z+dzie tworzcych niekiedy #ry,itywne> ale niekiedy i .ardzo rozwini+te
i wyra8inowane kultury archeologiczne !zo.3 wy/e) i na ,a#ach "u#edii&
htt#&//www3eu#edia3co,/euro#e/neolithic\euro#e\,a#3*ht,l$ oraz *y*te,y #roto#aH*twowe3
5zi*ie)*za #rze*trzennoF1 i nie,al )ednolitoF1 )+zykw *owiaH*kich> nakada)ca *i+ na
#rze*trzennoF1 ha#logru# 91a> ka/e na, zakada1 #odo.n #rze*trzennoF1 wczeFnie)*zego>
niezr/nicowanego )e*zcze )+zyka #ra*owiaH*kiego3 Biorc )ednak #od uwag+ 8akt> /e )+zyk )e*t
gwny, czynnikie, r/nicu)cy, ludzi i wytwarza)cy, Fwiado,oF1 odr+.noFci etniczne)> ta wielka
)ednolitoF1 i #rze*trzennoF1 #ra)+zyka .ya zaraze, ha,ulce, #roce*w #olitycznych3 'o tu,aczy
trudnoFci w identy8ikac)i i niewielk o.ecnoF1 Sowian w tek*tach *taro/ytnych hi*torykw i
geogra8w3 Brak wyraInego czynnika zagro/eH i ,i+dzy etniczne) rywalizac)i nie w#ywa na
#rzy*#ie*zenie integrac)i *#oeczne) i ,o.ilizac)i go*#odarcze)3 5o#iero w .li/*zy, zetkni+ciu *i+ z
#oudniowo i zachodnioeuro#e)*ki,i> zorganizowany,i *#oecznoFcia,i i #aH*twa,i Sowianie
uFwiada,ia) *o.ie *wo) odr+.noF1> a nawet nada) *o.ie nazw+ etniczn& Sowianie> )ako ci
,wicy zrozu,iay,i *owa,i> w #rzeciwieH*twie do Mnie,wicychN !#*3 Mnie,M$ lu. ,wicych
niezrozu,ia ,ow> czyli Nie,ca,i3 Nazw t okreFlano #ocztkowo za#ewne #rawie w*zy*tkich
Nie7Sowian3
G3 Nieindoeuro#e)*kie ha#logru#y i #oEulac)e w "uro#ie>
zwa*zcza #rzedindo7euro#e)*cy Cenetowie / Cenedowie
@iedy indoeuro#e)*kie #o#ulac)e 91a i 91. zacz+y w #olodowcowy, ,ezolicie> neolicie lu. e#oce .rzu
za*iedla1 "uro#+> za*tay tu za#ewne .ardzo rzadkie o*adnictwo ludnoFci *tar*ze)> #rzed7
indoeuro#e)*kie)> ktra #rze/ya okre* wielkiego zlodowacenia3 Eod wzgl+de, R75N( to ha#logru#a J
!J1 i J2$3
'ak wi+c #od wzgl+de, #ochodzenia o)cow*kiego ludnoF1 "uro#y nie )e*t zu#enie )ednolita3 Eo#ulac)e
#ierwotnie indoeuro#e)*kich ha#logru#& M*owiaH*kichN 91a1a1 i Mitalo7celtyckichN 91.1a2> czyli
twrcw )+zyka #raindoeuro#e)*kiego> *tanowi okoo ?0 #rocent "uro#e)czykw3 20 #rocent to chy.a
)edyna #rzedindoeuro#e)*ka ha#logru#a J !J1 i J2$> czyli #rawdo#odo.nie )acyF MCenetowieN3
Eozo*tae 10 #rocent to zwa*zcza .li*kow*chodnie A1 i A2> #nocnoa8rykaH*ko7ege)*ka ">
#nocno*y.ery)*ka i ugro8iH*ka N> ,aoaz)atycka/kauka*ka G i hindu*ka/cygaH*ka =3
13 =(EL4G9%E( J !J1 i J2$ czyli #rzed7indoeuro#e)*cy "netowie/Cenetowie/Cenedowie!;$3
Ca/na #u.likac)a& (3@lo*ow> Ga#logru##a J> Cie*tnik 9o**i)*ko) (kade,ii 5N@7genealogii> S/1 2010
!*3 G0712U$
htt#www3lulu3co,7ite,*7Zolu,e\0?7U04G0007U04G?22727#rint7U04G?223#d8
Di+dzy 4U30007403000 lat te,u #o)awia *i+ w "uro#ie #ierw*za #o#ulac)a z gatunku ho,o *a#ien*7
*a#ien* !Mczowiek w*#cze*nyN$3 By to tzw3 Mczowiek kro,anioH*kiN !-achodznia 6ranc)a$> al.o
Mczowiek .ohunickiN> zidenty8ikowany w ,ie)*cowoFci Bohunice k3Brna !Lzechy$ oraz w kilku
,ie)*cowoFciach "uro#y Eoudniowe) !Cochy$> Yrodkowe) !Bugaria> Dorawy i Eol*ka75zier/y*aw$ i
C*chodnie) !%kraina i 9o*)a$> n#3 Mczowiek z @o*tienek nad 5one,> S0000 lat3 Nie znaleziono dotd
ich wyro.w7narz+dzi> ale n#3 #rzez #orwnanie z czowiekie, z (h,arian !'urc)a$ uznano .ohunic)an
za ludzi w*#cze*nych> ich kultur+ ,aterialn okreFlono )ako #roto7oryniack> a )ako o)czyzn+ ich
#ochodzenia uznano Bli*ki C*chd3 - #owodu wy*t#ienie okoo 403000 lat te,u z)awi*ka Mzdarzenie
=einricha4> *#owodowanego chy.a wulkaniczny, Jgni,.rite> ktrego *kutkie, .yo gwatowne>
trwa)ce kilka*et lat zanieczy*zczenie i ozi+.ienie at,o*8ery> czowiek .ohunicki ,g #rawie cakowicie
wygin13
Eo ty, zdarzeniu> okoo SU3000 lat te,u #o)awia *i+ )u/ czowiek Mkla*yczne)N kultury oryniackie)3
@ultura ta znana )e*t w cae) "uro#ie S2300072G3000 lat te,u> tak/e w Eol*ce> n#3 w )a*kini w 4.azowe)
koo Nowego 'argu !zo.3 5y*ku*)a n31S$3 C *u,ie to okoo 20W ,ie*zkaHcw "uro#y3
Eod wzgl+de, genetyczny, czowiek oryniacki odznacza *i+ #rawdo#odo.nie ha#logru# JA> #ow*ta
w Dezo#ota,ii> okoo 20000 lat te,u3 Sta,td> wedug #rzy#u*zczeH (3@lo*owa> #o#rzez @aukaz
do*ta *i+ na zie,ie nad Cog i 5one,3 Aego Flade, ,o/e .y1 tzw3 czowiek z @o*tienek !z okoo
S03000 lat$3 (le nie i*tnie)e ta ,utac)a do dziF> gdy/ )e) #o#ulac)a ,oga wygin1 w cza*ie o*tatniego
wielkiego zlodowacenia !DGL> od okoo 203000 lat te,u$3 Nato,ia*t #ozo*taa #o nie) *ynow*ka
#o#ulac)a z ha#logru# J !D1?0$ oraz )e) #odgru#y J1 !D22S$ i J2 !ES?32$3 Cyoniy *i+ one )u/ #rzed
okre*e, wielkiego zlodowacenia> S030007203000 lat te,u3
A+zykowo .yy to #o#ulac)e *taroeuro#e)*kie> #rzed7indoeuro#e)*kie3 -a#ewne one za#ocztkoway i
rozwi)ay od okoo 2U3000 do 223000 kultur+ graweck !znan tak/e z )a*kini 4.azowe)$> oraz ,od*ze
)e) #ochodne> n#3 #olodowcow kultur+ ,agdaleH*k> *#otykan tak/e w kilku regionach Eol*ki
Eoudniowe)3 -a#ewne ta ha#logru#a J> roz#ro*zona #o "uro#ie w kilku genetycznych #odgru#ach>
tworzya #o#ulac)e> zwane w *taro/ytnoFci i Fredniowieczu "netowie/Cenetowie/ Cenedowie !nie
,ie*za1 z Cenec)ana,iB$Q zo.3 5y*ku*)a n3S$3
:rzedindoeuropejs,a .aplo(rupa A
i jej pod(rupy w 4uropie+ wg0 &hiaroni et a!0
599910 13andynawia, gie+cy, gadrenia'
to ger+as3ie hg0 ]1 (M5P4 i ]5"1 (M5540
50 1ardynia, ^w0 ]"ery%s3i, ]r!andia' to hg ]5a1 (M5j0
40 &horwac%a i f3raina'
to dynars3a, sowias3a hg ]5a5 (Me540
($ =a#logru#a J1> czyli gwnie MCenetowie/CenedowieN ger,aH*cy3
- o)cow*kie) ha#logru#y J gdzieF na #oudniu "uro#y okoo 223000 lat te,u> a wi+c )e*zcze #rzed LGD>
wyonia *i+ w drodze ,utac)i D22S ha#logru#a J1 !i7)eden$Q )e) #o#ulac)a #rzetrwaa zlodowacenie
za#ewne na 9o*y)*ki, Ni/u lu. w (kwitanii !#oudniowo7zachodnia 6ranc)a$3 Lza* )e) rozwo)u i
ek*#an*)i #rzy#ada na drugie ty*iclecie #ne3 9oz#rze*trzenia *ie ona #Inie) na #noc ku 6inlandii i
na #oudnie ku Autlandii i #nocny, Nie,co,3 5ziF w Szwec)i *tanowi 42W ludnoFci> w Norwegii
S0W> J*landii SSW> 5anii S0W> 6inlandii 2UW> a w Nie,czech #onad 20W3
%dao *ie u*tali1 tzw3 #ierw*zych #rzodkw #o*zczeglnych #o#ulac)i ha#logru#y J13 C*#lny #rzodek
ha#logru#y J1 w (nglii> Jrlandii i Szkoc)i /y okoo 1422 #3n3eQ w Skandynawii 1S?2Q w "uro#ie
kontynentalne) od =i*z#anii do Sowac)i 1422Q we "uro#ie C*chodnie) cznie z Eol*k 1222Q tak
*a,o w Nie,czechQ Bli*ki C*chd 14?2 #3n3e3 "k*#an*)a te) ha#logru#y cza*owo ko)arzy *i+ wi+c z
ek*#an*) *owiaH*kie) ha#logru#y 91a1a3
'u dygre*)a o #ow*taniu Ger,anw3 Lho1 ha#logru#a J1 #o)awia *i+ w Skandynawii wczeFnie)> tworzc
ta, wielkie *taro/ytne kultury #rzedneolityczne> to )ednak okoo 1S0071400 lat #3n3e3 na Ewy*#ie
Skandynaw*ki, #rze.ywaa ich .ardzo ,aa w*#lnota3 Aeden .owie, ,+/czyzna te) ha#logru#y okoo
1S?2 #3n3e3 da ta, #ocztek w*zy*tki, #Inie)*zy, #o#ulac)o, nordycki, te) ha#logru#y3 Nieco
#Inie) #o)awio *i+ ta, tak/e i #le,i+ M*owiaH*kieN z hg 91a1> oraz M#nocno7zachodni oddziaN J2.1
!D22S$> a w ra,ach ,igrac)i z celtyckie) kultury =all*tatt #od (l#a,i ok3 ?00 #3n3e3 dotary ta,
#le,iona ha#logru#y 91.1.23 J waFnie z tych trzech gru#& J1[J2.1> 91.1.2 i 91a1a na *tyku
Skandynawii i #nocnych Nie,iec #ow*tali Ger,anowie3 5ziF wFrd nich okoo 40W to ha#logru#a
J1[J2.> okoo 40W 91.1.2 i okoo 20W 91a1a3 'ak wi+c ra*i*tow*kie ,yFlenie niektrych dawnych
Nie,cw o czy*toFci ra*owe) Ger,anw zo*tao #rzez dzi*ie)*z genealogi+ genetyczn zu#enie
*ko,#ro,itowane3
^o$*!ac%a hg ] i
]5_
g#wne $odgr*$y
Ka lewo@
^rzedindoe*ro$e%s3ie ha$!ogr*$y ] i ]5 i ich g#wne
$odgr*$y0
Ka prawo@
^odgr*$a "a3as3osowias3a ]5a1KMe54,
w dzisie%szy+ %e% zagszczeni*'
,a3any pachodnie (,oniaK/ercegowina
i +ie%sce genezy i do 7P6 (+a$y z 2i3i$edii

B$ =a#logru#a J2> J2a1> J2a2 gwnie MCenetowie/CenedowieN *owiaH*cy3
C #o#ulac)i hg J #o ,utac)i D4SU> okoo 213000 lat te,u> a wi+c tak/e #rzed o*tatni, zlodowacenie,>
wyonia *i+ ha#logru#a J23 a z nie)>
Eow*taa w nie) okoo 203000 #odgru#a J2a1 !D42S$> ktra w *woi, cza*ie> wraz ze Sowiana,i
!91a1a$> zdo,inowaa niektre re)ony .akaH*kie i Frodkowo7w*chodnie) "uro#y& Lhorwac)a 42W>
Bugaria SSW> Ser.ia 2?W> 9u,unia 1?W> C+gry12W> BiaoruF 22W> %kraina 12W3 #d37zach3 9o*)a 11W>
Eol*ka 10W> Sowac)a 10W$3 Nic dziwnego> /e w *taro/ytnoFci niektrzy autorzy nie u,ieli rozr/ni1
,i+dzy rdzenny,i Sowiana,i !91a1$ a ze*lawizowany,i Ceneta,i !J1a2$Q )u/ wtedy o.ie #o#ulac)e
tworzyy )ak.y )eden etno*3 'o za#ewne ci Cenetowie tworzyli na)*tar*ze kultury archeologiczne na
*te#owych terenach %krainy i #oudniowe) 9o*)i> n#3 kurhanow czy cera,iki *znurowe)> zani, nie
doczya do nie) ,od*za> #rzy.ya z zachodnich Bakanw czy )u/ znad 5una)u #o#ulac)a *owiaH*ka
91a13
%dao *i+ u*tali1 #ierw*zych w*#lnych #rzodkw dla #o*zczeglnych #o#ulac)i =a#logru#y J23 4kazaa
*i+ ona .ardzie) ni/ hg3 J1 od#orna na #rzeciwnoFci /ycia w ta,ty, cza*ie3 J tak& w (nglii w*#lny
#rzodek w*zy*tkich #o#ulac)i J2 /y 1S000 #3n3e3Q C Jrlandii 14200 #3n3e3Q w Szkoc)i 14U00 #3n3e3Q w
Skandynawii 1S000 #3n3e3Q "uro#a kontynentalna od =i*z#anii do Sowac)i 1422 #3n3e3Q Nie,cy G0?2
#3n3e3Q "uro#a C*chodnia cznie z Eol*k 14200 #3n3e33
'u dygre*)a o #ow*taniu 9u*i3 C ru*kich Lato#i*ach na#i*ano& MErzy*zli Caregowie3 Nazywali *i+ 9uFP
Dieli )+zyk ru*ki i *owiaH*kiM3 C OJJJ w3 do#i*ano z 8antaz)i> /e Caregowie #rzy*zli zza ,orza i .yli
Nor,ana,i3 6aktycznie to chodzio racze) o #le,iona 9ugw/9u*w> /y)cych wFrd Sowian co
na),nie) od JJ w3 w #a*ie ,iedzy Batykie, a Dorze, Lzarny, i z,aga)cych *ie z na#ore,
ger,aH*kich Gotw3 Jch genetyczne ha#lolgru#y to J1 !#o#ulac)a .atycko7*kandynaw*ka$ oraz J2a2
!#o#ulac)a #oudniowo*owiaH*ka$3 4glnie wFrd dzi*ie)*zych M9u*kichN hg J2a1 to 12W> a J1 0>2W
ludnoFci> /y)cych o.ok o.ok 91a1a 4UW i N1c 14W3 -a#ewne z hg J1 .y 9uryk> 4lga> Codzi,ierz i
inni #roto#laFci 9u*i ki)ow*kie) i nowogrodzkie)3
-o.3 o ty,& @lo*ow> =a#loty#y #oudniowych i .aty)*kich ru*kich Sowian& cztery
#le,iona; w& Eroceeding*333 t3 JJ/2 !200G$> *3 U017U12 !#or3 (3 @lo*ow$3
5ygre*)a o #ow*taniu Batw3 %wa/a *i+> /e etno* i )+zyk Batw !czyli zwa*zcza Eru*w> Litwinw i
Koty*zy$ wydzieliy *i+ ze *owiaH*kich> o czy, Fwiadcz niektre w*#lne innowac)e )+zykowe .ato7
*owiaH*kie> i to na)#Inie) okoo 1000 lat #rzed Lhr3 5ziF w re)onie Era.atw *#otyka,y *owiaH*k
ha#logru#+ 91a1a okoo 40W i #rzed7indoeuro#e)*kie& .atycko7*kandynaw*k J1 i .akaH*k J2a2>
raze, okoo 0W !BiaoruF 22W J2a2$3 Do/na wi+c uwa/a1> /e ha#logru#y J1 i J2 !Cenetowie .atyccy$
ucze*tniczyy w ty, regionie w ewoluc)i *owiaH*kiego )+zyka i wydzieleniu *i+ )ego 8or,y .atyckie)
!#or3 (3@lo*oZ$3
=a#logru#ie J2a1 !D42S$> o.ok hg "1.1.1a2 !O71S$> genetycy #rzy#i*u) u#ow*zechnianie rolnictwa>
#rzyna),nie) w #oudniowo7w*chodnie) "uro#ie> #rze)+tego w okolicach w*chodniego wy.rze/a
(driatyku od #rzy.ye) z (natolii ha#logru#y A2.2 !D241$3 -o.35y*ku*)a n3113
Nato,ia*t )e) *io*trzana #odgru#a J2a2 !D20$> wyoniona okoo 1G3000 lat te,u> zdo,inowaa
Sardyni+ !SGW$ oraz nielicznie #rzetrwaa na #nocny, zachodzie "uro#y !@ra) Ba*kw> Bretonia>
(nglia> Jrlandia$3 Eo#ulac)o, ha#logru# J1> J2a2 i 91a1a ,o/na .y #rzy#i*a1 dziea kultury ,egalitw
!ka,iennych kr+gw$> w ty, *ynnego Stonehenge w (nglii z okoo 2U00 lat #rzed Lhr3
%C(G(B 4.ok Cenetw/Cenedw> *tanowicych od *taro/ytnoFci w*#lne etno*y z Ger,ana,i lu.
Sowiana,i> naukowa literatura wy,ienia tak/e Cenetw iliry)*kich na zie,iach #nocne) Jtalii !J w3
#rzed Lhr3$> #Inie) ulegych ro,anizac)i> oraz Cenetw Leltyckich> ktrych etnoni,y zo*tay
zanotowane w (l#ach Szwa)car*kich> w -achodnie) 6ranc)i i w Calii3 5o#atrzy1 *i+ ich ,o/na tak/e #od
nazw M"netoiN u =o,era )ako ucze*tnikw wo)ny tro)aH*kie) w (z)i Dnie)*ze) #rzed 1200 r3 #rzed Lhr3
i o*adnikw nad 5olny, Eade, we Co*zech> a #Inie) w "neidzie Cergiliu*za !#or3 G3
AagodziH*ki& -agadkowy lud CenetowieQ #or3 w Ciki#edia$
:opula"je A1 i A2 to prawdopodobnie staroeuropejs"y HenetowieUHenedowie 5nie
Hene"janieV8 Daplo(rupa A wydzielia si z oj"ows,iej AB !o*e o,oo ;0.000$23.000 lat te!u w
4uropie+ zapewne na Ba,ana".. 1apewne te popula"je byy tw<r"a!i przedlodow"owej ,ultury
(rawe",iej i polodow"owej ? !a(daleCs,iej. :rzetrway epo, wiel,ie(o zlodowa"enia zapewne w
reJu(iu! nadwo*aCs,i! 5.(. A18 ba,aCs,i! 5.( A2a18+ za".odnioJran"us,i! 5.( A2b8.
Bu* w !ezoli"ie i neoli"ie+ rozproszone po "aej 4uropie+ /"zyy si zapewne pod etnoni!e!
HenetowieUHenedowie z napywowy!i luda!i+ wy*ej ,ulturowo zaawansowany". popula"ji R1a1a+ a
p<>niej ta,*e R1b1b2+ tworz/" z ni!i nowe+ ,rystalizuj/"e si wa-nie etnosy europejs,ie i wpywaj/"
nie,iedy na ,sztat i". jzy,<w indoeuropejs,i". najwyra>niej sw<j udzia zazna"zyli w powstaniu
etnosu (er!aCs,ie(o+ daj/" !u zaraze! zna"zn/ "z-= swoje(o zasobu jzy,owe(o.
:o ,il,u dziesi/t,a". tysi"y lat *y"ia w rozproszeniu na ,ontynen"ie europejs,i! popula"je A1 i A2
!usiay bardzo r<*ni= si jzy,owo !idzy sob/ i ja,o lo,alny substrat wpyway na r<*ni"owanie si
jzy,<w indoeuropejs,i". przybyy". tu popula"ji R1a 5sate!owy".8 i R1b 5,entu!owy".8.
23 =(EL4G9%E( A1 i A2> #ierwotnie .li*kow*chodnie3
"uro#e)*kie ha#logru#y A1 i A2 * #ochodzenia .li*kow*chodniego3 =g A1 w na)wi+k*zy, #rocencie
wy*t+#u)e wFrd (ra.w> ydw i 'urkw3 Nato,ia*t A2 )e*t doF1 #ow*zechna w "uro#ie #oudniowe) i
#oudniowo7w*chodnie)> zwa*zcza w re)onie Grec)i !'urc)a SSW> @reta S2W> (l.ania 2UW> Grec)a 2?W>
9u,unia 24W> Jtalia 20W$3 -a#ewne ona #rzy.li/ya "uro#ie ele,enty kultury 8enickie)3
Gwnie #o#ulac)i #odgru#y A2.2 !D241$ zawdzi+cza,y #rzynie*ienie rolnictwa z (natolii do "uro#y
na #ocztku neolitu> okoo ?200 lat te,u3 -aF do )ego #rze)+cia i u#ow*zechniania !,3in3 w kulturze
LB@$ #o "uro#ie #rzyczyniy *ie "1.1.1a2 i J2a2 !Battaglia et al3 200G$ oraz na #ewno #o#ulac)e
o.ydwu ha#logru# 91a3
S3 =(EL4G9%E( "1.1.1a> a8rykaH*ko78enicka> oraz "1.1.1a2 !#oudniowoeuro#e)*ka$3
Enocno7w*chodnia a8rykaH*ka #o#ulac)a ha#logru#y "> .ardzo *tara> .o #ow*taa ok3 223000 lat te,u
i /y)ca gwnie w #nocno7w*chodnie) i #nocne) (8ryce !zw3 "gi#t i "tio#ia$> #rzy.ya gwnie #rzez
,aoaz)atyck (natoli+ do Grec)i )ako 6enic)anie> w okre*ie #rzedrolniczy,> z (z)i Dnie)*ze) okoo
U000 lat #rzed Lhr3 Cy*t+#u)e zwa*zcza na #oudniowych wy.rze/ach "uro#y )akoha#logru#a "1.1.1a
!D?U$3 - nie)> )u/ na terenie "uro#y> wyonia *i+ rdzennie euro#e)*ka ha#logru#a "1.1.1a2 !O71S$3
Eo#ulac)e " zna)du) *i+& Grec)a 2?W> Ser.ia 24W> (l.ania 22W> Eortugalia 1?W> Bugaria 12W> Cochy
11W> Sowac)a 11W3 -a#ewne ona #rzynio*a do "uro#y kultur+ znad Nilu3
=a#logru#ie "1.1.1a2 !O71S$ #rzy#i*u)e *i+> o.ok hg J2a2 !D42S$> #rzy#i*u)e *i+ u#ow*zechnienie na
Cy.rze/ach Yrdzie,no,or*kich rolnictwa> #rze)+tego od #rzy.ye) z (z)i Dnie)*ze) hg A2.2 !D241$
43 =(EL4G9RE( N1c i N1.> ugro8iH*kie3
Enocno*y.ery)*kie i ural*ko78iH*kie #o#ulac)e to ha#logru#a N !na drzewie genealogiczny, hg N to
)ak.y daleka kuzynka ha#logru#y 9$3 =a#logru#a N wyonia *i+ we w*chodnich Lhinach okoo 123000
lat te,u> a )e) #odgru#y #rzez re)on (ta)u dotary do zie, Sy.erii #od.iegunowe)> a *td okoo 07?
ty*i+cy lat te,u !(@$ do #nocnow*chodnie) "uro#y3 Licznie re#rezentowana#odgru#a N1c
!D40/'at$ datowana )e*t na okoo 1200 lat #rzed Lhr3> gwnie w #nocnow*chodnich re)onach "uro#y
od %ralu i grne) Cogi #o #nocn Skandynawi+ !Suo,i7La#oHczycy$3 J tak& 6inlandia 2UW> Litwa
42W> Kotwa SUW> "*tonia S4W> 9o*)a 2SW> a wFrd C+grw tylko 1W !co u)awnia> /e w zdo.yciu zie,
*owiaH*kich nad 5una)e, w koHcu J w3 ucze*tniczy tylko niewielki oddzia rdzennych Dadziarw$3
5aleko ,nie) liczna wy*t+#u)e wFrd nich tak/e *io*trzana ha#logru#a N1. !D4S$3
23 =(EL4G9%E( G2a> #ierwotnie kauka*ka3
S#oradycznie i w niewielkie) licz.ie wy*t+#u)e w "uro#ie ludnoF1 ha#logru#y G2a3 Erzy.ya ona z (z)i
Dnie)*ze)> gwnie ,o/e z #o#ulac)i 4r,ian !ta, okoo S0740W$ i **iednich #o#ulac)i oraz 'urc)i
!kilkanaFcie #rocent$3 C znaczny, #rocencie zaludnia) dziF Sardyni+ !12W$3 Eoni/e) 10W zaludnia)
Szwa)cari+> (u*tri+> #oudniowe Nie,cy i Lzechy3 Nie )e*t wy)aFniona o.ecnoF1 i rola te) #o#ulac)i w
"uro#ie3 Erawdo#odo.nie u#ow*zechniali oni wyro.y z ,iedzi w "uro#ie w okre*ie wcze*nego neolitu i
#rzed e#ok .rzu> czyli okoo 4000 lat #rzed Lhr3
03 =(EL4G9%E( =1a> hindu*ko7cygaH*ka3
@ilka innych #ozo*taych nieindoeuro#e)*kich ha#logru# w "uro#ie> .ardzo rzadkich> ,a tu
#ochodzenie racze) w*#cze*ne3 Na)licznie)*za z nich to gwnie #ochodzca z Jndii
!Eend/a.$ ha#logru#a => ktr odznacza) *i+ euro#e)*cy Lyganie i #okrewne i, #le,iona !n#3
9o,owie$3 Jch #rzy.ycie do "uro#y datowane )e*t na okoo J wiek3 Jch )+zyk nale/y )ednak do gru#y
indoiraH*kie) z #wy*#u Jndy)*kiego3

Lzisiejsze roz!iesz"zenie !s,ie(o O$LKA w 4uropie 5wedu( portalu 4upedia.tabl
[o!or Y#ty R1a1a (wschodnioe*ro$e%s3i, sowias3i_ czerwony R1b1b12 (zachodnioe*ro$e%s3i,
ce!tyc3oKger+as3i_ +odry A1 (nordyc3oKger+as3i_ granatowy A2a ("a3as3oKsowias3i_
"3itny A2b ("a3as3oKnie+iec3i, $o+araczowy 4 ($#nocnoKwschodnioadry3as3i i grec3i_
dio!etowy K (*ra!s3oKdis3i, $#nocnorosy%s3i, zie!ony B1 (se+ic3i i B2 ("!is3owschodni,
czarny I (3a*3as3i0
9y*3 0
Eowy/*ze ha#logru#y> cho1 genetycznie nieindoeuro#e)*kie> w znaczne) ,ierze #rzyczyniy *i+ nie tylko
do #ow*tania dzi*ie)*zego k*ztatu )+zykw indoeuro#e)*kich w "uro#ie> ale tak/e caego .ogactwa
kultury duchowe) i ,aterialne) "uro#y> ka/da z nich w *woi, zakre*ie i wedug wa*nych ,o/liwoFci
#o#ulacy)nych i cza*owych3
103
=+>)7H),DR+%?,- D,%
*S4%051e =%>703,- 6)7H)D0-,+-
70()*+-4%
5N( ,itochondrialne> czyli ,t5N(> to ,ateria genetyczny zna)du)cy *i+ w re)onie
#oza)drowy, ko,rek3 Biaka kodowane #rzez ,t5N( to cz+F1 .iaek aHcucha oddechowego
!regulu) energetyk+ ko,rki i caego organiz,u$3
5N( ,itochondrialne * wykorzy*tywane w genealogii genetyczne) i ,edycynie *dowe)3 Su/ do
tego niekodu)ce 8rag,enty !regiony$ geno,u ,itochondrialnego o wy*oki, zr/nicowaniu i
z,iennoFci u #o*zczeglnych ludzi3
Szy.koz,ienny region =O91 o.e),u)e *ekwenc)+ 1000171020U> a region =O92 *ekwenc)+ 00172?43
Eorwnanie 5N( ,itochondriw #ochodzcych od ludzi> wywodzcych *i+ z r/nych gru# etnicznych>
#ozwolio na o.liczenie> kiedy /ya tzw3 "wa ,itochondrialna ko.ieta> od ktre) wywodz *i+ w*zy*cy
w*#czeFni ludzie> a waFciwie ich geno, ,itochondrialny3 4to ni/e) !z Ciki#edii$ ,a#a ,utac)i i
,igrac)i ha#logru# ,t5N( od ,itochondrialne) "wy z (8ryki na re*zt+ Fwiata3
Eow*taa na Bli*ki, C*chodzie ha#logru#a ,tN i liczne )e) #odgru#y zna)du) *i+> w #rzeciwieH*twie
do ha#logru#y ,tD i )e) #odgru#> gwnie w re)onie @aukazu> (z)i Dnie)*ze) i w "uro#ieQ za#ewne one
ucze*tniczyy w #ow*taniu ludzkie) ra*y kauka*kie)> euro#idalne)> .iae)3
Nato,ia*t ha#logru#a ,tD i )e) #odgru#y u#ow*zechniy na #ozo*taych kontynentach !#oza
(8ryk$3
Na #oni/*ze)> oglnoFwiatowe) ,a#ie .rak wytworzone) z ha#logru#y N i w )e) regionie> a
niedawno odkryte)> ha#logru# ,t9 !zo.3 wy/e)B$> od ktre) wywodz *i+ #rawie w*zy*tkie #odgru#y
euro#e)*kie> a zwa*zcza #o#rzez ,t94 i ,t=O wa/na euro#e)*ka ha#logru#a =3 4.e),u)e ona w #onad
20 #odgru#ach okoo 40W ludnoFci euro#e)*kie) i #ol*kie)3 4 o.ecnoFci ha#logru# ,itochondrialnych w
re)onie 5una)ca> zo.3
C ,oi, rodzie #odgru# ,t=O71 wyr/niaa *i+ @atarzyna @ura* Szlagowa z Kukowicy>
#o#ularna w "uro#ie #odgru#+ = ,iaa (na*taz)a Cilk Gurgulowa ze Stronia> a #odgru# ,t=714a
odznaczaa *i+ @atarzyna Jwan Szlagowa z Kukowicy3
- ha#logru#y ,t9 #ochodzi te/ #odgru#a ,t%> .ardzo *tara w "uro#ie3 Gru# %S wyr/niaa *i+
w ,oi, rodzie (nna Legutko Aanikowa> rode, z Aa*ienne) i Kazw Biegonickich3
Dt5N( #rzekazywane )e*t zarwno *yno,> )ak i crko,> ale tylko #rzez ,atki3 5latego *u/ do
roz#oznania tylko ,atczynego #ochodzenia> zarwno ,+/czyzn> )ak i ko.ietQ #odcza* gdy R75N( *u/y
#oznaniu tylko o)cow*kiego #ochodzenia> i tylko ,+/czyzn3 Dt5N( uatwia) te/ roz#oznanie tra*
dawnych ,igrac)i rodw i #le,ion> cho1 nie tak wyraziFcie> )ak ,+*kie R75N(Q ,+/czyIni .owie,
FciFle) tkwili w *woich #ierwotnych gru#ach rodowych i #le,iennych3
N#3 ,t5N(7=2 i =?> *twierdzane w re)onie @aukazu> wzdu/ 5una)u i #od (l#a,i> ,igrowao z ,+*k
R7hg3 91.3 Eodo.nie ,t7%S> *twierdzane wok Dorza Lzarnego oraz ,t7A> roz#ow*zechnione
#ierwotnie w (z)i Yrodkowe) i wok ,rz @a*#i)*kiego i Lzarnego3 =a#logru#ie R791a towarzy*zyo
gwnie ,t7%4> .ardzie) #o#ularne w re)onie 'ad/yki*tanu i Eaki*tanu> w (z)i Yrodkowe) oraz w
"uro#ie C*chodnie)3 Eochodzca z (8ryki #nocno7w*chodnie) ,t7'> *twierdzana )e*t w re)onie Dorza
"ge)*kiego i "uro#ie C*chodnie)Q z #o#ulac)a,i R791a ,o/na czy1 te/ ,t7%S i ,t7A !towarzy*zce
)ednak gownie R7hg3 91.$3 Dt7=1S !i ,nie) =2$ czy @aukaz i Sardyni+> #odo.nie )ak ,+*ka R7G2a3
Dt7=1> =S> O i %2 zdradza) #aleolityczne i ,ezolityczne towarzy*two owcw7z.ieraczy !R7hg3 J$Q tak/e
,t7A1 wy*t+#u)e #rzy ger,aH*kich #o#ulac)ach hg3 J3 Dt7@1a towarzy*zy gwnie ,+*ki, A> ' i "1.1.3
Eoniewa/ ,itochondrialne 5N( atwie) ni/ R75N( trwa) niezni*zczalnie w *zcztkach ko#alnych>
,og uatwi1 identy8ikac)+ oraz *twierdzenie cigoFci ,i+dzy czowiekie, #aleolityczny, a
dzi*ie)*zy,> n#3 czowiek z @o*tienek !nad 5one, w 9o*)i$> z okoo S03000 lat te,u> odznacza *i+
ha#logru# %2Q ,t5N( kro,anioH*kiego czowieka z Eaglicci LaZe !Cochy$> z okoo 2U3000 lat te,u>
u)awnio )ednoznaczn r/nic+ wzgl+de, neandertalczyka> a to/*a,oF1 z dzi*ie)*zy,i ty#a,i =O lu.
%3
Genetycy *tara) *i+ te/ u*tali1 ha#logru#y> wyr/nia)ce #o#ulac)e *owiaH*kie w "uro#ieQ zo.3 n#3&
1$ Grzy.ow*ki et al3 200?& Lo,#le: interaction* o8 the "a*tern and Ce*tern SlaZic #o#ulation* with
other "uro#ean grou#* a* reZealed .y ,itochondrial 5N( analy*i*3
2$ Dalyarchuk et al3 200U& Ditochondrial 5N( Ehylogeny in "a*tern and Ce*tern SlaZ*3
S$ Dalyarchuk et al3 2010& 'he Eeo#ling o8 "uro#e 8ro, the Ditochondrial =a#logrou# %2 Eer*#ectiZe
Jlu*trac) o.ecnoFci #o*zczeglnych ha#logru# ,t5N( na #ol*kie) zie,i * rezultaty analiz w
ra,ach #ol*kiego #rogra,u/#ro)ektu 6a,ily 'ree 5N(> ktry ad,ini*tru)e L3 Dayka !ta.lica ,o/e
otwiera1 *i+ #owoli> #odo.nie )ak ta, doczona ,a#a$3
:ols,ie !tLKA w testa". WNLKA
[o!ory $in0 ws3az*%8 na ha$!ogr*$y +t-gc0
hto $rzy"!iYone i!oci w $oszczeg#!nych
ha$!ogr*$ach'
&K19, -K4, D$200, ]K19, mKj9, [Kj9, (K19,
gK59, RK19, ZKP9, fK79, K59, 2K59, K590
Raze+ 32;0
C *u,ie> inacze) ni/ o)cow*ki rodowd> ,atczyny rodowd Eolek i Eolakw #rzewa/nie nie r/ni
*i+ od #ozo*taych kra)w "uro#y !zo.3 na ta.licy "u#edii$3 CyraIne r/nice zachodz nato,ia*t w
*to*unku do ludnoFci kra)w (z)i i (8ryki> )ak w*kazu)e ,a#a ,igrac)i3
-o.3 na)now*ze o#racowanie datowania ,itochondrialnych ha#logru#& Soare* et al3 200G3
-o.3 ten/e> ta.lica datowania> Su##le,ental data& (n J,#roZed =u,an Ditochondrial Dolecular
Llocka3
-o.3 #raktyczne za*to*owanie genealogii ,t5N( na rodzinne) *tronie& Szlagowie3

11.
5*%/+
a$ 5laczego tak *zczegowo> )ak na internetowe zwycza)e> z #odanie, #od*tawowe) ter,inologii i
literatury> #rzed*tawia, ten te,at;
5latego> /e dla ,nie i wielu z na* .ardzo wa/ne )e*t #ytanie& Aaka )e*t na*za genealogia *kd )e*teF,y>
co na* czy lu. dzieli> )aka )e*t na*za #rze*zoF1> dlaczego nie ,o/e,y *i+ )e) wyrzeka1> a wre*zcie
dlaczego nie #owinniF,y #ogardza1 *wo) *owiaH*koFci i #ol*koFciB
Genealogia R7chro,o*o,owa !R75N($ .ardzo *u/y hi*torii> #oznaniu genezy #ierwotnych ludzkich
#le,ion> wi+k*zych #o#ulac)i i narodw oraz ich #rze,ie*zczaniu *i+ #o -ie,i3 %atwia #oznanie
wydzielonych ,+*kich rodw i w ogle rodzin> ktre na* wyday na Fwiat> do ktrych nale/y,y i wo.ec
ktrych ,a,y o.owizki nie tylko wdzi+cznoFciB -decydowanie #o,aga okreFli1 twrcw
archeologicznych kultur> u)awnianych w #racach wyko#ali*kowych3
Da to *zczeglne znaczenie #re*ti/owe dla Sowian3 9zeko,e #Ine wyonienie *i+ etno*u *owiaH*kiego
!#rzy#o,ina,& gr3 Metno*N to r)> *tado> #le,i+> a nie *a,a kulturaB$ .ywao nie#rzychylnie dla Sowian
inter#retowane3 5o tego #rzyczynio *ie tak/e i nazewnictwo3 Dianowicie> #oniewa/ we wcze*ny,
Fredniowieczu Sowianie .ywali #rzez ku#cw ara.*kich i /ydow*kich *#rzedawani na rynkach "uro#y
)ako niewolnicy> od etnoni,u Sowianin> ac3 SclaZu*> utworzono okoo w3 aciH*kie *owo M*claZu*N>
oznacza)ce niewolnika> *ug+> a tak/e w ogle czowieka gnuFnego3 J to okreFlenie w roz,aite) 8or,ie
!n#3 *claZe *laZe> e*claZe> *laZP$ #rzedo*tao *i+ do innych )+zykw zachodnich3 Niekiedy nie*tety
w#ywa ono na o#ini+ o ludach *owiaH*kich i na *#o*. traktowania Sowian #rzez zachodnich
"uro#e)czykw3
.$ 9oz#oznawanie *wo)ego cennego rodowodu w o)cow*ki, R75N( czy ,acierzyH*ki, ,t5N( i
wydzielanie krewniaczych ha#logru# ludzkich nie oznacza tworzenia )akiegoF nowego ra*iz,u> ty,
raze, genetycznego> na ,ie)*ce dotychcza*owego> o#artego za*adniczo tylko na zewn+trzny, wygldzie
czowieka3 Genealogia R75N( czy ,t75N( u,o/liwia zidenty8ikowanie i u,ie*zczenie o*. czy rodu na
o)cow*ki, czy ,acierzyH*ki, drzewie genealogiczny, ludzkoFci i u*talenie cza*u wyodr+.nienia *i+> co
w *u,ie )u/ da)e wielkie #oczucie zakorzenia i w*#lnoty> ale to do#iero ua,ek #rawdy o #ochodzeniu
konkretne) o*o.y3
Bowie, o#rcz niewielkiego chro,o*o,u #ciowego R75N( lu. ,itochondrialnego ,t5N( #o*iada,y
daleko wi+k*ze 22 inne #ary chro,o*o,w> tzw3 auto*o,alnych> i #onad trzydzieFci ty*i+cy innych
genw kodu)cych3 Erzekazywane * one zarwno #rzez o)ca> )ak i #rzez ,atk+> i zarwno *yno,> )ak i
crko,3 4ne k*ztatu) #od*tawowe 8unkc)e organiz,u> a tak/e kolor *kry> oczu> czy inne nawet
.ardzo drugorz+dne dro.iazgi3 C ten *#o*. ka/dy dzi*ie)*zy czowiek ,a #ozo*tae chro,o*o,y i
geny nie tylko od okoo U3000 *woich dotychcza*owych #rzodkw w linii #ro*te) a/ do (da,a i "wy> ale
tak/e> )ak o.liczyli antro#ologowie> od okoo U03000 innych #rzodkw z .ardzo roz.udowanych linii
.ocznych3
Ywiado,oF1 tego> /e no*i,y w *o.ie ,ateria genetyczny tylu> z roz,aitych ha#logru# i ra* #rzodkw>
#owinna niezale/nie od u*talone) ha#logru#y R75N( lu. ,t75N( chroni1 od roz,aitych ideologii
ra*i*tow*kich i #ozytywnie w#ywa1 na #oczucie .rater*twa z w*zy*tki,i i*tota,i ludzki,i3 Genetyka
antro#ologiczna )u/ #o*zuku)e w auto*o,ach> czyli chro,o*o,ach #oza#ciowych> owych ,utac)i
Mra*owychN> czyli k*ztatu)cych odr+.ny wygld i cechy 8izyczne #o*zczeglnych gru# ludzkich oraz
u*tala na ,a#ach Fwiata tra*y M,igrac)iN dziedziczonych genw> tak )ak )u/ od dawna czyni to genetyka
,edyczna> identy8iku)ca o.ci/one choro.a,i dziedziczny,i o*o.y i #o#ulac)e3
c$ Eoniewa/ wraz z odkrywanie, nowych ,utac)i w SNE z,ienia *i+ kla*y8ikac)a ha#logru# na drzewie
genealogiczny,> )ak o*tatnio z,ieniono 91a1 na 91a1a i 91a1a? i inne> a nadto *tale na#ywa) nowe
etniczne i geogra8iczne u*talenia co do #o*zczeglnych #o#ulac)i> dlatego co #ewien cza* ,o/e za)F1
#otrze.a dokonania #o#rawek w ty, artykuleQ ,og te/ #ow*ta1 niezgodnoFci z #o#rzedni,i tek*ta,i i
cytowany,i #raca,i3 'rze.a te/ Fledzi1 z,iany w ter,inologii> nazewnictwa i *y,.oli ha#logru#3 N#3
dla u#ro*zczenia u,ownie #oda)e *i+ krt*z nazw+ ha#logru#y o)cow*kie) za,ia*t w*zy*tkich
*ynow*kich> n#3 o)cow*k 91. za,ia*t kilkudzie*i+ciu ha#logru# #oto,nych> ze *ko,#likowany,i ich
okreFlenia,iQ al.o 91.1.2 dla okreFlenia w*zy*tkich euro#e)*kich )e) #odgru#3 Niekiedy #oda)e *i+ tylko
krt*ze okreFlenie ,utac)i> za,ia*t du/*zego okreFlenia od#owiednie) ha#logru#y ,ie)*ca na drzewie
genealogiczny,> n#3 97D42U za,ia*t 91a1a? al.o 97%122 za,ia*t 91.1.2a1a2d al#e)*kich i ital*kich
Leltw3 Nadto w literaturze> niekiedy niekon*ekwentnie> doda)e *i+ gwiazdk+> n#3 91aT> dla okreFlenia>
/e nie .ierze *i+ #od uwag+ )e) #odgru#3
5y*ku*)a
10 B. "zyzowa said, on 51 Marzec 5911 at 17'e1 (7dyt*%
Dili EaH*twoB Da, zna)o, w Do*kwie> ktra .ardzo intere*u)e *i+ ,3in3 genealogi Sowian> ,a
ogro,ny *zacunek dla Eolakw> ktrzy wg )e) rozeznania zachowali w nazewnictwie .ardzo
du/o nazw *taro*owiaH*kich !w odr/nieniu ,3in33 od 9o*)an$3 Lhciaa.y nawiza1 kontakt z ki,F>
kto zna t+ te,atyk+3 @ore*#ondowa1 ,o/e )ednak tylko #o ro*y)*ku3 Na w*zelki wy#adek #oda)+ )e)
adre* ,ailowy& koro.inra,.ler3ru3 Da na i,i+ Natalia3
Eozdrawia, i
B3 Lzy/owa
4d#owiedz
.ialczyn*ki *aid> on 21 Darzec 2011 at 1?&4G !"dytu)$
Eo*tara,y *i+ nawiza1 kontakt> dzi+ku)e,y3 Eozdrawia,y3
L3B3
4d#owiedz

50 ,rt said, on 51 (i$iec 5911 at 59'1e (7dyt*%

- zaintere*owanie, czyta, *tron+ i chc+ #odzieli1 *i+ kilko,a uwaga,i> ktre ,o/e #od*un
autorowi #o,y*y do nowych teorii3
1 *#rawa3
C Fredniowieczu #ol*cy kronikarze wywodzili #ochodzenie lechitw z Eanonii3 'ereny o.ecne)
(u*trii3 Brz,i na #ierw*zy rzut oka niedorzecznie> ale&
Na tych terenach )e*t rzeka Lech BBBB
Lech !ac3 Licu*> Licca$ rzeka w (u*trii i Nie,czech> #rawy do#yw 5una)u3 5ugoF1 204 k,>
#owierzchnia zlewni 43120 k,3
Gra -er,atten !Sar,aci$3
J #atrz,y wy/e) rzeka Lech to #o acinie Licu*> Licca> czy to nie na*uwa *ko)arzeH z Lechita,i
LicikaZiki ;
LicikaZiki nazwa wy*t+#u)ca tylko )eden raz w 5zie)ach *a*kich Cidukinda z @or.ei3 (utor
kroniki w*#o,ina> /e .yo to #le,i+ *owiaH*kie #odlega)ce wadzy Die*zka J3 Ei*ze o ni, #rzy
okaz)i relac)onowania atakw Cich,ana na #aH*two Eolan3
2 *#rawa
5ago,e iude:
'u,aczenie #ol*kie tek*tu&
Eodo.nie w inny, to,ie z cza*w #a#ie/a Aana O 5ago,e> #an> i 4te> #ani i *ynowie ich Die*zko
i La,.ert !nie wie,> )akiego to #le,ienia ludzie> *dz+ )ednak> /e to .yli SardyHczycy> #oniewa/ ci
* rzdzeni #rzez czterech #anwN$ ,ieli nada1 Fwi+te,u Eiotrowi w caoFci )edno #aH*two> ktre
zwie *i+ Schine*ghe z w*zy*tki,i *wy,i #rzynale/noFcia,i w tych granicach> )ak *i+ zaczyna od
#ierw*zego .oku wzdu/ ,orza dale) granic Eru* a/ do ,ie)*ca> ktre nazywa *i+ 9uF> a granic
9u*i dale) cignc a/ do @rakowa i od tego @rakowa a/ do rzeki 4dry> #ro*to do ,ie)*ca> ktre
nazywa *i+ (le,ure> a od te) (le,ury a/ do zie,i Dilczan i od granicy Dilczan #ro*to do 4dry i
*td idc wzdu/ rzeki 4dry a/ do rzeczonego #aH*twa Schine*ghe34
Do/e to nie chodzi o Die*zka J i Gniezno> nie o )akiegoF dziwnego dago,e iude:> a o dego,ir du:>
czyli i '+go,ir> n#3 ten&
'+go,ir !z,3 #o GSU$ k*i/+ Stodoran3
Ae*ieni G2U na zie,ie '+go,ira na)echa krl nie,iecki =enryk J Eta*znik3 @*i/+ wyco8a *i+ do
Brenny> gdzie zo*ta o.l+/ony #rzez wo)*ka =enryka3 Calki #od *owiaH*ki, grode, zakoHczyy
*i+ kl+*k '+go,ira3 Eokonany k*i/+ zo*ta uwi+ziony> zaF #le,i+ Stodoran z,u*zone do
o#acania try.utu3 B+dc w niewoli> '+go,ir za#rzy)aIni *i+ z dawny,i wroga,i> zaF )ego crka
zo*taa #rawdo#odo.nie nao/nic *yna =enryka> 4ttona13 -e zwizku tego ,ia #ochodzi1
nieFlu.ny *yn> arcy.i*ku# Dogunc)i Cilhel,3 Eo wy)Fciu z niewoli nie,ieckie) w GSU '+go,ir
wzi udzia w z,owie z ,argra.i Darchii C*chodnie) Gerone,3 Erzy.y do Brenny> gdzie ogo*i
*w) #owrt3 C*##le,ieHcy uznali )ego wadz+ i #rzywrcili ,u tron k*i/+cy3 Ckrtce '+go,ir
#od*t+#nie zgadzi *wego nieznanego z i,ienia .ratanka> )edynego dziedzica tronu
*todoraH*kiego> i #odda *i+ wraz z lude, wadzy 4ttona3
No *koro #odda *i+ wadzy 4ttona to i dla rwnowagi ,g *i+ #odda1 #a#ie/owi> /e.y #okaza1 /e
#rzy) chrzeFci)aH*two3
S *#rawa
Lze*ka legenda o @roku i #ol*ka o @raku dotycz wg ,nie te) *a,e) o*o.y> wynika z tego /e
Sowianie *zli z zachodu na w*chd !znowu wraca teoria o Eanonii> z rzeka Lech> gr -er,aten>
itd3$ i cz+F1 zo*taa w Bohe,ii> cz+F1 w Eol*ce > re*zta #o*za dale) na w*chd #rzez 9o*)+ a/ do
Jndii> w Eaki*tanie tez *a nazwy Leh i inne zna)o,o .rz,ice$3
Erzy taki, zao/eniu na.iera kolorw wer*)a o *owiaH*kich "tru*kach i ich runach> w koHcu z
Eanonii do Ew3 (#eniH*kiego niedaleko3
Lo do nazwy @rak> @rakw> to w Lhorwac)i a/ *i+ roi od nazw @rk> @rkoZa =ora it#3
Erzy czy, zna,ienne )e*t /e w wer*)i cze*kie) )e*t tylko Lzech i Lech> a #ol*kie) i ru*kie) dochodzi
9u*3 Lzyli /e rozdzielanie *i+ na*t+#owao *to#niowo3
4 *#rawa
Nazwa Eol*kaN ,o/e to w#yw wikingw> tak )ak Skan*kaN3 Lzy to nie dziwne> /e Die*zko J
wyda)e crk+ za wikinga;
Sygryda Storrda> Ywi+to*awa> Sau,7(e*a !*zw3 Sigrid Storrda> w 5anii )ako Gunhild czyli
Gunhilda> #o *owiaH*ku Ywi+to*awa$ !ur3 ,i+dzy G00 G?2> z,3 #o 1010$ krlowa Szwec)i>
5anii i Norwegii3 Lrka Die*zka J i #rawdo#odo.nie 5o.rawy> *io*tra Bole*awa Lhro.rego> w
*agach *kandynaw*kich wz,iankowanego )ako Buri*lei8 lu. Buri*la8r> #ot+/ny konung
CindlandiiN3
@ilka Fredniowiecznych kronik *toi na *tanowi*ku> /e ,atka =aralda JJ i @anuta Cielkiego
wywodzia *i+ z #le,ienia Eolan lu. innego .li*ko z ni,i *#okrewnionego #le,ienia *owiaH*kiego3
'en rodowd Sygrydy #otwierdza)&
T 'hiet,ar z Der*e.urga w*#o,ina> /e crka Die*zka J> a *io*tra Bole*awa Lhro.rego wy*za z
,/ za Swena Cido.rodego i urodzia ,u dwch *ynw> =aralda JJ i @anuta Cielkiego3 C
#rzekazie ty, nie ,a )ednak /adne) wz,ianki na te,at )e) i,ienia3 'hiet,ar ,ia
#rawdo#odo.nie na)wi+k*z wiedz+ *#oFrd w*zy*tkich Fredniowiecznych kronikarzy na te,at
wydarzeH ,u w*#cze*nych> #onadto .y do*y1 do.rze zazna)o,iony z *ytuac) w Eol*ce i 5anii w
ta,ty, cza*ie3
T (da, z Bre,y #i*ze> /e #ol*ka k*i+/niczka .ya /on "ryka -wyci+*kiego i ,atk =aralda JJ oraz
@anuta Cielkiego3 Jn8or,ac)a ta )e*t uwa/ana #rzez niektrych hi*torykw za nie#ewn3
T "nco,iu, ",,ae 9eginae zawiera wz,iank+> /e @anut Cielki i )ego .rat #rzy.yli na zie,ie
Sowian #o *wo) ,atk+> /e.y za.ra1 ) z #owrote, do 5anii3 Jn8or,ac)a ta nie #rze*dza tego> /e
Sygryda wywodzia *i+ z #le,ion *owiaH*kich> )ednak kronika ,ocno to *ugeru)e3
T Li.er Zitae o8 the New Din*ter and =yde (..ey Cinche*ter zawiera za#i* ,wicy> /e *io*tra
krla @anuta no*ia i,i+ Sant*laue !Sant*laue *oror LNO'J regi* no*tri$> ktre .ez wt#ienia )e*t
i,ienie, *owiaH*ki,3 A3 Steen*tru# *ugeru)e> /e *io*tra @anuta zo*taa tak nazwana #o *wo)e)
,atce> *td hi#oteza !odtd uwa/ana za *u*zn$> /e *owiaH*k wer*) i,ienia Sygryda )e*t
Ywi+to*awa3 'o *twierdzenie #okrywa *i+ z tez> )ako.y Sygryda .y crk Die*zka3
'wierdzenie> /e ,atk @anuta .ya *io*tra Bole*awa Lhro.rego wy)aFnia kilka zagadkowych
za#i*w w Fredniowiecznych kronikach> )ak cho1.y to> /e #ol*cy wo)ownicy .rali udzia w #od.o)u
(nglii3
EInie) kontakty z #noc *i+ nagle koHcz3 Lzy to nie za*tanawia)ce;
=i*toria Sowian )e*t niezwykle ciekawa> a/ dziw )ak Eolacy ,ao o nie) wiedz3
Gratulu)e artykuw o runach *owiaH*kich> ciekawe kiedy dotrze ta wiedza do *zer*zego
audytoriu,
4d#owiedz
.ialczyn*ki *aid> on 22 Li#iec 2011 at 2&S? !"dytu)$1
5zi+ku)+ za .ardzo in*#iru)cy i wnikliwy w#i*3 C @*i+dze 9uty u,ieFcie, Now @oli.+
@rukw7 Sowian czyli L+gi+ Nadduna)*k w takie) a nie inne) lokalizac)i .o u8a,
kronikarzo,> a nie u8a, ty, ktrzy dla #o#i*w erudycy)nych gotowi * zakwe*tionowa1
rozu, Staro/ytnych3 @iedy #i*ae, @*i+g+ 'ura i @*i+g+ 9uty Jnternet zaleway ko,entarze
ty#u /e BiaczyH*ki to 8anta*ta> ktry *o.ie wy,yFla .a)eczki3 5zi*ia) genetyka .ez*#ornie
#otwierdza ,o)e dedukc)e i intuic)e3 'o #okazu)e> /e trze.a wi+ce) #okory w *tudiach nad
#rze*zoFci i /e #rywatne *tudia interdy*cy#linarne #rowadzone #rzez wiele lat #ozwala)
wci/ odkrywa1 na nowo Fwiat odkrywa1 go z *en*e, i #o/ytkie, dla Erawdy =i*toryczne)>
a E9-"LJC =JS'49RL-N"A E94E(G(N5-J"3
Lay cza* #a,i+ta),y /e na*z hi*tori+ #i*z od 1000 lat na)eIdIcy .o L+gia7Lechia Eol+gia
Eolechia7 Eol*za7Eol*ka )e*t kra)e, 8rontowy,> a #rzez o*tatnie 220 lat hi*tori+ Sowian
#i*ali Nie,cy> a hi*tori+ Eol*ki 9o*)anie3 ( .y to okre* .ez#receden*owego rozwo)u nauki>
narz+dzi naukowych i cywilizac)i euro#e)*kie)3 C*zy*tko to .yo #od#orzdkowane
#ro#agandzie na)eIdIcw3 Dao )e*t kra)w na Fwiecie ktre .yy #od kolonialny, uci*kie,
#rzez 220 lat3
Eozdrawia, EaH*kie *#o*trze/enia #owinny *i+ tu znaleI1 w 8or,ie artykuu> .o * .ardzo
wa/ne ,erytorycznie3
LB

Object1
Odpowiedzi: 39
/u0scri0e to comments wit# +//(
10 Ron said, on 22 Kwiecie 2010 at 9:16
Nie s1 to niestet" $solidnie ugruntowane& wiadomoci na temat 0ada2 genet"czn"c#(
/trona $#tt%:33www(tro%ie(tarnow(o%oka(org(%l3%olac"(#tm& jest c#aot"czn"m tlumaczeniem ros"jskic#
naukowcow( 4idac u autora %ow"zszej stron" nieumiejetnosc cz"tania tekstow ze zrozumieniem
(or"ginal" na stronie A(5l"oso6a) odnosnie %odzialow w #a%logru%ac# oraz 0lednie %odawane marker" w
#a%lot"%ac#( 7edn"m slowem8 amatorska strona ktora w%rowadza duzo 0ledn"c# i niezgodn"c# z
rzecz"wist"m tlumaczeniem in9ormacji(
:d%owiedz
bialczynski said, on 22 Kwiecie 2010 at 9:48
4"%ada w takim razie %oda; konkretn"8 ale istotn"8 a nie ma*o wa!n"8 %rz"k*ad takiego w%rowadzenia w
0*1d8 cz"li niezgodnoci midz" tekstem tarnowskim a w"nikami 0ada2( 'ale!a*o0" mi na t"m8 ze0" jeli
%u0likuj jaki s1d wskazane zosta*o te! jego nie%odwa!alne uzasadnienie(<#odzi mi o to !e0" to co tutaj
%u0likuj %osuwa*o s%raw" do %rzodu8 a !e0"m" nie w"lewali dziecka z k1%iel1(
/trona tarnowska zawiera ocz"wicie #i%otez" i wnioski w*asne autora8 ktre mog1 nie 0"; do ko2ca w
%e*ni uzasadnione8 ale to jego %rawo stawia; #i%otez"8 tak!e takie ktre musi %otwierdzi; do%iero %rz"sz*"
w"nik eks%er"mentu8 cz" %od0ranie od%owiedniej %r0" DNA z w"ko%alisk(
Pozdrawiam
<(=(
:d%owiedz
Bogumia Kulikowska!"oszwald said, on 9 #uty 201$ at 1%:4&
<(=( koc#am <i za >woj1 wiedz( Nie dotrwa*am do ko2ca8 szczeglnie interesuj1 mnie temat" jz"kowe(
?usz si %oc#wali;8 0ra*am udzia* w 0adaniu migrac"jnego DNA dla National )eogra@c razem z m!em
za AB dol od oso0" i jestem z tego dumna( 7utro %rzecz"tam <i dalej( <iut rozumiem8 0o jestem %o kursie
genet"ki na /))48 ale to 0"*o dawno( Dzikuj

bialczynski said, on 22 Kwiecie 2010 at 9:%6

4arto doda; !e nie o%ieram" si tutaj t"lko na stronie tarnowskiej ale rwnie! c"tujem" o0szernie w
inn"c# art"ku*ac# zaciek*e d"skusje z 9orum #istor"cznego:#tt%:33www(9orum(#istmag(org
Pozdrawiam
<(=(
:d%owiedz
bialczynski said, on 2% 'ie()ie 2011 at 10:1%
/1 to solidnie ugruntowane wiadomoci zw*aszcza !e s1 %o*1czone ze Crd*ami inn"mi8 zw*aszcza ze
stron1 #istor"c"(org w temacie genealogii genet"cznej( /trona
$#tt%:33www(tro%ie(tarnow(o%oka(org(%l3%olac"(#tm&8 %odaje Crd*a8 ods"*a do %u0likacji naukow"c#8
wszdzie gdzie to mo!liwe8 jest uaktualniana i rozwijana( 4nioski w"ci1gane %rzez jej autora s1 jego
wnioskami8 kto mo!e w"ci1gn1; nieco inne st1d nasze ods"*anie do #tt%:33www(#istor"c"(org
<=
:d%owiedz
bialczynski said, on 11 *ze(wiec 2012 at 8:46
/1 to jak naj0ardziej solidne dane genet"czne z DE maja DF,D roku uaktualniane na 0ie!1co a Crd*em ic#
nie jest jed"nie strona o%oka t"lko tak jak %iszem" na %ocz1tku ods"*am" do r!n"c# Crde* a tak!e do
or"ginaln"c# o%racowa28 ma% i w"kresw
<=
:d%owiedz

50 Roman said, on 16 *ze(wiec 2010 at 18:18

4itam serdecznie( '0"t duzo 0ledow na stronie $o%oki& a0" je wsz"stkie %rz"taczac(
<#ociaz0" jeden %rost" %rz"klad:
c"t(
A( /tarsza skand"nawska8 ktrej ?+<A datowan" jest na oko*o D,FF %rzed <#r(( Do niej do%isano8 jako
ojcowsk18 %o%ulacj z Gulau nad /olaw1 w Niemczec#
(zo0( I(+o!anskiego ma%a ga*zi starszej skand"nawskiej-
( link : #tt%:33ma%s(google(com3ma%s3msH
9IJKsourceIsLJK#lIenKgeocodeIKieIM>NBK#JIK#nearINaum0urg8O=urgenlandkreis8O/aPon"-
An#alt8
O)erman"KmsaIFKmsidI,,QRB,A,S,,FBSSQEQT,B(FFFQEBTcceSe0FRTdBdaQKllIA,(,BAQRE8,,(BQ,BB
BKs%nISE(AATDBR8AQ(TS,EQ,KtI%KzIQ
)8
datowan1 izoto%owo na rok oko*o DEFF lat %rzed <#r(8 nosicieli %rz"%is"wanej Pras*owianom kultur"
ceramiki sznurowej( 4"r!nia j1 szczeglnie mutacja markera Y<AIII,T8D,8 %odczas gd" w Guro%ie w"nosi
ona %rzewa!nie ,T-DS( :%rcz tego marker DY/AEAI,S(
/kand"nawska ga*1C +,a,a za%ewne wnios*" element" jz"ka %ras*owia2skiego i indoeuro%ejskiego
(odmian" satemowej) do tworz1cego si etnosu germa2skiego (zo0( ni!ej8 w rozdz( T)(
5omentarz:
/tarsza skand"nawska c#arakter"zuja marker" Y<AIIa0I,T-DS i ,T-DQ 8 w w3w linku %odane sa $Mser ID&
ze stron" (www("searc#(org) i zaden z #a%lot"%ow nie %osiada markera Y<AIIa0I,T-D,
Y<AIII,T-D, naleza do mlodszej skand"nawskiej 8 ktora jest rowniez 0lednie %rz"%isana %rzez tego autora
do 5irgiskiej( 5irgistan to marker Y<AIIa0I,T-DS jak do tej %or" i jest niezw"kle malo%rawdo%odo0ne a0"
odkr"to ,T-D, o cz"m %isze sam A(5l"osow(
Inne %rz"klad" zamieszcze inn"m razem(
Pozdrawiam
:d%owiedz
bialczynski said, on 16 *ze(wiec 2010 at 21:$4
Dlatego nie o%ieram" si w swoic# s1dac# w"*1cznie na :%oce8 lecz %rzede wsz"stkim na tocz1cej si
wci1! d"skusji <z" Pras*owianie to Praindeuro%ejcz"c" na UI/>?A)M( Dzikuj za wskazanie 0*du(
Pozdrawiam( <( =(
:d%owiedz

40 Roman said, on 1& *ze(wiec 2010 at 9:28

Polecam %olemike w ostatnim 4iestniku >om S8 Nr E (czerwiec DF,F str(,FAQ) A(5l"oso6 o slowianac# i
indoeuro%ejcz"kac#(
#tt%:33www(lulu(com3items36olumeLEB3BBTAFFF3BBTARQT3,3%rint3BBTARQT(%d9
Pozdrawiam
:d%owiedz
e0 +a,- said, on 1& #isto)ad 2010 at 20:%$
I tak oto dotarlem do www ktorej szukalem(
'acz"nam cz"tanie8 ale na %oczatek mam jedno %"tanie(
/kad sie wzial 7G'Y5 NIG?IG<5I w 9ormie jaki jest uz"wan" dzisiajH
7akie jest jego %oc#odzenie i kied" zaczelo sie jego ksztaltowanie(
?am %rz"jaciela ktorego :jciec %oc#odzi z 0"l"c# Prus 4s#odnic# i twierdzi ze jest %o :jcu Niemcem(
?atka 0"la Polka(
Dziekuje za %omoc od 4as gd"z juz s%ostrzegam 9ac#owosc %o %ierwsz"c# %rzecz"tan"c# komentarzac#(
DDD
?D
:d%owiedz
bialczynski said, on 18 #isto)ad 2010 at 11:14
4itam
4ed*ug aktualn"c# z DF,F roku 0ada2 genet"ki8 w %owi1zaniu z jz"koznawstwem - jz"k niemiecki
%owsta* w trzec# eta%ac#8 w zwi1zku ze zmieszaniem si r!n"c# gru% ludnoci na terenac# midz" Va01
a Atlant"kiem8 na %*noc od Al%( Pierwsz" eta% %olega* na zmieszaniu si w /kand"nawii ludnoci o
#a%logru%ie I, (ktr1 naz"wa si /taro%euro%ejsk1 i ktra nie 0"*a Indo-Guro%ejska) z %lemionami o
#a%logru%ie +,a,a (Pras*owia2skimi lu0 jak mwi1 inni /*owiano-Indo-Ira2skimi)( Potem do /kand"nawii
tra@li <eltowie o #a%logru%ie +,0, i tak %owsta* & znan" nam& jz"k skand"nawski( Po w"jciu %lemion
skand"nawskic# na teren" kont"nentu - cz"li w*anie %*nocn"c# ws%*czesn"c# Niemiec i Danii oraz
=elgii i Uolandii nast1%i*o zmieszanie %owtrne skand"nawskiego z celto-s*owia2skim i tak %owsta* jz"k
niemiecki i Niemc" jako gru%a jz"kowo-kulturowa(
Inna teoria mwi8 !e jz"k niemiecki kszta*towa* si na %*noc" Guro%" midz" Va01 a Atlant"kiem ze
zmieszania jz"kw:
a) nieindoeuro%ejskiego ludnoci #a%logru%" I,
0) %ras*owia2skiego (s*owiano-indo-ira2skiego)8 ludnoci #a%logru%" +,a,a,8 lu0 nawet +,a,a,gD
(%olskiej #a%logru%")
c) celt"ckiego8 ludnoci #a%logru%" +,0,
wczeniej mia* si ukszta*towa; skand"nawski z %odo0nej mieszanki8 ale +,0,OI,O+,a,a, - w e%oce
0r1zu
4arto %amita; !e (c"tuj za d"skusj1 na stronac# #tt%:33www(#istmag(org)
W#tt%:33#istmag(org39orum3indeP(%#%Hto%icIBBSE(FX :
` %o%ulacja =a*tw %owsta*a w w"niku zmieszania ugro@2skic# m"liw"c#-z0ieracz" N,c z gru%ami
m"liw"c#-z0ieracz" +,a,a, (uznawanej za %ras*owia2sk18 cz"li inaczej s*owiano-indo-ira2sk1)Y(
(Nale!" zdec"dowanie odej; od *1czenia etnosw z kulturami arc#eologiczn"mi8 9antazje Da6ida
Ant#on" na temat <eltw w 7amna cz" w 5otlinie >ar"mskiej genet"ka wer"@kuje negat"wnieY(
(/*owianie to nie 0"*o jakie %lemi8 ktre mo!na ident"@kowa; na %odstawie garnkw( >o ol0rz"mi lud8
wiksz" od <eltw8 zamieszkuj1c" teren" od Va0" do Mralu ju! w e%oce 0r1zu w rezultacie eks%ansji kultur
ceramiki sznurowej( Zud ten r!nicowa* si %od wzgldem materialn"m8 ale 0"* w miar jednorodn" %od
wzgldem genet"czn"m i jz"kow"m( Dominowa*a +,a,a i jz"ki %odo0ne do dzisiejsz"c# s*owia2skic# i
indoira2skic#( Prawdo%odo0nie mieszka2c" Polski mogli si %orozumie; ze /c"tami Uerodota 0ez
t*umacza8 w"znawali %odo0n1 religi i naj%rawdo%odo0niej rwnie! %odo0nie w"gl1dali8 o cz"m wiadcz1
%odo0ie2stwa w autosomaln"m DNA /c"tw z e%oki 0r1zu i ws%*czesn"c# Polakw i +osjan Y(
7z"ki zawsze oddalaj1 si do sie0ie( Nakt8 !e jz"ki s*owia2skie s1 dzisiaj %odo0ne do wed"jskiego
sanskr"tu8 ka!e %rz"%uszcza;8 !e kied" musia*" 0"; jeszcze 0ardziej so0ie 0liskie( >o8 !e tem%o zmian
jz"kw s*owia2skic# 0"*o tak %owolne w"nika st1d8 !e lud" s*owia2skie musia*a *1cz"; kied" ws%lna
kultura duc#owa i religia( Niewiele si zac#owa*o z religii %oga2skic# /*owian8 ale to co jest nie %ozostawia
w1t%liwoci8 !e 0"*a to religia z0li!ona do +"gwed"( 4iele %odo0ie2stw w mitac# i s"m0olac#8 a %oza t"m
s*ownictwo religijne +"gwed" mo!na zrozumie; du!o le%iej w o%arciu o s*ownictwo s*owia2skie( 4iele
terminw religijn"c# +"gwed" nie ma jasnej et"mologii w jz"kac# indoira2skic#8 ale daj si %rosto
w"%rowadzi; z jz"kw s*owia2skic#Y(
(4iem" jak 0ardzo niektre jz"ki si zmieniaj1( 4 %rz"%adku jz"kw s*owia2skic# takic# zmian nie
ma( Niektrz" uwa!aj18 !e %od %ewn"mi wzgldami jz"kom s*owia2skim 0li!ej do wed"jskiego sanskr"tu
ni! wielu ws%*czesn"m dialektom indoar"jskim w Indiac#8 jak Uindi8 =engali it%( 7z"k Ariw niewiele si
zmieni* w stosunku do jz"kw s*owia2skic#8 0o lud" te *1cz"*a ws%lna religia( =a*towie te! zac#owali
niektre legend" i mit"8 ktr"c# od%owiedniki znajdujem" w +igwedzie8 jak c#ocia!0" mit o crce /*o2ca
jad1cej na wozie na weseleY(&
Pozdrawiam
<(=(
:d%owiedz
.K said, on 20 /(udzie 2010 at 22:01
Dzien do0r"
c#ciala0"m %owiedziec ze jez"k niemiecki w"wodzi sie z terenow /aksonii(
7est to %oczatek tzw( Uoc# Deutsc#8 cz"li %oczatek %o%rawnego literackiego jez"ka niemieckiego(
Niestet" wiecej nie wiem(
/erdecznie %ozdrawiam
:d%owiedz

P0 Rafal said, on 21 #isto)ad 2010 at 6:%2

:dnonie Uazarw - 6el( <#azarw - 6el ["dw aszkenaz"jskic#8 to w anna*ac# +usi 5ijowskiej jest
o%isan" ic# $0rz"dki\ zw"czaj jako nomadw( Przed zim1 na%adali na wioski osiad*"c# rolnikw8 za0ijali
wsz"stkic# m!cz"zn8 %*odzili dzieci z ko0ietami a na wiosn w"ruszali z %owrotem w ste%( /t1d %owsta*a
teoria o ws%ln"m %rzodku dla ca*ej #a%logru%" +,a,a(
Polecam - :ld Gast /la6ic
Nrom 4iki%edia8 t#e 9ree enc"clo%edia - a lot o9 in9ormations(
:d%owiedz
j0 0a1al said, on 21 #isto)ad 2010 at 8:06
+a9al said8 on ,T Zisto%ad DF,F at T:,F
Powtorzenie z - & =ia*cz"zm" i casus =ia*cz"2skiego - cz"li o usuwaniu s*owia2skic# 0ogw %rzez
uzur%atorw z 4iki%edii &
Du!o in9ormacji o starodawnej /*owia2szcz"Cnie mo!na znaleC; na stronie
- #tt%:33www(#istoriakurgan"(re%u0lika(%l3a%oL%lik3slow(#tm
7est w tej ksi1!ce na Internecie staraj1cej si %rz"0li!"; nam wiele za%omnian"c# 9aktw z dawn"c#
dziejw na 0azie jz"koznawstwa
7ak n%( -
Zeks"k dzisiejszej %olszcz"n" %ocz1tkowo 0ardziej tworz"li 4ieloci cz" Polanie a nie <#ro0aci8 st1d
<#ro0acja z ]I wieku sigaj1ca8 od >ur"ngii w*1cznie do 4o*gi (5ur#ani ^ )urgani ^ 5urgani ^
Piecz"ngowie)8 0"*a dla 4ielotw cz" Polan cz"m zewntrzn"m(
Nazw" Dorz"2cw z %unktu widzenia 4ielotw lu0 Polan %rzejli miesza2c" 9rankijsko ^ celt"cc"8 ktrz"
/*owian ^ Dorz"2cw z >ur"ngii %okonali i zniemcz"li( Nazwa ?azur te! w Polsce 0"*a %ejorat"wna (%atrz
str( ,D &/*ewi s1 /*owianie&)8 c#o; na +usi8 ?azurz" to Polac"( Dorowie cz"li Dor!"2c" dokonali rwnie!
najazdu na Uellad ,DFF %(n(e(
(Pod terminem Pistric w UNP Naruszewicza troc# o /*owianac# w >ur"ngii)(
Awaris imi Awarisa8 najwikszego 0o#atera /kolotw (jz"cznikw)8 0"*o to miasto zdo0"wcw Ggi%tu8
za*o!one ,R wiekw %(e(c#(
Awaris to 0o#ater od imienia )errosw-)ierusw-Dzierusw te! imi #erosw-gieroji cz"li nawet imi
Awarowie mog*o %ierwotnie znacz"; t"le co 0o#aterowie(
M%adek kaganatu i imienia :0rw nast1%i* %od koniec ]III wieku e(c#( %o wojnie domowej z c#r"stianami
ws%ieran"mi %rzez im%erium <#r"stianorum 5arola ?agni8 wojna znana w legendac# u /*owian
wsc#odnic# i %o*udniow"c# jako walka [mija :giennego ojca z s"nem 4!em :gnist"m 4ilkiem8 %o
klsce ojca od%ad*a <#orwacja %o*udniowa zwana %Cniej 4ielk1 ?oraw1( 4ielka lu0 =ia*a <#orwacja
(kaganat ar-+us) %*nocna ze sw"m j1drem %a2stwem zmar*"c# (Arta Nija - kraj N"ji)8 %ozosta*a
nie%odleg*1 do czasu jej roz%adu na kilka mniejsz"c# lu0 wiksz"c# %a2stw w ktr"c# w*adz %rzec#w"cili
des%oci8 t"rani i uzur%atorz"8 ktrz" dla zalegalizowania swej uzur%acji %rzec#odzili na c#r"stianizm(
=ez Dekalogu ?oj!esza o0"czajowo;8 uczciwo;8 %rawo; ludu - /lowian 0"*a 0ardzo w"soka do
momentu wkroczenia do akcji <zarno-=oga( Polecam do o0ejrzenia :
N%( You>u0e - Arkona - /la6sia8 +us (Polskie >lumaczenie)
#tt%:33www("outu0e(com3watc#H6ILUMI40RRQukK9eatureIrelated lu0
You>u0e - Arkona - Ziki =essmertn"k# =ogo6 (Polskie >lumaczenie)
Object2
Poza t"m z romajskimi agentami d"skusje sa 0ezcelowe( A dlaczego - %atrz %onizej -
:%inia starsz"zn" szczeci2skiej w _II w
`M was8 c#rzecijan8 %e*no jest *otrw i z*odziei. u was ucina si ludziom rce i nogi8 w"*u%uje ocz"8
torturuje w wizieniac#. u nas8 %ogan8 tego wsz"stkiego nie ma8 tote! nie c#cem" takiej religii` M was
ksi!a dziesicin" 0ior18 nasi ka%*ani za utrz"muj1 si8 jak m" wsz"sc"8 %rac1 w*asn"c# r1k&-s*owa
starsz"zn" szczeci2skiej z $["wotw witego :ttona& (_II wiek)(&
4 %rzeciwie2stwie do romajsko-judejskiej wiar"8 wiara Ar"an od E t"s( lat - /lowian8 Nrankow8
Zongo0ardow a %ozniej 4iz"gotw itd(8 wiara nasz"c# Pra-/lowian mia*a 0ardziej rozszerzon"8 uniwersaln"
c#arakter od romajsko-judejskiego Dekalogu( ?wi*a o %oszanowani i mi*oci do Prz"rod" i do zwierz1t8
nie t"lko do 0liCnic#(
<am0ridge Uistoria /taro!"tna mwi o wielkiej uczciwoci i orawoci /*owian - 4enetw 3 4endw I
4andali O 5aszu0w osiad*"c# ,DFF =(<( w %*n( -wsc#( 4*oszec#8 ktrz" za*o!"li %!niej +e%u0lik
5u%ieck1 - 4enecj na wzr Nowogrodu 4ielkiego8 nazwanego Per*1 P*noc"( ' kolei Uerodot w swoic#
%ismac# z okresu AFF =(<( %isze o ?edac#8 !e s1 Ar"anami - cz"li w"znawcami 7ednego t"lko Naczelnego
=oga - /twrc" 4szec#wiata( 4arto na Internecie %rzeledzi; los" zniszczonej mieczem i ogniem wiar"
Pra-/*owian( Przeciwnikiem /twrc" jest <zarno-=og w wierzeniac# /*owian( Ar"anie zwracaj1c si do
/twrc"8 w"ci1gali rce do Nie0ios8 sk1d s%*"wa Gnergia Nie0ios( +omajsko-judejskie %rakt"ki to sk*adanie
razem d*oni8 co 0lokuje do%*"w Gnergi Nie0ios8 %adanie na kolana jak %rzed <arem8 oskar!ania si o
grzec#"8 0icie w %iersi co jeszcze 0ardziej os*a0ia struktur 5oci 5r!"!owej a t"m sam"m %owoduje
%ro0lem" ng i znacznie wicej( Poza t"m do%iero od oko*o dwustu lat ta o0ca Duc#owi /*owia2skiemu
religia na0ra*a 0ardziej ludzkiego o0licza - sko2cz"*a %alenie na stosac# tzw( Uerekt"kw(
:d%owiedz
"iot( said, on 24 *ze(wiec 2011 at 2$:28
`Ar"anie zwracaj1c si do /twrc"8 w"ci1gali rce do Nie0ios8 sk1d s%*"wa Gnergia Nie0ios( +omajsko-
judejskie %rakt"ki to sk*adanie razem d*oni8 co 0lokuje do%*"w Gnergi Nie0ios8 %adanie na kolana jak %rzed
<arem8 oskar!ania si o grzec#"8 0icie w %iersi co jeszcze 0ardziej os*a0ia struktur 5oci 5rz"!owej a t"m
sam"m %owoduje %ro0lem" ng i znacznie wicej(&
'atem wiara <#rzecija2ska %owoduje %ro0lem" z krz"!em i nogami i $0lokuje do%*"w energii nie0ios& H
Niez*a %ro%aganda ant"c#rzecija2skaY
/zanuje dawne wierzenia /*owian i nawet 9ajnie 8!e kto si stara $wskrzesza;& te %rakt"ki8 jednak ta
w"%owiedC %ow"!ej jest nieo0iekt"wna8 %ro%agandowa(/tara si %rzedstawi; !e religia /*owian jest
znakomita a <#rzecija2stwo z*eY
$wkroczenie do akcji <zarno0oga& - cz" do0rze rozumiem8 !e twierdzisz8 !e <zarno0g (od%owiednik
szatana) s%owodowa* nadejcie c#rzecija2twa H
:d%owiedz
bialczynski said, on 2% *ze(wiec 2011 at 8:%1
4 w"%owiedzi +a9ala jest wiele gorzkiej %rawd" na temat c#rzecijan i a0solutnie tra9n"c# s%ostrze!e2
dot"cz1c"c# %rze0iegu dziejw na s*owia2skic# ziemiac#( 7ednak!e zwracam uwag zarwno +a9a*owi jak
i Piotrowi8 ktrz" tutaj %olemizuj1 ze so01 ostatnio8 !e rozumienie <zarno0oga jako 0oga '*a cz" te!
/zatana to nie%orozumienie( Nie c#c wc#odzi; w cudz1 skr8 ale w 4ierze Prz"rod" nie istniej1 %ojcia
$o0iekt"wnego& do0ra i z*a( Nie ludziom ocenia; co $do0re& a co $z*e&8 a 0ogowie - uoso0ienia /i*
Prz"rod" - a wic /i*" Prz"rod" dzia*aj1 0ez !adnej intencji(
<zarno0g jest uznawan" za 4*adc <iemn"c# /i* - ciemn"c# w rozumieniu - %rzeciwn"c# <z*owiekowi(
>o 0g uto!samian" z tzw %ierwiastkiem mskim8 agresj18 ostroci18 jaskrawoci18 ale i a0solutn1 czerni18
ciemnoci18 wsz"stkim co twarde8 zdec"dowane8 gwa*towne8 a0solutnie jednoznaczne8 a wic w"wo*uj1c"
wojn" i %owoduj1c" c#aos8 nie*ad - to =g Dzia*u - %ierwiastek $in& w strukturze 4szec#wiata( Dlatego
+a9a* %isze o nadejciu <zarno0oga dla wiata Awarw i w ogle krlestwa /I/ w oso0ie 5arola 4ielkiego(
=iel =ia*o0ogi - 0stwo Dzia*u %ierwiastka !e2skiego - to nie 0iel jaskrawa lecz mleczno;( >u sku%ia si
wsz"stko co nieostre8 niejednoznaczne8 o0*e8 mikkie8 jasne ale niejaskrawe8 ciemne ale nie czarne( >o
"ang wszec#wiata dwc# dzia*w - in i "ang8 dwa dzia*" wed*ug @lozo@i taoist"cznej <#i2cz"kw( [aden
z nic# nie jest ani do0r" ani z*"( <#rzecija2skie %ojcie $do0ra& - nie ma w Prz"rodzie zastosowania(
4 moim odczuciu wed*ug m1droci nasz"c# %rzodkw: $nie ma tego z*ego co 0" na do0re nie w"sz*o&(
5arol 4ielki i eks%ansja c#rzecija2stwa %odda*a wiat /tarego 5aganatu Guro-Azjat"ckiego (5rlestwa
/I/) 0ardzo ostrej %r0ie( 4"szlim" z tej %r0" zw"cisko( 7ej %rzedostatni e%izod to II 4ojna awiatowa8 a
kolejn" roz%ocz1* si w ,TBT roku(
<#rzecija2stwo za z*e uznaje $wsz"stko co %rzeciw mnie& al0o $wsz"stko co niezgodne z moj1 religi1&( >a
%ostawa ukszta*towa*a szereg kierunkw @lozo@czn"c# i %ostaw ws%*czesn"c# ludzi wo0ec wiata(
4ielu ludzi - tak!e na t"m 0logu - mwi1c c#rzecija2stwo ma na m"li nie t"le ws%*czesn1 religi co
%ewn1 %ostaw ws%*czesn"c# ludzi wo0ec wiata w"nikaj1c1 z jej za*o!e2 oraz @lozo@i8 jaka z niej
w"ros*a: $Do0re jest to co jest do0re dla mnie i mojej wiar"&(
A wic mrwki i komar" niedo0re 0o gr"z18 m"sz" niedo0re 0o zjadaj1 %lon"8 %s" niedo0re 0o
0ezwst"dnie ko%uluj18 Islam niedo0r" 0o to nie moja wiara8 woda niedo0ra 0o zalewa miasta8 zimno
niedo0re wic w"eks%loatujm" 'iemi do dna z drzew8 wgla8 gazu8 ro%"8 zatrujm" j1 %romieniowaniem z
atomow"c# elektrowni8 g*d niedo0r" wic w%rowadCm" !"wno; )?: - ktrej si stonka nie ima8 gdzie ,
%omidor wa!" S kg8 a jedna marc#ewka w"!"wi ,FFF g*odn"c# A9r"kanw itd8 it%(
>o ta @lozo@a 0"*a %rz"cz"n1 II 4ojn" awiatowej i wikszoci wojen - $Nam Niemcom jest %otrze0ne
$Ze0ensraum& to ic# w"r!nijm"8 0o tam na 4sc#odzie jest du!o $Ze0nesraum&( >o %rz"cz"na tak!e tego
co 0"*o ws%*czenie w 7ugos*awii8 i tego co ro0i1 Al0a2cz"c" w 5osowie8 tego co zro0ili so0ie nawzajem
Polac" i Mkrai2c" (naj0li!si 0racia8 nie r!ni1c" si nawet jz"kiem a jed"nie religi1 %rawos*awni i
katolic")8 tego co ro0ili Polakom +osjanie8 tego co ro0ili /*owianom Niemc" (%rzecie! +, - to krew z
jednego ojca8 trudno o wiksz1 0lisko; ni! midz" +,0, i +,a,)( >o co teraz jest w A9ganistanie8 Iraku8
Izraelu8 Iranie i inn"c# krajac# ara0skic# ma te same korzenie( Zudzie czer%i1c" korz"ci z $@lozo@i religii
Pod0oju& (judaizmu8 c#rzecija2stwa8 islamu)8 cz"li z $trz"mania w*adz"& kieruj1 t*umami do rzezi8 al0o
ludzie kieruj1c" si %oczuciem %rz"nale!noci do jakiej religii %odjudzani %rzez nic# w"0ijaj1 w rzeziac#
swoic# ws%*0raci tej samej #a%logru%" +,a,a cz" ID cz" 78 al0o G - jak w A9r"ce8 cz" +,0, - jak w Irlandii
P*nocnej( Amer"kanie w imi idea*w $c#rzecija2skic#& - 0o demokracja to taki idea* w*anie - morduj1
swoic# ws%*0raci +,a, i inn"c# w A9ganistanie i Iraku8 a tamci c#c1 narzuci; wiatu swj Islam - jed"nie
s*uszn" wariant c#rzecija2stwa a tak na%rawd od*am - sc#izm c#rzecija2stwa8 ktr1 m" od0ieram"
jako: & co strasznego8 %rze!"tek8 zamord"zm8 niewol jednostki&8 a to t"lko 0ardzo ortodoks"jne i $stare&
w 9ormie c#rzecija2stwo w*anie(
'iemia jest niszczona @z"cznie (Prz"roda) w w"niku zastosowania w %rakt"ce @lozo@i o korzeniac#
c#rzecija2skic#: $do0re wsz"stko co do0re dla mnie i mojej religii&( 4 t"m duc#u niszcz" si wsz"stko co
%rzeszkadza cz*owiekowi s%e*nia; swoje cele8 a nie szuka si #armonii z t"m co si zasta*o(
>o wsz"stko - %ocz1wsz" od 5arola 4ielkiego i eks%ansji ludzi %os*uguj1c"c# si @lozo@1 c#rzecija2sk1 w
Amer"ce8 Azji i A9r"ce %olega*o na na %od0oju i c#r"stianizacji na si* gdzie si da*o8 oraz na narzuceniu
wiatu na si* swojej @lozo@i gdzie si sc#r"stianizowa; nie da*o - %rowadzi glo0alnego konbiktu dwc#
s%oso0w m"lenia( $/tarego& ktr"m dla ws%*czesnego <z*owieka jest c#rzecija2stwo i jego wariant"
oraz $Nowego& - 4iar" Prz"rod" - ktra jest w istocie odrodzon"m $0ardzo star"m& %ierwotn"m
wiato%ogl1dem - @lozo@1 naturalnej #armonii i naturalnego *adu oraz %od%orz1dkowania si <z*owieka
Prawom Prz"rod" a nie w"m"lon"m $ideom& i $dogmatom& realizuj1c"m te $idee&(
?"l8 !e <z*owiek (<"wilizacja Zudzi) musia*a %rzej; %rzez czas dogmat"czn"c# wierze2 (%rzez judaizm8
c#rzecija2stwo8 islam - to s1 religie Pod0oju8 ale Pod0j 'iemi8 %od0j Prz"rod" ju! si dokona*) -
doszlim" do kresu na tej drodze( Nilozo@a %od0oju do%rowadzi*a nas tu gdzie jestem" - <z" c#cem" i;
t1 drog1 nadalH``` Nie - c#cem" i; w zgodzie z naukow"m wiato%ogl1dem kieruj1c si wiedz1 jak1
nauka nam daje( A tam gdzie nauka nie znajduje od%owiedzi na stawiane %"tania i nie mo!e da; nam
do0rej rad"8 jak %ost%owa; - nie c#cem" i; drog1 %od0oju - c#cem" i; drog1 %oszanowania %raw
Prz"rod" - %oszanowania odmiennoci( <#cem" i; drog1 #armonii i *adu naturalnego8 ktr" zosta* %rzez
nas zde%tan" w trakcie %od0oju(
<=(

Kel Thuz (@WhoIsKelThuz) said, on 11 +a2 2012 at 16:49

Polecam o0ada; ten utwr8 ins%irowan" zagadnieniami z 5sigi Po%io*w8 ktr1 c"tujesz:
Object3
:d%owiedz

70 IK said, on 20 /(udzie 2010 at 1%:$0

#tt%:33www(arc#i6e(org3stream3dziejesowiaszczF,0ogugoog3dziejesowiaszczF,0ogugoogLdj6u(tPt
`(/tra0o zastanawiaj1c sie nad %oc#odzeniem )ermanw8 za-
uwa!a*8 li( mieszka2c" %rawego 0rzegu +enu c#ocia! r!nili sie
nieco od mieszka2cw lewego 0rzegu8 ktr"c# on 5eltami na-
z"wa8 0"li jednak %ostaw18 o0"czajem i s%oso0em !"cia %odo0ni
do sie0ie( ' tego %owodu +z"mianie8 jak twierdzi /tra0o8 s%ra-
wiedliwie dali im nazwisko %okrewn"c#8 %oniewa! krewn" w mo-
wie rz"mskiej jest germanu s( c) >ac"t inaczej rzecz te rozu-
mia*( 4ed*ug niego nazwa )ermanii 0"*a nazw1 %rz"0ran1
%rzez t"c#8 ktrz" %rze0"wsz" +en8 )allw w"%dzili i )erma-
nami %rzezwani zostali( 7est to8 %owiada >ac"t8 nazwa narodowa
(nationis)8 a nie ludowa (gentis)8 wc#odz1ca w u!"cie %owoli(d)
>"m s%oso0em >ac"t za%rzecz"* wiarogodno; et"mologii /tra-
0ona co do w"razu )ermania8 rzuciwsz" %rzez to w1tefliwo; %o-
c#odzenia tj nazw"8 w1t%liwo;8 ktrej dot1d uczeni rozstrz"n1;
nie zdo*ali( Postaram" si o0jani; rzecz t ni!cj8 a t"mczasem
%oznajomim" si z ludami w )ermanii zamieszka*"mi(
7eszcze 7( <ezar zauwa!a*8 !e w )ermanii ludno; 0"*a dwo-
jakiego rodzaju: /wew" zajmuj1c" %o*udniow1 i wsc#odni1 cz;
)ermanii i nie-/wew"8 r!n"c# nazwisk lud"8 ku%i1ce si nad
doln"m +enem i na %omorzu %*nocnem( 4"%raw" +z"mian
w g*10 )ermanii r( ,D %rzed <#r( i A %o <#r( odkr"*" mnogo
nieznan"c# %rzedtem ludw8 a! do Gl0" rozsiad*"c#( /tra0o
-,F-Y(( $
:d%owiedz
80 .K Kelto ! slowianskie kamienie g(aniczne w 3K said, on 20 /(udzie 2010 at 1%:%&
#tt%:33www(arc#i6e(org3stream3staroslo6an6iertF,zunkuo9t3staroslo6an6iertF,zunkuo9tLdj6u(tPt
5elto - /lowianskie kamienie graniczne w M5 w rejonie
/t( Dogmaeis8 =ez( <ardigan 4ales M5
/low kogan to krol w jez"ku staro norweskim(
#tt%:33www(#istoric-uk(com3DestinationsM53/tDogmaels(#tm
#tt%:33www(runemaker(com3monument(s#tml
#tt%:33www(0ritannica(com39acts3A3ADSAQA3]iking-as-discussed-in-e%igra%#"-#istoriogra%#"
4issensc#a9tlic#es Allerlei(
Gin kelto-s , sla6isc#er )renzstein in Gngland(
Im 4erke $+unic ?onuments& des Pro9essors )eorge /te%#ens
(Zondon-5o%en#agen8 ,BEE) ist eine Por%#"r%"ramide 0esc#rie0en8
die in der )emeindebur 6on /t( Dogmaeis8 =ez( <ardigan au9 4ales8
ge9unden wurde( Diesel0e zeigt 9olgende Insc#ri9t im lateinisc#en
Al%#a0ete : $'agrani gli <unotami& . dersel0e >ePt wieder#olt sic#
h0erdies au9 der linken 5ante in der :gam - /c#ri9t8 und wurde 0is-
#er allgemein als eine Insc#ri9t in lateinisc#er /%rac#e8 $/agrani8
/o#n des <unotam& 0esagend8 ausgelegt8 der /tein also als ein )ra0-
stein angese#en(
cX Diese /telle ist unklar8 denn es ist zwei9el#a9t8 o0 ikoganj als Gigen-
name oder als: 5ind8 /%rosse au9zu9assen ist. in letzterem Nalle ist unter
i#otij ()ema#lin) #ier die 7arosla6na zu 6erste#en(
ck) = o r i c e ]8 Name eines A0#anges des Dnje%r-M9ers8 6on welc#em man
zu einer l0er9u#r gelangte(
d\) P i r o g o s c #iess der ?ann (5au9mann)8 der dieses =ild 6on 5onstan-
tino%el nac# 5ie6 0rac#te8 wo es in der i( 7( ,,S, er0auten ?arienkirc#e au9ge-
stellt wurde(
dd) ] , a d i mir8 /o#n Igor\s8 des Uelden der Dic#tung(
dc) Der /c#luss gleic#t den Ans%rac#en in griec#isc#en 5irc#en 0ei 9eier-
lic#en Anlmssen8 welc#er Mmstand zur Anna#me 9h#rte8 dass der Dic#ter ein
?nnc# war8 doc# kann sic# e0ensogut ein weltlic#er Dic#ter die o9t ge#nrte An-
s%rac#e zum ?uster genommen #a0en(
Td
,SD
Diese Deutung muss a0er in jeder Uinsic#t 0ezwei9elt werden8
denn der >ePt sel0st ent#mlt nic#t nur der0e grammatisc#e Ne#ler8
sondern auc# sonstige wic#tige =edenken in 0ezug au9 die Gigennamen(
Augensc#einlic# ist die Insc#ri9t kelto-sla6isc# und 0esagt die-
sel0e: $)renzstein der )emeinde (oder Uerrsc#a9t) <unotam&8 und
ist der =egrio $zagrani& ( sagrani) doc# das
sla6isc#e 4ort 9hr die )renze8 )renzlinie
8 c\ ( oder den )renzstein8 denn das russisc#e
`zagranicnij& kennzeic#net noc# immer #iemit
jenen8 der jenseits oder an der )renze
wo#nt. $@li& kann a0er in dieser Norm e0enso
als $6ili& gelesen werden8 denn zwisc#en $9&
und $]& wurde 9rh#er in der sc#ri9tlic#en Dar-
stellung 6iel9ac# kein Mntersc#ied gemac#t8 und
$6ila& 0edeutet in den meisten /%rac#en et-
was Analoges8 wie 0ei den +nmern ein Z a n d-
#aus oder ein Zandgut8 0ei den )riec#en
als $%#ile& die /i%%e8 )emeinde oder das
Au9ge0ot (eines ]olksstammes). 0ei den
/hdsla6en #at $6ilajet& die =edeutung 6on
=ezirk8 5reis8 und im Deutsc#en ist der-
sel0e 4ortstamm zu $4eiler& geworden. im
Nranznsisc#en ist $6ille& die ooene /tadt8
der nic#t mit ?auern umge0ene :rt( p A0er
auc# das 4ort $<unedda& kommt in der ml-
testen )esc#ic#te <ardigans als der Name
eines Adelsgesc#lec#tes (oder Adelssitzes)
6or8 da#er diese Zesung in allen >eilen s%rac#-
gesc#ic#tlic# 0egrhndet ist( Uingegen ist die
Anna#me der )ele#rten8 dass $/agranus& so6iel
als $grosser Angrei9er& 0edeute8 auc# nur im
sla6isc#en /inne ric#tig8 denn die )renze
5elto-sla6isc#cr )renzstein Y( 8 j c- i i j ,,
in Gngland( sowie derjenige8 dem der /c#utz dersel0en
o0liegt8 tragen na#ezu grundsmtzlic# Namen
dersel0en /%rac#wurzel(
Dieser /tein diente8 soweit 0ekannt8 zuerst als >hrslock8 dann als
Au9tritt 0ei einer 4assersc#n%9stelle. jezt 0e@ndet er sic# in der ]i-
karie 6on /t( Dogmaeis( 4ar er a0er je ein )ra0stein8 so #mtte i#n
niemand als >hrstock 0enhtzt8 denn der )lau0e8 dass man das8 was
au9 den Nried#o9 ge#nrt8 nic#t ins Uaus nimmt8 ist doc# ein allge-
meiner8 und wurde 9rh#er wo#l noc# genauer einge#alten8 wie 6iel-
leic#t #eute( 4a#rsc#einlic# ist es a0er8 dass der /tein einmal 0ei
,SS
einer )renzregulierung oder =esilzarrondierung ent0e#rlic# wurde und
sodann die erwm#nte %ro9ane ]erwendung er#ielt(
Die :g am- /c#ri9t 0esie#t aus einem %rimiti6en /tric#s"stem8
d( #( jeder =uc#sta0e ist aus ,A %arallelen /tric#en o0er8 unter
oder au9 der 'eile (#ier 5ante) ge0ildet8 und wurde das Al%#a0et 6on
einem =isc#o9 6on Zimerick (Irland) e0en nac# diesem /teine kon-
struiert( :0 a0er dieser /c#lhssel zutreoend ist8 mhsste erst an den
za#lreic#en sonstigen /c#ri9tdenkmmlern dieser Art nac#gewiesen wer-
den8 denn man #mlt auc# die sonstigen Insc#ri9ten 9hr lateinisc#
und sc#rei0t sie dem I]( 7a#r#underte zu. wurden a0er auc# die
h0rigen so 9alsc# gelesen wie dieser )renzstein8 dann ist anzune#men8
dass sie alle k elto-sl a 6isc#e Au9sc#ri9ten #a0en( ]ielleic#t @ndet
sic# au9 dieses #in jemand in Gngland oder Nrankreic#8 der diese
l0er%rh9ung oder ]ergleic#ung an den :riginalen neuerdings 6or-
nimmt. im 7a#re ,B)A waren ange0lic# sc#on AE solc#er /teine 0e-
kannt( p ?( '(
/la6isc#e ?ildtmtigkeit in 0ar0arisc#en 'eiten(
:d%owiedz
90 'zwedcy 4endowie5 said, on 20 /(udzie 2010 at 22:28
te D linki %rzedstawiaja %owstanie Panstw /kand"nawskic#
)ott mnge seine )nade senden Dem8 der es tat au9 /c#wedisc# wenden(
=oze 0adz gnedis t"m co to ucz"nili /zwedzkim 4endom(
4iec 4endowie 0"li na%ewno /zwedami(
>"le ze kied"s /kand"nawia 0"la , Panstwem z nazwa Dacja8 ktore %odzielilo sie na czesci(
:%is tej sagi legend" jest w A czesciac#
,( /zwecja8
D( Norwegia
ppppppp
S naste%ne %rz"%uszczalne
S(Dania8
Q(+us
A(Polska3Pomorze
#tt%:33de(wiki%edia(org3wiki3/amsonLqDBUeldensageqDT
#tt%:33de(wiki%edia(org3wiki3>#idrekssaga
Die altsc#wedisc#e Nassung W=ear0eitenX
Dass es sic# 0ei der sc#wedisc#en Nassung der >#idrekssaga um eine l0ersetzung #andelt8 gi0t sie sel0st
ganz am /c#luss zu 6erste#en8 mit den 4orten: Uerrn Didriks =uc# #at nun sein Gnden8 )ott mnge seine
)nade senden Dem8 der es tat au9 /c#wedisc# wenden( ]or allem des#al0 wird die altsc#wedisc#e
Nassung im Allgemeinen 9hr eine 6erkhrzte l0ersetzung der altwestnordisc#en ?em0rane 0etrac#tet(
Dass die sc#wedisc#e Nassung keine eklatanten 4iders%rhc#e oder Do%%elungen ent#mlt8 wie ?08 9h#rt
man darau9 zurhck8 dass der l0ersetzer 0ewusst 6ersuc#te8 ein ein#eitlic#es und nic#t in sic#
widers%rhc#lic#es 4erk #erzustellen(
:d%owiedz
190 2(2c& said, on 18 #uty 2011 at 14:22
4s%ania*" art"ku*
:d%owiedz
110 .K said, on 28 #uty 2011 at 14:29
Podzial jez"kow" w czasac# wczesn"c# naszej er"
den litauisc#-t#rakisc#-#ellenisc#en8
den wendisc#-sla6isc#-indisc#en
den sarmatisc#-sk"t#isc#-%ersisc#eii
Podzial ten mowi o %owstaniu t"c# terenow
:d%owiedz
150 "iote(us said, on 1 *ze(wiec 2011 at 1%:02
4sz"stko 9ajnie ale odwie!"*0"m co nieco te legend" o #a%logru%ac# I8 w szczeglnoci ID( /am jestem
IDaDa-Din (nie wiem dok*adniej ale %odejrzewam8 !e Din-N) i troc# juz eks%lorowa*em temat:
moje %rze0oje ze zrozumieniem i zaktualizowaniem w"nikw zgodnie i I/:)) DF,F etc(:
#tt%:33www(9orum0iodi6ersit"(com3s#owt#read(%#%HtI,QQFQ
%olecam ma%k #tt%:33danel(us3resources3)rand9at#ersOPat#T(%d9
=ardzo du!o ostroznoci w c"towaniu Piedza Glkate 0raciom s*awianom zalecam .)
Do tego %rosz ledzi; 0log Da6idski\ego 6el Polako:
#tt%:330ga,F,(0logs%ot(com3
oraz troc# kontrowers"jnie i nieco 0zdurnie ale i tak ciekawie:
#tt%:33www(jandacek(com3no6elL6iews(#tml
>roc# Pan 7anda;ek si za%dza z t1 $or"ginalnoci1& s*owe2skiego8 %o*a0skiego etcY (za%omina o
kaszu0skim`) %odczas gd" wsz"stkie te jz"ki nasz"c# s*awia2skic# 0raci niestet" 0"*" na %rogu w"marcia
i za%omnienia (tak jak i 0a*t"ckie i @2skie) wic teraz maj1 %ewnie niewiele ws%lnego ze swoimi
or"gina*ami i s1 raczej sztuczn"mi konglomeratem stworzon"m %rzez _I_ wieczn"c# gramat"kw -
romant"kw(
:d%owiedz
140 zagan)olska said, on $ *ze(wiec 2012 at 1&:0%
>"lko nie dajm" si z*owi; w genet"czn1 %u*a%k( >o rwnie do0rze mo!e zacz1; r!nicowa; jak do tej
%or" %rawos*awie-katolic"zm( 'ac#owajm" zdrowom"lenie`
:d%owiedz
1e0 6(ia said, on & "a7dzie(nik 2012 at 21:42
4itam i %ozdrawiam wsz"stkic#( <z" wiadom"m jest komukolwiek8 cz" i gdzie ewentualnie z d"s%ut1
%rzenios*a si 9erajna z dzia*u genet"ka w s*u!0ie arc#eologii 9orum UistmaguH
:d%owiedz
"iote(us said, on 8 "a7dzie(nik 2012 at &:46
Ua` /am c#cia*0"m wiedzie;Y D"skusje na Norum =iodi6ersit" na razie straci*" na ogniu8 ale towarz"stwo
z Uistmaga to 0"*a zu%e*nie inna metoda rozmow" i 0ardzo mi jej 0rak(
Na =iodi6ersit" /*owianie s1 %od swoist1 $oc#ron1& w*aciciela 9orum - Ass"r"jcz"ka8 ktr" ma wiele
w*asnej sat"s9akcji z udowadniania zac#odnioeuro%ejcz"kom8 !e maj1 nam 0ardzo du!o kulturowo do
zawdziczenia (w"suwa nawet niemia*e #i%otez"8 !e $jego& c"wilizacje Gu9ratu i >"gr"su cosik te! z tej
czci wiata dosta*")8 ale jest tam te! du!a %o%ulacja @nntrolli8 ktra ka!d1 d"skusj zmienia w
s%ec"@czn1 jatk (7ask .) H)( ?am" tam te! %ewnego $Nord"ckiego =oga& z Gstonii8 ktr" niczego nie
nienawidzi 0ardziej na wiecie8 ni! Indoeuro%ejskic# mongo*w (w"znawca 0zdur 5ale6ii 4iika o
rdzennoci Ninno-Mgr"jcz"kw w Guro%ie)8 ale ten to ju! %o %rostu takie za0awne zwierz1tko i nikt go nie
traktuje %owa!nie(
4 ka!d"m razie za%raszam wsz"stkic# anglojz"czn"c#( 7est weso*o(
Na Uistmagu 0"*o jako m1drzej to wsz"stko d"skutowane( =ardziej na argument" mniej na w"z"wanie si
od %anslawistw i nacjonalistw .)
:d%owiedz
6(2a said, on 8 "a7dzie(nik 2012 at 18:00
4itaj Pioterus`
No nie mog %rze0ole; tej strat" i mam nadziej8 !e jednak znajdzie si jaki s%os0 dotarcia na 0ie!1co8
z rzeczow1 analiz1 aktualnoci i wnioskami8 do szerszego od0iorc" i %owiadomicie o t"m ( tak!e c#o;0"
tutaj u %( =ia*cz"2skiego)8 o ile macie jaki star"8 %oza9orumow" kontakt ze so01( Dzia* na Uistmagu - to
0"*a zaiste klasa sama w so0ie8 %omimo atakw wiadomej maci trollowni8 %od koniec akt"wnoci 9orum(
?o!e trze0a sko%iowa; dost%n" tam materia* ( do%ki jeszcze jest) i jako 9orm jak0" arc#iwum8
%rzenie; gdzie indziej lu0 c#o;0" zac#owa; $na za&H Pozdrawiam serdecznie wsz"stkic#(
.K said, on 19 /(udzie 2012 at 1$:$9
Pewien #istor"k =ogu9alus ze /laska %isal :
krolowie Polski %oc#odzili od krolow As"r"jskic# 8 ktorz" %oc#odzili z %olnoc"
i ic# '"dowskic# matek(
'"l on o wiele wczesniej niz nasz 5adlu0ek(
5rolowie As"rii %oc#odzili rzecz"wiscie z %olnoc" ```

IK said, on 19 /(udzie 2012 at 1$:$4

Dzien do0r" wsz"sc" oczekujem" 8gd" nasz rzad %rzekaze 9undusze na 0adania "-dna Piastow %oczatek
DF,S roku(
serdecznie %ozdrawiam
:d%owiedz

1P0 Zprowokowany said, on 1 'tycze 2014 at 1%:2%

Prze%raszam8 ale musz wtr1ci; swoje S grosze8 mimo !e nie jestem !adn"m znawc1 ani zawodowcem w
tej dziedzinie(
`7ednak %rzeciwko korelacji staro!"tn"c# #a%logru% c#romosomow"c# Y-DNA +,a i +,0 z jz"kami
%raindoeuro%ejskimi nie mo!e wiadcz"; 9akt niektr"c# niekonsekwencji w tej dziedzinie( N%( =askowie8
w"r!niaj1c" si do; m*oda ga*zi1 #a%logru%1 +,0,aD8 zatraci*" swj %ierwotn" jz"k indoeuro%ejski8 co
mog*o si sta; %rzecie! w trakcie %rze0"wania w rejonie 5aukazu al0o na skutek w"j1tkowej inicjat"w"
stron" !e2skiej w %ierwotnej ma*ej gru%ie rodzinnej(&
Prawdo%odo0nie8 =askowie nigd" nie mwili Indoeuro%ejskim jz"kiem8 jak i inni +,08 ktrz" si
%rawdo%odo0nie t"lko wtrnie si zindoeuro%eizowali - %atrz :
5ristian 5ristiansen8 >#e =ronze Age eP%ansion o9 Indo-Guro%ean
languages #tt%:33www("outu0e(com3watc#H6I-<Q_sAAo60g
5ultura %uc#arw dzwonowat"c# jest uwa!ana za +,08 nie musia*a wcale 0"; indoeuro%ejska8 na
%odstawie now"c# 0ada2(
`Podo0nie mo!na w"t*umacz"; kszta*t greckiego jz"ka indoeuro%ejskiego8 u!"tkowanego g*wnie %rzez
%rz"0"*e do rodowiska euro%ejskiego na =a*kanac# %o%ulacje #a%logru%" G,0,0, o genezie a9r"ka2skiej.
ciekawa jest wersja tego jz"ka8 0o 0liska indoira2skiemu8 ale 0ez satemizacji( Podo0nie jz"k
Al0a2cz"kw8 w"r!niaj1c"c# si g*wnie #a%logru%1 +,0,0D8 jest satemow"8 co jest za%ewne
s%owodowane 0ardziej %ierwotn"m osadnictwem s*owia2skim w t"m rejonie i aktualn"m otoczeniem(&
Al0a2ski nie jest /A>G?``` >o #mY co to jest skoro %o al0a2sku sto to - njrJindH
'a to ni0" *1ci2ski j( rumu2ski jest satem` Patrz sto - suta`
<o do tego jak to 0"*o z Uellenami8 jest wiele now"c# #i%otez8 n%( /%artanie jako Dorowie8 mieli jasne
w*os"8 nie jak +,0 cz" inniY
`Nienaukowa wic8 krz"wdz1ca dla inn"c# ludw euro%ejskic#8 a zarazem 0ardzo szkodliwa dla szacunku
Polakw w Guro%ie8 jest teza8 szerzona na niektr"c# %ortalac# www( o to!samoci Indoeuro%ejcz"kw
t"lko ze /*owianami8 w"w"!szanie jz"ka i kultur" /*owian8 ic# si*" i rzekomej wojowniczoci8 z w"raCn1
nutk1 szowinizmu i %ogard" dla inn"c# narodw8 ktre rzekomo t"lko dziki /*owianom sta*" si
indoeuro%ejskie( (Y)&
No c!Y Panie <zes*awie8 na %odstawie tego co ostatnio widzia*em i zrozumia*em8 to w*anie to
twierdzenie w"gl1da na nie%rawdziwe i niestet" #mY coraz 0ardziej w1t%liweY
Nie naz"wa*0"m %lemion +,a z %rzed AFFF lat /*owianamiY aleY Pra /*owianami8 ju! tak(
I nie ma to nic ws%lnego ani z szacunkiem8 ani szkodliwoci1Y 4"gl1da na to !e +,a no i mo!e I 0"*o
nonikiem indoeuro%ejskoci8 jako kultura tr"%olska8 jamowa8 sznurowa it%(
`)GNG'A 7s'Y5t4 /A>G?:4Y<U (#indo-0a*to-s*owia2skic#)
Na ojcz"st"m terenie8 za%ewne gdzie w rejonie Dunaju lu0 5ar%at8 w %o%ulacji +,a,a, dokona*a si
satemizacja jz"ka (dot1d za%ewne kentumowego jak nadal w #a%logru%ie +,0)8 rwnoznaczna z
9ormowaniem si jz"ka %raindo-%ra0a*to-%ras*owia2skiego( /atemizacja %olega*a g*wnie na innowacji8
!e %ierwotnie mikkie k\ u satemowcw %rzesz*o w s (u kentumowcw t"lko utraci*o zmikczenie)8 staj1c
sie zw"k*"m k lu0 c( 4net %otem8 od oko*o III t"si1clecia %(n(e( (ale jeszcze %rzed ter"torialn1 eks%ansj1
Pras*owian)8 nast1%i*o oddzielenie si jz"ka indo-ira2skic# Ariw (g*wnie z mutacj1 'TS)8 a %Cniej
oddzielenie si jz"ka 0a*t"jskiego(
:statecznie rodowi z mutacj1 'DBS8 !"j1cemu na na niewielkim terenie Guro%"8 za%ewne w 5otlinie
Dunajskiej lu0 w rejonie 5ar%at8 nale!" %rz"%isa; dokonanie %odstawow"c# %ras*owia2skic# innowacji
jz"kow"c#8 ktr"c# zaistnienie do%iero %o roz%rzestrzenieniu si na wsc#d i roz%roszeniu ludnoci
0"*o0" ju! niemo!liwe (%or( I( +o!anskij i A( 5losow8 4iestnik8 t(D8 n(E)&
Nie wiem8 cz" satem %owsta*o z kentum( 7a mam na ten temat odmienn1 teori8 a mianowicie8 !e to
satem zniekszta*ca si i u%raszcza si na skutek mieszania si z inn"mi #a%logru%ami i im dalej od
centrum +,a8 t"m wicej kentum( /1dz1c %o +,a >oc#arac# i ic# w"jciu co najmniej ok( tzw( DFFFr %ne
na wsc#d i ic# mieszaniu sie z inn"mi #a%logru%ami8 jaki z inn"mi mieszankami +,08 G8 it%(
7z"koznawcom germa2skim nie u9am8 za grosz %atrz:
Object4
7ames ?allor"8 Proto-Indo-Guro%ean8 Proto-Mralic and Nostratic
=a*agan z uszeregowaniem jz"kw IG jest zro0ion" %o niemiecku - Pokorn"Y
DE min %rz"k*ad ile s*ownictwa PIG zosta*o odtworzone i jaka to odtworzenie ma jako;Y #e#e#e
No do0ra %od%owiemY /zacunek %rocentow" wa#a si oko*o ,-S-,Fq odtworzon"c# s*w8 w zale!noci
od zagadnienia nazewnictwa8 zwierz1t8 rolin8 %rzedmiotw itd`
?usz oso0icie %rz"zna;8 !e szanuj Pana 7amesa ?allorego8 za 0rak za#amowa2 i szczero; do 0lu8
cz"m %ewno gotuje r!n"c# naukow"c# mani%ulantwY
P(/(
Nie wiem kim jestem8 kto wie mo!e i si %rze0adam (Na 0ank nie %rzez )enogra%#ic Project <zerwon"c#
>arcz`)8 ale %uki co nie mo!na mnie nazwa; jakim s*owia2skim 9asz"st18 cz" co w t"m rodzajuY #e#e#e
7a c#c si zw"czajnie dowiedzie; jak to 0"*o8 a nie jak to germa2ska nauka twierdzi8 0o jej ju! teraz
mo!na zarzuci; 9a*szowanie dan"c#8 totaln1 stronniczo;8 d"skr"minacj8 rasizm itd(
:d%owiedz
1j0201$ 8 Blog 8 "odsumowanie (oku 9 biaczyski said, on & 'tycze 2014 at 1$:%0
WYX )enet"czne odkr"cia DF,F3DF,D - Nowa )enealogia /*owian i inn"c# ludw =ia*ego Z1du (Guro%")
,S(ATD WYX
:d%owiedz
170 :bylut said, on 6 #uty 2014 at 8:$$
krt said8 on D, Zi%iec DF,, at DF:,Q
a s%rawa Nazwa uPolska& mo!e to w%*"w wikingw8 tak jak u/kanska&( <z" to nie dziwne8 !e ?ieszko I
w"daje crk za wikingaH&
A co w t"m dziwnego H 4ladc" %olsc" -%odo0nie jak wladc" na cal"m swiecie- %rowadzili $%olit"ke
d"nast"czna& tak jak im to 0"lo na reke( Do%atr"wanie sie w"dania /wietoslaw" za wladce sasiedniego
%anstwa nie moze dziwic w zadn"m sto%niu tak samo jak w"danie corki =oleslawa za wladce duzo
0ardziej odleglej +usi kijowskiej8 4egier itd
ale zacznijm" od %oczatku:
,( Nigd" nie 0"*o !1dn"c# $Polan& - %atrz $geogra9 (tak na%rawde sz%ieg) =awarski( Istnieli %oddani Zec#a
cz"li Zec#ici stad na wsc#odzie +usini 8 na %oludniu 4egrz" cz" na %olnoc" 4egrz" %rzez wiele wiekow
(niektorz" do dzis) naz"wali Polakow $Zac#"& (cz" inne 9orm" $swojskie& %oc#odzace od imienia Zec#)
7eszcze _III wieczna kronika =aszki dzieli w"raznie w sw"m t"tule na Zec#itow i Po Zac#ow cz"li t"c#
ktorz" sa %otomkami Zac#ow(
4"wodzenie naz"w Polska od /kanska to zw"kle 0rednie nie majace zadnego %okr"cia w nauce(
D( Mdzial Zec#itow w %od0oju Angli nie 0udzi najmniejsz"c# wat%liwosci('najac mozliwosci militarne
=oleslawa 4ielkiego mozna sie %okusic ze w t"m %od0oju moglo 0rac udzial nawet kilka t"siec"
wojownikow lec#ickic# z ktor"c# naj%ewniej s%ora czesc osiadla m(in( w Angli(
S( <o do sam"c# $4ikingow& to jeszcze _III wieczne kroniki dunskie naz"waja ic# w%rost /lowianami
Y(/I<`
:d%owiedz
bialczynski said, on 6 #uty 2014 at 8:49
'gadzam si w %e*ni i ju! nie mam si*" wci1! na nowo tego t*umacz"; ludziom( 7est to imi %oc#odz1ce od
okrelenia $%ola& - 0"; mo!e %osiadacz lu0 mieszkaniec krain" z*o!onej z %* i %olan - *1k - lc#8 lug8 lauk8
*g - to rwnowa!nik s*owa $%olana& - go*a rwnina zalewana wod1 - %o %rostu trawiasta *1ka( Zec#ia to
s%adko0iercz"ni Zgii-Zugii znanej ze staro!"tnoci (g %rzec#odzi w #)8 a Polec#ia - Polsza to
s%adko0iercz"ni Zec#ii(
>o stara nazwa o0szaru z*o!onego rdzennie co najmniej z dzisiejszej 4ielko%olski8 al1ska i Vu!"c8 ale Vu!"c
4ielkic# I Nad*a0ie8 0ez w"0rze!a i 5raju wened"jskic# 4ielotw(
:d%owiedz

180 Zbylut said, on 6 #uty 2014 at 8:$%

%s(w"zej mialo 0"c $na %olnoc" /zwedzi %rzez wiele wiekow (niektorz" do dzis) naz"wali Polakow uZac#"&
(cz" inne 9orm" uswojskie& %oc#odzace od imienia Zec#) $
:d%owiedz
190 ke1aa& said, on 2$ Kwiecie 2014 at 1$:09
4itajcie 4sz"stkie8 4sz"sc"( 4 nawi1zaniu do >ekstu %od t"tu*em: $0ia*cz"2ski( )enet"czne odkr"cia
DF,F3DF,D - Nowa )enealogia /*owian i inn"c# ludw =ia*ego Z1du (Guro%")( Panie =ia*cz"2ski mam
nadziej8 !e moja %ro0a nie jest s%Cniona( Prosz o %e*ne dane 0i0liogra@czne Dzie*a Pana Mnder#illa(
,D(FFF lat to nie w kij dmuc#a*( 4"daje mi si8 !e w czci %owiconej jz"kom 0"*a jeszcze
wiadomo;3in9ormacja o w*oskim Autorze8 ktr" dowodzi*8 !e jz"kowo Polac" %oc#odz1 z co najmniej E
t"si1clecia ale ju! nie %amitam8 cz" E(FFF lat temu cz" %rzed nasz1 er1( >u rwnie! %rz"da*"0" si dane
0i0liogra@czne lu0 linki( ?am nadziej8 !e si m"l i !e ta wiadomo; nadal widnieje w Pana >ekcie lu0 w
komentarzac# a nie mog dok*adnie %rzeledzi;8 gdzie( Do0rze8 !e kto zwrci* uwag8 !e %r0uje si mit
germa2skic# zw"cizcw zast1%i; mitem s*owia2skic# zw"cizcw ale %rz"da*o0" si8 !e0" taki 5om%leks
zjednoczon"c# ludw (narodw) s*owia2skic# kied" %owsta*( ?am nadziej8 !e oni te! kierowali0" si
zasad1 $swojego nie dam"8 cudzego nie c#cem"& 0lisk1 i mieszka2com I +zecz"%os%olitej i kied"
mieszka2com8 a %rz"najmniej %rz"wdcom8 7ugos*awii( Pozdrawiam ke9aaR8 Uomo grodecensis8
4ednesLda" - ?itLtLwoLcL#Lnen - /tveda - aroda DF,QLFQLDSL,SLFQ (DF,QLFQLDQL,SLFQ starego st"lu)
W<)X( Da )os%od\ 0logodarit 4elmi 4azenu Damu /elene-De6i 4ielce /zanown1 Pani1 Uelen
]ondrwxko6ou ted\ i w niesko2czono;( And Zet )od =less )reat Zad" Gn"a-De6i now and 9ore6er too( Zet
)od =less all >rue u5eltoi& and all u/la6anoi& too( uA Polska winna trwa; wiecznie Y&( P/Z is t#e 0est( >#e
<LZo6eLr is t#e 0est( >#e ZeaL6es are t#e 0est ePeJ6o( Da zdra6e /la6ia( uPra6da 6itezi&( /*awa i <#wa*a
4sz"stkim8 w t"m Panu =ia*cz"2skiemu8 D1!1c"m do Prawd"(&Non /c6tti mat /c6tt6m&( <i6itas
)rodecensis Palatinat6s (non D6cat6s J6i <#odsko et J6i ?an Island) ?azo6iae +es P60lica Polona Gu+o%a
Gu+azja ancient39ormer Atalante Im%eri6m ($Ac#eron&)(
:d%owiedz
590 ;an +a(ia said, on 1% *ze(wiec 2014 at 21:%8
=ardzo 9ajn" 0log( <z"ta si z za%art"m tc#em8 szczeglnie wra!enie ro0i szczeg*owo; autora( Po%ieram
jego starania o %rz"wrcenie s*owianom miejsca w #istorii szczeglnie #istorii kultur"( <#cia*0"m
zaznacz"; jednak 8 !e zauwa!"*em oznaki tendec"jnoci 8 a to mo!e Cle 0"; ode0rane ( <a*" w"si*ek
autora d"skred"tuje s9ormu*owanie $%ras*owia2skie&8 ktre w"m"lono dla %odkrelenia %ierwordztwa
%rz"nale!noci danej od =oga( >o samo dot"cz" wsz"stkic# %ra Y(( Nie ma czego takiego w #istorii jak
%ra( Po wtrne autor m"li DNA z jz"kiem i kultur1( Dlaczego to /*owianie maj1 mie; +,a,a,8a )ermanie
nie( >e %lemiona nie r!ni*o dna8 a kultura i troc# jz"k 8 c#ocia! jedno i drugie ma ws%ln" rdze2( Id1c
tokiem m"lenia autora rozmijam" si z za%isem #istor"czn"m 8 %oniewa! nigd" nie s*"sza*em a0" jaki
wdz /*owian walcz"* z rz"msk1 re%u0lik1 a nawet z cesarstwem ( nie ws%ominam o cesarstwem
wsc#odnim)( Dlatego z gr" za*o!ona %r0a %rz"%isania s*owianom zdo0"cz" kultur" inn"c# mija si z
%rawd1( +easumuj1c 8 Guro% %od0i*" generalnie dwie #a%logru%" dna +,a,0 od %o*udnia ( od*am
caucasian - <eltowie ) i +,a,a, od wsc#odu ( od*am arian - )ermanie i /*owianie )( 'aznacz"; trze0a !e
/*owianie dotarli do Guro%" naj%Cniej ( I taka jest %rawda( Potwierdzaj1 to 0adania genet"czne8
lingwist"cznej i #istor"czne( Uouk`
:d%owiedz
bialczynski said, on 16 *ze(wiec 2014 at &:02
4sz"stko 9ajnie %rosz %ana t"lko m"li %an zw"czajnie 9akt"( Naci1ganie w"nikw 0ada2 genet"czn"c#
%od teorie ze skom%romitowanej Gu%edii(de oraz alloc#tonistw 0"*o do0re A lat temu( >eraz na takie
naci1ganie 9aktw za %Cno( >ego kota nie da si o0rci; ogonem do gr"( <eltowie %rosz %ana nigd" nie
0"li +,a8 zawsze s1 o%is"wani %rzez genet"kw jako +,0( )ermanw w ogle nie 0"*o na wiecie( Do%ki
nie nazwali ic# tak +z"mianie w swoic# kronikac# istnia*a t"lko 4enedia8 4ielka /c"tia (Guro%ejska i
Azjat"cka)8 a %otem /armacja Guro%ejska i Azjat"cka( 7e!eli zna %an 0stwo o nazwie 7arowit ktre jest te!
za%isane jako )erowit8 je!eli %rzeledzi %an jak w jz"ku niemieckim zmieniane s1 nazw" miejscowoci
zacz"naj1ce si na $j& i jak staj1 si $g&8 to %an zrozumie8 !e 7aromanw-7erom!w nazwano )ermanami
na skutek zniekszta*cenia w"mow" %o starciu si nad Va01 !"wio*u s*owia2skiego i celt"ckiego( >o celto-
s*owia2skie 0rzmienie nazw" %rzejli +z"mianie8 gd"! cierali si g*wnie z <eltami na %ocz1tku( 5ied"
wreszcie8 0ardzo %Cno8 cesarstwo $dojrza*o& do tego8 !e0" zmierz"; si w I wieku %(n(e( ze /*owianami i
/kand"nawami (mieszank1 celto-s*owiano-staroeuro%ejsk1) dosta*o od tego konglomeratu *u%nia i u%ad*o
ca*kowicie w ci1gu QFF lat 0ojw( :ko*o SFF roku 0"*o %o wsz"stkim8 %otem trwa*o t"lko do0ijanie( M%ad*"
zreszt1 o0"dwa cesarstwa8 ale to wsc#odnie le%iej roz%oznawa*o r!norodno; /istanu i le%iej zna*o jego
dzieje8 dziki )rekom i ic# 0liskoci z Persami (Post-/c"tamiIAriami W+,aX zmieszan"mi z /emitami W7X)(
/ugeruje %an k*amliwie8 !e autor nie rozr!nia etnosu kulturalnego cz"li jz"ka i skoru% arc#eologiczn"c#
od DNA( 4ida; z tego8 !e nie cz"ta* %an inn"c# zamieszczon"c# tutaj art"ku*w( 7est dok*adnie odwrotnie(
Autor wrcz %odkrela r!nice miedz" DNA a 9ormowaniem si jz"ka ws%lnot ter"torialn"c#8 w ktr"c#
dwie ws%lnot" o r!n"c# jz"kac# musz1 si %orozumiewa; ws%*zamieszkuj1c dan1 ziemi i tworz1
ws%ln" jz"k(
7z"k s*owia2ski (+,aOID) %owsta* ze z*1czenia jz"ka sc"t"jskiego (%ras*owia2skiego8 mow" ludzi o #g Y-
DNA +,a) i staroeuro%ejskiego (ID)8 tak jak jz"k %ra-skand"nawski %owsta* ze z*1czenia s*owia2skiego
(+,aOID) ze staroeuro%ejskim I,8 %o cz"m %rzekszta*ci* si w skand"nawski %o wejciu <eltw (+,0) na
%*w"se%( 7z"k niemiecki i angielski %owsta* na l1dzie w dorzeczu Va0" %o %owtrn"m zetkniciu si
skand"nawskiego z jz"kiem celto-s*owia2skim +,aO+,0 (0"* to jz"k ju! z $ger-& a nie z $jer-$) z Guro%"
midz" :dr18 Va018 +enem i Zec#em8 oko*o , wieku %(n(e(
5om%letnie dziwi mnie %a2ska inter%retacja 9orm" %ra- jako jakiej konotacji kocielnej (religijnej8 0i0lijno-
c#rzecija2sko-judejskiej)( Pras*owia2ski I /c"t"jski8 a rozr!nienie jest %otrze0ne8 %o to 0" okreli;
ci1g*o; c"wilizac"jn1( /*owian mo!e %an rwnie do0rze naz"wa; so0ie Nowo/c"tami8 al0o
Post/armatami( Pradziadek to nie c#rzecija2ski w"m"s* - t"lko ojciec dziadka8 a %ra-wnuk to dziecko s"na
dziadka(
Prosz te! nie m"li; Ariw z Anglosasami i Niemcami (%isz o t"c# dwc# nacjac#8 0o to jed"ne8 ktre
naz"waj1 sie0ie )ermanami - nazw1 s*owia2sk1 %rz"w*aszczon18 jak i ziemie s*owia2skie %rzez nic#
%rz"w*aszczone midz" Zec#em8 +enem a :dr1 i Va01- /kand"nawowie mwi1 o so0ie8 !e s1
$/kand"nawami&8 i s*usznie)(
4rd Ariw nie w"st%uje w ogle celt"cka #a%logru%a +,0( 4 Indiac# mieszkaj1 jed"nie ludzie +,a
(DDq) oraz +D (SFq) - Pierwsi s1 Ariami a drudz" Drawidami( 7ak zw"kle tam gdzie +,a dominuje lu0
c#o;0" jest w du!ej masie8 dominuje jz"k indoeuro%ejski8 ktr" w Indiac# %owsta* z sanskr"tu8 w ktr"m
to sanskr"cie za%isano 4ed" w"mieniaj1ce t"c# co %rz"szli 7ako 'w"cizc" z P*noc"8 naz"waj1ce ic#
A+IA?I( 5oniec kro%ka( >en jz"k jest naj0li!ej s%okrewnion" rodzinnie ze /*owia2skim i Perskim - i te trz"
lud" jed"nie maj1 %rawo naz"wa; si Ariami 0o w nic# w"st%uje +,a8 ar"jska #induska #a%logru%a8 ale
te! i one mwi1 ws%ln"m jz"kiem w"wodz1c ze ws%lnot" +,a najwa!niejsze %ojcia c"wilizac"jne
takie jak 0g8 ogie2 cz" ko*o(
Prosz nie roz%owszec#nia; wicej alloc#tonist"czn"c# i goe0elsowskic# %ro%agandow"c# tekstw
niemieckic#8 0o tego nie w"%ada ro0i; w jz"ku %olskim i w Polsce( Nie 0dziem" tego roz%owszec#nia;(
?o!e %an takie tekst" %uszcza; na %ortalac# niemieckic# takic# jak :net(%l cz" Interia(%l
Pozdrawiam serdecznie i dzikuj za %oc#wa* 0logu(
:d%owiedz

510Pawe !zy"owski # !taro$ytni Polanie cz%&'(iperborea) Pocz*tki Pa+stwa Polskie,o% -

biaczy+ski said, on 1$ #i)iec 2014 at 12:%6
WYX )enet"ka #tt%:330ialcz"nski(word%ress(com3slowKyBDSF. WYX
:d%owiedz
550 ;a(ek said, on 8 'ie()ie 2014 at 21:22
Polecam art"ku* %t( Nomori8 na stronie :ld Guro%ean culture
( #tt%:33oldeuro%eanculture(0logs%ot(com3DF,Q3FS39omori(#tml ) 8 ciekawie 0rzmi %odsumowanie tego
art"ku*u $(Y)t#e megalit#ic culture s%read 9rom t#e Gastern =alkans8 9rom ]inca ci6ilisation or one o9 t#eir
immediate neig#0our cultures( :nce t#e culture reac#ed <aucasus8 it s%read eastward wit# t#e Guro%ean
%eo%le into nort#ern <#ina and t#en down into 5orea and 7a%an( 4#ere6er we @nd ?egalit#s8 we @nd
co%%er8 zigzag lines8 c#e6rons and s%irals o9 ]inca culture and Arian s"m0ols8 and +, and +,a #a%logou%(
$(
Polecam tez inne art"ku*" z tej stron"
%ozdr(
DS(
Polako
Is Central-Eastern Europe the proto-Indo-European urheimat? [split] //mod
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don
Right, but do you think it's a bit unfair that now any random blue-eyed
Nordic European can claim to be a Aryan !ike a certain "rench person on
anthroscpae who was bragging about his alleged connection with the
Europids of central Asia #ust because of the fact that he displays Nordic traits
like they do $t's become pretty ridiculous%
No, it doesn't mean blond, blue eyed Northern Euros are Aryans. And yes, the French dude is an
idiot.
Quote:
&owe'er, $ think (la's are the best sur'i'ing e)ample of what the original
Europids who coloni*ed Asia were like, but that's only because the real ones
are all gone, so $ suppose (la's are the ne)t best thing, but still not
e)actly it%
For some reason, these eforts to try and document ancient population movements and ancestral
connections are always turned into accusations that this or that modern group wants to claim
glory via links to this or that ancient group.
It really doesn't matter whether Slavs can be termed the next best thing to the ancient Andronovo
groups, or not. What matters is that the close relationship between modern Slavs and these
ancient tribes shows us where they came from, how they expanded, and thus how modern
groups are related to each other via that expansion.
The picture is very clear now. All the bullshit about Eastern Europe being overrun by Indians,
Central Asians or North Caucasians is |ust that, pure bullshit. I wouldn't mind it if it were true, but
as it is, it's pure bullshit, and so I fail to see the reason why some people continue with it.
Truth is, the expansion took place from Central-Eastern Europe. That's why there are no Asian
Z93+ lineages in Europe. And that's why mtDNA lineages derived from those found in Neolithic
Ukrainians are seen in Andronovo kurgans. Oh, and that's also why 50-60% of these guys were
blond and had light eyes.
Enough with the bullshit, I say. No one will gain anything from it, and eventually we'll see full
genome sequences of the Andronovo mummies, which will humiliate all the bullshit propagators
out there. Actually, I'll be naming some names on my blog, specifcally of some of those
boneheads from DNA-forums that I had to deal with.
2011-09-26, 10:39
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
No, it doesn't mean blond, blue eyes Northern Euros are Aryans% And yes,
the "rench dude is an idiot%
"or some reason, these e+orts to try and document ancient population
mo'ements and ancestral connections are always turned into accusations
that this or that modern group wants to claim glory 'ia links to this or that
ancient group%
$t really doesn't matter whether (la's can be termed the ne)t best thing to
the ancient Androno'o groups, or not% ,hat matters is that the close
relationship between modern (la's and these ancient tribes shows us where
they came from, how they e)panded, and thus how modern groups are
related to each other 'ia that e)pansion%
-he picture is 'ery clear now% All the bullshit about Eastern Europe being
o'errun by $ndians, .entral Asians or North .aucasians is #ust that, pure
bullshit% $ wouldn't mind it if it were true, but as it is, it's pure bullshit, and so
$ fail to see the reason why some people continue with it%
Truth is, the expansion took place from Central-Eastern
Europe. -hat's why there are no Asian /012 lineages in Europe% And that's
why mt3NA lineages deri'ed from those found in Neolithic 4krainians are
seen in Androno'o kurgans% Oh, and that's also why 56-768 of these guys
were blond and had light eyes%
Enough with the bullshit, $ say% No one will gain anything from it, and
e'entually we'll see full genome se9uences of the Androno'o mummies,
which will humiliate all the bullshit propagators out there% Actually, $'ll be
naming some names on my blog, speci:cally of some of those boneheads
from 3NA-forums that $ had to deal with%
This is very much in line with the linguistic variation of Indo-European languages:
1.1 Early proposals
When the fnding of connections between languages from India to Europe led to the creation of Indo-
European studies in the late 18th century some Indians and Europeans believed that the Proto-Indo-
European language must be Sanskrit, or something very close to it. A few early Indo-Europeanists,
such as Enlightenment pioneers Voltaire,[10] Immanuel Kant,[10] and Karl Wilhelm Friedrich
Schlegel[11] had a frm belief in this and essentially created the idea that India was the Urheimat of all
Indo-European languages. In a 1775 letter, Voltaire expressed his belief in that the "dynasty of the
Brahmins" taught the rest of the world: "I am convinced that everything has come down to us from the
banks of the Ganges."[10] The idea intrigued Kant who "suggested that mankind together with all
science must have originated on the roof of the world [the Himalayas ]."[10] Most scholars, such as
William Jones, however realized from earliest times that instead, Sanskrit and related European
languages had a common source, and that no attested language represented this direct ancestor.
The development of historical linguistics, specifcally the law of palatals and the discovery of the
laryngeals in Hittite, shattered Sanskrit's preeminent status as the most venerable elder in this
reconstructed family.[12] The demotion of Sanskrit to the status of one daughter language among
many eroded the remaining support of India as the Indo-European homeland.
The ethnologist and philologist Robert Gordon Latham was the frst to state that, according to the
principles of natural science, a language family's most likely point of origin is in the area of
its greatest diversity which, in the case of Indo-European, is roughly in Central-Eastern
Europe, where the Italic, Venetic, Illyrian, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Thracian, and Greek branches of
the Indo-European language family are attested, as opposed to South Asia, where only the Indo-
Aryan branch is.[13] Lachhmi Dhar Kalla responded by arguing that the greater linguistic diversity of
Indo-European in Europe is the result of absorbing foreign linguistic elements, and that a language
family's point of origin should be sought in the area of least linguistic change, since it has been least
afected by substrate interference. Dhar's line of argument has a history in Western debates in the
Indo-European homeland (e.g. Feist 1932 and Pissani 1974 as cited in Bryant 2001, pp. 142-143)
where it has been used to locate the Indo-European homeland near the area where the
Lithuanian[clarifcation needed] and Anatolian branches of Indo-European are attested.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_...arly_proposals
So yeah, R-M17 is the proto-Indo-European marker. And not to sound "Eurocentric", but Indo-European is
primarily a Europid language family.
2011-11-18, 12:10
EliasAlucard
^^ So, I've been thinking about this lately. Based on the high linguistic variation of Indo-European languages in Central-
Eastern Europe, per the Wikipedia article, and Polako's statement that the expansion of R-M17 took place from Central-
Eastern Europe (based on variation in R1a1 subclades, frequency etc.), considering the strong correlation here between Y-
DNA R1a1a and Indo-European languages, and what we know from aDNA and David Anthony's intellectual support of the
PIE urheimat in the Yamnaya horizon, is it correct to say the proto-Indo-European urheimat is Central-Eastern Europe?
Because there's a very strong correlation here between the linguistic variation of Indo-European languages and how they've
expanded along the lines of R-M17. All of a sudden, for example, R1a1a shows up in Western China together with the
Tocharians:
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/9681/ydnar1a1a.|pg
An event one can probably best explain by the domestication of the horse, and if the proto-Indo-Europeans did not
domesticate the horse, they were at least one of the earliest groups who utilised the horse more than any other group. As far
as I'm concerned, this pretty much settles the "Indo-European enigma".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
"or some reason, these e+orts to try and document ancient population
mo'ements and ancestral connections are always turned into accusations
that this or that modern group wants to claim glory 'ia links to this or that
ancient group%
Related topics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_myth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...nd_nationalism
However, I don't think this can be categorised as a national myth any longer considering the
genotypes of aDNA from West Eurasia showing strong correlation with Eastern Europe.
2011-11-18, 12:32
Pioterus
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
All of a sudden, for e)ample, R;a;a shows up in ,estern .hina together
with the -ocharians<
But Tocharians were Kentum and used Hallstatt-Celtic Tartans, they are the lost, famous Steppe
Celts!!! :p
Quote:
-heir costumes, and especially te)tiles, may indicate a common origin with
$ndo-European neolithic clothing techni9ues or a common low-le'el te)tile
technology% .h=rch=n man wore a red twill tunic and tartan leggings% -e)tile
e)pert Eli*abeth ,ayland >arber, who e)amined the tartan-style cloth,
discusses similarities between it and fragments reco'ered from salt mines
associated with the &allstatt culture%
2011-11-22, 00:21
EastPole
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
is it correct to say the proto-$ndo-European urheimat is .entral-Eastern
Europe%
Yes, in my opinion it is correct. Central-Eastern Europe is the most likely PIE urheimat.
I also think that and PIE urheimat = Slavonic urheimat.
But to see that we have to look at the whole picture and not at some pseudoscientifc
`reconstructions` of proto-language. I agree with Polako`s opinion and with what Dhira Simha
wrote about it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dhira Simha
,e may get some clues from archaeology, history, mythology, art, traditions
and such modern sciences as genetics% $t is this combined approach with
unbiased attitude to linguistic facts which can pro'ide some answers
We have various treads on PIE language, genetics, anthropology, archeology etc. I would like to
gather here all those fndings that point to Central-Eastern Europe as the most likely PIE urheimat.
Polako is the best expert on genetics on this forum, so I live genetics to him. Here is his recent
interesting blog entry with useful links:
http://polishgenes.blogspot.com/2011...g-special.html
I would like to present some evidence that comes from archeology and linguistics.
In the tread "Where was wheeled transport invented?" we have been searching for the place
where wheeled transport originated and have come to the conclusion that it was in Central
Europe, most likely in southern and central Poland:
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...64&postcount=4
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...1&postcount=30
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...3&postcount=36
It was shown there that advanced wheeled transport with fxed axles and revolving wheels
originated in Central Europe, most likely in Poland and its spread should be linked with the
expansion of Globular Amphora or Corded Ware cultures, which I think were Proto-Slavonic.
From Poland it was also spread to the steppe and further east.
The most archaic, conservative and complete vocabulary related to wheel and wagon has been
preserved in Slavonic languages. All the PIE roots `kol-/kol, `rot-/rat-`-"wheel",
`voz-/vah-/vag-`-"wagon, vehicle", `os-`, `oska`-"axle", `dysz-/dusz-` "thill" etc. are present in
Slavonic vocabularies and there is no doubt that these are Slavonic words as they belong to the
core vocabulary and are related to numerous nouns, verbs and ad|ectives. People who invented
wheel and distributed it also supplied the vocabulary for it. There is no doubt that they were
Slavonic speaking. When those words were borrowed by other languages they became distorted
and changed and can be shown to be related only by reconstruction.
It also remains to be explained why David Anthony and J.P. Mallory are evidently lying about it in
their books.
Reading Elena E. Kuzmina`s book "The Origin of the Indo-Iranians" I noticed that similar story
applies to the settlements and domestic architecture i.e. we have here Central European origin
and Slavonic vocabulary again.
Describing Andronovo settlements and house types Kuzmina noticed that their origins are traced
back to Central Europe and LBK cultures:
Quote:
At the same time Androno'o unity according to settlement and house type
should be 'iewed as a part of a larger Eurasian unity, stretching from central
Europe to western (iberia% (ettlements and houses of the 'arious cultures of
the Eurasian steppe and forest-steppe in the >ron*e Age display uniform
social functions, architecture, planning decisions and building techni9ues% $t
re?ects in the :rst place a similarity of the economic le'el of de'elopment,
and in the second place, a unity of house building traditions stemming from
the Neolithic% -heir origins are traced back to the early farming cultures of
Europe, the !inearbandkeramik, which was concentrated in .entral Europe
from &ungary to @ermany% Apage BCD
We know that LBK were Neolithic farmers with dominant hg. G. That culture disappeared due to
climatic changes and in its place later Globular Amphora and Corded Ware Cultures were born
and that most likely Corded Ware cultures spread east from Poland to Andronovo that housing
style and Slavonic vocabulary , which is well preserved in Vedic Sanskrit.
Kuzmina strongly emphasizes diference between Central and Eastern European and Near
Eastern housing styles refuting PIE out of Anatolia hypothesis:
Quote:
3i+erence between the two traditions is obser'able in all cultural traits%
-here is no Near Eastern in?uence on the traditions of house building in the
Eurasian steppes during the 1rd to ;st millennia >.% -his obser'ation is
signi:cant when considering the hypothesis ad'anced by E% E% $'ano' and -%
E% @amkrelid*e about the mass migration of the ancestors of $ndo-Europeans
from the Near East through the .entral Asian deserts into Eastern Europe%
-he e'idence of domestic architecture does not support this hypothesis nor
those of F% Nichols A;00GD and E% (arianidi A;00CD%Apage B0D
PIE out of Anatolia hypothesis have been also refuted by various linguistic and genetic studies.
Recently Polako wrote about it on his blog:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2011/1...inst-indo.html
Kuzmina stresses unity of settlement and house types from Central Europe to western Siberia:
Quote:
-he Androno'o house is comparable with houses of other cultures of the
Eurasian "inal >ron*e Age o'er the 'ast territory of the steppe and forest
steppe, from central Europe to western (iberia% -he construction techni9ue
and planning decisions are uni'ersal o'er this whole *one% -hose
peculiarities that characteri*e indi'idual archaeological cultures are seen
only in terms of some secondary details% $n the west, in central Europe we
:nd post-built houses with a roof with two sloping surfaces, more rarely with
four, erected as surface dwellings and smaller than Androno'o houses%
Along the 3anube the Hiddle >ron*e Age log houses combine the use of
wattling with daub as in the Eurasian steppes% -he same peculiarity is traced
in the -r*ciniec culture in Poland and in the 4kraine% A semi-subterranian
house with post-frame construction is typical of the Hulti-roller ,are culture%
(imilar also is the house type of the Abashe'o culture from the 4rals to the
3on and Pre-Ia*anJ culture on the Eolga% -o the southeast of Androno'o
territoryare the similar houses of the -a*abagyab culture of the Aral region
-hese deri'e from the migration of -imber-gra'e and Androno'o
populations%
,e can see then that the steppes and forest-steppes of Eurasia constitute a
single *one according to settlement and house type of the cultures dating
from the ;Gth to 0th centuries >.%
Apage B7-BGD
Spread of similar culture from Poland to Siberia agrees with genetic fndings which show that in
Bronze Age in Western Siberia population was similar to Poles and Russians. Again Polako wrote
about it on his blog:
http://polishgenes.blogspot.com/2009...ient-indo.html
Kuzmina also noticed that similar hosing style was present among Scythian and Sarmatian tribes:
Quote:
A direct continuation of the building traditions of the -imber-
gra'eKAndrono'o cultures can be seen in the culture of the $ranian nomads
such as the (aka, (armatians, and (cythians, the likely descendents of the
>ron*e Age pastoral tribes in the Eurasian steppes% Apage 56D
I would like to point out here that Kuzmina didn`t demonstrate that Sarmatians and Scythians
were Iranians, she only showed that there was an archeological link between Andronovo and Iran
and India. That custom of calling Scythians and Sarmatians Iranians probably comes from old
believes that Iranian speaking Ossetians were descendents of Scythians. Now we know that it is
not true. Ossetians came from Iran and not from steppe.
Presence of east Euroasian types of houses in India Kozmina considers as an evidence of
migrations from the north:
Quote:
As the house type of northern and central $ndian coe)ists e'erywhere with
the Near Eastern type house and because it is built in di+erent geographical
*ones, its speci:c character is probably preconditioned not by ecological
factors but by the domestic architectural traditions alien to the creators of
the &arappan culture and brought from the outside% -he isolated nature of
the northern and central $ndian house type in (outh and (outhwest Asia and
the presence of its analogues and prototypes in the pastoral cultures of the
Eurasian steppes lead us to conclude that such a house type was brought to
$ndia by groups of Aryas who migrated from their homeland% -he distribution
of houses belonging to the central Eurasian type within $ndia suggests two
wa'es of Aryan migrations into $ndia from the northwest< rough the north-
west regions of the country, and LD along the @angetic plain% An important
proof of this hypothesis is the fact that the houses of north and central
$ndian type are connected with 9uite speci:c ethnic and social circles% -hey
are built by representati'es of the higher castes, sects and ethnic groups
within which the institute of a large patriarchal family is preser'ed< ra#puts,
gu#ars, kankan brahmans, d#ats, etc% -he ma#ority of scholars accept that
these groups are ethnically and genetically connected with the arri'al of the
Eedic Aryas in $ndia or with later wa'es of .entral Asian tribes related to the
Aryas% Apage 55D
What I fnd fascinating is the fact that vocabulary used in Sanskrit for houses, communities, social
organization are very close to Slavonic.
Quote:
-his house type is called by common $ndo-European term< (la'onic domM,
(anskrit dam-, A'estan dNmNna-, !atin domus% Apage 57D
Quote:
Not less than ;5 housesKfamilies made up a 'Os-, a clan and the settlement of
the clan PQR and the word 'Os has correspondences in (la'onic 'SsS, a
'illage with its areas of economic signi:cance% Apage 76D
Quote:
$n this respect ,% RauJs interpretation A;0C1< ;;D of the (anskrit term grTma
is of ma#or importance< later it denoted 'illage, but initially it denoted a
small tribal group of shepherds migrating in wagons% ,agons were put in a
circle e'ery e'ening, forming a peculiar fortress on wheels, with the cattle
inside AEli*arenko'a and -oporo' ;005< B06D% Apage1BD
Sk. `grma` - "an inhabited place , village , hamlet, the collective inhabitants of a place ,
community , race, any number of men associated together , multitude , troop, a multitude , class ,
collection or number, inhabitants , people
Sk. `grma-t` - "a multitude of villages"
http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koel...hakakRkara.|pg
Sk. `grma-t` - "a multitude of villages" correspond directly to Polish `gromada`
Pol. `groma-da` -"group, bunch, community, Jock, gathering, drove, district, herd, team, phylum"
http://translate.google.pl/?hl=pl&tab=wT#plengromada
That term as a grup of villages is still used as an administrative term:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gromada
In Russian there is a similar word:
Rus. `rpoua-pa`(gramada) - mass of something, and village gathering - `rpouapcku (cenbcku)
coset.`
2011-11-22, 00:32
safnator
It's Northern Europe IMO
2011-11-22, 07:40
EastPole
It's more Northeastern Euro and R1a-Z283 IMO:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2011/1...f-r1a-and.html
2011-11-23, 00:44
EliasAlucard
EastPole, I don't have time right now to answer your entire post, but this part I have something for you to debate :):
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastPole
$ also think that and P$E urheimat U (la'onic urheimat%
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/7...angespread.|pg
^^ Proto-Balto-Slavic urheimat is very close to the proto-Indo-European urheimat, but not quite at
the centre of it.
The site in itself is interesting:
http://www.buildinghistory.org/dista...uropeans.shtml
Quote:
Originally Posted by safnator
$t's Northern Europe $HO
Based on the accumulated knowledge in linguistics, modern advanced population genetics,
archaeology and the earliest evidence of horse domestication, northern Europe is extremely
unlikely.
Sorry, but Gustaf Kossinna's Germanic nationalist pseudo-theory is more or less entirely refuted.
2011-11-23, 09:09
Pioterus
^ Good question, though I am afraid instead of being answered you could be linked to some old quarrel between some
Poles and Jean M that took place on DNA Forums in the past. Jean M is incurable...
2011-11-26, 01:49
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioterus
V @ood 9uestion
I didn't ask any question?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioterus
though $ am afraid instead of being answered you could be linked to some
old 9uarrel between some Poles and Fean H that took place on 3NA "orums
in the past% Fean H is incurable%%%
I have no idea who Jean M is and what his stance is. I don't think he's important anyway.
Anyway, something I've been thinking about lately is the importance of the cow in Indo-European
mythology:
Proto-Indo-European mythology was, at its core, the worldview of a male-centered, cattle-raising
people-not necessarily cattle nomads but certainly people who held sons and cattle in the highest
esteem. Why were cattle (and sons) so important?"
- Anthony, David W., The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the
Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, ISBN: 069114818X, p. 135
The cow is sacred in Hinduism and Celtic paganism, and also has a high status in Asatro:
The cow appears frequently in Celtic mythology as a provider of nourishment for entire communities,
like the magic cows of Manannan, one speckled, one dun, with twisted horns, who were always in
milk.
http://www.isle-of-skye.org.uk/celti...a/celt_c5c.htm
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ymir.|pg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Au%C3%B0umbla
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle#Hindu_tradition
Cattle bones have been found frequently in archaeological sites in the Yamnaya horizon (various percentage
rates, Anthony provides statistics in The Horse, the Wheel and Language if anyone is interested). Basically,
the proto-Indo-Europeans had an animal husbandry relationship with the cow; they lived in symbiosis with the
cow.
So why is the cow important to understand the origin of the proto-Indo-Europeans? Well, because the
Romans described the Celtic and Germanic tribes as tall giants with light hair, blue eyes etc., which seems to
me the Germanic and Celtic tribes had newly arrived in regions above Roman territory straight out of the
Indo-European homeland, whereas the Romans (and Greeks for that matter) had settled down in the
Mediterranean and adapted themselves to a sedentary lifestyle whereas the Celts still had their holy cows. It
is known milk contributes to improving height (protein of high biological value, calcium etc.), and Romans
reduced the level of protein and other nutrition (thanks to Aino for the link):
Cows are key to 2,500 years of human progress: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...social-history
So, that's why the Romans weren't as tall as the Celts, because they had adapted themselves to the
traditional Mediterranean lifestyle, or they were simply Indo-European descendants who were mixed with
indigenous Mediterraneans. In any case, the cow is important to understand how it altered and contributed to
the evolution of the proto-Indo-Europeans (huge Brad Pitt-like |aws etc. perhaps can be explained by cow
milk diet?).
Michael H. Hart (Jew) in his Understanding Human History argues for Indo-European supremacy over the old
sedentary civilisations of the Middle East, which he attributes to higher IQ. But I don't think higher IQ is a
necessity to explain the situation. It's more about the entirely diferent lifestyle of the proto-Indo-Europeans:
domestication of the horse, which gave the proto-Indo-Europeans a ma|or advantage in roaming the globe
(and facilitated the spread of their language, as opposed to the sedentary lifestyle of the Fertile Crescent
civilisations and Indus Valley civilisation), animal husbandry with the cow, which contributed to increased
height in the men especially, and a nomadic lifestyle which meant that the proto-Indo-Europeans were rarely
attacked in home base by for example Assyrians or Hebrews, but they were constantly expanding and
immigrating from right to left from the proto-Indo-European homeland.
In any case, the cow is perhaps one of the most important markers to search after the original Indo-
Europeans; David Anthony, J.P. Mallory and other Indo-Europeanists haven't given the cow enough attention
in my opinion, it's perhaps |ust as important as the horse in understanding the origin of the Indo-Europeans.
2011-11-26, 02:15
Polako
Elias,
Don't let Jean M. rot your brain. Her main focus, it seems, is to associate R1b with the proto-Indo-Europeans from the
steppes. This is ridiculous for a number of reasons.
Also, her basic ideas are totally outdated, and much like David Anthony's, they're driven by the old western idea of making
up bullshit to appease the masses and build their self-esteem. Eventually the penny will drop for her, but not for a while,
because she moves at the speed of the average glacier when it comes to comprehending this stuf.
That's not to say Yamnaya wasn't an important part of the Indo-European process. It had to be, because it was in between
Central-Eastern Europe and the Asian steppes.
But I'm certain that the Indo-European expansion was a sling-shot type movement, in a clockwise direction around the
Black Sea, with present day Poland a key part of the story, because it was the original home of the Corded Ware.
I think some very interesting stuf has been published by the University of Philadelphia of late. This sort of professional work
is better than anything oh that Building History website run by Jean.
The kurgan invasion of Europe...or was that the Corded Ware expansion from Europe?
2011-11-26, 11:56
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
>ut $'m certain that the $ndo-European e)pansion was a sling-shot type
mo'ement, in a clockwise direction around the >lack (ea, with present day
Poland a key part of the story, because it was the original home of the
.orded ,are%
Any evidence for your view?
Why do you think you can ignore the results of linguistics? Why do you think genetics could ever
testify against linguistics, when it does not even study language?
Quote:
this simply cannot be e)tended to propose that a massi'e 'iolent in'asion
from the steppe transformed and repopulated Europe during the 5th through
1rd millennia >.% $n fact, a fresh look at both older and more recently
unco'ered archaeological e'idence from cultures of southeastern Europe
and the Pontic .aspian steppe shows both an acti'e cultural e)change in
e)otica and a clear mo'ement of cultural in?uence during the 5thW1rd
millennia from the .ucuteni--ripolye cultural comple) of the >alkans-
.arpathians out into the P. steppe and to Asia beyond, not the other way
around as @imbutas argued%X
Language could have been spread with whatever culturally traceable inJuence. That you don`t
believe in violent invasions cannot disprove the spread of IE language from steppes to the
Corded Ware area. Linguistic results clearly point to the steppe origin, not to the Corded Ware
origin.
2011-11-26, 12:02
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
Any e'idence for your 'iew
,hy do you think you can ignore the results of linguistics ,hy do you think
genetics could e'er testify against linguistics, when it does not e'en study
language
I don't think linguistics has enough resolution, or even accuracy, to say defnitely where the proto-
Indo-Europeans frst formed.
It might in the near future, but it doesn't now. I think the only way we'll be able to solve this
problem is if both genetics and linguistics improves markedly over the next few years.
2011-11-26, 16:18
Pioterus
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
$ didn't ask any 9uestion
I thought the question was - What do you think EastPole on the matter of PIE urheimat being
close but not exaclty in situ of Balto-Slavic urheimat.
So I was wondering how the answers will go, being quite sceptical about any proto-Slavic=PIE
supporter here to have any more stamina to continue discussion with Jean M.
We are quite "tough and stubborn" but how can you treat seriously someone aware of current
genetic-genealogy discoveries (someone posting continously on DNA-Forums) who still claims
Slavs are allochtonic people without a blink?
2011-11-26, 16:47
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$ don't think linguistics has enough resolution, or e'en accuracy, to say
de:nitely where the proto-$ndo-Europeans :rst formed%
$t might in the near future, but it doesn't now% $ think the only way we'll be
able to sol'e this problem is if both genetics and linguistics impro'es
markedly o'er the ne)t few years%
Linguistics has enough resolution to tell that the Corded Ware area is clearly less probable than
the steppe. Evidence comes from:
- Contacts: Kartvelian, Semitic. (Now that Uralic is seen as a slightly younger protolanguage,
there is no need to suppose Proto-Indo-European in the vicinity of Proto-Uralic; later Northwest
Indo-European dialect of Fatyanovo Culture could be old enough.)
- Structure of the language family: oldest dialect border between Northwest and Southeast Indo-
European does not ft with the western homeland.
- Foreign substrate languages are numerous (at least three) in the area of Corded Ware culture.
(Schri|ver 2001: Lost languages in Northern Europe.)
- Palaeolinguistics: Words for domestic and wild animals and plants ft better with the steppe than
Central European homeland (especially 'donkey', 'millet', 'wine').
J. P. Mallory, from page 143:
http://www.ebook3000.com/J--P--Mallo...yth_36083.html
These arguments cannot be disproved by genetics or archaeology, only by linguistics.
2011-11-26, 17:59
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
- .ontacts< Iart'elian, (emitic% ANow that 4ralic is seen as a slightly younger
protolanguage, there is no need to suppose Proto-$ndo-European in the
'icinity of Proto-4ralicY later Northwest $ndo-European dialect of "atyano'o
.ulture could be old enough%D
Why can't the same argument be applied to Kartvelian and Semitic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
- (tructure of the language family< oldest dialect border between Northwest
and (outheast $ndo-European does not :t with the western homeland%
What do you mean by Southeast IE? Indoiranians?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
- "oreign substrate languages are numerous Aat least threeD in the area of
.orded ,are culture% A(chri#'er L66;< !ost languages in Northern Europe%D
I asked you about the foreign substrate in the Slavonic languages. Did you answer this question?
Besides this argument doesn't sound very convincing as AFAIK all other IE langueges (besides
Slavonic) also show signifcant substrate inJuence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
- Palaeolinguistics< ,ords for domestic and wild animals and plants :t better
with the steppe than .entral European homeland Aespecially 'donkey',
'millet', 'wine'D%
This probably is only argument for more Southern Urheimat, not the Steppe one, as I cannot
imagine vineyards in the Steppe.
EDIT:
To be honest I don't understand how 'millet' can be used as an argument here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by !"!PED!A
Proso millet appears to ha'e reached Europe not long after its appearance in
@eorgia, :rst appearing in east and central EuropeY howe'er, the grain
needed a few thousand more years to cross into $taly, @reece, and $ran, and
the earliest e'idence for its culti'ation in the Near East is a :nd in the ruins
of Nimrud, $ra9 dated to about G66 >.%PLR
,hile Proso millet is not a member of the Neolithic Near East crop
assemblage, it arri'ed in Europe no later than the time these introductions
did, and that proso millet is an independent domestication that could
predate the arri'al of the Near East grain crops%P1R
2011-11-26, 18:38
Ph|amaalane
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
EastPole, $ don't ha'e time right now to answer your entire post, but this part
$ ha'e something for you to debate <D<
http<KKwww%buildinghistory%orgKdista%%%angespread%#pg
VV Proto->alto-(la'ic urheimat is 'ery close to the proto-$ndo-European
urheimat, but not 9uite at the centre of it%
Where did you get that map? Did you make it yourself? It has several ma|or errors in it.
No Baltic tribes have ever lived in Estonia, even the assimilation of the native Finnic tribes in
modern-day Latvia lasted until the 20th century.
Before the 5th century AD, you could draw a hypothetical line at the Daugava/Vina river in
Latvia, which separated the Finnics in the north and the Balts in the south. The Hunnish invasion
of Europe triggered many migrations, including the Baltic one northwards. We can talk about any
Baltic tribes living northwards of the Daugava river line in Latvia, after the 5th century AD.
I don't know enough about the Baltic tribes in their eastern-most habitat, thus I can't say anything
about it on the map, but I did fx the northern habitat error. Theses errors could easily be avoided,
if people who check the basic archeological/historical data before making anything.
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/7484/ielangespread.|pg
2011-11-26, 18:41
Pioterus
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
-his probably is only argument for more (outhern 4rheimat, not the (teppe
one, as $ cannot imagine 'ineyards in the (teppe%
Any idea what exactly is the history of climate changes in CE?
In early polish history there are sources claiming a two crops a year, at least that's what my
grandfather "proud peasant" told me, he was quite educated in agriculture and it's history. It was
the Medieval Warm Period, so vinyards that are now present only in Zielona Gra area could
have been more widespread earlier in history (we talk about a few millenia period with it's own
climate cycle).
---------- Post added 2011-11-26 at 19:52 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by P%h#amaalane
,here did you get that map 3id you make it yourself $t has se'eral ma#or
errors in it%
From famous Jean Marco website, link is in Elias post.
2011-11-26, 19:01
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioterus
$t was the Hedie'al ,arm Period, so 'inyards that are now present only in
/ielona @Zra area could ha'e been more widespread earlier in history Awe
talk about a few millenia period with it's own climate cycleD%
But as I understand vinegrape is the very recent - post-Roman - import in Central Europe.
2011-11-26, 19:39
Pioterus
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
>ut as $ understand 'inegrape is the 'ery recent - post-Roman - import in
.entral Europe%
Isn't Beer more IE drink than Wine which is more southern thing? What about common PIE word
for beer?
in Polish beer is Piwo-> Pic (to drink), so Piwo simply means "beverage"
Bier, Beer -> ???
2011-11-26, 20:28
Bohemian Rhapsody
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
>ut as $ understand 'inegrape is the 'ery recent - post-Roman - import in
.entral Europe%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine
Quote:
,ine has a rich history dating back thousands of years, with the earliest
known production occurring around C,666 years ago on the territory of
modern-day @eorgia%
2011-11-26, 21:01
EastPole
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioterus
$sn't >eer more $E drink than ,ine which is more southern thing ,hat about
common P$E word for beer
in Polish beer is Pi$o -[ Pi\ Ato drinkD, so Piwo simply means ]be'erage]
>ier, >eer -[
Polish `pic/picie` (pit`/pit`e) - "drink, |uice, nourishment, food" corresponds to Sanskrit `pit` -
, drink, |uice, nourishment , food"
http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koel...26-piNDaya.|pg
Quote:
>ier, >eer -[
Quote:
A5D ^beer, hydromel and other alcoholic drinks e)cept for wineJ< Russ% ol,
O(la'% olu,
>ulg% olo'_na, (lo'n% `l, `lo'ina ^brewerJs yeastJ, !ith% alas, !at'% alus, OPuss%
alu
^hydromelJY O$cel% ol, 3an% bl, (wed% cl, OEngl% ealu, Engl% ale% As traces of
fermented
drinks ha'e been found in the Corded are culture A(herratt ;00;D, this
isogloss could
be attributed to the in?uence of this culture in the .entral and Eastern
European area% $f
the focus of the .orded ,are is >altic A@imbutasD, or >alto-Sla&ic Acp% Alinei
L666D,
then the @ermanic forms would be loanwords Anot so EasmerDY
http://www.continuitas.org/texts/ali...sciplinary.pdf
I think all those Slavonic words `ol`, `olu`, `olovina` may come from verbs and ad|ectives , `ole|`,
`oleva|`, `olevana`, `(p)oleva|`, (p)ole|`, (p)olevan` . So in this case other languages borrowed this
word.
Alinei was close as Corded Ware were most likely Proto-Slavonic R1a1 proto-beer-drinkers like
Polako.
2011-11-26, 21:22
Pioterus
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastPole
Polish ^pi\KpicieJ ApitJKpitJeD W ddrink, #uice, nourishment, foodX corresponds to
(anskrit ^piteJ Wf drink, #uice, nourishment , foodX
http<KKwww%sanskrit-le)icon%uni-koel%%%L7-piN3aya%#pg
I agree that Piwo is defnetly not simple beverage, it's a nourishment, a Juid bread :lol:
---------- Post added 2011-11-26 at 22:26 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
http<KKen%wikipedia%orgKwikiK,ine
Yes Wine is ancient, yet not Northern but Georgian, Iranian, Armenian and Mediterreanean
afterwards...
Quote:
Archaeological e'idence suggests that the earliest known production of
wine, made by fermenting grapes, took place as early as C,666 years ago in
@eorgia,P5R G666 years ago in $ran,P7R and 7,;66 years ago in Armenia%P7R
P;5RP;7R
2011-11-27, 01:47
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
,hy can't the same argument be applied to Iart'elian and (emitic
Yes, it can. But we know that Kartvelian and Semitic have "always" been spoken there, and the
location of PIE is the one we are trying to fnd out here. It would be quite invalid method to frst
merely guess that PIE was spoken in Poland, and then draw Kartvelian, Semitic and Uralic there,
too. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
,hat do you mean by (outheast $E $ndoiranians
The mainstream view sees the Anatolian branch frst to split of, then Tocharian, and after that
Late Proto-Indo-European split of in two: Northwestern dialect (connected to the Corded Ware
culture and giving birth to Germanic, Italo-Celtic and Balto-Slavic, at least) and Southeastern
dialect (including Graeco-Armenian spreading southwest from the steppe homeland, and Aryan
spreading southeast from there).
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$ asked you about the foreign substrate in the (la'onic languages% 3id you
answer this 9uestion >esides this argument doesn't sound 'ery con'incing
as A"A$I all other $E langueges Abesides (la'onicD also show signi:cant
substrate in?uence%
Yes, I answered referring to that very same article of Schri|ver, and there indeed are these
Palaeo-European substrate words also in Slavic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
-his probably is only argument for more (outhern 4rheimat, not the (teppe
one, as $ cannot imagine 'ineyards in the (teppe%
There were very fertile river valleys in steppe. It still excludes Central Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
-o be honest $ don't understand how 'millet' can be used as an argument
here<
"Millet made its way from China to the Black Sea region of Europe by 5000 BC."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millet#History
"This millet has been reportedly found in Neolithic sites in Georgia (dated to the ffth and fourth
millennia BC), as well as excavated Yangshao culture farming villages east in China. Proso millet
appears to have reached Europe not long after its appearance in Georgia, frst appearing in east
and central Europe;"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proso_millet
If millet reached the Pontic steppes from the east in the transition of 5th-4th millennium BC, at the
time of Early Proto-Indo-European (Indo-Hittite), and only later spread to Central Europe, then
Central Europe cannot have been the original homeland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioterus
$sn't >eer more $E drink than ,ine which is more southern thing ,hat about
common P$E word for beer
Beer was *h2elut, mead was *medhu and wine was *woinom in PIE.
2011-11-27, 06:26
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
ges, it can% >ut we know that Iart'elian and (emitic ha'e ]always] been
spoken there, and the location of P$E is the one we are trying to :nd out
here% $t would be 9uite in'alid method to :rst merely guess that P$E was
spoken in Poland, and then draw Iart'elian, (emitic and 4ralic there, too% YD
I am not talking about Poland here - I am checking if your arguments for the Steppe Urheimat are
of any value.
1. I don't know about Kartvelian, but I don't think what you wrote about Semitic was true. Semitc
seems to be quite a young language - if fact probably younger than IE - seeBronze Age origin of
Semitic languages.
2. But in general in light of the Nostratic hipothesis it is not suHcient |ust to state the similarities
between IE, Uralic, Semitic and Kartvelian. One must show that the similarities are not old
(because these ones are explained by the Nostratic hipothesis), and not young (from the times
after the IE expansion out of the Urheiman).
3. Besides both IE and Semites were stock-breeders. Stock breeding started in Asia Minor, so
some of the terminology of both languages ultimately should come from this region (explaining the
Kartvelian links). But "ultimately" everything comes from Africa, and this is not what we are asking
here (we are asking about the place from which IE expansion started).
I will come back to you later - now I am reading Saul Levin's "Semitic and Indo-European, the
Principal Etymologies with observations on Afro-Asiatic". ;)
EDIT: Of course he starts with the word for "bull".:)
How much does it make sense that IEs borrowed the name of their most important animal from
Semites who were non-existent in the Neolithic? :confused:
EastPole could you be so kind and fnd Slavonic ethymology of the word "tur"? ;)
2011-11-27, 19:14
Pioterus
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
EastPole could you be so kind and :nd (la'onic ethymology of the word
]tur] YD
According to Dhira Simha:
Quote:
Names of animals were also taboo, especially if they were linked to ancient
cults% (la'onic name for an aurochs Aurus, >os primigeniusD is *+, tur% >eing
the incarnation of the god Eeles A(anskit 'ala ]power]D it is not a true name
but an epithet directly connected to (anskrit tura -stron., po$erful,
excellin., rich, a/undant]% .ompare the Norse -hor%
---------- Post added 2011-11-27 at 21:05 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
>eer was hhLelut, mead was hmedhu and $ine $as 0$oinom in P$E%
So even though, most probably, PIE tribes never have produced wine (as vinyards were not
exisitng in their homeland was it CE or Steppes), they had a fancy name for it?
Very enterpreneurish, yet patriotic, folk to import wines and give them their own, original name.
Fishy is the PIE reconstruct methinks.
Quote:
,ithin the world of the 3ungeons i 3ragons fantasy role-playing game,
construct is a type of creature, A%%%D% .onstructs are either animated ob#ects,
or any arti:cially constructed creature%
2011-11-27, 20:40
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$ am not talking about Poland here - $ am checking if your arguments for the
(teppe 4rheimat are of any 'alue%
;% $ don't know about Iart'elian, but $ don't think what you wrote about
(emitic was true% (emitc seems to be 9uite a young language - if fact
probably younger than $E - see >ron*e Age origin of (emitic languages%
Even if Semitic daughter languages (= dispersal of Proto-Semitic) was so young, you should
remember that languages did not appear from emptiness. Proto-Semitic had its predecessors,
|ust like Proto-Indo-European. And that method in the link is |ust glottochronology in a new
wrapping, and the very same critique can be directed at it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
L% >ut in general in light of the Nostratic hipothesis it is not sujcient #ust to
state the similarities between $E, 4ralic, (emitic and Iart'elian% One must
show that the similarities are not old Abecause these ones are e)plained by
the Nostratic hipothesisD, and not young Afrom the times after the $E
e)pansion out of the 4rheimanD%
Good point, but they present the level of protolanguages: too similar to be inherited from common
hypothetical protolanguage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
1% >esides both $E and (emites were stock-breeders% (tock breeding started
in Asia Hinor, so some of the terminology of both languages ultimately
should come from this region Ae)plaining the Iart'elian linksD% >ut
]ultimately] e'erything comes from Africa, and this is not what we are
asking here Awe are asking about the place from which $E e)pansion
startedD%
Yes, IE expansion is a matter of Proto-Indo-European level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$ will come back to you later - now $ am reading (aul !e'in's ](emitic and
$ndo-European, the Principal Etymologies with obser'ations on Afro-
Asiatic]% YD
Interesting, thanks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
E3$-< Of course he starts with the word for ]bull]%<D
&ow much does it make sense that $Es borrowed the name of their most
important animal from (emites who were non-e)istent in the Neolithic
1. It was not the most important (horse was); and there were many names for bovine.
2. There certainly were the Semitic language earlier - your claim is |ust as absurd as to claim that
there were no Germanic language until the Great Migrations Age when they started to spread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioterus
(o e'en though, most probably, P$E tribes ne'er ha'e produced wine Aas
'inyards were not e)isitng in their homeland was it .E or (teppesD, they had
a fancy name for it
"Archaeological evidence suggests that the earliest known production of wine, made by
fermenting grapes, took place as early as 8,000 years ago in Georgia,[5] 7000 years ago in Iran,
[6] and 6,100 years ago in Armenia."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine#History
Wine clearly speaks PIE homeland locating near Caucasus, not anywhere near Central Europe.
2011-11-27, 21:21
Pioterus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
]Archaeological e'idence suggests that the earliest known production of
wine, made by fermenting grapes, took place as early as C,666 years ago in
@eorgia,P5R G666 years ago in $ran,P7R and 7,;66 years ago in Armenia%]
http<KKen%wikipedia%orgKwikiK,inek&istory
,ine clearly speaks P$E homeland locating near .aucasus, not anywhere
near .entral Europe%
Yesss sire, where is the G2a1 from Georgia and do you vote for this way of things?
Quote:
-he e)ceptionally high le'el of @La; in the North Ossetians has attracted
attention and speculation% (ince the Ossetians make claim to descent from
the Alans, a group of (armatians, it was thought that the Alans or their
predessor residents of the area north of the .aucasus, the (cythians, must
also ha'e been high in &aplogroup @% $n addition, a possible connection to
the Alans was of interest because certain areas of Europe ha'e a distribution
of haplogroup @ incorresponding to those to which large numbers of Alans
and other (armatians migrated%
-he type of haplogroup @ in these European areas, howe'er, is not 12a3
$hich is rare in Europe% Also rare in Europe is the type of @ A@La1b;D
common among the Iabardinians of the northwestern .aucasus ad#acent to
the Ossetians%
2011-11-27, 21:41
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
ges, $ answered referring to that 'ery same article of (chri#'er, and there
indeed are these Palaeo-European substrate words also in (la'ic%
You kicked a ball into your own goal:
Quote:
Originally Posted by !"!PED!A
-he e)istence of certain P$E typological features in Northwest .aucasian
languages may hint at an early (prachbund or substratum that reached
geographically to the P$E homelands% -his same type of languages, featuring
comple) 'erbs and of which the current Northwest .aucasian languages
might ha'e been the sole sur'i'ors, was cited by Peter (chri#'er to indicate a
local le)ical and typological reminiscence in western Europe pointing to a
possible Neolithic substratum%
Your Kartvelian-IE links originated not around Caucasus, but are simply the result of the
assimilation by IEs of the Neolithic substratum (remember hg G found repeatedly in the European
Neolithic aDNA, and the association between hg G bearing Kartvelian speaking Georgians and
West Asian autosomal element associated with the spread of Neolithic to Europe)!!! :whoco:
:ashamed:
But I must admit that this Dutch guy must be quite clever, if he realised this not knowing the
results brought recently by the advancements in the genetics.
2011-11-27, 23:38
EastPole
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
1% >esides both $E and (emites were stock-breeders% (tock breeding started
in Asia Hinor, so some of the terminology of both languages ultimately
should come from this region Ae)plaining the Iart'elian linksD% >ut
]ultimately] e'erything comes from Africa, and this is not what we are
asking here Awe are asking about the place from which $E e)pansion
startedD%
EastPole could you be so kind and :nd (la'onic ethymology of the word
]tur] YD
Wo|ewoda, as you probably know part of my family comes from Near East Mesopotamian area -
later Sumer and Assyria.
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...435#post421435
My Mom ancestors came to Poland as Neolithic farmers and I fnd it perfectly acceptable that
some words in Proto-Slavonic (PIE) could be derived from their language, whatever it was.
However it does not seem to be the case with the word `tur` which is Proto-Slavonic (PIE) in
origin, at least all etymological dictionaries I`ve checked say so.
In Polish and other Slavonic languages following meanings of `tur` are present:
1. An extinct European mammal, Bos primigenius, the ancestor of domestic cattle.
2. Powerful, strong man
3. Male of some animals, bull
The root `tur-` is found in many forms: `tur`, `turu`, `turon`, `turowac`, `turice` `turzyca` etc.,
It doesn`t have cognates in Indo-Iranic referring to an animal but there are some corresponding to
power:
Skt. `tur` - " to overpower"
Skt. `tur` - "strong , powerful , excelling , rich , abundant"
http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koel...uGganAsikA.|pg
Nobody suggests that Slavonic word is linked to Semitic or borrowed from another language, it is
Proto-Slavonic (PIE)
There is however problem with Latin `taurus`and Greek `to` both meaning `bull`.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-3...s/s800/tur.|pg
"Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages" By Michiel de Vaan
All Italic cognates like Umbrian have `tur-`, Old Irish and Welsh have `ter-`, Slavonic have `tur-`
and in Latin metathesis *-aur- > *-aru- should take place. Irregular behavior implies that some
foreign inJuence could be the cause of it.
But again when and how it happened we can only speculate. Maybe with Neolithic farmers or
maybe it is accidental similarity. Maybe it came from Greece and later contacts with Semitic
people. In Polish it refers only to hunted wild animals or to strength, not to domesticated bull.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$ will come back to you later - now $ am reading (aul !e'in's ](emitic and
$ndo-European, the Principal Etymologies with obser'ations on Afro-
Asiatic]% YD
E3$-< Of course he starts with the word for ]bull]%<D
&ow much does it make sense that $Es borrowed the name of their most
important animal from (emites who were non-e)istent in the Neolithic
<confused<
I wouldn`t treat such publications seriously. There is not enough evidence.
Most important is the theory by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov:
http://www.biblemysteries.com/library/indoeuropean.htm
Works of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov have been however criticised all over the world, for example
prof. E. F. K. Koerner from University of Ottawa:
Quote:
,hat is perhaps more interesting to non-specialists are @amkrelid*e's
paleontological reconstructions as regards the words for fauna and ?ora
supposedly shared by the $ndo-Europeans and used in support of his
argument in fa&our of the location of their homeland in the northern
slopes of the Caucasus, incidentall) at the doorsteps of
1amkrelid4e5s home countr), 1eor.ia%G
$n her ;00B H%A% thesis, Iatrin (% Irell has taken the time and e+ort to
compare a series of le)ical items reconstructed in @amkrelid*e i $'ano'
A;00BP;0CBRD and cited in other publications of theirs with the 'arious
a'ailable etymological dictionaries of Proto-$ndo-European reconstructions
andKor a'ailable cognates A>uck ;0B0, Pokorny ;050, Hann ;0CB, ,atkins
;00LD, and found that there are simpl) no such lexemes to support, for
instance, the following ajrmation made by these scholars<
(ome of these animals Pi%e%, lpanther', llion', lelephant', lcrab', lmonkey'R
are speci:c to the southern geographic region, which rules out central
Europe as a possible territory of habitation of the $ndo-Europan tribes PR%
A@amkrelid*e i $'ano' ;0C5a<;;Y Irell ;00B<B;-BLD
!ikewise, reconstruction such as h&wei- ]bird], hkher- ]crow, ra'en],
hthethAeDr- ]black grouse], and se'eral other reconstructions /)
1amkrelid4e 6 !&ano& are not paralleled /) an) of the four a/o&e-
cited authorities AIrell ;00B<BLD% As the authors make an all-out e+ort to
support their argument that early $ndo-Europeans were agriculturalists, not
Aas @imbutas and others would ha'e itD essentially pastoralists with animal
raising as their ma#or food supply, they o+er an array of reconstructions such
as the following< hsolkhu- ]furrow], hserph- ]sickle], hAeDs-en- ]time of
har'est], and hk'orau- ]millstone],C none of $hich are supported /)
'uck and the other scholars% >y contrast, while there are indeed terms
for lto plow' and lto sow' in the $ndo-European le)icon in these dictionaries
which would suggest that the $ndo-Europeans had some familiarity with
agricultural practice, there seem to be common $ords for 7pasture
8noun and &er/95, 7$ool5, and others not mentioned /) 1amkrelid4e
6 !&ano&, which are well attested in Pokorny A;050D, Hann A;0CBD, and
,atkins A;00LD such as those meaning such things as ]to break in a horse],
]to ride], and ]to milk] AIrell ;00B<B5D% @i'en these few e)amples, it would
be rather dijcult to decide, on palaeonotological grounds, in fa'our of the
claim that our $ndo-European ancestors were indeed agriculturalists, as the
archaeologist Renfrew A;0CGD has argued on di+erent grounds, but which
@amkrelid*e A;006D supported enthusiastically, although their relati&e
chronolo.ies are some t$o thousand )ears apart%
http://www.tulane.edu/howard/LangId...r/Koerner.html
Single words can be borrowed and spread but it means nothing. But when we have thousands of
very closely related words and grammatical forms like in case of Slavonic and Sanskrit then it for
sure means something.
2011-11-27, 23:54
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
Elias,
3on't let Fean H% rot your brain% &er main focus, it seems, is to associate R;b
with the proto-$ndo-Europeans from the steppes% -his is ridiculous for a
number of reasons%
I didn't even know Jean M. was behind that site. I |ust thought the map was interesting.
Anyway she's wrong about R1b; R1b simply cannot be linked with the proto-Indo-Europeans,
because R1b subclades such as R-V88 is found amongst Negroids speaking an Afro-Asiatic
language (probably arrived there with some Neolithic late stage proto-Afro-Asiatic speaking
tribe), it's found amongst Basques and Assyrians, and also amongst Sardinians if I remember
correctly (who were Indo-Europeanised linguistically), and not to forget R1b is found amongst
Berbers too.
R1a on the other hand, is very much confned to Indo-European speakers, and when it's not, it's
found amongst Mongolians who we know mixed with Indo-European speakers and were
responsible for displacing their language, and similar language shifting events of the kind. Please,
R1a is found in all ancient DNA where known Indo-European speakers roamed.
I assume Jean M. is Irish or something? If so, I can imagine she's trying to connect the proto-
Indo-Europeans with R1b as an attempt to legitimise the language spoken by western Europeans.
Actually, somehow it must be explained how Celtic speaking regions such as France and Ireland
are so high on R1b. Could they represent what David Anthony calls "elite recruitment" (I know it's
|ust his alternative term for elite dominance but it's quite possible the R-M17 PIE men recruited
R1b men at an early stage, or the R-M17 tribe arranged marriages with R1b men and gave them
their women or something, who knows)?
The interesting question is if the proto-Celts were R-M17 or R-L23? The proto-Celts must have
been R-M17 but at which stage did they shift to R-L23, and more importantly, how?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
Also, her basic ideas are totally outdated
Please elaborate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
and much like 3a'id Anthony's, they're dri'en by the old western idea of
making up bullshit to appease the masses and build their self-esteem%
E'entually the penny will drop for her, but not for a while, because she
mo'es at the speed of the a'erage glacier when it comes to comprehending
this stu+%
I'm not sure that's the impression I got from Anthony. I'm of the opinion there are ma|or Jaws in
his book, not utilising population genetics is one of those Jaws, but the impression I got is that
he's genuinely interested in locating the PIE-urheimat, and the Pontic-Caspian steppe is not
exactly western Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
-hat's not to say gamnaya wasn't an important part of the $ndo-European
process% $t had to be, because it was in between .entral-Eastern Europe and
the Asian steppes%
>ut $'m certain that the $ndo-European e)pansion was a sling-shot type
mo'ement, in a clockwise direction around the >lack (ea, with present day
Poland a key part of the story, because it was the original home of the
.orded ,are%
The high linguistic variation in central-eastern Europe and high frequency and genetic diversity of
R-M17 in Poland and surrounding regions certainly speaks for ancient Poland as the proto-Indo-
European urheimat.
However, we must keep in mind that even if we can fnd the highest variation/frequency of Indo-
European languages and R-M17 in Poland and surrounding regions, this was not necessarily the
case in ancient times, because populations back then were much smaller around 4,500 BC, so
one can't expect a modern nation like Poland with a population close to 40 million to accurately
pin-point the PIE urheimat almost 7,000 years ago. However, considering the highest genetic
variation of Indo-European languages in central-eastern Europe (which is not synonymous with
Poland but quite close), and the high genetic frequency and variation in this very same region, I
think the Yamnaya horizon is certainly a good bet.
Also, earliest evidence of a wagon (or something that looks like a wagon, not necessarily an
actual wagon with wheel) has been found in Poland so Poland is a good bet too, but we have to
be careful not to be dogmatic about this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$ think some 'ery interesting stu+ has been published by the 4ni'ersity of
Philadelphia of late% -his sort of professional work is better than anything oh
that >uilding &istory website run by Fean%
-he kurgan in'asion of Europe%%%or was that the .orded ,are e)pansion from
Europe
Thanks, I'll check it out when I have more time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$ don't think linguistics has enough resolution, or e'en accuracy, to say
de:nitely where the proto-$ndo-Europeans :rst formed%
$t might in the near future, but it doesn't now% $ think the only way we'll be
able to sol'e this problem is if both genetics and linguistics impro'es
markedly o'er the ne)t few years%
Actually, linguistics can tell us a lot about any urheimat theory. Julius von Klaproth came up with
the idea that one should study Jora, fauna and other important geographic words in a language
family in order to understand where its urheimat is located. This is very important information to
glean from, because for example, since snow (*sneig^wh-) is a securely
reconstructed term in proto-Indo-European, we can with certainty exclude sub-Saharan Africa as
the proto-Indo-European urheimat. But we can't exclude Siberia by snow alone, so we have to
use Jora and fauna, like for example beech can be reconstructed in PIE or proto-Indo-Iranian if
I'm not mistaken (Jaska can correct me if I'm wrong), honey is another proto-Indo-European term
and so on.
So linguistics is important, but equally important is genetics, especially archaeogenetics. Anyone
interested in any urheimat theory is also interested in understanding the genetic profle of the
original speakers/founders of a language family. The ignorance Indo-Europeanists have had of
genetics is astonishing to say the least.
Moreover, the proto-Indo-European urheimat is not only a matter of linguistics and genetics; it's a
matter of linguistics, archaeology, genetics (modern population genetics combined with ancient
DNA fossils/mummies), animal genetics, general knowledge of history (ancient historians like
Herodotus, Tacitus, Assyrian records on the Scythians etc.), religion and animal domestication
sites. It's a whole lot of felds that need to be combined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioterus
$ thought the 9uestion was - ,hat do you think EastPole on the matter of P$E
urheimat being close but not e)aclty in situ of >alto-(la'ic urheimat%
(o $ was wondering how the answers will go, being 9uite sceptical about any
proto-(la'icUP$E supporter here to ha'e any more stamina to continue
discussion with Fean H%
,e are 9uite ]tough and stubborn] but how can you treat seriously someone
aware of current genetic-genealogy disco'eries Asomeone posting
continously on 3NA-"orumsD who still claims (la's are allochtonic people
without a blink
Well, Slavs have expanded quite a lot, and though Slavic speakers still inhabit the most probable
location of the proto-Indo-European urheimat they're found quite far outside of it too.
I have no opinion on Jean M. so far, haven't read much of what she's written, certainly haven't
followed her debates with you Poles on DNA-Forums, and I've pretty much only checked out her
map.
Quote:
Originally Posted by P%h#amaalane
,here did you get that map 3id you make it yourself $t has se'eral ma#or
errors in it%
Yes, I did it |ust to provoke your Estonian urheimat!
Quote:
Originally Posted by P%h#amaalane
No >altic tribes ha'e e'er li'ed in Estonia, e'en the assimilation of the
nati'e "innic tribes in modern-day !at'ia lasted until the L6th century%
>efore the 5th century A3, you could draw a hypothetical line at the
3auga'aKE=ina ri'er in !at'ia, which separated the "innics in the north and
the >alts in the south% -he &unnish in'asion of Europe triggered many
migrations, including the >altic one northwards% ,e can talk about any >altic
tribes li'ing northwards of the 3auga'a ri'er line in !at'ia, after the 5th
century A3%
$ don't know enough about the >altic tribes in their eastern-most habitat,
thus $ can't say anything about it on the map, but $ did :) the northern
habitat error% -heses errors could easily be a'oided, if people who check the
basic archeologicalKhistorical data before making anything%
http<KKimg;7%imageshack%usKimg;7KGBCBKielangespread%#pg
lol at you erasing proto-Baltic from Estonia. Whatever man, your |udgement is clouded by your
nationalism.
Various Indo-Europeanists have placed the PIE urheimat (not proto-Baltic, mind you, but PIE) in
or near Estonia, such as Wolfgang P. Schmid.
http://books.google.com/books?id=8|U...A165&lpg=PA165
You have very weird ideas anyway about Indo-European, like when you said E-V13 brought
farming and Indo-European languages to Europe, or when you believed R-M17 came to Europe
from India and somehow got white-washed along the way and became "blond Nordic demigods
like yourself" :lol: You're very anti-scientifc, or |ust ignorant.I'm still waiting for your reply :p You
obviously have no clue how to connect the dots and don't understand that a scientifc theory has
to ft with the evidence; all the evididence, and not Estonian nationalism sentiments.
2011-11-28, 02:36
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioterus
gesss sire, where is the @La; from @eorgia and do you 'ote for this way of
things
d-he e)ceptionally high le'el of @La; in the North Ossetians has attracted
attention and speculation% (ince the Ossetians make claim to descent from
the Alans, a group of (armatians, it was thought that the Alans or their
predessor residents of the area north of the .aucasus, the (cythians, must
also ha'e been high in &aplogroup @%X
That assumption would be right only if we thought that the Ossetes have no other genes but those
inherited from Alans. And to my knowledge, nobody assumes that. People tend to mix with their
local neighbours, they don`t |ust inbreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
gou kicked a ball into your own goal<
d-he e)istence of certain P$E typological features in Northwest .aucasian
languages may hint at an early (prachbund or substratum that reached
geographically to the P$E homelands% -his same type of languages, featuring
comple) 'erbs and of which the current Northwest .aucasian languages
might ha'e been the sole sur'i'ors, was cited by Peter (chri#'er to indicate a
local le)ical and typological reminiscence in western Europe pointing to a
possible Neolithic substratum%X
gour Iart'elian-$E links originated not around .aucasus, but are simply the
result of the assimilation by $Es of the Neolithic substratum Aremember hg @
found repeatedly in the European Neolithic a3NA, and the association
between hg @ bearing Iart'elian speaking @eorgians and ,est Asian
autosomal element associated with the spread of Neolithic to EuropeDmmm
You have clearly misunderstood something there.
1. PIE-Caucasian typological complex requires that PIE was spoken in the ad|acency of
Caucasian languages. Similar typology may have been widespread, but loanwords occur
between PIE and Kartvelian. Loanwords specify the languages in contact, mere typology cannot
do that.
2. PIE cannot have been spoken in the area where there were other languages. Therefore the
existence of these typologically alien languages in Europe west of Caucasus testifes that the
Indo-European homeland cannot have been there.
Consequently, your quotation |ust confrms what I have said, so thank you.
Maybe you should read more carefully before making wrong conclusions? :ashamed:
2011-11-28, 05:39
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
;% P$E-.aucasian typological comple) re9uires that P$E was spoken in the
ad#acency of .aucasian languages% (imilar typology may ha'e been
widespread, but loanwords occur between P$E and Iart'elian% !oanwords
specify the languages in contact, mere typology cannot do that%
Not Kartvelian, but proto-Kartvelian. Language - as Schri|ver postulates - similar to the languages
of European Neolithic farmers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
L% P$E cannot ha'e been spoken in the area where there were other
languages%
Obviously false. You cannot postulate language contact without physical contact.
I quit this (Kartvelian) part of the discusstion (I will get back the your other arguments later), as I
have already decided for myself that Kartvelian argument is not valid (but thank you - I have
learned something about the probable language of the LBK farmers).
2011-11-28, 08:45
Pioterus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
-hat assumption would be right only if we thought that the Ossetes ha'e no
other genes but those inherited from Alans% And to my knowledge, nobody
assumes that% People tend to mi) with their local neighbours, they donJt #ust
inbreed%
Isn't the explanation that original*PIE speakers spread their genetic marker (Y-haplo), and
autosomal aHnities**along their paths more Occamized?
So where we now have continuity of R1a1a Y-haplos and their countless subclades (where most
researches show that all this dispersal started from somewhere South of Baltic), we would have
Caucasus markers imo with biggest variance of those clades (center of gravity) somewhere were
vineyards are common since 7k years?
*or early "converts" if we one can imagine a whole tribe group of R1a1a males who completely
switch languages;
**big scale migrations, moving into scarcely inhabitetd areas, exterminations, and this autosomal
unity means also those guys took their women with them bringing their mtDNA haplos on the way.
2011-11-28, 14:08
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
Not Iart'elian, but proto-Iart'elian% !anguage - as (chri#'er postulates -
similar to the languages of European Neolithic farmers%
Schri|ver's language was only typologically similar, it was not the sameProto-Kartvelian
language. If you claim it was the same language, please present some lexical comparisons
between this Western European language and Proto-Kartvelian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
Ob'iously false% gou cannot postulate language contact without physical
contact%
Again you missed my point.
PIE must have been close toProto-Kartvelian - otherwise there would have not been contacts -
but PIE could not have been at the very same areathan Proto-Kartvelian. And if Western and
Central Europe was full of since lost Palaeo-European languages, the PIE homeland cannot be
located there.
Do you understand now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioterus
$sn't the e)planation that originalh P$E speakers spread their genetic marker
Ag-haploD, and autosomal ajnitieshh along their paths more Occami*ed
(o where we now ha'e continuity of R;a;a g-haplos and their countless
subclades Awhere most researches show that all this dispersal started from
somewhere (outh of >alticD, we would ha'e .aucasus markers imo with
biggest 'ariance of those clades Acenter of gra'ityD somewhere were
'ineyards are common since Gk years
What are you talking about?
It does not matter where some genetic lineageis oldest - the only thing that matters here is
where the Proto-Indo-European languageis oldest. If at one time in one place PIE speakers
can be connected to a certain genetic lineage, you cannot claim that all the predecessors of those
people also spoke Proto-Indo-European. It would be a logical fallacy, because language is not
inherited in genes, you know.
2011-12-02, 01:04
EliasAlucard
I'll pose my questions here because it's more on topic here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
,ell, some R;a clades weren't part of the proto-$ndo European gene pool%
Which are these R1a clades, and how do you know this?
By the way, do you think proto-Indo-European was originally founded and created by early R-
M420 males or did some R-M17 males shift to proto-Indo-European? If so, what haplogroup do
you think preceded R-M17 in developing the Indo-European language family?
By the way, this map:
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/9622/r1acladessnp.|pg
Corroborates central-eastern Europe as the main location of expansion of R-M17, right? Is M417
|ust a diferent number for R-M17? R-M417 seems to be placed in the Yamnaya horizon.
2011-12-02, 02:16
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
,hich are these R;a clades, and how do you know this
>y the way, do you think proto-$ndo-European was originally founded and
created by early R-HBL6 males or did some R-H;G males shift to proto-$ndo-
European $f so, what haplogroup do you think preceded R-H;G in
de'eloping the $ndo-European language family
The only two options are...
a) R1a1a is the proto-Indo-European lineage. So anyone who carries it is a son of the frst tribe
that spoke Indo-European.
b) R1a1a-Z283 is Indo-European, and the rest, if carried by people speaking Indo-European
languages today, were Indo-Europeanized at some point by their Z283 neighbors or Z283
invaders.
To fgure this out, we need to test lots of modern and ancient samples for Z283 and Z93, all the
way from Eastern Europe to the Altai and India.
Quote:
>y the way, this map, .orroborates central-eastern Europe as the main
location of e)pansion of R-H;G, right $s HB;G #ust a di+erent number for R-
H;G R-HB;G seems to be placed in the gamnaya hori*on%
It's the same thing. But that map need not be the truth. It's still |ust speculation.
Having said that, based on the data that's now availabe, it's no longer tenable to suggest that
European R1a1a came from India, or even from near India. That nonsense was popular on anthro
boards for many years, but it's a boat that's left the harbor for good. Thank god for modern
science.
2011-12-02, 11:05
Ubira|ara
On the contrary, it cannot be ruled out an association between R1b and Indo Europeans, even though R1a seems to be -
until now - more associated with them. R1b in Western Europe is relatively recent, and it came from the East. The ancestral
types of the R1b found in Europe are found primarily around the Black Sea (Ukraine, Turkey and the Caucasus), one of the
regions most often pointed to be the origins of Indo Europeans.
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...ction=yresults
It is possible that a few thousand years ago that area was mostly R1b and, due to a combination of events (some random,
some not random), R1b came to peak in Western Europe now. R1b has been extremely diHcult to fnd in ancient remains.
To date, only a few of those remains from around the 7th century found in Bavaria have turned out to be R1b as far as I
know (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...tool=pmcentrez). Celts - and Indo Europeans - are known for practicing
cremation, so this may explain it in part IMO. I'd |ust wait and see what future researchers will indicate. It is too early to |ump
to a defnite conclusion IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
$ didn't e'en know Fean H% was behind that site% $ #ust thought the map was
interesting%
Anyway she's wrong about R;bY R;b simply cannot be linked with the proto-
$ndo-Europeans, because R;b subclades such as R-ECC is found amongst
Negroids speaking an Afro-Asiatic language Aprobably arri'ed there with
some Neolithic late stage proto-Afro-Asiatic speaking tribeD, it's found
amongst >as9ues and Assyrians, and also amongst (ardinians if $ remember
correctly Awho were $ndo-Europeanised linguisticallyD, and not to forget R;b
is found amongst >erbers too%
2011-12-02, 11:10
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by :/ira#ara
On the contrary, it cannot be ruled out an association between R;b and $ndo
Europeans, e'en though R;a seems to be - until now - more associated with
them% R;b in ,estern Europe is relati'ely recent, and it came from the East%
-he ancestral types of the R;b found in Europe are found primarily around
the >lack (ea A4kraine, -urkey and the .aucasusD, one of the regions most
often pointed to be the origins of $ndo Europeans%
http<KKwww%familytreedna%comKpublicK%%%ctionUyresults
The problem is that there is a lot of R1b among non-IE people (like Assyrians), and it is absent
among Indians. So R1b can be associated at most with some subranches of UE like Italo-Celtic
or Germanic.
2011-12-02, 11:15
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by :/ira#ara
-he ancestral types of the R;b found in Europe are found primarily around
the >lack (ea A4kraine, -urkey and the .aucasusD%
Ukraine? Try the Levant.
I can see a lot of people pushing shit uphill trying to make R1b Indo-European. It won't work. It is
what it is, and that's a West Asian lineage that became associated with the Indo-Europeans well
after the initial dispersal of the language group.
Ubira|ara
No it is not a problem, when you look at the whole picture, most R1b carriers are Indo European speakers, especially if you
narrow it down to R1b-M269 (the type of R1b found in Europe), and the ancestral types of R1b-M269 are found around the
Black Sea. R1b-M269 could be associated with proto Indo Europeans. There are theories pointing, f.e, to Hittite as perhaps
one of the most ancient Indo European languages, and that's a place (the region around the Black Sea) where R1b-M269
seems to have originated, being more common there a few thousand years ago then it is now.
R1a is found in abundance among Southern Indians who are not Indo European speakers either, and as far as among
Siberian non Indo European speakers, as well as in the Near East.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
-he problem is that there is a lot of R;b among non-$E people Alike
AssyriansD, and it is absent among $ndians% (o R;b can be associated at most
with some subranches of 4E like $talo-.eltic or @ermanic%
---------- Post added 2011-12-02 at 11:23 ----------
Just look at the link I posted. It comes from the ht-35 pro|ect. Turkey, Armenia and Ukraine (Black
Sea region) make the hot spot for the ancestral R1b-M269 types.
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...ction=yresults
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
4kraine -ry the !e'ant%
$ can see a lot of people pushing shit uphill trying to make R;b $ndo-
European% $t won't work% $t is what it is, and that's a ,est Asian lineage that
became associated with the $ndo-Europeans well after the initial dispersal of
the language group%
2011-12-02, 11:32
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by :/ira#ara
No it is not a problem, when you look at the whole picture, most R;b carriers
are $ndo European speakers, especially if you narrow it down to R;b-HL70
Athe type of R;b found in EuropeD, and the ancestral types of R;b-HL70 are
found around the >lack (ea% R;b-HL70 could be associated with proto $ndo
Europeans% -here are theories pointing, f%e, to &ittite as perhaps one of the
most ancient $ndo European languages, and that's a place Athe region
around the >lack (eaD where R;b-HL70 seems to ha'e originated, being
more common there a few thousand years ago then it is now%
Hittite one of the most ancient Indo-European languages? :D
Quote:
Fust look at the link $ posted% $t comes from the ht-15 pro#ect% gou can count
it by hand, -urkey, Armenia and 4kraine are the hot spots for the ancestral
R;b-HL70%
http<KKwww%familytreedna%comKpublicK%%%ctionUyresults
The north and south of the Black Sea are not genetically connected directly, and never have
been.
R1b is a lineage of the south of the Black Sea - in other words, the Middle East. Thus, not Indo-
European.
There's no evidence that M269 has an ancient presence on the steppe of Eastern Europe. None
whatsoever.
2011-12-02, 11:50
Ubira|ara
Black Sea today (light blue) and in 5600 BC (dark blue) according to Ryan and Pitman's hypothesis:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...k-sea-hist.png
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
-he north and south of the >lack (ea are not genetically connected directly,
and ne'er ha'e been%
R;b is a lineage of the south of the >lack (ea - in other words, the Hiddle
East% -hus, not $ndo-European%
-here's no e'idence that HL70 has an ancient presence on the steppe of
Eastern Europe% None whatsoe'er%
_____________
Quote:
According to Renfrew AL661D, the spread of $ndo-European proceeded in the
following steps<
Around 7566 >.< Pre-Proto-$ndo-European, located in Anatolia, splits into
Anatolian and Archaic Proto-$ndo-European, the language of those Pre-Proto-
$ndo-European farmers that migrate to Europe in the initial farming
dispersal% Archaic Proto-$ndo-European languages occur in the >alkans
A(tarne'o-Icrcs-.ris cultureD, in the 3anube 'alley A!inear Pottery cultureD,
and possibly in the >ug-3niestr area AEastern !inear pottery cultureD%
Around 5666 >.< Archaic Proto-$ndo-European splits into Northwestern $ndo-
European Athe ancestor of $talic, .eltic, and @ermanicD, located in the
3anube 'alley, >alkan Proto-$ndo-European Acorresponding to @imbutas' Old
European cultureD, and Early (teppe Proto-$ndo-European Athe ancestor of
-ocharianD%
After 1666 >.< -he @reek, Albanian, and >alto-(la'ic families de'elop from
>alkan Proto-$ndo-EuropeanPcitation neededR, Proto-@reek speakers being
already present in @reeceY Proto-$ndo-$ranian mo'es northeast into the
steppe area%
Renfrew's L661 scenario 9uali:es as an ]$ndo-&ittite] model, separating
Anatolian from all other branches around 7566 >., more than a millennium
before the ne)t split at 5666 >.%
It is not only Renfrew who advocates it, Mallory - currently one of the main Indo European
scholars - also seems to think of it as a likely scenario.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_hypothesis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
&ittite one of the most ancient $ndo-European languages <3
___________
The ancestral types of R1b-M269 are found mostly around the Black Sea region, this is a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
-here's no e'idence that HL70 has an ancient presence on the steppe of
Eastern Europe% None whatsoe'er%
2011-12-02, 12:54
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by :/ira#ara
Fust look at the link $ posted% $t comes from the ht-15 pro#ect% -urkey,
Armenia and 4kraine A>lack (ea regionD make the hot spot for the ancestral
R;b-HL70 types%
http<KKwww%familytreedna%comKpublicK%%%ctionUyresults
Which subclades do you mean?
2011-12-02, 13:55
Ubira|ara
L23-, L51- and L11-.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
,hich subclades do you mean
2011-12-02, 14:24
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by :/ira#ara
!L1-, !5;- and !;;-%
Are you sure these 4 Ukrainian hits are not Jewish? Surnames like Roitman, Bardige or Schor
doesn't strike me as particularly Ukrainian. Same as Bleecher of Poland or Arcus of Belarus?
If they were indeed Jewish it would ft nicely with other L23-, L51- and L11- samples from Algeria,
Syria, Turkey, Armenia and Italy.
2011-12-02, 14:35
Ubira|ara
You can look at that link and check that ancestral types of the R1b-M269 found in Europe (which is largely L-11 and its two
branches R-U106 and R-P312), not only L23-, but also L51-; they are found mainly around that region (including Armenia),
and I am not counting only those with Jewish surnames, there are examples from Russia, Belarus and Ukraine with typically
Slavic family names.
Look at what Myers found "instructive" in his enquiry on R1b-M269:
Quote:
-his ,estern European population is further di'ided between R-P1;LK(;;7
and R-4;67K(L;, which appear to spread from the western and eastern
Rhine ri'er basin respecti'ely% ;)res et al. note further that concernin.
its closest relati&es, in (-<2=0, that it is -instructi&e- that these are
often more than 3>? of the population in the Caucasus, Turke), and
some southeast European and circum-:ralic populations%
http://www.nature.com/e|hg/|ournal/v...g2010146a.html
To sum it up:
1 - A great chunk of the present Indo European speaking population carries yDNA haplogroup
R1b-M269;
2 - Ancestral types of R1b-M269 are mostly found in the region around the Black Sea region;
3 - Ma|or Indo European scholars have argued for an important role the Black Sea region,
including Anatolia, would have played in the Indo European group genesis;
4 - Given that R1b-M269 expanded so quickly (and rather recently), and exactly from that region,
and given that it seems to be tied to Indo European languages (v.g, Italo and Celtic Indo
European speakers are overwhelmingly R1b-M269, likely more related to each other -
linguistically - than they are to Slavic or some other Eastern Indo European language, like
Persian), one cannot - as of now - say with certainty that R1b and Indo European genesis are not
related.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
Are you sure these B 4krainian hits are not Fewish (urnames like Roitman,
>ardige or (chor doesn't strike me as particularly 4krainian% (ame as
>leecher of Poland or Arcus of >elarus
$f they were indeed Fewish it would :t nicely with other !L1-, !5;- and !;;-
samples from Algeria, (yria, -urkey, Armenia and $taly%
2011-12-02, 14:58
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by :/ira#ara
L - Ancestral types of R;b-HL70 are mostly found in the region around the
>lack (ea regionY
I am not convinced as the samples you gave me as example seem to be Jewish. So the use of
the term "Black Sea region" is not |ustifed. "Anatolia" seems like a better description, which would
nicely ft with the Neolithic origin (IE or not IE I don't know) of R1b-M269 postulated by recent
papers.
2011-12-02, 15:04
Ubira|ara
Well as I said to you:
- There are people from Ukraine, Bulgaria, Belarus and Russia with Slavic names there
- And also people from Armenia and Anatolia
- The link I provided (study by Myers) explicity mentions the following regions as the peak places of ancestral R1b-M269:
Southeast Europe, Anatolia, Caucasus, and circum Uralic region
If this cannot be described as Black Sea region, I don't know then what the expression Black Sea Region could ever be
used to describe!
Just look at the map:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...k-sea-hist.png
Southeast Europe to left; circum Uralic to the North; Caucasus to the right; and Anatolia to the South.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$ am not con'enced as the samples you ga'e me as e)ample seem to be
Fewish% (o the use of the term ]>lack (ea region] is not #usti:ed% ]Anatolia]
seems like a better description, which would nicely :t with the Neolithic
origin A$E or not $E $ don't knowD of R;b-HL70 postulated by recent papers%
2011-12-02, 15:17
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by :/ira#ara
,ell as $ said to you<
- -here are people from 4kraine, >ulgaria, >elarus and Russia with (la'ic
names there
Don't tell me that the IE status of Western Europeans depens on whether few people of Eastern
Eurepan origing are Slavs or Jews. ;)
EDIT: OK, I will search the whole ht35 pro|ect for Eastern Europeans from the region North of the
Black Sea.
Here are people found in the more or less 150 strong L23+ L51- L11- group:
Wollschlaeger, Poland
K, Poland
Volkov, Ukraine
de Kool, Poland
Kubatiev, Russia
Breske, Poland
Glowiak, Poland
Kaye, Lithuania
Banuk, Lithuania
Jastrow, Poland
Probasco, Poland
Feldsott, Russia
Skodinski, Poland
Stehlik, Czech Rep.
Jazenski, Poland
Based on the surnames I would bet - but I cannot prove that of course - that at least half of these
people are also Ashkenazi Jews.
Again it would ft nicely with 10 samples from this group from Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and UAE, not
counting much more numerous Turkish and Armenian samples.
I will check other subclades later.
2011-12-02, 18:39
Ubira|ara
A few more:
L23- :
2 from Belarus (Arcus, Urovish) circum Uralic
1 unknown region (surname Netzky) circum Uralic or Southeast Europe
1 from Serbia (Vo|cic) Southeast Europe
1 from Armenia (Srabian) Caucasus
1 from Ukraine (Sosimov) circum Uralic
etc
L51-:
etc
You can do it with L51- too. There are plenty from the Black Sea region (Southeast Europe, Bulgaria, Greece, etc; from
Anatolia, Turkey; from the Caucasus, Armenia; and from the Circum Uralic region too).
As I said Myres found it "instructive" that the ancestral types of R1b-M269 are mostly found there.
Quote:
Hyres et al% note further that concerning its closest relati'es, in R-!L1h, that
it is ]instructi'e] that these are often more than ;68 of the population in the
.aucasus, -urkey, and some southeast European and circum-4ralic
populations%
2011-12-02, 19:29
EastPole
Many Armenians and Jews in Poland, Russia, Ukraine and other Slavic countries had Slavic names.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenians_in_Poland
Also in antiquity, as Herodotus reports, there were many Greek colonies on north Black Sea shore whose inhabitants came
mainly from Anatolia. Plus Byzantium, Muslims inJuences etc.
So ancestral types of R1b-M269 in Slavonic areas may be `intrusive` and not ancient enough to consider it as PIE.
2011-12-02, 20:42
newtoboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by :/ira#ara
gou can look at that link and check that ancestral types of the R;b-HL70
found in Europe Awhich is largely !-;; and its two branches R-4;67 and R-
P1;LD, not only !L1-, but also !5;-Y they are found mainly around that region
Aincluding ArmeniaD, and $ am not counting only those with Fewish surnames,
there are e)amples from Russia, >elarus and 4kraine with typically (la'ic
family names%
!ook at what Hyers found ]instructi'e] in his en9uiry on R;b-HL70<
http<KKwww%nature%comKe#hgK#ournalK'%%%gL6;6;B7a%html
-o sum it up<
; - A great chunk of the present $ndo European speaking population carries
y3NA haplogroup R;b-HL70Y
L - Ancestral types of R;b-HL70 are mostly found in the region around the
>lack (ea regionY
1 - Ha#or $ndo European scholars ha'e argued for an important role the >lack
(ea region, including Anatolia, would ha'e played in the $ndo European
group genesisY
B - @i'en that R;b-HL70 e)panded so 9uickly Aand rather recentlyD, and
e)actly from that region, and gi'en that it seems to be tied to $ndo European
languages A'%g, $talo and .eltic $ndo European speakers are o'erwhelmingly
R;b-HL70, likely more related to each other - linguistically - than they are to
(la'ic or some other Eastern $ndo European language, like PersianD, one
cannot - as of now - say with certainty that R;b and $ndo European genesis
are not related%
Lol. There is about zero R1b among Pashtuns, Ta|iks and when it does exist it is the B1 clade of
M73. It is all about R1a when it comes to the IE genesis.
R1a exists in IE speaking populations with R1b. But R1b is often lacking in IE speaking
populations who are R1a. So we can say with certainty R1b played an almost insignifcant role.
---------- Post added 2011-12-02 at 20:46 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by :/ira#ara
No it is not a problem, when you look at the whole picture, most R;b carriers
are $ndo European speakers, especially if you narrow it down to R;b-HL70
Athe type of R;b found in EuropeD, and the ancestral types of R;b-HL70 are
found around the >lack (ea% R;b-HL70 could be associated with proto $ndo
Europeans% -here are theories pointing, f%e, to &ittite as perhaps one of the
most ancient $ndo European languages, and that's a place Athe region
around the >lack (eaD where R;b-HL70 seems to ha'e originated, being
more common there a few thousand years ago then it is now%
(3a is found in a/undance amon. Southern !ndians $ho are not
!ndo European speakers either, and as far as amon. Si/erian non
!ndo European speakers, as $ell as in the @ear East.
---------- Post added L6;;-;L-6L at ;;<L1 ----------
Fust look at the link $ posted% $t comes from the ht-15 pro#ect% -urkey,
Armenia and 4kraine A>lack (ea regionD make the hot spot for the ancestral
R;b-HL70 types%
http<KKwww%familytreedna%comKpublicK%%%ctionUyresults
Lol. It is hardly found in abundance among South Indians and even then how do you know it is not
Indo-iranian R1a present in South India?
Siberia once had a large IE speaking population.
The fact of the matter is R1a often exists without R1b. The reverse is not as common or even
heard of at all.
---------- Post added 2011-12-02 at 20:52 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
-he problem is that there is a lot of R;b among non-$E people Alike
AssyriansD, and it is absent among $ndians% (o R;b can be associated at most
with some subranches of 4E like $talo-.eltic or @ermanic%
I believe there is some R1b-m269 (the west asian vareity) and r1b-m73(clade b2) among indians
but that is more connected to the neolithic as well as the spread of persian empires. t has nothing
to do with the proto Indo-Iranians who were entirely R1a but might have lived with some R1b
carriers in Central Asia.
2011-12-02, 21:19
Ubira|ara
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
!ol% -here is about *ero R;b among Pashtuns, -a#iks and when it does e)ist it
is the >; clade of HG1% $t is all about R;a when it comes to the $E genesis%
No, it is not, |ust read what I said. You cannot claim it with certainty at all. An alternative scenario
where the PIE were all R1b - in the Black Sea region - and later transmitted IE culture to R1a
carriers to the North is |ust as likely (|ust take into account there is a strong controversy on which
are the most archaic IE languages, some seem to favour the Anatolian languages as the most
archaic, etc). That's actually the feeling I got after a Mallory lecture on the origins of the Indo
Europeans (I'll post the youtube video if I fnd it again). From what he said, it could be that Indo
Europeans emerged around the Black Sea region, which would ft with the linguistic part of it, and
then it spread to the steppes, so that Indo-Iranian-Slavic branch would have come out later. I am
not saying this is the truth. Of course not. I'm |ust saying one cannot be sure R1b played no role in
the IE genesis.
R1b-M269 was found at a rate of 84% among the Bashkirs of Perm by the way:
http://ftp.anrb.ru/molgen/Lobov_AS.PDF (page 15)
http://i39.tinypic.com/116nnkl.|pg
And it is found at varying frequencies in Central Asia. At low frequencies, it has also been found in
Pakistan, India and in China.
Quote:
R;a e)ists in $E speaking populations with R;b% >ut R;b is often lacking in $E
speaking populations who are R;a% (o we can say with certainty R;b played
an almost insigni:cant role%
Not true. Celtic or Italic Indo European speakers in France, Ireland and Northern Italy are pred.
R1b, R1a being insignifcant there. On the other hand, ancestral types of R1b-M269 are present
throughout Eastern Europe and the Black Sea Region, ancestral types of R1b-M269 actually
reach their highest rate around the Black Sea Region, in Southeast Europe, Anatolia, the
Caucasus, and the circum-Uralic region to the North of the Black Sea.
2011-12-02, 21:23
aregint
Both R1a and R1b came from the east. R1a migration was from the north, and it was a small group of people who went
north and quickly settled in the cold steppes. R1b went through Anatolia up the Danube and who knows where, they get
conquered by R1as who imposed their language more than their genes; then came the chariot, everything exploded, R1b
exterminated the old Europeans, a few Is are left in the more inaccessible regions; then R1a makes the same to the east
and the story is over.
2011-12-02, 22:35
EliasAlucard
Poll added.
//mod
2011-12-03, 03:27
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by :/ira#ara
R;b-HL70 was found at a rate of CB8 among the >ashkirs of Perm by the
way%
Bravo. You worked out that R1b is actually associated with Turkics in Central Asia, rather than
with Indo-Europeans.
Quote:
On the other hand, ancestral types of R;b-HL70 are present throughout
Eastern Europe and the >lack (ea Region, ancestral types of R;b-HL70
actually reach their highest rate around the >lack (ea Region, in (outheast
Europe, Anatolia, the .aucasus, and the circum-4ralic region to the North of
the >lack (ea%
Why do you keep saying Eastern Europe? There's been very little post-Neolithic gene Jow from
Anatolia and the Caucasus to Eastern Europe. They're not the same biogeographic regions at all.
This is a proven fact now.
Some of that limited gene Jow took a few clades of R1b-M269 up there, but that's it. There's no
evidence of a strong presence of R1b in any areas associated with the earliest Indo-Europeans,
like the Corded Ware and Yamnaya.
R1b on the steppe = Turkic
---------- Post added 2011-12-03 at 03:28 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
Poll added%
Bad idea.
2011-12-03, 04:41
newtoboard
Like I said R1b in India/Pakistan could have multiple sources none of which include Indo iranians.
Most of the R1b is probably M73(subclade b2) which is restricted to indo iranians speakers(namely ta|ikis and persians).
and the r1b-m269 could be neolithic (or a product of colonialism).
Show me a study which found R1b in South Central Asia at even a slightly signifcant rate. And prove it is of IE origin and
not neolithic or a result of a recent migration.
Western Europe has more R1a than South Central Asia has R1b. For all signifcant purposes R1b is found at a rate of zero
percent in the region.
---------- Post added 2011-12-03 at 04:46 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by :/ira#ara
No, it is not, #ust read what $ said% gou cannot claim it with certainty at all% An
alternati'e scenario where the P$E were all R;b - in the >lack (ea region -
and later transmitted $E culture to R;a carriers to the North is #ust as likely
A#ust take into account there is a strong contro'ersy on which are the most
archaic $E languages, some seem to fa'our the Anatolian languages as the
most archaic, etcD% -hat's actually the feeling $ got after a Hallory lecture on
the origins of the $ndo Europeans A$'ll post the youtube 'ideo if $ :nd it
againD% "rom what he said, it could be that $ndo Europeans emerged around
the >lack (ea region, which would :t with the linguistic part of it, and then it
spread to the steppes, so that $ndo-$ranian-(la'ic branch would ha'e come
out later% $ am not saying this is the truth% Of course not% $'m #ust saying one
cannot be sure R;b played no role in the $E genesis%
R;b-HL70 was found at a rate of CB8 among the >ashkirs of Perm by the
way<
http<KKftp%anrb%ruKmolgenK!obo'NA(%P3" Apage ;5D
http<KKi10%tinypic%comK;;7nnkl%#pg
And it is found at 'arying fre9uencies in .entral Asia% At low fre9uencies, it
has also been found in Pakistan, $ndia and in .hina%
@ot true. Celtic or !talic !ndo European speakers in Arance, !reland
and @orthern !tal) are pred. (3/, (3a /ein. insi.nifcant there. Bn
the other hand, ancestral t)pes of (3/-;2CD are present
throu.hout Eastern Europe and the 'lack Sea (e.ion, ancestral
t)pes of (3/-;2CD actuall) reach their hi.hest rate around the
'lack Sea (e.ion, in Southeast Europe, Anatolia, the Caucasus, and
the circum-:ralic re.ion to the @orth of the 'lack (ea%
Like I said they have more R1a than South Central Asia has R1b. R1b is nonexistent in the region
and when it does it is not a result of the Indo-Iranians. You are grasping at straws to try to prove
that the PIE were R1b.
2011-12-03, 12:20
Ubira|ara
What I said is that you cannot prove - until present time - that R1b and PIE genesis are not related. Only this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
gou are grasping at straws to try to pro'e that the P$E were R;b%
Just have a look at it again to refresh your memory:
Quote:
Originally Posted by :/ira#ara
-o sum it up<
; - A great chunk of the present $ndo European speaking population carries
y3NA haplogroup R;b-HL70Y
L - Ancestral types of R;b-HL70 are mostly found in the region around the
>lack (ea regionY
1 - Ha#or $ndo European scholars ha'e argued for an important role the >lack
(ea region, including Anatolia, would ha'e played in the $ndo European
group genesisY
B - @i'en that R;b-HL70 e)panded so 9uickly Aand rather recentlyD, and
e)actly from that region, and gi'en that it seems to be tied to $ndo European
languages A'%g, $talo and .eltic $ndo European speakers are o'erwhelmingly
R;b-HL70, likely more related to each other - linguistically - than they are to
(la'ic or some other Eastern $ndo European language, like PersianD, one
cannot - as of now - say with certainty that R;b and $ndo European genesis
are not related%
2011-12-03, 13:51
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by :/ira#ara
,hat $ said is that you cannot pro'e - until present time - that R;b and P$E
genesis are not related%
You actually seem to be convinced, but none of your evidence stacks up.
You're relying on Ashkenazi Jewish R1b in Eastern Europe and Turkic R1b in Central Asia to
show that R1b was present on the steppe in proto-Indo-European times. :whoco:
And you also apparently think that R1b-rich Italics and Celtics were early Indo-Europeans? How
do you know they weren't Indo-Europeanized somewhere around the Balkans, or even further
west? The latter is much more plausible, and that happened thousands of years after the end of
the proto-Indo-European stage.
2011-12-03, 15:04
Ubira|ara
You are twisting what I said. I've quoted a study and provided links with evidence that the ancestral types of R1b-M269 are
usually found in the Black Sea region (Southeast Europe, Turkey, Caucasus, and to the North in the circum-Uralic region).
And I showed one cannot prove - until now - that R1b and IE genesis are not related.
I was not relying on "R1b Ashkenazi Jews and Turkic R1b in Central Asia" at all. I posted examples of ancestral R1b-M269
ancestral types found around the Black Sea, and I showed the other poster that, contrary to what he claimed, R1b-M269
can be found further East (as higha s 84% among the Bashkirs of Perm).
Quote:
According to Renfrew AL661D, the spread of $ndo-European proceeded in the
following steps<
Around 7566 >.< Pre-Proto-$ndo-European, located in Anatolia, splits into
Anatolian and Archaic Proto-$ndo-European, the language of those Pre-Proto-
$ndo-European farmers that migrate to Europe in the initial farming
dispersal% Archaic Proto-$ndo-European languages occur in the >alkans
A(tarne'o-Icrcs-.ris cultureD, in the 3anube 'alley A!inear Pottery cultureD,
and possibly in the >ug-3niestr area AEastern !inear pottery cultureD%
Around 5666 >.< Archaic Proto-$ndo-European splits into Northwestern $ndo-
European Athe ancestor of $talic, .eltic, and @ermanicD, located in the
3anube 'alley, >alkan Proto-$ndo-European Acorresponding to @imbutas' Old
European cultureD, and Early (teppe Proto-$ndo-European Athe ancestor of
-ocharianD%
After 1666 >.< -he @reek, Albanian, and >alto-(la'ic families de'elop from
>alkan Proto-$ndo-EuropeanPcitation neededR, Proto-@reek speakers being
already present in @reeceY Proto-$ndo-$ranian mo'es northeast into the
steppe area%
Renfrew's L661 scenario 9uali:es as an ]$ndo-&ittite] model, separating
Anatolian from all other branches around 7566 >., more than a millennium
before the ne)t split at 5666 >.%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_hypothesis
And by the way, R1b around the Black and Caspian seas is actually more common than R1a
even at present time, |ust have a look at it (and that R1b is mostly the ancestral type of R1b-
M269, the one which expandly so quickly and not so long ago).
http://pastmist.fles.wordpress.com/2009/04/__y-map.gif
2011-12-03, 15:29
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by :/ira#ara
gou are twisting what $ said% $''e 9uoted a study and pro'ided links with
e'idence that the ancestral types of R;b-HL70 are usually found in the >lack
(ea region A(outheast Europe, -urkey, .aucasus, and to the North in the
circum-4ralic regionD% And $ showed one cannot pro'e - until now - that R;b
and $E genesis are not related%
So Jews from Belarus are circum-Uralic now? They're circum something else, but not really
circum-Uralic.
Quote:
And by the way, R;b around the >lack and .aspian seas is actually more
common than R;a e'en at present time, #ust ha'e a look at it Aand that R;b
is mostly the ancestral type of R;b-HL70, the one which e)pandly so 9uickly
and not so long agoD%
Yup, usually in non-Indo-European groups, and far away from where the earliest Kurgans are
found in Ukraine and...Poland.
By the way, did you miss this study?
Y-DNA evidence argues against Indo-European expansion into Europe from Armenia
Quote:
(hortly after the arri'al of early farmers in Armenia and Anatolia AC kyaD,
agriculture spread to @reece and the >alkans, before rapidly e)panding
across Europe%BG%"urthermore, the classi:cation of Armenian as an old $ndo-
European language with similarities to the ancestral Proto-$ndo-European
languages has led to the supposition that agriculturalists migrating from
Armenia into Europe were responsible for the establishment of $ndo-
European languages in the continent%;1,;B &owe'er, despite the close
linguistic relationship between Armenians and the $ndo-European speaking
populations of Europe,;L we see little genetic support for this claim% -he
deri'ed HB;L allele, which is found in nearly all haplogroup R;b;b;h-!L1
chromosomes in Europe,LG is absent in the sampled Armenians, which also
e)hibit a scarcity of haplotype sharing with Europeans, suggesting a limited
role for Armenians in the introduction of R;b into Europe%
2011-12-03, 15:43
Ubira|ara
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
(o Fews from >elarus are circum-4ralic now -hey're circum something else,
but not really circum-4ralic%
Circum-Uralic mention comes not only from the link I had provided, but also from this study which
I had already quoted:
Quote:
Hyres et al% note further that concerning its closest relati'es, in R-!L1h, that
it is ]instructi'e] that these are often more than ;68 of the population in the
.aucasus, -urkey, and some southeast European and circum-:ralic
populations%
The region between the Black and Caspian Seas is usually pointed as a possible homeland for
the IE. And there are IE speaking peoples there now, like the Armenians.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ropeanTree.svg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
gup, usually in non-$ndo-European groups, and far away from where the
earliest Iurgans are found in 4kraine and%%%Poland%
Just have a look at this link (there is plenty of R1b-M269 ancestral types L23-, L51- and L11- in
Armenia, even L11+ was found there).
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...ction=yresults
Whatever the researchers said, it is pretty clear R1b-M269 ancestral types are found there, and
this was pretty clear from the study you mentioned.
2011-12-03, 16:01
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by :/ira#ara
-he region between the >lack and .aspian (eas is usually pointed as a
possible homeland for the $E% And there are $E speaking peoples there now,
like the Armenians%
No, Armenians don't live anywhere near the North Pontic steppe - which is the often proposed IE
homeland.
The North Pontic steppe was always the home of North Europid groups, as it is today too.
Well south of the North Pontic is Transcaucasia, and that's also basically where the Middle East
starts. That's where R1b begins to rise in frequency.
2011-12-03, 16:12
Ubira|ara
They live in the region between the Black and Caspian seas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
No, Armenians don't li'e anywhere near the North Pontic steppe - which is
the often proposed $E homeland%
Frequency and origin are not necessarily related. R1b-M269 seems to have emerged around that
region or somewhere near it (the study I quoted mentions the ancestral types of R1b-M269 being
found in Southeast Europe, Anatolia, the Caucausus and the circum-Uralic region). IE likely arose
there or near there too.
Northern Europe is Scandinavia, Britain, etc. The Pontic steppe is Eastern Europe or, probably
better saying, Eurasia.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...an_climate.png
Trying to merge IE and modern Eurocentrism won't work IMO. The German speakers already
tried it: they call the IE "Indo Germanen". Nowadays this expression looks strange, if not
ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
-he North Pontic steppe was always the home of North Europid groups, as it
is today too%
,ell south of the North Pontic is -ranscaucasia, and that's also basically
where the Hiddle East starts% -hat's where R;b begins to rise in fre9uency%
2011-12-04, 05:59
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by :/ira#ara
-hey li'e in the region between the >lack and .aspian seas%
This is a gross generalization, and you're only doing it because the vagueness helps your cause.
Quote:
"re9uency and origin are not necessarily related% R;b-HL70 seems to ha'e
emerged around that region or somewhere near it Athe study $ 9uoted
mentions the ancestral types of R;b-HL70 being found in (outheast Europe,
Anatolia, the .aucausus and the circum-4ralic regionD% $E likely arose there
or near there too%
The "ancestral types" of R1b-M269 in the circum-Uralic region are due to recent introgression
from the Middle East, thanks to Turkic expansions.
Quote:
Northern Europe is (candina'ia, >ritain, etc% -he Pontic steppe is Eastern
Europe or, probably better saying, Eurasia%
You're making the common mistake of looking at that region as a Jat pancake, with basic
distance the main factor inJuencing everything.
But that's not a Jat area, it's actually two diferent worlds with a very sharp divide between them.
Northeastern Europe starts on the plain |ust north of the Caucasus, between the Black Sea and
Caspian. On the other hand West Asia and the Middle East start as soon as you hit the North
Caucasus.
Armenians belong to the latter, and so do the R1b clades you're going on about. They don't
belong to the R1a kurgan zone of the steppe.
You need to realise that there are mountains, genetic barriers and genetic zones here, not |ust
one big blob known as "Southeast Europe, Anatolia, the Caucausus and the circum-Uralic
region." There's no such thing.
What relationship do you see between Ukrainians and Mordovians and the Armenians below? I
see nothing that would tie them together. The former belong to the Northeastern zone. The latter
are in the Middle East. They're worlds apart.
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/5255/pcacaucasus.png
Quote:
-rying to merge $E and modern Eurocentrism won't work $HO% -he @erman
speakers already tried it< they call the $E ]$ndo @ermanen]% Nowadays this
e)pression looks strange, if not ridiculous%
The Indo-Europeans did indeed expand from Northeastern Europe, because that's what the North
Pontic steppe is for all intents and purposes.
You need start linking up genetics with geography and topography, amongst other things.
2011-12-04, 13:17
Tuohikir|e
I did not vote due to question settling.
Quote:
ges, P$E urheimat is in, around or close to Poland A.orded ,are cultureD
Corded Ware=Poland? :lol:
2011-12-04, 13:30
EastPole
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuohikir#e
.orded ,areUPoland <lol<
Your ignorance is really funny:lol:
Quote:
.orded ,are ceramic forms in single gra'es de'elop earlier in Poland than in
western and southern .entral Europe%P5R -he earliest radiocarbon dates for
.orded ,are come from Iu#a'ia and Haoopolska in central and southern
Poland and point to the period around 1666 >.%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture
Corded Ware culture developed in Poland and migrated from there to other regions. It
corresponds well with high diversity of R1a1 in Poland and archaic and conservative nature of
Polish language which preserved many features of PIE as observed by many linguists.
Archeology, genetics and linguistics agree on central role of Poland in PIE history.
2011-12-04, 13:41
du|e
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastPole
gour ignorance is really funny<lol<
http<KKen%wikipedia%orgKwikiK.ordedN,areNculture
.orded ,are culture de'eloped in Poland and migrated from there to other
regions% $t corresponds well with high di'ersity of R;a; in Poland and archaic
and conser'ati'e nature of Polish language which preser'ed many features
of P$E as obser'ed by many linguists% Archeology, genetics and linguistics
agree on central role of Poland in P$E history%
i am curious about 1 thing tho, didnt west Slavs burn their dead, while corded ware is distinctive
with single grave burials.
2011-12-04, 13:50
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
-he only two options are%%%
aD R;a;a is the proto-$ndo-European lineage% (o anyone who carries it is a
son of the :rst tribe that spoke $ndo-European%
bD R;a;a-/LC1 is $ndo-European, and the rest, if carried by people speaking
$ndo-European languages today, were $ndo-Europeani*ed at some point by
their /LC1 neighbors or /LC1 in'aders%
-o :gure this out, we need to test lots of modern and ancient samples for
/LC1 and /01, all the way from Eastern Europe to the Altai and $ndia%
So why do you think Z93 can't be a Sintashta spin-of? If Z93 is Sintastha then surely it's Indo-
European, although not proto-Indo-European but more like proto-Aryan. So far I see no good
argument against Z93 being anything other than Indo-Iranian.
If I remember correctly from reading Anthony Horse, Wheel, Language, there's a lot of
archaeogenetics remnants possible to study in the Sintastha burials, so this should be
scientifcally solvable once aDNA becomes a ma|or feld in its own right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$t's the same thing% >ut that map need not be the truth% $t's still #ust
speculation%
&a'ing said that, based on the data that's now a'ailabe, it's no longer
tenable to suggest that European R;a;a came from $ndia, or e'en from near
$ndia% -hat nonsense was popular on anthro boards for many years, but it's a
boat that's left the harbor for good% -hank god for modern science%
Could you please elaborate to us who haven't followed the R1a debate in close detail?
2011-12-04, 14:13
Tuohikir|e
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastPole
Eour i.norance is reall) funn)FlolF
Corded are culture de&eloped in Poland and mi.rated from there
to other re.ions. !t corresponds $ell $ith hi.h di&ersit) of (3a3 in
Poland and archaic and conser&ati&e nature of Polish lan.ua.e
$hich preser&ed man) features of P!E as o/ser&ed /) man)
lin.uists. Archeolo.), .enetics and lin.uistics a.ree on central role
of Poland in P!E histor)%
All in bold is bs. Oh, all is bolded, sorry.
There are preceding, overlapping and continuing cultures to Corded Ware.
If 120 years older pottery classifed as Corded Ware is found in single graves in modern Poland's
area than e.g. in Germany, it means only that.
Quote:
.orded ,are does not represent a single monolithic entity, but rather a
di+usion of technological and cultural inno'ations of di+erent,
contemporaneous peoples, li'ing in close pro)imity to each other and
lea'ing di+erent archaeological remains%
This is not true either.
There is no code of language in genes.
If there is, I want to see it.
Quote:
aD R;a;a is the proto-$ndo-European lineage% (o anyone who carries it is a
son of the :rst tribe that spoke !ndo-European%
2011-12-04, 15:05
EastPole
Quote:
Originally Posted by du#e
i am curious about ; thing tho, didnt west (la's burn their dead, while
corded ware is distincti'e with single gra'e burials%
Du|e, burial methods change and it has nothing to do with ethnicity which is determined mainly by
genetics and language.
Burial method is |ust the custom which becomes dominant during certain period of time in certain
area and can change later and come back again. It doesn`t imply ethnic change.
In many cultures both cremation and inhumation were used. For example Vedic Aryans were
using both methods. Also many burial methods were practiced by Slavs on Polish territory in the
past.
Corded Ware were Proto-Slavonic not west Slavs. Emergence of Proto-West-Slavonic should be
associated with Lusatian culture which shows some links with Illyrian cultures and that`s why we
have so much in common, for example very old Slavonic hydronims absent on East Slavonic
territories.
Tuohikir|e, Corded Ware culture was an Indo-European culture and not Uralic, which came later.
2011-12-04, 15:15
du|e
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastPole
3u#e, burial methods change and it has nothing to do with ethnicity which is
determined mainly by genetics and language%
>urial method is #ust the custom which becomes dominant during certain
period of time in certain area and can change later and come back again% $t
doesnJt imply ethnic change%
$n many cultures both cremation and inhumation were used% "or e)ample
Eedic Aryans were using both methods% Also many burial methods were
practiced by (la's on Polish territory in the past%
.orded ,are were Proto-(la'onic not west (la's% Emergence of Proto-,est-
(la'onic should be associated with !usatian culture which shows some links
with $llyrian cultures and thatJs why we ha'e so much in common, for
e)ample 'ery old (la'onic hydronims absent on East (la'onic territories%
-uohikir#e, .orded ,are culture was an $ndo-European culture and not 4ralic,
which came later%
actually most Croatian hydronims(like neretva, cetina for example) are related to area of modern
Ukraine mostly, and are not ancient, thus more to East slavic.
And what ever you think of Illyrians, you canot link anything with Illyrians because Illyrians were all
Latinised, and basically Romans or Roman citizens, even Roman Emperors after they have been
conquered somewhere BC.
Slavs in Poland were burners, and whole point of Corded ware is single grave burials with
weapons.
Even at later dates you guys didn't burry your dead with weapons, while others did.
2011-12-04, 15:59
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
&ittite one of the most ancient $ndo-European languages <3
I don't see what's so funny? Your reaction surprises me. I now worry about your bias Polako :sly:
Anatolian IE is actually the most archaic descendant of Indo-European, so old that it is
considered a cousin language to proto-Indo-European rather than a daughter language, per
Edgar Sturtevant's Indo-Hittite hypothesis, and it was corroborated by Gray and Atkinson in 2003
that Hittite indeed did split of frst, and that's in spite of the Jawed glottochronology method G&A
used.
The Indo-Hittite hypothesis: http://www.|stor.org/pss/410871
Did you actually read Mallory and Anthony or are you ignoring this for some reason? Because if
you're worried that Hittite might give ammunition to the Anatolian hypothesis, worry not, since
Hittite was brought to Anatolia from the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Perhaps it's because you're not
really interested in languages, you didn't know this (or maybe you forgot?). But if you think Hittite
supports the Anatolian hypothesis, it's simply not the case. I know your archnemesis Dienekes
supports the Anatolian hypothesisin part based on the age of Hittite, but there are serious Jaws
with the Anatolian hypothesis because Hittite simply isn't consistent with various proto-Indo-
European words that are possible to reconstruct and important for the time and setting of PIE (for
that part, the Pontic-Caspian steppe is much better compatible with PIE).
Anyway:
The Indo-Hittite Hypothesis
The Anatolian branch either lost or never possessed other features that were present in all other Indo-
European branches. In verbs, for example, the Anatolian languages had only two tenses, a present
and a past, whereas the other ancient Indo-European languages had as many as six tenses. In
nouns, Anatolian had |ust animate and neuter; it had no feminine case. The other ancient Indo-
European languages had feminine, masculine, and neuter cases. The Anatolian languages also
lacked the dual, a form that was used in other early Indo-European languages for ob|ects that were
doubled like eyes or ears. (Example: Sanskrit dvas `one god`, but dvau `double gods`.) Alexander
Lehrman identifed ten such traits that probably were innovations in Proto-Indo-European after Pre-
Anatolian split away.11
For some Indo-Europeanists these traits suggest that the Anatolian branch did not develop from
Proto-Indo-European at all but rather evolved from an older Pre-Proto-Indo-European ancestor. This
ancestral language was called Indo-Hittite by William Sturtevant. According to the Indo-Hittite
hypothesis, Anatolian is an Indo-European language only in the broadest sense, as it did not develop
from Proto-Indo-European. But it did preserve, uniquely, features of an earlier language community
from which they both evolved. I cannot solve the debate over the categorization of Anatolian here,
although it is obviously true that Proto-Indo-European must have evolved from an earlier language
community, and we can use Indo-Hittite to refer to that hypothetical earlier stage. The Proto-Indo-
European language community was a chain of dialects with both geographic and chronological
diferences. The Anatolian branch seems to have separated from an archaic chronological stage in
the evolution of Proto-Indo-European, and it probably separated from a diferent geographic dialect
as well, but I will call it archaic Proto-Indo-European rather than Indo-Hittite.12
A substantial period of time is needed for the Pre-Anatolian phase. Craig Melchert and Alexander
Lehrman agreed that a separation date of about 4000 BCE between Pre-Anatolian and the archaic
Proto-Indo-European language community seems reasonable. The millennium or so around 4000
BCE, say 4500 to 3500 BCE, constitutes the latest window within which Pre-Anatolian is likely to
have separated. Unfortunately the oldest daughter of Proto-Indo-European looks so peculiar
that we cannot be certain she is a daughter rather than a cousin.Pre-Anatolian could have
emerged from Indo-Hittite, not from Proto-Indo-European. So we cannot confdently assign a terminal
date to Proto-Indo-European based on the birth of Anatolian.
- Anthony, David W., The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age
Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, ISBN: 069114818X, p. 47-48
And:
MIGRATIONS INTO THE DANUBE VALLEY: THE SUVOROVO-NOVODANILOVKA COMPLEX
About 4200 BCE herders who probably came from the Dnieper valley appeared on the northern edge
of the Danube delta. The lake country north of the delta was then occupied by Old European farmers
of the Bolgrad culture. They left quickly after the steppe people showed up. The immigrants built
kurgan graves and carried maces with stone heads shaped like horse heads, ob|ects that quickly
appeared in a number of Old European towns. They acquired, either by trade or as loot, copper from
the tell towns of the lower Danube valley, much of which they directed back into the steppes around
the lower Dnieper. Their move into the lower Danube valley probably was the historical event
that separated the Pre-Anatolian dialects, spoken by the migrants, from the archaic Proto-
Indo-European language community back in the steppes.The archaeology that documents this
event emerged into the literature in small bits and pieces over the last ffty years, and it is still is not
widely known. The steppe culture involved in the migration has been called variously the Skelya
culture, the Suvorovo culture, the Utkonsonovka group, and the Novodanilovka culture. I will call it the
Suvorovo-Novodanilovka complex (see fgure 11.6). One cluster of graves, created by the migrants,
is concentrated near the Danube delta. This was the Suvorovo group. Their relatives back home in
the North Pontic steppes were the Novodanilovka group. Only graves are known for either group.
About thirty-fve to forty cemeteries are assigned to the complex, most containing fewer than ten
graves and many, like Novodanilovka itself, represented by |ust a single rich burial. They frst
appeared during early Sredni Stog, around 4300-4200 BCE, and probably ceased before 3900 BCE.
- Anthony, David W., The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age
Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, ISBN: 069114818X, p. 249-251
So as you can see, in spite of Dienekes favouring the archaicness of Hittite in support of the Anatolian
hypothesis, Hittite is more likely to be a Pontic-Caspian steppe language rather than native Anatolian. I think
Hittite/Anatolian is comparable to Icelandic in that sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
>ad idea%
Why? Polls are fun :)
2011-12-04, 16:14
Tuohikir|e
Quote:
-uohikir#e, .orded ,are culture was an $ndo-European culture and not 4ralic,
which came later%
Listen nutso.
What the hell is 'Uralic culture' compared to Corded Ware. WHAT IS THAT.
I will only give you one example of cultures 8000-5000 BCE, Kunda culture.
2011-12-04, 16:18
Vasishta
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
$ know your archnemesis 3ienekes supports the Anatolian hypothesis in part
based on the age of &ittite, but there are serious ?aws with the Anatolian
hypothesis because &ittite simply isn't consistent with 'arious proto-$ndo-
European words that are possible to reconstruct and important for the time
and setting of P$E Afor that part, the Pontic-.aspian steppe is much better
compatible with P$ED%
Isn't the unremarkable frequency of y-DNA R1a1a in Anatolia (at least in comparison to North-
East Europe), a factor that only decreases the validity of the Neolithic Anatolia theory?
2011-12-04, 16:20
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by :/ira#ara
On the contrary, it cannot be ruled out an association between R;b and $ndo
Europeans, e'en though R;a seems to be - until now - more associated with
them% R;b in ,estern Europe is relati'ely recent, and it came from the East%
-he ancestral types of the R;b found in Europe are found primarily around
the >lack (ea A4kraine, -urkey and the .aucasusD, one of the regions most
often pointed to be the origins of $ndo Europeans%
http<KKwww%familytreedna%comKpublicK%%%ctionUyresults
$t is possible that a few thousand years ago that area was mostly R;b and,
due to a combination of e'ents Asome random, some not randomD, R;b came
to peak in ,estern Europe now% R;b has been e)tremely dijcult to :nd in
ancient remains% -o date, only a few of those remains from around the Gth
century found in >a'aria ha'e turned out to be R;b as far as $ know
Ahttp<KKwww%ncbi%nlm%nih%go'KpmcKarti%%%toolUpmcentre*D% .elts - and $ndo
Europeans - are known for practicing cremation, so this may e)plain it in part
$HO% $'d #ust wait and see what future researchers will indicate% $t is too early
to #ump to a de:nite conclusion $HO%
R1b simply cannot be Indo-European, at all. It's possible, of course, that the earliest R1b clade
(i.e., the frst man who was R1b) spoke some ancient sister or cousin language to proto-Indo-
European, something like proto-Kartvelian or proto-Afro-Asiatic (basically, a dialect of Nostratic or
Eurasiatic), but that was a long time ago and R1b is not an exclusive ethnolinguistic marker,
whereas R1a1a seems to be in the main, carried by Indo-European speakers, and the R1a1a
males who do not speak Indo-European, we know they've shifted languages recently (Turkic,
etc.) whereas in the case of R1b this clade is found in Chadic speakers. If these Chadic speakers
would've carried R-V88 and spoken an Indo-European language instead, then you would have a
case of arguing that R1b was part of the Indo-European ethnogenesis. However, they speak Afro-
Asiatic (which points proto-Afro-Asiatic to Anatolia/Caucasus because that's where R1b is high in
variation and frequency), and so do R1b-Berbers. Other R1b males like Basques speak a non-
Indo-European language.
It's an interesting mystery how the Celtic tribes became so predominantly R1b and shed of
whatever R1a the proto-Celts may have carried. I've been contemplating this lately, because
Celts are undoubtedly more closely related with Russians and Poles than for example Armenians
are, so there's arguably signifcant proto-Indo-European ancestry in Celts on the autosomal level.
I am inclined to believe the Gallic Wars caused a serious decline in R1a Celtic males. But of
course, it has to be said, that the Gallic Wars per se cannot solely explain the high R1b and
almost non-existent R1a in Celtic nations. Probably, the hypothetical proto-Celtic R1a males
responsible for the elite dominance language shift in Western Europe to the Celtic dialects did not
spread their male lineage all too much, and arguably had more daughters than sons. More
importantly, the original proto-Celtic urheimat is speculated to be somewhere between southern
France, southern Germany and northern Italy, and this region does have R1a, although it's
debatable whether it's R1a from Celtic descendants or Germanic/Slavic males who had nothing
to do with Celts.
http://www.buildinghistory.org/dista...angespread.|pg
http://www.le.ac.uk/ge/ma|4/EuropeMap+Tree.|pg
Quote:
Originally Posted by :/ira#ara
No it is not a problem, when you look at the whole picture, most R;b carriers
are $ndo European speakers, especially if you narrow it down to R;b-HL70
Athe type of R;b found in EuropeD, and the ancestral types of R;b-HL70 are
found around the >lack (ea% R;b-HL70 could be associated with proto $ndo
Europeans% -here are theories pointing, f%e, to &ittite as perhaps one of the
most ancient $ndo European languages, and that's a place Athe region
around the >lack (eaD where R;b-HL70 seems to ha'e originated, being
more common there a few thousand years ago then it is now%
It's simply not possible for R1b (any clade of R1b really) to be proto-Indo-European. No one
knows anything about the Y-DNA of the Hittites, but don't be surprised if it turns out they were
R1a and that the R1a found in Turkey today happens to be their legacy. Regardless of whomever
Anatolian R1a is descended from (it could be Greeks, Persians, Galatians or any other Indo-
Europeans really), Hittite was never native to Anatolia, and the same is true of Luwian, Lycian
and Palaic as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by :/ira#ara
R;a is found in abundance among (outhern $ndians who are not $ndo
European speakers either, and as far as among (iberian non $ndo European
speakers, as well as in the Near East%
What kind of clades of R1a are there in southern Indians, and how did they get there and to them
specifcally? More importantly, with the exception of Andamanese (who are very few and
isolated), the entire population of the Indian peninsula/subcontinent is mixed in various degrees
between ANI and ASI, so it doesn't matter really if R1a* is found in Dravidian speaking Indians,
because it was unlikely spread to Europe from Dravidians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by :/ira#ara
Fust look at the link $ posted% $t comes from the ht-15 pro#ect% -urkey,
Armenia and 4kraine A>lack (ea regionD make the hot spot for the ancestral
R;b-HL70 types%
http<KKwww%familytreedna%comKpublicK%%%ctionUyresults
Armenians simply aren't Indo-Europeans autosomal-wise other than some minor descent from
the proto-Indo-Europeans, mainly seen in Armenian R1a males and slightly higher aHnity with
Europeans than the aHnity Assyrians have with Europeans. Other than that, Armenians do not
difer much at all from Assyrians, so you'll have to further complicate your hypothesis by arguing
somehow that Assyrians are also proto-Indo-Europeans, which simply wouldn't make sense with
what we know from archaeological remnants in the Yamnaya horizon.
For R1b to be proto-Indo-European you'd have to fnd aDNA in ancient Indo-European
archaeological sites, so far this hasn't been found that we know of. More importantly, the red
haired Tocharians were R1a, not R1b; you'd expect them to be R1b seeing as how Celts are R1b
today, but they weren't R1b. Moreover, modern Irish and Italian populations on average, have a
slightly higher autosomal aHnity with Assyrians than Slavs have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gasishta
$sn't the unremarkable fre9uency of y-3NA R;a;a in Anatolia Aat least in
comparison to North-East EuropeD, a factor that only decreases the 'alidity
of the Neolithic Anatolia theory
Well frequency isn't the most important factor, variation, ancestral clades and aDNA are more
important factors to keep in mind, although ancient DNA is a bit diHcult for obvious reasons.
2011-12-04, 16:42
Ubira|ara
Wrong, it could yes. R1b-M69 ancestral types (R1b-M269 derivatives account for the vast ma|ority of IE speaking R1b
carriers), f.e, are found in the region where IE is supposed by many to have arisen. If you speak of R1a* as you're speaking
of R1b* than it's fair to say BOTH of them predate IE genesis, at least following by current timeframe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
R;b simply cannot be $ndo-European, at all% $t's possible, of course, that the
earliest R;b clade Ai%e%, the :rst man who was R;bD spoke some ancient
sister or cousin language to proto-$ndo-European, something like proto-
Iart'elian or proto-Afro-Asiatic Abasically, a dialect of Nostratic or EurasiaticD,
but that was a long time ago and R;b is not an e)clusi'e ethnolinguistic
marker,
Gallic Wars did not involve Ireland, Scotland or Wales, and Italy from the Center to the North is
overwhelmingly R1b-M269. Italic IE speakers were likely pred. R1b-M269 carriers. Not to
mention Germanic speakers from the Netherlands, England, Denmark and Germany (Denmark
and Northern Germany are usually included among the core original Germanic homelands).
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
$t's an interesting mystery how the .eltic tribes became so predominantly
R;b and shed o+ whate'er R;a the proto-.elts may ha'e carried% $''e been
contemplating this lately, because .elts are undoubtedly more closely
related with Russians and Poles than for e)ample Armenians are, so there's
arguably signi:cant proto-$ndo-European ancestry in .elts on the autosomal
le'el% $ am inclined to belie'e the @allic ,ars caused a serious decline in R;a
.eltic males% >ut of course, it has to be said, that the @allic ,ars per se
cannot solely e)plain the high R;b and almost non-e)istent R;a in .eltic
nations% Probably, the hypothetical proto-.eltic R;a males responsible for the
elite dominance language shift in ,estern Europe to the .eltic dialects did
not spread their male lineage all too much, and arguably had more
daughters than sons% Hore importantly, the original proto-.eltic urheimat is
speculated to be somewhere between southern "rance, southern @ermany
and northern $taly, and this region does ha'e R;a, although it's debatable
whether it's R;a from .eltic descendants or @ermanicK(la'ic males who had
nothing to do with .elts%
Yes, it is. Actually that region (Black Sea region) could have been overwhelmingly R1b a couple
of thousand of years ago (R1b-M269 most likely arose there). So far remains tested have been
limited. As I said - and you did not seem to notice it - R1b has been to diHcult to fnd even in
Western Europe (it has been found so far only in human remains from Bavaria from around the
VII century). IE would cremate their deads, so it may not be surprising so far that R1b has not so
far been detected in remains found more than 2000 years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
$t's simply not possible for R;b Aany clade of R;b reallyD to be proto-$ndo-
European% No one knows anything about the g-3NA of the &ittites, but don't
be surprised if it turns out they were R;a and that the R;a found in -urkey
today happens to be their legacy% Regardless of whome'er Anatolian R;a is
descended from Ait could be @reeks, Persians, @alatians or any other $ndo-
Europeans reallyD, &ittite was ne'er nati'e to Anatolia, and the same is true
of !uwian, !ycian and Palaic as well%
You |ust have to follow these logical steps to see that R1b-M269 being related to IE is something
likely and not to be discarded - at least until now.
1 - A great chunk of the present Indo European speaking population carries yDNA haplogroup
R1b-M269;
2 - Ancestral types of R1b-M269 are mostly found in the region around the Black Sea region
(Southeast Europe, Anatolia, Caucasus and yes the circum-Uralic region to the North);
3 - Ma|or Indo European scholars have argued for an important role the Black Sea region,
including Anatolia, would have played in the Indo European group genesis;
4 - Given that R1b-M269 expanded so quickly (and rather recently), and exactly from that region,
and given that it seems to be tied to Indo European languages (v.g, Italic and Celtic Indo
European speakers are overwhelmingly R1b-M269, likely more related to each other -
linguistically - than they are to Slavic or some other Eastern Indo European language, like
Persian), one cannot - as of now - say with certainty that R1b and Indo European genesis are not
related.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
"or R;b to be proto-$ndo-European you'd ha'e to :nd a3NA in ancient $ndo-
European archaeological sites, so far this hasn't been found that we know of%
Hore importantly, the red haired -ocharians were R;a, not R;bY you'd e)pect
them to be R;b seeing as how .elts are R;b today, but they weren't R;b%
Horeo'er, modern $rish and $talian populations on a'erage, ha'e a slightly
higher autosomal ajnity with Assyrians than (la's ha'e% $ don't 9uite
understand the conte)t of your 9uestion, could you elaborate
---------- Post added 2011-12-04 at 16:55 ----------
Comparing present to past populations is not a safe exercise. You have to situate yourself both in
space and time. Populations vary not only in space but also in time. If not for it, how would you
explain the high frequencies of Haplogroup N1c in supposedly "core IE" regions like the Baltic
and Russia? Were Uralics and IEs then some sort of "twin brothers" like this chart would seem to
suggest? But hey, N1c is missing in South Asia, but not in the steppes, the Baltic and Russia.
What happened? As you can see it clearly, N1c is missing both in IE speaking South Asia and IE
speaking Western Europe but not in the steppes where IE likely arose.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...28ADN-Y%29.PNG
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
Armenians simply aren't $ndo-Europeans autosomal-wise other than some
minor descent from the proto-$ndo-Europeans, mainly seen in Armenian R;a
males and slightly higher ajnity with Europeans than the ajnity Assyrians
ha'e with Europeans% Other than that, Armenians do not di+er much at all
from Assyrians, so you'll ha'e to further complicate your hypothesis by
arguing somehow that Assyrians are also proto-$ndo-Europeans, which
simply wouldn't make sense with what we know from archaeological
remnants in the gamnaya hori*on%
2011-12-04, 18:30
EastPole
Quote:
Originally Posted by du#e
actually most .roatian hydronimsAlike neret'a, cetina for e)ampleD are
related to area of modern 4kraine mostly, and are not ancient, thus more to
East sla'ic%
Here are maps of very old and purely Slavonic toponyms of the types: `sopot`, `bardo`, `krak`,
`nakel`:
http://www.historycy.org/index.php?a...=post&id=11772
http://www.historycy.org/index.php?a...=post&id=11773
http://www.historycy.org/index.php?a...=post&id=11771
Maps are from prof. Jerzy Nalepa's book ,Slowianszczyzna plnocno zachodnia podstawy
|ednosci i rozpad Warszawa" 1968
Notice that there are no such toponyms in Ukraine.
Quote:
And what e'er you think of $llyrians, you canot link anything with $llyrians
because $llyrians were all !atinised, and basically Romans or Roman citi*ens,
e'en Roman Emperors after they ha'e been con9uered somewhere >.%
It is not true. Illyrians were not latinised and kept their language:
Quote:
-he $llyrians ne'er became fully assimilated Romans and kept their language
Indo-European language and culture: an introduction" By Ben|amin W. Fortson page 465
I have already explained this to you here:
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...1&postcount=21
Illyrians had Slavonic names and many other facts link them to western Slavs.
Slovenian is closer to Polish than to Russian. And there are genetic links:
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...ection=results
There were no massive Slavonic migrations to Slovenia or Croatia in V century, so how do you
explain Slavonic languages there in very archaic forms like Slovenian. According to prof. Alinei
they have been always Slavonic speakers. In my opinion they came with Bronze Age migrations
from north.
Archeology also tells us about many links.
Quote:
Originally Posted by du#e
(la's in Poland were burners, and whole point of .orded ware is single gra'e
burials with weapons%
Don`t compare cultures 3000 years apart. Customs change. But archeologists tell us that there
was always some continuity from Corded Ware, Trzciniec, Lusatian cultures till historic times.
And this is now confrmed by genetics - there was population continuity:
http://www.nature.com/e|hg/|ournal/v...l#fgure-title
Quote:
Originally Posted by :/ira#ara
.omparing present to past populations is not a safe e)ercise% gou ha'e to
situate yourself both in space and time% Populations 'ary not only in space
but also in time% $f not for it, how would you e)plain the high fre9uencies of
&aplogroup N;c in supposedly ]core $E] regions like the >altic and Russia
,ere 4ralics and $Es then some sort of ]twin brothers] like this chart would
seem to suggest >ut hey, N;c is missing in (outh Asia, but not in the
steppes, the >altic and Russia% ,hat happened As you can see it clearly,
N;c is missing both in $E speaking (outh Asia and $E speaking ,estern
Europe but not in the steppes where $E likely arose%
Ubira|ara, hg. N1c is not Uralic. Uralic is a linguistic group not genetic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uralic_languages
N1c1 was probably the hg. of north-eastern European forests hunter-gatherers. They spoke
various paleo-European languages and were later assimilated by Slavonic and Uralic grups.
Uralic came from Asia and Slavonic from central Europe.
In Poland from which Corded Ware IE expansion started average level of N1c1 is 2-3% and in
many regions it is 0%.
Baltic and Russia are not the "core IE" regions, Poland is the "core IE" region. From Poland IE
expansion started to move east and west. Assimilation of N1c1 was a gradual process and
earliest IE groups moving east didn`t have that hg and therefore it is absent in Andronovo.
2011-12-04, 18:51
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by :/ira#ara
.omparing present to past populations is not a safe e)ercise% gou ha'e to
situate yourself both in space and time% Populations 'ary not only in space
but also in time% $f not for it, how would you e)plain the high fre9uencies of
&aplogroup N;c in supposedly ]core $E] regions like the >altic and Russia
,ere 4ralics and $Es then some sort of ]twin brothers] like this chart would
seem to suggest >ut hey, N;c is missing in (outh Asia, but not in the
steppes, the >altic and Russia% ,hat happened As you can see it clearly,
N;c is missing both in $E speaking (outh Asia and $E speaking ,estern
Europe but not in the steppes where $E likely arose%
N1c wasn't present in core IE regions, or rather in core IE people.
Ancient DNA shows that the steppe tribes were 100% R1a. So they came from an area and/or
population low in N1c, but extremely high in R1a.
du|e
i dont know what you actually mean as ancient?
"Here are maps of very old and purely Slavonic toponyms of the types: `sopot`, `bardo`, `krak`, `nakel`"
These are not toponyms but words with meaning.
Is "brdo"-"hill" or a "krak"-"prong" , "nakel"-"on the ground", "sopot"-"spring" ...etc a toponym?
do they have same meaning in polish?
2011-12-04, 19:46
Tuohikir|e
Quote:
Ancient 3NA shows that the steppe tribes were ;668 R;a%
Have you all gone mad.
There is no possibility, that all steppe tribes were 100% R1a.
If 0.00000000000001% of ancient dna has been a) found b) studied,
it cannot prove anything of ALL steppe tribes.
Eventhough this thread is under "Theories", too much bs is too much.
2011-12-04, 21:21
Bohemian Rhapsody
Problem is that internet Slavs have no roman era ancient people to identify with. Norwegians have Vikings. Swedes have
Goths. Germans have Saxons, Lombards and Suebi, Romanians have Dacians, Albanians have Illyrians, Turks have
Sel|uks. Slavs have nothing but Slavs, so they seek Iranian Scythian and Sarmatian origins for their people. This is the main
reason Slavs like to pretend they were at the center of it all, even though they have like 1% actual Sarmatian ancestry that
happened to leak to Poland only to escape the Huns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatism
^ That's where their obsession starts.
2011-12-04, 21:42
Hweinlant
The Reason why R1a1a* (R-M17*) is considered as marker for spread of males speaking PIE-language (and it's imminent
successors) is because of the linguistic theory pointing the PIE urheimat |ust north of the Black Sea. Now we have some
more proof in form of some early Siberian archeological cultures (Afanasevo, Andronovo, Karasuk, Xiongnu etc) which have
left biological material for dna testing.
I think it's pretty general knowledge that R1a1a (M-17) is the main haplogroup extracted from the bones .What the
downstram haplogroup is, if there is any, we dont know as the new snps were not yet part of the "toolset" back when the
studies were made.
There is also another burial, from Corded Ware horizont at Europe, Germany, which came out as R1a* (they did not test
downstram mutations). Siberian Afanasevo culture is pretty much |ust as old as the Corded Ware horizont at Europe. There
is no point, and 0 evidence, for deriving Afanasevo culture from the Corded Ware Horizont.
Linguistics have pointed out that the PIE speaking region was very likely at the steppe, |ust north of the Black sea and south
of Ural mountains. There are series of archeological sites and cultures which indicate the expansion from this locality to
west (invading the farmers of Cucuteni culture and producing hybrid cultures such as Corded Ware) and to east (forming
the Afanasevo culture). Indo-European speaking people remaining at the steppe locality formed the nucleus of Yamna
culture.
Having said that, there is no "universal rule" that R1a1a* is Indo-European marker. It is considered as such because there is
abundance of R1a1* at the region north of Black sea and south of Ural mountains. The Region linguistics have pointed as
the likely urheimat, and where the archeologists have digged up convincing amount of evidence for the case. If, however,
linguistics will change their opinion and conclude that Anatolia is the true PIE urheimat, theory of R1a1a* as IE marker goes
to trash bin asap. It is the haplogroups that have to follow the linguistic theory, not other way around as haplogroups dont
speak any languages. Frequency of R1a1a* is no indicator for anything else than frequency of R1a1a*.
2011-12-04, 21:57
Wo|ewoda
It worries me a little bit that this diagram:
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/9622/r1acladessnp.|pg
... suggests that German hitlerite pseudo-scientists were right and AR1a people originated in Northern Europe. :confused:
2011-12-04, 22:02
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
%%% suggests that @erman hitlerite pseudo-scientists were right and aR;a
people originated in Northern Europe% <confused<
If its any condolence, they were not PIE people then.
2011-12-04, 22:02
Tuohikir|e
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
Problem is that internet (la's ha'e no roman era ancient people to identify
with% Norwegians ha'e Eikings% (wedes ha'e @oths% @ermans ha'e (a)ons,
!ombards and (uebi, Romanians ha'e 3acians, Albanians ha'e $llyrians,
-urks ha'e (el#uks% (la's ha'e nothing but (la's, so they seek $ranian
(cythian and (armatian origins for their people% -his is the main reason
(la's like to pretend they were at the center of it all, e'en though they ha'e
like ;8 actual (armatian ancestry that happened to leak to Poland only to
escape the &uns%
http<KKen%wikipedia%orgKwikiK(armatism
V -hat's where their obsession starts%
And actually I do not even agree with all those or Scythians and Sarmatians.
I am no Pan-Iranist :p.
2011-12-04, 22:12
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
$f its any condolence, they were not P$E people then%
Why?
2011-12-04, 22:15
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
,hy
Because PIE was spoken |ust north of Black sea, south of Ural mountains. Not at North Europe. If
R1a1a* comes from North Europe, expanded towards east, most of European R1a1a* is not from
the PIE people (unless there was back migration). Anyway, your chart |ust shows the sampling
bias. I've hard time to think that South Asian tribal people are long lost Norwegians.
2011-12-04, 22:16
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
Problem is that internet (la's ha'e no roman era ancient people to identify
with% Norwegians ha'e Eikings% (wedes ha'e @oths% @ermans ha'e (a)ons,
!ombards and (uebi, Romanians ha'e 3acians, Albanians ha'e $llyrians,
-urks ha'e (el#uks% (la's ha'e nothing but (la's, so they seek $ranian
(cythian and (armatian origins for their people% -his is the main reason
(la's like to pretend they were at the center of it all, e'en though they ha'e
like ;8 actual (armatian ancestry that happened to leak to Poland only to
escape the &uns%
http<KKen%wikipedia%orgKwikiK(armatism
V -hat's where their obsession starts%
I have no Slavic ancestry whatsoever and I'm pretty sure I've done my homework on the sub|ect
more than you have. Regardless of Sarmatism and Scythomania, Slavic and especially Baltic
(Lithuanian) seem to be the most conservative Indo-European languages and R-M17 seems to
be the Indo-European marker, and somewhere in eastern Europe, whether in the steppe or
Poland, that's the most likely Indo-European urheimat. I say that based on the accumulated
evidence, without any bias as I have no stake in this question. I could care less whether PIE is in
Poland, India, Scandinavia, Anatolia or the Pontic-Caspian steppe for that matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
%%% suggests that @erman hitlerite pseudo-scientists were right and AR;a
people originated in Northern Europe% <confused<
Could you upload it on imageshack and edit the post? Not working.
2011-12-04, 22:18
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
.ould you upload it on imageshack and edit the post Not working%
What about this:
http://dna-forums.org/index.php?app=...attach_id=6239
(EDIT: It was posted here).
?
---------- Post added 2011-12-04 at 23:23 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
>ecause P$E was spoken #ust north of >lack sea, south of 4ral mountains%
Well, based on the autosomal genetic maps (which show that the Steppe area is totally empty) I
came to the conclusion that belief that the IE people come from the Steppe area is similar to the
belief that Anglosaxons (found both in Europe and North America) originate from the Atlantic
Ocean.
2011-12-04, 22:20
Bohemian Rhapsody
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
and somewhere in eastern Europe, whether in the steppe or Poland, that's
the most likely $ndo-European urheimat%
Yes of course. There is no argument here. The forward base was in eastern Europe somewhere
but the language itself has ultimate southerly origins.
2011-12-04, 22:25
Tuohikir|e
Quote:
%%especially >altic A!ithuanianD seem to be the most conser'ati'e $ndo-
European languages and R-H;G seems to be the $ndo-European marker
I would not call Lithuanians Indo-European. Language is archaic due to many historical reasons
and IE.
2011-12-04, 22:25
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
,ell, based on the autosomal genetic maps Awhich show that the (teppe
area is totally emptyD $ came to the conclusion that belief that the $E people
come from the (teppe area is similar to the belief that Anglosa)ons Afound
both in European and North AmericaD originate from the Atlantic Ocean%
It could be that there is nothing left of those numerically few PIE herders (it might be that they
were not even R1a1* at all). Thats one way to look the topic.
2011-12-04, 22:31
Bohemian Rhapsody
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
,ell, based on the autosomal genetic maps Awhich show that the (teppe
area is totally emptyD $ came to the conclusion that belief that the $E people
come from the (teppe area is similar to the belief that Anglosa)ons Afound
both in European and North AmericaD originate from the Atlantic Ocean%
The Steppes were overran by waves of diferent groups, frst the Scythians, which migrated in a
back to home type of exodus.. they were returning to where they had originally came from. Then
followed by the Turkic groups who cleansed that area of the original inhabitants.
2011-12-04, 22:31
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuohikir#e
$ would not call !ithuanians $ndo-European%
Hey Finns, could you take care of this woman. Take her for a party, to the cinema or something. :
2011-12-04, 22:38
Tuohikir|e
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
&ey "inns, could you take care of this woman% -ake her for a party, to the
cinema or something% <p
Yes! Finally some reason.
(But that does not make Lithuanians Indo-Europeans).
2011-12-05, 00:52
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
$t could be that there is nothing left of those numerically few P$E herders Ait
might be that they were not e'en R;a;h at allD% -hats one way to look the
topic%
Another way to look at it is that the steppe was always a highway.
So the contacts between proto-Indo-European and Uralic need not have taken place between the
bulk of the proto-Indo-European and Uralic peoples, but only those who met on the highway, and
then went back home.
2011-12-05, 01:51
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
,ell, based on the autosomal genetic maps Awhich show that the (teppe
area is totally emptyD $ came to the conclusion that belief that the $E people
come from the (teppe area is similar to the belief that Anglosa)ons Afound
both in Europe and North AmericaD originate from the Atlantic Ocean%
Steppe was not empty - those people had thousands of years time to spread their language, and
their autosomal DNA certainly is there in modern Europeans. Don`t get blinded by some extreme
interpretations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuohikir#e
$ would not call !ithuanians $ndo-European%
Actually he was talking about Lithuanian language, which is very certainly IE. And Indo-European
peoples are those who speak IE languages - therefore Lithuanians are Indo-Europeans.
2011-12-05, 02:02
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
(teppe was not empty W those people had thousands of years time to spread
their language, and their autosomal 3NA certainly is there in modern
Europeans% 3onJt get blinded by some e)treme interpretations%
Anyone with a basic grasp of population genetics can see that the groups coming from the North
European plain and those from the Caucasus never mixed.
In fact, they're connected via the Balkans.
But the former did mix with Siberians, and probably as early as the Mesolithic, and then through
the Neolithic and metal ages, until the Turkic expansions which brought all sorts of other Asian
inJuence into the European steppe.
So the steppe "gap" on autosomal maps is absolutely |ustifed, and the ancient people of the
steppe were North European Plain folks who went east and mixed with the Siberians around the
Urals and beyond.
Funnily enough, this is exactly what ancient DNA shows.
2011-12-05, 03:12
Tuohikir|e
Quote:
Actually he was talking about !ithuanian language, which is 'ery certainly $E%
And $ndo-European peoples are those who speak $E languages W therefore
!ithuanians are $ndo-Europeans%
I know, but it was skillfully disguised so, that one could think Lithuanians are Slavs. They speak
IE language.
Lithuanian mt-Dna is close to IE and FU speaking populations. Y-Dna closest to FU speaking
populations.
2011-12-05, 04:32
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuohikir#e
$ know, but it was skillfully disguised so, that one could think !ithuanians are
(la's% -hey speak $E language%
!ithuanian mt-3na is close to $E and "4 speaking populations% g-3na closest
to "4 speaking populations%
They cluster most closely with Belroussians and Northern Poles. And they share the same N1c
sublcades with these Slavic groups.
Some FU speaking populations resemble Lithuanians and Northern Slavs, in varying degrees.
The closest are the Erzya and Moksha of the Middle Volga. Furtherst are the FU groups of
Siberia.
Stop bullshitting. Your bullshit is drowning out the useful posts in these threads.
2011-12-05, 05:50
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
ges of course% -here is no argument here% -he forward base was in eastern
Europe somewhere but the language itself has ultimate southerly origins%
So what's your beef with Slavs then? Obviously, Indo-European does have southerly origins
either way, which is also seen in the autosomal DNA in all early Indo-Europeans descendants that
they were basically a bottlenecked Near East tribe (bottlenecked after their migration to the north
of the Black Sea and separation from there on) and not Mongoloids or Negroids.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuohikir#e
$ would not call !ithuanians $ndo-European%
What would you call them then? Uralics? ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuohikir#e
!anguage is archaic due to many historical reasons and $E%
Let me guess, it's because of Y-DNA N1c? :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
(teppe was not empty W those people had thousands of years time to spread
their language, and their autosomal 3NA certainly is there in modern
Europeans% 3onJt get blinded by some e)treme interpretations%
What a lot of people forget here in this debate is that demographics have changed in the past
6,000 years. It's debatable if the Mongols totally wiped out whatever remnant groups that still may
have existed of proto-Indo-Europeans in the steppes.
Even today in Syria, you can fnd a small group of West Aramaic speakers (most Aramaic
speakers are Assyrians, and we speak East Aramaic dialects and none of us understand West
Aramaic):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Neo-Aramaic
That's basically what's left of the original bronze age Aramaic dialect (which was West Aramaic).
Who knows, had the Mongols conquered Syria these speakers may not have been left today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
$t could be that there is nothing left of those numerically few P$E herders Ait
might be that they were not e'en R;a;h at allD% -hats one way to look the
topic%
Unless you can fnd R1b, I1 or even J2 males in the Pontic-Caspian steppe and Tocharian and
Scythian dominated regions in Asia, it's very unlikely the proto-Indo-Europeans were anything
other than R1a1a. Unless we fnd evidence of non-R-M17 lineages there's no reason to postulate
any other hypothesis.
2011-12-05, 05:56
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
ges of course% -here is no argument here% -he forward base was in eastern
Europe somewhere but the language itself has ultimate southerly origins%
Yeah, and if we go back far enough, Indo-European has it's origins in Africa. But so what? You're
not really adding anything to this discussion.
Why don't you learn the basics frst, like the methodologies discussed here, from ancient and
modern DNA to cranial studies, and then maybe try and post something accurate and well
informed?
---------- Post added 2011-12-05 at 06:00 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
4nless you can :nd R;b, $; or e'en FL males in the Pontic-.aspian steppe
and -ocharian and (cythian dominated regions in Asia, it's 'ery unlikely the
proto-$ndo-Europeans were anything other than R;a;a% 4nless we :nd
e'idence of non-R-H;G lineages there's no reason to postulate any other
hypothesis%
People who don't like the idea of modern Slavs being closest to the early Indo-Europeans will
keep prattling on about the mysterious steppe groups that have since disappeared so they can't
be tested or defned.
But in fact they have been tested, and the people they came from are still around, living |ust west
of the steppe.
There was never any steppe group that flled the autosomal "gap" between Eastern Europe the
Caucasus and Siberia. That gap was always there, because the steppe was populated by North
European Plains tribes high in R1a1a.
2011-12-05, 06:56
Tuohikir|e
Quote:
,hat would you call them then 4ralics
What has Samoyedic to do with Lithuanians?
Quote:
!et me guess, it's because of g-3NA N;c
Do you really think, that FU people in Lithuania are only N1c?
2011-12-05, 07:21
Lemminkinen
This discussion about Slavic history can be necessary, but thinking about the way people mix languages and genes and
make presentations, I expect that I dont miss much if wait for next 10 years to see more sense.:p
2011-12-05, 07:33
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by <emminkIinen
-his discussion about (la'ic history can be necessary, but thinking about the
way people mi) languages and genes and make presentations, $ e)pect that
$ dont miss much if wait for ne)t ;6 years to see more sense%<p
Next year is gonna be awesome.
There's a whole heap of ancient DNA studies being done at the moment, which will get published
over the next 12-18 months. They'll mostly cover the period from the early Neolithic to the Middle
Ages, and focus on Central and Eastern Europe.
I'll be blogging my ass of after the new year. It's a good time to be interested in this stuf.
:thumbsup:
2011-12-05, 08:04
Tuohikir|e
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
-hey cluster most closely with >elroussians and Northern Poles% And they
share the same N;c sublcades with these (la'ic groups%
(ome "4 speaking populations resemble !ithuanians and Northern (la's, in
'arying degrees% -he closest are the Er*ya and Hoksha of the Hiddle Eolga%
"urtherst are the "4 groups of (iberia%
(top bullshitting% gour bullshit is drowning out the useful posts in these
threads%
How Slavic are these Slavic groups. Really.
There is no need to rip your pants, if all the world is not Slavic. (It isn't).
2011-12-05, 08:24
Lemminkinen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
Ne)t year is gonna be awesome%
-here's a whole heap of ancient 3NA studies being done at the moment,
which will get published o'er the ne)t ;L-;C months% -hey'll mostly co'er
the period from the early Neolithic to the Hiddle Ages, and focus on .entral
and Eastern Europe%
$'ll be blogging my ass o+ after the new year% $t's a good time to be
interested in this stu+% <thumbsup<
As I wrote, this discussion is necessary to make things dialectic, but even a moderate synthesis
seems to be still far. You sure know that whatever you fnd, it will not be accepted by academic
researchers. No matter how hard you work and who follow you. I am still content to how you Poles
bring out your difering thoughts and challenge the Anglo-American history writing, although it
escalates sometimes mad ideas. Unfortunately you often stumble with similar propagandistic
Russian-Soviet history writing which is comparable to the Anglo writing that you call Nazist,
usually even worse. It is also a bit pathetic that you call the Anglo history writing Nazist.
2011-12-05, 08:32
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by <emminkIinen
As $ wrote, this discussion is necessary to make things dialectic, but e'en a
moderate synthesis seems to be still far% gou sure know that whate'er you
:nd, it will not be accepted by academic researchers% No matter how hard
you work and who follow you% $ am still content to how you Poles bring out
your di+ering thoughts and challenge the Anglo-American history writing,
although it escalates sometimes mad ideas% 4nfortunately you often stumble
with similar propagandistic Russian-(o'iet history writing which is
comparable to the Anglo writing that you call Na*ist, usually e'en worse% $t is
also a bit pathetic that you call the Anglo history writing Na*ist%
Don't mind us, we're |ust celebrating here that all the bullshit will fnally be exposed thanks to
modern science.
Ancient DNA and a thorough study of R1a will blow everything wide open very soon. There won't
be any room for debates or a chance to twist things.
I'm most looking forward to the full genome sequences of the kurgan mummies. I'm gonna add
them to my pro|ect if the SNPs become available. :evilgrin:
2011-12-05, 08:35
Lemminkinen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
3on't mind us, we're #ust celebrating here that all the bullshit will :nally be
e)posed thanks to modern science%
Ancient 3NA and a thorough study of R;a will blow e'erything wide open
'ery soon% -here won't be any room for debates or a chance to twist things%
$'m most looking forward to the full genome se9uences of the kurgan
mummies% $'m gonna add them to my pro#ect if the (NPs become
a'ailable% <e'ilgrin<
I recall that the frst Anglo estimates were that Kurgan mummies were genetically closest Finns :D
2011-12-05, 08:39
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by <emminkIinen
$ recall that the :rst Anglo estimates were that Iurgan mummies were
genetically closest "inns <3
Yeah, Finns with 100% R1a. :lol:
2011-12-05, 09:11
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
Ne)t year is gonna be awesome%
-here's a whole heap of ancient 3NA studies being done at the moment,
which will get published o'er the ne)t ;L-;C months% -hey'll mostly co'er
the period from the early Neolithic to the Hiddle Ages, and focus on .entral
and Eastern Europe%
$'ll be blogging my ass o+ after the new year% $t's a good time to be
interested in this stu+% <thumbsup<
I wouldn't want to wait a year to learn where exactly Z283 and Z93 parted ways. :(
2011-12-05, 09:18
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$ wouldn't want to wait a year to learn where e)actly /LC1 and /01 parted
ways% <A
Is that really so important?
I think getting more SNPs from within R1a, and then doing a really detailed survey of populations
across Asia, would be more useful. We might certainly see something like that before the end of
next year.
The other really interesting thing would be full genome sequences of Corded Ware and
Andronovo remains. It'd be awesome to see how exactly these cousins of ours behave on various
plots, and maybe even check if we share any segments with them.
2011-12-05, 09:23
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
Another way to look at it is that the steppe was always a highway%
Explain how to derive Afanasevo from the Central Europe. There are striking parallels between
Afansevo- and Volga-steppe Yamna/Pit-Grave sites. This steppe inJuence is also found from the
Corded Ware burials, pointing to inJuence Jow from the Steppe to Siberia andEast Europe.
Horse-Mounted Invaders From the Russo-Kazakh
Steppe or Agricultural Colonists From Western Central
Asia? A Craniometric Investigation of the Bronze Age
Settlement of Xin|iang
Brian E. Hemphill and J.P. Mallory, AJPA 2004
I hope the pictures are visible.
[IMGlink]http://i44.tinypic.com/2m7vvhk.png[/IMGlink]
[IMGlink]http://i39.tinypic.com/2mnq39c.png[/IMGlink]
[IMGlink]http://i43.tinypic.com/28lzzh5.png[/IMGlink]
[IMGlink]http://i39.tinypic.com/5x29e8.png[/IMGlink]
[IMGlink]http://i41.tinypic.com/2ywgx7o.png[/IMGlink]
Siberians/Minusinskians/Altayans form their own twig or branch in every analysis. These are
immigrant groups from Volga-Urals Steppe. BMAC samples (Kuz, Mol) are not even close to the
"Siberians" but all of them have some inJuence from the northern guys.
2011-12-05, 09:46
Huckleberry Finn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
geah, "inns with ;668 R;a% <lol<
It may well be that I don't quite understand what you are talking about but isn't it far fetched to
assume that a aDNA-type always equals a certain y-haplogroup? Finns on the other hand really
are not apparently the usual suspects regarding kurgan mummies, but the reason is not the fact
that we wouldn't have any R1a's here. I guess that you are aware of that too.
Hwein's question was interesting and I look forward to hearing your comments.
2011-12-05, 09:48
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
E)plain how to deri'e Afanase'o from the .entral Europe% -here are striking
parallels between Afanse'o- and Eolga-steppe gamnaKPit-@ra'e sites% -his
steppe in?uence is also found from the .orded ,are burials, pointing to
in?uence ?ow from the (teppe to (iberia and East Europe%
Eastern Europeans throughout the ages always originated west of the steppe. They moved in
multiple waves from the forest zone, each wave adding to or replacing the previous.
That's why there's so little Asian inJuence in Eastern Europe west of the Volga, despite the fact
that Siberian mtDNA was found in several unrelated individuals in Neolithic and Bronze Age sites
in Ukraine.
I have no doubt that Afanasyevo can be traced ultimately to the west of the Black Sea. Same as
Andronovo.
The fact that there were migrations from the steppe back into Central Europe is only natural. Why
wouldn't there be? I'm sure there were some ma|or movements like that. But the people moving
around back and forth were basically the same.
2011-12-05, 10:06
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
Eastern Europeans throughout the ages always originated west of the
steppe% -hey mo'ed in multiple wa'es from the forest *one, each wa'e
adding to or replacing the pre'ious%
-hat's why there's so little Asian in?uence in Eastern Europe west of the
Eolga, despite the fact that (iberian mt3NA was found in se'eral unrelated
indi'iduals in Neolithic and >ron*e Age sites in 4kraine%
So what you are saying is that Pit-Comb Ware cultures are infact the ultimate genetic source for
the early Steppe people ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit%E2%...b_Ware_culture
Quote:
>ut the people mo'ing around back and forth were basically the same%
Dnieper-Donetsian hunters and Boian/Cucuteni farmers are clearly very diferent people. Even by
physical type.
2011-12-05, 10:09
Lemminkinen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckle/err) Ainn
$t may well be that $ don't 9uite understand what you are talking about but
isn't it far fetched to assume that a a3NA-type always e9uals a certain y-
haplogroup "inns on the other hand really are not apparently the usual
suspects regarding kurgan mummies, but the reason is not the fact that we
wouldn't ha'e any R;a's here% $ guess that you are aware of that too%
%
Comparing aDna have serious weaknesses; when those mummies have considerably Siberian
admix and IF the rest of data shows even some similarity with present East Europeans they WILL
show similarity with Vologdas or Finns. It is going to be interesting how it'll be UNDERSTOOD to
look present Slavic similarity whose data dont shows Siberian. I am of course now speculating
regarding Polako's expectations.
2011-12-05, 10:13
Pioterus
Quote:
Originally Posted by <emminkIinen
-his discussion about (la'ic history can be necessary, but thinking about the
way people mi) languages and genes and make presentations, $ e)pect that
$ dont miss much if wait for ne)t ;6 years to see more sense%<p
Yea, let's wait and see, but anyway why not be a full bloodied human being (with slavic temper at
that) and put some risky hypothesis forth? I am ready to let my imagination go a bit creative
(crazy?) and possibly fail at some points, no prob.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
Ne)t year is gonna be awesome%
-here's a whole heap of ancient 3NA studies being done at the moment,
which will get published o'er the ne)t ;L-;C months% -hey'll mostly co'er
the period from the early Neolithic to the Hiddle Ages, and focus on .entral
and Eastern Europe%
$'ll be blogging my ass o+ after the new year% $t's a good time to be
interested in this stu+% <thumbsup<
18 monts? It's an eternity in comparison to 200 years of build up bullshits. :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by <emminkIinen
A%%%D4nfortunately you often stumble with similar propagandistic Russian-
(o'iet history writing which is comparable to the Anglo writing that you call
Na*ist, usually e'en worse% $t is also a bit pathetic that you call the Anglo
history writing Na*ist%
I know, I noticed that myself but the reasons are stated above by me and below by Polako.
BW I am !uite sure "ussian #$cial %state-funded& science 'ill never o$cially admit they (came
from Poles() they 'ill do anything to *rove the movement 'as the other 'ay around+ hey,re
oroginal slavs you kno') #rthodox -&
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
3on't mind us, we're #ust celebrating here that all the bullshit will :nally be
e)posed thanks to modern science%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
Eastern Europeans throughout the ages always originated west of the
steppe% -hey mo'ed in multiple wa'es from the forest *one, each wa'e
adding to or replacing the pre'ious%A%%%D
-he fact that there were migrations from the steppe back into .entral
Europe is only natural% ,hy wouldn't there be $'m sure there were some
ma#or mo'ements like that% 'ut the people mo&in. around /ack and
forth $ere /asicall) the same%
My thoughts from the very beginning - even if Sarmats/ Scythians came to be somewhere in the
steppe zone and then came conquering westwards, they simply paid a home visit when they
reached Oder-Vistula.
I fear to admit same could be told about ethnicRussians invading Poland. Shit. :(
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
(iberiansKHinusinskiansKAltayans form their own twig or branch in e'ery
analysis% -hese are immigrant groups from Eolga-4rals (teppe% >HA.
samples AIu*, HolD are not e'en close to the ](iberians] but all of them ha'e
some in?uence from the northern guys%
Too bad they didn't include European crania in their study.
So, if I undestand what you are trying to say correctly, you suggest that Tarim Basin R1a1 would
be "Asian" Z93+ while Afanasyevo/Andronovo "European" Z283+?
2011-12-05, 10:18
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
-oo bad they didn't include European crania in their study%
(o, if $ undestand what you are trying to say correctly, you suggest that
-arim >asin R;a; would be ]Asian] /012 while Afanasye'oKAndrono'o
]European] /LC12
Z93 really looks like a marker that doesn't belong on the prehistoric steppe. I would associate it
with BMAC, with South and Southwest Indo-Iranian groups, and then Turkics.
It's with the last group that it fnally made it onto the steppe IMO. and as far as the Volga, or even
further.
I'm convinced that the North Euro-like steppe guys, mixed with Siberians in varying degrees,
were Z283, or something |ust above that.
2011-12-05, 10:38
EliasAlucard
I would like to see a discussion focusing on why Central-Eastern Europe (Poland or wherever that is) would be
a better location of the PIE urheimat than the mainstream Pontic-Caspian steppe, because that's the topic of
this thread. I understand haplogroups (and their mostly hypothetical region of birth) is an important aspect of
the discussion, however, we already have 10,000 threads discussing R1a so this thread should focus more on
the main currents in Indo-European scholarship.
//mod
2011-12-05, 10:42
Polako
I wonder if these authors picked up the Z93/Z283 diference here with crania?
Quote:
A multi'ariate analysis of measurements taken from Androno'o A"edoro'kaD
cranial samples from the forest-steppe part of the Altai has re'ealed certain
components that are likely to ha'e contributed to the origins of this
population% Bne component, resem/lin. the ro/ust 8Cro-;a.non9
&ariet) o/ser&ed in man) Androno&o .roups, $ould appear to ha&e
/een introduced /) mi.rants from the "a4akhstan steppes. Another
component J ;editerranean, i.e., characteri4ed /) dolichocran) and
narro$ face, stemmed from the pre-Androno&o 'ron4e A.e
populations of south$estern Si/eria, /ein. especiall) noticea/le in
Androno&o 8Aedoro&ka9 .roups of (udn) Altai and decreasin. in the
eastern and northern directions. -he third component, on the contrary,
becomes more and more prominent as one mo'es northward% -his
component was e'idently associated with the ,estern (iberian nati'e
peoples% $ts proportion in the forest-steppe *one of the Altai was minor, while
being larger in the sub-taiga regions situated to the north%
THE ORIGINS OF THE ANDRONOVO (FEDOROVKA) POPULATION OF SOUTHWESTERN
SIBERIA, BASED ON A MIDDLE BRONZE AGE CRANIAL SERIES FROM THE ALTAI
FOREST-STEPPE ZONE
2011-12-05, 12:08
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
P$H@linkRhttp<KKi10%tinypic%comKLmn910c%pngPK$H@linkR
Nowadays in the Hindu Kush (see the map) we fnd 72% R1a1:
Quote:
$n this study, ;G g-chromosomal short tandem repeat Ag-(-RD loci were typed
to 'aluate their forensic and population genetic applications in
;C0unrelated Af.han males .eo.raphicall) partitioned alon. the
Hindu "ush ;ountain ran.e into north 8@ K LL9 and south 8@ K 3LM9
populations.
Y-STR profling in two Afghanistan populations, Harlette Lacaua et al.
And from DNA Forums:
Quote:
"ew speculations about topic% Predictor and .o+man said that R;a;a
Ashkena*i Fews ha'e those 3g( 'alues<
3g(;0 U ;5, ;7
3g(1CC U ;L
3g(106 U L5
3g(10; U ;6
3g(10L U ;;
3g(101 U ;1
$n g-.hromosomal 3NA &aplotypes in Pakistani Populations published
haplotypes of Parsi R;a% AParsis are descendants of $ranian /oroastrians who
migrated to $ndia from the Arab in'asionD% All these Parsi haplotypes ha'e so
called dAshkena*i 3g( 'aluesX%
$n !acau &% et al% g-(-R pro:ling in two Afghanistan populations% !egal
Hedicine% doi< ;6%;6;7K#%legalmed%L6;6%;;%66B AL6;;D published 3ND
haplot)pes from Af.hanistan, amon. them 3=C men are (3a3% ;7
among them ha'e the same dAshkena*i 3g( 'aluesX%
Assumption< Ashkena*i R;a, as well as $ranian and Afghan R;a;, which 3g(
'alues are<
3g(;0 U ;5, ;7
3g(1CC U ;L
3g(106 U L5
3g(10; U ;6
3g(10L U ;;
3g(101 U ;1
belong to Asian subclade% Perhaps it is R;a;a;c AH7B%L, HCG, HL6B, old
R;a;a1D%
>ut it is #ust speculation, $Jll glad to read your opinion%
It would be nice to see that both forms of R1a1 - "European" Z-283+ and "Asian" Z-93+ - in the
South (or to the South) of the Andronovo region (Pamir, Tien-Shan?) which would indicate that
Indian R1a1 spread to the Subcontinent from the direction of the Steppe (only Z-93+ "Aryan"
version migrated accross the mountains, with Z283+ staying behind in the Steppe).
In such a sitiation we would have a perfect ft with the consensus version of the events based on
the pre-genetic research.
In this context I wonder what does it mean that while all Parsis analysed above were of the
"Ashkenazi" type, only 16 out of the 136 Afghans had DYS valueS similar to the Ashkenazis.
I defnitely wouldn't like to see Z93+ and Z283+ parting ways in Anatolia or Middle East which
would suggest that this bifurcation has something to do with Neolithic expansion. In such A case
we would have to start reconsidering Renfrew to save the IE status of IE, would't we?
2011-12-05, 14:24
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$ de:nitely wouldn't like to see /012 and /LC12 parting ways in Anatolia or
Hiddle East which would suggest that this bifurcation has something to do
with Neolithic e)pansion% $n such A case we would ha'e to start
reconsidering Renfrew to sa'e the $E status of $E, would't we
So what doest that mean for Kurganites ? Are we seeing a birth of new All-World-Filled-With-
R1a1 theory ?
2011-12-05, 14:26
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
Anyone with a basic grasp of population genetics can see that the groups
coming from the North European plain and those from the .aucasus ne'er
mi)ed%
Are you claiming that they have no common haplogroups? I bet they do have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$n fact, they're connected 'ia the >alkans%
So? Connected, still.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
(o the steppe ]gap] on autosomal maps is absolutely #usti:ed, and the
ancient people of the steppe were North European Plain folks who went east
and mi)ed with the (iberians around the 4rals and beyond%
What do you actually mean by that "gap"? You surely don`t claim that there were no people
before North-Europeans went there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
,hat a lot of people forget here in this debate is that demographics ha'e
changed in the past 7,666 years% $t's debatable if the Hongols totally wiped
out whate'er remnant groups that still may ha'e e)isted of proto-$ndo-
Europeans in the steppes%
Indeed. Even if there was a real "gap" at the present, it could not prove that there was a gap also
a long time ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
>ut in fact they ha'e been tested, and the people they came from are still
around, li'ing #ust west of the steppe%
-here was ne'er any steppe group that :lled the autosomal ]gap] between
Eastern Europe the .aucasus and (iberia% -hat gap was always there,
because the steppe was populated by North European Plains tribes high in
R;a;a%
You cannot know that! It`s |ust a guess based on the present situation. Similar mistake was made
by some linguists who saw that there are only three old language families in Europe, and then
they guessed that earlier all of Europe was occupied by these very same language families only,
|ust in a diferent distribution than now. They failed to see the traces of many since lost languages
in the Southern Europe and many substrate languages in the Northern Europe.
If there is a gap (lack of contacts) between two languages, it means that one or both of them only
recently arrived in the area. The same goes with the genes: if there seem to appear a gap
between two populations, it cannot be the original state, but it is caused by a recent migration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
3on't mind us, we're #ust celebrating here that all the bullshit will :nally be
e)posed thanks to modern science%
Ancient 3NA and a thorough study of R;a will blow e'erything wide open
'ery soon% -here won't be any room for debates or a chance to twist things%
I hope you still remember that genes cannot tell anything about language. In a nutshell:
1. Carriers of the same genes can speak dierent languages.
2. Speakers of the same language can carry dierent genes.
3. Genetic originality cannot prove anything about linguistic originality.
4. Proto-Slavic language will not become any closer to Proto-Indo-European language,
no matter what genetic discoveries there will appear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
geah, "inns with ;668 R;a%
Frequency is insignifcant - it may well be that a haplotype closest to R1a1 "PIE-speaker" can be
found among the Finns, or Italians, or whatever population which has only a small portion of
R1a1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$ de:nitely wouldn't like to see /012 and /LC12 parting ways in Anatolia or
Hiddle East which would suggest that this bifurcation has something to do
with Neolithic e)pansion% $n such A case we would ha'e to start
reconsidering Renfrew to sa'e the $E status of $E, would't we
No, because genes cannot prove anything about language.
Even if those lineages arrived from Anatolia, it would not change the PIE homeland located by
linguistic methods. It would only cause that the frst part of the expansion (from Anatolia to the
Pontic Steppes) was not connected to Indo-European but some other language family. Only later
expansions (from the steppes onward) we could connect with the IE speakers.
2011-12-05, 14:29
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
(o, if $ undestand what you are trying to say correctly, you suggest that
-arim >asin R;a; would be ]Asian] /012 while Afanasye'oKAndrono'o
]European] /LC12
No, because I know nothing about the real distribution of those markers and sorry, you dont
either.
In any case the Afanasevos were biologically related to subset of people from the Yamna Zone.
That subset was proto-Europoid of northern variety, broad, tall and light pigmented Europid.
Tarim people seem to have been quite a mix and the Afanasevans were only one contributing
component in that mix.
2011-12-05, 23:38
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
No, because .enes cannot pro&e an)thin. a/out lan.ua.e.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
E'en if those lineages arri'ed from Anatolia, it would not change the P$E
homeland located by linguistic methods% $t would only cause that the frst
part of the expansion 8from Anatolia to the Pontic Steppes9 $as not
connected to !ndo-European /ut some other lan.ua.e famil). Bnl)
later expansions 8from the steppes on$ard9 $e could connect $ith
the !E speakers.
I believe you are contradicting yourself.
2011-12-06, 01:44
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
Are you claiming that they ha'e no common haplogroups $ bet they do
ha'e%
(o .onnected, still%
Their haplogroup frequencies are very diferent, and so is their autosomal DNA. Hence the
autosomal gap between the North European plain and the Caucasus on genetic maps.
The fact that they're connected via the Balkans, and not directly, supports my arguments about
the origins of the steppe groups very well.
Quote:
,hat do you actually mean by that dgapX gou surely donJt claim that there
were no people before North-Europeans went there
The western steppe, and for a long time, the entire steppe, was an extension of the North
European plain.
It was also a corridor for limited contacts between the North European plain and Siberia, and
perhaps Southwest Asia.
But because the populations that interacted here came from extremely diferent biogeographic
zones, and the Europeans outnumbered the Siberians, they could not create a strong cline.
To create a cline on a genetic map, you need settled populations, each one similar to the next,
interacting with each other for millenia. This did not happen on the steppe.
Quote:
$ndeed% E'en if there was a real dgapX at the present, it could not pro'e that
there was a gap also a long time ago%
Ancient remains suggest otherwise. And like I say, these clines and gaps on autosomal maps
aren't modern phenomenon, because they take thousands of years to form.
Quote:
$f there is a gap Alack of contactsD between two languages, it means that one
or both of them only recently arri'ed in the area% -he same goes with the
genes< if there seem to appear a gap between two populations, it cannot be
the original state, but it is caused by a recent migration%
No, it's ancient. Like I said, the steppe was always a corridor, with populations from far away
interacting with each other in limited ways.
Quote:
"re9uency is insigni:cant W it may well be that a haplotype closest to R;a;
dP$E-speakerX can be found among the "inns, or $talians, or whate'er
population which has only a small portion of R;a;%
I was talking about the most likely origin of the steppe groups.
They carried a lot of R1a, so they obviously originated in a zone with extreme frequencies of R1a,
which today is the area |ust west of the steppe (East-Central Europe). The ancient steppe
remains also match modern East-Central Europeans in terms of mtDNA lineages.
Quote:
No, because genes cannot pro'e anything about language%
E'en if those lineages arri'ed from Anatolia, it would not change the P$E
homeland located by linguistic methods% $t would only cause that the :rst
part of the e)pansion Afrom Anatolia to the Pontic (teppesD was not
connected to $ndo-European but some other language family% Only later
e)pansions Afrom the steppes onwardD we could connect with the $E
speakers%
I think the spread of R1a was connected to the spread of Indo-European languages and culture,
and various technologies that facilitated that spread.
2011-12-06, 06:01
Bohemian Rhapsody
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
(o what's your beef with (la's then
I don't have any problems with Slavs, aside from the fact that I consider them the bad neighbors
to the East, since I'm of German descent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
Ob'iously, $ndo-European does ha'e southerly origins either way, which is
also seen in the autosomal 3NA in all early $ndo-Europeans descendants that
they were basically a bottlenecked Near East tribe Abottlenecked after their
migration to the north of the >lack (ea and separation from there onD and
not Hongoloids or Negroids%
How does the autosomal DNA show that they were a bottlenecked Near East tribe? 6/10 of the
late Proto-Indo-Europeans/early Scythians had colored eyes and hair. That sounds like they were
a Mesolithic people who had been out of the Mid East for 10's of thousands of years. I was more
suggesting the language itself originated with herders from the Near East, and imposed itself on
the hunter-gatherers who were living on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, in a similar way that the
original Semites from the Levant gave the people of the Arabian peninsula their language with
little actual West Asian genetic contribution.
2011-12-06, 09:27
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
&orse-Hounted $n'aders "rom the Russo-Ia*akh
(teppe or Agricultural .olonists "rom ,estern .entral
Asia A .raniometric $n'estigation of the >ron*e Age
(ettlement of qin#iang
>rian E% &emphill and F%P% Hallory, AFPA L66B
P$H@linkRhttp<KKi10%tinypic%comKLmn910c%pngPK$H@linkR
(iberiansKHinusinskiansKAltayans form their own twig or branch in e'ery
analysis% -hese are immigrant groups from Eolga-4rals (teppe% >HA.
samples AIu*, HolD are not e'en close to the ](iberians] but all of them ha'e
some in?uence from the northern guys%
Those sites look very similar to the sites being tested for DNA even as we speak. :eek:
http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/9...iasitesweb.|pg
2011-12-06, 09:57
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
No, because $ know nothing about the real distribution of those markers and
sorry, you dont either%
We quickly learn their present distribution, and in a few years time we will learn their distribution in
the aDNA. Then the questions about the directions of IE migrations will be fnally answered.
2011-12-06, 10:51
Lemminkinen
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
,e 9uickly learn their present distribution, and in a few years time we will
learn their distribution in the a3NA% -hen the 9uestions about the directions
of $E migrations will be :nally answered%
I am skeptical about it. Sure we have more new ideas, but no consensus. We have only more
speculations after having more aDna about those fnds and mummies. And more speculation =
less consensus. More speculation = more beliefs. Less consensus = less progress.
2011-12-06, 11:08
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by <emminkIinen
$ am skeptical about it% (ure we ha'e more new ideas, but no consensus% ,e
ha'e only more speculations after ha'ing more a3na about those :nds and
mummies% And more speculation U less consensus% Hore speculation U more
beliefs% !ess consensus U less progress%
I don't see this in the case of R1a1. So far scientists discovered frst
1) the striking correlation between IE languages and R1a1.
Then they decided to test ancient DNA from the archeological cultures perceived as IE
(Scythians, Corded Ware). The result was:
2) almost pure R1a1 in the aDNA from the archeological cultures interpreted as IE
Then the discovery of new R1a1 SNPa confrmend the view that
3) R1a1 (thus IE) spread from Europe to India.
There are still some elements lacking in this puzzle:
4) where non-European Z93+ mutation frst appeared (it would be nice if it happened around
Andronovo horizon, where Steppe PIEs had to "mutate" in order to be able to tranform
themselves into "mountain Indoeuropeans" (read Aryas/Indo-Iranians).
5) how exactly the process of Indoeuropeisation of Western Europe looked like and what was the
role of R1b1b2 in it?
and
6) what was the relation between TRB, Yamna and Corded Ware archeological cultures in the
context of R1a1
... but at least the problem of separation between Z283 and Z93 looks like the one possible to
solve rather sooner than later.
Of course it is still possible that this is all one gigantic coincidence, and future discoveries will
falsify the above conclusions, but at the moment I see no reasons to assume that the probabilty of
such event is high.
2011-12-06, 11:15
Lemminkinen
YDna is more unambiguous, but lack of accurate dating. If you have thousands years gap in dating, you can again
speculate and create beliefs.
2011-12-06, 11:23
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by <emminkIinen
g3na is more unambiguous, but lack of accurate dating% $f you ha'e
thousands years gap in dating, you can again speculate and create beliefs%
Beliefs are possible/necessary when you don't have data. As I said in a few years time we should
have so much data available that most of the present beliefs will have been either falsifed or
confrmed.
2011-12-06, 11:34
Lemminkinen
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
>eliefs are possible when you don't ha'e data% As $ said in a few years time
we should ha'e so much data a'ailable that most of the present beliefs will
ha'e been either falsi:ed or con:rmed%
You have |ust beliefs. I have followed this four years and have not seen any consensus or
consistent results. The situation is best possible for beliefs and propaganda when speaking about
ancient European migrations.
2011-12-06, 11:54
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by <emminkIinen
gou ha'e #ust beliefs% $ ha'e followed this four years and ha'e not seen any
consensus or consistent results% -he situation is best possible for beliefs and
propaganda when speaking about ancient European migrations%
Because we are not into the "consensus forming" phase yet. I believe at the moment we are in the
"data gathering"/"bullshit busting" phase.
2011-12-06, 12:08
Lemminkinen
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
>ecause we are not into the ]consensus forming] phase yet% $ belie'e at the
moment we are in the ]data gathering]K]bullshit busting] phase%
You have a lot of good will, but who could lead us to the Source of Truth? I think that considering
this you live in a small box. The science dont work like "hello, I have the truth now". It takes tens
years to make a new credible paradigm and it doesnt happen when some enthusiasts become
convinced about their own work.
2011-12-06, 12:11
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$ de:nitely wouldn't like to see /012 and /LC12 parting ways in Anatolia or
Hiddle East which would suggest that this bifurcation has something to do
with Neolithic e)pansion% $n such A case we would ha'e to start
reconsidering Renfrew to sa'e the $E status of $E, would't we
Someone |ust made me realise that the fact that we observe both forms - European Z283+ and
Asian Z93+ - in Anatolia doesn't mean Neolithic bifurcation ("some farmers move West, and
some moved West), but is simply a reJection that Western part of Anatolia was inJuenced by the
migrating European (Z283+) groups while Eastern part was colonized by the Indo-Iranian
speaking ones (namely Z93+ Kurds).
---------- Post added 2011-12-06 at 13:14 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by <emminkIinen
gou ha'e a lot of good will, but who could lead us to the (ource of -ruth $
think that considering this you li'e in a small bo)% -he science dont work like
]hello, $ ha'e the truth now]% $t takes tens years to make a new credible
paradigm and it doesnt happen when some enthusiasts become con'inced
about their own work%
I don't need "the Truth". I need data produced by scientists I can show to any bullshit-artist.
2011-12-06, 13:25
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by <emminkIinen
g3na is more unambiguous, but lack of accurate dating% $f you ha'e
thousands years gap in dating, you can again speculate and create beliefs%
I doubt this will be an issue in this case, because it looks like the old adage that truth is stranger
than fction will come true.
I think all those advocating a more reasoned approach to this whole problem will be left with their
|aws hanging wide open, because the data will show something closer to a Conan the Barbarian
movie script, than a complex series of migrations and language shifts.
Basically, I think we'll soon be shown via ancient DNA that highly patriarchal tribes carrying
almost 100% R1a conquered most of the known world during the metal ages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$ don't need ]the -ruth]% $ need data produced by scientists $ can show to any
bullshit-artist%
Remember that supposedly Hungarian guy, with the blond beard? The one who said some Italian
professor from LA was a credible source on Scythians because he "wasn't blond at all".
What the fuck was going on there? Was that guy real, and totally crazy, or was it some comic
genius honing his skills online?
2011-12-06, 13:43
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
Remember that supposedly &ungarian guy, with the blond beard -he one
who said some $talian professor from !A was a credible source on (cythians
because he ]wasn't blond at all]%
,hat the fuck was going on there ,as that guy real, and totally cra*y, or
was it some comic genius honing his skills online
Well, at least thanks to him I remembered that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by !"!PED!A
Hany languages spoken by Ancient Near East peoples were agglutinati'e<
(umerian
Elamite
&urrian
4rartian
&attic
@utian
!ullubi
Iassite
:D
2011-12-06, 14:06
Lemminkinen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$ doubt this will be an issue in this case, because it looks like the old adage
that truth is stranger than :ction will come true%
$ think all those ad'ocating a more reasoned approach to this whole problem
will be left with their #aws hanging wide open, because the data will show
something closer to a .onan the >arbarian mo'ie script, than a comple)
series of migrations and language shifts%
>asically, $ think we'll soon be shown 'ia ancient 3NA that highly patriarchal
tribes carrying almost ;668 R;a con9uered most of the known world during
the metal ages%
It is not a bad idea to understand Slavs being a part of considerably late eastern migration. They
seem to have some particular genetic traits difering from western groups. The East European
plain has always been a highway from east.
2011-12-06, 14:10
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by <emminkIinen
$t is not a bad idea to understand (la's being a part of considerably late
eastern migration% -hey seem to ha'e some particular genetic traits di+ering
from western groups% -he East European plain has always been a highway
from east%
I was thinking about exaclty such - *ardon le mot - "bullshiting", which is now easy to repell with
one plot or chart. I won't even bother to do this, as I understand you are only trying to troll this
thread.
2011-12-06, 14:16
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by <emminkIinen
$t is not a bad idea to understand (la's being a part of considerably late
eastern migration% -hey seem to ha'e some particular genetic traits di+ering
from western groups% -he East European plain has always been a highway
from east%
Sure, if you want to call the former Corded Ware zone "eastern". But it actually covers North
Central Europe and the Western steppe.
See that's why there's so little East Asian inJuence in Poland.
2011-12-06, 14:37
Lemminkinen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
(ure, if you want to call the former .orded ,are *one ]eastern]% >ut it
actually co'ers North .entral Europe and the ,estern steppe%
(ee that's why there's so little East Asian in?uence in Poland%
I appreciate if you would show us the component size and distribution of your MDS plots, like the
Fenno-Scandinavian pro|ect did. Seeing them we could estimate how much Poles difer from the
Atlantic and Scandinavian region. I am keenly waiting all evidences you have promised.
Stories about famous eastern origins are not only todays favorite things, a Swedish scientist,
Olaus Rudbeck, inferred that my ancestors were Kimmerians too :p He didnt yet know that my
ancestors were even greater heroes, from China and Siberia :evilgrin: .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olaus_Rudbeck
2011-12-06, 14:46
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
-hen the disco'ery of new R;a; (NPa con:rmend the 'iew that
1D R;a; Athus $ED spread from Europe to $ndia%
What SNP exactly confrmed that R1a1 spread from Europe to India :unsure:
2011-12-06, 14:57
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by <emminkIinen
$ appreciate if you would show us the component si*e and distribution of
your H3( plots, like the "enno-(candina'ian pro#ect did% (eeing them we
could estimate how much Poles di+er from the Atlantic and (candina'ian
region% $ am keenly waiting all e'idences you ha'e promised%
There was an excellent study done by Estonian scientists, Nelis et al. 2009, to be precise, looking
at the genetic substructures in Northeastern Europe.
The Polish sample in that study is really good, because it comes from a new settlement area,
including people with ancestry from all over Poland. The lambda inJation table they have in that
paper is nice for comparing the genetic distances between Northern Europeans.
You can go nuts and study those results as much as you want. You don't have to trust my work.
It's a peer reviewed paper done by professionals, after all, from a highly civilized Finno-Ugric
country.
BTW, you're actually confused about one very important point. The Atlantic populations difer
from Balto-Slavs in that they have more West Asian inJuence (which is also classed as
Mediterranean in various runs). That's essentially what makes them more "western". I know it can
get confusing though....east is west, west is east...etc.
---------- Post added 2011-12-06 at 14:58 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
,hat (NP e)actly con:rmed that R;a; spread from Europe to $ndia <unsure<
Europeans are ancestral for Z93. Indians are derived.
2011-12-06, 15:09
Lemminkinen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
-here was an e)cellent study done by Estonian scientists, Nelis et al% L660,
to be precise, looking at the genetic substructures in Northeastern Europe%
-he Polish sample in that study is really good, because it comes from a new
settlement area, including people with ancestry from all o'er Poland% -he
lambda in?ation table they ha'e in that paper is nice for comparing the
genetic distances between Northern Europeans%
gou can go nuts and study those results as much as you want% gou don't
ha'e to trust my work% $t's a peer re'iewed paper done by professionals,
after all, from a highly ci'ili*ed "inno-4gric country%
It was (Nelis et al) comparable to Russian studies. I hve no interest to stick shit. I have during
these few years seen enough it.
Quote:
>-,, you're actually confused about one 'ery important point% -he Atlantic
populations di+er from >alto-(la's in that they ha'e more ,est Asian
in?uence Awhich is also classed as Hediterranean in 'arious runsD% -hat's
essentially what makes them more ]western]% $ know it can get confusing
though%%%%east is west, west is east%%%etc%
Partly yes, but mainly Atlantic and Scandinavian regions have still older and original European
genes that lack in East Europe. We can see it if you publish the component data for example from
your latest blog letter (notice the V-fgure), distribution and amount per dimensions.
2011-12-06, 15:20
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by <emminkIinen
Partly yes, but mainly Atlantic and (candina'ian regions ha'e still older and
original European genes that lack in East Europe% ,e can see it if you publish
the component data for e)ample from your latest blog letter Anotice the E-
:gureD, distribution and amount per dimensions%
I've seen you get fxated on things that don't really matter that much, at least not in the context
that you want to see them, and this is yet another example of that.
Such shapes on MDS plots are created by strong allele sharing amongst samples. relative to the
relationships that exist between the others. It makes no sense to interpret them the way you are.
Based on ancient DNA, it seems that groups that now live on the Eastern Baltic coast are a lot
like the old Scandinavians, and the current Scandinavians are mostly newcomers to Scandinavia
from Central Europe. That's why European and North European specic clusters always
peak in those damn Lithuanians and Belorussians.
Quote:
-hrough analysis of 3NA e)tracted from ancient (candina'ian human
remains, we show that people of the Pitted ,are culture were not the direct
ancestors of modern (candina'ians Aincluding the (aami people of northern
(candina'iaD but are more closely related to contemporary populations of
the eastern >altic region% Our :ndings support hypotheses arising from
archaeological analyses that propose a Neolithic or post-Neolithic population
replacement in (candina'ia%
Helena Malmstrm et al., Ancient DNA Reveals Lack of Continuity between Neolithic Hunter-
Gatherers and Contemporary Scandinavians, Current Biology, 24 September 2009,
doi:10.1016/|.cub.2009.09.017
I hope you learned something here Lemmi. Thank you and good night.
2011-12-06, 15:30
Lemminkinen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$''e seen you get :)ated on things that don't really matter that much, at
least not in the conte)t that you want to see them, and this is yet another
e)ample of that%
(uch shapes on H3( plots are created by strong allele sharing amongst
samples% relati'e to the relationships that e)ist between the others% $t makes
no sense to interpret them the way you are%
So your point is that we cannot trust to MDS plots, because we cannot interpret them as they are
and must fnd secret meanings. If someone here now got lost, I can explain.
Quote:
>ased on ancient 3NA, it seems that groups that now li'e on the Eastern
>altic coast are a lot like the old (candina'ians, and the current
(candina'ians are mostly newcomers to (candina'ia from .entral Europe%
P>R-hat's why European and North European speci:c clusters always peak in
those damn !ithuanians and >elorussians%
Present Scandavians are people who are considered Scandinavians. There was hunter-
gatherers, like also in Finland. This is not any surprise, linguists and archaelogists have known it.
Although Balts belong to this old European group, we have now such proofs that also Poles
belong to it.
2011-12-06, 16:39
Vasishta
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$ wonder if these authors picked up the /01K/LC1 di+erence here with
crania
Thanks for posting this study, Polako. There was something somewhat similar that was found by
a certain Indian anthropologist, Bira|a Sankar Guha. Admittedly, he was very obviously inJuenced
by the British school of thought on the matter of the Indo-European expansion in South-Asia,
being part of the British Anthropological Survey. His usage of certain terms also imply a slight
bias. But as I was saying, his fndings were interesting and also sort of parallel the prevalence of
two morphological types in the Andronovo remains. In his work .n outline of the racial ethnology
of India (1937) described a so-called proto-Nordic physical type that was sprinkled all across the
North-western swath of India/Pakistan (of course, back then, there was no such thing as
Pakistan) -
The Proto-Nordic Type: The invasion which has however caused the most profound change in
shaping the culture and history of India is the one associated with the advent of the Vedic Aryans
somewhere in the second millennium BC. We have no skeletal remains from ancient India which can
be defnitely attributed to them, but in those recently discovered in the Dharmara|ika monastery at
Taxila, we probably get some idea of their racial type though of much later times. The monastery was
sacked by the White Huns in the ffth century AD and with the exception of one, all the human
skeletons were apparently those of the monks who occupied the monastery. The features that
distinguish these skulls from the other long-headed types found so far in India, are their
comparative broadness, lower vault of their cranium and a mean cubic capacity as high as
1552 cc. The nose is very highly pitched and narrow and the face well built and long. The lower jaw
is powerfully made and the whole cranium and face give the impression of great physical
strength. At the present moment the type is found as the dominant element throughout the north-
western frontiers among the various Pathan tribes, mixed with what Eugen Fischer has called the
'Oriental' race. Among the tribes living in the valleys formed by the Upper Indus and its tributaries of
the Swat, Pan|kora, Kunar, and Chitral it is found in its purest forms, specially in the KaHr tribes of the
Hindukush Mountains. In the Pun|ab and Ra|putana and the higher classes of Upper India it is also
marked but increasingly more mixed with the two older types of dolichocephaly already mentioned.
There is also a sprinkling of it in the rest of Northern and Western India but nowhere dominant.
Among the northern mountain tribes 'the milk |ust tinged with cofee' skin colour of the North Indian
upper classes, changes into the rosy white of Northern Europeans and there is a good percentage of
grey and blue-grey eyes, sometimes accompanied by chestnut or red hair. Robertson wrote of the
golden hair among the Red KaHr women. I doubt, however, that this race in India can be strictly
termed 'blond' in the same sense in which the people of Northern Europe are called. They can be
more accurately described as partially blond or Proto-Nordics. Eugen Fischer has stated that the
upper castes of Northern India retain the Nordic characters of stature, head and the nose without the
fair tint of the skin. In the hot climate of the Indian plains, the blonds were no doubt eliminated by
natural selection, but if the hair colour of the KaHr and the allied tribes now living in the cold secluded
regions of the Hindukush Mountains, be of any indication, the original type among the Vedic Aryans
could not have been completely blond-a trait which appeared to have developed subsequently in its
present form among the people living around the Baltic Sea. The presence of light eyes among the
Chitpavan Brahmins of Bombay, and in a very small degree among those of the United Provinces,
Bihar and Bengal, shows that the inJuence of this type extended far beyond the north-western parts,
of which traces alone now remain in the outlying regions.
The description of the type matches the description of the robust variety described in the study you quoted.
Again, this type only has a mere sprinkling across the mentioned areas, and the main Caucasoid type in the
areas is more /editerranean (in the context of the quoted study) in morphology and countenance, which
corroborates well with the main West-Eurasian inJuence in South-Asia (i.e West-Asian). He divided these
Mediterranean types in India into two types, the so called basic 0olicoce*halic ty*e and the Indus ty*e. The
same Guha, in some of his other works, went onto describe that there were a select few skulls in the
Harappa-Mohen|adaro skeletal remains, dating back to the beginning of the second millenium BC and the
end of the third milennium BC "con1rms that there 'as an in2ux of *eo*le 'ith *roto-3ordic cranium and
facial structures than ex*anded through the 3orth'est South-.sia".
2011-12-06, 19:49
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
$ don't ha'e any problems with (la's, aside from the fact that $ consider
them the bad neighbors to the East, since $'m of @erman descent%
I see. Well, as an Assyrian, I am not involved in the historical German-Polish conJicts nor am I
involved in the Swedish-Russian conJicts either. This Germanic versus Slavic conJict does not
afect my potential bias in any way. Like I said, I have no stake in this. Reading this polemical post
of yours:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
Problem is that internet (la's ha'e no roman era ancient people to identify
with% Norwegians ha'e Eikings% (wedes ha'e @oths% @ermans ha'e (a)ons,
!ombards and (uebi, Romanians ha'e 3acians, Albanians ha'e $llyrians,
-urks ha'e (el#uks% (la's ha'e nothing but (la's, so they seek $ranian
(cythian and (armatian origins for their people% -his is the main reason
(la's like to pretend they were at the center of it all, e'en though they ha'e
like ;8 actual (armatian ancestry that happened to leak to Poland only to
escape the &uns%
http<KKen%wikipedia%orgKwikiK(armatism
V -hat's where their obsession starts%
I can tell you this does not apply to me. You can accuse the forum Slavs of trying to aggrandise
their own ancestry by making it synonymous with early Iranic populations, but you can't ad
hominem me about this.
Now I personally don't think Slavs are synonymous with the Scythians (or proto-Indo-Europeans
for that matter). But Slavs are hardly the only Europeans who have speculated about having
Scythian descent (in fact, this shit was popular all over northern Europe). However, unlike many
other Indo-European speaking ethnic groups-Poles, Ukrainians, Russians and to a lesser but
still signifcant extent Yugoslavs-Slavic populations in other words, have preserved a very high
frequency of R-M17. Their autosomal DNA is positioned with a slightly more eastern drag on the
PCA plot than so called "Middle Easterners" (who, from a gene-centred point of view, ought to be
called "Middle Westerners" had these bullshit geographic labels been the least consistent).
This slightly eastern drag could perhaps be the result of some minor mixing with Uralics, because
we do know the proto-Indo-Europeans had at least linguistic contact with proto-Uralics. However,
since Poles are racially pure (which makes Uralic admixture in Poles unlikely, although Uralic
admixture is obviously there in Russians), a more likely scenario would be that Poles are mostly
descended from the proto-Indo-Europeans (with some additional European non-IE admixture
throughout history), whereas for example south Europeans (including Yugoslavs btw) are
basically Indo-Europeans with a great degree of admixture from local indigenous Europeans of
non-IE stock (these native Europeans were probably very similar to Anatolian Semites, as
suggested by David Anthony (p. 76 and 305), which is also reJected in the higher autosomal
similarity between take say, a Greek, Yugoslav or Romanian and Assyrians, compared with
Assyrians and Poles (Poles have lower similarity with Assyrians than Balkan populations have).
I'm not sure about Ukrainians, haven't compared with them, but they're probably much like Poles.
I personally don't give two shits about Scythians or Sarmatians. It may be so that Poles and other
Slavs have their Scythomania but how is that diferent from the Indomania that was so popular in
the heydays of Voltaire? How is that diferent from Swedes saying they're Aryans? At least the
Scythians were Iranian speaking white Europeans, and they lived in eastern Europe. If Poles and
other Slavs have a Scythian fetish, it makes no diference to me. What I can tell you however is
that Y-DNA R1a1a pops up in various early Indo-European populations like the Scythians and
Tocharians. It's also there in Indians, and the enormous geographic spread of R-M17 can only be
explained with the horse (compare R-M17 with other Y-DNA haplogroups, like R2, J1c3, G1/2,
J2, I1, I2 and so on, and you'll get the point here that R-M17 has a much higher presence all over
western Eurasia. This can only be explained by crediting the domestication of the horse and
perhaps also the wheel (though that's arguably more controversial than the horse, in my opinion)
to some ancient R1a tribe. From Iceland to southern India, the R-M17 clade is found, and it
parallels the Indo-European language family.
And it |ust so happens to be the case that R-M17 reaches high frequency and variation in eastern
Europe:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...oschme.svg.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...stribution.png
So with that said, who do you think are closest related to the proto-Indo-Europeans: Poles or the
English? Yeah, you can go on about how the "Norwegians have Vikings. Swedes have Goths.
Germans have Saxons, Lombards and Suebi, Romanians have Dacians, Albanians have
Illyrians, Turks have Sel|uks. Slavs have nothing but Slavs" talk, but I'm sure most Europeans
would prefer to be a straight and full descendant of the proto-Indo-Europeans rather than a
descendant of Goths or Illyrians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
&ow does the autosomal 3NA show that they were a bottlenecked Near East
tribe
Well they had to come from somewhere, right? I mean, it's not like extra-terrestrials from outer
space placed them there. They were bottlenecked, and modern north/east Europeans still are
bottlenecked (and that's especially true for Finns ;)) because they show high autosomal similarity
with Middle Easterners yet there's a genetic gap which reJects some minor separation.
Polako has a take on the north Middle Eastern ancestry of the proto-Indo-Europeans here:
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...1&postcount=10
As far as I'm concerned, the reason why the proto-Indo-Europeans were bottlenecked is because
they seem to have been (until proven otherwise of course) a small group of patriarchal R1 clan
who made it out of the Middle East into the northern Caucasus (perhaps Maykop) and they had a
higher frequency of light hair/eyes, which is what you can expect if they're bottlenecked, as that
would increase the frequency of traits like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
7K;6 of the late Proto-$ndo-EuropeansKearly (cythians had colored eyes and
hair%
Yes, and there are Assyrians with light hair and eyes too, and these Assyrians have below 1.5%
north European admixture, so that means very limited descent from the proto-Indo-Europeans.
You seem to think light eyes and hair are foreign to the Middle East. Don't be surprised if these
traits originally evolved in the Middle East and were later bottlenecked in the Pontic-Caspian
steppe and highly increased in frequency there throughout a sparsely populated Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
-hat sounds like they were a Hesolithic people who had been out of the Hid
East for ;6's of thousands of years%
If that's your conclusion then you have no idea what you're saying. The proto-Indo-European
language itself is dated to around 6,500 YBP, let's be generous here and add 3,000 years to the
original separation between proto-Indo-European and proto-Semitic (and proto-Kartvelian). So
we could say the proto-Indo-Europeans had been separated a few thousand years from the
northern Middle East, perhaps slightly less separation than that with indigenous Caucasus
populations.
Various estimates have been given for the separation between Caucasoids and Negroids
(ranging anywhere from 150,000 years to 50,000 years; usual fgure is around 100,000 years),
and the highest fgure I've seen for Caucasoid and Mongoloid separation is 40,000 years (I don't
have time right now to fnd those sources; I'm quoting from memory here). Considering the much
higher similarity between Europe and the Middle East, a separation between the proto-Indo-
Europeans and the Middle East for tens of thousands of years sounds |ust whack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
$ was more suggesting the language itself originated with herders from the
Near East, and imposed itself on the hunter-gatherers who were li'ing on the
Pontic-.aspian steppe, in a similar way that the original (emites from the
!e'ant ga'e the people of the Arabian peninsula their language with little
actual ,est Asian genetic contribution%
Well, that did indeed happen, although hunter-gatherers is not quite correct (some European
hunter-gatherers were indeed assimilated by various Indo-European tribes). Actually, the proto-
Indo-Europeans were stock-breeding herders who lived in an animal husbandry sort of relation
with their cows, dogs and horses. And they imposed their language on European farmers, and
also mixed with them along the way. So that's why R1b dominant Spaniards/Italians/Irish/French
have fairly high autosomal aHnity with Poles and Russians, a lot more so than for example non-IE
Basques and Caucasus folks have:
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/ima...rsity_Euro.png
2011-12-06, 21:21
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
>asically, $ think we'll soon be shown 'ia ancient 3NA that hi.hl)
patriarchal tri/es carr)in. almost 3>>? (3a con9uered most of the
known world during the metal ages%
This is exactly the same impression I got after reading those aDNA studies on Scythians and
Tocharians. It seems that the proto-Indo-Europeans not only were patriarchal (Mallory pointed
this out in ISOTIE, btw, that males were highly overrepresented in Kurgan burials, females much
less so, which according to Mallory suggests a patriarchal society, p. 219), but seeing as how
they were pretty much entirely R-M17 they were also *atrilineal. So that's why they had such a
low diversity of male haplogroups, very high frequency of R-M17 and quite high mtDNA diversity.
They had a patrilineal group evolutionary strategy that obviously favoured their earliest clan
leader and probably slaughtered the men of other tribes and took their women.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
>ased on ancient 3NA, it seems that groups that now li'e on the Eastern
>altic coast are a lot like the old (candina'ians, and the current
(candina'ians are mostly newcomers to (candina'ia from .entral
Europe% That5s $h) European and @orth European specifc clusters
al$a)s peak in those damn <ithuanians and 'elorussians.
&elena Halmstrcm et al%, Ancient 3NA Re'eals !ack of .ontinuity between
Neolithic &unter-@atherers and .ontemporary (candina'ians, .urrent
>iology, LB (eptember L660, doi<;6%;6;7K#%cub%L660%60%6;G
Let me guess: Y-DNA I1?
2011-12-06, 21:34
tako|a
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
,ell they had to come from somewhere, right $ mean, it's not like e)tra-
terrestrials from outer space placed them there% -hey were bottlenecked,
and modern northKeast Europeans still are bottlenecked Aand that's
especially true for "inns YDD because they show high autosomal similarity with
Hiddle Easterners yet there's a genetic gap which re?ects some minor
separation%
Just wanted to ask what you mean with minor separation. What comes to Finns and Middle
Easteners at least the genetic gap is very signifcant. In fact we are completely diferent peoples.
2011-12-06, 21:47
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
-hey had a patrilineal group e'olutionary strategy that ob'iously fa'oured
their earliest clan leader and probably slaughtered the men of other tribes
and took their women%
Yes, I think they did that for a long time, and very thoroughly too.
Quote:
!et me guess< g-3NA $;
No, I think I1 came from the Near East during the Neolithic, possibly as IJ.
Mesolithic ancestry in modern Europeans, mostly in East Baltic Europeans, is mainly seen via
mtDNA lineages U4 and U5.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tako#a
Fust wanted to ask what you mean with minor separation% ,hat comes to
"inns and Hiddle Easteners at least the genetic gap is 'ery signi:cant% $n
fact we are completely di+erent peoples%
Finns are still very Middle Eastern, like all Europeans, but less so, because they have a higher
Mesolithic input, |ust like all East Baltic groups.
2011-12-06, 21:51
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by tako#a
Fust wanted to ask what you mean with minor separation% ,hat comes to
"inns and Hiddle Easteners at least the genetic gap is 'ery signi:cant%
Not really, it's a minor separation when compared with the separation between Europeans and
Mongoloids/Negroids. Had Finns (and Russians for that matter) lacked the Uralic admixture
which most Europeans lack, the genetic gap would've been smaller, which is the case with other
Europeans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tako#a
$n fact we are completely di+erent peoples%
Yeah whatever. Just so that you understand: the larger gap you have from northern Middle
Easterners, the less Euro*ean you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
ges, $ think they did that for a long time, and 'ery thoroughly too%
Most likely so, yes. This was also the norm in the Middle East. Jews always did it whenever they
could, and Assyrians did it all the time until Sennacherib or Shalmaneser or some other Neo-
Assyrian king (can't remember which). After that, Assyrians began assimilating or deporting
conquered rebellious males and tribes all over the empire rather than slaughtering them and
taking their women.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
No, $ think $; came from the Near East during the Neolithic, possibly as $F%
Balkan or Anatolia? By the way, what's your opinion on David Anthony's suggestion that they
probably spoke Afro-Asiatic (or a related language to PAA, p. 76 and 305)? Azvarohi is of the
opinion this is highly unlikely, I personally think it's quite probable. I'd like to hear your take on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
Hesolithic ancestry in modern Europeans, mostly in East >altic Europeans, is
mainly seen 'ia mt3NA lineageas 4B and 45%
I see. What about those mtDNA J lineages?
2011-12-06, 21:55
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
but seeing as how they were pretty much entirely R-H;G they were
also patrilineal%
This is the general rule of thumb what comes to nomadic societies. The Actual lineal
decendants of those bronze age horse mounded warriors, Turkics, are also very patrilineal.
Kyrgyz score ridiculous frequency for R1a1a* as do Khoton Mongols (world champions what
comes to frequency of R1a1a*). Yakut also show up the same phenomenom (nomadic
patrilinealism) with their nearly 80% of N1c1*.
2011-12-06, 21:58
tako|a
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
Not really, it's a minor separation when compared with the separation
between Europeans and HongoloidsKNegroids% &ad "inns Aand Russians for
that matterD lacked the 4ralic admi)ture which most Europeans lack, the
genetic gap would''e been smaller, which is the case with other Europeans%
geah whate'er% Fust so that you understand< the larger gap you ha'e from
northern Hiddle Easterners, the less European you are%
Yeah well thank god for mongoloid admixture then.
Btw. What do you mean with Uralic admixture? Those Eastern Uralics seem to cluster better with
these Indoeuropeans than Finns.
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
>alkan or Anatolia >y the way, what's your opinion on 3a'id Anthony's
suggestion that they probably spoke Afro-Asiatic Aor a related language to
PAA, p% G7 and 165D A*'arohi is of the opinion this is highly unlikely, $
personally think it's 9uite probable% $'d like to hear your take on it%
First Anatolia, and then the Balkans for a good while.
I don't have an opnion on what they spoke. Maybe Afro-Asiatic, or perhaps something similar to
one of the Caucasian languages?
Quote:
$ see% ,hat about those mt3NA F lineages
I don't think J was ever found in European Mesolithic remains. To date it's been only U4 and U5.
2011-12-06, 22:21
blue3000
A bit of topic maybe but interesting!
Quote:
"rom Iossina to >romley% Ethnogenesis in (la'ic Archaeology% "lorin .urta%
Pg L67% %% the local (la's of the prehistoric period, as seen from the
archaeological e'idence, were fair haired people with elongated skulls
Quote:
.arleton ( .oon% -he Races of Europe% .hapter E$, section G ]$ron Age
Peoples% ]-he e'idence of literary sources makes the (la's of nordic stature
and pigmentation, that of osteology makes them the same in the metrical
and morphological sense]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_race
I found this. Does this mean that the proto-indo-europeans were nordid?
2011-12-06, 22:28
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by /lue=>>>
$ found this% 3oes this mean that the proto-indo-europeans were nordid
No they were not. The Yamna and Pre-Yamna (Dnieper-Donets) burials associated with Proto-
IEs are tall, very robust mesocephalics. They had very wide and relatively high faces with high
brigdes noses. With Coon's "typology" terms they would be East Baltic and/or Corded Nordic.
They were not narrow framed "mediterranean Scandonordids".
2011-12-06, 22:29
tako|a
Quote:
Originally Posted by /lue=>>>
A bit o+ topic maybe but interestingm
http<KKen%wikipedia%orgKwikiKNordicNrace
$ found this% 3oes this mean that the proto-indo-europeans were nordid
Yeah they were. I read somewhere that also those Eastern Uralics were scrawny dolicocephalic
short dudes compared to Finns who were tall, robust and less dolicocephalic dudes
2011-12-06, 22:30
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
"irst Anatolia, and then the >alkans for a good while%
This is your route for R1a1a* ?
That would make them Cucuteni farmers, not original Steppe people ?
2011-12-06, 22:31
tako|a
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
No they were not% -he gamna and Pre-gamna A3nieper-3onetsD burials
associated with Proto-$Es are tall, 'ery robust mesocephalics% -hey had 'ery
wide and relati'ely high faces with high brigdes noses% ,ith .oon's
]typology] terms they would be East >altic andKor .orded Nordic% -hey were
not narrow framed ]mediterranean (candonordids]%
Perhaps I was wrong then.
Actually I think I was in the wrong time frame.
2011-12-06, 22:37
du|e
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
No they were not% -he gamna and Pre-gamna A3nieper-3onetsD burials
associated with Proto-$Es are tall, 'ery robust mesocephalics% -hey had 'ery
wide and relati'ely high faces with high brigdes noses% ,ith .oon's
]typology] terms they would be East >altic andKor .orded Nordic% -hey were
not narrow framed ]mediterranean (candonordids]%
hmm, east baltic doesn't ft description above, nor corded nordic which are more on leptomorphic
side.
Also trough the ages people cranial index changed, and it went towards brachy as documented
2011-12-06, 22:48
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by du#e
hmm, east baltic doesn't :t description abo'e, nor corded nordic which are
more on leptomorphic side%
Coon's East Baltic, not the quasi zombie subhuman East Baltidof Nazi's.
[imglink]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v616/cass22/coon/07EastBalticsplate.|pg[/imglink]
East Baltic types from Finland:
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...03&postcount=1
Corded Nordic ala Coon is extremely close to his East Baltic.
2011-12-06, 23:09
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
-his is your route for R;a;ah
-hat would make them .ucuteni farmers, not original (teppe people
That's the main route into Europe. And that's what the European steppe people were too.
2011-12-06, 23:12
Pioterus
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
East >altic types from "inland<
http<KKwww%forumbiodi'ersity%comKsho%%%61ipostcountU;
.orded Nordic ala .oon is e)tremely close to his East >altic%
Shit the "professor" guy in middle of the frst plate does look like my maternal uncles/ cousins. All
of them more or less. Who is he???
2011-12-06, 23:17
Polako
^ You mean the fat Prussian German?
2011-12-06, 23:19
Pioterus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
V gou mean the fat Prussian @erman
see linked, it is him, my uncle
My son is going to look like that as well, the forehead is already like my uncle's. He is going to be
fully East Baltid like my wife and whole lot of my/ her family |ust my direct paternal side has this
Alpinid traits. SHIT!!!
2011-12-06, 23:29
EastPole
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioterus
(hit the ]professor] guy in middle of the :rst plate does look like my
maternal unclesK cousins% All of them more or less% ,ho is he
Do you mean this one?
http://www.tannenberg1914.de/4_feldh/hiprsdt.|pg
http://www.tannenberg1914.de/4_feldh/hi10_praes.htm
2011-12-06, 23:30
Pioterus
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastPole
3o you mean this one
http<KKwww%tannenberg;0;B%deKBNfeldhKhiprsdt%#pg
http<KKwww%tannenberg;0;B%deKBNfeldhKhi;6Npraes%htm
No :)
The guy in the middle of this plate
EDIT: Gimme a break I know this one, my brain still works...
2011-12-06, 23:46
Unome
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$ don't think F was e'er found in European Hesolithic remains% -o date it's
been only 4B and 45%
What do you think about "Pale Blonde's" J-mtDNA haplogroup, and she seems very "Baltic"? I
thought that was very weird when she posted her J-mtDNA HG after her 23andme results
Does that have relevance to anything?
2011-12-06, 23:52
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by :nome
,hat do you think about ]Pale >londe's] F-mt3NA haplogroup, and she
seems 'ery ]>altic] $ thought that was 'ery weird when she posted her F-
mt3NA &@ after her L1andme resultsQ
3oes that ha'e rele'ance to anything
Her J mtDNA |ust means that one of her ancestors entered Europe during the Neolithic, as
opposed to Mesolithic or Paleolithic. But that makes no diference to phenotype. Most of her
ancestors are of Neolitic origin, |ust like ours, and none of us look Middle Eastern.
2011-12-07, 01:42
Bohemian Rhapsody
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
,hat $ can tell you howe'er is that g-3NA R;a;a pops up in 'arious early
$ndo-European populations like the (cythians and -ocharians% $t's also there
in $ndians, and the enormous geographic spread of R-H;G can only be
e)plained with the horse Acompare R-H;G with other g-3NA haplogroups, like
RL, F;c1, @;KL, FL, $;, $L and so on, and you'll get the point here that R-H;G
has a much higher presence all o'er western Eurasia% -his can only be
e)plained by crediting the domestication of the horse and perhaps also the
wheel Athough that's arguably more contro'ersial than the horse, in my
opinionD to some ancient R;a tribe% "rom $celand to southern $ndia, the R-
H;G clade is found, and it parallels the $ndo-European language family%
Yes, this R1a1a abundance in Slavs seems to be the main piece of evidence, but I'm still
skeptical, let me tell you why. How do we know that Slavs didn't |ust inherit R-M17 with little
actual proto-Indo-European autosomal input, in a similar fashion that south Asians did?
Lithuanians too with their 40% N1c1, yet they have close to no relation to the Mongoloid people
who spread that haplogroup. We can't |ump to conclusions based on y-dna alone, we're |ust
assuming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
(o with that said, who do you think are closest related to the proto-$ndo-
Europeans< Poles or the English
Well obviously Poles are, simply because a homeland in Poland would make the Indo-Iranian
migration eastward much easier instead of having to cross the English channel and covering an
extra 1,000 miles. But much like the R1a maps, I can conclude that the English are more proto-
Indo-European:
http://i41.tinypic.com/11ukwnp.|pg
We |ust don't know until we get full autosomal data from Afanasevo sites.
2011-12-07, 05:05
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
,e can't #ump to conclusions based on y-dna alone, we're #ust assuming%
I can certainly see you making a lot of assumptions at every step, and you even posted fake data
recently (a supposedly Andronovo reconstruction) to back them up. So I don't really consider you
a serious part of this discussion, and no one else should either. That ought to be very clear to
everyone here. But I think all the genuine interested parties, including the scientists working on
these problems, have certainly gone past pure assumptions a long time ago.
Quote:
As shown in -able 5, and particularly in "ig% 1, the current distri/ution of
the ancient mtD@A haplot)pes can /e /roadl) di&ided into three
diOerent .eo.raphic poles. The frst is represented rou.hl) /)
eastern and northern Europe, the second by the EolgaW4ral region and
the third by southern (iberia% $t is interesting to note that the distribution of
the paternal and maternal lineages is close% $ndeed, e)cept for the EolgaW
4ral region, both maps o'erlap% -his would mean that the story of women
matches well that of men% $n other words, the migrations in which south
(iberian specimens were in'ol'ed seemed to be dwhole-population
mo'ementsX rather than dwar-like mo'ementsX in'ol'ing the men only% -he
fact that East Asian mt3NA se9uences appeared at the $ron Age could signify
that once settled, migrants of supposed European ancestry began to
establish relationships with groups coming from the east and to take Asian
women as wi'es%
%%%
Hatching haplotypes were found for all the R;a;-specimens e)cept (1L%
"igure L shows that the current distribution pattern of the g-(-R haplotypes
found in our ancient sample resembles that of R;a;% !ndeed, the) $ere
o/ser&ed at hi.h frePuencies in Sla&ic and 'altic populations 8$ith
peaks amon. Poland and C4ech (epu/lic9 as $ell as in the
indi.enous populations of south Si/eria. >y contrast, they were only
sporadically obser'ed in central and east Asia and were absent in western
Europe%
Christine Keyser et al., Ancient DNA provides new insights into the history of south
Siberian Kurgan people, Human Genetics, Saturday, May 16, 2009, doi: 10.1007/s00439-009-
0683-0
Quote:
-he assignment method was performed from only the allelic fre9uencies of
the se'en (-R loci considered in the consensus genotype% The pro/a/ilit)
of o/ser&in. an indi&idual $ith the "i4il skeleton ST( profle $as
the hi.hest in the t$o eastern European populations 8(ussia and
Poland9. $ndeed, the likelihood that the Ii*il skeleton (-R pro:le occurred in
these two populations was ;6 times higher than in other European
populations, ;66 times higher than in eastern Asian populations, and about
;66,666 times higher than in $ndian populations%
%%%
,e conclude that our analysis of genetic data obtained from a skeleton
reco'ered in a (cytho-(iberian kurgan AL566 years oldD links this ancient
skeleton to se'eral European populations that li'e in the neighboring region
of .entral Asia and shows that the (cytho-(iberian population contained a
European component AEoe'oda et al% L666Y .lisson et al% L66LD%
Ricaut, Francois-X et al., Genetic Analysis of a Scytho-Siberian Skeleton and Its
Implications for Ancient Central Asian Migrations, Human Biology - Volume 76, Number 1,
February 2004, pp. 109-125, DOI: 10.1353/hub.2004.0025
---------- Post added 2011-12-07 at 05:16 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
,ell ob'iously Poles are, simply because a homeland in Poland would make
the $ndo-$ranian migration eastward much easier instead of ha'ing to cross
the English channel and co'ering an e)tra ;,666 miles% >ut much like the
R;a maps, $ can conclude that the English are more proto-$ndo-European%
An allele that has experienced a founder efect in the North Atlantic area.
What does that have to do with the Indo-Europeans?
2011-12-07, 06:00
Bohemian Rhapsody
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
and you e'en posted fake data recently Aa supposedly Androno'o
reconstructionD to back them up%
I had no idea that reconstruction wasn't Andronovo. I did a simple google search "Andronovo
reconstruction" and that came up. It's not my fault I can't read Cyrillic. I don't know why you're
making such a big deal of it anyway. I didn't contradict anything you wrote by posting it, |ust a
random observation that they had Jat occiputs and large nasal bones. Dinarid tendencies. Now,
allow me to redeem myself, a Scythian reconstruction with visible Dinarid looking traits.
http://i41.tinypic.com/348|bl4.|pg
Caption reads
4ig+ 56+ Pictorial reconstruction from the skull of a man from the 3ikolaevka-7a8atskoye tomb+
Aeon can you confrm this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
(o $ don't really consider you a serious part of this discussion, and no one
else should either%
So anyone who disagrees with you automatically isn't a serious part of the discussion?
Interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
An allele that has e)perience a founder eOect in the North Atlantic area%
That's exactly how I feel about R1a.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
,hat does that ha'e to do with the $ndo-Europeans
Proto-Indo-Europeans were milk chuggers.
2011-12-07, 06:32
Polako
I've actually seen many people, usually Brits or Americans, claim that this allele is "Indo-European".
Has anyone actually worked out why they're claiming this? What is behind the assumption that the early Indo-Europeans
carried this allele at high frequencies? What if they carried it at moderate frequencies?
I carry this allele, but I don't think it's specifcally Indo-European. Rather, I think it's |ust heavily drifted in Northern Europe.
Actually, many people who don't carry it are lactose tolerant anyway, so I don't see why we're even discussing it, especially
as none of the candidates for the early Indo-Europeans, like the Corded Ware, were tested for it.
2011-12-07, 07:02
newtoboard
People seem to want to connect that allele with R1b due to its presence among R1b carriers in Africa. The argument that it
correlates to R1b frequency is ridiculous since it is more common in Norway(which has a decent amount of R1a) than
strongly R1b Spain.
I personally think it originated with PIE R1a carriers as opposed to R1b carriers. that makes more sense.
2011-12-07, 07:12
Lemminkinen
Quote:
Originally Posted by /lue=>>>
A bit o+ topic maybe but interestingm
http<KKen%wikipedia%orgKwikiKNordicNrace
$ found this% 3oes this mean that the proto-indo-europeans were nordid
They probably were not Slavic speaking IE's who came later, but Northern hunter gatherers,
original Balts. Closest phenotypes can still be seen in Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Sweden.
Todays Slavs are mixed, often quite round-faced.
2011-12-07, 08:07
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by <emminkIinen
-hey probably were not (la'ic speaking $E's who came later, but Northern
hunter gatherers, original >alts% .losest phenotypes can still be seen in
!at'ia, Estonia, "inland and (weden% -odays (la's are mi)ed, often 9uite
round-faced%
Large faced individuals were common in the kurgans, both long and broad, and everything in
between. The former were called Corded Nordid by the old anthropologists, and the latter Cro-
Magnoid.
And what happens when a broad face is reduced (along with stature, for example)? It becomes
round. But reduction need not come from mixing.
2011-12-07, 10:57
Hweinlant
Central-East Europeans are propably mainly decended from the neolithic "Danubian" farmers and not from the Yamna
based Corded Nordics.
2011-12-07, 12:33
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
.entral-East Europeans are propably mainly decended from the neolithic
]3anubian] farmers and not from the gamna based .orded Nordics%
This is getting old.
Poland is the epicenter of East European and North Eurasian R1a1, and R1a1 owned the
Eurasian steppe. You do the rest of the math...
2011-12-07, 13:05
Tuohikir|e
Baltic area is interesting as well as Russia from Northeners pow (origin, history, language, cultures). Whether or not
Central-Eastern Europe would ever be considered as proto-IE place, which is unlikely, it is useful to get more information.
Also I wonder why it is an obsession to some, that R1a1 peaks in modern Poland. It is Poland, but it could be any country in
the vicinity, it is mostly about Balts/other indigenous populations, not newcomers anyway.
I am placing my Baltic cousins on map atm btw.
Quote:
-he end of the (econd ,orld ,ar and the subse9uent shifting of PolandJs
borders $est$ards resulted in the mass displacement and forced
resettlement of appro)imately ei.ht million people of Polish, 4krainian,
>elarusian and @erman origin%
http://s9.postimage.org/qs1kzrez|/Te...2009_small.gif
2011-12-07, 13:33
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuohikir#e
$ am placing my >altic cousins on map atm btw%
Balts have low R1a1a SNP diversity.
Poles have extremely high R1a1a SNP diversity, and cluster west of Balts on autosomal maps.
So your theories ain't worth much, because like most people, you're not grasping all the concepts,
and there quite a few in this puzzle.
2011-12-07, 14:12
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
-his is getting old%
Poland is the epicenter of East European and North Eurasian R;a;, and R;a;
owned the Eurasian steppe% gou do the rest of the math%%%
N|h, it's starting to look like that R1a1* played insignifcant role during the initial stage of PIE
people.
Recent discovery of new R1a1a* branches, such as Z93+ at Asia, frmly lands the R1a1a*
urheimat to Asia. Near 0 precense of Z93+ at Europe is proof that the parental , upstream form of
R1a1a* is to be located at Asia.
You have written that path of R1a1* to Europe is via Anatolia, then Balkans and fnally Central-
East Europe. Following this path makes R1a1* as non-tenable marker for early PIE people but
very strong candidate for LBK/Boi/Cucuteni-Trypillian farmers. This means that allmost all
European R1a1a* belongs to frst wave of Indo-Europeanized locals. R1a1a* likely didnt get into
steppes until the PIE's had invaded the Cucuteni's.
Recent discovery of mtdna C at Dnieper-Donets burials as well as neolithic Hungary are direct
proof for population movement from eastern source: South Siberia via the steppes to East
Europe. I dont think mtdna C-girlies travelled alone. It's clear indicator for full scale (both sex)
immigration towards west, via the steppes.
As, according to you and Wo|, we can not connect hg R1a1a* to this movement then there is
nothing left except to cancel the theory of R1a1a= PIE marker. It perhaps can be concidered as
second stage of expansion marker.
Yeah, if I would have to guess the Kurgan people were allmost 100% of I*. HG I* has spread
pattern covering Iran at southeast, China at fareast and huge precense at Europe. Most of the
R1a1* at South Asia is thus indigenous or derived from the Indo-Europeanized people of BMAC.
Hg I1*'s age estimate and pattern indicates the movement of Proto-Indo-Europeans from the
Yamna steppe zone to North Europe. HTH.
Edit: I'm of for few weeks so you guys can sharpen your argumentation ;)
2011-12-07, 14:23
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
Recent disco'ery of new R;a;ah branches, such as /012 at Asia, :rmly
lands the R;a;ah urheimat to Asia% Near 6 precense of /012 at Europe is
proof that the parental , upstream form of R;a;ah is to be located at Asia%
Actually, recent discoveries of new R1a1a branches have shown that modern Poland and eastern
Germany are very old haunts of R1a1a, and even massive shifts in political and linguistic borders
haven't changed that.
That's an amazing story in itself. Someone needs to write a paper on that.
But the other amazing story is that Asia has very low R1a1a diversity, with the vast ma|ority of
Asians coming back Z93+. That's weird, because Poles carry all sorts of R1a1a clades, except
Z93.
Ha! I bet you never thought any of this was gonna happen. I had a feeling it would, but even I'm
surprised how one sided the story is looking.
2011-12-07, 14:46
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
Recent disco'ery of new R;a;ah branches, such as /012 at Asia, :rmly
lands the R;a;ah urheimat to Asia%
Stop trolling. Only one line of R1a1 present in Asia perfectly coincides with only one IE branch -
Indo-Iranian - present in Asia. Low R1a1 diversity in Asia fts perfectly well with low linguistic
diversity of IE in Asia.
2011-12-07, 14:51
Hweinlant
It's only one-sided to you as keep forgetting the mtdna C, Dnieper-Donets, South Siberia and Poland. The spread is like
South Siberia -> Steppe -> Poland and all happends in about correct time frame.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:...l.pone.0015214
Origin and Post-Glacial Dispersal of Mitochondrial DNA Haplogroups C and D in Northern Asia
Quote:
-he relati'ely large amount of internal 'ariation accumulated in the Polish
branch of .5c would mean that .5c; arose in situ in Europe after the arri'al
of a .5c; founder mt3NA from southern (iberia, and that .5c; ajliation is a
marker of maternal (iberian ancestry%
Okay.. Then we have the Mtdna C at Dnieper-Donets:
http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/theses/5/
Quote:
$n this study, we analy*ed the 3NA se9uence of the :rst hyper'ariable
segment A&E($D of the mt3NA control region, as well as a portion of the
coding region, in ;B indi'iduals from three collecti'e burials from the
Neolithic 3nieper-3onet* culture and three indi'iduals from >ron*e Age
Iurgan burials, all located in modern-day 4kraine on the northern shores of
the >lack (ea Athe North Pontic Region, or NPRD% ,hile most of our samples
possessed mt3NA haplotypes that can be linked to European and Near
Eastern populations, three Neolithic and all three >ron*e Age indi'iduals
belonged to mt3NA haplogroup ., which is common in East Eurasian,
particularly (outh (iberian, populations but e)ceedingly rare in Europe%
And lets go back to frst paper, and it's age estimate for C5c1 (table S3 )
Age of C5c1 is.. tattadaa... 6550 years! Who on earth can we link to westward movement from
the steppe, to Central-East Europe in this timeframe :) ?
---------- Post added 2011-12-07 at 14:57 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
(top trolling% Only one line of R;a; present in Asia perfectly coincides with
only one $E branch - $ndo-$ranian - present in Asia% !ow R;a; di'ersity in Asia
:ts perfectly well with low linguistic di'ersity of $E in Asia%
Present the study with proper sampling of new branches, or remain silent! Only thing we know for
sure is that M458+ is not present at South Asia but then again, it's not parental but parallel to
Z93+.
2011-12-07, 16:06
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#$oda
ruote<
Originally Posted by Jaska
No, because genes cannot pro'e anything about language%
- -
E'en if those lineages arri'ed from Anatolia, it would not change
the P$E homeland located by linguistic methods% $t would only cause
that the :rst part of the e)pansion Afrom Anatolia to the Pontic
(teppesD was not connected to $ndo-European but some other
language family% Only later e)pansions Afrom the steppes onwardD
we could connect with the $E speakers%
$ belie'e you are contradicting yourself%
No, you have |ust misunderstood something. Tell me why do you think so, and I will explain where
you went wrong. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
-he fact that they're connected 'ia the >alkans, and not directly, supports
my arguments about the origins of the steppe groups 'ery well%
How so? The direction may well have been steppe --> Balkans --> Central Europe. This is a well-
known direction of many waves of inhabitants in Europe. But because the steppe is a natural
highway, earlier genes tend to be wiped out more easily than in the forest zone, for example.
Therefore you cannot put so much weight for diversity - furthermore, one new haplotype in some
area may change a diversity and make another area look like "homeland".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
Ancient remains suggest otherwise% And like $ say, these clines and gaps on
autosomal maps aren't modern phenomenon, because they take thousands
of years to form%
Gap may still be young, if intermediary populations were wiped out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$ think the spread of R;a was connected to the spread of $ndo-European
languages and culture, and 'arious technologies that facilitated that spread%
I also think that some lineages of R1a1 may well be connected to the spread of PIE; there seem
to be no serious challengers. But that lineage must have originated in a certain area at a certain
time - and the area and the time can only be found by linguistics. There are tens of R1a1
lineages, and probably only one or two were actually truly connected to the spread of PIE. We
cannot guess which of those lineages are truly connected to PIE, but we must base our "guess"
on the linguistic results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
,e 9uickly learn their present distribution, and in a few years time we will
learn their distribution in the a3NA% -hen the 9uestions about the directions
of $E migrations will be :nally answered%
Only if the linguistic results are taken as a basis. Otherwise we will only have a distribution of
diferent R1a1 lineages, having no knowledge about their linguistic aHnity.
2011-12-07, 16:33
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
Only if the linguistic results are taken as a basis% Otherwise we will only ha'e
a distribution of di+erent R;a; lineages, ha'ing no knowledge about their
linguistic ajnity%
Your insistance on linking archeological phenomena with linguistic ones combined with the
refusal to link genetical phenomana with linguistic ones is inconsistent to say it mildly.
Pots don't spreak, people do (and people carry genes).
2011-12-07, 21:18
Bohemian Rhapsody
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
Polako has a take on the north Hiddle Eastern ancestry of the proto-$ndo-
Europeans here<
http<KKwww%forumbiodi'ersity%comKsho%%%;ipostcountU;6
As far as $'m concerned, the reason why the proto-$ndo-Europeans were
bottlenecked is because they seem to ha'e been Auntil pro'en otherwise of
courseD a small group of patriarchal R; clan who made it out of the Hiddle
East into the northern .aucasus Aperhaps HaykopD and they had a higher
fre9uency of light hairKeyes, which is what you can e)pect if they're
bottlenecked, as that would increase the fre9uency of traits like that%
But the burials at Sungir (dated 30,000 BC) tell another story. They even had similar burial
practices to the Yamna culture, grave pits and burying the dead with ochre. The closeness
between MENAs and Europeans on a zoomed out genetic plot probably |ust shows that there
were contacts between Europe and the Near East. A trickle of Indo-Europeans coming to the
Near East, and Neolithic farmers coming to Europe brought them closer together.
2011-12-08, 02:13
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
gour insistance on linking archeological phenomena with linguistic ones
combined with the refusal to link genetical phenomana with linguistic ones is
inconsistent to say it mildly%
Pots don't spreak, people do Aand people carry genesD%
I knew that you misunderstood it.
1. I do connect the results of diferent disciplines (linguistics, archaelogy, genetics).
2. But I don't do it unscientifcally, |ust deciding ad hoc that some genetic lineage or some
archaeological culture is connected to some language.
3. Instead I do it scientifcally: when we are interested of language, we must take the linguistic
results as our basis. Then we can fnd out which lineage or culture happens to be in the right
place at the right time.
4. Results of other disciplines can never afect the linguistic results: whatever is the origin of some
lineage or culture, it has nonesoever efect on the linguistic results.
5. Linguistic homeland is where linguistic results show it to be. Genetic homeland is where
genetics show it to be. Linguistics cannot afect the genetic homeland, and genetics cannot afect
the linguistic homeland.
6. We either fnd or do not fnd a lineage or a culture which happens to be in the right place at the
right time. If we don't fnd any, we |ust have to admit that we don't know yet who were those
people speaking that protolanguage. If we fnd some lineage or culture, then fne.
P.S. You interestingly spoke "reconstructed should-be-English" there, as English "speak" is a
cognate of German "sprechen" and it SHOULD be "spreak" in Modern English. But somehow,
somewhere, they irregularly lost the r. :)
2011-12-08, 08:00
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
$ do it scienti:cally A%%%D
Dogmatism is not scientifc!
I will give you an example. As you told PIE homeland location considerations are afected by the
purported Kartvelian links of the PIE language. Fine. But recently genetic research has shown two
things:
1) the autosomal element linked to the spread of the Neolithic into Europe reaches its maximun
among Kartvelian speaking Georgians;
2) almost all paternal lineages found in the aDNA found in the European Neolithic sites belong to
the G haplogroup, which reaches its maximum among Kartvelian speaking Georgians.
View of a dogmatic narrow minded linguist will not be afected by these discoveries.
A person with his eyes open, will understand that these extra-linguistic discoveries suggest that
Kartvelian-like languages could have been spoken widely in Europe since the Neolithic, thus
undermining the strength of the linguistic argument mentioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
P%(% gou interestingly spoke ]reconstructed should-be-English] there, as
English ]speak] is a cognate of @erman ]sprechen] and it (&O4!3 be
]spreak] in Hodern English% >ut somehow, somewhere, they irregularly lost
the r% <D
:)
2011-12-08, 13:04
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
3ogmatism is not scienti:cm
$ will gi'e you an e)ample% As you told P$E homeland location considerations
are a+ected by the purported Iart'elian links of the P$E language% "ine% >ut
recently genetic research has shown two things<
;D the autosomal element linked to the spread of the Neolithic into Europe
reaches its ma)imun among Iart'elian speaking @eorgiansY
LD almost all paternal lineages found in the a3NA found in the European
Neolithic sites belong to the @ haplogroup, which reaches its ma)imum
among Iart'elian speaking @eorgians%
Eiew of a dogmatic narrow minded linguist will not be a+ected by these
disco'eries%
A person with his eyes open, will understand that these e)tra-linguistic
disco'eries suggest that Iart'elian-like languages could ha'e been spoken
widely in Europe since the Neolithic, thus undermining the strength of the
linguistic argument mentioned%
I don't know what do you mean by dogmatism - it seems that you call my staying within scientifc
methods dogmatism...
Genes cannot tell if Kartvelian-like languages were spoken widely in Europe. There may be same
genes than within Kartvelian speakers, but if the linguistic traces of European substrate
languages are non-Kartvelian-like, then the earlier languages were not Kartvelian-like. In that
case genes have spread without language (= the gene-carriers adopted the language of the
aboriginals, not vice versa).
But if the linguistic traces of European substrate languages are Kartvelian-like, then the earlier
languages were Kartvelian-like. In that case genes could have spread with that language.
It is also possible that those Kartvelian-like genes were originally connected to some other
language, and the Caucasus population only later adopted the Kartvelian language.
In every case, only linguistics can tell which was the earlier language. Genetics cannot
tell it.
So, you see now that this is no dogmatism: it is science. It would be very unscientifc to claim that
the genes could tell the earlier language.
2011-12-08, 20:06
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
!n e&er) case, onl) lin.uistics can tell $hich $as the earlier
lan.ua.e. 1enetics cannot tell it.
Linguists claiming that the Kartvelian links of the PIE suggest the placement of the PIE homeland
believe that Kartvelian-like languages have always been present only in the vicinity of the
Caucasus. This is |ust an assumption equally unverifable like my hypothesis that early Neolithic
hg G bearing people spoke languages similar to Kartvelian. I don't see the reason to perceive
your assumption any more "scientifc" than mine.
2011-12-08, 22:34
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
ges, this R;a;a abundance in (la's seems to be the main piece of e'idence,
but $'m still skeptical, let me tell you why% &ow do we know that (la's didn't
#ust inherit R-H;G with little actual proto-$ndo-European autosomal input, in a
similar fashion that south Asians did
It's an excellent question, and it deserves a proper answer. We know this, because it simply
wasn't the case. And Indians have inherited perhaps 25% (on average I'd say) of their ancestry
from the proto-Aryans. The diference between Slavs and Indians is that while Slavs are perhaps
equally mixed with non-IE populations, these non-IE populations in the case of Slavs were
aboriginal Europeans, whereas in the case of Indians, they were a diferent race (Andamanese-
like Australoids).
More importantly, blue eyes, light hair and skin are recessive traits. Slavs undoubtedly have non-
IE admixture, and that goes for all Slavs, including Poles. But this non-IE admixture in Slavs
certainly wasn't too diferent racially because they still have these traits mostly intact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
!ithuanians too with their B68 N;c;, yet they ha'e close to no relation to
the Hongoloid people who spread that haplogroup%
The high frequency of Y-DNA N1c in Lithuanians is obviously the result of a genetic bottleneck or
some other event that disproportionately favoured the selection of that particular haplogroup. We
have to keep in mind here that 500 years ago, Europe's population was much smaller than it is
today. Perhaps Lithuanians didn't even have as much as 10% N1c back then. The autosomal
DNA of the original Y-DNA N1c tribe that entered Europe with Uralic speakers got assimilated by
a much larger European genepool and basically only managed to survive with its Y-DNA in the
north European genepool with some vague traces of of the original N1c autosomal DNA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
,e can't #ump to conclusions based on y-dna alone, we're #ust assuming%
Of course not. And what makes you think we're |umping to conclusions based on Y-DNA alone?
You think me and Polako haven't thought through this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
,ell ob'iously Poles are, simply because a homeland in Poland would make
the $ndo-$ranian migration eastward much easier instead of ha'ing to cross
the English channel and co'ering an e)tra ;,666 miles%
Correct. But I wasn't asking which population is closest to David Anthony's PIE urheimat, but
rather, who do you think are closest to the proto-Indo-Europeans genetically, Poles or English?
Keep in mind here now, that in spite of their higher frequency of the lactose tolerance genotype,
the English have a much larger Mediterranean component than Poles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
>ut much like the R;a maps, $ can conclude that the English are more proto-
$ndo-European<
http<KKiB;%tinypic%comK;;ukwnp%#pg
Point taken, and it's a good point. But the lactase persistence gene-though undoubtedly a proto-
Indo-European marker-is not as useful as R-M17. Let me tell you why:
1) The proto-Indo-Europeans were patriarchal and patrilineal. That alone is self-explanatory why
R-M17 is more important in deciding what's what and who is or isn't descended from the male
hierarchy of the proto-Indo-Europeans.
2) In other words, R-M17 indicates that you have a straight and uninterrupted patrilineal descent
from the proto-Indo-Europeans. Homozygous lactose tolerant Europeans may have proto-Indo-
European ancestry, but having a diferent Y-DNA than R1a1a is proof that their most recent
ancestor was not proto-Indo-European.
3) If you come from a population/ethnicity with very high frequency of R-M17, that means most of
your forefathers were of patrilineal Indo-European descent.
4) If your autosomal DNA happens to be fully European, and your ethnic brethren are 50+ percent
R-M17, it means your ancestors consisted mostly of Indo-Europeans.
5) The lactase persistant gene is autosomal, not sex specifc like haplogroups. That means it is
passed on regardless of race and gender. And surely you don't believe Afro-Asiatic speaking
Chadic R-V88 Negrids are more proto-Indo-European than lactose intolerant Indo-European
speaking Armenians and Persians?
6) I'm not sure you understand the concept of patrilineality, but we Assyrians are still highly
patriarchal and patrilineal. I've been brought up (even by my paternal aunt!) with the idea that the
concept of ethnicity, religion and everything related to identity, is based on my father's lineage. So
since my father is Chaldean Catholic, that means I'm also Chaldean Catholic, regardless of the
ancestry or religion of my mother. This is the norm amongst Assyrians. Of course, from a neutral
biological POV (and Jewish, for that matter), matrilineal descent is |ust as important, perhaps
even more important, because we mammals are not asexual creatures.
In any case, the proto-Indo-Europeans' world-view, concept of ethnic identity (and their daughter
languages, religious ideology, etc.) were brought together and shaped by men. It was a male
society back then. And that's why R-M17 is more important than the lactose tolerance genotype.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
,e #ust don't know until we get full autosomal data from Afanase'o sites%
This is a good scientifc approach. I'm in agreement with you there. However, I think we already
do have a fairly good amount of knowledge of the proto-Indo-Europeans today, that can be
reconstructed with a fair degree of accuracy. The Kurgan burials aren't going to reveal anything
revolutionary as Germans and Scandinavians as the unmodifed descendants of the proto-Indo-
Europeans.
Personally, I fnd it amazing how much their culture was similar to Amerindian tribes. Boar tusk
ornaments and shit like that, it's what you expect from a primitive tribal people. Only much later
with the Hittites, Greeks and Persians after the descendants of the proto-Indo-Europeans came
into contact with the civilisations of the Fertile Crescent, did they become civilised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
>ut the burials at (ungir Adated 16,666 >.D tell another story% -hey e'en had
similar burial practices to the gamna culture, gra'e pits and burying the
dead with ochre% -he closeness between HENAs and Europeans on a *oomed
out genetic plot probably #ust shows that there were contacts between
Europe and the Near East% A trickle of $ndo-Europeans coming to the Near
East, and Neolithic farmers coming to Europe brought them closer together%
It is highly unlikely that the proto-Indo-Europeans had been genetically separated from northern
Middle East populations since 30,000 years ago. I would estimate the separation between
modern European and Semitic populations at 10,000 YBP, and that's a generous number.
And besides, exaggeration of separation between Europe and the Middle East usually comes
from Germanic nationalists (and some occasional Finnish nationalist) who hate the Middle East.
There certainly has been a genetic, cultural and linguistic separation between Europe and the
Middle East, but it's nothing like the species level diferences you guys make it out to be.
As for Sungir, modern Europeans (and the proto-Indo-Europeans) have limited (if any) descent
from those palaeolithic Europeans. And the Sungir Europeans were not even white (because the
mutations had not yet evolved back then). The Sungir folks were most likely displaced or largely
assimilated by the proto-Indo-Europeans. Unless of course aDNA from Sungir sites show up as
R-M17 with autosomal DNA very similar to Russians and Poles DNA, but that won't happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$''e actually seen many people, usually >rits or Americans, claim that this
allele is ]$ndo-European]%
&as anyone actually worked out why they're claiming this ,hat is behind
the assumption that the early $ndo-Europeans carried this allele at high
fre9uencies ,hat if they carried it at moderate fre9uencies
$ carry this allele, but $ don't think it's speci:cally $ndo-European% Rather, $
think it's #ust hea'ily drifted in Northern Europe%
Actually, many people who don't carry it are lactose tolerant anyway, so $
don't see why we're e'en discussing it, especially as none of the candidates
for the early $ndo-Europeans, like the .orded ,are, were tested for it%
Lactose tolerance is most probably an Indo-European trait, see my post here:
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...6&postcount=10
I can't imagine any other group who would be better qualifed as the original lactose tolerance
population than the proto-Indo-Europeans. Also, the lactose tolerance genotype mirrors pretty
much the Indo-European language family because it's also found in India.
2011-12-08, 23:24
newtoboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
$t's an e)cellent 9uestion, and it deser'es a proper answer% ,e know this,
because it simply wasn't the case% And $ndians ha'e inherited perhaps L58
Aon a'erage $'d sayD of their ancestry from the proto-Aryans% -he di+erence
between (la's and $ndians is that while (la's are perhaps e9ually mi)ed
with non-$E populations, these non-$E populations in the case of (la's were
aboriginal Europeans, whereas in the case of $ndians, they were a di+erent
race AAndamanese-like AustraloidsD%
There is also a rather sizable West Asian/West Asian like component in South Central Asia that is
the most important component.
---------- Post added 2011-12-08 at 23:29 ----------
Also out of curiosity do you think lactose tolerance originated with an R1a or an R1b population?
Some people use the evidence of R-V88 Africans as evidence for R1b and it spread to R1a tribes
through marriage without the spread of R1b due to patrilineal descent? Meaning R1a males had
children with women from R1b tribes.
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
!inguists claiming that the Iart'elian links of the P$E suggest the placement
of the P$E homeland belie'e that Iart'elian-like languages ha'e always been
present only in the 'icinity of the .aucasus% -his is #ust an assumption
e9ually un'eri:able like my hypothesis that early Neolithic hg @ bearing
people spoke languages similar to Iart'elian% $ don't see the reason to
percei'e your assumption any more ]scienti:c] than mine%
So far there are no convincing results that there have ever been Kartvelian-like languages spoken
widely in Europe. And the Kartvelian contacts are but one of many arguments used to locate the
Proto-Indo-European homeland. The location would not change considerably, even if there were
evidence for earlier wider distribution of Kartvelian-like languages.
2011-12-09, 02:24
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
!actose tolerance is most probably an $ndo-European trait, see my post here<
http<KKwww%forumbiodi'ersity%comKsho%%%7ipostcountU;6
It might have been carried by the proto-Indo-Euroepans, and probably was, because I carry it.
But I don't see why anyone would suggest they carried it at almost 100%? The Corded Ware and
steppe skeletons have not been tested for it, and so we don't know whether any of them had it,
and if they did, at what sort of frequency.
2011-12-09, 02:27
newtoboard
So it was associated with R1a tribes?
2011-12-09, 02:34
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
(o it was associated with R;a tribes
Not particularly IMO.
I think it comes from the Northern Levant, like most modern European alleles. I'm pretty sure it
was present in R1a tribes, but if so, it was also present in R1b tribes. It seems it reached fxation
on the North Atlantic coast due to drift and/or founder efect.
In other words, I don't see it as an Indo-European ancestral signal, except maybe in Central and
South Asia.
2011-12-09, 02:39
newtoboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
Not particularly $HO%
$ think it comes from the Northern !e'ant, like most modern European
alleles% $'m pretty sure it was present in R;a tribes, but if so, it was also
present in R;b tribes% $t seems it reached :)ation on the North Atlantic coast
due to drift andKor founder e+ect%
$n other words, $ don't see it as an $ndo-European ancestral signal, e)cept
maybe in .entral and (outh Asia%
Is there any evidence for the theory that it arose among R1b people frst? That along with an
origin near the Urals seems to be the theory I have read elsewhere.
It is not exactly where common in the Levant. I believe after N Europe its highest frequency is in
Afghanistan/Pakistan. It is more common there than among West Asians who are more West
Eurasian than average Pakistani/Pashtun.
2011-12-09, 02:45
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
$s there any e'idence for the theory that it arose among R;b people :rst
-hat along with an origin near the 4rals seems to be the theory $ ha'e read
elsewhere%
$t is not e)actly where common in the !e'ant% $ belie'e after N Europe its
highest fre9uency is in AfghanistanKPakistan% $t is more common there than
among ,est Asians who are more ,est Eurasian than a'erage
PakistaniKPashtun%
Neither are genes for blue eyes, light hair, R1a and R1b, and they probably all come from the
Northern Levant.
Small groups of people migrated from diferent locations in the Northern Levant to Europe during
the Neolithic.
During these migrations, they dirfted genetically and were under strong natural selection. I think
the lactose tolerance allele might have been fairly common in a few Middle Eastern tribes during
the Neolithic, and some of them moved into Europe, where these alleles shot up further in
frequency.
2011-12-09, 02:51
newtoboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
Neither are genes for blue eyes, light hair, R;a and R;b, and they probably
all come from the Northern !e'ant%
(mall groups of people migrated from di+erent locations in the Northern
!e'ant to Europe during the Neolithic%
3uring these migrations, they dirfted genetically and were under strong
natural selection% $ think the lactose tolerance allele might ha'e been fairly
common in a few Hiddle Eastern tribes during the Neolithic, and some of
them mo'ed into Europe, where these alleles shot up further in fre9uency%
I thought the origin of blue eyes was near the black sea, blonde hair near the baltic(or this where it
fully evolved), r1b in anatolia and r1a somewhere on the steepe (european and asian).
Is there anything trail showing the migration of these people?
It is |ust hard to imagine these things coming from the northern levant when they are so rare there.
Would would these tribes have been autosomally?
2011-12-09, 03:00
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
,ould would these tribes ha'e been autosomally
They don't really exist anymore, because those that moved to Europe mixed with the Mesolithic
survivors there (who might have been pretty dark actually), and those that stayed behind mixed
with new waves of migrants from the south.
But maybe the ANI-like and West Asian clusters that we see in ADMIXTURE are fairly good
proxies for these ancient proto-European Levant groups? That would explain a few things about
ADMIXTURE results.
I think a lot of things happened in that window of 10K to 5K years ago in Europe, that were initially
interpreted by scientists as processes that took much longer. I think that during this timeframe,
Europe was almost completely repopulated, and the new Europeans then very quickly began
looking like modern Europeans thanks to strong natural selection and drift.
2011-12-09, 03:05
newtoboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
-hey don't really e)ist anymore, because those that mo'ed to Europe mi)ed
with the Hesolithic sur'i'ors there Awho might ha'e been pretty dark
actuallyD, and those that stayed behind mi)ed with new wa'es of migrants
from the south%
>ut maybe the AN$-like and ,est Asiann clusters that we see in A3H$q-4RE
are fairly good pro)ies for these ancient proto-European !e'ant groups -hat
would e)plain a few things about A3H$q-4RE results%
$ think a lot of things happened in that window of ;6I to 5I years ago in
Europe, that were initially interpreted by scientists as processes that took
much longer% $ think that during this timeframe, Europe was almost
completely repopulated, and the new Europeans then 'ery 9uickly began
looking like modern Europeans thanks to strong natural selection and drift%
Those new waves from the south being represented by the SW Asian and Mediterranean
components.
So these tribes would have been some sort of West Asian+Atlantic-Baltic mix which is what ANI
seems to be.
I read somewhere that the closest thing to Atlantic-Baltic is West Asian while Mediterranean is
looking like it is more related to SW Asian.
I guess that would support your theory pretty well since the northern Levant is heavily West
Asian(probably almost as much as the Caucasus).
2011-12-09, 03:12
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
-hose new wa'es from the south being represented by the (, Asian and
Hediterranean components%
(o these tribes would ha'e been some sort of ,est Asian2Atlantic->altic mi)
which is what AN$ seems to be%
$ read somewhere that the closest thing to Atlantic->altic is ,est Asian while
Hediterranean is looking like it is more related to (, Asian%
$ guess that would support your theory pretty well since the northern !e'ant
is hea'ily ,est AsianAprobably almost as much as the .aucasusD%
Yeah, but ADMIXTURE is crap for inferring historical movements, so we'll have to be careful, and
wait for more precise results based on haplotype matching.
But I think that yes, West Asian-like people lived in the Northern Levant, and moved to Europe,
where that West Asian cluster largely morphed into Atlantic-Baltic (leaving only a bit of West
Asian in most North-Central Euros). And then the Levant saw a rise in the Southwest Asian
component more recently.
BTW, I think that Southern Europe has experienced some very recent gene Jow from the Levant,
post Neolithic. Hence the presence of the Southwest Asian component at decent levels in
Southeast Europe. It seems there's a study on that coming soon.
2011-12-09, 03:21
newtoboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
geah, but A3H$q-4RE is crap for inferring historical mo'ements, so we'll
ha'e to be careful, and wait for more precise results based on haplotype
matching%
>ut $ think that yes, ,est Asian-like people li'ed in the Northern !e'ant, and
mo'ed to Europe, where that ,est Asian cluster largely morphed into
Atlantic->altic Alea'ing only a bit of ,est Asian in most North-.entral EurosD%
And then the !e'ant saw a rise in the (outhwest Asian component more
recently%
>-,, $ think that (outhern Europe has e)perineced some 'ery recent gene
?ow from the !e'ant, post Neolithic% &ence the presence of the (outhwest
Asian component at decent le'els in (outheast Europe% $t seems there's a
study on that coming soon%
The levant has also seen an increase in the Mediterranean component too I guess.
This had to be recent right admixture right? The South-Central Asian Neolithic is said to have
come from further West but it seems to be only associated with West Asian . As the only West
Eurasian components which exist are West Asian and Atlantic Baltic while Mediterranean and
SW Asian are less than 1% in many individuals and could probably be explained by recent
admixture.
What would the phenotype of those West Asian like Northern levant tribes have been like in
general and facial feature wise(east med etc..)?
This is interesting stuf.
2011-12-09, 03:26
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
-he le'ant has also seen an increase in the Hediterranean component too $
guess%
-his had to be recent right admi)ture right -he (outh-.entral Asian
Neolithicis said to ha'e come from further ,est but it seems to be only
associated with ,est Asian % As the only ,est Eurasian components which
e)ist are ,est Asian and Atlantic >altic while Hediterranean and (, Asian
are less than ;8 in many indi'iduals and could probably be e)plained by
recent admi)ture%
That makes sense. But again, we have to keep in mind that when populations were very small,
there might have been a lot of substructures present in fairly tight areas of the Levant. So the rise
of Southwest Asian and Mediterranean components need not have been massive migrations
from far away, but simply increases in the populations of certain tribes within the area, or nearby.
---------- Post added 2011-12-09 at 03:28 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
,hat would the phenotype of those ,est Asian like Northern le'ant tribes
ha'e been like in general and facial feature wiseAeast med etc%%D
I don't have a clue.
2011-12-09, 03:34
newtoboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
-hat makes sense% >ut again, we ha'e to keep in mind that when
populations were 'ery small, there might ha'e been a lot of substructures
present in fairly tight areas of the !e'ant% (o the rise of (outhwest Asian and
Hediterranean components need not ha'e been massi'e migrations from far
away, but simply increases in the populations of certain tribes within the
area, or nearby%
---------- Post added L6;;-;L-60 at 61<LC ----------
$ don't ha'e a clue%
I personally think both of those components originated in the Southern/Western portions of the
Levant so that makes sense.
2011-12-09, 06:38
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
-he le'ant has also seen an increase in the Hediterranean component too $
guess%
-his had to be recent right admi)ture right -he (outh-.entral Asian
Neolithic is said to ha'e come from further ,est but it seems to be only
associated with ,est Asian %
aDNA from Europe has shown that early Neolithic was dominated by hg G people . Is it possible
that it was the same is South Asia?
2011-12-09, 06:53
Motrhead Remember Me
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
!actose tolerance is most probably an $ndo-European trait, see my post here<
http<KKwww%forumbiodi'ersity%comKsho%%%7ipostcountU;6
$ can't imagine any other group who would be better 9uali:ed as the original
lactose tolerance population than the proto-$ndo-Europeans% Also, the
lactose tolerance genotype mirrors pretty much the $ndo-European language
family because it's also found in $ndia%
Research have indicated that the original lactose intolerant population in whom the lactose
persistence developed were Ural farmers, Udmurts and Mokshas, who got this by random from
Asiatic nomads and then spread this gene to people who spoke proto-IE who then spread into
Europe:
Quote:
Practically all babies produce lactase, the en*yme that digests the milk
sugar lactose% >ut in many people, the lactase gene gradually gets turned
o+ after infancy, lea'ing them unable to tolerate milk% -wo years ago, a team
led by !eena Peltonen of the 4ni'ersity of &elsinki, "inland, and the
4ni'ersity of .alifornia, !os Angeles, tracked down gene mutations
associated with lactose tolerance, which likely play a role in regulating the
lactase gene% Now, Peltonen's team has tried to trace the origins of lactose
tolerance by looking at these 'ariants in ;7;; 3NA samples from 1G
populations on four continents%
-he results suggest that lactose tolerance :rst appeared in populations li'ing
between the 4ral mountains and the Eolga Ri'er, such as 4dmurts and
Hokshas% -he trait most likely de'eloped BC66 to 7766 years ago from an
earlier 'ariant di+ering at #ust two base pairs that these groups got from
intermi)ing with tribes migrating from the Asian (teppes, the team reported
here last week at the annual meeting of the American (ociety of &uman
@enetics% -he lactose tolerance mutation ]probably emerged by chance] and
then remained because it was bene:cial in the dairy-consuming 4ral
peoples, who later spread the gene to Europe and the Hiddle East, says
Peltonen%
-he :nding supports the somewhat contro'ersial theory that nomadic
herders known as Iurgans in the southern 4rals e)panded into Europe B566
to 1566 years ago, bringing $ndo-European languages with them, Peltonen's
group concludes% ]$ :nd it 'ery interesting,] says emeritus population
geneticist !uigi !uca .a'alli-(for*a of (tanford 4ni'ersity% A competing idea
for e)plaining the mystery of the origin of the Proto-$ndo-Europeans is that
they were crop-growing farmers from the Anatolia region in modern -urkey
A(cience, LG "ebruary, p% ;1L1D% >ut .a'alli-(for*a says if the milk gene
study holds up, it reinforces his own 'iew that both theories are correct<
$ndo-Europeans migrated to Europe in two wa'es, :rst from -urkey and later
from the 4rals%
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceno.../11/05-02.html
---------- Post added 2011-12-09 at 07:15 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
geah, if $ would ha'e to guess the Iurgan people were allmost ;668 of $h%
&@ $h has spread pattern co'ering $ran at southeast, .hina at fareast and
huge precense at Europe% Host of the R;a;h at (outh Asia is thus indigenous
or deri'ed from the $ndo-Europeani*ed people of >HA.%
&g $;h's age estimate and pattern indicates the mo'ement of Proto-$ndo-
Europeans from the gamna steppe *one to North Europe% &-&%
In connection with the lactose peristence, the report I linked to connected the lactose persistence
to the Kurgan people. This seem extremely plausible, since nations with high I1 (Scandinavia,
Finland) are also among the most lactose persistent people on the planet.
2011-12-09, 07:22
newtoboard
What does frequency have to do with anything? Like Polako said it could easily be an efect of bottleneck and founder
efect. There is no evidence that it is connected to haplogorup I. And there is a lot of R1a and R1b in Scandavia and
Finland.
The Kurgan people were likely R1a.
And if by Asiatic people you mean mongoloids then that is ridiculous. The allele being discussed in this thread doesn't exist
in East Eurasian populations.
That population near the Urals probbaly carried some sort of R.
2011-12-09, 07:35
Motrhead Remember Me
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
,hat does fre9uency ha'e to do with anything !ike Polako said it could
easily be an e+ect of bottleneck and founder e+ect% -here is no e'idence
that it is connected to haplogorup $% And there is a lot of R;a and R;b in
(canda'ia and "inland%
-he Iurgan people were likely R;a%
And if by Asiatic people you mean mongoloids then that is ridiculous% -he
allele being discussed in this thread doesn't e)ist in East Eurasian
populations%
-hat population near the 4rals probbaly carried some sort of R%
Hello Race Scientist,
Asiatic nomads were all sorts of people crisscrossing the Eurasian plain. Mongoloids proper did
not emerge west of Xin|iang until some 4000 years ago, so we are obviously not talking about
mongoloids here. Like pointed out, lactose persistence is not genderspecifc but can be passed
on by both sexes. However, it must have developed within one population with a predispsition for
it and that may have originally been linked with a certain haplotype of that group.
If we also accept the hypothesis that pre IE speakers carried a lot of Haplogroup I1 then we have
further nice evidences for the harmonious later development of proto IE languages in the vicinity
of Uralic languages. Finno Ugrian peoples are also fairly high on I1 which have come from Kurgan
peoples who adopted a Proto IE language.
2011-12-09, 07:37
newtoboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;otQrhead (emem/er ;e
&ello Race (cientist,
Asiatic nomads were all sorts of people crisscrossing the Eurasian plain%
Hongoloids proper did not emerge west of qin#iang until some B666 years
ago, so we are ob'iously not talking about mongoloids here% !ike pointed
out, lactose persistence is not genderspeci:c but can be passed on by both
se)es% &owe'er, it must ha'e de'eloped within one population with a
predispsition for it and that may ha'e originally been linked with a certain
haplotype of that group%
!f $e also accept the h)pothesis that proto !E speakers carried a lot
of Haplo.roup !3 then we ha'e further nice e'idences for the harmonious
de'elopment of proto $E languages in the 'icinity of 4ralic languages% "inno
4grian peoples are also fairly high on $; which ha'e come from Iurgan
peoples%
That is not a hypothesis accepted by anyone reputable. Keep dreaming.
2011-12-09, 07:41
Motrhead Remember Me
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
-hat is not a hypothesis accepted by anyone reputable% Ieep dreaming%
Sorry, I mean pre not proto.
North Germanic and Baltic speakers have some intresting pre IE substrata and they are not that
high on R1a.
Is this plausible, Jaska?
2011-12-09, 07:47
Lemminkinen
The lactase persistence and blue eyes are very common in regions of HG I, and now you forget that both of those traits are
autosomal. This discussion have gone astray by keen R1* and N* men. Those traits are likely more bound and
forwarded by the local female ancestry from the frst people who practiced animal husbandry in NW-Europe, more than
by eastern intruders. Men have changed but local genes there have stayed by women.
2011-12-09, 09:58
newtoboard
Neither of those traits are supposed to have developed in NW Europe. They might reach their highest frequencies there but
that doesn't mean they originated there. Polako believes they come from the Northern Levant. Otherwise the conventional
hypothesis is near the Urals and north of the black sea respectively. I am not sure what I believe both both of those are
plausible than your theory.
2011-12-09, 10:29
Lemminkinen
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
Neither of those traits are supposed to ha'e de'eloped in N, Europe% -hey
might reach their highest fre9uencies there but that doesn't mean they
originated there% Polako belie'es they come from the Northern !e'ant%
Otherwise the con'entional hypothesis is near the 4rals and north of the
black sea respecti'ely% $ am not sure what $ belie'e both both of those are
plausible than your theory%
No matter where it is from if we dont know the time when it came to NW-Europe. If we follow
Polako's ideas, the lactase persistence should be strongest in Poland, but it is not, so we cannot
connect it to IE-languages, but we can connect it to the original European people, regardless of
where they came from. If we follow some enthusiasts, everything in Europe was invented by same
people, from lactase persistence and wheels to plague abd pox.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-21...e/F1?highres=y
Same using a single allele frequence C>T (NW-European type allele, it is very rare in Poland)
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-21...e/F3?highres=y
And same again using NE type alleles
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-21...e/F4?highres=y
And same using African type alleles
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content...48-10-36-5.|pg
2011-12-09, 11:07
Motrhead Remember Me
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
Neither of those traits are supposed to ha'e de'eloped in N, Europe% -hey
might reach their highest fre9uencies there but that doesn't mean they
originated there% Polako belie'es they come from the Northern !e'ant%
Otherwise the con'entional hypothesis is near the 4rals and north of the
black sea respecti'ely% $ am not sure what $ belie'e both both of those are
plausible than your theory%
Ural is our best bet.
---------- Post added 2011-12-09 at 11:12 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by <emminkIinen
-he lactase persistence and blue eyes are 'ery common in regions of &@ $,
and now you forget that both of those traits are autosomal%
Yes, I know it's autosomal. I only speculated that lactase persistence developed and was
enriched in a homogenous group.
2011-12-09, 11:24
Lemminkinen
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;otQrhead (emem/er ;e
ges, $ know it's autosomal% $ only speculated that lactase persistence
de'eloped and was enriched in a homogenous group%
It happened in a homogenous group in small populations, all maps in my previous message
proves it for all LP-groups. I dont see proofs for Uralic origin, it looks more like Basque.
2011-12-09, 12:11
Motrhead Remember Me
Quote:
Originally Posted by <emminkIinen
$t happened in a homogenous group in small populations, all maps in my
pre'ious message pro'es it for all !P-groups% $ dont see proofs for 4ralic
origin, it looks more like >as9ue%
I don't claim the origin was Uralic. The report I linked to found that farmers around Ural were the
original LP people in Europe.
2011-12-09, 15:42
newtoboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by <emminkIinen
No matter where it is from if we dont know the time when it came to N,-
Europe% $f we follow Polako's ideas, the lactase persistence should be
strongest in Poland, but it is not, so we cannot connect it to $E-languages,
but we can connect it to the original European people, regardless of where
they came from% $f we follow some enthusiasts, e'erything in Europe was
in'ented by same people, from lactase persistence and wheels to plague
abd po)%
http<KKwww%biomedcentral%comK;BG;-L;%%%eK";highresUy
(ame using a single allele fre9uence .[- AN,-European type allele, it is
'ery rare in PolandD
http<KKwww%biomedcentral%comK;BG;-L;%%%eK"1highresUy
And same again using NE type alleles
http<KKwww%biomedcentral%comK;BG;-L;%%%eK"BhighresUy
And same using African type alleles
http<KKwww%biomedcentral%comKcontent%%%BC-;6-17-5%#pg
What do IE languages have to do with anything? There is no evidence that PIE tribes carried it at
high frequencies. languages don't explain why it probably underwent selection in certain
populations.
I don't know what you mean by "original European" people.
I would indeed connect it to R1a.
---------- Post added 2011-12-09 at 15:43 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by <emminkIinen
$t happened in a homogenous group in small populations, all maps in my
pre'ious message pro'es it for all !P-groups% $ dont see proofs for 4ralic
origin, it looks more like >as9ue%
This is even more ridiculous. The Basque are a heavily indigenous population and that wouldn't
explain how this allele ended up in Afghanistan/Ta|ikistan. I think this could be ruled out easily.
2011-12-09, 16:43
Lemminkinen
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
,hat do $E languages ha'e to do with anything -here is no e'idence that
P$E tribes carried it at high fre9uencies% languages don't e)plain why it
probably underwent selection in certain populations%
Today the European lactase persistence is highest among Germanic speaking populations, Finns
and Basques. The dating of LP is very interesting, because only it could give us answers who
were frst people carrying these genes. Were they Germanic-IE speaking or older populations.
Quote:
$ don't know what you mean by ]original European] people%
Original Europeans were people who spoke oldest European language; were frst Europeans. The
dating of LP-genes is essential question.
Quote:
$ would indeed connect it to R;a%
Why? The LP is not specially common among them.
Quote:
-his is e'en more ridiculous% -he >as9ue are a hea'ily indigenous population
and that wouldn't e)plain how this allele ended up in AfghanistanK-a#ikistan% $
think this could be ruled out easily%
We have diferent genes afecting to LP, look the map here showing the distribution of European
type.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-21...e/F3?highres=y
Without understanding this you should also connet African and Arabian types of LP to R1a. The
European LP can be explaned only by West European common genes. R1a simply cannot have
carried LP to Europe, look at distribution maps.
There is a connection between Europe and India; it could mean that Western European LP is
forwarded by some East Europeans to India, but not to Afghanistan/Ta|ikistan. I hope that
someone being familiar with Indian populations could analyse it; is it due to the later European
migration to India, or could it be connected to some ancient IE-migration.
2011-12-09, 17:01
Tuohikir|e
Quote:
Neither of those traits are supposed to ha'e de'eloped in N, Europe% -hey
might reach their highest fre9uencies there but that doesn't mean they
originated there% Polako belie'es they come from the Northern !e'ant%
Fairness of skin/eyes originating in Levant would require massive migration and exceptionally
strong sexual selection in a short period of time for such traits. There is no strong sexual selection
among fairest populations towards fair people now, how there could have been in the past. Are
dark people only selecting fair people to mate with? Not believable at all.
There was a Southern guy by the Black Sea (I met 2 blue eyed people during my +2 yr stay), who
thought I am impressed of his eyes and he emphasized it all the time. I was like, oh well, great.
2011-12-09, 17:59
tako|a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuohikir#e
-here is no strong se)ual selection among fairest populations towards fair
people now, how there could ha'e been in the past% Are dark people only
selecting fair people to mate with Not belie'able at all%
Yes there has actually been several polls about this topic on this forum and the result seems
clear: brunettes are way hotter!
2011-12-09, 18:02
Tuohikir|e
Quote:
Originally Posted by tako#a
ges there has actually been se'eral polls about this topic on this forum and
the result seems clear< brunettes are way hotterm
See, question statistically solved and verifed. :lol:
2011-12-09, 18:23
newtoboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by <emminkIinen
-oday the European lactase persistence is highest among @ermanic
speaking populations, "inns and >as9ues% -he dating of !P is 'ery
interesting, because only it could gi'e us answers who were :rst people
carrying these genes% ,ere they @ermanic-$E speaking or older populations%
Original Europeans were people who spoke oldest European languageY were
:rst Europeans% -he dating of !P-genes is essential 9uestion%
,hy -he !P is not specially common among them%
,e ha'e di+erent genes a+ecting to !P, look the map here showing the
distribution of European type%
http<KKwww%biomedcentral%comK;BG;-L;%%%eK"1highresUy
,ithout understanding this you should also connet African and Arabian types
of !P to R;a% -he European !P can be e)planed only by ,est European
common genes% R;a simply cannot ha'e carried !P to Europe, look at
distribution maps%
-here is a connection between Europe and $ndiaY it could mean that ,estern
European !P is forwarded by some East Europeans to $ndia, but not to
AfghanistanK-a#ikistan% $ hope that someone being familiar with $ndian
populations could analyse itY is it due to the later European migration to
$ndia, or could it be connected to some ancient $E-migration%
Like i said who cares where it is the most common? Frequency doesn't equal origin. And the
basques are such an endogamous population which would explain its high frequency among
them.
I would connect it with R1a because that is the only ydna in South Central Asia shared with the
area near the urals.
R1a is not connected to African/Arabian LP because for the most part those populations have
their own genes and it is not 13910T. The Africans with 13910T have R y-dna anyways.
What are you talking about? The gene found in Afghanistan/Ta|ikistan is the same one found in
india. It was probably brought there by the same people.
There is no evidence that lactose tolerance is Western European in origin. The Basque being an
inbred population and Northwestern Europe probably being less populated than the rest of
Europe doesn't prove anything. Nice try though.
---------- Post added 2011-12-09 at 18:28 ----------
The Urals aren't in Western Europe either.
Lactose tolerance doesn't come from NW Europe. The days of frequency=origin are over and I
am sorry if that disappointing you. But lactose tolerance isn't from Western Europe |ust like R1b
isn't either.
2011-12-09, 19:03
Lemminkinen
It is not question about who Basques are today; today in is linguistically isolated. R1a is the youngest European yDna group.
It can be seen in their placement and local homogeneity.
The animal husbandry was practiced in NW-Europe already BEFORE farming.
West European LP-genes dont exist in Afghanistan or Ta|ikistan, though there could be something common with East
Europeans. West EUropean LP-genes seem to exist in Pakistan and NW-India.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-21...e/F3?highres=y
edit
Quote:
!actose tolerance doesn't come from N, Europe% -he days of
fre9uencyUorigin are o'er and $ am sorry if that disappointing you% >ut
lactose tolerance isn't from ,estern Europe #ust like R;b isn't either%
No one is from West Europe.
2011-12-10, 06:54
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by <emminkIinen
$t is not 9uestion about who >as9ues are todayY today in is linguistically
isolated% R;a is the youngest European y3na group% $t can be seen in their
placement and local homogeneity%
This is bullshit.
Ancient DNA shows R1a in Eastern Germany 4700 years ago. Also, Poland + Eastern Germany
are the global epicenter for R1a1a SNP diversity.
R1b hasn't even been found in any European Neolithic remains yet.
2011-12-10, 07:53
Lemminkinen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
-his is bullshit%
Ancient 3NA shows R;a in Eastern @ermany BG66 years ago% Also, Poland 2
Eastern @ermany are the global epicenter for R;a;a (NP di'ersity%
R;b hasn't e'en been found in any European Neolithic remains yet%
Founds of ancient Dna are casual. The coalescent ages are more reliable regarding large
populations.
Coalescent ages for R1a
W. India 15,800
Pakistan 15,000
Nepal 14,200
India 14,000
Oman 12,500
N. India 12,400
S. India 12,400
Caucasus 12,200
E. India 11,800
Poland 11,300
Slovakia 11,200
Crete 11,200
Germany 9,900
Denmark 9,700
UAE 9,700
For R1b in Europe these calculations seem to give large variation from the Ice Age (18500 years)
to the Neolithic period.
For I2 the coalescent is about 22000 years in Europe.
2011-12-10, 08:00
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by <emminkIinen
"or $L the coalescent is about LL666 years in Europe%
Coalescent times based on STRs are now oHcially pseudo-science. :lol:
2011-12-10, 08:15
Lemminkinen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
.oalescent times based on (-Rs are now ojcially pseudo-science% <lol<
Even if it is true, it doesnt change the randomness of old burial fnds. Everyone understand that
older fnds are even more casual and also that Europe was colonized much before the year 4700
BP.
2011-12-10, 08:27
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by <emminkIinen
E'en if it is true, it doesnt change the randomness of old burial :nds%
E'eryone understand that older :nds are e'en more casual and also that
Europe was coloni*ed much before the year BG66 >P%
It's true. STRs are shit. I'm not debating this with you, I'm telling you.
And in the case of R1a1a, ancient DNA fts perfectly with recent SNP discoveries. East Germany
+ Poland are the global epicenter for R1a1a SNP diversity. R1a was found in both Corded Ware
and Urnfeld burials in Germany.
So it has an old presence in Central Europe, dating back at least to the late Neolithic. In fact,
|udging from the SNPs, I would say that modern Poland was a ma|or expansion point for R1a1a,
and not a destination.
2011-12-10, 08:35
Lemminkinen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$t's true% (-Rs are shit% $'m not debating this with you, $'m telling you%
And in the case of R;a;a, ancient 3NA :ts perfectly with recent (NP
disco'eries% East @ermany 2 Poland are the global epicenter for R;a;a (NP
di'ersity% R;a was found in both .orded ,are and 4rn:eld burials in
@ermany%
(o it has an old presence in .entral Europe, dating back at least to the late
Neolithic% $n fact, #udging from the (NPs, $ would say that modern Poland was
a ma#or e)pansion point for R;a;a, and not a destination%
It could be it in Poland, but even Finland was colonized about 10000 years ago. We have a
thousands years time gap without burial fnds and they who lived before the earliest burial fnd
had also yDna. So it is pure speculation to speak about fnds being only 5000 years old in the
same context of ancient Europeans.
2011-12-10, 08:42
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by <emminkIinen
$t could be it in Poland, but e'en "inland was coloni*ed about ;6666 years
ago% ,e ha'e a thousands years time gap without :nds and they who li'ed
before the earliest burial :nd had also y3na% (o it is pure speculation to
speak about :nds being only 5666 years old in the same conte)t of ancient
Europeans%
It's not pure speculation to suggest that R1a1a has an ancient presence in Central Europe when it
pops up in two out of two ancient DNA studies from the region, and has a greater SNP variance
there than anywhere in Asia.
On the other hand, it is pure speculation to suggest that R1a1a is Europe's youngest Y-DNA,
when neither R1b nor I1 have been found in any ancient burials, and R1b shows a lot more SNP
variance in Anatolia than in Europe.
Do you now see the diference between pure speculation (you) and educated estimates (me)?
2011-12-10, 08:55
Lemminkinen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$t's not pure speculation to suggest that R;a;a has an ancient presence in
.entral Europe when it pops up in two out of two ancient 3NA studies from
the region, and has a greater (NP 'ariance there than anywhere in Asia%
On the other hand, it is pure speculation to suggest that R;a;a is Europe's
youngest g-3NA, when neither R;b nor $; ha'e been found in any ancient
burials, and R;b shows a lot more (NP 'ariance in Anatolia than in Europe%
3o you now see the di+erence between pure speculation AyouD and educated
estimates AmeD
You can claim this only by forgetting the time between 4700 BP and 20000 BP, the time when
many diferent cultures already existed in Europe. Historically 4700 years is quite short time in
Europe, I am sure that also you know it.
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by <emminkIinen
gou can claim this only by forgetting the time between BG66 >P and L6666
>P, the time when many di+erent cultures already e)isted in Europe%
&istorically BG66 years is 9uite short time in Europe, $ am sure that also you
know it%
Then show me reliable data from 4700 years ago or more, and then I'll consider your position as
something more than pure speculation.
Till then, we have to assume that there's no good evidence that R1a1a is the youngest Y-
haplogroup in Europe, and in fact, based on its SNP complexity in Central Europe, might be one
of the oldest.
2011-12-10, 09:22
Lemminkinen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
-hen show me reliable data from BG66 years ago or more, and then $'ll
consider your position as something more than pure speculation%
-ill then, we ha'e to assume that there's no good e'idence that R;a;a is the
youngest g-haplogroup in Europe, and in fact, based on its (NP comple)ity in
.entral Europe, might be one of the oldest%
Thoughts based on rare burial fnds are even more uncertain than coalescent times. I criticized
Nordtvedt's STR-datings already years ago seeing the contradiction between known history and
his datings. There was simply BS compared to the history. Now I see clear contradictions here
what you try to tell us. This is what I am saying.
2011-12-10, 09:29
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by <emminkIinen
-houghts based on rare burial :nds are e'en more uncertain than coalescent
times% $ critici*ed Nordt'edt's (-R-datings already years ago seeing the
contradiction between known history and his datings% -here was simply >(
compared to the history% Now $ see clear contradictions here what you try to
tell us% -his is what $ am saying%
There's something special about R1a1a in the Southern Baltic region. It shows a lot of diversity in
terms of structure. Too much, in fact, relative to the R1a1a in Asia, to make it a latecomer in
Europe.
2011-12-10, 17:00
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
-here is also a rather si*able ,est AsianK,est Asian like component in (outh
.entral Asia that is the most important component%
---------- Post added L6;;-;L-6C at L1<L0 ----------
Also out of curiosity do you think lactose tolerance originated with an R;a or
an R;b population (ome people use the e'idence of R-ECC Africans as
e'idence for R;b and it spread to R;a tribes through marriage without the
spread of R;b due to patrilineal descent Heaning R;a males had children
with women from R;b tribes%
It's diHcult to say really. Looking at it again:
http://i41.tinypic.com/11ukwnp.|pg
We have the lactose tolerance genotype somewhere between the Levant and Mesopotamia
(which is, interestingly enough, exactly where Polako traces the origins of R1a and R1b). It could
be where the original lactose tolerance mutation originated and was later maximised in frequency
through migration to Europe. Who knows. And for that part, the original human with the lactose
tolerance genotype might as well have been J, F, G or any other Middle East Y-DNA who passed
it on to R1 males somehow.
In any case, if I had to bet my money on it, I'd bet it on R1a, because I can't think of a better
eligible lineage than R1a since the proto-Indo-Europeans had a cow worshipping
religion/mythology. So that begs the question then if R-V88 was brought to Negroids with the
Afro-Asiatic language or without it, because if R-V88 carried the lactose tolerance genotype at the
time it's questionable if they had acquired it after coming into contact with Indo-European
speakers who carried this genotype, and once they arrived in Chad they were later assimilated
amongst Afro-Asiatic speakers or they brought Afro-Asiatic and R-V88 to sub-Saharan Africa
after having been in contact with Indo-Europeans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$t might ha'e been carried by the proto-$ndo-Euroepans, and probably was,
because $ carry it%
>ut $ don't see why anyone would suggest they carried it at almost ;668
-he .orded ,are and steppe skeletons ha'e not been tested for it, and so
we don't know whether any of them had it, and if they did, at what sort of
fre9uency%
No, I don't think they carried it at 100% but surely the proto-Indo-Europeans are one of the best
candidates of the original tribe amongst whom it originated? Why else would you have a religious
ideology with the cow and its milk as sacred if you're intolerant of cow milk?
All Swedes I've known have been fanatic milk drinkers btw. Me, I always used to drink water
instead of milk in school, simply because I didn't like the taste of milk together with the food.
Maybe I would've liked the taste of milk had I not been genetically lactose intolerant, but I have no
problem drinking milk or eating cheese other than that (cheese I like).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
Not particularly $HO%
$ think it comes from the Northern !e'ant, like most modern European
alleles% $'m pretty sure it was present in R;a tribes, but if so, it was also
present in R;b tribes% $t seems it reached :)ation on the North Atlantic coast
due to drift andKor founder e+ect%
$n other words, $ don't see it as an $ndo-European ancestral signal, e)cept
maybe in .entral and (outh Asia%
It probably wasn't an exclusive Indo-European signal, but surely it's one of the defning markers
(among many others) of the proto-Indo-Europeans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
Neither are genes for blue eyes, light hair, R;a and R;b, and they probably
all come from the Northern !e'ant%
(mall groups of people migrated from di+erent locations in the Northern
!e'ant to Europe during the Neolithic%
3uring these migrations, they dirfted genetically and were under strong
natural selection% $ think the lactose tolerance allele might ha'e been fairly
common in a few Hiddle Eastern tribes during the Neolithic, and some of
them mo'ed into Europe, where these alleles shot up further in fre9uency%
There are still people from the northern Levant with such traits, and carrying R1a and R1b.
Investigation of R1a/R1b and the light hair/eyes allelic variation in this region should be done
more thoroughly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
$ thought the origin of blue eyes was near the black sea, blonde hair near the
balticAor this where it fully e'ol'edD, r;b in anatolia and r;a somewhere on
the steepe Aeuropean and asianD%
Blue eyes originating in the north of the Black Sea is merely speculation, or an "educated guess"
by Cavalli-Sforza. I think he placed it there |ust to match the contemporary theories of Indo-
European studies by Mallory, and he sure as hell didn't use any aDNA that I'm aware of. I have
yet to see any modern study using more powerful genomics tools than the stuf Cavalli-Sforza
used to position blue eyes north of the Black Sea. Moreover, has his study been empirically
verifed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
$t is #ust hard to imagine these things coming from the northern le'ant when
they are so rare there%
Well that's how biology works. It's the highest variation rather than highest frequency that matters.
Frequency may go hand in hand with variation, which is the case with Indo-European languages
(highest variation and frequency in Europe as opposed to India), but it's the variation and
ancestral clades that matter the most. Assyrians for example have a low frequency of J-P58
whereas Jews and Arabs have a much higher frequency, but we have a much higher genetic
variation and older ancestral clades of J-P58, so it originated with Assyrians rather than Arabs
and Jews :sly:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
-hey don't really e)ist anymore, because those that mo'ed to Europe mi)ed
with the Hesolithic sur'i'ors there Awho might ha'e been pretty dark
actuallyD, and those that stayed behind mi)ed with new wa'es of migrants
from the south%
>ut maybe the AN$-like and ,est Asian clusters that we see in A3H$q-4RE
are fairly good pro)ies for these ancient proto-European !e'ant groups -hat
would e)plain a few things about A3H$q-4RE results%
$ think a lot of things happened in that window of ;6I to 5I years ago in
Europe, that were initially interpreted by scientists as processes that took
much longer% $ think that during this timeframe, Europe was almost
completely repopulated, and the new Europeans then 'ery 9uickly began
looking like modern Europeans thanks to strong natural selection and drift%
These Mesolithic survivors, could they have been the Sungir Europeans Bohemian Rhapsody
mentioned earlier? If so, the proto-Indo-Europeans adopted their customs when they mixed with
them.
Anyway I think you're right about the northern Levant because the northern Levant and northern
Mesopotamia and the borders of south Anatolia have been positioned as the proto-Semitic
urheimat. Interestingly, there still are red haired Assyrians today, and some Israelites in the Bible
(Esau and David according to Wikipedia, but I haven't checked to verify this) have been
described as red haired. If your hypothesis of R1a and R1b originating in the
Levant/Mesopotamia of yore is true this could explain a lot, and it could explain why red and
blond Assyrians with light eyes have no north European admixture on Dodecad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;otQrhead (emem/er ;e
Research ha'e indicated that the original lactose intolerant population in
whom the lactose persistence de'eloped were 4ral farmers, 4dmurts and
Hokshas, who got this by random from Asiatic nomads and then spread this
gene to people who spoke proto-$E who then spread into Europe<
http<KKnews%sciencemag%orgKscienceno%%%K;;K65-6L%html
Yeah. The problem with that study is that Leena Peltonen is assuming the Udmurts and Mokshas
have always spoken Uralic. And I doubt she tried connecting the lactase tolerance genotype with
haplogroups or anything like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;otQrhead (emem/er ;e
$n connection with the lactose peristence, the report $ linked to connected
the lactose persistence to the Iurgan people% -his seem e)tremely plausible,
since nations with high $; A(candina'ia, "inlandD are also among the most
lactose persistent people on the planet%
Lactose tolerance did not originated with I1, nor did I1 have anything to do with the proto-Indo-
Europeans. Although yet unconfrmed, it's more likely the original I1 speakers were Afro-Asiatics
or spoke either a cousin language to Afro-Asiatic or some Caucasus language, before they were
Indo-Europenised by R1a males.
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
geah, if $ would ha'e to guess the Iurgan people were allmost ;668 of $h%
&@ $h has spread pattern co'ering $ran at southeast, .hina at fareast and
huge precense at Europe% Host of the R;a;h at (outh Asia is thus indigenous
or deri'ed from the $ndo-Europeani*ed people of >HA.%
&g $;h's age estimate and pattern indicates the mo'ement of Proto-$ndo-
Europeans from the gamna steppe *one to North Europe% &-&%
Had it not been for aDNA and the almost perfect mirror of the spread of R1a with the Indo-
European language family, I would've thought your hypothesis is convincing.
This R1a map might as well have been a map of the geographic distribution of the Indo-European
language family:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...stribution.png
And allow me the "Eurocentric":eek: privilege to lol at your R1a originates in India hypothesis.
Even Dr. Doug McDonald confrmed to me when I asked him about my "South Asian" component,
that gene Jow has been going from Europe/Middle East to India rather than from India. So that
alone complicates your nonsensical hypothesis: how are you going to explain the OIT with what
exactly? Did they domesticate the horse in India? Why does India have such low Indo-European
linguistic diversity? It may be so that R1a originated in India (I'm agnostic in regards to this
question), but surely not R-M17.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
!actose tolerance doesn't come from N, Europe% -he days of
fre9uencyUorigin are o'er and $ am sorry if that disappointing you% >ut
lactose tolerance isn't from ,estern Europe #ust like R;b isn't either%
Well said. Now if only intellectual giants like Sevastopol and Nephilim could understand this :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$t's true% (-Rs are shit% $'m not debating this with you, $'m telling you%
And in the case of R;a;a, ancient 3NA :ts perfectly with recent (NP
disco'eries% East @ermany 2 Poland are the global epicenter for R;a;a (NP
di'ersity% R;a was found in both .orded ,are and 4rn:eld burials in
@ermany%
(o it has an old presence in .entral Europe, dating back at least to the late
Neolithic% $n fact, #udging from the (NPs, $ would say that modern Poland was
a ma#or e)pansion point for R;a;a, and not a destination%
Do you think this will afect Indo-European theories once Indo-Europeanists begin to utilise
population genetics in their research? It surprised me how ignorant David Anthony was of
population genetics. He even brought up Y-DNA and mtDNA of horse and cattle, but not human
haplogroups :whoco:
2011-12-10, 17:47
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
And in the case of R;a;a, ancient 3NA :ts perfectly with recent (NP
disco'eries% East @ermany 2 Poland are the global epicenter for R;a;a (NP
di'ersity% R;a was found in both .orded ,are and 4rn:eld burials in
@ermany%
(o it has an old presence in .entral Europe, dating back at least to the late
Neolithic% $n fact, #udging from the (NPs, $ would say that modern Poland was
a ma#or e)pansion point for R;a;a, and not a destination%
It is probable, but not sure by any means. It is all about lineage, and if the lineage gets more
accurate and divided into subgroups, this may lead to a diferent view. For example, Y-
chromosomal haplogroup N1b had the greatest diversity in the Komi (Mirabal et al. 2009), but it
was erroneous, because there are two diferent lineages in the Komi: N1b-A and N1b-E.
http://www.mv.helsinki.f/home/|phakkin/N1b.pdf
Similarly, it may still in the future appear that the high diversity in the Polish and Germans is due
to parallel migration of many diferent (but related) lineages, which all might well have individually
very low diversities (and therefore young coalescence times). Only their combined diversity is
high.
The accuracy of R1a1 is hugely higher than it was 10 years ago, and we can still expect some
development in the future. Therefore it is not necessarily the fnal situation that the diversity in
Poland is the highest: new subgroups may change the situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
$t's the highest 'ariation rather than highest fre9uency that matters%
"re9uency may go hand in hand with 'ariation, which is the case with $ndo-
European languages Ahighest 'ariation and fre9uency in Europe as opposed
to $ndiaD, but it's the 'ariation and ancestral clades that matter the most%
Assyrians for e)ample ha'e a low fre9uency of F-P5C whereas Fews and Arabs
ha'e a much higher fre9uency, but we ha'e a much higher genetic 'ariation
and older ancestral clades of F-P5C, so it originated with Assyrians rather
than Arabs and Fews
Indeed so! Only the lineage matters. And with it we can trace and locate the ancestral forms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
ruote<
Originally Posted by <eena Peltonen in link
-he results suggest that lactose tolerance :rst appeared in
populations li'ing between the 4ral mountains and the Eolga Ri'er,
such as 4dmurts and Hokshas% -he trait most likely de'eloped
BC66 to 7766 years ago from an earlier 'ariant di+ering at #ust two
base pairs that these groups got from intermi)ing with tribes
migrating from the Asian (teppes, the team reported here last
week at the annual meeting of the American (ociety of &uman
@enetics% -he lactose tolerance mutation ]probably emerged by
chance] and then remained because it was bene:cial in the dairy-
consuming 4ral peoples, who later spread the gene to Europe and
the Hiddle East, says Peltonen%
geah% -he problem with that study is that !eena Peltonen is
assuming the 4dmurts and Hokshas ha'e always spoken 4ralic%
And $ doubt she tried connecting the lactase tolerance genotype
with haplogroups or anything like that%
Well, the area between Volga bend and Ural mountains seems to be the original area of Proto-
Uralic, and although Pre-Proto-Uralic may have arrived from Asia, it could be possible that this
mutation occurred among the Proto-Uralic speakers. There were after all words for `butter` and
`sheep` in Proto-Uralic (although no word for `cow`).
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
-his R;a map might as well ha'e been a map of the geographic distribution
of the $ndo-European language family<
Except those Siberian occasions.
2011-12-10, 17:57
tako|a
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
$t's dijcult to say really% !ooking at it again<
http<KKiB;%tinypic%comK;;ukwnp%#pg
,e ha'e the lactose tolerance genotype somewhere between the !e'ant
and Hesopotamia Awhich is, interestingly enough, e)actly where Polako
traces the origins of R;a and R;bD% $t could be where the original lactose
tolerance mutation originated and was later ma)imised in fre9uency through
migration to Europe% ,ho knows% And for that part, the ori.inal human
$ith the lactose tolerance .enot)pe mi.ht as $ell ha&e /een J, A, 1
or an) other ;iddle East E-D@A $ho passed it on to (3 males
someho$.
You mean like anally?
Quote:
geah% -he problem with that study is that !eena Peltonen is assuming the
4dmurts and Hokshas ha'e always spoken 4ralic% And $ doubt she tried
connecting the lactase tolerance genotype with haplogroups or anything like
that%
Yeah I know according to you practically every speaker of Uralic is language shifter and not a real
Uralic except perhaps the Samoyedic branch which coincidentially is known to be a late language
shifter. On the other hand the true IEs managed to cover a massive landmass and they all were
ofc true IEs. That is amazing.
Funny part is ofc that it doesn't even mean anything. The hole concept is null.
2011-12-10, 19:01
Lemminkinen
EliasAlucard
Quote:
,e ha'e the lactose tolerance genotype somewhere between the !e'ant
and Hesopotamia Awhich is, interestingly enough, e)actly where Polako
traces the origins of R;a and R;bD% $t could be where the original lactose
tolerance mutation originated and was later ma)imised in fre9uency through
migration to Europe% ,ho knows% And for that part, the original human with
the lactose tolerance genotype might as well ha'e been F, ", @ or any other
Hiddle East g-3NA who passed it on to R; males somehow%
$n any case, if $ had to bet my money on it, $'d bet it on R;a, because $ can't
think of a better eligible lineage than R;a since the proto-$ndo-Europeans
had a cow worshipping religionKmythology% (o that begs the 9uestion then if
R-ECC was brought to Negroids with the Afro-Asiatic language or without it,
because if R-ECC carried the lactose tolerance genotype at the time it's
9uestionable if they had ac9uired it after coming into contact with $ndo-
European speakers who carried this genotype, and once they arri'ed in .had
they were later assimilated amongst Afro-Asiatic speakers or they brought
Afro-Asiatic and R-ECC to sub-(aharan Africa after ha'ing been in contact
with $ndo-Europeans
I wouldnt bet R1a, because the highest LP-alleles doesnt macth with the R1a distribution map. It
exist in Scandinavia. Two reasons more
- if you assume that the original haplogroup owning it was J, F or G, it proves the migration route
of LP -alleles to Atlantic region where Near Eastern aHnity is much stronger than in Central
Europe, for example in Poland.
- we have several LP-alleles, not only one and only one allele is common in W-Europe, other can
be found from Middle East and Africa.
- Lactase persistence allele doesnt mean same as Lactose tolerance Lactase persistence is the
continued activity of the enzyme lactase in adulthood. However there can be more reasons to be
lactose tolerance.
2011-12-10, 19:04
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
,ell, the area between Eolga bend and 4ral mountains seems to be the
original area of Proto-4ralic, and although Pre-Proto-4ralic may ha'e arri'ed
from Asia, it could be possible that this mutation occurred among the Proto-
4ralic speakers% -here were after all words for ^butterJ and ^sheepJ in Proto-
4ralic Aalthough no word for ^cowJD%
Sounds |ust about right. Proto-Indo-Europeans had contact with both proto-Uralics and proto-
Semites, so they were in between proto-Uralics and proto-Semites because this is reJected in
their language. This makes a case for proto-Indo-European urheimat in Poland a bit diHcult,
which is why I favour Yamnaya or possibly Maykop for now.
As for the lactose tolerance gene, I have no real opinion where it originated other than somewhere
in west Eurasia. But surely it was selected positively with the proto-Indo-Europeans as a side-
efect of their religion and the high status of the cow in early Indo-European religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
E)cept those (iberian occasions%
What do you mean? Weren't the Scythians there anyway?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tako#a
gou mean like anally
You trolling, dawg?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tako#a
geah $ know according to you practically e'ery speaker of 4ralic is language
shifter and not a real 4ralic e)cept perhaps the (amoyedic branch which
coincidentially is known to be a late language shifter% On the other hand the
true $Es managed to co'er a massi'e landmass and they all were ofc true
$Es% -hat is ama*ing%
No moron, lots of IE-speakers are language shifters too. The most important reason why you
Finns are language shifters is that aside from Y-DNA N1c and some minor Mongoloid admixture,
you are basically genetically identical to Russians, and other north Europeans. So unless you
think proto-Uralic originated in Finland (highly unlikely) and that the proto-Uralic peoples were
very closely related with the proto-Indo-Europeans, I think you and Ph|amaalane should stop
being ignorant, start making sense and accept the damn facts:
These are only general and quite hypothetical models to suggest how the Indo-European languages
may have expanded. We may conclude this section by laying to rest one fallacy that has often
appeared in the past. A tendency to see the Indo-European languages as inherently those of the
superstrate can be found widely in literature on the Indo-Europeans. This form of `Aryan manifest
destiny` ultimately calls into question the whole process of expansion. In any event, our prehistoric
evidence suggests that Indo-Europeans did not always maintain their lite position. If they did
penetrate the Caucasus, we know of no Indo-European language in the Kuro-Araxes region that
survived into history. Similarly, the region of the Fatyanovo culture of the upper Volga, as well
as other Corded Ware variants in the east Baltic, clearly succumbed to Finno-Ugric
speakers.And, from our better-controlled historical evidence, we know that Indo-Europeans
succumbed to the Hungarians in Europe, and we witness the lightning expansion of the Turks, largely
at the expense of Indo-Europeans. Turkic speakers are probably to be credited with the linguistic
death of Tocharian as well as with the assimilation of numerous Iranian speakers across the Asiatic
steppe, and ultimately with the efective collapse of Greek as the ma|or language of Anatolia. Indo-
Europeans do not always win.
- J. P. Mallory, In search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth, ISBN
050005052X, p. 261
And this one is |ust for you :lol::
A peculiar linguistic fallacy arose that provided further proof of Aryan superiority. Research into the
essential structure of the world's languages revealed several basic types depending on how
grammatical elements were indicated - inJected, agglutinative, and analytic. Although these were
originally only typological classifcations, many could not resist interpreting them as various stages in
the evolution of language. A `simple` word-based language (analytic) such as Chinese, for example,
was placed on the bottom of the scale. Languages were then seen to develop to the agglutinative
type (as in Altaic and Uralic languages where separate endings are added to nouns) and, ultimately,
to the inJected type, such as Indo-European. This suggested that the Indo-Europeans, or Aryans,
having ascended the scale of linguistic evolution to its summit, spoke a more `advanced` language
than their neighbours. Canon Isaac Taylor, for example, once proposed the notion that the Indo-
Europeans were essentially an improved race of Finns.
- J. P. Mallory, In search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth, ISBN
050005052X, p. 267-268.
And insular Celtic has for a long time been speculated to have an Afro-Asiatic substrate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tako#a
"unny part is ofc that it doesn't e'en mean anything% -he hole concept is
null%
No.
2011-12-10, 19:26
tako|a
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
No moron, lots of $E-speakers are language shifters too% -he most important
reason why you "inns are language shifters is that aside from g-3NA N;c and
some minor Hongoloid admi)ture, you are basically genetically identical to
Russians, and other north Europeans% (o unless you think proto-4ralic
originated in "inland Ahighly unlikelyD and that the proto-4ralic peoples were
'ery closely related with the proto-$ndo-Europeans, $ think you and
Psh#amaalane should stop being ignorant, start making sense and accept the
damn facts<
I really don't see your point. Of course Finns have ancestry from peoples outside the
protospeakers. Some of those peoples who became later Finnicized might have been N1c
carriers themselves. What do you mean aside mongoloid mixture similar to Russians? You forgot
already that Russians have mongoloid admixture?
Yeah and we are not defnately the only north euros who have N1c? You forgot that too.
2011-12-10, 19:36
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by tako#a
$ really don't see your point% Of course "inns ha'e ancestry from peoples
outside the protospeakers%
/ost of your ancestry is not derived from the proto-Uralics. But surely, there's some proto-Uralic
ancestry left in Finns.
And this is also true for Indo-Europeans by the way. The Indo-European language family is the
largest and most widespread in the world, but aside from the central-east European bunch most
of IE speakers are largely language shifters with some, perhaps minor ancestry from the proto-
Indo-Europeans.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ntries.svg.png
^^ Afro-Asiatic speakers have been quite successful to say the least in resisting Indo-
Europeanisation :evilgrin:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tako#a
(ome of those peoples who became later "innici*ed might ha'e been N;c
carriers themsel'es%
You say so, without giving an example proving your argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tako#a
,hat do you mean aside mongoloid mi)ture similar to Russians gou forgot
already that Russians ha'e mongoloid admi)ture%
Finland and Estonia represent the regions where Uralic speakers had a stronger presence after
they migrated from the proto-Uralic urheimat. Yeah, Russians have detectable Mongoloid
admixture too, |ust like Finns, and you plot very close to each other on the global and intra-Euro
PCA plots. Main diference between Finns and Russians is that Russians maintained their Indo-
European language whereas Finns in all probability lost it, and later began speaking Indo-
European again with the rise of the Swedes and later English as a global lingua franca.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tako#a
geah and we are not de:nately the only north euros who ha'e N;c gou
forgot that too%
No, I did not forget this.
2011-12-10, 19:45
Lemminkinen
EliasAlucard
Quote:
"inland and Estonia represent the regions where 4ralic speakers had a
stronger presence after they migrated from the proto-4ralic urheimat% geah,
Russians ha'e detectable Hongoloid admi)ture too, #ust like "inns, and )ou
plot &er) close to each other on the .lo/al and intra-Euro PCA plots.
Only on Polako's plots when he wants to show our common Mongoloid admix :)
I you look at those pics showing now people from Moscow, you dont see even one Finnish-
looking person.
edit I was wrong, there is some Finnish looking, but very few.
2011-12-10, 20:01
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by <emminkIinen
Only on Polako's plots when he wants to show our common Hongoloid admi)
<D
I wasn't referring to Polako's plots. On both 23andMe and deCODEme, Finns and Russians plot
close with each other, and on deCODEme, Russians and Finns fall outside of the main European
cluster; basically slightly detached from it, because of the minor Mongoloid admixture.
2011-12-10, 20:14
s127
Quote:
Originally Posted by <emminkIinen
$ you look at those pics showing now people from Hoscow, you dont see
e'en one "innish-looking person%
edit $ was wrong, there is some "innish looking, but 'ery few%
Yeah, Finns and Russians tend to look very diferent even though they seem to plot closely.
2011-12-10, 20:15
Lemminkinen
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
$ wasn't referring to Polako's plots% On both L1andHe and de.O3Eme, "inns
and Russians plot close with each other, and on de.O3Eme, Russians and
"inns fall outside of the main European clusterY basically slightly detached
from it, because of the minor Hongoloid admi)ture%
On 23andme's plots we are not close; some Eastern Finns are, but other Finns are much closer
Norwegians and Swedes. On Decodeme's plots we are close only on the global view because it
overestimates the Siberian admix. On European map we are not close at all, because it covers
European aHnity, 93% of our genes, while the global view weights the 7% Siberian admix.
This is basic view without any scrolling.
http://i1116.photobucket.com/albums/...y/decodeme.gif
2011-12-10, 20:19
EliasAlucard
^^ Yeah whatever, Finnish-Russian conJicts is not topic. Anyway I noticed something interesting here, notice how well the
lactose tolerance genotype mirrors the Indo-European languages in general and distribution of R-M17 in India and Iran
(Baloch regions):
http://i41.tinypic.com/11ukwnp.|pg
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/9681/ydnar1a1a.|pg
Theoretically, if lactose tolerance originated amongst R-M17 men, lactose tolerance should have a higher presence in
southern Anatolia too, with the Hittites, but it doesn't. So this begs the question if the Hittites (and Luwians etc.) were either
completely wiped out with the death of Anatolian languages or if they only spread their language and not genes to Anatolia.
Otherwise Anatolia should have a higher presence of the lactose tolerance genotype. Or maybe Indo-Hittite separated from
proto-Indo-European before the lactose tolerance genotype?
2011-12-10, 20:21
Lemminkinen
I dont see much correlation.
2011-12-10, 23:27
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
,hat do you mean ,eren't the (cythians there anyway
Not so far in the north The West Siberian R1a1 seems to be derived from the Sayan-Altay
region and can be connected to the Samoyedic expansion. The Northern Central Siberian part
could be possibly Tungusic, because the Evenks have more R1a1 than Turkic-speaking Yakuts...
2011-12-11, 00:19
Tuohikir|e
Quote:
No moron, lots of $E-speakers are language shifters too% -he most important
reason why you "inns are language shifters is that aside from g-3NA N;c and
some minor Hongoloid admi)ture, you are basically genetically identical to
Russians, and other north Europeans% (o unless you think proto-4ralic
originated in "inland Ahighly unlikelyD and that the proto-4ralic peoples were
'ery closely related with the proto-$ndo-Europeans, $ think you and
Psh#amaalane should stop being ignorant, start making sense and accept the
damn facts<
-hese are only general and 9uite hypothetical models to suggest how the
$ndo-European languages may ha'e e)panded% ,e may conclude this
section by laying to rest one fallacy that has often appeared in the past% A
tendency to see the $ndo-European languages as inherently those of the
superstrate can be found widely in literature on the $ndo-Europeans% -his
form of ^Aryan manifest destinyJ ultimately calls into 9uestion the whole
process of e)pansion% $n any e'ent, our prehistoric e'idence suggests that
$ndo-Europeans did not always maintain their tlite position% $f they did
penetrate the .aucasus, we know of no $ndo-European language in the Iuro-
Ara)es region that sur'i'ed into history% (imilarly, the region of the
"atyano'o culture of the upper Eolga, as well as other .orded ,are 'ariants
in the east >altic, clearly succumbed to "inno-4gric speakers% And, from our
better-controlled historical e'idence, we know that $ndo-Europeans
succumbed to the &ungarians in Europe, and we witness the lightning
e)pansion of the -urks, largely at the e)pense of $ndo-Europeans% -urkic
speakers are probably to be credited with the linguistic death of -ocharian as
well as with the assimilation of numerous $ranian speakers across the Asiatic
steppe, and ultimately with the e+ecti'e collapse of @reek as the ma#or
language of Anatolia% $ndo-Europeans do not always win%
u F% P% Hallory, $n search of the $ndo-Europeans< !anguage, Archaeology and
Hyth, $(>N 65666565Lq, p% L7;
And this one is #ust for you <
A peculiar linguistic fallacy arose that pro'ided further proof of Aryan
superiority% Research into the essential structure of the world's languages
re'ealed se'eral basic types depending on how grammatical elements were
indicated W in?ected, agglutinati'e, and analytic% Although these were
originally only typological classi:cations, many could not resist interpreting
them as 'arious stages in the e'olution of language% A ^simpleJ word-based
language AanalyticD such as .hinese, for e)ample, was placed on the bottom
of the scale% !anguages were then seen to de'elop to the agglutinati'e type
Aas in Altaic and 4ralic languages where separate endings are added to
nounsD and, ultimately, to the in?ected type, such as $ndo-European% -his
suggested that the $ndo-Europeans, or Aryans, ha'ing ascended the scale of
linguistic e'olution to its summit, spoke a more ^ad'ancedJ language than
their neighbours% .anon $saac -aylor, for e)ample, once proposed the notion
that the $ndo-Europeans were essentially ^an impro'ed race of "innsJ%
u F% P% Hallory, $n search of the $ndo-Europeans< !anguage, Archaeology and
Hyth, $(>N 65666565Lq, p% L7G-L7C%
Everyone is a language shifter, if we take a time frame long enough. Finns are not genetically
identical to Russians, it would be more appropriate to say, that Russians have Finnic admixture.
Your rant, that `Scandinavians are unmodifed Poles` is as weird. I have not seen Ph|amaalane
make any more ignorant or unscientifc claims than R1a and IE enthusiasts on this forum on daily
basis.
What lite position IE people had? Clearly FU speakers still exist in Baltia as well as all over
Russia despite of the state governed oppression (I would not call that IE, but uncivilized) and in
the Volga area. Corded Ware in Scandinavia and at the tip of Southern Finland has no evidence
of language used, afaik there is no evidence of any IE language.
`Aryan Manifest` and `Aryan superiority` say what is behind these peculiar theories. They have no
efect on Scandinavian, Baltic and Finnic historical events in Scandinavia, Baltia or Finland, not
exactly changing the course of known history. New information and details are welcome in the
form of serious studies and fndings. There is also no reason to write of superiority of Indo-
Europeans, it clearly has no valid arguements for backup. Baltic people are not Slavs or IE to a
large extent and have not been. I see, that you confuse them as IE.
In your earlier post you mentioned, that Lithuanians `could` have been N1c 10%. Could you
elaborate that idea a bit more.
You mentioned, that Finns speak againIE languages in the form of Swedish and English. Could
you please prove when exactly Finns have spoken IE beforeFinnic languages? Corded Ware is
not an answer. Just to let you know also, that we allways have spoken other languages (non-IE
and IE) all through our recorded history. I speak and understand 6 languages. So your comment
to try to underestimate our language was a failure as well.
2011-12-12, 11:59
Motrhead Remember Me
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
-here's something special about R;a;a in the (outhern >altic region% $t
shows a lot of di'ersity in terms of structure% -oo much, in fact, relati'e to
the R;a;a in Asia, to make it a latecomer in Europe%
But, what if it was alredy old when it got there:evilgrin: For example, R1b in Sweden seemed to be
of very old age because of its diversity, but we now know it's impossible that it "grew up" in
Sweden. Same with R1a1a in Poland, what if it already was old in the migrating group who
migrated there?
---------- Post added 2011-12-12 at 12:21 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
geah% -he problem with that study is that !eena Peltonen is assuming the
4dmurts and Hokshas ha'e always spoken 4ralic% And $ doubt she tried
connecting the lactase tolerance genotype with haplogroups or anything like
that%
I'm not sure where you actually read that is what she assumes but that really isn't such a fantastic
claim considering that Udmurt are closest to the region where Proto Uralic have emerged. The
idea that LP popped up randomly in nomadic peoples isn't bad at all. There are many kinds of
nomadic peoples, some are nomadic as they herd cattles (sheep and cows).
Quote:
!actose tolerance did not originated with $;, nor did $; ha'e anything to do
with the proto-$ndo-Europeans% Although yet uncon:rmed, it's more likely
the original $; speakers were Afro-Asiatics or spoke either a cousin language
to Afro-Asiatic or some .aucasus language, before they were $ndo-
Europenised by R;a males%
I did'nt mean that. I1 speaker had everything to do with pre IE speakers. Kurgan may very well
have been a pre or proto IE speaking culture. We don't know.
Quote:
&ad it not been for a3NA and the almost perfect mirror of the spread of R;a
with the $ndo-European language family, $ would''e thought your hypothesis
is con'incing%
Spread of LP in Europe is not a match with spread of R1a, quite the opposite. But spread of LP
does have a match with spread of I1. And if we look at Peltonens study and assume that Kurgans
were mostly I1, then we have a good LP/I1 match.
2011-12-12, 12:31
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;otQrhead (emem/er ;e
>ut, what if it was alredy old when it got there<e'ilgrin< "or e)ample, R;b in
(weden seemed to be of 'ery old age because of its di'ersity, but we now
know it's impossible that it ]grew up] in (weden% (ame with R;a;a in Poland,
what if it already was old in the migrating group who migrated there
I've never heard of Sweden having high R1b SNP diversity. Anatolia does, though.
If you're talking about STRs, then no one cares.
Quote:
(pread of !P in Europe is not a match with spread of R;a, 9uite the opposite%
>ut spread of !P does ha'e a match with spread of $;% And if we look at
Peltonens study and assume that Iurgans were mostly $;, then we ha'e a
good !PK$; match%
Why would we assume that Kurgans were mostly I1, when we in fact know they were almost
exclusively R1a?
Whether they carried the LP allele, no one knows. But I carry it, so it's a good bet many of them
did too. :thumbsup:
2011-12-12, 13:31
Motrhead Remember Me
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$''e ne'er heard of (weden ha'ing high R;b (NP di'ersity% Anatolia does,
though%
$f you're talking about (-Rs, then no one cares%
It was STR.
Quote:
,hy would we assume that Iurgans were mostly $;, when we in fact know
they were almost e)clusi'ely R;a
Oh, it |ust sounded good... I know the aDNA is R1a1, but do you know of which age the ancient
DNA was? "Mostly" I1 is maybe wrong, but it may have very well been present there also.
2011-12-12, 14:00
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;otQrhead (emem/er ;e
Oh, it #ust sounded good%%% $ know the a3NA is R;a;, but do you know of
which age the ancient 3NA was ]Hostly] $; is maybe wrong, but it may
ha'e 'ery well been present there also%
3500 Bp to 2500 Bp as far as I can remember, which included remains from the Andronovo
horizon in South Siberia, and a couple of Scythians.
I suppose we can add to that the Corded Ware remains from Germany 4700 Bp, because they
belongd to a "Kurganoid" culture, even though those particular remains weren't buried in a
Corded Ware Kurgan.
2011-12-13, 09:21
Motrhead Remember Me
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
1566 >p to L566 >p as far as $ can remember,which included remains from
the Androno'o hori*on in (outh (iberia, and a couple of (cythians% $ suppose
we can add to that the .orded ,are remains from @ermany BG66 >p,
because they belongd to a ]Iurganoid] culture, e'en though those particular
remains weren't buried in a .orded ,are Iurgan
I see. The origins of Kurgan culture proper stretched further back. There is no evidence of course,
but they may have been of other origin one thousand years earlier but were later Indo
Europeanized which also brought R1a1* ?
2011-12-13, 10:00
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;otQrhead (emem/er ;e
$ see% -he origins of Iurgan culture proper stretched further back% -here is
no e'idence of course, but they may ha'e been of other origin one thousand
years earlier but were later $ndo Europeani*ed which also brought R;a;h
Sure, but the big players in the Kurgan game tested to date have all come out R1a1a, and that's
what really matters. These were elites, like the Scythian chieftains, covered in tatoos and buried
with treasures. It's likely they descended from long lines of people with high positions. So if
another population, high in a diferent haplogroup, started the whole thing, it's strange that their
lines died out.
2011-12-14, 10:07
Motrhead Remember Me
Not very strange. We also live in houses although people belonging to some other clade started the whole housing biz.
2011-12-14, 10:23
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;otQrhead (emem/er ;e
Not 'ery strange% ,e also li'e in houses although people belonging to some
other clade started the whole housing bi*%
Well, if so, then whoever came up with the whole Kurgan thing got overran very quickly by
European-like R1a1a hordes, who made it their own, and took it for all it was worth. And they
didn't let any other guys into their club for a couple thousand years, whilst at the same time,
picking up women all over the place.
So in practical terms, I don't really see a diference there.
2011-12-17, 17:44
Silesian
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
3on't tell me that the $E status of ,estern Europeans depens on whether
few people of Eastern Eurepan origing are (la's or Fews% YD
E3$-< OI, $ will search the whole ht15 pro#ect for Eastern Europeans from the
region North of the >lack (ea%
&ere are people found in the more or less ;56 strong !L12 !5;- !;;- group<
,ollschlaeger, Poland
I, Poland
Eolko', 4kraine
de Iool, Poland
Iubatie', Russia
>reske, Poland
@lowiak, Poland
Iaye, !ithuania
>anuk, !ithuania
Fastrow, Poland
Probasco, Poland
"eldsott, Russia
(kodinski, Poland
(tehlik, .*ech Rep%
Fa*enski, Poland
>ased on the surnames $ would bet - but $ cannot pro'e that of course - that
at least half of these people are also Ashkena*i Fews%
Again it would :t nicely with ;6 samples from this group from $ra9, !ebanon,
(yria and 4AE, not counting much more numerous -urkish and Armenian
samples%
$ will check other subclades later%
I'm on that list ,and thanks to Polako's work I can see where I plot in comparison to other Poles/
Germans and various ethnic groups.
Dienekes latest runs also are of interest since they confrm what Polako's result's show.
Since I'm part of ht35 L23+ L51- L11- EE pro|ect . I thought it would be interesting to add my
latest result's from the spreadsheet K12a Dodecad pro|ect-thank you for Polako/Dienekes hard
work.
K12a-German/Polish thanx to Dodecad Pro|ect;
29.2%-Mediterranean
00.0%-Far Asian
01.3%-Siberian
53.8%-North European
00.4%-South Asian
00.0%-West African
10.1%-Caucasus
05.1%-Gedrosia
00.0%-East African
00.0%-Southwest Asian
00.0%-Southeast Asian
00.0%-Northwest African
My Southwest Asian component is low at [0%] in comparison to other Poles[1.8%] or
Germans[2%] which has elevated readings in Saudi[59%] - Bedouin[57.4%] Yemen Jews
[52.3%] Syrians[26.3%] Druze[22.7%], respectively. Also of interest is the Southwest Asian
readings in North Ossetians[0%] and Georgians[0.7%] which may have some R1b EE types.
However my Gedrosia component [5.1%], which has elevated readings in [Balochi 63.3%Iranian
tribe?] is a diferent story altogether! It is more than 7x the Polish[0.7%] average and even a few
points higher than the German[ 4.4%]average.
2011-12-17, 20:59
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silesian
$'m on that list A%%%D $'m part of ht15 !L12 !5;- !;;- EE pro#ect %
According to you what is the origin of your lineage: Middle Eastern? Anatolian? Steppe? Central-
European? Western European?
2011-12-18, 15:58
Wo|ewoda
Bad news everyone. :sadcry:
Via DNA-Forums:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jafet) (3/-:3M2
-his then makes East @ermany the place where all /LC1 subclades o'erlap%
And as far as $ remeber, e'en /01 occurs in the area, don't And !77B as
well% e are e&er closer to the solution.
A$ know that the more East @ermany looks like urheimat of R;a;a;-HB;G,
more and more people would argue against it on the basis that such a theory
would support what some e'il people in the ;016s worked out% >ut $ ha'e to
point out that e'en if their that time scienti:cally baseless guessing will
pro'e to be true with modern 3NA research, it would ne'er #ustify any
hoori:c crimes they did - so $ hope we can keep to base all arguements on
the scienti:c basis without any emotions unrelated to 3NAD
We have to hide this information from Polako somehow. :ashamed:
2011-12-18, 17:22
EliasAlucard
^^ That's not really relevant, because neither Poland nor eastern Germany are the urheimat of proto-Indo-European. And
the data on Z283 must take into account the population movements during the 20th century, and the huge increase in
population growth in the last 300 or so years (which surely must have increased the variation of R-M17 and also afected its
regional distribution somewhat).
The proto-Indo-European urheimat is in the Pontic-Caspian steppes, and the currently high frequency and diversity of R-
M17 in Poland and eastern Germany is only a part of all that frequency and diversity that existed in the steppes a long time
ago. But the region has had its fair share of invasions from Huns, Tatars, Mongols and so on. So obviously the bulk of the R-
M17 genepool did migrate a bit northwest of the steppes to Poland and eastern Germany, after various non-IE invasions in
the region and also after the original Indo-European expansions.
2011-12-18, 18:14
Silesian
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
According to you what is the origin of your lineage< Hiddle Eastern
Anatolian (teppe .entral-European ,estern European
A lot of scientifc research has gone into mythical fgures like y-chromosomal
aaron,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Aaron
and not much into mythical fgures like y-chromosomal
Ashkenaz,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenaz, which is being used as one of the names of
scientifc L584 branch in FTDNA Ht-35 pro|ect.
I would place the origin of my lineage r-m269/L23+ slightly more north but very close where
Polako places R1a and his lineage, as we have a common ancestor in this region
IMO .http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/
This would be close, or in the vicinity to the mythical account of Ashkenaz. "In the Bible,
Ashkenaz (Heb. ) is Gomer's frst son, brother of Riphath and Togarmah (Gen. 10:3, 1
Chronicles 1:6), thereby a Japhetic descendant of Noah. A kingdom of Ashkenaz is called
together with Ararat and Minni against Babylon (Jer. 51:27)"
In other words[M173] and descendants including r-m269/L23+/m420 originated between the
mythical kingdoms of Ararat,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urartu and
Minnihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannaeans[Anatolia-Iran plateau]. Who's descendents in turn
became known as the Scyths [M173] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians.
This is in contrast to the Babylonians who IMO were most likely not of M173 but of
Semitic[Shem]lineage most likely M429-S2-S22.
2011-12-18, 19:15
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
VV -hat's not really rele'ant, because neither Poland nor eastern @ermany
are the urheimat of proto-$ndo-European% And the data on /LC1 must take
into account the population mo'ements during the L6th century, and the
huge increase in population growth in the last 166 or so years Awhich surely
must ha'e increased the 'ariation of R-H;G and also a+ected its regional
distribution somewhatD%
-he proto-$ndo-European urheimat is in the Pontic-.aspian steppes, and the
currently high fre9uency and di'ersity of R-H;G in Poland and eastern
@ermany is only a part of all that fre9uency and di'ersity that e)isted in the
steppes a long time ago%
This theory can only be falsifed with the help of aDNA and so far the results are not very
encouraging:
Quote:
$n this study, we analy*ed the 3NA se9uence of the :rst hyper'ariable
segment A&E($D of the mtD@A control region, as well as a portion of the
coding region, in ;B indi'iduals from three collecti'e burials from the
@eolithic Dnieper-Donet4 culture and three indi&iduals from 'ron4e
A.e "ur.an /urials, all located in modern-da) :kraine on the
northern shores of the 'lack Sea 8the @orth Pontic (e.ion, or @P(9%
,hile most of our samples possessed mt3NA haplotypes that can be linked
to European and Near Eastern populations, three Neolithic and all three
'ron4e A.e indi&iduals /elon.ed to mtD@A haplo.roup C, $hich is
common in East Eurasian, particularl) South Si/erian, populations
/ut exceedin.l) rare in Europe.
We usually don't think of proto-Indoeuropeans as East Asians. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
>ut the region has had its fair share of in'asions from &uns, -atars, Hongols
and so on% (o ob'iously the bulk of the R-H;G genepool did migrate a bit
northwest of the steppes to Poland and eastern @ermany, after 'arious non-
$E in'asions in the region and also after the original $ndo-European
e)pansions%
In the light of the results of the above quoted paper it looks that it was the other way round: that
European IEs displaced the East Asian inhabitants of the Ukrainian Steppes.
Besides PIE Urheiman can't be located in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe on the linguistc grounds -
there are no trees there (and no salmon) while PIE are supposed to be familiar with oak, beech
and willow:
http://i41.tinypic.com/adc1nt.|pg
2011-12-18, 20:27
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$n the light of the results of the abo'e 9uoted paper it looks that it was the
other way round< that European $Es displaced the East Asian inhabitants of
the 4krainian (teppes%
See also Dienekes BLog: Unexpected ancient mtDNA from Neolithic Hungary
Quote:
Our contribution is based on a sur'ey initiated on the Neolithic skeletons
from &ungarian archaeological sites in the Alfcld%
A%%%D
Our in'estigation is the frst to stud) mutations form @eolithic of
Hun.ar), resultin. in an outcome of Aar Eastern haplo.roups in the
Carpathian 'asin% $t is worth further in'estigation as a non-descendant
theory, instead of a continuous population history, supporting genetic gaps
between ancient and recent human populations%
Hungary lies in the Westernmost part of the Steppe.
2011-12-18, 21:56
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
4reimat is in the Pontic-.aspian steppes A%%%D
See also at the page 7 of the Intruduction of "The bronze age in Europe: an introduction to the
prehistory of Europe" where one reads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John ;. Coles,A. A. Hardin.
>roadly speaking, the supposedly deri'ati'e groups in Europe are in fact
contemporaneous with the Pit @ra'es in (outh Russia, and not appreciably
later than them%
... but I don't know how up to date the dates of kurgans given there are.
2011-12-19, 07:52
Bohemian Rhapsody
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
>esides P$E 4rheiman can't be located in the Pontic-.aspian (teppe on the
linguistc grounds - there are no trees there Aand no salmonD while P$E are
supposed to be familiar with oak, beech and willow<
http<KKiB;%tinypic%comKadc;nt%#pg
That area has been farmed extensively since 5000 B.C. and even so, there are still small pockets
of forests on the Pontic steppe. As for the animals, they come and go, especially when dealing
with the kind of population boom associated with the proto-Indo-Europeans and their sub|ects.
Here in North America we had Grey Wolves as far south as Mexico, but now they're all confned in
Canada.
2011-12-19, 08:08
Humata
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
-hat area has been farmed e)tensi'ely since 5666 >%.% and e'en so, there
are still small pockets of forests on the Pontic steppe% As for the animals,
they come and go, especially when dealing with the kind of population boom
associated with the proto-$ndo-Europeans and their sub#ects% &ere in North
America we had @rey ,ol'es as far south as He)ico, but now they're all
con:ned in .anada%
Indeed, that map is rather poorly conceived in my opinion, as inferences on prehistoric
movements are based of modern Jora and fauna. The geographical features, however, have
most probably remained the same.
If an online search for things like "Beech" and "Willow" are made, one will fnd examples of these
items around the Caucasus, Iranian plateau and Anatolia. I performed a couple of those myself
yesterday in response to Wo|ewoda's post.
That isn't to say one should look further southeast in Asia Minor for the Proto-Indo-European
homeland. Rather, the scenario of deforestation and natural fauna re/de/neo-population on the
steppe should be entertained.
Otherwise it may be a good idea to pursue material from the steppelands to ascertain whether
things like Beech, Willow and squirrels were present there in the 6000-4000 B.C. timeframe
allocated to PIE.
2011-12-19, 08:25
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
-hat area has been farmed e)tensi'ely since 5666 >%.% and e'en so, there
are still small pockets of forests on the Pontic steppe% As for the animals,
they come and go, especially when dealing with the kind of population boom
associated with the proto-$ndo-Europeans and their sub#ects% &ere in North
America we had @rey ,ol'es as far south as He)ico, but now they're all
con:ned in .anada%
Of course none of these arguments taken separately can be regarded as defnite, but I liked this
map as it seemed to ft into the present state of knowlege about the R1a1 SNP diversity highest in
the (more or less) Corded Ware region. It is nice when two completely diferent methods show
similar results.
---------- Post added 2011-12-19 at 09:33 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
VV -hat's not really rele'ant, because neither Poland nor eastern @ermany
are the urheimat of proto-$ndo-European%
A%%%D
-he proto-$ndo-European urheimat is in the Pontic-.aspian steppes,A%%%D
Still it is suspicious that scientists return to the idea of Central European Urheimat so often:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-o6XoJE7wRN...at_ipotesi.png
Were they all biased maniacs? Is the fact that - for the time being - the region of the highest SNP
diversity seems to be located in Central Europe totaly accidental?
2011-12-19, 09:10
Bohemian Rhapsody
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
Of course none of these arguments taken separately can be regarded as
de:nite, but $ liked this map as it seemed to :t into the present state of
knowlege about the R;a; (NP di'ersity highest in the Amore or lessD .orded
,are region% $t is nice when two completely di+erent methods show similar
results%
---------- Post added L6;;-;L-;0 at 60<11 ----------
(till it is suspicious that scientists return to the idea of .entral European
4rheimat so often<
http<KK;%bp%blogspot%comK-o7qoFEGwRN%%%atNipotesi%png
,ere they all biased maniacs $s the fact that - for the time being - the
region of the highest (NP di'ersity seems to be located in .entral Europe
totaly accidental
Who cares what Devoto and Shmid proposed, they have no evidence of horse domestication and
earliest Kurgans in Central Europe.
Central and Eastern Europe is a conglomerate of indigenous forest people + P-I-E's = Germanic
and Slavic peoples. The P-I-E's on the Pontic steppe didn't survive because the demographics of
the steppe were forever shifting, with new nomadic groups coming in and doing whatever they
pleased to the subdued inhabitants. Biased? I had ancestors who were from near the
German/Czech border, so surely I have some Slavic thrown in the mix, but that doesn't change
the fact that the Huns came from the east, so why wouldn't the PIE's |ust be an earlier and more
successful Indo-European version of the Huns?
2011-12-19, 09:57
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
,ho cares what 3e'oto and (hmid proposed, they ha'e no e'idence of
horse domestication and earliest Iurgans in .entral Europe%
You assume that PIEs were connected to horse domestication and kurgans and then re|ect the
theories which don't make these assumptions. I don't think this is a correct way of |udging
theories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
the &uns came from the east, so why wouldn't the P$E's #ust be an earlier
and more successful $ndo-European 'ersion of the &uns
This makes an interesting speculation, the problem is that there are archeological traces of the
Corded Ware expansion to the East, but there are no proofs of Eastern - "kurgan" -expansion
towards Northern Europe Europe:
2011-12-19, 10:25
Bohemian Rhapsody
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
gou assume that P$Es were connected to horse domestication and kurgans
Horse riding is the very essence of the proto-Indo-Europeans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
there are no proofs of Eastern - ]kurgan] -e)pansion towards Northern
Europe Europe
?
Quote:
-he &vga Iurgan A&vgahcgenD or Iing >#crn's Hound AIung >#crns hcgD is a
large Nordic >ron*e Age kurgan in the western outskirts of 4ppsala, (weden%
$t is one of the most magni:cent remains from the Nordic >ron*e
Age% HR.ahQ.en mound is approximatel) S metres hi.h and LM
metres across and it $as constructed ca 3>>> '.C%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A5ga_Kurgan
Lemminkinen
The northern limit of wheat depends on the time and agricultural ideas, because it doesnt grow wild in Central Europe.
Today it is farmed in Finland to the level near Lapland, but wild wheat grows only in Middle East. During the warmest eras
the norhern limit of vine was in Estonia and archaelogical fnds have found even in Finland. This sounds to be very popular
to take one thing into examination and then try to fnd every other things that seem to support it. If you look critically this
map, you could see that regions suitable for wheat and vine include also Semitic and Uralic languages and those regions
have depended on climatic eras.
2011-12-19, 10:31
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
&orse riding is the 'ery essence of the proto-$ndo-Europeans%
This is exactly the wild assumption you are making. There is no solid evidence of horse riding
before frst millernium BC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
http<KKen%wikipedia%orgKwikiK&8.18A5gaNIurgan
See here.
2011-12-19, 11:44
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
-his theory can only be falsi:ed with the help of a3NA and so far the results
are not 'ery encouraging<
No, any linguistic theory can only be falsifed by linguistic evidence. You should already know
this. It cannot be falsifed by genetic evidence - at least not in a scientifc framework.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
,e usually don't think of proto-$ndoeuropeans as East Asians%
1. East Asian -originated females necessarily have nothing to do with the IE language; only if also
the males were from East Asia, we should reconsider the matter.
2. Mitochondrial haplogroup C may be originally from East Asia, but that particular lineage may
well have been in Europe thousands of years. The mere haplogroup cannot thus prove that these
females were recent newcomers from East Asia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
>esides P$E 4rheiman can't be located in the Pontic-.aspian (teppe on the
linguistc grounds - there are no trees there Aand no salmonD while P$E are
supposed to be familiar with oak, beech and willow<
You are wrong, linguistic evidence indeed testifes for this region. Of course there were trees in
the river valleys, at least. There are also salmon-related fshes and beech-related trees - these
arguments are outdated, because they axiomatically suppose that the original meanings for these
words were the European salmon and the European beech. Read Mallory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
(till it is suspicious that scientists return to the idea of .entral European
4rheimat so often<
Much more often do they return to the Ukrainian homeland.
But frequency does not matter, only arguments: Central European homeland cannot explain all
the linguistic evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
,ere they all biased maniacs $s the fact that - for the time being - the
region of the highest (NP di'ersity seems to be located in .entral Europe
totaly accidental
I already told you that the highest diversity does not automatically prove about homeland,
because it may well be secondary, due to multiple migrations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
-his makes an interesting speculation, the problem is that there are
archeological traces of the .orded ,are e)pansion to the East, but there are
no proofs of Eastern - ]kurgan] -e)pansion towards Northern Europe Europe<
But there is Kurgan inJuence. This is enough to spread a language.
2011-12-19, 21:33
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
$ already told you that the highest di'ersity does not automatically pro'e
about homeland, because it may well be secondary, due to multiple
migrations%
Multiple migrations of SNPs from the same part of the R1a1a tree? :D
And what happened to all the autosomal admixture from these supposed multiple migrations?
Oh, wait, they all came from the same source, right, because the SNPs are from the same part of
the tree, so the autosomal admixture doesn't exist, because it was a total population replacement
from another part of Eurasia.
Oh, hang on, why did they become totally extinct in their original home? No traces left there at all.
Curious stuf. But if we |ust said that the expansion was from East Central Europe, then all the
genetic pieces of the puzzle would ft. No need for multiple migrations that left no traces in
autosomal DNA.
And the linguistic part can be easily explained by long distance contacts via the steppe and forest
steppe zones.
2011-12-19, 21:42
Tuohikir|e
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
-his is e)actly the wild assumption you are making% -here is no solid
e'idence of horse riding before :rst millernium >.%
(ee here%
What do you mean. Where. First millenium BC is far too late (only at least by 3000 years).
2011-12-19, 21:49
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
Hultiple migrations of (NPs from the same part of the R;a;a tree <3
And what happened to all the autosomal admi)ture from these supposed
multiple migrations
Oh, wait, they all came from the same source, right, because the (NPs are
from the same part of the tree, so the autosomal admi)ture doesn't e)ist,
because it was a total population replacement from another part of Eurasia%
Oh, hang on, why did they become totally e)tinct in their original home No
traces left there at all%
.urious stu+% >ut if we #ust said that the e)pansion was from East .entral
Europe, then all the genetic pieces of the pu**le would :t% No need for
multiple migrations that left no traces in autosomal 3NA%
And the linguistic part can be easily e)plained by long distance contacts 'ia
the steppe and forest steppe *ones%
It's not |ust about the R-M17 clade but also other factors must be taken into account, like the
horse domestication, and the Maykop culture that has been assigned a speculative proto-Indo-
European identity. Horse domestication fts better somewhere in the northern Caucasus for
various reasons such as bit wear evidence and domesticating the horse as an economic meat
source (that's not to say the proto-Indo-Europeans were a Kartvelian folk; Caucasian speakers
have expanded northwards after PIE). It's of course always possible that the PIE urheimat was in
Maykop and subsequently expanded to Yamnaya and then later on to Poland/Lithuania and
settled there seriously, after the domestication of the horse. It's diHcult to say.
But what we can say with certainty is that Germany is too far out, and that Poland being the
"epicentre" of R-M17 is arguably a hint in the right direction towards the Pontic-Caspian steppe,
rather than India, southern Scandinavia, the Mediterranean or the Middle East. The PIE urheimat
is in all likelihood somewhere in eastern Europe, for sure.
2011-12-19, 21:52
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
No, any linguistic theory can only be falsi:ed /) lin.uistic e&idence% gou
should already know this% $t cannot be falsi:ed by genetic e'idence W at least
not in a scienti:c framework%
;% East Asian -originated females necessarily ha'e nothing to do with the $E
languageY only if also the males were from East Asia, we should reconsider
the matter%
L% Hitochondrial haplogroup . may be originally from East Asia, but that
particular lineage may well ha'e been in Europe thousands of years% -he
mere haplogroup cannot thus pro'e that these females were recent
newcomers from East Asia%
gou are wrong, linguistic e'idence indeed testi:es for this region% Of course
there were trees in the ri'er 'alleys, at least% -here are also salmon-related
:shes and beech-related trees W these arguments are outdated, because
they a)iomatically suppose that the original meanings for these words were
the European salmon and the European beech% Read Hallory%
Huch more often do they return to the 4krainian homeland%
>ut fre9uency does not matter, only arguments< .entral European homeland
cannot e)plain all the linguistic e'idence%
$ already told you that the highest di'ersity does not automatically pro'e
about homeland, because it may well be secondary, due to multiple
migrations%
>ut there is Iurgan in?uence% -his is enough to spread a language%
I can see that for you the Pontic-Caspian PIE Urheimat is some kind of dogma, so you will re|ect
any arguments - even linguistic ones - contradicting your belief as you do above. As far as I
remember you dogma is based on only two linguistic premises: contacts of PIE with Kartvelian
and contacts with Semitic. I have already dealt with the Kartvelian argument. Now it is time for the
Semitic one:
Quote:
Relations between $ndoeuropean and (emitic languages ha'e often been
maintained% -rubet*koy, for e)ample, has claimed that $ndoeuropean
languages de'eloped from a (emitic-similiar stage to an 4ralic-similiar one%
On the other hand it is well known nowadays that the (emitic languages are
one of si) coordinate branches of the Afroasiatic AU&amitosemitic U
Erythraeic U !isramicD languages beside Ancient Egyptian, .ushitic, Omotic,
.hadic and >erberic% -he (ahara must be assumed to be the original home
of the Afroasiatic family% As an age of at least tenthousand years is supposed
for this family it is worth noticing that the (ahara was green at the time of
Proto-Afroasiatic and that Europe was under the in?uence of the last glacial
epoch at the same time% !t has /een seldom noticed that an)
relationship /et$een !ndoeuropean and Semitic lan.ua.es rePuires
the assumption of a relationship /et$een the !ndoeuropean and the
entire Afroasiatic famil). This means relations to @orthern Africa.
'ut Proto-!ndoeuropean existed almost f&ethousand )ears a.o
some$here in Eastern Europe. @e&ertheless ! think that there are
some traces of possi/le relations /et$een !ndoeuropean and
Afroasiatic lan.ua.es. ! ha&e onl) the follo$in. explanation for this
surprisin. situationF At the end of the last .lacial epoch Europe
started to .et $armer and the Sahara started to /ecome a desert.
Pro/a/l) man) people mi.rated from the Sahara to Europe and
Asia. !t is possi/le that some of them contri/uted to the .enesis of
Proto-!ndoeuropean $hich certainl) took place some$here in
Eastern Europe.
Exactly as in the case of Karvelian the association with haplogroup G dominating Neolithic
Europe seems obvious and gives us the explanation the porported links with PIE without the need
for moving PIE Urheimat close to Caucasus, the same way Afroasiatic language family natural
association with haplogrop E1b1b:
Quote:
Originally Posted by !"!PED!A
.hristopher Ehret and (homarka Ieita ha'e suggested that the geography of
the E;b;b lineage coincides with the distribution of Afroasiatic languages%
P;GR
... also found in Neolithic Europe
If we accept this claim and look at the distribution of the aforementioned haplogroup in Europe
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/att...7&d=1313075033
...we come to a conclusion that the explanation of the links between PIE and the Afro-Asiatic
languages doesn't require any assumptions regarding the placement of the PIE Urheimat
(read "Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization" :p).
Of course you will not accept this claim and you will repeat your mantra that genetic facts cannot
alter the conclusions of the linguists, but you should not expect that such a narrow minded and
dogmatic approach will convince the people who meet on this forum to discuss the implications of
the newest discoveries in the feld of genetics.
2011-12-19, 22:54
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuohikir#e
,hat do you mean% ,here% "irst millenium >. is far too late Aonly at least by
1666 yearsD%
Read here: Early Riders: The beginnings of mounted warfare in Asia and Europe By Robert
Drews
Quote:
Originally Posted by (o/ert Dre$s
&ere we must be satis:ed with a negati'e conclusions< the material record
has not shown that people on the Eurasian steppe were riding horses in the
:fth, fourth and third millenia%
So we have to chose: either PIE espansion had anything to to with riding horses, and thus PIE is
only 4 thousands years old (but this is not possible), or PIE expansion was not linked to the
invention of horse riding (it was linked to the invention of the wheeled vehicle instead around
3500 BC, and horses were only later - after the invention of the light spoked wheel - ftted to the
wheeled vehicled contributing to the successes of the chariot riding Indo-Iranians). Take your
pick.
2011-12-20, 02:19
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
-he P$E urheimat is in all likelihood somewhere in eastern Europe, for sure%
Yes, it is. But it's not on the steppe or anywhere near the Caucasus.
As a result, Jaska has no choice but to repeat that only linguistics can solve the Indo-European
issue. The reason he has to repeat this is because genetics is showing a massive movement of
Europeans at the proto-Indo-European phase pushing into the steppe, and displacing Eurasian
populations.
But Jaska's theory says that despite this, the language moved from east to west.
So we have a problem, because the picture favored by Jaska suggests an unusual situation, in
which a pressured people in the east passed on their language to waves of European migrants
from the west, who then took that language and spread it to whence they came from.
2011-12-20, 03:58
Tuohikir|e
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
Read here< Early Riders< -he beginnings of mounted warfare in Asia and
Europe >y Robert 3rews
(o we ha'e to chose< either P$E espansion had anything to to with riding
horses, and thus P$E is only B thousands years old Abut this is not possibleD,
or P$E e)pansion was not linked to the in'ention of horse riding Ait was linked
to the in'ention of the wheeled 'ehicle instead around 1566 >., and horses
were only later - after the in'ention of the light spoked wheel - :tted to the
wheeled 'ehicled contributing to the successes of the chariot riding $ndo-
$raniansD% -ake your pick%
Could not access. First millenium BC is too late in any case. The date of 4000 BCE is based on
evidence that includes the appearance of dental pathologies associated with bitting. There are
2500-2000 BCE fndings at the site of Csepel-Haros in Hungary.
2011-12-20, 04:16
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuohikir#e
.ould not access% "irst millenium >. is too late in any case% -he date of B666
>.E is based on e'idence that includes the appearance of dental pathologies
associated with bitting% -here are L566-L666 >.E :ndings at the site of
.sepel-&aros in &ungary%
This so called evidence is weak.
2011-12-20, 05:58
Tuohikir|e
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
-his so called e'idence is weak%
True, I do not know from which millenium your information is from..
Volga area has fndings of domesticated horses e.g. (5000 BC).
2011-12-20, 08:04
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuohikir#e
.ould not access%
Try this: http://books.google.pl/books?id=aSLq...0eaten&f=false
.. or look for "Early Riders: The beginnings of mounted warfare in Asia and Europe" by Robert
Drews in Google Books.
---------- Post added 2011-12-20 at 09:05 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuohikir#e
Eolga area has :ndings of domesticated horses e%g% Aw5666 >.D%
"Domesticated" in this context means kept for food.
Quote:
Originally Posted by (o/ert Dre$s
-oward the end of the fourth millenium, as we shell see, Europeans again
began to eat horsemeat, this time perhaps from domestic animals%
2011-12-20, 08:12
Tuohikir|e
Quote:
]3omesticated] in this conte)t means kept for food%
Actually it doesn't. Equine equipment does not need to be made out of metal even today. Leather,
rope or similar organic material is enough. There are plenty of arguements why horses were
domesticated that early in the beginning with, you do not need to do that if they were only pray.
E.g. the size of horses was enough to carry men and so on and so on. If there is no equipment left
from 5000 BC, there are teeth, which clearly have marks of bittings 4000 BC.
2011-12-20, 08:34
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuohikir#e
Actually it doesn't% E9uine e9uipment does not need to be made out of metal
e'en today% !eather, rope or similar organic material is enough% -here are
plenty of arguements why horses were domesticated that early in the
beginning with, you do not need to do that if they were only pray% E%g% the
si*e of horses was enough to carry men and so on and so on% $f there is no
e9uipment left from 5666 >., there are teeth, which clearly ha'e marks of
bittings B666 >.%
Let me repeat after the man who actualy specialises in the feld:
Quote:
Originally Posted by (o/ert Dre$s
&ere we must be satis:ed with a negati'e conclusions< the material record
has not shown that people on the Eurasian steppe were riding horses in the
:fth, fourth and third millenia%
Here you have another expert:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;arsha <e&ine
3erei'ka, a 4krainian settlement site Acirca B566-1566 >.D, has been central
to the problem of the origins of horse domestication, because for the past
three decades it has been regarded as the site with the earliest e'idence of
horse husbandry Ae%g% Anthony and >rown, ;00;Y >ibiko'a, ;0C7Y >ckcnyi,
;0GCY @imbutas, ;00;Y Hallory, ;0C0Y -elegin, ;0C7D% Hore recently another
Eneolithic settlement site, >otai, from Ia*akhstan has also been associated
with the origins of horse domestication A>rown and Anthony,
;00CD% Ho$e&er, upon further examination, it is clear that the
e&idence /ackin. these claims is deepl) Ta$ed. Careful
consideration of the data from /oth 'otai and Derei&ka stron.l)
su..ests that the &ast ma#orit), if not the totalit), of the horses
from /oth of those sites $ere $ild 8<e&ine, 3DDDaU <e&ine, 3DDD/9.
'ecause of the relati&el) hi.h proportions of horses d)in. durin.
their most producti&e )ears, their mortalit) distri/utions, /ased
upon tooth a.ein., are characteristic of hunted animals.
$n'estigations of bone pathology ha'e also been 'ery informati'e about this
9uestion A!e'ine, ;000bY !e'ine et al, L666D% .omparisons of Early $ron Age,
(cytho-(iberian horses from burials in the 4kraine and the Altai A;st
millennium >.D, free-li'ing modern E)moor Ponies and Hedie'al -urkic
horses from the Altai strongly suggest that certain abnormalities of the
caudal thoracic 'ertebrae are associated with the use of pad saddles and,
most probably, with riding bareback% -hese abnormalities are entirely absent
from >otai, where the preser'ation of 'ertebrae is 'ery good% 4nfortunately
the 'ertebrae from 3erei'ka had all been discarded before they could be
studied%
Domestication, Breed Diversifcation and Early History of the Horse, Marsha A Levine, McDonald
Institute for Archaeological Research
I think we can close this case for the time being until new evidence appears.
2011-12-20, 08:55
Tuohikir|e
Quote:
$ think we can close this case for the time being until new e'idence appears%
Thank you for the information, but there are several theories and views. Mounting a horse 5000
BC cannot be ruled out. That is what I am saying.
2011-12-20, 10:10
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuohikir#e
Hounting a horse 5666 >. cannot be ruled out%
Certainly there were attempts:
http://www.magazynsztuki.pl/wp-conte...l_uniesien.|pg
2011-12-20, 11:44
Magavariko
1-Horse haunting
2-Horse domesticating
3-Charriot technology
3.1-Economy and transport
3.2-Warfare
4-Horse riding
From an historical perspective, horse riding has been an auxiliar warfare metod in most cases till the Middle Ages, when it
became the main military tactic. First tactical units were frstly developed by indoiranian (and other steppe) tribes between
II-I millennia. Assyrians adopted -and adapted- these tactics to face medians and persians
By the era narrated in homeric poems (around 3200 bP) horse-riding was almost inexistent in Greece. We only fnd
charriots and infantry. Judging the data at our disposal, military horse-riding was introduced in Europe during the frst
millenium b.C. By who? Difusionism? Invasions? Both combined elements?
2011-12-20, 15:39
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
-his theory can only be falsi:ed with the help of a3NA and so far the results
are not 'ery encouraging<
,e usually don't think of proto-$ndoeuropeans as East Asians% YD
And they certainly weren't. Do you think Norwegians and Saudi Arabs are native Americans? ;)
Y-DNA Q:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...28Y-DNA%29.PNG
I'm sharing with one Sicilian and a few Europeans who are Y-DNA Q1b on 23andMe. I don't think
that mtDNA C is at all relevant to proto-Indo-European ancestry and it certainly cannot falsify
anything other than perhaps proving that there might have been either a few captured Mongoloid
women that were used as concubines without producing any ofspring into modern Europeans, or
mtDNA C might have been a dual race lineage in the sense that it survived the separation of the
Eurasian (OOA) genepool into both Mongoloids and Caucasoids but pretty much died in the
Caucasoid genepool and was almost extinct during the ethnogenesis of the proto-Indo-
Europeans.
In any case, it's not all that important and can safely be discarded from the Indo-European
question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$n the light of the results of the abo'e 9uoted paper it looks that it was the
other way round< that European $Es displaced the East Asian inhabitants of
the 4krainian (teppes%
That's always possible, but please discuss it in Hweinlant's thread as it's not the focus of this
thread ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
>esides P$E 4rheiman can't be located in the Pontic-.aspian (teppe on the
linguistc grounds - there are no trees there Aand no salmonD while P$E are
supposed to be familiar with oak, beech and willow<
http<KKiB;%tinypic%comKadc;nt%#pg
Where did you get this map from?
Anyway, it's not |ust about the Jora, but also fauna and other stuf that has to make any sense.
What about the Maykop, Yamnaya and Sredni Stog? What sort of linguistic identities would you
apply on these cultures? And what if they all show up as R-M17 once they're genome
sequenced? What about the contacts between Sredny Stog and Tripolye-Cucuteni? Do you think
this could reJect the Y-DNA R-M17 and I-L69.2 frequencies we see in the Balkans today? Can
we simply disregard all this shit |ust because Poland has high frequency and diversity of R-
M17 today?
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
(till it is suspicious that scientists return to the idea of .entral European
4rheimat so often<
http<KK;%bp%blogspot%comK-o7qoFEGwRN%%%atNipotesi%png
,ere they all biased maniacs $s the fact that - for the time being - the
region of the highest (NP di'ersity seems to be located in .entral Europe
totaly accidental
Yeah, most of them were biased maniacs, or more like, misinformed due to lack of evidence and
vague general knowledge on the question at the time. I think Gimbutas pushed PIE urheimat in
the right direction, but Mallory's revision of her Kurgan hypothesis deserves the most credit
because he took it to a whole new level and gave it a proper linguistic and archaeological
analysis. Anthony basically |ust refned Mallory's stance with some new horse and wheel
evidence (some of which is still very speculative) and minor inclusion of animal genetics. Anthony
totally failed in the population genetics department :whoco:
What we're doing now is basically trying to ft in R-M17 with all the other evidence-linguistics,
archaeology and horse/wheel remnants, Jora/fauna vocabulary, and so on and so forth. Although
R-M17 is obviously a very important part of a big puzzle, it certainly cannot reshape or discard all
the coherent pieces of evidence we know about PIE so far.
To illustrate how much speculative bullshit there's been about the PIE urheimat, Napalmregn;) on
Flashback put together this map:
http://i33.tinypic.com/n3249v.|pg
Friedrich Schlegel was a misinformed Indomaniac, and Koenraad Elst in particular places PIE
urheimat in India for dogmatic reasons (he's very passionate about Hindu-related topics :)),
Kossinna had his Nazi Nordicist dogma to maintain and can safely be disregarded not because of
his posthumous association with the Nazis, but because southern Sweden and northern
Germany/Denmark simply does not match any important evidence like high linguistic diversity of
IE and R-M17 and linguistic palaeontology etc. Charles Morris had a few impressive points but
most of his book was pseudo-scientifc speculations. I fnd his speculative genealogy "northern
Europeans = Mongoloids" and "south Europeans = Negroids" very funny now in hindsight with
what we know about non-Caucasoid admixture in Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
No, any linguistic theory can only be falsi:ed /) lin.uistic e&idence% gou
should already know this% $t cannot be falsi:ed by genetic e'idence W at least
not in a scienti:c framework%
But the genetic evidence in the case of R-M17 diversity and frequency in Poland and surrounds
fts like the hand in the glove with the linguistic diversity of Indo-European central-eastern Europe
(Poland and surrounds). So obviously this region is a very important hot spot in understanding
PIE urheimat. It may have been one of the earliest settlements after the original PIE "biotope",
which should be somewhere in the Pontic-Caspian steppe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
;% East Asian -originated females necessarily ha'e nothing to do with the $E
languageY only if also the males were from East Asia, we should reconsider
the matter%
L% Hitochondrial haplogroup . may be originally from East Asia, but that
particular lineage may well ha'e been in Europe thousands of years% -he
mere haplogroup cannot thus pro'e that these females were recent
newcomers from East Asia%
Excellent points. And mtDNA C might have been in the region long before there was such a thing
as autosomal Mongoloid genetic isolate. We are after all talking about a 60,000 years old
haplogroup here which certainly predates the most conservative fgure I've seen for separation
between Mongoloids and Caucasoids at 40,000 YBP.
So enough about that, it's not relevant to this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$ can see that for you the Pontic-.aspian P$E 4rheimat is some kind of
dogma, so you will re#ect any arguments - e'en linguistic ones -
contradicting your belief as you do abo'e% As far as $ remember you dogma
is based on only two linguistic premises< contacts of P$E with Iart'elian and
contacts with (emitic% $ ha'e already dealt with the Iart'elian argument%
Now it is time for the (emitic one<
E)actly as in the case of Iar'elian the association with haplogroup @
dominating Neolithic Europe seems ob'ious and gi'es us the e)planation the
porported links with P$E without the need for mo'ing P$E 4rheimat close to
.aucasus, the same way Afroasiatic language family natural association with
haplogrop E;b;b<
%%% also found in Neolithic Europe
$f we accept this claim and look at the distribution of the aforementioned
haplogroup in Europe
http<KKwww%forumbiodi'ersity%comKatt%%%GidU;1;16G5611
%%%we come to a conclusion that the e)planation of the links between P$E and
the Afro-Asiatic languages doesn't re9uire any assumptions regarding the
placement of the P$E 4rheimat Aread ]>lack Athena< -he Afroasiatic Roots of
.lassical .i'ili*ation] <pD%
Of course you will not accept this claim and you will repeat your mantra that
genetic facts cannot alter the conclusions of the linguists, but you should not
e)pect that such a narrow minded and dogmatic approach will con'ince the
people who meet on this forum to discuss the implications of the newest
disco'eries in the :eld of genetics%
Black Athena is a pseudo-scientifc nonsense book (I will read it someday though, |ust for shits
and giggles), and you can't refute the linguistic aHnities between Semitic and proto-Indo-
European (Nostratic, loan/contact words or otherwise) by using E1b1b or G2a Y-DNA. Afro-
Asiatic and Semitic are more tied to R1b and J-P58 rather than any E1b1b clade. And proto-
Semitic alone is about the same age as proto-Indo-European, perhaps even older.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
ges, it is% >ut it's not on the steppe or anywhere near the .aucasus%
Why not? If R1a originated somehwhere in the Fertile Crescent (which is what you've suggested),
it would make sense that Maykop was one of the earliest settlements of proto-Indo-European,
and from there they later emigrated to Yamnaya and subsequently throughout Europe. Actually,
Maykop may have been the area where R1a and R1b both mutated and separated as far as I'm
concerned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
As a result, Faska has no choice but to repeat that only linguistics can sol'e
the $ndo-European issue% -he reason he has to repeat this is because
genetics is showing a massi'e mo'ement of Europeans at the proto-$ndo-
European phase pushing into the steppe, and displacing Eurasian
populations%
>ut Faska's theory says that despite this, the language mo'ed from east to
west%
(o we ha'e a problem, because the picture fa'ored by Faska suggests an
unusual situation, in which a pressured people in the east passed on their
language to wa'es of European migrants from the west, who then took that
language and spread it to whence they came from%
I don't think the proto-Indo-Europeans displaced Mongoloids because there probably weren't any
Mongoloids around at the time, since mtDNA C without any Mongoloid autosomal DNA(?) alone
is not enough to suggest such a scenario. But if I've missed or forgotten something here about
that, please enlighten me in Hweinlant's thread.
I am telling you, the Pontic-Caspian steppe is the original PIE urheimat and that Poland and
surrounds must have been an early subsequent settlement after Yamnaya in which R-M17
thrived and diversifed very rapidly-perhaps thanks to agriculture-in synchronisation with the
diversifcation of the Indo-European language family. But PIE as a single language without any
daughter or cousin languages and before the domestication of the horse must have taken place in
the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and why is that? Well, among other reasons, similarities in cultural
practises such as boar tusk ornaments:
The valuables that signaled status were copper, shell, and imported stone beads and ornaments;
boars-tusk plaques; polished stone mace-heads; and bird-bone tubes (function unknown). Status
also might have been expressed through the treatment of the body after death (exposed, burial of the
skull/not exposed, burial of the whole body); and by the public sacrifce of domesticated animals,
particularly cattle. Similar markers of status were adopted across the Pontic-Caspian
steppes, from the Dnieper to the Volga. Boars-tusk plaques with exactly the same ower-
like projection on the upper edge (gure 9.6, top plaque from Yasinovatka) were found at
Yasinovatka in the Dnieper valley and in a grave at S'yezzhe in the Samara valley, 400 km to
the east. Ornaments made of Balkan copper were traded across the Dnieper and appeared on the
Volga. Polished stone mace-heads had diferent forms in the Dnieper valley (Nikol'skoe), the middle
Volga (Khvalynsk), and the North Caspian region (Varfolomievka), but a mace is a weapon, and its
wide adoption as a symbol of status suggests a change in the politics of power."
- Anthony, David W., The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the
Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, ISBN: 069114818X, p. 181-182
And here you can read about a boar tusk helmet found in Mycenaean Greece (p. 60) in the Indo-European
grave circle:
Nobuo Komita, The Grave Circles at Mycenae and the Early Indo-Europeans: http://www.kait-
r.com:8080/dspace/bi...ka-007-006.pdf
^^ You can't disregard important shit like this |ust because you have an R1a fetish/bias ;) But chances are
that once tested, these skeletons will turn up as R1a, wouldn't you say?
Moreover, proto-Indo-European is dated to around 4,500 BC, which should make it almost 7,000 years old,
and the global population at the time was a hell of a lot smaller than it is today, so you can't really use modern
extant populations and their haplogroup distributions to pinpoint the PIE urheimat in Poland, because back
then R-M17 may have had a very diferent and certainly less wide distribution, especially prior to the
domestication of the horse.
2011-12-20, 17:03
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
ruote<
Originally Posted by Jaska
$ already told you that the highest di'ersity does not automatically
pro'e about homeland, because it may well be secondary, due to
multiple migrations%
Hultiple migrations of (NPs from the same part of the R;a;a tree
Yes. Think about it:
1. Groups close to each other have been born in the same area, so they are often located in the
ad|acent areas. Therefore they probably migrate together.
2. Only the root matters, branches do not matter. If you can show that there are among the Polish
people both (a) the ancestral form before the SNP mutation, and ( b ) the descendent form after
the SNP mutation, and (c) they are very similar by their STR values, then you have found the
root. Then you can claim that this particular mutation was born among the Polish
ancestors.
3. But if you |ust see the branches among the Polish people, without the root, the situation may
well be due to multiple migrations. When you nd the root, you can exclude the possibility
of multiple migrations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
Oh, hang on, why did they become totally e)tinct in their original home No
traces left there at all%
How so? What is your claim based on? Which data shows that they left no traces? (A link is
enough, no need to explain it all here.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
And the linguistic part can be easily e)plained by long distance contacts 'ia
the steppe and forest steppe *ones%
Long distance contacts between already diferentiated languages cannot explain the regular
wagon vocabulary of PIE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$ can see that for you the Pontic-.aspian P$E 4rheimat is some kind of
dogma, so you will re#ect any arguments - e'en linguistic ones -
contradicting your belief as you do abo'e%
No, you are wrong.
1. I have no dogma, only arguments count.
2. Nobody has presented any linguistic arguments against the Steppe homeland. I already told
you why the 'salmon' and 'beech' arguments do not stand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
As far as $ remember you dogma is based on only two linguistic premises<
contacts of P$E with Iart'elian and contacts with (emitic% $ ha'e already
dealt with the Iart'elian argument% Now it is time for the (emitic one<
No, you are wrong. Whole of the PIE vocabulary fts best with the steppe homeland; read Mallory,
Adams etc.
Your Kartvelian counter-argument did not stay, as I told you earlier: your opinion is only one
interpretation of many possibilities. And you should remember the Uralic contacts, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$t has been seldom noticed that any relationship between $ndoeuropean
and (emitic languages re9uires the assumption of a relationship between
the $ndoeuropean and the entire Afroasiatic family%X
Wrong. It is not a case of relatedness, so no need for Afro-Asiatic. It is |ust a matter of contacts
between PIE and Semitic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
%%%we come to a conclusion that the e)planation of the links between P$E and
the Afro-Asiatic languages doesn't re9uire any assumptions regarding the
placement of the P$E 4rheimat Aread ]>lack Athena< -he Afroasiatic Roots of
.lassical .i'ili*ation]
You seem to follow some alien, unscientifc logic, which I cannot follow. Could you please try to
explain all the steps that lead you that weird conclusion? And please, explain also your method:
How can you see the language in the genes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
Of course you will not accept this claim and you will repeat your mantra that
genetic facts cannot alter the conclusions of the linguists, but you should not
e)pect that such a narrow minded and dogmatic approach will con'ince the
people who meet on this forum to discuss the implications of the newest
disco'eries in the :eld of genetics%
It saddens me to see that your capacity is not high enough to understand the basic principles of
science. Every discipline has its own ob|ect, which is studied by specifc methods.
I would like to know by which method you can nd information about language in the
genes? As far as I know, no scientist has claimed to have found a gene which makes a
human speak a certain language.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
As a result, Faska has no choice but to repeat that only linguistics can sol'e
the $ndo-European issue% -he reason he has to repeat this is because
genetics is showing a massi'e mo'ement of Europeans at the proto-$ndo-
European phase pushing into the steppe, and displacing Eurasian
populations%
>ut Faska's theory says that despite this, the language mo'ed from east to
west%
(o we ha'e a problem, because the picture fa'ored by Faska suggests an
unusual situation, in which a pressured people in the east passed on their
language to wa'es of European migrants from the west, who then took that
language and spread it to whence they came from%
1. If you want to claim that genetics could overrule the linguistic evidence, you must present the
dependence between a language and genes.No scientist has so far been able to present
such dependence, but go ahead, genius! ;)
2. That you cannot see something in your present genetic results, does not prove that something
was not there in the past. How many Ukrainians have you studied? What kind of admixture
analyses you use? Atzmon et al. 2010 fgure 1C shows that in PC1-PC3 the Russians are in line
with the Adygei; Ukrainians most probably would be there in between. Wouldn`t that be a
genome-wide proof that there is no empty space in the steppe?
3. We can probably fnd some Y-chromosomal (R1a1?) lineage which fts well with the PIE
expansion from the steppe to the northwest, |ust like Elias said. Your genome-wide empty
spot cannot overrule such evidence.
And remember! Dont stare at the diversity, but try to nd out the root of every
lineage/group.
2011-12-20, 21:49
Bohemian Rhapsody
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
it would make sense that Haykop was one of the earliest settlements of
proto-$ndo-European, and from there they later emigrated to gamnaya and
subse9uently throughout Europe% Actually, Haykop may ha'e been the area
where R;a and R;b both mutated and separated as far as $'m concerned%
How would that make sense? Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk cultures are much older than Maykop.
The Maykop culture, ca. 3700 BC2500 BC
The Sredny Stog culture, 4500-3500 BC
The Khvalynsk culture, rst half of the 5th millennium BC
The Corded Ware culture (ca. 29002450/2350 cal. BCE)
The Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, 5500 BC and 2750 BC
The Afanasevo culture, 25002000 BC
The Andronovo culture, 22001400 BC
2011-12-21, 10:56
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
&ow would that make sense (redny (tog and Ih'alynsk cultures are much
older than Haykop%
-he Haykop culture, ca% =S>> 'CV2M>> 'C
-he (redny (tog culture, LM>>-=M>> 'C
-he Ih'alynsk culture, frst half of the Mth millennium 'C
-he .orded ,are culture 8ca. 2D>>J2LM>W2=M> cal. 'CE9
-he .ucuteni--rypillian culture, MM>> 'C and 2SM> 'C
-he Afanase'o culture, 2M>>J2>>> 'C
-he Androno'o culture, 22>>J3L>> 'C
I was referring to the geographical regions rather than the age of these cultures or the cultures per
se, and I did that based on Polako's hypothesis that R-M17 possibly originated in Mesopotamia.
Moreover, R-M17 is most likely older than all of these cultures so the age of these cultures cannot
be used as a guideline for R1a expansion.
Ans by the way, Sungir is much older than R-M17.
2011-12-21, 11:37
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
,here did you get this map from
From the Renfrew's book: Archaeology and language: the puzzle of Indo-European origins, Colin
Renfrew
---------- Post added 2011-12-21 at 12:49 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
,hat we're doing now is basically trying to :t in R-H;G with all the other
e'idenceulinguistics, archaeology and horseKwheel remnants, ?oraKfauna
'ocabulary, and so on and so forth% Although R-H;G is ob'iously a 'ery
important part of a big pu**le, it certainly cannot reshape or discard all the
coherent pieces of e'idence we know about P$E so far%
I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
>ut the genetic e'idence in the case of R-H;G di'ersity and fre9uency in
Poland and surrounds :ts like the hand in the glo'e with the linguistic
di'ersity of $ndo-European central-eastern Europe APoland and surroundsD%
(o ob'iously this region is a 'ery important hot spot in understanding P$E
urheimat%
I agree.
We have now 6 elements pointing to the same regions of Central-Eastern Europe:
1) R1a1 phylogeny
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/9622/r1acladessnp.|pg
2) Linguistic paleonthology conclusions (names of the fauna and Jora)
http://i41.tinypic.com/adc1nt.|pg
3) Lingusitic diversity of the IE languages
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb....ean_Groups.gif
4) places were earliest traces of wheeled vehicles are found.
5) physical anthropology/craniometric considerations
and
6) archeology (the origins of the metal smelting).
Quote:
-hese results e)tend the known record of copper smelting by more than half
a millennium, with substantial implications% E)tracti'e metallurgy occurs at a
location far away from the Near East, challenging the traditional model of a
single origin of metallurgy and re'i'ing the possibility of multiple,
independent in'entions%
(see also here to see the direction of the spread of the metalurgical innovations).
;)
2011-12-22, 12:59
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
,e ha'e now 7 elements pointing to the same regions of .entral-Eastern
Europe<
Actually not at all - drop that "Central" away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
;D R;a; phylogeny
As I said, diversity alone cannot testify for the homeland of certain lineage: we also should fnd the
most archaic root haplotypes, otherwise the diversity may be only due to multiple migrations.
Besides, there are a wide variety of diferent lineages, and some other may better ft with the
linguistic results. You cannot overrule the linguistic results by your (or Polako's) interpretation of
genetic homeland, but you must fnd a ftting correspondent for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
LD !inguistic paleonthology conclusions Anames of the fauna and ?oraD
You try to ignore the fact that linguistic paleontology best fts with the steppes; your "beech and
salmon" -argument is outdated and erroneous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
1D !ingusitic di'ersity of the $E languages
The ancient IE center of gravity was around the Pontic Sea: Anatolian, Aryan, Graeco-Armenian,
Northwest-Indo-European etc. Italo-Celtic, Germanic and Balto-Slavic are descendants of the
latter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
BD places were earliest traces of wheeled 'ehicles are found%
Actually this cannot even tell the place of PIE, because we don't know whether they were PIE
speakers or some other speakers who invented the wheel. It only requires us to locate PIE in an
area at a time where the wheel was present.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
5D physical anthropologyKcraniometric considerations
These cannot overrule the linguistic evidence any more than genes can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
7D archeology the origins of the metal smeltingD%
Asee also here to see the direction of the spread of the metalurgical
inno'ationsD%
Again it is like the wheel: we only need to locate the PIE area where the metals were known at the
time.
Not a single one of your arguments seem to remain! :)
Now I really suggest you will read Mallory, Adams etc. and try to ob|ectively look at the linguistic
evidence forthe steppes and againstthe Central Europe.
Start by downloading Mallory's In Search of the Indo-Europeans here:
http://www.ebook3000.com/J--P--Mallo...yth_36083.html
Then continue by reading it!;)
He has already considered about all the evidence you can imagine.
2011-12-22, 13:44
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
Now $ really suggest you will read Hallory, Adams etc% and try to ob#ecti'ely
look at the linguistic e'idence for the steppes and a.ainst the .entral
Europe%
(tart by downloading Hallory's $n (earch of the $ndo-Europeans here<
http<KKwww%ebook1666%comKF--P--Hallo%%%ythN176C1%html
Then continue /) readin. itX YD
&e has already considered about all the e'idence you can imagine%
Don't provoke me. If his arguments are of the same quality as the ones of David W. Anthony
regarding domestication of the horse, I will only waste my precious time. ;)
2011-12-22, 19:19
Huckleberry Finn
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
3on't pro'oke me% $f his arguments are of the same 9uality as the ones of
3a'id ,% Anthony regarding domestication of the horse, $ will only waste my
precious time% YD
Indeed, I see what you mean. Science is a bitch.
2011-12-23, 08:15
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
3on't pro'oke me% $f his arguments are of the same 9uality as the ones of
3a'id ,% Anthony regarding domestication of the horse, $ will only waste my
precious time% YD
Now you sound like religious fanatic:
"Don't provoke me by claiming that the Earth is round, when I can easily see that it is not.
Besides, Newton had pre-marital sex, and therefore his view cannot be true."
Please read chapters 6 and 7, about the homeland problem and the archaeology of Indo-
Europeans. Then you would at l(e)ast know what you are opposing...
2011-12-23, 08:56
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
Now you sound like religious fanatic<
]3on't pro'oke me by claiming that the Earth is round, when $ can easily see
that it is not% >esides, Newton had pre-marital se), and therefore his 'iew
cannot be true%]
Well, it is you who refer to The Book. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
Please read chapters 7 and G, about the homeland problem and the
archaeology of $ndo-Europeans% -hen you would at lAeDast know what you are
opposing%%%
I have started to read this. At least it can be treated as a nice summary of the precopernican -
read pregenetic - state of scientifc knowlege. Certainly our Ptolomeo here has many interesting
things to say and not all of them will end in the trash bin when confronted with the discoveries in
the feld of genetics ;).
2012-01-01, 09:47
TruthSeeker
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
Now you sound like religious fanatic<
]3on't pro'oke me by claiming that the Earth is round, when $ can easily see
that it is not% >esides, Newton had pre-marital se), and therefore his 'iew
cannot be true%]
Please read chapters 7 and G, about the homeland problem and the
archaeology of $ndo-Europeans% -hen you would at lAeDast know what you are
opposing%%%
FIRST OF ALL - Haappy New Year to everyone and all the best wishes! :-)
I was tempted not to engage myself in this particular thread, but couldn't resist.
1. I was struggling to fnd a post by Jaska that would provide any new info or analysis - failed!
2. Datings - we keep running into this clash between archeological, genealogy and (fctitious)
lingustic, comparative, I must admit, dates!
While the former and the next are hard to argue about, the latter is beyond any credibility.
And still every time Jaska compells you to switch the tracks - i.e. '- you're on my feld, so play my
rules. My science is self-suHcient and doesn't require any intrusion.'
Every time Jaska provokes you to pull evidence in support of the views he sticks with - no
analysis is seen in his posts, only defence against possible alternatives. And what doesn't ft with
mainstream is automatically re|ected with references to 'noble' sources.
Hardly any science can be seen behind this approach!
2012-01-01, 10:06
Lemminkinen
TruthSeeker
Quote:
L% 3atings - we keep running into this clash between archeological,
genealogy and A:ctitiousD lingustic, comparati'e, $ must admit, datesm
Actually genetic datings, if you mean it by the genealogy that is diferent thing, have appeared to
be most unreliable. There has been thousands, even tens thousands years errors in datings
based on yDna. Also, when you say that Jaska has not provided any new info, you fail to be a real
truthseeker, old info is often more reliable than new info if the new one has not been passed by
scientifc peer criticism. .
2012-01-01, 12:44
TruthSeeker
Quote:
Originally Posted by <emminkIinen
-ruth(eeker
Actually .enetic datings, if you mean it by the .enealo.) that is di+erent
thing, ha'e appeared to be most unreliable% -here has been thousands, e'en
tens thousands years 8Y9 errors in datings based on y3na% Also, when you
say that Faska has not pro'ided any new info, you fail to be a real
truthseeker, old info is often more reliable than new info if the new one has
not been passed by scienti:c peer criticism% %
Lemminkinen,
I know what you mean:)
I do not confuse genetics with genetically based genealogy.
More to the point - I do not confuse Y-DNA and mtDNA lines, and I hope we are not to discuss the
reasons that give diferent locations and times (like levels of potential procreation - '9 months vs
potential nightly conception:) - hence population numbers with all the consequences, incl lingustic
ones ')
It happens so that there are facts that can be interpreted in numerous ways.
Comparing one Y-DNA sample from one location to a hundred from another one is bound to
produce an error. Simple statistics.
But the samples that number to higher amounts give a trend that allows to do calculations.
But this is not the same as to say that 'out of ten we have only one commie, but out of thounsand -
100'. Lack of factual data is always a drawback for analysis and conclusions!
As for lingustics, with all due respect to Jakkaa - he seems to only recite, and repeat, and refer,
and mentor on same things.
With pre-historic liguistics we have exactly this problem of the lack of factual data.
Glottochronology didn't prove to be a solution - the comparison lists are shambles!
Any new info is always to avail, be it re|ected or taken on board. In the frst case you |ust cross out
paths that you should not tread again.
Practice shows, that in cases when new info somehow supports old info, the latter is augmented
with a lot of details. Is there any contradiction?
In case of any awkward questions
Jaska always sends the
asker to the 'guru's' works.
This behaviour is one of the two:
1) Extreme fatigue of explaining 'obvious' things to outsiders! - But in that case, why use the
fora?!
2) Flotation on the matters discussed, when the back-up from the 'guru's' is the strong point!
Once again, this was not to oend anyone!
So, my TruthSeeking remains :)
2012-01-01, 13:49
Lemminkinen
Thanks TruthSeeker. Well, I am not defending Jaska, only bringing out what I see sensible. Linguistics have some
problems in datings, but they have also a lot of very hard evidences about connections between languages. It is then a
matter of further discussion to fnd explanations for these hard evidences and how they ft in timeline, it make a little sense to
forget all it by stating that the dating doesnt ft with my facts. This happens when incontrovertible linguistic evidences are
conJicting my facts. This is what here is happening. Someones push their own theories and tend to forget all conJicting
evidences.
Then yDna datings. I really believe that they are very unreliable, because a well-known guru in I1 research retracted
recently all his yDna-datings after years work with this question! He seemigly nullifed his long work.
2012-01-01, 14:31
TruthSeeker
Quote:
Originally Posted by <emminkIinen
-hanks -ruth(eeker% ,ell, $ am not defending Faska, only bringing out what $
see sensible% !inguistics ha'e some problems in datings, but they ha'e also
a lot of 'ery hard e'idences about connections between languages% $t is then
a matter of further discussion to :nd e)planations for these hard e'idences
and how they :t in timeline, it make a little sense to forget all it by stating
that the dating doesnt :t with my facts% -his happens when incontro'ertible
linguistic e'idences are con?icting my facts% -his is what here is happening%
(omeones push their own theories and tend to forget all con?icting
e'idences%
-hen y3na datings% $ really belie'e that they are 'ery unreliable, because a
well-known guru in $; research retracted recently all his y3na-datings after
years work with this 9uestionm &e seemigly nulli:ed his long work%
Thank YOU!
I am delighted at your post!
At last there is convergence of thinking!
You are absolutely right - nothing is set untill it's really set!
I am personally against ANY platforms from which you |ump of, understanding that all of us
started of somewhere. One has to learn, and, at least, to analyze new info - perhaps Jaska is
using the Fora as base material for his Doctorate, and then he will present our views as his own?
A chocolate for Lemminkinen then?
But, as life goes on, new data appears, new analytical material comes in, etc. - good reason to try
and revisit DOGMA's that might be stopping the way forward!
Y-DNA -
Do you refer to the passage on http://polishgenes.blogspot.com/ ?:
"I am also, apparently, accused of neglecting to point out the defciencies of Dodecad v3, and I
am invited by Eurogenes to retract it completely!"
Hm... sounds to me like scientifc rivalry....
2012-01-01, 14:35
Motrhead Remember Me
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
L% 3atings - we keep running into this clash between archeological,
genealogy and A:ctitiousD lingustic, comparati'e, $ must admit, datesm
We always have these contradictions because one scientifc feld does not substitute the other.
We will always have lots of contradictive answers even though the question is the same because
of the diferent approaches that give the answers.
The answers must be processed according to certain rules specifc to each discipline, you can't
sidestep these unless you happen to know exactly 'hat happened in the past which is the reason
for the contradicting answer.
I.e. Where do I come from?
-You look North European
-You behave Mediterranean
-You speak languages x, y and z.
-You only eat Asian food
-Your clothes are from a Bolivian market
-You refuse to drive other than American cars
Therefore I conclude that you come from ....
2012-01-01, 15:43
Lemminkinen
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
g-3NA -
3o you refer to the passage on http<KKpolishgenes%blogspot%comK <
]$ am also, apparently, accused of neglecting to point out the de:ciencies of
3odecad '1, and $ am in'ited by Eurogenes to retract it completelym]
&m%%% sounds to me like scienti:c ri'alry%%%%
Actually i referred to a special yDna work done by Dr. Ken Nordtvedt who has made his own
research concerning I1 during a very long time. He is a mathematician so I assume that he knows
what he has been doing and I appreciate very much his long-standing work. Obvisouly there is so
many parameters to be taken into account in dating yDna that in manycases datings can be
wrong after all. My perception about the str-dating has not been high and every dating over 2000
years is more black magic. So we have a problem; we can make wonderful SNP-trees, but
usually hve only a little idea about the age of each mutation. And here we go with this, these
mathematical trees sucks. On the other hand we have more ancient yDna tht can be dated
archaelogically. But when we combine these few fnds with mathematical modelled trees, we are
much deeper in the shit.
2012-01-01, 15:49
Jaska
TruthSeeker,
happy new year for you, too!
But you have actually disproved nothing.
And I have not re|ected any new views only because they are new, but only because they are weekly based: they cannot
overrule/disprove the mainstream view.
If you disagree with these points, you should argue why your views are scientifcally better based:
1. Linguistic evidence shows that Proto-Indo-European was most probably located in the Pontic steppes and about 4000
BC.
2. Neither genetics nor archaeology can disprove/overrule the linguistic evidence.
http://www.mv.helsinki.f/home/|phakkin/Uralic.html
2012-01-01, 15:53
TruthSeeker
Taking into account the New Year's mood, I took the liberty to split your post, if you don't mind Post Factum:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;otQrhead (emem/er ;e
,e will always ha'e these contradictions because one scienti:c :eld does
not substitute the other%
No single scientist would venture substituting one discipline with another - the main point of these
DIVERSITY FORA is to make them meet! :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;otQrhead (emem/er ;e
,e will always ha'e lots of contradicti'e answers e'en though the 9uestion
is the same because of the di+erent approaches that gi'e the answers%
Concur, diversity though:)
However, there is big diference between opinions (even if they amount to 99,9% like in N.Korea)
and the Truth I'm seeking for:)
As a minor addition - not approaches, but scientifcally |ustifed THEORIES - i.e. 'may be things
waiting to be proven' :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;otQrhead (emem/er ;e
-he answers must be processed according to certain rules speci:c to each
discipline, you can't sidestep these unless you happen to know
e)actly whathappened in the past which is the reason for the contradicting
answer%
Let me give you a theoretical example (which is not improbable) - suppose that an excavation is
made and important evidence is found - all aspects at the same time (!) - a scull (skeleton) lying
in a beautifullly arranged grave with scattered artifacts PLUS several writings!
What do you think the disciplines will do?
I am absolutely sure they will diverge, they will disagree!!! Believe me!
BECAUSE of somebody's past achievements that bring current benefts,
BECAUSE it's not the time yet for some etc. etc. etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;otQrhead (emem/er ;e
$%e% ,here do $ come from
-gou look North European
-gou beha'e Hediterranean
-gou speak languages ), y and *%
-gou only eat Asian food
-gour clothes are from a >oli'ian market
-gou refuse to dri'e other than American cars
-herefore $ conclude that you come from %%%%
And this is where Jaska comes in, saying 'Hey, you came from Africa - doesn't matter you speak
a descendant PIE!' :):):)
2012-01-01, 17:08
TruthSeeker
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
-ruth(eeker,
happy new year for you, toom
>ut you ha'e actually dispro'ed nothing%
And $ ha'e not re#ected any new 'iews only because they are new, but only
because they are weekly based< they cannot o'erruleKdispro'e the
mainstream 'iew%
$f you disagree with these points, you should argue why your 'iews are
scienti:cally better based<
;% !inguistic e'idence shows that Proto-$ndo-European was most probably
located in the Pontic steppes and about B666 >.%
L% Neither genetics nor archaeology can dispro'eKo'errule the linguistic
e'idence%
http<KKwww%m'%helsinki%:KhomeK#phakkinK4ralic%html
Jaska, greetings again!
I have no goal of arguing with you |ust for the sake of arguing, otherwise I would keep doing it on
your every adverse move:p
And to aggravate is not my style.
I would have understood irritation at new theories appearing every now and then, if only they were
not same hunches of forum members, BUT with extra arguments - FuNNily you reshape the
course of discussions:)
In respect of PIE I will respond later in the other thread.
Bonne chance.
Buena suerte.
Good Luck
Glck - (BTW - Hallucination in Russian :D)
Onnea
Puhua sinulle myhemmin
2012-01-01, 17:19
Tuohikir|e
Side note.
Google translator does not work for Finnish language.
2012-01-01, 20:15
TruthSeeker
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
-ruth(eeker,
happy new year for you, toom
>ut you ha'e actually dispro'ed nothing%
And $ ha'e not re#ected any new 'iews only because they are new, but only
because they are weekly based< they cannot o'erruleKdispro'e the
mainstream 'iew%
$f you disagree with these points, you should argue why your 'iews are
scienti:cally better based<
;% !inguistic e'idence shows that Proto-$ndo-Europehan was most probably
located in the Pontic steppes and about B666 >.%
L% Neither genetics nor archaeology can dispro'eKo'errule the linguistic
e'idence%
http<KKwww%m'%helsinki%:KhomettK#phakkinK4ralic%html
You know, I couldn't help thinking about it before going to sleep - :)
1. Did you have classical education? Very proHcient in rhetoric - only lacking visual contact to
make your point even more convincing, and you did that with your photo:-) But with some you will
still fail.
2. 4000 BC - was the source for the date glottochronology?
3. Et la numero troi: "Here we are again, singing the same old song, looking for someone who can
sing along..." Nazareth (Telegram) --- it seemed to me that nobody wants to share the burden
of conclusions from Comparative Linguistics, at least, in the state it is now.
So, there is no assault from other disciplines, nobody is trying to force you to reconsider certain
approaches, relax - onlookers will make their own conclusions.
Tuohikir|e
I would say that pseudoscience is hardest to accept :).
2012-01-01, 21:31
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
gou know, $ couldn't help thinking about it before going to sleep - <D
;% 3id you ha'e classical education Eery projcient in rhetoric - only lacking
'isual contact to make your point e'en more con'incing, and you did that
with your photo<-D >ut with some you will still fail%
Defne "classical education". My school was not in Latin, if that's what you think...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
L% B666 >. - was the source for the date glottochronology
No, but palaeolinguistics: names for parts of the wagon etc. You would know it if you |ust read the
books about the sub|ect. These words are Proto-Indo-European, and they couldn't exist before
wagons were invented - that is: not earlier than 4000 BC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
1% Et la numero troi< ]&ere we are again, singing the same old song, looking
for someone who can sing along%%%] x Na*areth A-elegramD --- it seemed to
me that nobody wants to share the burden of conclusions from .omparati'e
!inguistics, at least, in the state it is now%
(o, there is no assault from other disciplines, nobody is trying to force you to
reconsider certain approaches, rela) - onlookers will make their own
conclusions
You at least seem to know nothing about the linguistic results, and neither about the scientifc
multidisciplinarity, if you think that genetics could disprove the linguistic results.
Please do not answer until you have some TRUE COUNTERARGUMENTS - now you |ust prove
yourself ignorant and unknowing. :)
2012-01-02, 10:02
Pioterus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
3e:ne ]classical education]% Hy school was not in !atin, if that's what you
think%%%
Wasn't it Eristic that TruthSeeker is referring to?
Quote:
Eristic, from the ancient @reek word Eris meaning wrangle or strife, often
refers to a type of argument where the participants :ght and 9uarrel without
any reasonable goal%
-he aim usually is to win the argument andKor to engage into a con?ict for
the sole purpose of $astin. time throu.h ar.uments, not to
potentiall) disco&er a true or pro/a/le ans$er to any speci:c 9uestion
or topic% Eristic is arguing for the sake of con?ict as opposed to the seeking
of con?ict resolution%
It seems more and more that Finnish schools are really good at training in this skill. ;)
2012-01-02, 10:24
Lemminkinen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioterus
,asn't it Eristic that -ruth(eeker is referring to
$t seems more and more that "innish schools are really good at training in
this skill% YD
Dont you see that this was |ust what you blamed us to do... "wasting time through arguments, not
to potentially discover a true or probable answer to any specifc question or topic". This is sad.
2012-01-02, 20:01
EastPole
I have written a post in another tread which might be of interest to those following this tread:
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...&postcount=266
2012-01-05, 08:45
TruthSeeker
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
gou at least seem to know nothing about the linguistic results, and neither
about the scienti:c multidisciplinarity, if you think that genetics could
dispro'e the linguistic results%
Please do not answer until you ha'e some -R4E .O4N-ERAR@4HEN-( - now
you #ust pro'e yourself ignorant and unknowing% <D
Jaska,
The main point about these Diversity Fora - they allow to aggregate views, in some of which
rational grains are hidden, not taken on board by those responsible for Science:)
It doesn`t mean, however, that only enthusiasts (amateurs) participate!
I keep trying to invite you to turn away from a combination of defence/ofence and begin a real
collaborative fruitful discussion with the aim to analyse bits and pieces of info given by Fora
members and sift them through all possible flters.
You seem to absolutely miss my points (hope unintentionally).
Only accusations are strewn through your posts.
1. I am not new to linguistics.
2. I DID read the gurus you refer to.
3. For GOD`s sake I repeat ( in case you UNINTENTIONALLY missed it in posts) - NO real
scientist would venture REPLACING one discipline with another. The main point is to combine
the results of their fndings!
4. I have no delusion that genetics can disprove linguistic results - all my hints were to datings,
location and linguistic specifcs (like what to treat a substratum - this is why I said the
comparative lists are shambles!)
5. Instead of providing links to the works of others I keep encouraging you to provide your own
views, and the only case of analysis I`ve seen so far was in contradicting Dhira Simha in this
post http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...&postcount=328 - all the rest were references to
mainstream views.
6. Urheimat is now a notion of not purely linguistic importance - rather an origin of a community
that was characterised by a set of common features, incl. language .
7. Now more to the point of this thread -
1) The very notion of `Paleolingustics` presupposes dependence in time (not the words, sounds,
etc!!! - dates) on other disciplines that provide supportive data. But in contrast to your approach,
linguistics can only provide possible ways for sound change, not the dates (the dates are not purely
linguistic!) - when you say you have no evidence of the `k` sound drifting back to `s`, it doesn`t mean it
never happened!
2) The Steppes as the origin, keep drifting from one work to another and the same in forums! But, I
see your point - language contacts, as reJected in vocabulary, sound changes that are treated now
not as possibilities, but as proven facts!
3) Polako`s results point to the location between Poland and Russia.
4) There are Russian unrecognized annuls amounting to 100, stored in the Russian State Library that
describe that a Slav city was already there 2400 BC exactly between Poland and nowadays Russia!
2012-01-05, 16:48
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
$ keep trying to in'ite you to turn away from a combination of
defenceKo+ence and begin a real collaborati'e fruitful discussion with the
aim to analyse bits and pieces of info gi'en by "ora members and sift them
through all possible :lters%
I`m doing |ust that.
It is not fruitful at all to ignore the best-argued views without any counter-arguments - it`s called
ignorance, you know.
Fruitful discussion occur when all the relevant pieces of evidence are taken into
consideration.I have no interest to participate in non-fruitful discussions. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
;% $ am not new to linguistics%
L% $ 3$3 read the gurus you refer to%
Then I give you a free tip:
Write so that these things are seen in your message, too!
It saves the time of us both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
NO real scientist would 'enture REP!A.$N@ one discipline with another% -he
main point is to combine the results of their :ndingsm
This can be done either wrong/unscientifc or right/scientifc way. If you take the results of diferent
disciplines and then seek where they match (and where not), you do it right. But if you claim that
genes could disprove/contradict the linguistic results, you do it wrong.
Which way is your way?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
5% $nstead of pro'iding links to the works of others $ keep encouraging you to
pro'ide your own 'iews, and the onlycase of analysis $J'e seen so far was in
contradicting 3hira (imha in this
posthttp<KKwww%forumbiodi'ersity%comKsho%%%ipostcountU1LC W all the rest
were references to mainstream 'iews%
I have no interest nor time to rewrite the mainstream books. Mainstream means that the
knowledge is easily available (even in Wikipedia) and well tested. To disagree with the
mainstream view you (passively, not you in person!) should:
1. read the argumentation behind the mainstream view
2. Tell where it goes wrong
3. Present your own arguments supporting your alternative view.
So far you (in person) have not shown that you have done so
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
;D -he 'ery notion of ^PaleolingusticsJ presupposes dependence in time Anot
the words, sounds, etcmmm W datesD on other disciplines that pro'ide
supporti'e data% >ut in contrast to your approach, linguistics can only
pro'ide possible ways for sound change, not the dates Athe dates are not
purely linguisticmD W when you say you ha'e no e'idence of the ^kJ sound
drifting back to ^sJ, it doesnJt mean it ne'er happenedm
1. Of course palaeolinguistics benefts of the results of other disciplines: palynology,
archaeology... actually archaeology also benefts of the results of other disciplines, as well: radio
carbon dating is actually a task of physics, not archaeology.
2. Sound changes can also be dated, for example on the basis of ancient inscriptions and
loanword studies.
3. It means that in the case of Indo-European * is original and *s is secondary. If you disagree,
please follow the procedure above and tell me your arguments, instead of |ust "generally being
skeptical against the mainstream view". :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
LD -he (teppes as the origin, keep drifting from one work to another and the
same in forumsm >ut, $ see your point W language contacts, as re?ected in
'ocabulary, sound changes that are treated now not as possibilities, but as
pro'en factsm
There are arguments for the steppe origin more than there are arguments for any other origin;
please read the mainstream books and articles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
1D PolakoJs results point to the location between Poland and Russia%
If you believe that genes could disprove the linguistic results, you are wrong: your way is
unscientifc. Read this, at last:
http://www.mv.helsinki.f/home/|phakkin/Uralic.html
You are now replacing linguistics by genetics = you are unscientic according to your
own denition (see above).
Even if there is one genetic lineage spread from Poland at the certain time, there are also many
other genetic lineages spread from other areas at other times. Why should we choose the
Poland lineage, when it does not even t to the linguistic results?It happens to be in the
wrong place at the wrong time! Surely you must even see yourself that it is absurd to |ust
randomly choose one lineage and claim it Proto-Indo-European, when it does not match with the
linguistic results.
It would be much more credible to choose a lineage which happens to be in the right place at the
right time!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
BD -here are Russian unrecogni*ed annuls amounting to ;66, stored in the
Russian (tate !ibrary that describe that a (la' city was already there LB66
>. e)actly between Poland and nowadays Russiam
And how could an annal from 1000 AD tell anything about the Slavicness of any city from 2400
BC?!
This is so unscientifc a claim that you must really regret your last point... :)
2012-01-05, 20:02
TruthSeeker
This is a very quick reply - simply have other obligations preventing me from providing a detailed one at this point! I do
apologise for that - as soon as I have more time, I will try and do so.
I also apologise for not following `quote` rules - simply quicker for me right now (using a Tablet) - Moderators, please
forgive this frivolity
Jaska:
Write so that these things (linguistic literacy)are seen in your messages, too!
Which way is your`s?
My way is that every discipline is a contributor to the goal of identifying A source of a group of people.
No replacements, substitutions, supremacy of one discipline over the other - every one gives |ust another facet with some
degree of probability.
Lingustic literacy - First things frst, before you go deep into theories, I am cautious to begin a discussion on validity of
what was frst phonologically - and this is one point where Jaska lacks support from the mainstream - native speakers of
`Tonal` languages have two genes diferent from non-tonal ones!
It is still a big question which sounds were easier (i.e. natural) to produce!
Jaska wants me to provide more proof of literacy - may be will do later
Jaska:
palaeolinguistics benefts from the results of other disciplines: palynology, archaeology... actually archaeology also
benefts from the results of other (application) disciplines, as well: radio carbon dating is actually a task of physics, not
archaeology
Should we add dendrochronology as a separate discipline - are we to include all applied methods as separate disciplines?
Are we to fnd Truth or to tangle?
Jaska:
Sound changes can also be dated, for example on the basis of ancient inscriptions and loanword studies.
Inscriptions as such do not guarantee how the sounds were produced (i.e. how they really sounded), loanwords get always
adapted to the natural sounds of the recipient language.
Jaska:
Even if there is one genetic lineage spread from Poland at the certain time, there are also many other genetic lineages
spread from other areas at other times. Why should we choose the Poland lineage, when it does not even ft to the linguistic
results? It happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time! Surely you must even see yourself that it is absurd to |ust
randomly choose one lineage and claim it Proto-Indo-European, when it does not match with the linguistic results.
It doesn`t really matter to me whether it was from Poland or not (I am not a Pole, after all!) - the main diference between
your approach and ideas voiced here is that you DEFEND the ideas shaped in manuscripts, but the rest theorise on the
basis of new incoming data which you momentarily disband without analysis.
Jaska:
And how could an annul from 1000 AD tell anything about the Slavicness of any city from 2400 BC?!
This is so unscientifc a claim that you must really regret your last point...
No regrets whatsoever!
Easily - all Slavonian pagan history was destroyed at the time of forced Christianisation. And it only remained in the word of
mouth, that was later put down by a Christian monk!
Common sense and the Occam`s razor would suggest that he would not risk his divine career unless he knew what he was
writing about.
2012-01-06, 04:11
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
Hy way is that e'ery discipline is a contributor to the goal of identifying A
source of a group of people%
No replacements, substitutions, supremacy of one discipline o'er the other W
e'ery one gi'es #ust another facet with some degree of probability%
So, why do you still claim that the results of genetics could somehow change the location of
Proto-Indo-European? You see, genetics does not study language.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
!ingustic literacy W "irst things :rst, before you go deep into theories, $ am
cautious to begin a discussion on 'alidity of what was :rst phonologically -
and this is one point where Faska lacks support from the mainstream W nati'e
speakers of ^-onalJ languages ha'e two genes di+erent from non-tonal onesm
$t is still a big 9uestion which sounds were easier Ai%e% naturalD to producem
Faska wants me to pro'ide more proof of literacy W may be will do later
I fail to see what the tonal languages have to do with the Indo-European homeland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
(hould we add dendrochronology as a separate discipline - are we to include
all applied methods as separate disciplines
Are we to :nd -ruth or to tangle
Totally irrelevant questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
$nscriptions as such do not guarantee how the sounds were produced Ai%e%
how they really soundedD, loanwords get always adapted to the natural
sounds of the recipient language%
And yet we may combine such results on the knowledge we have got by reconstructing the sound
system of the protolanguage on the basis of closely related languages. We know that Uralic
speakers had only one velar stop *k, while the Indo-European speakers had many. Therefore we
can distinguish the sound substitutions like IE *g --> U *k. And we get quite a reliable picture of
the phonetics, too, by comparing the daughter languages. Uncertainties are only minor, like
whether *l was palatalized before the front vowels or not. There is no problem distinguishing *l
from *k.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
$t doesnJt really matter to me whether it was from Poland or not A$ am not a
Pole, after allmD W the main di+erence between your approach and ideas
'oiced here is that you 3E"EN3 the ideas shaped in manuscripts, but the
rest theorise on the basis of new incoming data which you momentarily
disband without analysis%
I always defend the best argued view, no matter if it is old or new. Theorizing is fruitless if it is
one-sided (if the arguments of the older view are |ust ignored, not disproved). Everyone who has
took a glimpse on the comparative Indo-European studies can instantly see that claims like
"Slavic is the most archaic IE branch" are false. There is no new information involved, only the
loss of the old information!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
No regrets whatsoe'erm
Easily W all (la'onian pagan history was destroyed at the time of forced
.hristianisation% And it only remained in the word of mouth, that was later
put down by a .hristian monkm
.ommon sense and the OccamJs ra*or would suggest that he would not risk
his di'ine career unless he knew what he was writing about%
It is a bit nave to believe that everything is true if the writer had no reason to lie. :) Belief is not
knowledge. How on Earth and by which methods could anyone know anything about the times
3500 years before his own time?! Think about it, man: such a text has no truth value, no matter
what it claims. Only if we found an old town and in there an old text in a Slavic language, which
would be dated to 2500 BC by natural scientifc methods, would we have a proof.
2012-01-06, 12:11
dw84
What is with you Slavs (particularly Polaks), and claims of East-Central Europe being the Indo-European homeland.
..and you guys talk want to mention pseudo-science ..
2012-01-08, 10:15
TruthSeeker
First of all, at this very moment, the evidence from the disciplines, that are ad|acent (read - friendly, supportive,
augmenting) to linguistics, if you combine it all and superimpose on the maps, speak for the Central-European origin of PIE.
Now, on your questions:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
(o, why do you still claim that the results of genetics could somehow change
the location of Proto-$ndo-European gou see, genetics does not study
language%
Please, do not treat genetics as such a synonymous thing with genetic lineages - I mean genetic
methods are used to clarify the origins of biological factual material, if you will.
Once again, at this point in time, when we are still waiting for archeology to provide new data, and
linguistics is still in the process of switching from sub|ective painstaking exercises of individuals
to computational analyses - genetic analysis is yet another facet to the same goal. With it you get
some answers to the movement and intermingling of populations. And this info is not a
replacement of linguistic results - rather an extra thing to take into account - and I will try to refer
to it later in the posts.
The diference in genes between Tonal and non-tonal speakers does pose a question mark! So,
even though every sensible scientist would be inclined to ob|ect it - this is |ust the way it is. -
There is some interdepedence!
The point you refer to is - whether this has any bearing on Proto-Indo-European. - This
remains to be seen. Genetic analysis goes on .
And I must admit, I am far from thinking that the genes will resolve all the inconsistencies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
TruthSeekerF (hould we add dendrochronology as a separate discipline -
are we to include all applied methods as separate disciplines
-otally irrele'ant 8Y99uestions%
-- not to the extent that you substitute the questions asked with rhetoric - you are trying to mislead
by adding extra notions!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
And yet we may combine such results on the knowledge we ha'e got by
reconstructing the sound system of the protolanguage on the basis of closely
related languages% ,e know that 4ralic speakers had only one 'elar stop hk,
while the $ndo-European speakers had many% -herefore we can distinguish
the sound substitutions like $E hg --[ 4 hk% And we get 9uite a reliable picture
of the phonetics, too, by comparing the daughter languages% 4ncertainties
are only minor, like whether hl was palatali*ed before the front 'owels or not%
-here is no problem distinguishing hl from hk%
Are you acquainted with Vladimir Napolskih? - Also profcient in Uralic studies.
Try and get in touch with him if you wish to get extra material.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
E'eryone who has taken a glimpse on the comparati'e $ndo-European
studies can instantly see that claims like d(la'ic is the most archaic $E
branchX are false% -here is no new information in'ol'ed, only the loss of the
old informationm
Please, do not switch the tracks once again!
No one is trying to discard all info.
When new info comes at hand, it needs to be assessed against the criteria how it contradicts,
supplements, or supports the old one.
Not only whether it fts with the 'mainstream' view.
The main point here is the rate of language change and the initial bias you have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
$t is a bit nay'e to belie'e that e'erything is true if the writer had no reason
to lie% %%%
I didn`t claim it was true - re-read the posts thoughtfully - I meant it was YET another source of
info to analyse and not simply re|ect on the grounds you mentioned.
---------- Post added 2012-01-08 at 14:31 ----------
Jaska,
another one for you - perhaps you had no time to adversely respond to my previous post!
Now, some links you were expecting:
In 1999 there was a symposium which is reJected on the Internet as "Time Depth in Historical
Linguistics", edited by Colin Renfrew, April McMahon, and Larry Trask"
This is a collection of 27 papers, mostly presentations at a symposium held at the
McDonald Institute in 1999. Contributions focus on two related issues: methods for
establishing absolute chronology, and linguistic knowledge about the remote past
http://artsci.wustl.edu/bkessler/Ti...TimeDepthX.pdf
The main linguistic uncertainties I will recite:
1. Another motif is that populations such as PIE speakers sat in place for millennia,
which gave them enough time to develop many tree-confounding contact phenomena. Such
beliefs may explain why this symposium had so many papers dealing with convergence.
Renfrew writes about convergence within a PIE that has not quite broken up. Kalevi Wiik
writes about a huge Uralic presence in prehistoric Europe, with contact phenomena
explaining the emergence of branches like Germanic (Uralic substrate, Megalithic(?)
superstrate).
Anttila expresses a similar opinion about Wiik`s theory as part of his own invaluable
contribution highlighting recent developments in Uralic studies. Anttila`s own contribution
is on contact phenomena, specifcally PIE loans into Uralic ca. 4000 BC. Other papers on
convergence were perhaps less directly tied in to the theme of the conference. Yaron
Matras and Peter Bakker each presents a typology and many fascinating examples of
contact phenomena that can lead to highly mixed, even intertwined, languages.
2. Clackson claims that every single item ever adduced for the linguistic palaeontology of PIE is
susceptible to another interpretation that provides no help at all in dating; for example,the all-
important `horse` could simply have been the wild horse.
3. April McMahon and Robert McMahon`s paper implicitly criticizes glottochronology
from another direction. They discuss why dating can be reasonably reliable in biology:
biologists have learned to focus not on phenotypes, whose rate of evolution is heavily
constrained by functionality, but on those molecules whose exact structure does not make a big
diference to the functioning of the organism. In such a subsystem, changes are essentially
random and average out to a constant rate over long time spans. In linguistics unfortunately,
essentially all changes are functional, like phenotypes, so all hopes for constant rates of change
are likely to be in vain.
4. Completely abandoning the mathematics of lexicostatistics, Mark Pagel shows how Time
Depth 7 maximum likelihood models can be used to subgroup languages, an adaptation of
cladistic methods used in biology. He illustrates the technique with a set of seven IE languages
using 18 words, and reasonable results are obtained. Pagel`s model is clearly a ma|or
improvement over the classical Swadeshian mathematics, although computation time is
notmentioned.
As for new methods assisting the lingusts - follow the
link http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00001/art00004
---------- Post added 2012-01-08 at 15:15 ----------
You see - covergence as opposed to divergence.
Does this change anything in our approacheches?
2012-01-08, 15:26
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
(o, why do you still claim that the results of genetics could somehow change
the location of Proto-$ndo-European gou see, genetics does not study
language%
While I do not agree with Polako that genetics alone can solve the proto-Indo-European urheimat
location, I must say, population genetics has so far been underrated and if they've been using
something as weak as archaeology, surely, you must agree with me that ancient DNA combined
with modern population genetics is way more informative in understanding migration patterns
than speculative pots? Remember now, *ots are not *eo*le+ I think only serious archaeological
clues like the Sintashta burials can be informative. Most of the archaeology in various urheimat
topics are a waste of time anyway and should be disregarded since we don't know much about
who the hell made those pots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by d$NL
,hat is with you (la's Aparticularly PolaksD, and claims of East-.entral
Europe being the $ndo-European homeland%
While it may not be correct that Poland is the PIE urheimat, it's certainly more correct and much
closer to home than indigenous Aryans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by d$NL
%%and you guys talk want to mention pseudo-science %%
Pseudo-science would be PIE urheimat in Iran or India, or an Irish/Paki Scythian ;)
2012-01-08, 15:46
TruthSeeker
EliasAlucard,
Those interested will not confuse Poland as an existing socio-political-slavic-speaking entity with the location of PIE.
Forum members keep running into the same barriers, either the ones they were brought up with, or adopted.
Thanks for your message!
2012-01-08, 22:37
Silesian
Quote:
Originally Posted by <emminkIinen
$t is not 9uestion about who >as9ues are todayY today in is linguistically
isolated% R;a is the youngest European y3na group% $t can be seen in their
placement and local homogeneity%
-he animal husbandry was practiced in N,-Europe already >E"ORE farming%
,est European !P-genes dont e)ist in Afghanistan or -a#ikistan, though there
could be something common with East Europeans% ,est E4ropean !P-genes
seem to e)ist in Pakistan and N,-$ndia%
http<KKwww%biomedcentral%comK;BG;-L;%%%eK"1highresUy
edit
No one is from ,est Europe%
You are very astute in your observations.
"Homer called the Scythians "the mare-milkers".
http://books.google.ca/books?id=gMMY...b9mZpKGTS-pLVI
We have Indian, Lithuanian, and even Assyrian, plus many more forum members.
In the following video perhaps some members from diferent backgrounds can clear this
information as being true or false.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyZRhG5QQK4
3 minutes into the video it gives common Sanskrit comparisons.
To me, some sound like German, like Father-Vater, Mother-Mutter
It then points out that it is the same in Lithuanian and Sanskrit for horse
Aswa and Asva?
4 minutes into the video
Indra-God of thunder
Aspects of Indra as a deity are cognate to other Indo-European gods; they are either thunder
gods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra
Is this the same god as Mittanni peoples?
http://azargoshnasp.net/history/Arya...npantheons.pdf page 303?
The same qualities as Thor?
2012-01-09, 02:00
Jaska
I |ust lost a long, almost ready message, so now I answer only shortly...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
"irst of all, at this 'ery moment, the e'idence from the disciplines, that are
ad#acent Aread W friendly, supporti'e, augmentingD to linguistics, if you
combine it all and superimpose on the maps, speak for the .entral-European
origin of P$E%
You are still unscientifcally claiming that the genetic results could disprove the linguistic results -
why? And why do you claim that you don't do it, when you repeatedly do it?Have you
misunderstood something? Or don`t you understand what I`m saying?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
Once again, at this point in time, when we are still waiting for archeology to
pro'ide new data, and linguistics is still in the process of switching from
sub#ecti'e painstaking e)ercises of indi'iduals to computational analyses W
genetic analysis is yet another facet to the same goal% ,ith it you get some
answers to the mo'ement and intermingling of populations% And this info is
not a replacement of linguistic results W rather an e)tra thing to take into
account W and $ will try to refer to it later in the posts%
All the relevant PIE words are long known - computational analysis does not bring anything new
to the data set.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
,hen new info comes at hand, it needs to be assessed against the criteria
how it contradicts, supplements, or supports the old one%
Not only whether it :ts with the 'mainstream' 'iew%
But very frst you must consider whether the new results even could testify anything on the
question or not. Genetic results cannot correct or disprove the linguistic results, they can only ft or
ft not with it. And if they don`t ft (like that Central European R1a1), then we must fnd some other
results which ft better. What is so diHcult here that you don`t seem to understand it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
-he main point here is the rate of language change and the initial bias you
ha'e%
Rate of language change is the result of the linguistic analysis, not vice versa. We KNOW that the
Proto-Indo-Europeans were at the Copper/Bronze Age level, so it is backwards and erroneous to
claim that the rate of language change proposes Neolithic/Palaeolithic origin for PIE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
3oes this change anything in our approacheches
No. Why should it? There was nothing to disprove or even question the linguistic results pointing
to the Ukrainian steppes.
2012-01-09, 03:54
Kwestos
You have patience guys. All of you have no clue what really happenned 5000 years go but you fght like it was about
something can be proved.
No ofence, |ust saying.
2012-01-09, 06:05
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by "$estos
gou ha'e patience guys% All of you ha'e no clue what really happenned 5666
years go but you :ght like it was about something can be pro'ed%
No o+ence, #ust saying%
What comes to Proto-Indo-European, we have plenty of linguistic evidence which helps us
exclude some regions and make others more probable, although 100 % certainty cannot be
achieved. I only wish that people who discuss about the sub|ect would actually read about it, too...
:)
2012-01-09, 12:42
Kwestos
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
,hat comes to Proto-$ndo-European, we ha'e plenty of linguistic e'idence
which helps us e)clude some regions and make others more probable,
although ;66 8 certainty cannot be achie'ed% $ only wish that people who
discuss about the sub#ect would actually read about it, too%%% <D
What I mean is, this is 'process based on circumstantial evidence' and also in theory it should not
matter to anyone where is the area. It is |ust a fact, like "Scorpions released their third album in
1978" or whatnot;)
2012-01-09, 13:01
Lemminkinen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silesian
gou are 'ery astute in your obser'ations%
]&omer called the (cythians ]the mare-milkers]%
http<KKbooks%google%caKbooksidUgHHg%%%b0m/pI@-(-p!E$
,e ha'e $ndian, !ithuanian, and e'en Assyrian, plus many more forum
members%
$n the following 'ideo perhaps some members from di+erent backgrounds
can clear this information as being true or false%
http<KKwww%youtube%comKwatch'Uey/Rh@5rrIB
1 minutes into the 'ideo it gi'es common (anskrit comparisons%
-o me, some sound like @erman, like "ather-Eater, Hother-Hutter
$t then points out that it is the same in !ithuanian and (anskrit for horse
Aswa and As'a
B minutes into the 'ideo
$ndra-@od of thunder
Aspects of $ndra as a deity are cognate to other $ndo-European godsY they
are either thunder gods
http<KKen%wikipedia%orgKwikiK$ndra
$s this the same god as Hittanni peoples
http<KKa*argoshnasp%netKhistoryKArya%%%npantheons%pdf page 161
-he same 9ualities as -hor
I am not read much about ancient gods, but I know people who have, being no scientists, and
take seriously the connection between old Germanic and Indian gods.
2012-01-10, 00:46
newtoboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
,hile $ do not agree with Polako that genetics alone can sol'e the proto-
$ndo-European urheimat location, $ must say, population genetics has so far
been underrated and if they''e been using something as weak as
archaeology, surely, you must agree with me that ancient 3NA combined
with modern population genetics is way more informati'e in understanding
migration patterns than speculati'e pots Remember now, pots are not
people% $ think only serious archaeological clues like the (intashta burials can
be informati'e% Host of the archaeology in 'arious urheimat topics are a
waste of time anyway and should be disregarded since we don't know much
about who the hell made those pots%
,hile it may not be correct that Poland is the P$E urheimat, it's certainly
more correct and much closer to home than indigenous Aryans%
Pseudo-science would be P$E urheimat in $ran or $ndia, or an $rishKPaki
(cythian YD
This is pseudoscience as well. The PIE homeland is the Pontic Caspian steepe. Nationalism is
the reason for these Central-East European homeland theories the same way it is for any Iran or
India theories. Or the Antaolian hypothesis loved by Greeks and such. No one takes any theory
besides the Pontic Caspian seriously.
2012-01-10, 04:28
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
-his is pseudoscience as well% -he P$E homeland is the Pontic .aspian
steepe% Nationalism is the reason for these .entral-East European homeland
theories the same way it is for any $ran or $ndia theories% Or the Antaolian
hypothesis lo'ed by @reeks and such% No one takes any theory besides the
Pontic .aspian seriously%
The Pontic-Caspian was re-populated from East Central Europe from the Chalcolithic onwards.
That's what ancient DNA, genome-wide DNA and R1a1a phylogeny clearly show.
Before that, the Pontic Caspian was home to Eurasian-like populations with loads of Siberian
mtDNAs. These people were not Indo-Europeans.
It's really not complicated. All the data is available. The problem is that many people wish to
ignore it.
2012-01-10, 05:02
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
-he Pontic-.aspian was re-populated from East .entral Europe from the
.halcolithic onwards%
-hat's what ancient 3NA, genome-wide 3NA and R;a;a phylogeny clearly
show%
>efore that, the Pontic .aspian was home to Eurasian-like populations with
loads of (iberian mt3NAs% -hese people were not $ndo-Europeans%
$t's really not complicated% All the data is a'ailable% -he problem is that
many people wish to ignore it%
Your problem is that you cannot understand that genes are not language and that genetics
cannot disprove the linguistic results.
1. Totally re-populated? How can you tell that there survived no original genes in Ukraine?
2. How can you know that these Siberian mtDNA's were not there already thousands of years
before the Copper/Bronze Age? How can you tell that they could not speak Proto-Indo-
European?
3. Even if your favorite R1a1-lineage was born in Poland, that cannot testify that Proto-Indo-
European spread from Poland. If your R1a1-lineage does not match with the linguistic results, it
cannot be connected to Proto-Indo-European. Then we must fnd some other lineage which better
fts to be Proto-Indo-European-related.
Your views won't become true, no matter how often you repeat them. I don't know why you refuse
to take the above-mentioned points into consideration - you should be more ob|ective and more
scientifc, you have capasity for that. :)
So please, if you disagree with my points, you should show WHYthey are wrong. If you cannot
prove them wrong, you should take them into consideration.
You try to look at the situation like there was a one-to-one relationship between genes and
language - but there is not.
2012-01-11, 16:52
TruthSeeker
I'm not Polako, but still...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
gour problem is that you cannot understand that genes are not language and
that genetics cannot dispro'e the linguistic results%
So, not the frst time, but still we stumble upon this notion of "URHEIMAT".
Jaska defends that it is a purely lingustic thing, as per the Wikipedia defnition:
Quote:
4rheimat Aa @erman compound of 4r- ]primiti'e, original] and &eimat
]home, homeland]Y @erman pronunciation< Pz{u|}~ hama|tR, English< K
zrham|tKD is a linguistic term denoting the original homeland of the
speakers of a proto-language% -he most accepted way of grouping languages
into language families, in turn, inferring the homeland in which a language
arose is the comparati'e method of linguistics, in which systemic patterns of
phonetic change, le)ical similarities, geographic relationships, and similar
tools are used to identify languages that shared a common proto-language
and deri'e a skeletal 'ersion of that proto-language%
and others defend the view it is nowa more general notion, irrespective of what the inventors put
into this defnition.
If you read thoughtfully into the defnition itself (not to mention that Wikipedia is a free source and
is open for ANYONE to change descriptions!) - even in the defnition, as it stands, you
see 'geographic relationships, and similar tools'.
The only bias in the defnition is that, since the term was invented by linguists, 'aliens' have no
right to adhere, accept, modify, improve it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
-otally re-populated &ow can you tell that there sur'i'ed no original genes
in 4kraine
Do you have any info how Ukraine (both linguistically and genetically) is diferent from other Slavic
nations, before you say that |ust to oppose?
And what percentage of original genes (which, by the way?) did you expect there?
Percentages do tip the balance!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
&ow can you know that these (iberian mt3NA's were not there already
thousands of years before the .opperK>ron*e Age &ow can you tell that
they could not speak Proto-$ndo-European
You are again misleading the readers of this forum. No single entity in this world is able to state
something with 100% certainty (unless they are Gods, Creators and Begetters, The AllMighty,
etc.).
You |ust limit your reconstructions of the past with purely comparative lingustics! Still claiming it
to be superior above all - read the frst comment to URHEIMAT notion above!
As already said earlier, genetic analysis goes on, data accumulates, do not demand immediate
answers and do not claim that your current best argued view will stay forever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
E'en if your fa'orite R;a;-lineage was born in Poland, that cannot testify
that Proto-$ndo-European spread from Poland% $f your R;a;-lineage does not
match with the linguistic results, it cannot be connected to Proto-$ndo-
European% -hen we must :nd some other lineage which better :ts to be
Proto-$ndo-European-related%
Please, give solid arguments on linguistic grounds - summarise 'the best argued view', since
you are trying to educate the mass of readers - not all of them will follow your Kortland and one
more links!
2012-01-11, 19:51
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
$'m not Polako, but still%%%
gou #ust limit your reconstructions of the past with purely comparati'e
lingusticsm (till claiming it to be superior abo'e all - read the :rst comment
to 4R&E$HA- notion abo'em
As already said earlier, genetic analysis goes on, data accumulates, do not
demand immediate answers and do not claim that your current best
argued'iew will stay fore'er%
Of course it will stand forever, unless we get new linguistic evidence. Genetic results
cannot aect the linguistic results.Why can't you understand this simple science-
methodological fact?
There is no single urheimat - there are diferent urheimats: linguistic, genetic (possible only in
restricted sense), cultural etc. Linguistic urheimat is the original area of a language, and it can be
reached only by linguistics; it cannot be changed on the basis of the genetic results. Genetic
urheimat is a totally diferent thing, even when we think the populations speaking a certain
language.
So:
1. Linguistic urheimat is only found out by linguistics; it cannot be afected by genetics. Indo-
European urheimat is best-arguedly in Ukraine.
2. Genetic urheimat is only found by genetics; it cannot be afected by linguistics. Certain R1a1-
lineage may well originate in Poland, but then it does not match with the IE urheimat.
1 2
You cannot equate IE urheimat (linguistic) with the R1a1 urheimat (genetic), if they do not match
in time and place!
Do you understand this now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
Please, gi'e solid arguments on linguistic grounds - summarise 'the best
argued 'iew', since you are trying to educate the mass of readers - not all of
them will follow your Iortland and one more linksm
You say that you are too lazy to read Mallory?
http://ebook3000.com/J--P--Mallory-_...yth_36083.html
Pity. :)
Perhaps I have to write some web page, "Indo-European origins for dummies". ;)
2012-01-11, 20:25
TruthSeeker
Well, the dummies will better understand if you entitle it "A tutorial how to stop mental development upon reading a1989
publication".
Forgive the tone - no ofence - |ust responded in kind! :-)
2012-01-11, 21:02
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
,ell, the dummies will better understand if you entitle it ]A tutorial how to
stop mental de'elopment upon reading a;0C0 publication]%
"orgi'e the tone - no o+ence - #ust responded in kindm <-D
Darling, there are no new linguistic evidence since then which would force us to reconsider the
location. But go on, |ust ignore all the linguistic evidence and remain in your pseudo-scientifc
tower. Although even you know now, that new geneticevidence cannot afect
the linguistic homeland.
Thanks for having no more counter-arguments.
2012-01-11, 22:28
Polako
All I can say is that Eastern Europe has been under the inJuence of migrations that have moved largely from west to east,
especially at the crtitical time for Indo-European languages, which is the late chalcolithic onwards.
I don't see how anyone can argue that these large migrations from west to east did not happen, or that the gene Jow went
from east to west. We only have to look at ancient mtDNA results from Ukraine and Hungary (the western extension of the
steppe) to see that these places were inhabited by Eurasian-like populations. They were replaced from the west by
Europeans, and that's why today if you try and make a genome-wide genetic map of Europe, Russians will not cluster in
Russia.
It's possible that the ancient Eastern European Eurasian-like groups spoke proto-Indo-European, and the East Central
European (most likely R1a1a) invaders spoke something else. When the Europeans overran the Eurasians, perhaps the
former switched languages of their conquered underclass via maternal inJuence?
But we know that the migratons from the west into Eastern Europe then continued for thousands of years, and included the
movement of Baltic, Slavic and Germanic popuations into what is now Russia.
These were all Indo-European speaking groups, and yet they moved from west to east...from the supposed destination of
the initial Indo-European migrations to the supposed proto-Indo-European homlend.
So, based on latest DNA evidence, the Pontic Caspian as an Indo-European homeland requires too much special pleading.
The most plausible explanation that I can see in all the data I've looked at, is that Eastern Europe was populated from East
Central Europe over several millenia, via multiple waves of proto-Indo-European and Indo-European-proper groups. The
last of these were the Slavs and, to a lesser extent, Germanics.
The science is hard to argue with for those who understand it. It will become impossibe to argue with this year when many
many ancient DNA results come in. If lingustics doesn't back up this science, then linguistics must be wrong.
2012-01-12, 01:44
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
>ut we know that the migratons from the west into Eastern Europe then
continued for thousands of years, and included the mo'ement of >altic,
(la'ic and @ermanic popuations into what is now Russia%
-hese were all $ndo-European speaking groups, and yet they mo'ed from
west to east%%%from the supposed destination of the initial $ndo-European
migrations to the supposed proto-$ndo-European homlend%
Of course the direction of later migrations cannot determine the direction of earlier migrations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
(o, based on latest 3NA e'idence, the Pontic .aspian as an $ndo-European
homeland re9uires too much special pleading% -he most plausible
e)planation that $ can see in all the data $''e looked at, is that Eastern
Europe was populated from East .entral Europe o'er se'eral millenia, 'ia
multiple wa'es of proto-$ndo-European and $ndo-European-proper groups%
-he last of these were the (la's and, to a lesser e)tent, @ermanics%
How do you explain the archaeological results, which clearly show cultural spread from the
steppes to the west? (And to the north and to the east.) If you don't see any genetic matches for
this inJuence, it means that you haven't yet found the right genetic lineage, or that some crucial
evidence is missing and you only have the partial truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
-he science is hard to argue with for those who understand it% $t will become
impossibe to argue with this year when many many ancient 3NA results
come in% $f lingustics doesn't back up this science, then linguistics must be
wrong%
How diHcult can it be for you to understand the autonomy of disciplines? The linguistic results
cannot aect the genetic results, and the genetic results cannot aect the linguistic
results.There are tens of genetic lineages, and we must choose the one best ftting to the
linguistic results. There is no point choosing a random lineage and claiming that it is "Proto-Indo-
European".
To be the "Proto-Indo-European lineage", a lineage must match the linguistic
resultsdetermining the linguistic homeland.
2012-01-12, 13:05
Tuohikir|e
Quote:
-hese were all $ndo-European speaking groups, and yet they mo'ed from
west to east%%%from the supposed destination of the initial $ndo-European
migrations to the supposed proto-$ndo-European homlend%
Copper Age cultures show more cultural exchange than large scale migrations, there is no need
to assume, that every single some type of pot-maker moved from one place to another or if one
could make a IE sound the same thing.
Europe was flled with thousands of languages and dialects long extinct, there was no only one
God Mighty language. There were thousands of not mutually understandable Native Indian
languages in North America also before Europeans.
2012-01-12, 13:15
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$ don't see how anyone can argue that these large migrations from west to
east did not happen, or that the gene ?ow went from east to west%
How do you explain the mtdna C (and especially the subclade C5a*) ? It starts from South Siberia
and ends to Poland and exactly in correct timeframe ? We also know that Dnieper-Donets burials
have been tested to contain some mtdna C, and ALL Bronze Age "Yamna" burials were of mtdna
C ?
There is clear movement from east to west and exactly in correct timeframe, traced by dna.
Origin and Post-Glacial Dispersal of Mitochondrial DNA Haplogroups C and D in Northern Asia ,
see table S3
Individual mammas attacking from South Siberia :) ?
2012-01-13, 16:01
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
&ow do you e)plain the mtdna . Aand especially the subclade .5ahD $t
starts from (outh (iberia and ends to Poland and e)actly in correct
timeframe ,e also know that 3nieper-3onets burials ha'e been tested to
contain some mtdna ., and A!! >ron*e Age ]gamna] burials were of mtdna
.
-here is clear mo'ement from east to west and e)actly in correct timeframe,
traced by dna%
Origin and Post-@lacial 3ispersal of Hitochondrial 3NA &aplogroups . and 3
in Northern Asia , see table (1
$ndi'idual mammas attacking from (outh (iberia <D
There is at least C* and C4a among those ancient steppe corpses; even the latter is 20 000 years
old clade. Even if it was C4a1a2 (the only subclade of C4a which was found in Europe by
Derenko et al. 2010), this clade is also about 10 000 years old. So, these C-people could well
have been Proto-Indo-Europeans, because their ancestors may have had 4 000 years time to get
Europeanized before the spread of Proto-Indo-European began.
2012-01-14, 15:45
TruthSeeker
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
3arling, there are no new linguistic e'idence since then which would force us
to reconsider the location% >ut go on, #ust ignore all the linguistic e'idence
and remain in your pseudo-scienti:c tower% Although e'en you know now,
that new .enetic e'idence cannot a+ect the lin.uistic homeland%
It's interesting, when, a guy that could've been my nephiew (perhaps a son, in theory) 'politely'
calls me "darling";))))
Some shift in modern trends I haven't noticed, or something intrinsic?
New evidence comes in regularly to the extent that one has to redefne the very word.
Sorry about that!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
Thanks for ha&in. no more counter-ar.uments%
1. Loads of counter-arguments, |ust unwilling to share with you, see item 2
2. The way you responded to a number of messages (not |ust mine) only fortifed my suspicion of
simply collecting data/material/opinions to process and this is exactly why you provoke
participants IN ORDER TO COMPLETE YOUR RESEARCH. Now it's clear.
Don't forget to send a chocolate to Lemminkinen then?
2012-01-14, 18:49
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
ruote<
Originally Posted by Jaska
-hanks for ha'ing no more counter-arguments%
;% !oads of counter-arguments, #ust unwilling to share with you, see
item L
L% -he way you responded to a number of messages Anot #ust mineD
only forti:ed my suspicion of simply collecting
dataKmaterialKopinions to process and this is e)actly why you
pro'oke participants $N OR3ER -O .OHP!E-E gO4R RE(EAR.&%
Now it's clear%
:lol::lol::lol:
Right... Very poor excuse. Like, who could really believe that a person would intentionally not tell
his evidence.
You are clearly paranoid, besides. :whoco:
My research does not beneft from this kind of internet conversations, and it is not even related to
Proto-Indo-European.
2012-01-14, 20:03
Pot-Kettle
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
$t's interesting, when, a guy that could''e been my nephiew Aperhaps a son,
in theoryD 'politely' calls me ]darling]YDDDD
(ome shift in modern trends $ ha'en't noticed, or something intrinsic
New e'idence comes in regularly to the e)tent that one has to rede:ne the
'ery word%
(orry about thatm
;% !oads of counter-arguments, #ust unwilling to share with you, see item L
L% -he way you responded to a number of messages Anot #ust mineD only
forti:ed my suspicion of simply collecting dataKmaterialKopinions to process
and this is e)actly why you pro'oke participants $N OR3ER -O .OHP!E-E
gO4R RE(EAR.&% Now it's clear%
3on't forget to send a chocolate to !emmink=inen then
Jaska is a troll with no real arguments, you're wasting your time if you think you're going to have a
meaningful discussion with him. Obviously you fgured this out however it benefts noone taking
him and others with agendas seriously.
2012-01-15, 03:38
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pot-"ettle
Faska is a troll with no real arguments, you're wasting your time if you think
you're going to ha'e a meaningful discussion with him% Ob'iously you
:gured this out howe'er it bene:ts noone taking him and others with
agendas seriously%
Sorry, but you will fnd tens of messages from me, full of arguments and information. If you hate
some Finnish writers, please do not spit on me... :) Have I ever attacked you?
I'm trying to discuss in this thread, but TruthSeeker avoids it very well: he can only say that he has
arguments, instead of saying the arguments! What can be so diHcult in arguing one's view? If
that's not a troll, then what is? :whoco:
2012-02-11, 11:39
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
gour problem is that you cannot understand that genes are not language and
that genetics cannot dispro'e the linguistic results%
I have a question though: why is it that Indo-Europeanists are utilising archaeology (pots and shit,
how relevant can that be, seriously?) but so far they've been quite reluctant to utilise population
genetics? I think population genetics is by far more informative than archaeology, especially
aDNA. I can understand that Mallory back in the 1980s didn't look at the genetic aspects
(although, he was most certainly wrong in toning down the ethnic purity aspects of the proto-Indo-
Indo-Europeans, especially as he described them as "proto-Europoid" and patrilineal), but
Anthony had no excuse really.
And besides, R1a largely correlates very well with the Indo-European language family, and
Poland isn't entirely out of the question either when looked at from the linguistic evidence. In fact,
Wolfgang P. Schmid placed the proto-Indo-European urheimat in Lithuania because of its
conservative features (yes, I'm aware of Satemisation and all that in Baltic, doesn't change the
fact that Lithuanian is still extremely archaic even to this day).
What is most striking is that Lithuanian shows roughly the same general retention of the
Proto-Indo-European forms(naturally mitigated by minor sound shifts)as does Sanskrit, despite
the fact that the latter language is attested nearly 3,000 years earlier than Lithuanian. This
apparent archaism has mesmerized many linguists for over a century now and has led
some to the conclusion that the Indo-European homeland must have lain in or near the
Baltic.The case for a Baltic homeland has been augmented by a series of studies made by
Wolfgang P. Schmid who has argued that the Baltic region even retains the Proto-Indo-European
names for rivers. This hydronymic evidence we will pass over, since attempts to analyze river names
in terms of Proto-Indo-European itself tend to be wildly sub|ective and seldom convince the ma|ority
of historical linguists.30 Nevertheless, we are still left with the apparent conservatism of Lithuanian.
Moreover, Vittore Pisani has observed that those languages west of the Baltic all show an
abandonment of the Indo-European free accent31 while Lithuanian and a number of the
Slavic languages retain traces of it. And here we can observe that, although Slavic is not
quite so conservative as Lithuanian, it still displays an extremely high retention of Indo-
European noun forms.
The evidence of Lithuanian, and to some extent Slavic, has predisposed many to seek the homeland
in this region of Eastern Europe, or at least proximate to the Baltic and Slavic territories. It would be
misleading to imagine that both of these branches of Indo-European did not show marked innovations
as well as conservatism, and this is especially apparent in the verbs. Nevertheless, this cannot
detract from the overall, subjective if you will, impression that the Indo-European
languages of Eastern Europe have shown a stronger tendency to retain earlier Indo-
European forms than have some of their neighbours.But this alone does not provide a secure
solution to our problem. We have no more right to assume that interference is the prime cause of
language change than the other factors upon which solutions have been constructed. Moreover, even
if we were to attribute the conservative nature of Lithuanian to a lack of interference from non-Indo-
European substrates, this need not indicate the absence of non-Indo-Europeans in the Baltic region
but merely the efectiveness of intruding Indo-Europeans at assimilating a native population. Recall
here the trivial impact of the Celtic languages of Britain on the development of English. Here some
future linguist, ignorant of the evidence of both history and placenames, might conclude that England
had always been occupied by Germanic-speaking peoples.
While our excursus into the internal linguistic evidence cannot provide us with a
conclusively demonstrated homeland, it does emphasize a recurrent pattern of support for
a homeland which should lie between Central Europe and the east Caspian."
- J.P. Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology, and Myth, ISBN
050005052X, pp. 157-158
I see no reason why R1a variation in Poland couldn't be a conclusive evidence in the matter, especially as
R1a largely corroborates the linguistic evidence.
2012-02-13, 02:58
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
$ ha'e a 9uestion though< why is it that $ndo-Europeanists are utilising
archaeology Apots and shit, how rele'ant can that be, seriouslyD but so far
they''e been 9uite reluctant to utilise population genetics $ think population
genetics is by far more informati'e than archaeology, especially a3NA% $ can
understand that Hallory back in the ;0C6s didn't look at the genetic aspects
Aalthough, he was most certainly wrong in toning down the ethnic purity
aspects of the proto-$ndo-$ndo-Europeans, especially as he described them
as ]proto-Europoid] and patrilinealD, but Anthony had no e)cuse really%
Well, for the spread of language either is enough: archaeologically perceivable inJuence, or the
spread of genes. Archaeology has longer tradition, and so far there has not been accurate
enough results in genetics. The haplogroup alone (R1a1) is not enough, we need accurate
subhaplogroups. I admit that if we have wide enough distribution within the Indo-European
speakers and narrow enough distribution in other people, we have a strong correlation. But then
the work only starts - there are many possible interpretations, and the greatest diversity alone is
not enough to prove anything. (See below...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
And besides, R;a largely correlates 'ery well with the $ndo-European
language family, and Poland isn't entirely out of the 9uestion either when
looked at from the linguistic e'idence% $n fact, ,olfgang P% (chmid placed the
proto-$ndo-European urheimat in !ithuania because of its conser'ati'e
features Ayes, $'m aware of (atemisation and all that in >altic, doesn't
change the fact that !ithuanian is still e)tremely archaic e'en to this dayD%
Actually it is linguistically impossible: see the neighbour thread "Proto-Indo-European homeland".
Archaicness or conservativity of a language cannot prove about homeland. How it even could? It
is |ust a speculation without any scientifc basis. Finnish is phonologically the most archaic Uralic
language, as many Proto-Uralic words are still unchanged: *kala > kala, *pata > pata etc. Even
Lithuanian is not so conservative, although it has to do with Proto-Indo-European being extremely
complex language phonologically. Still nobody claims that Proto-Uralic homeland was in Finland!
Samoyedic languages are in a way also quite archaic, and there is a principle of lateral areas that
explains this. So, the archaicness is not to be found in the ancient homeland but in the extremes
of the language family. Before the germanicization of Scandinavia, Baltia was truly the northern
extreme of the IE family. Hittite and Sanskrit are quite extreme, as well.
So, there is no scientic basis that the language in the homeland would be more
archaic, but just the opposite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
$ see no reason why R;a 'ariation in Poland couldn't be a conclusi'e
e'idence in the matter, especially as R;a largely corroborates the linguistic
e'idence%
No, it doesn't.
Variation/diversity in Poland cannot prove anything, because:
1. it may be false diversity, actually bunching separate sublineages.
2. there may have occurred bottlenecks in other areas, which at the past had even greater
variation.
3. Huge areas in Eastern Europe and Asia are still poorly tested, so we may yet fnd even greater
diversities of the IE-specifc subhaplogroup.
2012-02-13, 04:56
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
EariationKdi'ersity in Poland cannot pro'e anything, because<
;% it may be false di'ersity, actually bunching separate sublineages%
L% there may ha'e occurred bottlenecks in other areas, which at the past
had e'en greater 'ariation%
1% &uge areas in Eastern Europe and Asia are still poorly tested, so we may
yet :nd e'en greater di'ersities of the $E-speci:c subhaplogroup%
Variation in terms of SNP subclades (not STR markers) can prove a few things in this context, but
frequency is also important. For example...
Southeastern Poland has a frequency of around 65% in R1a today, and that was probably higher
in the past. Moreover, there are diferent subclades found there, therefore this isn't |ust the result
of a recent bottleneck. So it's easy to imagine Indo-European tribes showing R1a frequencies of
almost 100% coming from there.
Caucasus and West Asian groups have very low levels of R1a, so it's hard to imagine Indo-
European tribes with almost 100% R1a coming from there.
Some Central Asian groups have extreme frequencies of R1a, but very low diversity, with pretty
much only Z93 present. So it's hard to imagine Indo-Europeans from present day European
branches coming from there, since they show more diverse R1a in terms of SNPs (including Old
European and Z283 without any known downstream mutations).
2012-02-13, 05:55
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
Eariation in terms of (NP subclades Anot (-R markersD can pro'e a few
things in this conte)t, but fre9uency is also important% "or e)ample%%%
(outheastern Poland has a fre9uency of around 758 in R;a today, and that
was probably higher in the past% Horeo'er, there are di+erent subclades
found there, therefore this isn't #ust the result of a recent bottleneck% (o it's
easy to imagine $ndo-European tribes showing R;a fre9uencies of almost
;668 coming from there%
It may be possible that the original Proto-Indo-European males were all related, 100 % some
R1a1 subclade. But there is a danger that you think so only because (1) you believe the homeland
was in Poland, and (2) Poles have much of that lineage. So it is possible that Poles represent only
a fraction of PIE lineages - at least because the PIE homeland cannot be located in Poland on
linguistic grounds.
It is possible that the high Polish R1a1 is due to severe bottleneck/enrichment. Of course there
were always more than one man, so the presence of many R1a1 subgroups does not contradict
the bottleneck/enrichment. Bottleneck may well lead to this kind of result, still showing high
diversity in Poles:
http://www.mv.helsinki.f/home/|phakkin/PolishR1a1.png
Also migration may lead to similar result. To prove that the Poland is the homeland for certain
R1a1 subgroup, you need to show that the root haplotypes are present: continuity of lineage
would be great evidence. If there are no area with the continuity of lineage, the genetic homeland
can never be proved. Diversity and frequency may always be secondary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
.aucasus and ,est Asian groups ha'e 'ery low le'els of R;a, so it's hard to
imagine $ndo-European tribes with almost ;668 R;a coming from there%
True.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
(ome .entral Asian groups ha'e e)treme fre9uencies of R;a, but 'ery low
di'ersity, with pretty much only /01 present% (o it's hard to imagine $ndo-
Europeans from present day European branches coming from there, since
they show more di'erse R;a in terms of (NPs Aincluding Old European and
/LC1 without any known downstream mutationsD%
But if Z93 is old enough and it is found also in Europe, it can be connected to Proto-Indo-
European. Then all that matters is the diversity (and the continuity of lineage) of Z93. Other R1a1
subgroups are irrelevant, because the common ancestor of them and Z93 would be far too old to
be compared to Proto-Indo-European.
2012-02-13, 06:24
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
-o pro'e that the Poland is the homeland for certain R;a; subgroup, you
need to show that the root haplotypes are present< continuity of lineage
would be great e'idence%
It's not important. The only things that matter are...
- That R1a was present at least as far west as Poland during the late Neolithic. Based on ancient
DNA, that's correct.
- That Poland has very high levels of R1a, and they're not the result of recent bottlenecks or
multiple recent invasions of Poland. Based on Polish R1a SNP and autosomal SNP results, that's
correct.
- That groups to the east of Poland generally have much lower levels of R1a, and look like recent
subsets of Polish and German R1a diversity. That's correct too.
Quote:
>ut if /01 is old enough and it is found also in Europe, it can be connected to
Proto-$ndo-European% -hen all that matters is the di'ersity Aand the
continuity of lineageD of /01% Other R;a; subgroups are irrele'ant, because
the common ancestor of them and /01 would be far too old to be compared
to Proto-$ndo-European%
This would be amazing if true, for a number of reasons.
Consider that Z93 in Europe shows very high correlation with non-Indo-European inJuence, like
Turkic and Semitic. In fact, I have yet to see a European case of Z93 that can't be explained by
Jewish, Arab or Turkic ancestry.
On the other hand, Z283 shows an amazing correlation with Slavic, Baltic and even Germanic.
Motrhead Remember Me
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pot-"ettle
Faska is a troll with no real arguments, you're wasting your time if you think
you're going to ha'e a meaningful discussion with him% Ob'iously you
:gured this out howe'er it bene:ts noone taking him and others with
agendas seriously%
Pot-Kettle, because you (EastPole, Truthseeker e.t.c) do not understand Jaskas scientifc
approach, methods and arguments does not mean he's a troll.
For your information, Jaska is a known linguist and well respected in academic circles at a level
far above any other person in this forum. To call Jaska a "troll without real arguments" is like
saying Einsteins theories are shit simply because you can't comprehend the inner meaning of the
theories.
Like he pointed out, there's no need for him really to argue and fnd information on the internet
other than for killing time and being interested in related discussions.
Jaska has provided plenty of good and reliable knowledge here even if some of those are
disputed with diferent possible explanations.
Unfortunately, in this discussion as well as in other interesting discussions, the biggest idiots
with the least knowledge always manage to drown the the discussions with xations,
nonsense, own non factual opinions and uneducated howls.
2012-02-13, 07:03
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$t's not important% -he only things that matter are%%%
- -hat R;a was present at least as far west as Poland during the late
Neolithic% >ased on ancient 3NA, that's correct%
- -hat Poland has 'ery high le'els of R;a, and they're not the result of recent
bottlenecks or multiple recent in'asions of Poland% >ased on Polish R;a (NP
and autosomal (NP results, that's correct%
- -hat groups to the east of Poland generally ha'e much lower le'els of R;a,
and look like recent subsets of Polish and @erman R;a di'ersity% -hat's
correct too%
Still, all R1a1 does not matter - only that subgroup which we can connect to Proto-Indo-
Europeans. Other migrations are irrelevant.
As I said, there are many possibilities - frequency and even diversity cannot prove anything,
because the may be caused by such population genetic processes like migrations and
bottlenecks. All that matters is the lineage - it alone can prove the birth area of certain
haplogroup/subgroup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
-his would be ama*ing if true, for a number of reasons%
.onsider that /01 in Europe shows 'ery high correlation with non-$ndo-
European in?uence, like -urkic and (emitic% $n fact, $ ha'e yet to see a
European case of /01 that can't be e)plained by Fewish, Arab or -urkic
ancestry%
OK, then Z93 is irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
On the other hand, /LC1 shows an ama*ing correlation with (la'ic, >altic
and e'en @ermanic%
It could then be connected to Northwest Indo-European.
2012-02-13, 07:12
Motrhead Remember Me
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
.aucasus and ,est Asian groups ha'e 'ery low le'els of R;a, so it's hard to
imagine $ndo-European tribes with almost ;668 R;a coming from there%
Why not?
Within genetics everything is possible. Take the example of tzi, a G2a individual in central
Europe 5000 years ago. Also other aDNA tests have revealed that G2a was common in Europe.
Now there's very little G2a in Europe but a lot in Caucasus.
Q: Did G2a spread from Europe to Caucasus?
Q: Did G2a spread from Caucasus to Europe?
Q: Did G2a spread from Caucasus to Europe then back to Caucasus?
A: ?
2012-02-13, 14:00
aregint
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;otQrhead (emem/er ;e
,hy not
,ithin genetics e'erything is possible% -ake the e)ample of t*i, a @La
indi'idual in central Europe 5666 years ago% Also other a3NA tests ha'e
re'ealed that @La was common in Europe% Now there's 'ery little @La in
Europe but a lot in .aucasus%
r< 3id @La spread from Europe to .aucasus
r< 3id @La spread from .aucasus to Europe
r< 3id @La spread from .aucasus to Europe then back to .aucasus
A<
As I understand from reading polako's blog, this marker is more correlated with some kind of
Turkic ancestry.
The origin of R1a and R1b (thus maybe the place where R1 Jourished) was in the middle east,
Gobekli Tepe, etc... in polako's blog you see how both lineages started there, and subsequently
moved outwards: some towards anatolia and Europe, but others into asia. Apparently Z93 moved
from the middle-east directly into east asia because it is not found anywhere else. If Z93 was
European, one would expect to fnd native europeans carrying it... The problem is, you only fnd it
in places of recent Turkic invasions.
Edit: All R1 expanded from ME, but they were not IE at that point. Thousand of years later, a small
group that happened to carry R1a, became PIE and started the expansion. Then they conquered
everything, but they did not replace the R1b that had invaded Western Europe: they only added a
new culture, language, etc.
2012-02-13, 22:56
Jaska
By now everybody should know that Central European is a weak candidate for homeland:
http://www.mv.helsinki.f/home/|phak...icEvidence.xps
http://www.mv.helsinki.f/home/|phak...icEvidence.pdf
2012-02-13, 23:40
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
>y now e'erybody should know that .entral European is a weak candidate
for homeland<
http<KKwww%m'%helsinki%:KhomeK#phak%%%icE'idence%)ps
http<KKwww%m'%helsinki%:KhomeK#phak%%%icE'idence%pdf
Is this your essay?
Allow me to summarise to those of you who won't read through it anyway:
The reason why the Pontic-Caspian steppe is among other reasons more attractive than take
say, Poland, is simply because Poland is too far away from the proto-Uralic and proto-Semitic
urheimats. And proto-Indo-European must have been in the Pontic-Caspian steppe (Yamnaya
horizon) because the western Yamnaya dialect had loanwords from proto-Semitic (such as seven
and bull) and proto-Uralic had loanwords from proto-Indo-European (such as water and name
etcetera). So Yamnaya fts very well in between proto-Semitic (Levant/Mesopotamia) and proto-
Uralic (around the Volga river).
This is mostly based on the views of Mallory or maybe it was Anthony, correct me where I'm
wrong. I can't remember the pages right now but that was the impression I got. I'll look it up again
later for verifcation and refresh my memory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
,ell, for the spread of language either is enough< archaeologically
percei'able in?uence, or the spread of genes% Archaeology has longer
tradition, and so far there has not been accurate enough results in genetics%
-he haplogroup alone AR;a;D is not enough, we need accurate
subhaplogroups% $ admit that if we ha'e wide enough distribution within the
$ndo-European speakers and narrow enough distribution in other people, we
ha'e a strong correlation% >ut then the work only starts - there are many
possible interpretations, and the greatest di'ersity alone is not enough to
pro'e anything% A(ee below%%%D
Actually it is linguistically impossible< see the neighbour thread ]Proto-$ndo-
European homeland]%
Archaicness or conser'ati'ity of a language cannot pro'e about homeland%
&ow it e'en could $t is #ust a speculation without any scienti:c basis% "innish
is phonologically the most archaic 4ralic language, as many Proto-4ralic
words are still unchanged< hkala [ kala, hpata [ pata etc% E'en !ithuanian is
not so conser'ati'e, although it has to do with Proto-$ndo-European being
e)tremely comple) language phonologically% (till nobody claims that Proto-
4ralic homeland was in "inlandm
(amoyedic languages are in a way also 9uite archaic, and there is a principle
of lateral areas that e)plains this% (o, the archaicness is not to be found in
the ancient homeland but in the e)tremes of the language family% >efore the
germanici*ation of (candina'ia, >altia was truly the northern e)treme of the
$E family% &ittite and (anskrit are 9uite e)treme, as well%
So, there is no scientifc /asis that the lan.ua.e in the homeland
$ould /e more archaic, /ut #ust the opposite.
No, it doesn't%
EariationKdi'ersity in Poland cannot pro'e anything, because<
;% it may be false di'ersity, actually bunching separate sublineages%
L% there may ha'e occurred bottlenecks in other areas, which at the past
had e'en greater 'ariation%
1% &uge areas in Eastern Europe and Asia are still poorly tested, so we may
yet :nd e'en greater di'ersities of the $E-speci:c subhaplogroup%
Yes, I'm aware of the conservative efect of colonies.
Still, Satem is a later innovation than Centum from late stage proto-Indo-European, and
Lithuanian as a Satem language and in general very conservative one at that, should give us a
clue that the homeland was arguably in eastern Europe. Would you agree that much?
2012-02-14, 05:10
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;otQrhead (emem/er ;e
,hy not
,ithin genetics e'erything is possible%
That's a bold statement, that I can't agree with.
All the data I've ever seen, shows that R1a entered Europe early, reached high frequencies there,
and then expanded again to the east.
I haven't seen any solid counter arguments to that. And the only thing that stops many people
from looking at this issue ob|ectively, is the unshakable belief that everything in Europe had to
come directly from the east, and nothing went the other way.
This is a religious-like mantra not grounded in anything, but it totally stops any meaningful
debates on the sub|ect, because it's seen as a truth that must be considered frst, before anything
else is taken into account.
Here's a map of ancestral forms of R1a, using a vast array of sources. It's pretty obvious from this
that I was always right. There was a movement of people from West Asia into Europe, and then a
movement from Europe directly to the east, after a few bottlenecks and whatnot in the newly
settled European territory.
There were no direct movements of R1a tribes into Central Asia from West Asia, because there
are no ancestral R1a forms there. They're |ust simply missing.
On the origins and expansions of R1a and R1b - part 2
This picture, which I think is very clear, also explains well the two inJuences in Indo-European
that Jaska is talking about.
A Middle Eastern/Caucasian/Mediterranean inJuence, which entered Europe from Anatolia, and a
Uralic inJuence, which came from the east as the Indo-Europeans started to expand to the Urals
north of the Black Sea.
These inJuences can also be picked up with autosomal DNA, with Middle Eastern/Mediterranean
inJuences higher today in Western Europe, and Uralic inJuence higher in Eastern Europe.
BTW, your analogy using haplogroup G backs up what I'm saying. Basically, migrants carrying G
from the Middle East sufered bottlenecks in Europe, and most ended up with that haplogroup.
Others went through the same process and ended up with mostly R1a or R1b.
2012-02-14, 06:29
Wo|ewoda
^ Could you comment on my attempt to "defend" the IE character of Indian R1a1?
2012-02-14, 08:31
EliasAlucard
Polako: Why don't you think it's possible that R1a originated in West Asia (Mashriq or Caucasus?) and moved to the
Pontic-Caspian steppe and from the steppe expanded early on to Poland and diversifed very rapidly there? What if the
Yamnaya burials test as ancestral to Z283? And and what about the Sungir burials?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sungir
If these graves test as R1a and autosomally Indo-European-like, the linguistic evidence won't be afected at all by this
because it's impossible that proto-Indo-European began diversifying 30,000 years ago as most Indo-European languages
have the same reconstructible word for wheel (*kwekwlo-), but this would have consequences for the correlation of R1a with
Indo-European origins.
2012-02-14, 09:32
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
Polako< ,hy don't you think it's possible that R;a originated in ,est Asia
AHashri9 or .aucasusD and mo'ed to the Pontic-.aspian steppe and from
the steppe e)panded early on to Poland and di'ersi:ed 'ery rapidly there
,hat if the gamnaya burials test as ancestral to /LC1
Because the western steppe at the time was populated by groups carrying a lot of Siberian and
even East Asian inJuence, like mtDNA C and N9a.
Such Far Eastern markers are missing from Corded Ware, Urnfeld and other ancient Central
European burials. But these do show R1a, as well as mtDNAs that suggest a Middle Eastern
origin, like K1 and X2.
Also, Western Europe today shows all the old R1a, like R1a*, R1a1a* and R1a1a Old European.
But Ukraine and surrounds show none of them (apart from some R1a1a* in Russia).
So it's clear to me that R1a made it to Central Europe from the south, rather than from the east.
And then it pushed east, carried by populations who would absorb and eventually replace the
Eurasian-like natives of the steppe.
Quote:
And and what about the (ungir burials
http<KKen%wikipedia%orgKwikiK(ungir
$f these gra'es test as R;a and autosomally $ndo-European-like, the linguistic
e'idence won't be a+ected at all by this because it's impossible that proto-
$ndo-European began di'ersifying 16,666 years ago as most $ndo-European
languages ha'e the same reconstructible word for wheel AhkweklosD, but this
would ha'e conse9uences for the correlation of R;a with $ndo-European
origins%
Glaciation probably pushed these people down into West Asia anyway, so they might have
contributed DNA to modern Europeans, by frst mixing with West Asians, who then moved to
Europe during the Neolithic.
2012-02-14, 09:49
Jaska
Polako,
what about the R1a in the Pacifc coast? Could it be all the way from Europe? I think that is the reason why they thought the
Central Asian origin for the haplogroup. Asia is still not very well-tested area, and much may yet be found.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
$s this your essay
Allow me to summarise to those of you who won't read through it anyway<
-he reason why the Pontic-.aspian steppe is among other reasons more
attracti'e than take say, Poland, is simply because Poland is too far away
from the proto-4ralic and proto-(emitic urheimats% And proto-$ndo-European
must ha'e been in the Pontic-.aspian steppe Agamnaya hori*onD because
the western gamnaya dialect had loanwords from proto-(emitic Asuch as
se'en and bullD and proto-4ralic had loanwords from proto-$ndo-European
Asuch as water and name etceteraD% (o gamnaya :ts 'ery well in between
proto-(emitic A!e'antKHesopotamiaD and proto-4ralic Aaround the Eolga
ri'erD%
-his is mostly based on the 'iews of Hallory or maybe it was Anthony,
correct me where $'m wrong% $ can't remember the pages right now but that
was the impression $ got% $'ll look it up again later for 'eri:cation and refresh
my memory%
Yes, it's mine.
Mallory still seems to be very careful, mentioning that the contacts with Uralic are by some
considered only concerning the Aryans (Mallory & Adams 2006). But these Archaic Indo-
European loanwords are not any diferent by the quality criteria, and they |ust cannot be
questioned anymore: they have been known in Finland and Hungary almost 30 years now (more
and more are found), and only those who believe in the Siberian homeland of Proto-Uralic have
been categorically denying such loanwords - with no counter-arguments, it |ust doesn't ft into
their world view that Proto-Uralics could have been in contact with Proto/Archaic Indo-European.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
ges, $'m aware of the conser'ati'e e+ect of colonies%
(till, (atem is a later inno'ation than .entum from late stage proto-$ndo-
European, and !ithuanian as a (atem language and in general 'ery
conser'ati'e one at that, should gi'e us a clue that the homeland was
arguably in eastern Europe% ,ould you agree that much
Satemization has too narrow distribution to be related to Late Proto-Indo-European. Besides, it is
not dialect but secondary, areally spread phenomenon: it is found only in Balto-Slavic in the
northwestern stock, and only in Aryan and Armenian in the southeast stock. Therefore
satemization is "central" Indo-European phenomenon, but is not related to Proto-Indo-European.
It could have equally well have occurred in some extreme part, it is only chance that it happened
in the middle.
2012-02-14, 09:53
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
Polako,
what about the R;a in the Paci:c coast .ould it be all the way from Europe
$ think that is the reason why they thought the .entral Asian origin for the
haplogroup% Asia is still not 'ery well-tested area, and much may yet be
found%
I've never heard of R1a in the Pacifc coast that couldn't be explained by some sort of error in
earlier tests, or recent Russian admixture.
Keep in mind, Russians used to own Alaska.
2012-02-14, 15:12
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$''e ne'er heard of R;a in the Paci:c coast that couldn't be e)plained by
some sort of error in earlier tests, or recent Russian admi)ture%
Ieep in mind, Russians used to own Alaska%
In Xue et al. 2006 R1a (not specifed more) is found among Hui, Uyghurs, Han Chinese, Tibetans
and Koreans. These all cannot be late Russian admixture.
In Karafet et al. 2003 R1a was found all over native Siberians, even among Northeast Siberians
(Chukchi etc.)
You |ust cannot explain these fndings away.
2012-02-14, 15:23
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
$n que et al% L667 R;a Anot speci:ed moreD is found among &ui, 4yghurs,
&an .hinese, -ibetans and Ioreans% -hese all cannot be late Russian
admi)ture%
$n Iarafet et al% L661 R;a was found all o'er nati'e (iberians, e'en among
Northeast (iberians A.hukchi etc%D
gou #ust cannot e)plain these :ndings away%
Don't worry about the Chukchi. Them, and even Aleuts, have Russian ancestry aplenty. As for the
others, check this out...
European admixture in ancient East Asians (aka. two-rooted canines carried by early Indo-
Europeans to China)
Ancient remains from the Ordos culture showed European admixture. Look where the Ordos
culture was located...near eHn Korea.
Ordos culture
Quote:
-he Ordos culture comprises the period from 4pper Paleolithic to the late
>ron*e age at the Ordos 3esert, in the south of the $nner Hongolian
Autonomous Region of the People's Republic of .hina% -he Ordos were
predominantly Hongoloid, as known from their skeletal remains and
artifacts,P;R/ut numerous interactions /et$een Europoid and
;on.oloid mi.ht ha&e also taken place in that re.ion o'er the course
of se'eral centuries,PLR until its occupation by rin and &an dynasties%
2012-02-14, 15:28
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
$n que et al% L667 R;a Anot speci:ed moreD is found among &ui, 4yghurs,
&an .hinese, -ibetans and Ioreans% -hese all cannot be late Russian
admi)ture%
Quote:
Originally Posted by !"!PED!A
Ancient in?uences from .entral Asia became identi:able in China following
contacts of metropolitan .hina with nomadic western and northwestern
border territories from the Cth century >.% -he .hinese adopted the
(cythian-style animal art of the steppes Adescriptions of animals locked in
combatD, particularly the rectangular belt-pla9ues made of gold or bron*e,
and created their own 'ersions in #ade and steatite%PBBR
"ollowing their e)pulsion by the gue*hi, some Sc)thians may also ha'e
migrated to the area of Eunnan in southern China% (cythian warriors could
also ha'e ser'ed as mercenaries for the 'arious kingdoms of ancient .hina%
E)ca'ations of the prehistoric art of the 3ian ci'ili*ation of gunnan ha'e
re'ealed hunting scenes of .aucasoid horsemen in .entral Asian clothing%
PB5R
A%%%D
(cythian in?uences ha'e been identi:ed as far as "orea and Japan% Earious
Iorean artifacts, such as the royal crowns of the kingdom of (illa, are said to
be of (cythian design%PB7R (imilar crowns, brought through contacts with the
continent, can also be found in Iofun era Fapan%PBGR
....
2012-02-14, 17:55
aregint
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
$n que et al% L667 R;a Anot speci:ed moreD is found among &ui, 4yghurs,
&an .hinese, -ibetans and Ioreans% -hese all cannot be late Russian
admi)ture%
$n Iarafet et al% L661 R;a was found all o'er nati'e (iberians, e'en among
Northeast (iberians A.hukchi etc%D
gou #ust cannot e)plain these :ndings away%
Maybe some tocharian lineage spread further east centuries ago.
R1b managed to get to Cameroon so...
2012-02-14, 21:06
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
only those who belie'e in the Si/erian homeland of Proto-:ralic ha'e
been categorically denying such loanwords - with no counter-arguments, it
#ust doesn't :t into their world 'iew that Proto-4ralics could ha'e been in
contact with ProtoKArchaic $ndo-European%
I have one counter argument. If we place PIE folks to forest steppe at West Siberian Plain/Kirghiz
Steppe, we could also place the Proto-Uralic folks |ust north of them into forests of western
Siberia. I have no clue how this would line up with archeology, |ust saying ;)
There is clear movement (visible in mtdna C5*) from South Siberia via the Eurasian Steppe all the
way to Poland and |ust in correct time frame.
This would also make explaining the Tocharians much more simple (and also mysterious
Tocharian/Uralic connections). We only need to move PIE folks from Pontic Steppe into more
eastern part of Eurasian Steppe.
2012-02-14, 21:09
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
-here is clear mo'ement A'isible in mtdna .5hD from (outh (iberia 'ia the
Eurasian (teppe all the way to Poland and #ust in correct time frame%
mtDNA C was in Ukraine during the Neolithic. So what makes you think it came from Siberia to
Poland during the Chalcolithic/Bronze Age?
2012-02-14, 21:29
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
mt3NA . was in 4kraine during the Neolithic% (o what makes you think it
came from (iberia to Poland during the .halcolithicK>ron*e Age
Because of the age of Polish C5c1* cluster.
Quote:
$t appears that European branch .5c; is more di+erentiated, as far as two of
three se9uenced Polish mt3NAs formed a separate branch ACMc3aD, de:ned
by a coding region mutation at np G70B% -he relati'ely large amount of
internal 'ariation accumulated in the Polish branch of .5c would mean
that CMc3 arose in situ in Europe after the arri&al of a CMc3 founder
mtD@A from southern Si/eria, and that .5c; ajliation is a marker of
maternal (iberian ancestry%
http<KKwww%plosone%orgKarticleKinfo<%%%l%pone%66;5L;B
Age of Polish C5c1a is 5.2kya. (table S3). Age of South Siberian C5c1 is 6.5kya. This imo
indicates movement from South Siberia, via the Eurasian Steppe into Europe.
2012-02-14, 22:00
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
>ecause of the age of Polish .5c;h cluster%
Age of Polish .5c;a is 5%Lkya% Atable (1D% Age of (outh (iberian .5c; is
7%5kya% -his imo indicates mo'ement from (outh (iberia, 'ia the Eurasian
(teppe into Europe%
How do you know the ancestral lineage didn't spread from Ukraine both to Siberia and Poland?
We know, for example, that the ancient Ukrainian C are ancestral to those found in Siberian
kurgans.
It's pretty obvious that both C and N9a were seen all over the steppe, and the fringe areas, from
the Neolithic, or even the Mesolithic. Some moved back to Siberia, probably taking European
admixture with them.
These Eurasian populations were absorbed and replaced by Indo-Europeans coming from the
west.
2012-02-14, 23:02
Loxias
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
(atemi*ation has too narrow distribution to be related to !ate Proto-$ndo-
European% >esides, it is not dialect but secondary, areally spread
phenomenon< it is found only in >alto-(la'ic in the northwestern stock, and
only in Aryan and Armenian in the southeast stock% -herefore satemi*ation is
]central] $ndo-European phenomenon, but is not related to Proto-$ndo-
European% $t could ha'e e9ually well ha'e occurred in some e)treme part, it
is only chance that it happened in the middle%
Not that I am attempting to trivialise the uniqueness of satemisation (or maybe I am), but couldn't
what happened to [k] (latin c) before e and i in later romance language (becoming [s] or [t]) be
considered a sort of satemisation?
2012-02-15, 00:35
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
3on't worry about the .hukchi% -hem, and e'en Aleuts, ha'e Russian
ancestry aplenty% As for the others, check this out%%%
Ancient remains from the Ordos culture showed European admi)ture% !ook
where the Ordos culture was located%%%near ejn Iorea%
Russian inJuence is clearly too recent, but some Ordos or Scythian (like Wo|ewoda said) or
Tocharian (like Aregint said) could explain it - supposing that the R1a there represents some
European-born subgroup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
$ ha'e one counter argument% $f we place P$E folks to forest steppe at ,est
(iberian PlainKIirghi* (teppe, we could also place the Proto-4ralic folks #ust
north of them into forests of western (iberia% $ ha'e no clue how this would
line up with archeology, #ust saying
-his would also make e)plaining the -ocharians much more simple Aand also
mysterious -ocharianK4ralic connectionsD% ,e only need to mo'e P$E folks
from Pontic (teppe into more eastern part of Eurasian (teppe%
There are some linguistic problems:
1. Anatolian branch was the frst to split of, not Tocharian
2. Semitic and Kartvelian contacts
3. Late Proto-Uralic is diHcult to put in Siberia, although Pre-Proto-Uralic probably comes from
there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
ruote<
Originally Posted by H$einlant
Age of Polish .5c;a is 5%Lkya% Atable (1D% Age of (outh (iberian
.5c; is 7%5kya% -his imo indicates mo'ement from (outh (iberia,
'ia the Eurasian (teppe into Europe%
,e know, for e)ample, that the ancient 4krainian . are ancestral to
those found in (iberian kurgans%
This is complicated. They say that C5c is Siberian and 9.7 ky; it has two subgroups, European
C5c1 (6.6 ky) and Siberian C5c2 (not dated). European C5c1 also has a Polish subgroup C5c1a
(not dated). We cannot actually know where the C5c originated, because it is found among the
Poles and Southern Siberians both. If we had a dating for C5c2, we would get a hint about where
the C5c frst produced a subgroup, in Southern Siberia or in Europe (which age is 6.6 ky).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
&ow do you know the ancestral lineage didn't spread from 4kraine both to
(iberia and Poland
Remember to use that same counter-argument against your own "highest diversity of R1a1-blaa
is in Poland" -argument! ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$t's pretty ob'ious that both . and N0a were seen all o'er the steppe, and
the fringe areas, from the Neolithic, or e'en the Hesolithic% (ome mo'ed
back to (iberia, probably taking European admi)ture with them%
-hese Eurasian populations were absorbed and replaced by $ndo-Europeans
coming from the west%
Currently we cannot conclude whether C5c is older in Europe or in Siberia; see above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by <oxias
Not that $ am attempting to tri'ialise the uni9ueness of satemisation Aor
maybe $ amD, but couldn't what happened to PkR Alatin cD before e and i in
later romance language Abecoming PsR or PtRD be considered a sort of
satemisation
Yes, they are both part of the same phenomenon: palatalization of velar stops. Especially before
front vowels it has occurred in many languages (Medieval Latin, Votian, Aryan again, Latvian
etc.). But the satemization was unconditioned change, it happened before all vowels.
Satemization was also part of a bigger systemic change, when the three Proto-Indo-European
manners of velar articulation collapsed into two: in satem-languages * > *c but *kw and *k > *k,
in kentum-languages *kw was preserved but * and *k > *k.
The satemization seems to be original in Aryan, where Iranic shows the africate *c and Indic the
palatalization *s; Balto-Slavic shows only sibilant (Baltic * and Slavic *s).
2012-02-15, 00:51
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
Russian in?uence is clearly too recent, but some Ordos or (cythian Alike
,o#ewoda saidD or -ocharian Alike Aregint saidD could e)plain it W supposing
that the R;a there represents some European-born subgroup%
Most of the Chuckhi reference samples show some sort of East Slavic admix.
Quote:
Remember to use that same counter-argument against your own dhighest
di'ersity of R;a;-blaa is in PolandX -argumentm
I'm not sure what this means?
I'm not talking about high diversity of mtDNA C in Ukraine. I'm actually saying that the mtDNA C
found in Ukrainian kurgans is ancestral to that in Siberian kurgans.
But that C is now missing all over Eastern Europe, while R1a is all over the place. And the
problem you have, is that R1a was found at the early Indo-European timeframe west of Poland,
without any accompanying C.
It's all very logical to me. But some people |ust don't want to get it.
There was a population replacement in Eastern Europe at the Chalcolithic/Bronze Age timeframe,
from west to east. And that's also when the Ukrainain C probably dropped in frequency, and also
made its way to Siberia.
West > East
2012-02-15, 03:39
Jaska
We are going in circle here - you cannot disprove the linguistic evidence. How could you explain the Semitic, Kartvelian and
Uralic contacts from Central Europe? No way. Perhaps you have a wrong lineage? You |ust haven't yet found the one which
carried the Proto-Indo-European language.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$'m actually saying that the mt3NA . found in 4krainian kurgans is ancestral
to that in (iberian kurgans%
So it is not this C5c? Then what C is that?
2012-02-15, 03:57
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
,e are going in circle here - you cannot dispro'e the linguistic e'idence%
&ow could you e)plain the (emitic, Iart'elian and 4ralic contacts from
.entral Europe No way% Perhaps you ha'e a wrong lineage gou #ust ha'en't
yet found the one which carried the Proto-$ndo-European language%
Surely you've seen all the ancient DNA results from Europe?
The Middle East was actually in Central and Western Europe during the late Neolithic. That's the
only way to put it, because migrants directly from the Middle East were present there.
On the other hand, East Asia was right on Europe's doorstep, with groups carrying East Asian
lineages like N9a fltering into Europe. So why is it impossible for there to be contacts between
Central Europeans and Uralics?
What you need to grasp is that it's not necessary to have correct geographic distances to explain
contacts. All you need are groups of people to come together. Obviously, you're underestimating
the distances that people travelled back in those days. Maybe this is a ma|or fault that has
distorted all the fndings in prehistoric linguistics in academia?
Quote:
(o it is not this .5c -hen what . is that
C5 was present in Neolithic remains from Hungary.
C* and C4a were present in Neolithic and Bronze Age Kurgan remains from Ukraine. These were
ancestral to later C lineages found in Siberian kurgans.
So we had Neolithic or even Mesolithic movements of people from the steppe into Eastern and
even Central Europe. And then we had back migrations of these lineages at the early Indo-
European timeframe, probably accompanied by R1a.
2012-02-15, 06:53
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
-his is complicated% -hey say that .5c is (iberian and 0%G kyY it has two
subgroups, European .5c; A7%7 kyD and (iberian .5cL Anot datedD% European
.5c; also has a Polish subgroup .5c;a Anot datedD% ,e cannot actually know
where the .5c originated, because it is found among the Poles and (outhern
(iberians both% $f we had a dating for .5cL, we would get a hint about where
the .5c :rst produced a subgroup, in (outhern (iberia or in Europe Awhich
age is 7%7 kyD%
C5c1a is 5.22kya (again table S3).
C5 matriarch has estimate of 17.21kya and could well be "Mammoth Steppe" dweller, thus
explaining the earlier presence of C5* at western end of ex-Mammoth Steppe.
This however is not relevant for C5c1, which arose insitu at Europe much much later, from
founders who came from Siberia. C5c (Siberia), C5c2 (Siberia), C5c1 (Europe). Seems pretty
logical imo.
Authors have no problem with it:
"The relatively large amount of internal variation accumulated in the Polish branch of C5c would
mean that C5c1 arose in situ in Europe after the arrival of a C5c1 founder mtDNA from southern
Siberia, and that C5c1 aHliation is a marker of maternal Siberian ancestry"
2012-02-15, 06:59
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
.5c;a is 5%LLkya Aagain table (1D%
.5 matriarch has estimate of ;G%L;kya and could well be ]Hammoth (teppe]
dweller, thus e)plaining the earlier presence of .5h at western end of e)-
Hammoth (teppe%
-his howe'er is not rele'ant for .5c;, which arose insitu at Europe much
much later, from founders who came from (iberia% .5c A(iberiaD, .5cL
A(iberiaD, .5c; AEuropeD% (eems pretty logical imo%
Authors ha'e no problem with it<
]-he relati'ely large amount of internal 'ariation accumulated in the Polish
branch of .5c would mean that .5c; arose in situ in Europe after the arri'al
of a .5c; founder mt3NA from southern (iberia, and that .5c; ajliation is a
marker of maternal (iberian ancestry]
But the mtDNA in kurgans was not C5. So I don't know why you're pinning your hopes on this
maternal lineage to be the marker for choice for a ma|or patriarchal expansion across Eurasia?
Also, the mtDNA C in the Kurgans spread from Europe to Siberiaduring the right time. Ancient
DNA proves that.
You seem to have a lot of confdence that these authors can accurately age haplogroups. Fact is,
no one can do that. At best they can make some estimates, and wait for ancient DNA to back
them up.
In this case, their fndings weren't backed up, because we know from ancient DNA that C5 was
already in Central Europe during the Neolithic.
2012-02-15, 06:59
Loxias
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
(urely you''e seen all the ancient 3NA results from Europe
-he Hiddle East was actually in .entral and ,estern Europe during the late
Neolithic% -hat's the only way to put it, because migrants directly from the
Hiddle East were present there%
Would you say that late Neolithic Western Europe was more genetically Mid-Eastern than it is
now? And do you think that early Indo-European languages were already present there before the
Mid-Eastern (R1b?) washover?
2012-02-15, 07:11
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by <oxias
,ould you say that late Neolithic ,estern Europe was more genetically Hid-
Eastern than it is now And do you think that early $ndo-European languages
were already present there before the Hid-Eastern AR;bD washo'er
It's clear now that there were lots of movements from the Middle East into Europe during the
Neolithic.
It's from the interplay between these groups, and even Mesolithic survivors, that the proto-Indo-
Europeans formed in Central Europe. But their patriarchal nature meant that they had a high
frequency of R1a.
Then there was a domino efect, and I suspect that groups high in R1b expanded rapidly in West
Central Europe after being Indo-Europeanized, swamping many other lineages in the region.
---------- Post added 2012-02-15 at 09:06 ----------
Lolski, looks like someone's reading my blog...
Link
2012-02-15, 09:29
EliasAlucard
OT-split about proto-Celts moved here.
//mod
2012-02-15, 09:39
Loxias
I have questions for Jaska or any other linguists around.
Could the conservativeness of a language be the result of substratum inJuence?
We notice that both Finnish and Baltic languages are very conservative forms of their two families. Could it be possible that
pre-FU/pre-IE Eastern Baltic shores were populated by populations sharing one language family, of which the properties
lead to inJuence the new languages in the way of conservativity?
Are there any known exemples that could back up such a process?
Also, slightly of topic, but I think still useful to make up new ideas on topic, what amount of the transformation through time
of a language can be explained by purely random factors (instead of interference with other languages as sub/superstratum
or in any other way)?
2012-02-15, 12:16
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
-he Hiddle East was actually in .entral and ,estern Europe during the late
Neolithic% -hat's the only way to put it, because migrants directly from the
Hiddle East were present there%
On the other hand, East Asia was right on Europe's doorstep, with groups
carrying East Asian lineages like N0a :ltering into Europe% (o why is it
impossible for there to be contacts between .entral Europeans and 4ralics
You mess genes and language. No matter how far west there were eastern genes, the fact
remains that Proto-Uralic cannot be dragged west from Middle Volga on the linguistic basis. The
Asian genes west from there cannot be connected to the Uralic speakers, because there were no
Uralic speakers so far west at the time.
It is a linguistic result that the Uralic contacts require the Pontic steppe homeland for IE. Genes
cannot change this (even though you knew the genes of the speakers of those protolanguages).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
,hat you need to grasp is that it's not necessary to ha'e correct geographic
distances to e)plain contacts% All you need are groups of people to come
together% Ob'iously, you're underestimating the distances that people
tra'elled back in those days% Haybe this is a ma#or fault that has distorted all
the :ndings in prehistoric linguistics in academia
Believe me, people only tend to have loanwords from their neighbours. There are no direct Celtic
or Greek loanwords in Finnic, for example - not even in Baltic. All have loanwords only from their
neighbours, until recent times. Middle Volga and Central Europe are not close to each other -
there is a half of the subcontinent between them - and there must have been many languages in
between them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
.5 was present in Neolithic remains from &ungary%
OK. I didn`t found that in the new paper about ancient DNA. Are you sure it was |ust C5*? Were
the subgroups even distinguished back then (before Derenko et al. 2010)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
(o we had Neolithic or e'en Hesolithic mo'ements of people from the
steppe into Eastern and e'en .entral Europe% And then we had back
migrations of these lineages at the early $ndo-European timeframe, probably
accompanied by R;a%
Then you have a wrong lineage. To fnd out the Proto-Indo-European-carrying lineage you should
fnd a lineage which fts to the linguistic results. You cannot do itbackwards: you cannot claim
that some lineage is Proto-Indo-European and then move the PIE homeland after your
claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
-his howe'er is not rele'ant for .5c;, which arose insitu at Europe much
much later, from founders who came from (iberia% .5c A(iberiaD, .5cL
A(iberiaD, .5c; AEuropeD% (eems pretty logical imo%
But it is not based on anything - their data does not show it, it`s only their interpretation. You can
see that C5c is not purely Siberian but also found in Europe: "Four of the new and two previously
published sequences (one Teleut and one Tubalar from the Altai region of southern Siberia,
three Poles from northern Poland, and one FamilyTreeDNA pro|ect individual of unknown
ancestry) clustered into uncommon branch, named C5c..."
Draw a tree and you will see:
1. Poland and Siberia (C5c)
1a. Poland (C5c1)
1a1. Poland (C5c1a)
1b. Siberia (C5c2)
It really is impossible to tell where C5c was earlier: both Europe and Siberia are possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by <oxias
.ould the conser'ati'eness of a language be the result of substratum
in?uence
,e notice that both "innish and >altic languages are 'ery conser'ati'e
forms of their two families% .ould it be possible that pre-"4Kpre-$E Eastern
>altic shores were populated by populations sharing one language family, of
which the properties lead to in?uence the new languages in the way of
conser'ati'ity
Are there any known e)emples that could back up such a process
At least I`m not aware of that. But in practice, concerning the wide-spread language families, all
but one language of each are spoken in an originally foreign area: there was one narrow
homeland, and to all other areas the language has spread secondarily, through migrations and
language shifts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by <oxias
Also, slightly o+ topic, but $ think still useful to make up new ideas on topic,
what amount of the transformation through time of a language can be
e)plained by purely random factors Ainstead of interference with other
languages as subKsuperstratum or in any other wayD
Common principle is that the more there are contacts, the more language changes. But then,
what is "more contacts"? More speakers? Longer time? More intensive contacts?
2012-02-15, 12:46
Polako
2 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
Hiddle Eolga and .entral Europe are not close to each other - there is a half
of the subcontinent between them - and there must ha'e been many
languages in between them%
Germany and Iran aren't close to each other either, but I'm willing to bet that the some of the
Germans of the Neolithic spoke the same languages as Iranians of the same period.
Do you know how I know that? Because there's evidence of very long range movements from
what is now Iran to Germany at that time. See frst image, which compares ancient LBK DNA
from Germany to modern DNA, and shows greatest similarity to Iranians from the Zagros
Mountains.
The second image shows burial locations along the Eurasian steppe, which shared very similar
cultural characteristics. These ranged from Germany and Poland to the Volga, and then extended
all the way to the fucking Altai.
I believe that easily demonstrates my point of ancient Central Europeans being exposed to
inJuence from both Southwest Asia and the Urals...without even breaking a sweat.
So cut the crap.
2012-02-16, 17:46
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
@ermany and $ran aren't close to each other either, but $'m willing to bet that
the some of the @ermans of the Neolithic spoke the same languages as
$ranians of the same period%
3o you know how $ know that >ecause there's e'idence of 'ery long range
mo'ements from what is now $ran to @ermany at that time% (ee :rst image,
which compares ancient !>I 3NA from @ermany to modern 3NA, and shows
greatest similarity to $ranians from the /agros Hountains%
-he second image shows burial locations along the Eurasian steppe, which
shared 'ery similar cultural characteristics% -hese ranged from @ermany and
Poland to the Eolga, and then e)tended all the way to the fucking Altai%
$ belie'e that easily demonstrates my point of ancient .entral Europeans
being e)posed to in?uence from both (outhwest Asia and the 4rals%%%without
e'en breaking a sweat%
(o cut the crap%
What are you talking about? Do you want to opposite my view that loanwords are only borrowed
from neighbours? Because what you said does not opposite it at all.
1. If some Neolithic people spread to a remote area, their language spread with them, and later it
either survived or was shifted for another language. In this case it would have been a neighbour to
the original language of the area.
2. Palaeolithic "cultures" were geographically huge, but cultural uniformity does not equal
linguistic uniformity: it is much easier to adopt a new style or technology than adopt a whole new
language. The same goes for later cultures, too. Cultural area does not equal language area.
So, it still remains that Central Europe is too far from the Uralic language area. Nothing in genes
or culture can change this - language is a level of its own. I wonder when will you understand this?
2012-02-16, 18:47
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
(o, it still remains that .entral Europe is too far from the 4ralic language
area% Nothing in genes or culture can change this - language is a le'el of its
own% $ wonder when will you understand this
Jaska, you must understand that you continue to make - after other linguists similar to yours - the
same error again and again: you claim that in prehistoric times the distribution of the language
families - Uralic, Afro-Asiatic or Kartvelian - was identical to their present distribution.
Such claim cannot be proved or falsifed, so it is unscientifc.
So - in the words of ancients - "cut the crap". ;)
2012-02-17, 01:35
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
Faska, you must understand that you continue to make - after other linguists
similar to yours - the same error again and again< you claim that in
prehistoric times the distribution of the language families - 4ralic, Afro-
Asiatic or Iart'elian - was identical to their present distribution%
No, I certainly don't! Otherwise I would not disagree, because the "Central European Proto-Indo-
Europeans" would have met Uralic speakers in Hungary!
I'm talking only about the historical distribution: about 4 000 years ago there were no Uralic
languages west of Middle Volga, but now there are Uralic languages as far west as in Norway
and Hungary.
Please read the messages before you present your erroneous interpretations.
2012-02-17, 02:19
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
$'m talking only about the historical distribution< about B 666 years ago there
were no 4ralic languages west of Hiddle Eolga, but now there are 4ralic
languages as far west as in Norway and &ungary%
How do you know that there were no Uralic speakers that far west at the time, when Iranians of
earlier times were in Germany and Siberians in Hungary?
It seems to me that you're a religious man. You have faith in something, despite evidence to the
contrary.
2012-02-17, 17:20
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
&ow do you know that there were no 4ralic speakers that far west at the
time, when $ranians of earlier times were in @ermany and (iberians in
&ungary
$t seems to me that you're a religious man% gou ha'e faith in something,
despite e'idence to the contrary%
You have no evidence, so how could I believe you?
Here are the scientifc results:
1. Proto-Uralic homeland is located in the Middle Volga area.
2. There are no linguistic traces of Uralic west of that area, until later.
3. Instead there are traces of many Palaeo-European languages.
So, where is your evidence that there were Uralic languages anywhere near Central Europe? It
seems that you are the religious one here, because you believe in non-existing things... :whoco:
2012-02-17, 20:22
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
(o, where is your e'idence that there were 4ralic languages anywhere near
.entral Europe $t seems that you are the religious one here, because you
belie'e in non-e)isting things%%% <whoco<
Estonia?
2012-02-17, 22:37
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
gou ha'e no e'idence, so how could $ belie'e you
So tell me, what languages do you think the migrants from West Asia and Siberia spoke when
they got to Europe?
Do you think they switched over to paleo-European as soon as they crossed some sort of border
post?
There were movements of people at the time spanning thousands of Kms. The Middle Volga was
connected to Central Europe through these movements. Thus, it wasn't far from Central Europe.
India was far from Central Europe at the time.
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
(o, where is your e'idence that there were 4ralic languages anywhere near
.entral Europe $t seems that you are the religious one here, because you
belie'e in non-e)isting things%%% <whoco<
FU is the language family of the Boreal zone. There must have been periods during Holocene
where this zone was much wider than today.
2012-02-17, 22:56
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
Faska, you must understand that you continue to make - after other linguists
similar to yours - the same error again and again< you claim that in
prehistoric times the distribution of the language families - 4ralic, Afro-
Asiatic or Iart'elian - was identical to their present distribution%
(uch claim cannot be pro'ed or falsi:ed, so it is unscienti:c%
(o - in the words of ancients - ]cut the crap]% YD
Actually, they can be proved and they certainly are falsifable. Linguistic palaeontology gives us a
very precise geographic approximation once compared with the archaeological record of Jora,
fauna and material culture. But linguistic palaeontology cannot tell us anything about genes (well,
not much anyway), because the proto-Indo-Europeans and other proto groups did not know
anything about haplogroups...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
&ere are the scienti:c results<
;% Proto-4ralic homeland is located in the Hiddle Eolga area
What is this based on? Linguistic palaeontology or linguistic variation of Uralic languages?
2012-02-17, 23:04
Unome
I've been learning a little Russian and the "k"-"c"-"s", hard k to soft c linguistic transition is very, very indicative of historical
European language trends. It's too easy to trace this, back to Western European Old English, Southern European Latin, and
Eastern European Cyrillic. After I learn Russian, I'll become able to provide a lot of insight into how European languages
morphed from one area to another, and why. Perhaps this may help
2012-02-17, 23:08
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
!inguistic palaeontology gi'es us a 'ery precise geographic appro)imation
once compared with the archaeological record of ?ora, fauna and material
culture%
Today people among which hg G peaks speak Kartvelian. Can we prove that Neolitic hg G
people in Europe didn't speak languages related to Kartvelian?
Today people among which hg E peaks speak Afro-Asiatic. Can we prove that people who
spread hg E in Europe didn't speak Afro-Asiatic?
Today people among which hg N peaks speak FU. Can we prove that people who spread hg N in
Europe (for instance in the Baltic countries) didn't speak FU?
I think the answer to these 3 questions is negative.
If so we cannot make precise inferences about the location of the IE Urheimat based on the links
between IE and these 3 language families.
Q.E.D.
2012-02-17, 23:23
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
-oday people among which hg @ peaks speak Iart'elian% .an we pro'e that
Neolitic hg @ people in Europe didn't speak languages related to Iart'elian
-oday people among which hg E peaks speak Afro-Asiatic% .an we pro'e that
people who spread hg E in Europe didn't speak Afro-Asiatic
-oday people among which hg N peaks speak "4% .an we pro'e that people
who spread hg N in Europe Afor instance in the >altic countriesD didn't speak
"4
$ think the answer to these 1 9uestions is negati'e%
$f so we cannot make precise inferences about the location of the $E
4rheimat based on the links between $E and these 1 language families%
r%E%3%
So anyway, pseudo-QED aside, do you have any opinion on linguistic palaeontology? If so, what
do you think linguistic palaeontology tells us about PIE?
2012-02-17, 23:29
EastPole
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
>ecause the western steppe at the time was populated by groups carrying a
lot of (iberian and e'en East Asian in?uence, like mt3NA . and N0a%
(uch "ar Eastern markers are missing from .orded ,are, 4rn:eld and other
ancient .entral European burials% >ut these do show R;a, as well as mt3NAs
that suggest a Hiddle Eastern origin, like I; and qL%
Also, ,estern Europe today shows all the old R;a, like R;ah, R;a;ah and
R;a;a Old European% >ut 4kraine and surrounds show none of them Aapart
from some R;a;ah in RussiaD%
There are many models proposed for the population of Central Europe from the Steppe. Some of
them are discussed in:
"A Spatial Analysis of Neolithic Cultures throughout Eastern, Central, and Northern Europe in
Relation to Proto-Germanic" Matthew J. Rifkin 2007
http://www.4shared.com/oHce/lKgou1...in_53-81_.html
Rifkin discusses Gimbutas` model frst:
Quote:
As discussed, @imbutasJ Iurgan paradigm for the spread of $E speaking
tribes into the North European plain is based on the premise that c % 1566
>%.%, gamnaya tribes from the upper reaches of the Eolga Ri'er swept down
into the southern part of the NP( and northern .aucasus pushing the !ower
Hikhailo'ka-Iemi-Oba-Haykop community from its original territory% -he
!HIO-Haykop cultural community mo'ed westward and reestablished itself
as the @lobular Amphora culture on the North European Plain%
We know now from genetics that Gimbutas` model i.e. massive incursion of steppe people into
Poland and reestablishing itself as the Globular Amphora culture is unlikely.
Therefore alternative model is worthy considering.
Quote:
Hany with opposing 'iews ha'e centered the notion of Iurgan intrusion into
the North European Plain and ultimately southern (candina'ia on gamnaya
tribes entering the region after a brief period of transition with other cultures
along the Pripyat Ri'er% -his in turn would ha'e led to the formation of the
.orded ,are culture A(ulimirski ;07C, -elegin ;00LD% -he initial formation of
the gamnaya culture stems from the !ower Hikhailo'ka, (redny (tog, and
Ih'alynsk cultures% (imilar to @imbutasJ paradigm, the formation of the
Iurgan culture on the NP( stems from the (redny (tog and Ih'alynsk
cultures% -he chronology of the alternate paradigm is as follows< Ih'alynsk,
(redny (tog, !ower-Hikhailo'ka, gamnaya, Hiddle 3nieper, Haso'ian, and
:nally .orded ,are Asee "igure 7D%
So instead of direct intrusion into Poland of some steppe element and there developing into
Globular Amphora and later into Coreded Ware culture, Rifkin is proposing gradual
transformation of some elements of Yamnaya cultures mixed with local elements into Middle
Dnieper culture and then mixing with Masovian culture and entering Poland as Coreded Ware
culture and mixing with local Globular Amphora culture. In other words Corded Ware culture
didn`t develop from Globular Amphora culture but entered from the East and assimilated Globular
Amphora. Globular Amphora therefore is not derived from the steppe but is a local culture which
evolved in Poland before intrusion from the east.
Quote:
Around the area of the middle 3nieper, a local 'ariant of the gamnaya
culture separates from its greater cultural hori*on and begins to de'elop into
the Hiddle 3nieper culture A-elegin ;00LD% "rom there, this culture mo'es
farther north and west along the 3nieper and Pripyat respecti'ely where
they come in contact with the local Haso'ian culture% -here, they pick up
local cultural 'ariants most associated with aspects of the North European
Plain cultures Ai%e%, perhaps elements of "unnel-necked >eaker and @lobular
AmphoraD% E'entually, all this leads to the formation of the distincti'e pottery
type of the .orded ,are culture in what this study terms a dkurgan wa'e of
transitionX A"igure 0D%
Rifkin assumes that element from the east were IE speakers and Globular Amphora were NON-
IE speakers:
Quote:
PQR :rst meeting between $E and Non-$E speakers occurred c% 1166-1L66 >.
at the mouth of the Pripyat along the present day border of 4kraine and
Poland% Around 1L66 >. the earliest 'ariant of the central European .,.
appears in south-eastern Poland and from there e)pands nearly
simultaneously to the Netherlands and >altic territory by 1;66 >. A"igure
;6D%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
(o it's clear to me that R;a made it to .entral Europe from the south, rather
than from the east% And then it pushed east, carried by populations who
would absorb and e'entually replace the Eurasian-like nati'es of the steppe%
Globular Amphora culture (GAC) evolved in Poland as a local culture but inJuenced by CWC later
also started to migrate east:
Quote:
$t is in this conte)t that the @A. de'eloped out of the -R> c% 1B66 >.% -his
culture de:ned primarily by a new economic mode of production proceeded
to e)pand eastward% !t is here $here the) entered the steppes of
:kraine in an eastern exodus c. 2D>> 'C. This is su/stantiated /)
radiocar/on datin. of 1AC artifacts in this area. All of this is opposed
to what was occurring on the NP( where inno'ation was typically mo'ing
from east to west dating back to c % 7666 >.%
2900 BC GAC entered the steppes of Ukraine, they had horses and wheeled vehicles, there were
also many obvious IE elements in that culture.
The story told by Rifkin is as follows:
Quote:
-he intermingling of .,. and @A. artifacts can be e)plained as follows< by
1B66 >. the people of the -R> in central Europe had switched from
agriculture to pastoralism brought on by deteriorating en'ironmental
conditions somewhat self-induced, yet they maintained a communal burial
tradition% -he culture is now the @A. as e'idenced by a new pottery type
though with :rm links originating in the -R>% Host of the faunal remains are
of 'arious stock animals, though the domesticated horse is relati'ely rare
A(*myt ;007D% ,islanski remarked that only in e)ceptional cases were horse
remains found in gra'es, which indicates some cultic role A;0G6D% E'entually,
more ob'ious $E elements appear in the culture particularly sun discs
representing the sky god and other .,. artifacts% -his suggests that the
@A. embraced the incoming .,. due to the introduction of the
domesticated horse% ,hen the @A. people saw the horses of the .,., they
reali*ed that these animals could be ad'antageous to their newly adopted
mode of production% -he people of the .,. who descended in part from the
gamnaya steppe tribes had been practicing mobile pastoralism longer%
,arring with them would not ha'e made much sense not only due to the
fact that the .,. was a more aggressi'e tribal force but also because the
@A. could learn from them% -he .,. most likely possessed a far superior
knowledge of pastoralism than the @A.% As a result, whate'er aspects of the
.,. that could be adopted were accepted into the @A.% -his would ha'e
included technology Anamely the horseD, religion, and ultimately language% $n
roughly ;66-L66 years though, the @A. of central Europe was completely
absorbed by the .,.% -he people of the @A. became the :rst $ndo-
Europeani*ed population of the North European Plain through a relati'ely
peaceful process%
The point is that it was not necessary that massive migrations of steppe tribes caused the Indo-
Europeanization of Central Europe. Actually it is debated:
Quote:
A $holesale mi.ration /) the people inha/itin. the southern areas
of the @PS in central Europe is still &er) Puestiona/le.
Actually it is also not certain that Yamnaya tribes were IE and Globular Amphora NON-IE. It could
be the opposite. Yamnaya tribes had horses but GAC had wheeled vehicles frst and the
expansion of PIE started from Poland and not from Ukraine.
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...11&postcount=5
Here is a picture of GAC (green squares) spread from Elbe river to Dnieper:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-W...8/s800/GAC.|pg
From works of Underhill at al. 2009 it can be seen that R1a1 fts very well into Globular Amphora
culture core area and it`s later expansion. R1a1 in Poland is very old.
http://www.nature.com/e|hg/|ournal/v...g2009194f2.|pg
Globular Amphora culture correlates very well with Pop.19 - Polish/West Ukrainian of Polako`s
study:
http://bga101.blogspot.com/2012/01/e...s-phase-2.html
Pop.20 - East Slavic on the other hand correlates very well with Middle Dnieper culture which
after mixing with Corded Ware coming from the west with wheeled vehicles expanded east into
Fatyanovo, Abashevo and Shintashta.
Prof. Manczak also demonstrated that Polish is the most archaic and central IE language:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1....10.2.93.16720
Taking everything into consideration Poland and GAC/CWC are the most likely candidates for
PIE homeland IMO. Genes, language, wheeled vehicles, settlement and house types, horses, frst
IE symbols all fts the picture.
2012-02-17, 23:33
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
(o anyway, pseudo-rE3 aside, do you ha'e any opinion on linguistic
palaeontology $f so, what do you think linguistic palaeontology tells us
about P$E
I am in the process of learning. At the moment I am |ust sceptical about the claims Jaska makes
that LP can give a VERY PRECISE indications. I once posted here a map based on LP
considerations suggesting IE Urheimat in Centra-North-Eastern Europe, and Jaska |ust said it
must be wrong, becasue - I don't remember - some other species of fsh could be called salmon
so the salmon real territory doesn't count. So I don't really think one can get any defnite answers
with such approach.
EDIT: Jaska's answer to the map:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
gou are wrong, linguistic e'idence indeed testi:es for this region% Of course
there were trees in the ri'er 'alleys, at least% -here are also salmon-related
:shes and beech-related trees W these arguments are outdated, because
they a)iomatically suppose that the original meanings for these words were
the European salmon and the European beech% Read Hallory%
2012-02-17, 23:33
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
$f so, what do you think linguistic palaeontology tells us about P$E
How can it say anything, when apparently the assumption is made that only neighbors inJuenced
each other?
What about migrants? It seems only ancient DNA and maybe archeology can show that there
were migrants present in Europe.
2012-02-17, 23:52
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$ am in the process of learning% At the moment $ am #ust sceptical about the
claims Faska makes that !P can gi'e a EERg PRE.$(E indications% $ once
posted here a map based on !P considerations suggesting $E 4rheimat in
.entra-Eastern Europe, and Faska #ust said it must be wrong, becasue - $
don't remember - some other species of :sh could be called salmon so the
salmon real territory doesn't count% (o $ don't really think one can get any
de:nite answers with such approach%
E3$-< $ ha'e found it%
Jaska isn't the foremost advocate of linguistic palaeontology; I am. Also, Azvarohi has doubts
about linguistic palaeontology but that's because he doesn't understand how useful linguistic
palaeontology is as a tool (or maybe he does understand it, and he was playing his usual "neutral"
devil's advocate role, I don't know, but last I discussed it with him on Flashback, his counter
arguments as to why linguistic palaeontology shouldn't be trusted were all shitty arguments).
Also, linguistic palaeontology isn't useful when you |ust use one word. It's when you combine lots
of words when you're actually capable of gleaning a secure geographic position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
&ow can it say anything, when apparently the assumption is made that only
neighbors in?uenced each other
,hat about migrants $t seems only ancient 3NA and maybe archeology can
show that there were migrants present in Europe%
Linguistic palaeontology tells us about the past history of the language family; basically, you can
say linguistic palaeontology is a memepool of sorts. And when enough words are securely
reconstructed from various branches of the language family, we then have a map that should
theoretically ft with a geographical place at a certain time in the historical record. That's what
anti-intellectuals like Colin Renfrew and Koenraad Elst don't understand.
So for example, the fact that the proto-Indo-Europeans knew snow, horse, wheel, silver, cow,
dog, bear and honey, totally rules out sub-Saharan "Africa" as the urheimat. And proto-Semitic
loanwords like 9ta'ru and 9sab, (9%s&tauro and 9se*tm in PIE; see Mallory ISOTIE, p. 150) also
makes Poland diHcult, especially when proto-Uralic seems to have had proto-Indo-European
loanwords like 'ater and name (I can't remember the proto-Uralic spelling, but these PIE words
are found in PU). That the proto-Indo-Europeans don't seem to have had a word for olives, makes
the Mediterranean unlikely.
Like Jaska has been telling you, modern frequencies of genes do not change the linguistic facts.
2012-02-17, 23:57
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
(o for e)ample, the fact that the proto-$ndo-Europeans knew snow, horse,
wheel, sil'er, cow, dog, bear and honey, totally rules out sub-(aharan
]Africa] as the urheimat% And proto-(emitic loanwords like htauro and hsept
also makes Poland dijcult, especially when proto-4ralic seems to ha'e had
proto-$ndo-European loanwords like water and name A$ can't remember the
proto-4ralic spelling, but these P$E words are found in P4D%
Ok, so long range population movements, involving large groups of people, can't explain
language contacts?
They simply had to live next to each other?
2012-02-18, 00:01
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
And proto-(emitic loanwords like htauro and hsept also makes Poland
dijcult, especially when proto-4ralic seems to ha'e had proto-$ndo-
European loanwords like water and name A$ can't remember the proto-4ralic
spelling, but these P$E words are found in P4D% -hat the proto-$ndo-Europeans
don't seem to ha'e had a word for oli'es, makes the Hediterranean unlikely%
I suggest Carpathian compromise then.
See also here.
2012-02-18, 00:02
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
Ok, so long range population mo'ements, in'ol'ing large groups of people,
can't e)plain language contacts
-hey simply had to li'e ne)t to each other
Not necessarily next to each other. They obviously had some distance and weren't exactly
neighbours in the Iraq vis--vis Syria sense of the word, but do you think Poland is even remotely
close to the Levant and the Volga? The Pontic-Caspian steppe is a better ft.
Also, language contact isn't the only evidence that supports the steppe.
2012-02-18, 11:42
TruthSeeker
Before the PIE Urheimat is determined -
Let us be clear about the facts.
The discussion here seems to be centred around most accepted hypotheses.
What about the logic?
1. How can linguistics provide dates?
Only on the basis (or against, or in comparison) of the results of other disciplines, the so beloved by Jaska comparative
method simply has to have some starting point in time to |ump of.
I.e. if linguistics were a `thing in itself`, it would not require any backing-up from other disciplines, and yet - somehow the
comparative method is based on external datings, some of which they accept, some - don`t.
Specifcally for Jaska - please, show your dateline for PIE vs Proto Uraic. And, please, provide your reasoning. I am pretty
much sure your dates might be based on other disciplines.
2. This discussion of PIE Urheimat takes for granted current ESTIMATE of climate and spread of cultures - Polako`s trying
to in|ect existing genetic evidence, but Jaska claims that, read carefully, - on the basis of linguistic analysis, certain dates
can`t be attested!! - based on what? - linguistic methods that ultimately depend on the same ad|acent disciplines!
I mean - if you take linguistics as such, isolatedly - it is really a `thing in itself`. But this happens with any other branch of
science in our world.
But at the same time - all disciplines contribute to the goal of better knowledge.
3. Do we take into account the Younger Dryas? And the movements of people? Aren`t we underestimating the age and
location of Urheimat of PIE? What if such movements, without any contact simply lead to spread?
And, universally, if in all other spheres `the law of preservation` is acknowledged, why would language be special?
This is especially pertinent in case of using any rate of language change.
2012-02-18, 11:45
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
Not necessarily ne)t to each other% -hey ob'iously had some distance and
weren't e)actly neighbours in the $ra9 'is--'is (yria sense of the word, but
do you think Poland is e'en remotely close to the !e'ant and the Eolga
Why the Levant? Middle Easterners were in Central Europe at the right time. We have their DNA.
And why the Volga? The Eurasian steppe and forest steppe were on modern Poland's doorstep
at the time. Again, ancient DNA shows that clearly.
2012-02-18, 12:14
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
,hy the !e'ant Hiddle Easterners were in .entral Europe at the right time%
,e ha'e their 3NA%
We? What specifc Middle Eastern DNA are you talking about? Proto-Semitic urheimat is most
likely somewhere in the nortern Levant and arguably also extended into southern parts of Anatolia
at some point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
And why the Eolga -he Eurasian steppe and forest steppe were on modern
Poland's doorstep at the time% Again, ancient 3NA shows that clearly%
I think what speaks for Poland is the high diversity of R1a there today, and how basically only one
lineage of R1a (Z93) is spread into "Asia", which as I've pointed out before, goes well in hand with
the Indo-Iranian (of which Indo-Aryan is a subgroup) subgroup of Indo-European languages. So
obviously, Poland or "central-eastern Europe" was a very important hot spot at some point, and
perhaps Poland was the frst wave of Indo-European migrations where early PIE descendants
settled (remember now, Gimbutas talked about three waves).
However-and this is actually possible by the way-what Poland must fnd is archaeological
evidence for earlier remnants of bit wear and wheels than in Ukraine. We must also keep in mind
that the horse initially had a more eastern biotope than modern Poland (somewhere between
Ukraine and close to Afghanistan, if I remember correctly). There are other examples aside from
the proto-Semitic loanwords in PIE and PIE loanwords in PU, that makes the Pontic-Caspian
steppe a better ft. For example, |ust look at the H5 mtDNA map on 23andMe; it has a high
frequency in north-eastern Anatolia (Pontus regions) and the Caucasus (basically Maikop culture)
and reaches highest frequency somewhere in Poland:
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/ima.../mtDNA_H5a.png
How would you explain H5a so far up in Siberia and detached from the rest of the European
genepool? Scythians? Recent Russian expansion?
I'm not saying this in a lame attempt to Indo-Europeanise myself or anything, but I am quite
convinced the proto-Indo-Europeans had signifcant frequencies of mtDNA H5/H5a, as I've
pointed out before, especially as a Tagar (Scythian) has been found with H5a:
Studies of ancient DNA have found H5 in four individuals of around 6800 BC from the Pre-pottery
Neolithic B site of Tell Halula, Syria.[7] H5a has been found in a Tagar (800 BC-100 AD) man on the
Russian steppe whose Y-DNA was R1a1a [14] and in Margrethe, alias Estrid, 11th century AD
Queen of Denmark.[15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogr...29#Ancient_DNA
And H5a makes sense with a Maikop to Yamnaya expansion, and from Yamnaya all the way to Poland (most
likely at a very early stage, which makes Poland sort of the `second` PIE urheimat).
2012-02-18, 12:43
EastPole
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
,hy the !e'ant Hiddle Easterners were in .entral Europe at the right time%
,e ha'e their 3NA%
And why the Eolga -he Eurasian steppe and forest steppe were on modern
Poland's doorstep at the time% Again, ancient 3NA shows that clearly%
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
,e ,hat speci:c Hiddle Eastern 3NA are you talking about
My maternal hg. N1a1a is a good example, it was found in LBK:
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...435#post421435
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-t...s800/mtDNA.|pg
Plus in LBK some other ME hgs were found. I guess they were in Tripolye as well.
There were also some Comb Ceramics groups in Poland, so "Uralic" contacts could take place
there and later were spread east to Finland by those hunter-gatherers groups.
The oldest traces of the use of wheels were found in Poland, not on the steppe.
Horses were probably domesticate by non-IE culture of Botai:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botai_culture
What is the proof of IE presence on the steppe before 3000 BC ?
2012-02-18, 13:26
Hallteks
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
Faska isn't the foremost ad'ocate of linguistic palaeontologyY $ am% Also,
A*'arohi has doubts about linguistic palaeontology but that's because he
doesn't understand how useful linguistic palaeontology is as a tool Aor maybe
he does understand it, and he was playing his usual ]neutral] de'il's
ad'ocate role, $ don't know, but last $ discussed it with him on "lashback, his
counter arguments as to why linguistic palaeontology shouldn't be trusted
were all shitty argumentsD%
Also, linguistic palaeontology isn't useful when you #ust use one word% $t's
when you combine lots of words when you're actually capable of gleaning a
secure geographic position%
!inguistic palaeontology tells us about the past history of the language
familyY basically, you can say linguistic palaeontology is a memepool of
sorts% And when enough words are securely reconstructed from 'arious
branches of the language family, we then ha'e a map that should
theoretically :t with a geographical place at a certain time in the historical
record% -hat's what anti-intellectuals like .olin Renfrew and Ioenraad Elst
don't understand%
(o for e)ample, the fact that the proto-$ndo-Europeans knew snow, horse,
wheel, sil'er, cow, dog, bear and honey, totally rules out sub-(aharan
]Africa] as the urheimat% And proto-(emitic loanwords
like htawru and hsab' AhAsDtauro and hseptm in P$EY see Hallory $(O-$E, p%
;56D also makes Poland dijcult, especially when proto-4ralic seems to ha'e
had proto-$ndo-European loanwords like water and name A$ can't remember
the proto-4ralic spelling, but these P$E words are found in P4D% -hat the
proto-$ndo-Europeans don't seem to ha'e had a word for oli'es, makes the
Hediterranean unlikely%
!ike Faska has been telling you, modern fre9uencies of genes do not change
the linguistic facts%
In many way's I agree with you.:ashamed:
But you have to be a linguist to understand how words travels and changes.
The word for calm or peace:
Ruhig - German
Rolig - Danish
Lugn - Swedish
Rauha- Finnish
The Swedish word 'rolig' means funny. What happened?
The word for neighbor:
Nabo - Danish
Granne - Swedish
Naapuri - Finnish
There is an other not used Swedish word whitch isn't used: nrbo.
These are modern words, if we go back in time no one of us would understand anything. This is
why we need linguists, even if they are not allways right.
2012-02-18, 18:01
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
ruote<
Originally Posted by Jaska
(o, where is your e'idence that there were 4ralic languages
anywhere near .entral Europe
Estonia
And Hungarian, but only later. We are talking about the Copper/Bronze Age contacts here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
(o tell me, what languages do you think the migrants from ,est Asia and
(iberia spoke when they got to Europe
3o you think they switched o'er to paleo-European as soon as they crossed
some sort of border post
AND:
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
"4 is the language family of the >oreal *one% -here must ha'e been periods
during &olocene where this *one was much wider than today%
Siberia was also full of Palaeo-Asian languages before the recent spread of current dominating
language families (Uralic, Tungusic, Turkic, Yeniseic, Mongolic). You both seem to think that
there was only Uralic lineage alone! There are still Yukaghir, Ghilyak, Chukotkan etc. languages
remaining from the ancient diversity - all the other language families are very recent in Siberia,
less than 4 000 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
-here were mo'ements of people at the time spanning thousands of Ims%
-he Hiddle Eolga was connected to .entral Europe through these
mo'ements% -hus, it wasn't far from .entral Europe% $ndia was far from
.entral Europe at the time%
So? There were many Palaeo-European languages, as I told you. It has been shown that boreal
hunter-gatherers do not have huge language areas (see North America). Uralic homeland was
not close to Central Europe (although cultural features difused), because there were many other
languages in between.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elias
ruote<
Originally Posted by Jaska
;% Proto-4ralic homeland is located in the Hiddle Eolga area
,hat is this based on !inguistic palaeontology or linguistic
'ariation of 4ralic languages
All possible evidence together - unfortunately not in English yet, but maybe Google translator can
give some help (although it sucks from Finnish to English bad time):
http://www.sgr.f/susa/92/hakkinen.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
-oday people among which hg @ peaks speak Iart'elian% .an we pro'e that
Neolitic hg @ people in Europe didn't speak languages related to Iart'elian
-oday people among which hg E peaks speak Afro-Asiatic% .an we pro'e that
people who spread hg E in Europe didn't speak Afro-Asiatic
-oday people among which hg N peaks speak "4% .an we pro'e that people
who spread hg N in Europe Afor instance in the >altic countriesD didn't speak
"4
$ think the answer to these 1 9uestions is negati'e%
If a haplogroup is found within all the branches of a language family, then we have clear
correlation: we can assume that among that haplogroup there were speakers of that language.
But we cannot say that all the carriers of that haplogroup always and everywhere were the
speakers of that language - it would be unscientifc, as language is not inherited in genes. We
can only say that probably some carriers of that haplogroup spoke that language, and that some
speakers of that language carried that haplogroup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$f so we cannot make precise inferences about the location of the $E
4rheimat based on the links between $E and these 1 language families%
I don`t understand your logic - maybe you misunderstood it somehow?
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$ am in the process of learning% At the moment $ am #ust sceptical about the
claims Faska makes that !P can gi'e a EERg PRE.$(E indications% $ once
posted here a map based on !P considerations suggesting $E 4rheimat in
.entra-North-Eastern Europe, and Faska #ust said it must be wrong, becasue -
$ don't remember - some other species of :sh could be called salmon so the
salmon real territory doesn't count% (o $ don't really think one can get any
de:nite answers with such approach%
The strength of linguistic paleontology depends purely on the data: if there are words which have
diferent meanings in diferent branches, we cannot get a reliable result, because we don`t know
which meaning is the original. Thus the `salmon` and `beech` arguments do not stand, but 'horse'
and 'wheel' do stand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
&ow can it say anything, when apparently the assumption is made that only
neighbors in?uenced each other
,hat about migrants $t seems only ancient 3NA and maybe archeology can
show that there were migrants present in Europe%
Cultural traits may well move long distances (as you presented), but linguistic inJuence cannot. A
single distant wanderer cam easily teach a new technique, but he rarely can leave his trace on
the language - it takes more close and intensive contact to a loanword to remain in a language: it
must be heard often enough and widely enough, so that it becomes part of the vocabulary of the
whole language community. That is why loanwords require neighbourhood. But a colony is
enough to fulfll the criterion of neighbourhood: then there should be archaeological and genetic
traces of this.
And these can only be connected to a certain language if they happen to arrive from the right
place at the right time. For example, Bronze Age inJuence from Scandinavia to Southwest
Finland can be connected to early Germanic speakers, because we know they lived in the source
area. But any old trace from Siberia cannot be connected to a Uralic language, if we cannot show
that there were Uralic speakers in the source area at the right time. And only linguistic results can
tell that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
Ok, so long range population mo'ements, in'ol'ing large groups of people,
can't e)plain language contacts
Of course they can. Read above.
New colony means that one language arrives in the neighbourhood of another language. But
there must be traces of such movement, and it must match the linguistic results, otherwise you
cannot connect it to a certain language.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth Seeker
Only on the basis Aor against, or in comparisonD of the results of other
disciplines, the so belo'ed by Faska comparati'e method simply has to ha'e
some starting point in time to #ump o+%
$%e% if linguistics were a ^thing in itselfJ, it would not re9uire any backing-up
from other disciplines, and yet W somehow the comparati'e method is based
on e)ternal datings, some of which they accept, some W donJt%
(peci:cally for Faska W please, show your dateline for P$E 's Proto 4raic% And,
please, pro'ide your reasoning% $ am pretty much sure your dates might be
based on other disciplines%
Of course. Linguistics can only tell us that the Proto-Indo-Europeans knew a wheeled vehicle, but
archaeology can tell us when and where this innovation occurred. This is no news.
Similarly, archaeology can tell us when and where a wheel frst occurred, but it cannot tell us who
invented it. For this we need the results of linguistics: Proto-Indo-European is one of the oldest
language stages in the world having a word for `wheel`, and it seems to be derived from a root
meaning `to turn. rotate`, and Semitic and Sumerian words seem to be loanwords from this IE
word. Therefore we can say that in great probability the Proto-Indo-Europeans invented the
wheel.
Every discipline is autonomous: there are many things linguistics and archaeology can study
alone. But in this kind of holistic view of the past, they help each other to get a full picture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
,hy the !e'ant Hiddle Easterners were in .entral Europe at the right time%
,e ha'e their 3NA%
How can you prove they spoke Semitic language? You cannot predict a language from genes,
read above. Only linguistic results can tell where a language was spoken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
And why the Eolga -he Eurasian steppe and forest steppe were on modern
Poland's doorstep at the time% Again, ancient 3NA shows that clearly%
How can you prove they spoke Uralic language? You cannot predict a language from genes, read
above. Only linguistic results can tell where a language was spoken.
2012-02-18, 18:39
aregint
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
$f a haplogroup is found within all the branches of a language family, then we
ha'e clear correlation< we can assume that among that haplogroup there
were speakers of that language% >ut we cannot say that all the carriers of
that haplogroup always and e'erywhere were the speakers of that language
W it would be unscienti:c, as language is not inherited in genes% ,e can only
say that probably some carriers of that haplogroup spoke that language, and
that some speakers of that language carried that haplogroup%
I agree on this, I wanted to add something that I've been reJecting while reading this thread and
the Celt thread: the conquering culture is not necessarily the one that ends up dominating in the
end.
There have to be many examples, the only one I can say for sure is the case of Paraguay: in the
1870s 90% of its male population was exterminated - the war was over because there were no
more Paraguayan men left to be killed. Native Y-DNA haplogroups went down, and the
occupation forces gladly did their duty, since there were many thirsty and lonely women left to be
taken care of. But there were so many guaran-speaking women, and so few spanish-speaking
men, that in the end (and today) Y-DNA was replaced, caucasian autosomal data multiplied, and
the culture changed little.
If I am not mistaken something like that happened to the Varangians, and Rurik's greatsons were
Slavic speakers. So it might be uncommon, but it can happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
.ultural traits may well mo'e long distances Aas you presentedD, but
linguistic in?uence cannot% A single distant wanderer cam easily teach a new
techni9ue, but he rarely can lea'e his trace on the language W it takes more
close and intensi'e contact to a loanword to remain in a language< it must
be heard often enough and widely enough, so that it becomes part of the
'ocabulary of the whole language community% -hat is why loanwords re9uire
neighbourhood% >ut a colony is enough to ful:ll the criterion of
neighbourhood< then there should be archaeological and genetic traces of
this%
I've always loved languages and linguistics, do you know where can I fnd bibliography on this
topic?
Because I read this and I think I agree... but when words refer to new concepts like "wheel", a
lonely wanderer fnds this marvelous thing, asks its name, and then goes back to his people
carrying new of "wheel"... or does he invent a new word to ft his language? Because in English
we say "zero", even if England is very far from Arabia.
2012-02-18, 19:20
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
-he strength of linguistic paleontology depends purely on the data< if there
are words which ha'e di+erent meanings in di+erent branches, we cannot
get a reliable result, because we donJt know which meaning is the original%
-hus the ^salmonJ and ^beechJ arguments do not stand, but 'horse' and
'wheel' do stand%
No, you simply manipulate the data - accept one, re|ect the other - to ft your preconceived idea.
In this case Kurgan model by Gimbutas - based on the assumption of the existence of mounted
Neolithic warriors - we now know is false: mounted warfare started in the Iron Age not in Neolithic.
---------- Post added 2012-02-18 at 20:28 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
(iberia was also full of Palaeo-Asian languages before the recent spread of
current dominating language families A4ralic, -ungusic, -urkic, geniseic,
HongolicD% gou both seem to think that there was only 4ralic lineage alonem
-here are still gukaghir, @hilyak, .hukotkan etc% languages remaining from
the ancient di'ersity A%%%D
Yaska, no ofence, but sometimes I wonder if you are maybe - |ust little bit - crazy:
Quote:
Originally Posted by !"!PED!A
-he gukaghir languages Aalso gukagir, FukagirD are a small family of two
closely related languages W -undra and Iolyma gukaghir W spoken by the
gukaghir in the (ussian Aar East li'ing in the basin of the Iolyma Ri'er%
A%%%D
Ni'kh or @ilyak Aself-designation< Ni')gu difD is a language
spoken in Outer Hanchuria, in the basin of the Amgun Aa tributary of the
AmurD, along the lower reaches of the Amur itself, and on the northern half
of Sakhalin%
A%%%D
.hukotkan A.hukotian, .hukoticD is a dialect cluster that forms one branch of
the .hukotko-Iamchatkan language family% $t is spoken in two autonomous
regions which lie at the e)treme northeast of Russia, bounded on the east by
the Pacifc and on the north by the Arctic%
Do you know where Pacifc is? :whoco:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
A%%%D W all the other language families are 'ery recent in (iberia, less than B
666 years%
Then how you can make paleolinguistic deductions if you claim that the language Juidity is so
large? How do you know what was the territory of Karvelian or Afro-Asiatic languages several
thousands years ago?
[quote=Jaska]
Uralic homeland was not close to Central Europe (although cultural features difused), because
there were many other languages in between.
[/qoute]
Look at this map of Corded Ware and fnd "Finnics" there:
http://www.suduva.com/virdainas/cw.|pg
2012-02-18, 20:53
TruthSeeker
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
!inguistics can only tell us that the Proto-$ndo-Europeans knew a wheeled
'ehicle, but archaeology can tell us when and where this inno'ation
occurred% -his is no news%
Let us get back on track:
- Location of PIE Urheimat
1.We will not move any further if it is understood as a purely linguistic notion.
2.In case Urheimat is allowed by Forum members to have a wider sense, then we have to
fnd a point of convergence of views.
- Interdependence of disciplines:
3.A subtle boundary between the discipline itself and external factors makes it virtually
impossible to draw a division line between them.
4.As long as a discipline stays within its own domain, no questions can be raised as to what
right it has to claim
5.As soon as new data arrives that feeds more than one discipline, they have to try and fnd
a plausible accommodation for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
%%%^wheelJ , and it seems to be deri'ed from a root meaning ^to turn% rotateJ,
and (emitic and (umerian words seem to be loanwords from this $E word%%%%
Aha - this is something like it! - Check the datings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer
Well, after this the following questions arise: has it ever occurred to you to |uxtapose:
a) Ancient continents and their movement;
b) Periods of glaciation against discovered sites;
c) Coal deposits almost only found in mid-Eurasia;
d) Seismic volatility (or the lack of it) of regions,
etc
And all of this on a timeline
After that, it would be interesting to get your view which part of nowadays Europe was most probable for
spread-out.
2012-02-19, 05:12
Polako
I think one of the weakest points of the Pontic-Caspian urhemait theory is that the people living there had very few contacts
with the Middle East.
Because of the Black Sea, Caucasus Mountains, Caspian Sea, and deserts east of the Caspian, the vast ma|ority of Middle
Eastern inJuence went into Europe via Anatolia and the Balkans.
We can see this by looking at clines on modern genetic maps. There's simply no cline that runs from the Middle East,
across the Caucasus, and into Europe.
And saying that modern populations can't tell us anything about the past is horseshit, because there's no way that all traces
of ma|or movements can be wiped out. Not only that, but as I keep saying, we have ancient DNA from Ukraine showing tha
it was signifcantly Siberian in terms of maternal lineages.
2012-02-19, 10:19
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
!ook at this map of .orded ,are and :nd ]"innics] there<
http<KKwww%sudu'a%comK'irdainasKcw%#pg
I have |ust realised that I am becoming a proponent of the "politically-motivated Finnish pet-
theory":
Quote:
Originally Posted by !"!PED!A
4ralic homeland
-he 4ralic homeland is unknown%
-he ma#ority 'iew is 4rals or Altai%
A minorit) &ie$ common in Ainland /ut stron.l) re#ected /) the
ma#orit) of scientists is the Com/ Ceramic Culture of ca L2>> J ca
2>>> 'C Ashown on the map to the rightD% -his is underlined by its'
proponents Amostly "innishD by what they call a ]high] language di'ersity
around the middle Eolga Ri'er, where three ]highly] distinct branches of the
4ralic family, Hord'inic, Hari, and Permic, are located%
Host linguists consider all these branches to belong to the "innic branch of
the 4gro-"innic branch of the 4ralic family% &ence, Eolga is not 'ery di'erse
in 4ralic languages Apossessing only one branch of one branch of the familyD,
and the real di'ersity is much further east in (iberia% Reconstructed plant
and animal names Aincluding spruce, (iberian pine, (iberian "ir, (iberian
larch, brittle willow, elm, and hedgehogD are consistent with this location%
-his is ad#acent to the proposed homeland for Proto-$ndo-European under
the Iurgan hypothesis%
;ost lin.uists, .enetic .enealo.ists, population .eneticists and
anthropolo.ists consider the a/o&e &ie$ a politicall)-moti&ated
Ainnish pet-theor). !t is some$hat popular in En.lish-lan.ua.e
circles due to the hea&) propa.anda campai.n, compared to the
fnancial diZculties of (ussian science.
"rench anthropologist >ernard (ergent, in !a @ense de l'$nde A;00GD,P;GR
argued that "inno-4gric A4ralicD may ha'e a genetic source or ha'e
borrowed signi:cantly from proto-3ra'idian or a predecessor language of
,est African origins% (ome linguists see 4ralic A&ungarian, "innishD as
ha'ing a linguistic relationship to both Altaic A-urkic, HongolD language
groupsP;CR Aas in the outdated 4ral-Altaic hypothesisD and 3ra'idian
languages% -he theory that the 3ra'idian languages display similarities with
the 4ralic language group, suggesting a prolonged period of contact in the
past,P;0R is popular amongst 3ra'idian linguists and has been supported by
a number of scholars, including Robert .aldwell,PL6R -homas >urrow,PL;R
Iamil /'elebil,PLLR and Hikhail Androno'PL1R -his theory has, howe'er, been
re#ected by some specialists in 4ralic languages,PLBR and has in recent times
also been criticised by other 3ra'idian linguists like >hadrira#u Irishnamurti%
PL5R
As noted below, many notable linguists ha'e proposed that the Eskimo-Aleut
languages and 4ralic languages ha'e a common origin, although there is not
a consensus that this connection is genuine%
&aplogroup N coincides well with 4ralic and gukagir languages, supporting
their relatedness% -he di'ersity of haplogroup N is also highest in the "ar
East Ain East (iberia and .hinaD, also supporting a "ar Eastern 4ralic
urheimat%
-he spread of 4ralic languages also coincides well with the time and location
of the e)pansion of Hongolic racial features westwards into Europe as far
west as "inland A.omb-ceramicD and Northern Norway A(aamiD, also
supporting the "ar Eastern 4ralic urheimat%
:lol:
2012-02-19, 10:44
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$ think one of the weakest points of the Pontic-.aspian urhemait theory is
that the people li'ing there had 'ery few contacts with the Hiddle East%
So they had more contact with the Middle East in Poland which is farther away from the Middle
East than the Pontic-Caspian steppe is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
>ecause of the >lack (ea, .aucasus Hountains, .aspian (ea, and deserts
east of the .aspian, the 'ast ma#ority of Hiddle Eastern in?uence went into
Europe 'ia Anatolia and the >alkans%
,e can see this by looking at clines on modern genetic maps% -here's simply
no cline that runs from the Hiddle East, across the .aucasus, and into
Europe%
What about mtDNA H5a I pointed out earlier?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
And saying that modern populations can't tell us anything about the past is
horseshit, because there's no way that all traces of ma#or mo'ements can be
wiped out% Not only that, but as $ keep saying, we ha'e ancient 3NA from
4kraine showing tha it was signifcantly (iberian in terms of maternal
lineages%
Well, perhaps it can be explained by Eurasiatic then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasiatic_languages
Eurasiatic is very controversial but if it's correct and Indo-European is closer related to Japanese
than it is to Semitic, then I see no other explanation than the R-M17 tribe mostly killing those
mtDNA C Mongoloids and adopting their Mongoloid Indo-European language. Perhaps it could
explain the slight pull Europeans have toward Mongoloids when compared with Semites...
2012-02-20, 07:35
Palisto
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
gou ha'e no e'idence, so how could $ belie'e you
&ere are the scienti:c results<
;% Proto-4ralic homeland is located in the Hiddle Eolga area%
L% -here are no linguistic traces of 4ralic west of that area, until later%
1% $nstead there are traces of many Palaeo-European languages%
(o, where is your e'idence that there were 4ralic languages anywhere near
.entral Europe $t seems that you are the religious one here, because you
belie'e in non-e)isting things%%% <whoco<
How about a Proto-Uralic homeland in the Middle East or very close to it?
Is their any known connection between Uralic and an ancient (extinct) language from the Middle
East besides PIE and later Indo-Iranian languages?
2012-02-20, 07:51
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
>ecause of the 'lack Sea, .aucasus Hountains, .aspian (ea, and deserts
east of the .aspian, the 'ast ma#ority of Hiddle Eastern in?uence went into
Europe 'ia Anatolia and the >alkans%
Black sea was signifcantly smaller than it is today. It was more like size of really big lake.
Quote:
$n a series of e)peditions, a team of marine archeologists led by Robert
>allard identi:ed what appeared to be ancient shorelines, freshwater snail
shells, drowned ri'er 'alleys, tool-worked timbers, and man-made structures
in roughly ;66 metres A116 ftD of water o+ the >lack (ea coast of modern
-urkey% Although radiocarbon dating of freshwater mollusk remains indicated
an age of about G,566 years, radiocarbon dating in freshwater mollusks in
particular can be inaccurate% (uch inaccuracies, howe'er, are always in the
direction of ob#ects appearing older than they actually are Acontaining less
;B. than e)pectedD,so the time gi'en is a ma)imum age of a freshwater
shoreline at that location%
So we would land to 5.500bc which is close enough for late pre-PIE, this would also explain the
appearance of Anatolian branch. Interestingly there also seems to be native breed of Salmon
(actually trout, Salmo labrax) at Black Sea. There goes the *laks-theory.
---------- Post added 2012-02-20 at 07:52 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palisto
$s their any known connection between 4ralic and an ancient Ae)tinctD
language from the Hiddle East besides P$E and later $ndo-$ranian languages
Sumerian language is suggested to be relative of proto-Uralic (ie. para-Uralic).
2012-02-21, 04:41
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by Are.int
$''e always lo'ed languages and linguistics, do you know where can $ :nd
bibliography on this topic
Information is scattered all over... I`m not aware of any focused bibliography.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
No, you simply manipulate the data - accept one, re#ect the other - to :t your
preconcei'ed idea% $n this case Iurgan model by @imbutas - based on the
assumption of the e)istence of mounted Neolithic warriors - we now know is
false< mounted warfare started in the $ron Age not in Neolithic%
You are again very wrong. It is a question of quality: a word which has dierent denotations in
diferent languages is clearly weaker evidence than a word which hasidentical denotation in
every language. It |ust happens that words presented for Central European homeland
are weaker in quality. You |ust have to accept it.
You are attacking your very own strawman again: mounted warriors are irrelevant for the Kurgan
theory. Relevant is only the location of the IE homeland in the Copper/Bronze Age Ukraine, and
the words like 'horse' and 'wheel', and the contacts with Kartvelian, Semitic and Uralic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
3o you know where Paci:c is
Of course I know. You seem to have serious understanding problems.
Read my message again, please. I said that it seems that you and Polako do not know any other
languages between the Urals and Pacifc than the Uralic languages, because you can only
connect the Asian inJuence to the Uralic languages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
ruote<
Originally Posted by Jaska
i all the other language families are 'ery recent in (iberia, less
than B 666 years%
-hen how you can make paleolinguistic deductions if you claim that
the language ?uidity is so large &ow do you know what was the
territory of Iar'elian or Afro-Asiatic languages se'eral thousands
years ago
This knowledge about ancient locations of language families is the result of the linguistic research
(including palaeolinguistics). The Juidity has no efect on palaeolinguistics, whatsoever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
!ook at this map of .orded ,are and :nd ]"innics] there<
So? An erroneous map is not a linguistic argument, if you didn`t know that much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$ ha'e #ust realised that $ am becoming a proponent of the ]politically-
moti'ated "innish pet-theory]<
Where did you fnd that text? Soviet Union Wikipedia? :) It was very outdated and amateurish:
Eskimo-Yukaghir-Uralic? Pseudoscientifc crap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
After that, it would be interesting to get your 'iew which part of nowadays
Europe was most probable for spread-out%
Your message was no news to me.
Nowadays Europe? If you are trying to ask where I put the Proto-Indo-European homeland, I tell
you that the linguistic evidence points to the Ukrainian steppes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$ think one of the weakest points of the Pontic-.aspian urhemait theory is
that the people li'ing there had 'ery few contacts with the Hiddle East%
And Central Europe had more?
There are archaeological traces about contacts with Caucasus, and Caucasus with Middle East;
read Mallory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
,e can see this by looking at clines on modern genetic maps% -here's simply
no cline that runs from the Hiddle East, across the .aucasus, and into
Europe%
And saying that modern populations can't tell us anything about the past is
horseshit, because there's no way that all traces of ma#or mo'ements can be
wiped out% Not only that, but as $ keep saying, we ha'e ancient 3NA from
4kraine showing tha it was signifcantly (iberian in terms of maternal
lineages%
Genes only tell the present situation: much may have been lost during the millennia; archaeology
tells the actual situation at certain moment, and it shows contacts. For example, if we have a clear
cultural expansion from the steppes to the Balkans and Central Europe but no corresponding
genes (like you claim?), which do you consider the right answer?
1. Those cultural features |ust Jew there all by their own, without any humans.
2. There were humans, but we |ust have not found ftting genetic lineages, or they are already lost
by drift and bottle necks and repetitious migrations Jushing away the traces of earlier migrations.
So, you should understand that a lack of tting genetic lineage is not a strong counter-
argument against anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palisto
&ow about a Proto-4ralic homeland in the Hiddle East or 'ery close to it
$s their any known connection between 4ralic and an ancient Ae)tinctD
language from the Hiddle East besides P$E and later $ndo-$ranian languages
No. Amateurs have been comparing Uralic languages to Dravidian, Sumerian etc. but by their
methods anything can be "proved". There are not even a bunch of words credible enough to be
loanwords. And all the linguistic evidence points to northern taiga zone for the Uralic homeland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
(umerian language is suggested to be relati'e of proto-4ralic Aie% para-
4ralicD%
Yes, but it is not a scientifc hypothesis - |ust an amateurish comparison of words without any
regularity, many of the compared words even being young loanwords in Finnish!
http://www.mv.helsinki.f/home/|phakkin/Sumeri.pdf
Wojewoda and Polako,
do you or do you not have any arguments for the Central European origin of Proto-Indo-
European?
2012-02-21, 08:53
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
o#e$oda and Polako,
do )ou or do )ou not ha&e an) ar.uments for the Central European
ori.in of Proto-!ndo-EuropeanY
Just relax. I think all the available arguments have been posted. See for instance here.
But let me understand your arguments. You are arguing that Central European IE Urheimant
shoud be re|ected because of the existence of PIE loandwords in the Uralic family which
homeland was too far away from Central Europe and that only Yamna archeological culture could
have provided such a proximity to the Uralic homeland. Here is a map of Jamna (steppe) and
Corded Ware (temperate forest and forest-steppe) territories:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...re_culture.png
Could you point me to the exact place where proto-Uralic people were in contact with Yamna but
not with Corded Ware?
2012-02-21, 10:00
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
.ould you point me to the e)act place where proto-4ralic people were in
contact with gamna but not with .orded ,are
a) Corded Ware is 'archeological culture', not ethnicity nor language group
b) There is no reason for parts of Corded Ware zone NOT being Uralic speaking
That map is very ameteurish anyway as it doesnt even show Volosovo-cultures, which had strong
overlap with Fatyanovo-Balanovo (aka Corded Ware) and also with later Aryans of Abashevo
culture.
2012-02-21, 11:56
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
aD .orded ,are is 'archeological culture', not ethnicity nor language group
bD -here is no reason for parts of .orded ,are *one NO- being 4ralic
speaking
Tell it to Jaska, who claims he knows for sure that proto-Uralic had no contact with Corded Ware.
2012-02-21, 14:22
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
-ell it to Faska, who claims he knows for sure that proto-4ralic had no contact
with .orded ,are%
If Volosovo cultures were proto-Uralic, which I found pretty likely, then they certainly had contacts
with Corded Ware aka Fatyanovo-Balanovo. Volosovo settlements and Fatyanovo-Balanovo
settlements were in a topsy-turvy mishmash. One here and the other there. Their main diference
was in the economic model, one cattle breeder&farmer, the other hunter. Volosovo settlements
were btw pretty large. It's strange culture of hunters, who had large year-around settlements.
2012-02-21, 20:26
Jaska
Wo|ewoda, could you try to understand something right sometimes? I don`t see how you can even reach those absurd
interpretations of yours, they are so far-fetched and wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
>ut let me understand your arguments% gou are arguing that .entral
European $E 4rheimant shoud be re#ected because of the e)istence of P$E
loandwords in the 4ralic family which homeland was too far away from
.entral Europe and that only gamna archeological culture could ha'e
pro'ided such a pro)imity to the 4ralic homeland% &ere is a map of Famna
AsteppeD and .orded ,are Atemperate forest and forest-steppeD territories<
.ould you point me to the e)act place where proto-4ralic people were in
contact with gamna but not with .orded ,are
Haven`t you read the writing I linked?
http://www.mv.helsinki.f/home/|phak...icEvidence.xps
http://www.mv.helsinki.f/home/|phak...icEvidence.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
-ell it to Faska, who claims he knows for sure that proto-4ralic had no contact
with .orded ,are%
I have never said that, please don`t lie. I said |ust the opposite.
Here are the results:
1. Proto-Uralic was spoken around Lower Kama.
2. There are at least Northwest Indo-European (if not Late Proto-Indo-European) and Early Proto-
Aryan loanwords in Proto-Uralic; these two dialects were still very close to each other
linguistically.
3. Proto-Indo-European had contacts also with Kartvelian and Semitic, some IE words went on
even into Sumerian.
You see only the Corded Ware Culture, which can indeed be connected to Northwest Indo-
European. If you bother to read my writing (linked above), you could see that I said |ust the
opposite of what you claimed me to say... Quite embarrassing that you thus publicly admit that
you cannot read.
CWC is not the key, however. How do you explain the Aryan languages from Central Europe, and
so that Early Proto-Aryan speakers would have met the Uralic speakers as fast as the Northwest
IE speakers did? Archaeologically there is only the Corded War Culture spreading from Central
Europe to the east. How do you explain the Kartvelian and Semitic contacts?
Open your eyes:
The Central European homeland is impossible.
2012-02-21, 22:31
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
,o#ewoda, could you try to understand something right sometimes $ donJt
see how you can e'en reach those absurd interpretations of yours, they are
so far-fetched and wrong%
&a'enJt you read the writing $ linked
http<KKwww%m'%helsinki%:KhomeK#phak%%%icE'idence%)ps
http<KKwww%m'%helsinki%:KhomeK#phak%%%icE'idence%pdf
$ ha'e ne'er said that, please donJt lie% $ said #ust the opposite%
&ere are the results<
;% Proto-4ralic was spoken around !ower Iama%
L% -here are at least Northwest $ndo-European Aif not !ate Proto-$ndo-
EuropeanD and Early Proto-Aryan loanwords in Proto-4ralicY these two
dialects were still 'ery close to each other linguistically%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
Northwest $ndo-European, which is connected to the .orded ,are .ulture,
matches better both the temporal and spatial closeness to Early Proto-
Aryan<in the frst half of the = rd millennium 'C the Corded are
Aat)ano&o-'alano&o Culture and the steppe Polta&ka Culture
reached each other in the ;id-Gol.a area 8Carpelan 6 Parpola
2>>39, $hich happens to /e the Proto-:ralic homeland 8"allio 2>>CU
HIkkinen 2>>D9. This solution explains /est the oldest !ndo-
European loan$ord la)ers in :ralic, the x-strata. $n the same area we
can locate the ne)t oldest loanword layers, the Northwest $ndo-European -
stratum and the !ate Proto-Aryan w-stratum%
.onse9uently, we ha'e a situation where we ha'e two 'ery close dialects of
Proto-$ndo-European spoken in ad#acent areas in the easternmost Europe
near the great Eolga bend at the 1 rd millennium >.% -he farther in time and
space we go from there, the more implausible is the solution concerning the
Proto-$ndo-European homeland%
So from now on we don't have to bother with IE loanwords in proto-Uralic, as you have |ust
admited that they probably came from the Corded Ware Culture being ultimately of the Central
European origin. Thank you very much. Discussing with you is a real pleasure. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
.,. is not the key, howe'er% &ow do you e)plain the Aryan languages from
.entral Europe, and so that Early Proto-Aryan speakers would ha'e met the
4ralic speakers as fast as the Northwest $E speakers did Archaeologically
there is only the .orded ,ar .ulture spreading from .entral Europe to the
east% &ow do you e)plain the Iart'elian and (emitic contacts
Take it easy. One language family at a time. ;)
2012-02-21, 23:12
aregint
Wo|, Did you reach the end?
Let me guide you through the section titles of the article:
1. Late Proto-Indo-European / Early Archaic Indo-European loanwords to Proto-Uralic
2. Early and Middle Proto-Aryan loanwords to Proto-Uralic
3. Late Archaic / Northwest Indo-European loanwords to Proto-Uralic
4. Late Proto-Aryan loanwords to Proto-Uralic
Proto Uralic had two waves of Proto-Aryan loanwords, with a wave of NW-IE (Corded) loandwords in between.
So, you have "Archaic IE" giving words to Uralic, and later Aryan, Corded, and Aryan again.
Quote:
.onse9uently, we ha'e a situation where we ha'e two 'ery close dialects of
Proto-$ndo-European spoken in ad#acent areas in the easternmost Europe
near the great Eolga bend at the 1 rd millennium >.% -he farther in time and
space we go from there, the more implausible is the solution concerning the
Proto-$ndo-European homeland% No language remains unchanged for
millennia, least of all when spreading thousands of kilometers to new areas%
$t is most credible to deri'e these dialects from the homeland from less than
; 666 kilometers southwest and one millennium back in time
Edit: Poltavka Culture was east of the Volga...
2012-02-22, 00:51
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by are.int
,o#, 3id you reach the end
!et me guide you through the section titles of the article<
;% !ate Proto-$ndo-European K Early Archaic $ndo-European loanwords to
Proto-4ralic
L% Early and Hiddle Proto-Aryan loanwords to Proto-4ralic
1% !ate Archaic K Northwest $ndo-European loanwords to Proto-4ralic
B% !ate Proto-Aryan loanwords to Proto-4ralic
Proto 4ralic had two wa'es of Proto-Aryan loanwords, with a wa'e of N,-$E
A.ordedD loandwords in between%
(o, you ha'e ]Archaic $E] gi'ing words to 4ralic, and later Aryan, .orded,
and Aryan again%
Edit< Polta'ka .ulture was east of the Eolga%%%
I will quote once again the conclusions Jaska reached:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
$f the oldest $ndo-European loanwords are already !ate Proto-$ndo-European
W which now seems to be the less probable option
A%%%D
$f, howe'er, the oldest Archaic $ndo-European loanwords are only
contemporaneous with the Early Proto-Aryan loanwords W which now seems
the most probable option W things get more complicated% "irst we must
identify the donor language%
A%%%D
Northwest $ndo-European, which is connected to the .orded ,are .ulture,
matches better both the temporal and spatial closeness to Early Proto-Aryan<
in the :rst half of the 1 rd millennium >. the .orded ,are "atyano'o-
>alano'o .ulture and the steppe Polta'ka .ulture reached each other in the
Hid-Eolga area A.arpelan i Parpola L66;D, which happens to be the Proto-
4ralic homeland AIallio L667Y &=kkinen L660D% -his solution e)plains best the
oldest $ndo-European loanword layers in 4ralic, the )-strata% $n the same
area we can locate the ne)t oldest loanword layers, the Northwest $ndo-
European -stratum and the !ate Proto-Aryan w-stratum%
.onse9uently, we ha'e a situation where we ha'e two 'ery close dialects of
Proto-$ndo-European spoken in ad#acent areas in the easternmost Europe
near the great Eolga bend at the 1 rd millennium >.%
Nothing here - if we re|ect the "less probable" option - about the stage we are interested in: PIE.
2012-02-22, 06:43
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by are.int
;% !ate Proto-$ndo-European K Early Archaic $ndo-European loanwords to
Proto-4ralic
L% Early and Hiddle Proto-Aryan loanwords to Proto-4ralic
1% !ate Archaic K Northwest $ndo-European loanwords to Proto-4ralic
B% !ate Proto-Aryan loanwords to Proto-4ralic
Then there are ofcource the "mystery vocabularity" which includes personal nouns. These are
much harder to explain:
Proto-Uralic PIE English meaning
*mun *mene 1st person genetive 'mine'
*tun *tu You
*ku *ko Who
*nimi *nomen Name
*kala *kalo Fish
...and plenty more. These imo indicate that PIE and Proto-Uralic do share connection which goes
to ancestral stages of the proto-languages. I dont think there necessary was Indo-Uralic proto-
language but somesort of areal connectivity of pre-PIE and pre-PU has to be assumed to explain
these.
2012-02-22, 08:25
Wo|ewoda
By the way I think we are all aware that all these elaborate linguistic arguments were ad|usted to ft simple geography which
sugest where Uralics (Boreal forest), "North-Western IE" (Temperate forest) and "proto-Aryans" (Steppe) should have met
(there is only one place on Earth that is possible nowadays, but of course it was diferent in the past):
http://rpmedia.ask.com/ts?u=/wikiped...an_climate.png
2012-02-22, 11:18
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
>y the way $ think we are all aware that all these elaborate linguistic
arguments were ad#usted to :t simple geography which sugest where 4ralics
A>oreal forestD, ]North-,estern $E] A-emperate forestD and ]proto-Aryans]
A(teppeD should ha'e met Athere is only one place on Earth that is possible
nowadays, but of course it was di+erent in the pastD<
Are you suggesting that the Eurasian steppe extended further west in past ?
2012-02-22, 11:32
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
Are you suggesting that the Eurasian steppe e)tended further west in past
No, I have no idea how the situation looked. I am |ust sure it was diferent from the present
situation in diferent phases of the Holocene:
Quote:
Originally Posted by !"!PED!A
Preboreal A;6 ka W 0 kaD,
>oreal A0 ka W C kaD,
Atlantic AC ka W 5 kaD,
(ubboreal A5 ka W L%5 kaD and
(ubatlantic AL%5 ka W presentD%
If you happen to know maps of environmental zones of prehistorical Eurasia please post them.
2012-02-22, 11:42
cinnamona
Here:
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/pro|ects/qen/nercEUROPE.html
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/pro|ects/qen/nercEURASIA.html
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinnamona
&ere<
http<KKwww%esd%ornl%go'Kpro#ectsK9enKnercE4ROPE%html
http<KKwww%esd%ornl%go'Kpro#ectsK9enKnercE4RA($A%html
Yeah I know these maps, but they don't seem to change much after 7000 B.C. Is it realistic that
there were no climate changes in the last 9000 years?
2012-02-22, 11:50
Pot-Kettle
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinnamona
&ere<
http<KKwww%esd%ornl%go'Kpro#ectsK9enKnercE4ROPE%html
http<KKwww%esd%ornl%go'Kpro#ectsK9enKnercE4RA($A%html
Btw, check what I voted, "Cinnamona", so you can stop spreading b.s. about what you think my
opinion is on this. :rolleyes:
2012-02-22, 11:51
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pot-"ettle
>tw, check what $ 'oted, ].innamona], so you can stop spreading b%s% about
what you think my opinion is on this% <rolleyes<
Hey Pot-Kettle, I don't think this is a thread for you.
2012-02-22, 11:54
Pot-Kettle
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
&ey Pot-Iettle, $ don't think this is a thread for you%
What the hell does that mean?
2012-02-22, 11:59
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$f you happen to know maps of en'ironmental *ones of prehistorical Eurasia
please post them%
From Cinnamona's link. Steppe extended |ust as much as is needed to derive early CWC (atleast
the upper class) from Yamna.
[imglink]http://www.esd.ornl.gov/pro|ects/qen/eur%285ky.gif[/imglink]
2012-02-22, 12:05
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pot-"ettle
,hat the hell does that mean
That means this is not a thread for your personal vendettas.
2012-02-22, 12:09
Pot-Kettle
lol I was correcting some b.s. she was saying about how I subscribed to the Central Europe theory, which I don't, setting the
record straight on that is my prerogative.
My opinion: Pontic Caspian steppe and further west.
2012-02-22, 15:39
cinnamona
I accidentally found interestig information related to original homeland of Indo-Europeans. It probably isn't weighty in this
discussion but I thought I'd share.
Axial precession perhaps have inJuenced choosing of Zodiac constellations names.It is thought Indo-Europeans were the
frst ones to give them names. It happened a long time ago in their original homeland an as soon as they started to cultivate
crops.
Everything starts from the sping. It is cultivator's beginning of a year cycle. The frst noted stars were those in between
which sun rises when buds and fruit trees start blooming, felds turn green. Later in the same way begining of summer,
autumn winter was fxated. [...]
6000 years ago summer used to start when sun entered constellation of Virgo. Virgo is usually depicted as holding crops (a
symbol of fertility). It is undoubted that the original homeland of Indo-Europeans was in southern latitudes were crops corn
already in summer.
2012-02-22, 16:07
TruthSeeker
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinnamona
$ accidentally found interestig information related to original homeland of
$ndo-Europeans% $t probably isn't weighty in this discussion but $ thought $'d
share%
It is indeed a nice description, but you can expect the folowing reaction:
- (from Jaska) those things have nothing to do with language and Indo-Europeans by genes is not
the same as Indo-European speaking people - you see, tales are not robust evidence.
- (from more tolerant scientists) such things are probable, but we cannot |oin you, as it was not
proven.
- (from enthusiasts) WOW - yet another confrmation.
This discussion is now in a stalemate....
Until new evidence appears, everybody will |ust keep pushing their views.
So, instead of endless arguing, I would propose to collectively formulate criteria for a change in
positions.
In other words - what would make the members to revise their position?
2012-02-22, 16:30
cinnamona
Well, this is written by a scientist. According to wikipedia, he's doctor of natural sciences, professor, ethnologist, physicist,
historian of science, pioneer of paleoastronomy and ethnocosmology in Lithuania. So... I wouldn't say his words are
worthless. I found this in a book that probably could be called "popular science education" and he didn't give wide
explanations.
2012-02-22, 17:19
aregint
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinnamona
$ accidentally found interestig information related to original homeland of
$ndo-Europeans% $t probably isn't weighty in this discussion but $ thought $'d
share%
A)ial precession perhaps ha'e in?uenced choosing of /odiac constellations
names%$t is thought $ndo-Europeans were the :rst ones to gi'e them names%
$t happened a long time ago in their original homeland an as soon as they
started to culti'ate crops%
E'erything starts from the sping% $t is culti'ator's beginning of a year cycle%
-he :rst noted stars were those in between which sun rises when buds and
fruit trees start blooming, :elds turn green% !ater in the same way begining
of summer, autumn winter was :)ated% P%%%R
7666 years ago summer used to start when sun entered constellation of
Eirgo% Eirgo is usually depicted as holding crops Aa symbol of fertilityD% $t
isundoubted that the original homeland of $ndo-Europeans was in southern
latitudes were crops corn already in summer%
If you're interested in Wikipedia and the Zodiac I recommend you to read these articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_astrology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUL.APIN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enuma_Anu_Enlil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_star_catalogues
---
But anyway, if the PIEs were in Poland or in the Volga, those places were not the garden of Eden.
"It is thought Indo-Europeans were the frst ones to give them names"... So many other things are
thougt...
2012-02-22, 18:24
cinnamona
Quote:
>ut anyway, if the P$Es were in Poland or in the Eolga, those places were not
the garden of Eden% ]$t is thought $ndo-Europeans were the :rst ones to gi'e
them names]%%% (o many other things are thougt%%%
Maybe he meant names that are known now.
2012-02-22, 20:08
aregint
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinnamona
Haybe he meant names that are known now%
The names that are known now were invented in Greece, inspired by the Egyptian tradition.
Look, when studying PIEs what you generally do is, frst you observe some characteristic that is
common to several IE cultures, then you go check the archeological data, and once you've
gathered everything you try to reconstruct the original. (First you reconstruct the intermediate
steps, until you reach PIE). That's how they reconstructed the language, and also the religion: the
greeks, the romans, the germans, the slavs, the celts, and the balts, they all have a thunder god
who rules the sky... From there we conclude that it is plausible that the PIE had an important
thunder god.
And see how the whole debate of this thread (their homeland) take these reconstructions very
seriously, because they are important and scientifcally sound. But let's try to fnd the PIE Zodiac...
Let's see... Which Indo-European Cultures have the Zodiac today? Many, probably all.
And in the middle ages? Those who composed the social circle of Christendom
And in the frst century of our era? Only Greece and the Romans. Aha!
And in the 3rd century BC? Only Greece.
Now there's a problem. If PIEs had a Zodiac, how come it disappeared completely everywhere
except in the Hellenes? A much simpler explanation would be that the Hellenes took the Zodiac
from someone else.
2012-02-22, 22:49
Pot-Kettle
Wo|ewoda
So apparently you're o.k. with someone making up b.s. about what theories you believe and making statements as such in
various threads. Shows your maturity level. lol Could be a factor in why you've chosen the uhrmeit theory you have.
2012-02-23, 02:12
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
(o from now on we don't ha'e to bother with $E loanwords in proto-4ralic, as
you ha'e #ust admited that they probably came from the .orded ,are
.ulture being ultimately of the .entral European origin% -hank you 'ery
much% 3iscussing with you is a real pleasure%
Please, are you a troll or a moron?
Those Archaic IE loanwords most probably can be connected to Corded Ware Culture (nice that
you read that link at last and you don't lie about my words anymore), but the Early Proto-Aryan
loanwords are |ust as early! You cannot explain the Early Proto-Aryan from Central
Europe, neither can you explain the Kartvelian and Semitic contacts from Central
Europe.
Therefore the Central European homeland is impossible.
You |ust cannot close your eyes from the arguments which do not ft with your own view - you
have to take every argument into consideration, otherwise you are |ust unscientifc, |ust a one
more fantasy writer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
-his discussion is now in a stalemate%%%%
4ntil new e'idence appears, e'erybody will #ust keep pushing their 'iews%
We don`t need new evidence - we |ust need that the fanatic believers of the Central European
homeland would accept the existing evidence: Uralic had contacts with Archaic IE and Early
Proto-Aryan; Kartvelian and Semitic had contacts with PIE.
But no, fanatics like Wo|ewoda |ust refuse to see all the evidence: they accept only those
arguments in their universe which ft into their own view. :confused:
2012-02-23, 06:18
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
Please, are you a troll or a moron
Most often rather moron: io cv ciu.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
-hose Archaic $E loanwords most probably can be connected to .orded ,are
.ulture Anice that you read that link at last and you don't lie about my words
anymoreD, but the Early Proto-Aryan loanwords are #ust as earlym
When we will have a thread titled "Is the Central-Eastern Europe the proto-Aryan Urheimat" this
will become relevant. In this thread we are interested in PIE, so it is not, and you know it.
2012-02-23, 15:59
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
Host often rather moron< %
Yes, you are too "oHcial" to be a troll (you don't insult people so much). ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
,hen we will ha'e a thread titled ]$s the .entral-Eastern Europe the proto-
Aryan 4rheimat] this will become rele'ant% $n this thread we are interested
in P$E, so it is not, and you know it%
Little darling,
you cannot trace the PIE homeland by looking only at one dialect(Northwest Indo-European)!
You must take into account every possible evidence:
1. that the frst branches to split of were the Anatolian and the Tocharian branch (making the
Central European homeland impossible);
2. that there were contacts between PIE and Kartvelian and Semitic (making the Central
European homeland impossible);
3. that soon after Late PIE there were two ad|acent and linguistically close dialects, Northwest
Indo-European and Early Proto-Aryan, in contact with Uralic, which was spoken in the Mid-Volga
- Kama region (making the Central European homeland impossible).
Think about it, and maybe you can exceed your own moronhood:
You cannot fnd out the Proto-Slavic homeland looking only at Russian, can you? You have to
take all the Slavic languages into consideration.
Think about it a while - I'm sure it might click into place even in your brain... even if it took years
and years! :thumbsup:
2012-02-23, 16:01
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
gou cannot e)plain the Early Proto-Aryan from .entral Europe, neither can
you e)plain the Iart'elian and (emitic contacts from .entral Europe%
No when we have dealt with Uralic loanwords and established that that cannot help us in
determining the place of the IE Urheimat as they are too late (from the "North-Western"
group/Corded Ware or proto-Aryan Steppe languages) now we can turn our attention to the
lexical similarities between Semitic and IE languages.
When I browsed through the list of such similarities it struck me that there are practically no such
similarities in Indo-Iranian languages. Isn't it surprising - if my observation is correct?
Shouldn't such similarities with Semitic be especially visible in the Indo-Iranian languages if it is
postulated that IE had contacts with Semitic at the Ukrainian steppe?
Instead we get lots of such lexical similarities in Germanic, Greek or Latin. Can anyone explain
this imbalance?
2012-02-23, 18:04
Wo|ewoda
By the way on these 2 maps places were marked from where PIE probably didn't originate:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...stribution.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...tribution3.PNG
Quote:
A%%%D while we can reconstruct the words for 'wolf' and 'bear', we cannot do so
with con:dence for 'lion' and 'tiger', animals that are found further south, in
the warmer climetes of the Hediterranean, Asia Hinor, $ran, and (outh Asia%
Source: Language history, language change, and language relationship: an introduction to
historical and comparative linguistics
2012-02-23, 18:34
aregint
Map of some cultures that inJuenced PIE
Cyan: Proto-Uralic homeland
Yellow: Poltavka culture
Red: Kartvelian languages
The two purple crosses mark more or less the two proposed PIE homelands. One seems to ft better.
http://i43.tinypic.com/2nqsi7l.png
http://k19.kn3.net/871164DB8.png
2012-02-23, 20:27
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by are.int
Hap of some cultures that in?uenced P$E
.yan< Proto-4ralic homeland
We have |ust established with the help of Jaska, that the place of the proto-Uralic homeland
cannot help us to determine the location of the IE homeland as the IE borrowings into proto-Uralic
come from the doughter languages of PIE - namely "North-Western IE"/Corded Ware and proto-
Aryan. I think it doesn't make sense to return to this argument as it makes the whole discussion
pointless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by are.int
gellow< Polta'ka culture
What do you mean by this? Poltavka culture is an archeological culture. In what sense PIE was
inJuenced by it? Linguistic? But do we know what language(s) Poltavka culture bearers spoke?
---------- Post added 2012-02-23 at 21:35 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
A%%%D (emitic contacts A%%%D
Jaska, you are cracking me up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dienekes
-he current paper proposes a >ron*e Age origin for (emitic languages, w1
thousand years after the split of European from Anatolian $ndo-European
speakers% $ don't :nd this particularly surprising, as (emitic has been, until
relati'ely recently, much more geographically constrained than $ndo-
European, and -due to the early literacy of the populations of the Near East,
its post-Neolithic arri'al can be obser'ed in the archaeological record itself%
Bronze Age origin of Semitic languages
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dienekes
-he same authors dated Proto-$ndo-European at C%Bky, in agreement with
the work of @ray and Atkinson% $n the current paper they re-analy*e the data
of Iitchen et al% AL660D for (emitic languages, and their estimate is
somewhat younger than 5,G56 years of that paper% All in all, it's good to see
di+erent researchers using di+erent techni9ues but coming up with similar
solutions%
$t is increasingly clear that while the Proto-$ndo-Europeans originated in the
Neolithic Near East, the Proto-(emites followed them by about three
thousand years% $n the latter case there is also a g-chromosome marker AF-
P5CD with an apparent age in impeccable agreement with the linguistic
e'idence, now that the genealogical-]e'olutionary] mutation wars seem to
ha'e been won%
-his also brings into focus the weakness of the argument that Anthony
AL66GD Ap% G7D brings to the table by hypothesi*ing that the :rst farmers of
northern (yria were Afro-Asiatic speakers like the (emites of the Near
Eastern lowlands% (emites come into the picture 5,666 years after the onset
of the Neolithic, and 1,666 years after the Proto-$ndo-Europeans% -heir
relationship with Afroasiatic speakers of Africa make it 9uite likely that they
li'ed in the south, probably in Arabia, and certainly not in eastern Anatolia or
northern (yria%
Nicholls and Ryder: Semitic 4.4-5.1 thousand years before present
Therefore it is clear that Semitic is much younger language than IE, hence "Semitic contacts"
cannot in any way help us in our quest for the IE homeland. :whoco:
2012-02-23, 22:18
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
Faska, you are cracking me up%
>ron*e Age origin of (emitic languages
Nicholls and Ryder< (emitic B%B-5%; thousand years before present
-herefore it is clear that (emitic is much younger language than $E, hence
](emitic contacts] cannot in any way help us in our 9uest for the $E
homeland% <whoco<
Both you and Dienekes are wrong here.
A few corrections:
1) Proto-Semitic is about as old as proto-Indo-European (both are Bronze Age languages, and
perhaps slightly older than the Bronze Age).
2) Proto-Indo-European is not as old as the Neolithic revolution. It is entirely impossible PIE is that
old, because the word for wheel is found in most extant Indo-European languages and so PIE
cannot have diversifed into its modern branches before the wheel. Regardless of if the PIE tribe
invented the wheel or not, it is logically impossible to set the diversifcation of PIE before the
wheel. So this totally rules out Renfrew's Anatolian hypothesis, because the Neolithic revolution
happened without the wheel, and the Neolithic revolution probably also spread Dravidian into
India, not Indo-Aryan.
3) Proto-Semitic did not enter the Levant from Arabia. In fact, everything about proto-Semitic
proves that it is a thoroughly northern Levant language. And proto-Afro-Asiatic probably was
spoken in Anatolia too at some point. Here's one example why proto-Semitic did not enter the
Middle East from Ethiopia via southern Arabia:
Having identifed a Cushitic-like substratum in Modern South Arabian, Militarev (1984, 18-19; cf. also
Belova 2003) proposes that Cushites originally lived throughout the Arabian Peninsula; thus they
would be the original southern neighbors of the Semites, who then assimilated those Cushites who
did not move into Ethiopia. This hypothesis is supported by Anati (1968, 180-84), who analyzed the
rock art of Central Arabia. He connected the pictures of the `oval-headed` people depicted with
shields with the Arabian `Cushites` from the Old Testament [Genesis 10.6-12; Isaiah 45.14]
described also with specifc shields [Jeremiah 46.9; Ezekiel 38.5].
Source: AFROASIATIC MIGRATIONS: LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE
^^ If proto-Semitic is an Ethiopian language in its origin, then we should expect to fnd this Cushitic
substratum in for example Aramaic and Hebrew. But it's not found there. So Dienekes is wrong in thinking
Semitic isn't native to the northern Levant and Anatolia. And it's not |ust David Anthony who thinks Semitic is
native to the northern Levant, it is also backed up by linguistic palaeontology (a methodology you'll see more
of in linguistics in the future):
The Semitic ecological lexicon indicates the Semitic homeland was in the Northern Levant
(Kogan 2009, 18-19). The home of the Akkadians was Northern and Central Mesopotamia.
From the time of the Sargonid Empire (24/23rd cent. BCE) Akkadian began to push Sumerian
into Southern Mesopotamia. Akkadian also spread into Elam, Syria, and Anatolia. In the 2nd
mill. BCE the southern dialect, Babylonian, was used as a diplomatic language in the Near
East, including Egypt.
Source: AFROASIATIC MIGRATIONS: LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE
I suggest you and Dienekes also read this excellent article by Dr. Igor P. Lipovsky:
Where did the Ancient Semites come from?: http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Rese...ipovskyI01.pdf
Dienekes has also at one point on DNA-Forums said Assyrians aren't native to Anatolia. He's totally wrong
about that:
First, the Indo-European-speaking Anatolians are dicult to distinguish from their non-
Indo-European neighbours or predecessors.They appear to have embraced thoroughly the local
Anatolian Bronze Age cultures and they display no obvious cultural traits that mark them of
as distinctly Indo-European. This is hardly surprising, as the basic social picture of Bronze Age
Anatolia is of a series of city-states comprised of linguistically diverse populationssharing
the same material culture. It has even been suggested that Hittite itself was not the language of the
dominant group but rather a lingua franca, developed out of the close association of the earlier
Hittites of Kanes with the Assyrian merchants, who were the rst literate population in
Anatoliaand who used Kanes as a trading house.7"
- J.P. Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology, and Myth, ISBN
050005052X, p. 28
^^ This is where Kanes was located:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCltepe
Assyrians have a long history in Anatolia, and proto-Afro-Asiatic was probably spoken there too at some
point (or very close to Anatolia). And Y-DNA J-P58 variation is also highest in south-eastern "Turkey"
(amongst Assyrians), so it can be said with scientifc accuracy that proto-Semitic is more likely than anything
else, northern Levant in origin.
3) Gray & Atkinson's glottochronology is pseudo-scientifc bullshit and it can safely be disregarded.
4) Dienekes is wrong in saying (It is increasingly clear that 'hile the Proto-Indo-Euro*eans originated in the
3eolithic 3ear East) the Proto-Semites follo'ed them by about three thousand years+( <--- This is not clear at
all. Proto-Semitic (and certainly proto-Afro-Asiatic) has a longer history in the Near East and also Anatolia,
than PIE does, and it may be so that the ancestor of proto-Indo-European spread from the northern Levant or
Anatolia with the Neolithic revolution, but at this stage, it was |ust a tiny language family amongst many other
language families that diversifed with the Neolithic revolution into Europe and elsewhere. After a few
thousand years in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, proto-Indo-European got its distinct features and emerged on
the world scene.
So that said, now that we've established that the proto-Semitic urheimat most likely was in the northern
Levant, I'd like to see you explain how Poland would be a better ft than the Pontic-Caspian steppe in
explaining PIE's contacts with proto-Semitic, proto-Uralic and proto-Kartvelian.
2012-02-24, 01:15
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
(o that said, now that we''e established that the proto-(emitic urheimat
most likely was in the northern !e'ant, $'d like to see you e)plain how Poland
would be a better :t than the Pontic-.aspian steppe in e)plaining P$E's
contacts with proto-(emitic, proto-4ralic and proto-Iart'elian%
Contacts via the Balkans.
That's much more plausible than the Pontic-Caspian having contacts with proto-Semites across
the Black and Caspian seas, and the Caucasus.
Contacts between Central Europe and Anatolia, via the Balkans, are easily picked up via modern
genome-wide analyses. But there's no evidence of any direct contacts between Anatolia and
Eastern Europe. Everything comes through Anatolia, via the Balkans, and then fnally into Eastern
Europe.
2012-02-24, 06:06
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
>oth you and 3ienekes are wrong here%
I don't think that for the purpose of this thread we really need to exactly pinpoint the place of the
Semitic homeland both in space and in time.
These two linguistic papers I quoted above after Dienekes stating the relative youngness of
Semitic vs. Indoeuropean (Bronze Age of the frst vs. Neolithic origin of the second) are suHcient
to cast reasonable doubts of the whole argument about the Semitic contacts of PIE.
This argument must be therefore either reformulated by its proponents or - without it - re|ected.
2012-02-24, 10:46
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
.ontacts 'ia the >alkans%
-hat's much more plausible than the Pontic-.aspian ha'ing contacts with
proto-(emites across the >lack and .aspian seas, and the .aucasus%
.ontacts between .entral Europe and Anatolia, 'ia the >alkans, are easily
picked up 'ia modern genome-wide analyses% >ut there's no e'idence of any
direct contacts between Anatolia and Eastern Europe% E'erything comes
through Anatolia, 'ia the >alkans, and then :nally into Eastern Europe%
These signals could be recent admixture from the Ottoman Empire. But yes, I'm aware that
Balkan populations are more similar to Anatolians and north Mesopotamians than take say Poles.
However, the proto-Semitic loanwords in PIE and PIE loanwords in proto-Uralic is not the only
linguistic evidence supporting the Pontic-Caspian steppe.
Ultimately, it comes down to linguistic palaeontology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$ don't think that for the purpose of this thread we really need to e)actly
pinpoint the place of the (emitic homeland both in space and in time%
Well it can be discussed elsewhere, but surely, proto-Semitic urheimat has some importance in
understanding proto-Indo-European urheimat. If proto-Semitic urheimat is in Arabia (as Dienekes
seems to believe), then you must realise the implications that has on PIE, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
-hese two linguistic papers $ 9uoted abo'e after 3ienekes stating the
relati'e youngness of (emitic 's% $ndoeuropean A>ron*e Age of the :rst 's%
Neolithic origin of the secondD are sujcient to cast reasonable doubts of the
whole argument about the (emitic contacts of P$E%
-his argument must be therefore either reformulated by its proponents or -
without it - re#ected%
Why would you trust Dienekes on this issue though? His conclusions are faulty and he's ignoring
linguistic palaeontology (why? What's his agenda?). These glottochronological studies he relies
on is the same reason why he thinks Renfrew's totally debunked Anatolian hypothesis is the
correct explanation to the PIE urheimat.
This is what happens when you ignore linguistic palaeontology. You can't make the diversifcation
of a language family older than its technological vocabulary. If proto-Indo-European has words for
technological items such as wheel, you can't make diversifcation of PIE older than the invention
of the wheel. It is ILLOGICAL to even think that would hold up.
And you can't place proto-Semitic in Arabia and proto-Afro-Asiatic in Africa (like Dienekes does)
by ignoring the palaeolinguistic lexicon of proto-Semitic and proto-Afro-Asiatic, and you cannot
place proto-Indo-European in Anatolia either.
Both Dienekes and Polako need to take linguistic palaeontology into consideration on the PIE
urheimat. It's the most important methodology in understanding where and when PIE was
spoken, and it's by far more important than R1a variation and linguistic variation for that matter.
2012-02-24, 11:17
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
,hy would you trust 3ienekes on this issue though
Why anyone would think that I care for Dienekes? :) I only used his blog as a convinient way of
fnding the relevant reference.
So without Dienekes this time:
Quote:
Abstract
-he e'olution of languages pro'ides a uni9ue opportunity to study human
population history% -he origin of (emitic and the nature of dispersals by
(emitic-speaking populations are of great importance to our understanding
of the ancient history of the Hiddle East and &orn of Africa% (emitic
populations are associated with the oldest written languages and urban
ci'ili*ations in the region, which ga'e rise to some of the world's :rst ma#or
religious and literary traditions% $n this study, we employ >ayesian
computational phylogenetic techni9ues recently de'eloped in e'olutionary
biology to analyse (emitic le)ical data by modelling language e'olution and
e)plicitly testing alternati'e hypotheses of (emitic history% ,e implement a
rela)ed linguistic clock to date language di'ergences and use epigraphic
e'idence for the sampling dates of e)tinct (emitic languages to calibrate the
rate of language e'olution% Our statistical tests of alternati'e (emitic
histories support an initial di'ergence of Akkadian from ancestral (emitic
o'er competing hypotheses Ae%g% an African origin of (emiticD% e estimate
an Earl) 'ron4e A.e ori.in for Semitic approximatel) MSM> )ears
a.o in the <e&ant, and further propose that contemporary Ethiosemitic
languages of Africa re?ect a single introduction of early Ethiosemitic from
southern Arabia appro)imately LC66 years ago%
Proc. R. Soc. B 7 August 2009 vol. 276 no. 1668 2703-2710, Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of
Semitic languages identifes an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East, Andrew
Kitchen et al.
Quote:
Abstract<
Iitchen et al% AL660D analy*e a data set of le)ical trait data for twenty :'e
(emitic languages, including ancient languages &ebrew, Aramaic and
Akkadian, modern (outh Arabian and Arabic languages and :fteen
ethiosemitic languages% -hey estimate a phylogenetic tree for the
di'ersi:cation of le)ical traits using tree and trait models and methods set
up for genetic se9uence data% ,e reanaly*e the data in a homplasy-free
model for le)ical trait data% ,e use a prior on phylogenies which is non-
informati'e with respect to some of the key scienti:c hypotheses
Aconcerning topology and root timeD%Bur results are in /road a.reement
$ith those of "itchen et al. 82>>D9, thou.h our DM? HPD for the root
of the Semitic tree 8the /ranchin. of Akkadian9 is [LL>>,
M3>>\'P and we place Horoccan and Ogaden Arabic in the Hodern (outh
Arabian @roup%
Proceedings of the 26th International Workshop on Statistical Modelling. Phylogenetic models for
Semitic vocabulary. Geof K Nicholls and Robin J. Ryder
---------- Post added 2012-02-24 at 12:45 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
$f proto-$ndo-European has words for technological items such as wheel, you
can't make di'ersi:cation of P$E older than the in'ention of the wheel%
The "wheel" argument is interesting:
Quote:
Originally Posted by !"!PED!A
E'idence of wheeled 'ehicles appears from the mid Lth millennium 'C,
near-simultaneously in Hesopotamia, the Northern .aucasus AHaykop
cultureD and .entral Europe, so that the 9uestion of which culture originally
in'ented the wheeled 'ehicle remains unresol'ed and under debate%
Quote:
Originally Posted by !"!PED!A
Hainstream linguistic estimates of the time between P$E and the earliest
attested te)ts Aca% nineteenth century >.Y see Iltepe te)tsD range around
;,566 to L,566 years, with e)treme proposals di'erging up to another ;668
on either side% Proposed models include<
the Bth millennium >. Ae)cluding the Anatolian branchD in Armenia,
according to the Armenian hypothesis Aproposed in the conte)t of @lottalic
theoryDY
the 5th millennium >. ABth e)cluding the Anatolian branchD in the Pontic-
.aspian steppe, according to Hari#a @imbutas's Iurgan hypothesisY
the 7th millennium >. or later in Northern Europe according to !othar
Iilian's and, especially, Harek /'elebil's models of a broader homelandY
the 7th millennium >. in $ndia, according to Ioenraad Elst's Out of $ndia
modelY
the Gth millennium >. in ArianaK>HA. according to a number of scholars%
PwhoR
the Gth millennium >. in Anatolia Athe 5th, in the >alkans, e)cluding the
Anatolian branchD, according to .olin Renfrew's Anatolian hypothesisY
the Gth millennium >. in Anatolia A7th e)cluding the Anatolian branchD,
according to a L661 glottochronological studyYP5R
before the ;6th millennium >. in the Paleolithic .ontinuity -heory%
... but in the light of the dates for Semitic (4th-3rd millenium BC) proposed in the above quoted
papers it is unikely that Semitic could have inJuenced the language dated to the 4th millenium
only if one excludes Anatolian branch.
2012-02-24, 12:44
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
-hese signals could be recent admi)ture from the Ottoman Empire%
I think DNA from the Neolithic and metal ages predates the Ottoman Empire. :D
It seems to me you're avoiding the elephant in the room here, and that is obviously the fact that
the Pontic-Caspian steppe has always been blocked of from contacts with the Middle East until
post proto-Indo-European times.
This is easily shown via DNA, both ancient and modern. All the evidence points to multiple trails
of contact from the Middle East to Central and Western Europe via Anatolia and the Balkans.
So I don't see how contacts between proto-Semitic and Indo-European could've happened on the
steppe? If they did happen, they took place in the Balkans or in Central Europe. What the hell,
even Western Europe is a better bet than the Pontic Caspian for such contacts, because of
maritime links with the Middle East.
Nope, the Pontic Caspian is a dud. That's where Eurasian hunter gatherers lived before being
overrun during the Chalcolithic by Indo-Europeans from the west.
2012-02-24, 21:48
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
,e ha'e #ust established with the help of Faska, that the place of the proto-
4ralic homeland cannot help us to determine the location of the $E homeland
as the $E borrowings into proto-4ralic come from the doughter languages of
P$E - namely ]North-,estern $E]K.orded ,are and proto-Aryan% $ think it
doesn't make sense to return to this argument as it makes the whole
discussion pointless%
You have very serious cognitive problems, I must conclude. How is it possible that you don`t
understand simple written text?
I have said this many times, but once more:
Proto-Uralic contacts do have consequences for the Proto-Indo-European homeland,
because the homeland must be somewhere where you can derive two closely related
dialects: Northwest Indo-European and Early Proto-Aryan. You cannot derive them both
so soon from Central Europe, but you can derive them so soon from the Pontic
Steppes.
Please tell me what you cannot understand - don`t make any interpretations, |ust read what I
wrote and ask when you don`t understand. Okay?
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
,hat do you mean by this Polta'ka culture is an archeological culture% $n
what sense P$E was in?uenced by it !inguistic >ut do we know what
languageAsD Polta'ka culture bearers spoke
So you didn`t read my writing after all? Poltavka = Early Proto-Aryan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
-herefore it is clear that (emitic is much younger language than $E, hence
](emitic contacts] cannot in any way help us in our 9uest for the $E
homeland%
No, it`s not younger. Those lexicostatistic calculations are not reliable. For example, Proto-Indo-
European has twice as many reconstructed words than Proto-Uralic, even though the latter is
younger, not older of the two. Mutual loanwords show this clearly, and the same goes with Proto-
Semitic: it is older than those guys calculated.
- Loanwords are much stronger argument than lexicostatistics.
- Lexical conservativeness is one thing, but it cannot be taken directly as a mark of youngness.
Do you understand? Branches of a language family may share more wordsthan branches of
another language family, without the frst family being automatically younger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
.ontacts between .entral Europe and Anatolia, 'ia the >alkans, are easily
picked up 'ia modern genome-wide analyses% >ut there's no e'idence of any
direct contacts between Anatolia and Eastern Europe% E'erything comes
through Anatolia, 'ia the >alkans, and then :nally into Eastern Europe%
But as we see archaeological inJuence between Caucasus and the Pontic steppes, we have a
good possibility for linguistic inJuence, too. That you cannot see something in the modern genes
cannot disprove the archaeological evidence. Why do you still act like there is no archaeological
evidence? You are like Wo|ewoda, you close your eyes from the evidence which don`t ft in your
view
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
Nope, the Pontic .aspian is a dud% -hat's where Eurasian hunter gatherers
li'ed before being o'errun during the .halcolithic by $ndo-Europeans from
the west%
You see only genes but are totally blind for archaeological evidence. Pontic Steppe is the place
from where there left people in many directions |ust at the right time - that is exactly one of the
reasons why it is considered the PIE homeland (please read Mallory 1989, I have given the link to
eBook a dozen times). From there you can best explainALL THE INDO-EUROPEAN
BRANCHES.Central Europe or Anatolia are much weaker explanations.
Conclusion:
People who support the Central European homeland for Proto-Indo-European are ignorant and
blind for counter-arguments; they only see the evidence which fts into their view and ignore the
rest. That is not scientifc at all.
2012-02-24, 22:28
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
$ ha'e said this many times, but once more<
Proto-:ralic contacts do ha&e consePuences for the Proto-!ndo-
European homeland, /ecause the homeland must /e some$here
$here )ou can deri&e t$o closel) related dialectsF @orth$est !ndo-
European and Earl) Proto-Ar)an. Eou cannot deri&e them /oth so
soon from Central Europe, /ut )ou can deri&e them so soon from
the Pontic Steppes.
You know that what you write is worthless, as Corded Ware originates in Central Europe and you
don't know what is the origin of proto-Aryan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
No, itJs not younger% -hose le)icostatistic calculations are not reliable%
Says Jaska and Andrew Kitchen, Christopher Ehret, Shiferaw Assefa and Connie J. Mulligan,
Geof K Nicholls and Robin J. Ryder immediately shut up. :rolleyes:
Quote:
Relations between $ndoeuropean and (emitic languages ha'e often been
maintained% -rubet*koy, for e)ample, has claimed that $ndoeuropean
languages de'eloped from a (emitic-similiar stage to an 4ralic-similiar one%
On the other hand it is well known nowadays that the (emitic languages are
one of si) coordinate branches of the Afroasiatic AU&amitosemitic U
Erythraeic U !isramicD languages beside Ancient Egyptian, .ushitic, Omotic,
.hadic and >erberic% The Sahara must /e assumed to /e the ori.inal
home of the Afroasiatic famil). As an a.e of at least tenthousand
)ears is supposed for this famil) it is $orth noticin. that the Sahara
$as .reen at the time of Proto-Afroasiatic and that Europe $as
under the inTuence of the last .lacial epoch at the same time. !t has
/een seldom noticed that an) relationship /et$een !ndoeuropean
and Semitic lan.ua.es rePuires the assumption of a relationship
/et$een the !ndoeuropean and the entire Afroasiatic famil). This
means relations to @orthern Africa. 'ut Proto-!ndoeuropean existed
almost f&ethousand )ears a.o some$here in Eastern Europe.
@e&ertheless ! think that there are some traces of possi/le relations
/et$een !ndoeuropean and Afroasiatic lan.ua.es. ! ha&e onl) the
follo$in. explanation for this surprisin. situationF At the end of the
last .lacial epoch Europe started to .et $armer and the Sahara
started to /ecome a desert. Pro/a/l) man) people mi.rated from
the Sahara to Europe and Asia. !t is possi/le that some of them
contri/uted to the .enesis of Proto-!ndoeuropean $hich certainl)
took place some$here in Eastern Europe.
Relations between Indoeuropean and Afroasiatic Languages
A hint:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...po_E-ADN-Y.GIF
2012-02-24, 22:51
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
People who support the .entral European homeland for Proto-$ndo-European
are ignorant and blind for counter-argumentsY they only see the e'idence
which :ts into their 'iew and ignore the rest% -hat is not scienti:c at all%
One thing I've learned from all of this is that archeology is not scientifc at all.
Genes show strong prehistoric contacts between Central Europe and the Middle East, and
Central Europe and the steppe.
So there's no need for a steppe hypothesis anymore, especially as the right people (Europeans)
weren't present there.
You're still living in the days when people thought that Cro-Magnons were our ancestors, and
farming took on in Central Europe via smoke signals.
Kindly move on sir.
2012-02-24, 23:25
Humanist
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
ruote<
$t has been seldom noticed that any relationship between
$ndoeuropean and (emitic languages rePuires the assumption
of a relationship /et$een the !ndoeuropean and the entire
Afroasiatic famil). -his means relations to Northern Africa%
I do not follow.
2012-02-24, 23:38
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humanist
$ do not follow%
I guess that this conclusion comes from the fact that Semitic is younger than IE.
2012-02-25, 00:48
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
,hy anyone would think that $ care for 3ienekes <D $ only used his blog as a
con'inient way of :nding the rele'ant reference%
I'm having a Jame war with him on his blog about proto-Semitic now, lol. I've realised he's not as
knowledgeable on the topic as I thought he was. And that goes for not only proto-Semitic but also
proto-Afro-Asiatic and proto-Indo-European. He has a serious inability to deduce correct
conclusions, probably because of ideological bias or simply being misinformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
(o without 3ienekes this time<
%%% but in the light of the dates for (emitic ABth-1rd millenium >.D proposed in
the abo'e 9uoted papers it is unikely that (emitic could ha'e in?uenced the
language dated to the Bth millenium only if one e)cludes Anatolian branch%
It's not a question of how "unlikely" it is that Semitic inJuenced proto-Indo-European; it's a matter
of how and when it happened. Mind you, proto-Semitic is around 6,000 to 10,000 years old, and
proto-Indo-European is at most 6,000 years old.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$ think 3NA from the Neolithic and metal ages predates the Ottoman Empire%
<3
This is what Mallory has to say on it:
Wave of .dvance
It unlikely that the Pontic-:as*ian ste**e and forest-ste**e 'as initially coloni8ed by farming
*o*ulations from the Balkans+ here is no transformations in terms of technology) architecture nor
subsistence that re!uire us to acce*t any substantial movement of *o*ulations east of the 0nie*er+
Source: Renfrew and Mallory on Y-DNA R1a1a, Irish, Tocharian and proto-Indo-European
urheimat (you really should check out this thread)
While Mallory unfortunately is ignorant of population genetics (and therefore not in the position to make such
a statement), his opinion on the material culture in the archaeology of the steppe is worth keeping in mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$t seems to me you're a'oiding the elephant in the room here, and that is
ob'iously the fact that the Pontic-.aspian steppe has always been blocked
o+ from contacts with the Hiddle East until post proto-$ndo-European times%
Source? I'm not avoiding anything. I don't have your expertise in genetics, and I still have a lot to
learn in the feld. But I do have a decent amount of knowledge of population genetics, and I have
read two important books on proto-Indo-European urheimat theories. I'm not a complete n00b on
the topic, and what you must understand is that urheimat theories are more than |ust looking at Y-
DNA variation. Genetics can only corroborate the linguistic evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
-his is easily shown 'ia 3NA, both ancient and modern% All the e'idence
points to multiple trails of contact from the Hiddle East to .entral and
,estern Europe 'ia Anatolia and the >alkans%
How much ancient DNA has been dug up and tested anyway? I think you're |umping to
conclusions as far as ancient DNA is concerned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
(o $ don't see how contacts between proto-(emitic and $ndo-European
could''e happened on the steppe $f they did happen, they took place in the
>alkans or in .entral Europe% ,hat the hell, e'en ,estern Europe is a better
bet than the Pontic .aspian for such contacts, because of maritime links with
the Hiddle East%
Like David Anthony has pointed out, it is quite possible a Semitic language was spoken in
Romania, as the western Yamnaya dialect had Semitic loanwords that were lacking in the
eastern Yamnaya dialects:
Western Indo-European vocabularies contained a few roots that were borrowed from
Afro-Asiatic languages, such as the word for the domesticated bull,*tawr-, and the western
Yamnaya groups lived next to the Tripolye culture, which might have spoken a language
distantly derived from an Afro-Asiatic language of Anatolia. Eastern Indo-European
generally lacked these borrowed Afro-Asiatic roots.
- Anthony, David W., The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the
Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, ISBN: 069114818X, p. 304
^^ This makes sense considering the presence of Y-DNA I2 in the Balkans (could be linguistically related to
J-P58).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
Nope, the Pontic .aspian is a dud% -hat's where Eurasian hunter gatherers
li'ed before being o'errun during the .halcolithic by $ndo-Europeans from
the west%
What if they test the Kurgan burials from Yamnaya and they come out as R-M198 and ancestral
to R-M417? Maybe I've missed something here, but as far as I know, they haven't tested the
Kurgan burials in Yamnaya and Maykop, so you're |umping to conclusions here. Their Y-DNA
may very well be ancestral to all the R1a diversity you have in Poland today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$ guess that this conclusion comes from the fact that (emitic is younger than
$E%
It's not:
Yet earlier, around 15,000 years ago, Nostratic may have been the antecedent of Indo-European,
Altaic (Turkish and Mongolian), Dravidian (southern Indian), Uralic (Finnish and Samoyed), Afro-
Asiatic (Berber and Arabic), and Kartvelian (south Caucasian). Reconstructions of Nostratic have
been proposed, amounting to several hundred words corresponding to common ob|ects and
concepts, such as parts of the body, sun and moon, personal pronouns, animals, and so on. The
"lexicon" indicates that the speakers were hunter-gatherers, lacking agriculture but possessing
domestic animals such as the dog. Indeed, the oldest domestic dog bones have been dated to that
period. Nostratic would later have split into the Afro-Asiatic group of languages, whose
speakers, judging by the proposed vocabulary, built fortications, cultivated, marketed,
and used the bow. Proto-Semitic may have arisen 9,000 years ago, and provided many loan
words to the Indo-Europeans, another Nostratic o-shoot, which in turn fragmented about
5,000 years agointo Indo-Iranian, Celt, Balt, Slav, Greek, Italic, and Germanic peoples, all of whom
migrated to the sites of their present homelands (see e.g. Dolgopolsky, 1995; Ruhlen, 1994).
- John L. Bradshaw, Human evolution: a neuropsychological perspective, p. 80, ISBN 0863775055
There are multiple reasons why proto-Semitic cannot be younger than proto-Indo-European. It's not really all
that relevant to this topic though as the PIE urheimat doesn't need to rely on either Semitic or Uralic. But if
you're interested in the Semitic loanwords in proto-Indo-European, Humanist posted a good thread with
sources:
"Proto-Semitic Language & Culture; Semitic Roots"
2012-02-25, 01:25
Humanist
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
$'m ha'ing a ?ame war with him on his blog about proto-(emitic now, lol%
Disagreeing with the man is fne. Flaming is unnecessary.
2012-02-25, 04:45
Heladageniskogen
The weakest point of the "Central Europe urheimat" is that earlyNeolithic aDNA from the area seems to be radically
diferent from what it should be if they (the R1a Indo-European people) originated from that area.
There is hardly any aDNA to draw any good conclusions and we don't even have any in the target area but it would not
make sense for it to be so diferent in neighbouring areas. We do have as I am sure everyone is aware of, a bit of ancient y-
DNA from the LBK culture (basically almost Central Europe) and that's certainly far from being contemporary (or
contemporary to the time when we have R1a as aDNA in Central Europe) in its composition to be "R1a Indo-European",
hence R1a and the Indo-Europeans should not have been at that place at the time and can't obviously have originated
there.
There is only two possible answers to this. The R1a (pre)proto-Indo-Europeans where either late comingNeolithic
immigrants from the Near East or they where a "Mesolithicish" people from some distant corner of Europe.
The "Mesolitisicsh Paleo-European" model seems to work really well when combined with:
It unlikely that the Pontic-:as*ian ste**e and forest-ste**e 'as initially coloni8ed by farming *o*ulations from the Balkans+
here is no transformations in terms of technology) architecture nor subsistence that re!uire us to acce*t any substantial
movement of *o*ulations east of the 0nie*er+
However, the R1a carrying people that later defnitely where Indo-European where sure as hell no "paleo-Europeans" but
rather Neolithic wogs like normal Europeans. Not sure what aDNA from the steppe says about this, but if say Ukrainians or
whatever are the proto-Indo-Europeans closest relatives (and today still quite genetically close to them) then the close to
100% R1a proto-Indo-European people can not have been anything else than a primary Neolithic people and hence the
"paleo-European" model fails. Not to mention we have ancient mtDNA H5a that further confrms their Neolithic Near Eastern
origin.
Thus, the pre-Indo-Europeans came from Asia Minor in the late Neolithic (atleast not with the frst waves), moved
somewhere (Pontic-Caspian steppe), evolved into proto-Indo-Europeans and then spread as Indo-Europeans over the
world. This actually makes the Indo-Anatolian model a bit more likely, if the wheel was already invented when I-A spread
then it not anachronistic, I am still not convinced the Anatolian branch came from Europe but the rest did and from a quite
small area aswell.
2012-02-25, 05:11
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helada.enisko.en
-he weakest point of the ].entral Europe urheimat] is that earl) Neolithic
a3NA from the area seems to be radically di+erent from what it should be if
they Athe R;a $ndo-European peopleD originated from that area%
You mean LBK from Germany? Yes, that's true.
But I'm not saying that the proto-Indo-Europeans came from Germany. No sir. :D
Quote:
&owe'er, the R;a carrying people that later de:nitely where $ndo-European
where sure as hell no ]paleo-Europeans] but rather Neolithic wogs like
normal Europeans% Not sure what a3NA from the steppe says about this, but
if say 4krainians or whate'er are the proto-$ndo-Europeans closest relati'es
Aand today still 9uite genetically close to themD then the close to ;668 R;a
proto-$ndo-European people can not ha'e been anything else than a primary
Neolithic people and hence the ]paleo-European] model fails% Not to mention
we ha'e ancient mt3NA &5a that further con:rms their Neolithic Near
Eastern origin%
We don't have to guess what the genetic composition of the proto-Indo-Europeans was like, we
can |ust look at the results from the Corded Ware site at Eulau and the early Andronovo burials.
They basically come out like modern Europeans, with a strong showing of (likely) Mesolithic-
derived U mtDNA's, but most of the other stuf of Neoilthic Middle Eastern origin, minus the really
exotic stuf now found in the Middle East.
I don't know which Neolithic waves contributed to their formation in what is now Poland. But I'd
say that it was several waves, from early to late Neolithic, and the aforementioned Mesolithic
European input.
---------- Post added 2012-02-25 at 06:26 ----------
By the way, early Neolithic aDNA from Iberia shows a lot of mtDNA H, plus the lactose tolerance
allele at moderate levels.
My bet is that the proto-Indo-Europeans of East Central Europe came from the same source
population, and displaced the LBK Germans. They DO NOT derive from any steppe group.
But we need more aDNA to fgure out how that western-like early Neolithic population made it to
East Central Europe.
2012-02-25, 05:34
Heladageniskogen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
gou mean !>I from @ermany ges, that's true%
>ut $'m not saying that the proto-$ndo-Europeans came from @ermany% No
sir% <3
But in general neighbouring populations are not like day and night at any spot in the world, if the
ancient LBK people in Germany where radically diferent from modern Germans then
Central/East Europeans would also be radically diferent from its modern successors. Early
neolithic DNA seems to be so radically diferent (in all places of Europe) outside events must have
changed Europe for a long time afterwards, hence I can't really buy the "out of central Europe"
thing. Europe could not have changed itself.
2012-02-25, 05:53
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helada.enisko.en
>ut in general neighbouring populations are not like day and night at any
spot in the world, if the ancient !>I people in @ermany where radically
di+erent from modern @ermans then .entralKEast Europeans would also be
radically di+erent from its modern successors% Early neolithic 3NA seems to
be so radially di+erent Ain all places of EuropeD outside e'ents must ha'e
changed Europe for a long time afterwards, hence $ can't really buy the ]out
of central Europe] thing% Europe could not ha'e changed itself%
It's becoming increasingly obvious through aDNA that Neolithic migrant groups to Europe were
genetically very heterozygous. They were also usually very small, so they dominated certain
areas for a time, and then disappeared without much of a trace.
Keep in mind, on the Hungarian and Ukrainian steppe they carried lots of Siberian and even East
Asian lineages. On the other hand in Central Europe it seems mtDNA N1a was common for a
time, and then largely died of. In Iberian Neolithic groups, mtDNA H was prevalent, and the North
European lactose tolerance allele was also found there.
Funnily enough, the Corded Ware and early Andronovo results were most similar to those of the
early Neolithic Iberians (apart from the appearance of mtDNA C in Andronovo, which was
obviously a result of passing through prehistoric Ukraine).
So, based on that, where do you think modern Indo-European speakers of Europe got most of
their genetics? Still from the steppe?
I can't believe people are still wasting time defending that idiot theory. What we should be
discussing is how Iberian-like Neolithic groups made it to East Central Europe, spawned the
proto-Indo-Europeans, and then populate Eastern Europe, pushing out the earlier Eurasian-like
natives to the Ural region and beyond.
2012-02-26, 08:31
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
gou know that what you write is worthless, as .orded ,are originates in
.entral Europe and you don't know what is the origin of proto-Aryan%
We all know that it is not Central Europe! Even you don`t dare to claim so. So why don`t you |ust
open your eyes and confess that Central Europe cannot be the Indo-European homeland? You
cannot explain Aryans from there, but you can explain the Corded Ware Culture (= Northwest IE)
from the steppe. Read Mallory at last and stop being blind and stubborn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
(ays Faska and Andrew Iitchen, .hristopher Ehret, (hiferaw Assefa and
.onnie F% Hulligan, @eo+ I Nicholls and Robin F% Ryder immediately shut up%
All the thousands of historical linguists know what I know. The basic principle behind the
lexicostatistics remains invalid, no matter how fne computer programs they use.
You know this, too - you are |ust too lazy and stubborn to understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
One thing $''e learned from all of this is that archeology is not scienti:c at
all%
Please, don`t make a fool of yourself. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
@enes show strong prehistoric contacts between .entral Europe and the
Hiddle East, and .entral Europe and the steppe%
Yes? This cannot disprove the contacts which archaeology shows. We cannot connect PIE to
those contacts which you speak about, but we can connect it to those contacts which
archaeology shows at the right time in the right place (in the steppe).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
(o there's no need for a steppe hypothesis anymore, especially as the right
people AEuropeansD weren't present there%
A weird conclusion from you, because you have not presented anything to disprove the steppe
hypothesis. You cannot disprove the linguistic and archaeological results - ignoring them or
claiming them unscientifc is |ust another proof of your ignorance and lack of knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
(o, based on that, where do you think modern $ndo-European speakers of
Europe got most of their genetics (till from the steppe
That is irrelevant. They got most of their culture and their language from the
steppe.Genetic results cannot disprove this.
2012-02-26, 11:48
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
,e all know that it is not .entral Europem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
All the thousands of historical linguists know what $ know%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
Please, donJt make a fool of yourself% <D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
gou know this, too W you are #ust too la*y and stubborn to understand%
I observe certain deterioration of the quality of your arguments.
TruthSeeker
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$ obser'e certain deterioration of the 9uality of your arguments%
Must be tired of fghting 'trolls', 'imbecils', 'idiots' - that somehow don't fght back :lol:
What about them being tired as well?
2012-02-26, 13:03
Wo|ewoda
Once again about the postulated Semitic-proto-IE contacts as a "proof" of the Steppe origin of the latter :
Quote:
Originally Posted by !"!PED!A
Higration from Arabia into the fertile crescent has been a constant pattern of
human mo'ement in the Hiddle East since anti9uity% As such, the Ara/ian
peninsula has lon. /een accepted as the ori.inal Semitic :rheimat
/) a ma#orit) of scholars.P1RPBRP5RP7R Older theories positing Hesopotamia
as the (emitic homeland were se'erely undermined by the identi:cation of
the non-(emitic (umerian culture in Hesopotamia in the late ;0th century,
which is now generally belie'ed to ha'e predated the (emitic culture in
Hesopotamia by many centuries% A mainstream &ie$ no$ada)s
maintains that the frst $a&e of Semitic-speakers infltrated
;esopotamia in the frst half of the third millennium 'C.
How could a 4th millenium Steppe people have a contact with a language family not present even
in Mesopotamia until 3rd millenium? There must be something very wrong with this argument.
2012-02-26, 13:33
TruthSeeker
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
Once again about the postulated (emitic-proto-$E contacts as a ]proof] of
the (teppe origin of the latter <
&ow could a Bth millenium (teppe people ha'e a contact with a language
family not present e'en in Hesopotamia until 1rd millenium -here must be
something 'ery wrong with this argument%
All the arguments 'pro and contra' are so scattered troughout the thread.
Can anyone clearly formulate the 'pros and cons' at this point?
The only one trying to keep track of in|ections is Elias, so he is the keeper of some valuable hints
to the knowledge.
'Idiot', 'Illiterate' arguments are not accepted.
To break the viscious circle of inbred carols:)
2012-02-26, 13:41
Humanist
Elias, ever come across this fella's blog entry: Proto-Semitic as a second language
Image from the Paleoglot article.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Fp1TvPT3pZ...deLanguage.|pg
2012-02-26, 15:11
EliasAlucard
9 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humanist
3isagreeing with the man is :ne% "laming is unnecessary%
He's the one doing all the Jaming actually, calling Assyrians an inbred population and saying
we're Semiticised Armenians (it's the other way around; Armenians are Indo-Europeanised
Assyrians and/or Hurro-Urartians, but he has an agenda to place PIE as close as possible to
Greece, so this fact about Armenians doesn't gel well with his Anatolianist IE agenda).
If Dienekes is not interested in really kno'ing who the proto-Indo-Europeans were then the
Anatolian hypothesis is all fne. As far as I'm concerned, his ability (or lack thereof) to choose the
most scientifcally accurate scenario in proto-urheimats is severely Jawed, and the longer he
keeps this up, the more he will damage his own credibility, because I will be there pointing out all
the inconsistencies and Jaws in his conclusions about Anatolian urheimat for PIE.
Polako is not without his Jaws on this issue either, and I'm not sure how many books Polako has
read on the PIE urheimat discourse, but Polako is defnitely not as bad as Dienekes. Dienekes is
sort of like those Finns who think proto-Uralic was spoken in Finland or Estonia.
Now I know some of you are going to say, "BUT ELIAS, YOU FUCKING NON-WHITE
CHRISTIAN ARAB, YOU'RE NO DIFFERENT BECAUSE YOU THINK PROTO-AFROASIATIC
WAS SPOKEN IN ANATOLIA, LOL!!!!!!!!!11one", and to these detractors I say: no, I am
diferent in this context, because there are very, very good arguments proto-Afro-Asiatic actually
was spoken in either the Fertile Crescent or Anatolia, and in fact, the arguments that it
supposedly was spoken in "Africa" by proto-Negroids are the weaker arguments.
Let me explain something very important to you all about language families: linguistic diversity
and haplogroup diversity can never trump linguistic palaeontology in signifcance. Never. Either
the linguistic diversity and haplogroup diversity and autosomal DNA are in agreement with the
linguistic palaeontology of said language family, or it's not and you'll have to look for new genes
and search after possibly earlier dialects/languages of the same language family that were
replaced later on.
Fortunately for Mallory and Polako, R-M17 is largely compatible with the Kurgan theory, although
neither Polako nor Mallory seem to understand this? Perhaps because Polako ignores the
linguistic evidence (which Mallory is aware of) and Mallory ignores the genetic evidence (which
Polako is aware of). It's only a matter of time before population geneticists nd ancestral
Y-DNA R1a in the steppes.And once that happens, both Polako and Dienekes (es*ecially,
Dienekes!) are going to eat up their own words :sly:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
One thing $''e learned from all of this is that archeology is not scienti:c at
all%
That's like saying tectonics, the fossil record or ancient DNA (which is archaeogenetics!) aren't
scientifc either.
Archaeology isn't without problems, and sure, some pseudo-scientifc issues arise when Indo-
Europeanists speculate and go on and on and pull conclusions out of their assholes about pot
types and boring, irrelevant shit like that. But early expansive Indo-European cultures such as the
Tocharians, did leave traces of their material culture in the archaeological record, and the
Afanasievo culture goes well in hand with their sudden expansion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
@enes show strong prehistoric contacts between .entral Europe and the
Hiddle East, and .entral Europe and the steppe%
So what's the problem then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
(o there's no need for a steppe hypothesis anymore, especially as the right
people AEuropeansD weren't present there%
Is that so?
Most settlements of the Tripolye B period, even large ones, continued to dispose of their dead in
unknown ways. But inhumation graves appeared in or at the edge of a few Tripolye B1 settlement
sites. A grave in the settlement of Nezvisko contained a man with a low skull and broad,
thick-boned face like those of the steppe peoplea type of skull-and-face conguration
called Proto-Europoid by Eastern European physical anthropologists. Tripolye, Varna,
and Gumelnia people generally had taller heads, narrower faces, and more gracile facial
bones, a confuguration called Mediterranean.19
- Anthony, David W., The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the
Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, ISBN: 069114818X, pp. 234-235
And:
Sredni Stog skull types also exhibited new traits. The DDII population had been a single
homogeneous type, with a very broad, thick-boned face of the Proto-Europoid conguration.
- Anthony, David W., The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the
Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, ISBN: 069114818X, p. 245
And:
The people buried in Novodanilovka graves in the Pontic steppes were wide-faced Proto-Europoid
types, like the dominant element in Sredni Stog graves, whereas at least some of those buried in
Suvorovo graves such as Giurgiulesti had narrow faces and gracile skulls, suggesting
intermarriage with local Old European people.42
- Anthony, David W., The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the
Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, ISBN: 069114818X, p. 253
And:
Cernavoda I Jat graves also appeared at the Braili|a cemetery, where the males had wide Proto-
Europoid skulls and faces like the steppe Novodanilovka population, and the females had
gracile Mediterranean faces, like the Old European Gumelnitsa population.
- Anthony, David W., The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the
Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, ISBN: 069114818X, p. 261
And from Mallory:
In contrast to the physical type of their neighbors, the Afanasievo people have repeatedly been
classied as Europoids by Soviet anthropologists, who nd their closest parallels with the
Yamnaya populations of the Pontic-Caspian.Traditionally, Soviet archaeologists have dated the
Afanasievo culture to the mid-third millennium BC; however, radiocarbon dates indicate that this
culture probably began before 3000 BC and then continued throughout much of the third millennium.
From the above, it is not dicult to understand why archaeologists have often associated
the Afanasievo culture with the Pontic-Caspian. Similarities in burial ritual, material culture,
economy and even physical type all point towards the Pontic-Caspian."
- J.P. Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology, and Myth, ISBN
050005052X, p. 225
So Polako, my dear old anthro friend, tell me, what kind of Y-DNA do you think these "wide-faced proto-
Europoid skulls" will come up as once tested? I can't be certain of course, since scepticism is a healthy
scientifc approach, but if I had to bet on it, I'd guess their Y-DNA was all R1a and ancestral to that of the
Scythians in Andronovo and also all the R1a you have in Poland today, and I wouldn't be surprised if you'd
fnd some Z93 in the Yamnaya culture too.
It's not without reason I wrote this in the other thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
-he proto-$ndo-Europeans looked something like a mi) of Polako and >rad
Pitt Athe hea'y, ma)ed out #aws especiallyD%
^^ I wasn't implying you're as good-looking as Brad Pitt. What I was implying is that the proto-
Indo-Europeans were R1a, light haired and blue eyed etc. and indeed, you do have much in
common with them, but they also had traits that can be found in north-west Europeans such as
Brad Pitt (his |aws). Occasionally, such traits can be seen in Kurds and other non-Europeans like
that Kurdish faggot "Zyzz". I Googled some pictures I could think of what the proto-Indo-European
looked like, pay attention to the |aws:
Attachment 113965
Attachment 113966
Attachment 113967
Attachment 113968
Attachment 113969
Tough less protruding, even the women have wide |aws:
Attachment 113970
Attachment 113971
Attachment 113972
Compare with the so called "Nordic Iranian" skull, I believe this description is from John Lawrence
Angel if I'm not mistaken, notice the |aws:
Attachment 113973
^^ I think these |aws must have been present in the proto-Indo-Europeans, because sexual
selection amongst women favours wide |aws as a masculine trait, and I don't think it's a
coincidence Denise Richards and Doutzen Kroes resemble each other so much and are both
beautiful. This is completely my own hypothesis, and I know it sounds like embellishment, but I
think human beauty defnitely helped the Indo-European language family thrive, because the non-
Indo-European tribes around them must have been willing to emulate their culture and language
because ultimately they also wanted to be beautiful themselves. We can see this today in
Koreans who resort to eye surgery in order to remove their epicantic fold and Negroes
straightening their hair in order to look Caucasian:
Tyra Banks-Asian Eyelid Surgery: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOcSJSJWD60
And in old school eastern colonies of the proto-Indo-Europeans, like Iran, nose |obs :D:
Iran: Nose Job Capital Of World: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-692495.html
And in other old school PIE colonies like India, skin bleaching ;):
India's unbearable lightness of being: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8546183.stm
Interestingly, we Semites and Afro-Asiatics in general (including our inferior mulatto brethren in
Somalia), have been the most potent language family capable of not only resisting but also
re|ecting Indo-European culture and decreasing its dominance in our home regions:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ntries.svg.png
^^ Indo-European languages have been spoken for a long time in MENA by Semites during
imperial Macedonia/Persia/Rome, but they never seriously managed to replace the indigenous
non-IE languages (most of which were Afro-Asiatic), except for Aryan, which did replace Elamite
(predictably, a non-Afro-Asiatic language).
No wonder why the Nazis had this "Aryans" vs "Semites" dualistic world-view :evilgrin:
Point here is, Indo-Europeanisation is exactly like Mallory said, an on-going *rocess:
The expansion of the Indo-European languages was not completed by the Bronze or Iron
Ages but has been an ongoing process which continues to the present.The rise of Europe
and its colonial extensions into Africa, Australia and the New World carried English, Spanish,
Portuguese and French into new lands where they are still assimilating the speakers of native
languages. And in Asia, Russian is continuing to spread across the eastern territories of the Soviet
Union.Over a period of 6,000 years we have witnessed the emergence and expansion of a
language family until it embraces nearly half the population of this planet."
- J.P. Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology, and Myth, ISBN
050005052X, p. 265
What Mallory failed to point out, however, is that Indo-Europeanisation is not merely a linguistic phenomenon
in nature; it's also very much racial dominance. It's about the supremacy of the Caucasian race in making
non-Europids not only shifting to our languages, but also emulating our facial features, cultures, religions and
so on. They sayimitation is the sincerest form of 2attery, and something else has to explain the continuous
expansion of Indo-European languages; a package that made this language family attractive for the non-IE
populations to pick up.
And the only ones capable of re|ecting Indo-European supremacy are their historically most powerful rivals
and close relatives: the Afro-Asiatics (by that I obviously don't mean the mulatto Afro-Asiatic speakers).
So what Polako has to understand is that the fragmentation of proto-Indo-European culture didn't mean only
Poles or Slavs totally inherited everything in phonetic structure, grammar, vocabulary and physical type and
genes from the PIE folks, whereas Germanics, Indo-Iranians etc. only inherited the creole variants of the PIE
language and not much else. Archaic traits from the proto-Indo-Europeans in both language and genes are
distributed all over Europe and Asia (especially Europe; defnitely more so in Europe, because PIE originated
in Europe and European wogs were less genetically foreign to the PIE tribe than Dravidians and Elamites
were). It doesn't mean all blonde and blue eyed people are perfect phenotypical replicas of the proto-Indo-
Europeans. The proto-Indo-Europeans did not at all resemble Humanist for example, and there are blond and
blue eyed Scandinavians today who would look very foreign if compared with the physical type of original PIE
tribe. But the PIE tribe was light haired, light skinned and light eyed.
Traits such as wide |aws, wide faces and so on are proto-Indo-European traits. They must be. I myself have
weak |aws, and I have yet to see Assyrians with maxed out |aws (even the Assyrians who are 190 cm don't
have maxed out |aws). We Assyrians have one of the lowest "north European" components of all Europids. I
don't think that's a coincidence.
Here's what Polako has to understand about Y-DNA R1a1a:
Archaeology can ofer nothing new to the study of Proto-Indo-European civilization. For any
candidate culture advanced by archaeologists as the Proto-Indo-European culture, only two types of
evidence can be ofered: evidence that conforms to the evidence ofered by linguists, which will be
tautological (although helpful as support and external validation), or evidence that difers from the
linguistic evidence, which will then call into question whether the candidate ought not to be re|ected in
favor of another that better fts the linguistic evidence."
- Bruce Lincoln 1981
^^ If the archaeological material culture and genetic signatures are inconsistent with the linguistic evidence,
then they can both be safely disregarded. The linguistic evidence always has the highest priority. Basically, it
goes like this:
1) Linguistic evidence (this includes linguistic palaeontology, Centum-Satem divisions etcetera).
2) Population genetics (both modern and ancient demographic structures).
3) Archaeology (material culture, burial styles and the like).
4) Animal genetics (cattle, horses and shit like that. This could possibly corroborate the demographic
movements of the proto-Indo-European; for example, as you know, domesticated horse Y-DNA has very little
diversity and comes from more or less one single lineage, whereas domesticated horse female lineages have
a lot of variation; Anthony touched upon this in his book but ignored population genetics :whoco:).
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
Once again about the postulated (emitic-proto-$E contacts as a ]proof] of
the (teppe origin of the latter <
&ow could a Bth millenium (teppe people ha'e a contact with a language
family not present e'en in Hesopotamia until 1rd millenium -here must be
something 'ery wrong with this argument%
That Wikipedia excerpt is a good example of the inherent Jaws of Wikipedia. Proto-Semitic
urheimat in "Arabia" was for a long time "accepted" without any real evidence. When geneticists
noticed the highest variation back in 2009 of J-P58 in northern Mesopotamia amongst Assyrians,
it became very clear that proto-Semitic urheimat must have been in the north, especially as J-P58
reaches high frequency and low variation in the Arabian peninsula, |ust as there's basically only
one Semitic language in Arabia: Arabic. Historically, all the diferent Semitic languages have been
in the north, above Arabia, in the Fertile Crescent.
So if you care about intellectual honesty you should drop this proto-Semitic didn't exist in the
Levant/Mesopotamia because it somehow was in Arabia nonsense, because that's as likely as
saying Indo-European originated in India.
2012-02-26, 16:04
Silesian
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
Once again about the postulated (emitic-proto-$E contacts as a ]proof] of
the (teppe origin of the latter <
&ow could a Bth millenium (teppe people ha'e a contact with a language
family not present e'en in Hesopotamia until 1rd millenium -here must be
something 'ery wrong with this argument%
"The Semitic family is a member of the larger Afroasiatic family, all of whose other fve or more
branches are based in Africa. Largely for this reason, the ancestors of Proto-Semitic speakers
are believed by many to have frst arrived in the Middle East from Africa, possibly as part of the
operation of the Saharan pump, around the late Neolithic.[7][8] Diakonof sees Semitic originating
between the Nile Delta and Canaan as the northernmost branch of Afroasiatic. Blench even
wonders whether the highly divergent Gurage indicate an origin in Ethiopia (with the rest of
Ethiopic Semitic a later back migration). However, an opposing theory is that Afroasiatic
originated in the Middle East, and that Semitic is the only branch to have stayed put; this view is
supported by apparent Sumerian and Caucasian loanwords in the African branches of
Afroasiatic.[9] A recent Bayesian analysis of alternative Semitic histories supports the latter
possibility and identifes an origin of Semitic languages in the Levant around 3,750 BC with a
single introduction from southern Arabia into Africa around 800 BC.[10]"
Alternatively why not Sumerian loanwords in the Steppe region; if Semitic language spread in one
direction why not all directions?
2012-02-26, 16:43
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silesian
Alternati'ely why not (umerian loanwords in the (teppe regionY if (emitic
language spread in one direction why not all directions
Because Sumerian was a less northern language than not only proto-Semitic but also proto-Afro-
Asiatic. And Sumerian never became a ma|or and inJuential language family. It was on the verge
of extinction by the Akkadians already when proto-Indo-European began diversifying.
And those are not actually Sumerian and Caucasian loanwords in the African branches; those are
shared lexical cognates between Afro-Asiatic (not Semitic but really PAA), Caucasian, Elamite,
Sumerian and possibly also Dravidian. Important to understand here is that it's not |ust the African
branches of Afro-Asiatic that have Sumerian and Caucasian cognates, but Sumerian in itself has
a proto-Afro-Asiatic substratum. This is decisive and conclusive evidence that sets the Afro-
Asiatic urheimat in the Middle East, and this is what all the anti-intellectuals refuse to understand
because they have their ridiculous dogma yet they think they're all ob|ective and shit when they
say proto-Afro-Asiatic originated in Ethiopia/Somalia :whoco:
2012-02-26, 22:02
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
3ienekes is sort of like those "inns who think proto-4ralic was spoken in
"inland or Estonia%
This is extremely bad analogy as Proto-Uralic (the western dialect) was spoken in Finland. This
does not mean that Finland is the Uralic urheimat.
2012-02-27, 12:37
Heladageniskogen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$t's becoming increasingly ob'ious through a3NA that Neolithic migrant
groups to Europe were genetically 'ery hetero*ygous% -hey were also
usually 'ery small, so they dominated certain areas for a time, and then
disappeared without much of a trace%
I would say its the opposite, the earliest Neolithic migrants seem to be almost exclusive G2a while
later migrant groups where either exclusively R1b or R1a. Not when it comes to mtDNA perhaps
but mtDNA does not have much to do with ethnic identities, languages and such seeing all
societies (and especially the Indo-European ones) where patriarchal. Eg marauding men from
diferent tribes stole lots of women from everywhere and created new ethnic groups. Not to
mention women where traded both as slaves and as wives (for political alliances and whatnot) all
over the place.
Quote:
Ieep in mind, on the &ungarian and 4krainian steppe they carried lots of
(iberian and e'en East Asian lineages% On the other hand in .entral Europe
it seems mt3NA N;a was common for a time, and then largely died o+% $n
$berian Neolithic groups, mt3NA & was pre'alent, and the North European
lactose tolerance allele was also found there%
"unnily enough, the .orded ,are and early Androno'o results were most
similar to those of the early Neolithic $berians Aapart from the appearance of
mt3NA . in Androno'o, which was ob'iously a result of passing through
prehistoric 4kraineD%
(o, based on that, where do you think modern $ndo-European speakers of
Europe got most of their genetics (till from the steppe
Well, the steppe people did not have to be spawned out of the steppes. They could have been
normal Neolithic wogs, but they (the Indo-Europeans) spread from the steppes after comming
here not from deep in Central Europe. Why? Because archaeological and linguistic evidence says
so and I think genetics does not really disapprove either.
I mean the "steppe" aint bloody Kazakhstan, its basically Eastern Europe. What is so wrong about
Ukraine they can't have lived there but must have lived |ust a few days |ourney more to the west?
If the rival hypothesis said they where from Mongolia, okay maybe then it would not make sense,
but the Pontic Caspian steppe is close to the "genetic homeland" and if the "cultural" and
"linguistic" homeland is there, I don`t see why that`s not the right place?
This is how I picture their migrations:
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg196...png&res=medium
Red is pre-proto-Indo-European or Indo-Anatolian. Eg the wog blueprint that became proto-Indo-
Europeans.
Yellow is the true proto-Indo-European urheimat.
Green is proto-northwest IE, basically Corded Ware and their ofspring cultures and languages,
Balto-Slavic, Germanic, Celtic, (Italic?) and so on.
(Your model is the red arrow going straight to the green zone?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
(o Polako, my dear old anthro friend, tell me, what kind of g-3NA do you
think these ]wide-faced proto-Europoid skulls] will come up as once tested $
can't be certain of course, since scepticism is a healthy scienti:c approach,
but if $ had to bet on it, $'d guess their g-3NA was all R;a and ancestral to
that of the (cythians in Androno'o and also all the R;a you ha'e in Poland
today, and $ wouldn't be surprised if you'd :nd some /01 in the gamnaya
culture too%
The skulls (and the lack of cultural Jow) is the huge mystery that annoys me and does not make
sense with the otherwise excellent Neolithic model and who their current descendants are.
Basically if the original 100% R1a carrying Indo-Europeans where "proto-Europoid" then the
Mesolithic model should be true and either the Indo-Europeans did like in India and diminished
autosomally while leaving their y-DNA high (some north Indians have like 70% R1a I think but I
doubt they are even close to 35% North European) or time has simply worn down this and it can't
be traced today and that's why their descendants are mostly "Neolithic" today even in Ukraine
and such places. (Question for those who know; Is there any FST-index or something non
allosomal from old remains from the steppe?).
Thinking about it, it honestly seems as the Mesolithish model is the best
+Old European skulls diferent from their "modern" Neolithic neighbours, later mixes with them,
especially the females.
+No good trace of physical migration to their lands.
The only drawback is that is does not ft with modern DNA, but that can be explained.
Could be that they simply looked rough, they did not have to be "proto-Europeans" genetically, tho
could they really be that diferent from other Neolithic peoples? Then again say Slavs and
Germanics look totally diferent despite living next to each other and having roughly the same
origin.
2012-02-27, 14:42
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helada.enisko.en
$ mean the ]steppe] aint bloody Ia*akhstan, its basically Eastern Europe%
,hat is so wrong about 4kraine they can't ha'e li'ed there but must ha'e
li'ed #ust a few days #ourney more to the west $f the ri'al hypothesis said
they where from Hongolia, okay maybe then it would not make sense, but
the Pontic .aspian steppe is close to the dgenetic homelandX and if the
dculturalX and ]linguistic] homeland is there, $ donJt see why thatJs not the
right place
It doesn't look like Ukraine. It looks more like Mongolia:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Kurgan_map.png
;)
2012-02-27, 14:55
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helada.enisko.en
$ would say its the opposite, the earliest Neolithic migrants seem to be
almost e)clusi'e @La while later migrant groups where either e)clusi'ely
R;b or R;a% Not when it comes to mt3NA perhaps but mt3NA does not ha'e
much to do with ethnic identities, languages and such seeing all societies
Aand especially the $ndo-European onesD where patriarchal% Eg marauding
men from di+erent tribes stole lots of women from e'erywhere and created
new ethnic groups% Not to mention women where traded both as sla'es and
as wi'es Afor political alliances and whatnotD all o'er the place%
Yes, but they didn't come from the steppe. They entered the steppe.
And I don't know how late they made it into Europe, but R1a was in Europe 4700 YBP, and from
isotope analysis, we know they were locals.
My opinion is that the right Neolithic samples haven't been tested yet to reveal R1a or R1b at an
earlier timeframe in Europe. I think that very specifc remains have to be tested to fnd particular
haplogroups.
Otherwise, I fnd it diHcult to explain how it is that European groups with very high levels of R1a
and even R1b have the lowest autosomal aHnity to the Middle East and Caucasus today, apart
from the N1c-loaded hunter gatherer descendant Finnics and Balts.
I know that founder efect and genetic drift can work their magic, but not across a whole continent
in multiple groups in exactly the same way.
Quote:
$ mean the ]steppe] aint bloody Ia*akhstan, its basically Eastern Europe%
,hat is so wrong about 4kraine they can't ha'e li'ed there but must ha'e
li'ed #ust a few days #ourney more to the west $f the ri'al hypothesis said
they where from Hongolia, okay maybe then it would not make sense, but
the Pontic .aspian steppe is close to the dgenetic homelandX and if the
dculturalX and ]linguistic] homeland is there, $ donJt see why thatJs not the
right place
You can call it Kazakhstan, or even Mongolia if you wish, since you're referring to Neolithic and
Bronze Age Ukraine. It was Eurasia back then.
2012-02-27, 21:04
Bohemian Rhapsody
Hittite, the frst language to branch of from Proto-Indo-European fts best with the Pontic Steppe theory.
2012-02-27, 23:36
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$ obser'e certain deterioration of the 9uality of your arguments%
No, my arguments remain the same. I |ust add some hard talk to them, because you people
cannot understand rational arguments alone - you are blind to them. I thought that I might try
another strategy, then: to make you to be ashamed of your stubborn blindness. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
&ow could a Bth millenium (teppe people ha'e a contact with a language
family not present e'en in Hesopotamia until 1rd millenium -here must be
something 'ery wrong with this argument%
Here you see how blind and stubborn people I have to discuss with!
I have already told you that the lexicostatistic principle is not valid and that the loanwords alone
can prove that Proto-Semitic and Proto-Indo-European were contemporaneous, and still you act
like you never even read my messages.
What more can I say?
How can I make you understand? Or even remember what has been said?
"Idiot"? "Stupid"? "Blind"? "Troll"?
Please tell me, how we can make Wo|ewoda understand scientifc arguments?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elias
$t's only a matter of time before population geneticists :nd ancestral g-3NA
R;a in the steppes%
I know. Or some other R1a1 subgroup which better fts the IE expansions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elias
VV $f the archaeological material culture and genetic signatures are
inconsistent with the linguistic e'idence, then they can both be safely
disregarded% -he linguistic e'idence always has the highest priority%
Indeed! I cannot understand what is wrong with our Poles here, because they cannot understand
this basic scientifc principle which I have repeated about thousand times here.
2012-02-28, 00:10
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
$ndeedm $ cannot understand what is wrong with our Poles here, because they
cannot understand this basic scienti:c principle which $ ha'e repeated about
thousand times here%
What I fnd amazing in all this is Dienekes. He's worse than all the Poles here; unlike the Poles, he
has no excuse for his state of ignorance. He's been blogging about anthropology and the
humanities like what, a decade or something now? And unlike Wo|ewoda, Dienekes seems to
have read Mallory and Anthony (or has he?), he subscribes to peer-reviewed |ournals and so on,
yet here I come (and mind you, anthropology to me is more like a relaxed and casual hobby) and
read only two books on PIE and I did that a few months ago, and yet I understand the obvious
that somehow Dienekes |ust doesn't get: linguistic palaeontology.
Just look at this shit:
Indo-European origins: Neolithic Anatolia still the best
hypothesis : http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04...neolithic.html
Can you believe it?
Linguistic palaeontology is hard-coded evidence in the very heart of the language family. You
can't say Indo-Iranian languages (including its subgroups like Nuristani and Indo-Aryan) are
Middle Eastern or South Asian languages when they have a Jora and fauna vocabulary that
makes them compatible with the climate and environment of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and
likewise you can't say Hittite is an Anatolian language when unlike other Indo-European
languages it has a Hattic substratum. And you can't set the separation of Hittite from PIE to 6,000
BC when the wheel wasn't invented, because Hittite has the word for wheel.
He can't be this stupid. He has to be intellectually dishonest if he goes on and on about how
Anatolia is the urheimat |ust because Hittite is the oldest split and ignores the linguistic
palaeontology. There was a time when Dienekes could make astute observations, but when he
throws in his Greek nationalist agenda into the mix, then he's useless and very prone to error.
After a while on race forums, you become very disillusioned; all the "highbrow" posters you
thought were all erudite and shit when you started out, the more knowledge on the topic you
obtain yourself, the more you realise they were all morons who never knew what they were talking
about.
2012-02-28, 00:27
Palisto
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
!inguistic palaeontology is hard-coded e'idence in the 'ery heart of the
language% gou can't say $ndo-$ranian languages Aincluding its subgroups like
Nuristani and $ndo-AryanD are Hiddle Eastern or (outh Asian languages
when the) ha&e a Tora and fauna &oca/ular) that makes them
compati/le $ith the climate and en&ironment of the Pontic-Caspian
steppe,
1. Can you name the specifc Jora and fauna you are referring to?
2. Is climate change within the last millennia addressed in this thought?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
and likewise you can't say &ittite is an Anatolian language when unlike other
$ndo-European languages it has a &attic substratum% And you can't set the
separation of &ittite from P$E to 7,666 >. when the wheel wasn't in'ented,
because &ittite has the word for wheel%
1. How do you know that the wheel was not invented 6,000 BC?
2. How do you know that the term for wheel did not spread independently, similar to "automobile"
or "telephone" nowadays?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
&e can't be this stupid% &e has to be intellectually dishonest if he goes on
and on about how Anatolia is the urheimat #ust because &ittite is the oldest
split and ignores the linguistic palaeontology% -here was a time when
3ienekes could make astute obser'ations, but when he throws in his @reek
nationalist agenda into the mi), then he's useless and 'ery prone to error%
After hearing from you for so many times how important linguistic palaeontology and Mallory is, I
decided to buy and read it and make up my own mind about it.
2012-02-28, 01:46
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palisto
;% .an you name the speci:c ?ora and fauna you are referring to
Yes. This is what Dienekes doesn't want you to know, and this is what those anti-intellectual,
racial inferiority complexed, ARyan ARmenians faggots, are too dense to understand:
Most linguists at least agree that the fauna and Jora designated by the reconstructed vocabulary are
temperate-zone types (birch) otter) beaver) lynx) bear) horse), not Mediterranean (no cy*ress)
olive) or laurel) and not tropical (no monkey) ele*hant) *alm) or *a*yrus). The roots
for horse and bee are most helpful. Bee andhoney are very strong reconstructions based on cognates
in most Indo-European languages. A derivative of the term for honey, *medhu-, was also used for an
intoxicating drink, mead, that probably played a prominent role in Proto-Indo-European rituals.
Honeybees were not native east of the Ural Mountains, in Siberia, because the hardwood trees (lime
and oak, particularly) that wild honeybees prefer as nesting sites were rare or absent east of the
Urals. If bees and honey did not exist in Siberia, the homeland could not have been there. That
removes all of Siberia and much of northeastern Eurasia from contention, including the
Central Asian steppes of Kazakhstan.The horse, *ek*wo-, is solidly reconstructed and seems
also to have been a potent symbol of divine power for the speakers of Proto-Indo-European. Although
horses lived in small, isolated pockets throughout prehistoric Europe, the Caucasus, and Anatolia
between 4500 and 2500 BCE, they were rare or absent in the Near East, Iran, and the Indian
subcontinent. They were numerous and economically important only in the Eurasian steppes. The
term for horse removes the Near East, Iran, and the Indian subcontinent from serious
contention, and encourages us to look closely at the Eurasian steppes.This leaves
temperate Europe, including the steppes west of the Urals, and the temperate parts of Anatolia and
the Caucasus Mountains.9"
- Anthony, David W., The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the
Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, ISBN: 069114818X, pp. 90-91
^^ The exclusion of the Central Asian steppes of Kazakhstan, by the way, is also why Humata was wrong
when he said Aryan identity was born in Central Asia:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humata
>ased on non-pseudoscienti:c and actual empirical linguistic and culturo-
historical e'idence, .entral Asia%
%%%
-he day people stop confusing Proto-$ndo-Europeans with Proto-$ndo-$ranians
with settled $ndo-$ranians Ai%e% AryansD will be a positi'e turn for anyone
interested in the topic% -he three ne'er were e9ui'alents and are all
separated by hundreds Aif not thousandsD of years%
^^ Problem with such a statement is that the word for "Aryan" also existed in Hittite. But anyway,
that's not the topic, I |ust had to point that out. To continue:
The temperate-zone Jora and fauna in the reconstructed vocabulary, and the absence of shared
roots for Mediterranean or tropical ora and fauna, eliminate the tropics, the
Mediterranean, and the Near East.Proto-Indo-European exhibits some very ancient links with the
Uralic languages, overlaid by more recent lexical borrowings into Proto-Uralic from Proto-Indo-
European; and it exhibits less clear linkages to some Pre- or Proto-Kartvelian language of the
Caucasus region. All these requirements would be met by a Proto-Indo-European homeland
placed west of the Ural Mountains, between the Urals and the Caucasus, in the steppes of
eastern Ukraine and Russia.
- Anthony, David W., The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the
Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, ISBN: 069114818X, pp. 99
And Sanskrit has the word mead, I take it you know what mead is made of? That's right nigga, honey;
A detailed analysis of this and other material has led Jaan Puhvel to propose a Proto-Indo-European
myth and ritual which involved the mating of a fgure from the royal class with a horse from which
ultimately sprung the famous equine divine twins. He ofers some additional linguistic support for
such a ritual in the very name of the Indic ceremony, the asvamedha. This derives from the Proto-
Indo-European 9ek'o-meydho `horse-drunk`, attesting a ritual which included both a horse and
drunkenness. This is quite comparable to the personal name Epomeduos which is found in ancient
Gaul and appears to derive from 9ek'o-medu- `horse-mead`. The modern English mead is
transparently part of the same series that gives us Sanskrit madhu-, Greek methy, Old Church
Slavonic medu, Lithuanian medus, Old Irish mid, and Tocharian B mit, all of which provide us with our
word for the Proto-Indo-European alcoholic and ritual drink 9medhu, `mead`. Hence, both the Indic
and Celtic worlds still preserve the ancient Proto-Indo-European name of a horse-centred ceremony
involving intoxication."
- J.P. Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology, and Myth, ISBN
050005052X, p. 136
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashvame...ean_comparison
But for those of you who still don't get it, allow me to spoon-feed you the conclusion: Avestan and its sister
language Sanskrit, are not native to the modern geographical borders of "Iran" and "India"; they were brought
there from the Pontic-Caspian steppe and replaced native languages such as Elamite and various Dravidian
languages (some of which are still spoken in India).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palisto
L% $s climate change within the last millennia addressed in this thought
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palisto
;% &ow do you know that the wheel was not in'ented 7,666 >.
Because if it were, you would expect evidence of wheels from that time, or radically diferent
cultural movements, like Afro-Asiatic in Zimbabwe, Siberia or something like that. Moreover,
Indo-European languages wouldn't at all exist today, because whichever non-IE people invented
the wheel would have taken advantage of this technology in much the same way descendants of
the proto-Indo-Europeans displaced other language families throughout Europe and Asia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palisto
L% &ow do you know that the term for wheel did not spread independently,
similar to ]automobile] or ]telephone] nowadays
It can't have spread independently when they all use the same cognate for wheel. When you can
reconstruct the word for wheel in most Indo-European languages to *kwekwlo- then it's highly
unlikely all the daughter languages independently use similar words with similar meaning (rotate,
circle, revolve or whatever) to refer to the same technology. A simpler, more parsimonious
explanation is that the proto-Indo-Europeans themselves called the wheel *kwekwlo-.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palisto
After hearing from you for so many times how important linguistic
palaeontology and Hallory is, $ decided to buy and read it and make up my
own mind about it%
We'll I'll be damned, someone here actually listens.
That's good though. It'll be interesting to see if you're a freethinker after that and if you abandon
the crackpot idea of Anatolian or Armenian PIE urheimats and realise that Armenians are
genetically not an Indo-European people.
2012-02-28, 06:48
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
No, my arguments remain the same%
$ #ust add some hard talk to them, because you people cannot understand
rational arguments alone W you are blind to them% $ thought that $ might try
another strategy, then< to make you to be ashamed of your stubborn
blindness% <D
&ere you see how blind and stubborn people $ ha'e to discuss withm
In other words you are starting to troll. It is good that you are at least aware of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
$ ha'e already told you that the le)icostatistic principle is not 'alid A%%%D
Let me make one thing clear, Jaska. Irrespective of what you think about yourself in this
discussion you are |ust a random guy from teh internet. So saying "I told you" can only make other
people laught at you.
Let me explain to you the rules of the game: when I quote two papers written by groups of
linguists and I add the quote from WIKIPEIDA describing the consensus view on the proto-
Semitic homeland, you must present at least one scientifc paper postulating earlier than 3rd
millenium origins of proto-Semitic. Without it no one will pay much attention to what you say.
Once again - take a look at the location of the IE Urheimat according to the Kurgan hipothesis:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Kurgan_map.png
... and meditate for a while how any Semitic language could be present in 4th millenium (not
counting Anatolian) there. You don't have to answer, |ust think about for yourself.
2012-02-28, 07:33
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
http<KKupload%wikimedia%orgKwikipedi%%%IurganNmap%png
%%% and meditate for a while how any (emitic language could be present in
Bth millenium Anot counting AnatolianD there% gou don't ha'e to answer, #ust
think about for yourself%
All of the Kurgan zone spoke PIE, not |ust the ultimate urheimat (small homeland). Khvalynsk is
actually decided as ultimate urheimat because of skeletal typology.
Kurgan II in your map are Dnieper-Donets (period II) settlements that were Kurganifed. Original
DD people were robust cromagnon-like types (proto-Europids). During the initial stage of Kurgan
II new people came from east (Khvalynsk) and mixed with them.
Khvalynskians were more gracile, longer limbed, dolicranic and this admix can be seen in Kurgan
II burials.
All of that Kurgan range however did spoke in PIE, so the region was bordering Caucasus where
you had the Semites |ust on the opposite side of the mountain range.
There is also a question where did the Khvalynskian then came, Kortland has proposed that they
would have come from northern Caucasus in the frst place and adopted a new language from the
Forest-Steppe dwellers (such as the DD folks), he calls that language as Indo-Uralic.
2012-02-28, 08:36
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
All of the Iurgan *one spoke P$E, not #ust the ultimate urheimat Asmall
homelandD%
The "Uralic" placement of the small homeland on this map (probably made of the basis of the
errorneus assumption of the existence PIE loandwords into Uralic which - thanks to Jaska - we
know were coming from the doughter languages of PIE) falls outside the native range of honey
bee, so looks unprobable on the linguistic grounds:
http://scienceblogs.com/myrmecos/Hon...tive_Range.|pg
See: Terms in Indo-European languages for some concepts related to honey, bees and hives
Quote:
$n all current $ndo-European languages e)cept the @ermanic group, words
for honey A-able ;D are based on one of only two roots Ahmtdhu and hmeli-tD,
which indicates that honey probably had a name 'ery early in the
de'elopment of these languages%
---------- Post added 2012-02-28 at 09:53 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
All of that Iurgan range howe'er did spoke in P$E, so the region was
bordering .aucasus where you had the (emites #ust on the opposite side of
the mountain range%
"You had Semites |ust on the opposite side of the montain range" i.e. in Mesopotamia and Elam
by 2000 B.C. PIEs are dated to IV millenium B.C. not counting Anatolian.
Quotes from the presentation on the spread of Semitic languages:
Quote:
>y 1666 >. Arabia was the only Eq.!4($EE!g (EH$-$. region%
Quote:
>y L666 >. (emites managed to cross into Hesopotamia and Elam% "irst
settling (umerian lands, then con9uering it L166 >.%
As everyone can see there is no possibility for the 4th millenium Steppe PIEs to have any
linguistic contacts with any Semites.
Besides to talk about any Semitic loan words in PIE coming from Mesopotamia, we would have to
frst discuss the Sumerian loadwords in PIE.
Can anyone give an example of a Sumerian loanword into PIE?
2012-02-28, 09:10
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
As e'eryone can see there is no possibility for the Bth millenium (teppe P$Es
to ha'e any linguistic contacts with any (emites%
>esides to talk about any (emitic loan words in P$E coming from
Hesopotamia, we would ha'e to :rst discuss the (umerian loadwords in P$E%
.an anyone gi'e an e)ample of a (umerian loanword into P$E
Yes, PIE word for axe, is from Sumerian via Akkadian. See Mallory ISOTIE p. 150.
You sound anti-Semitic ;)
2012-02-28, 09:29
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
As e'eryone can see there is no possibility for the Bth millenium (teppe P$Es
to ha'e any linguistic contacts with any (emites%
And oh behold! They did not have direct contact with the semites but the contacts were through
proxy language. Proxy was some sort of pre-proto-Kartvelian which was likely spoken in the Kura-
Araxes culture of Caucasus.
[imglink]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/InJuencedurartu1.PNG[/imglink]
2012-02-28, 09:34
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
-hey did not ha'e direct contact with the semites A%%D
Finally!
Do you know how much interesting things I could do if you managed to admit obvious things
somewhat quicker?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
but the contacts were through pro)y language% Pro)y was some sort of pre-
proto-Iart'elian A%%%D
"Some sort", yeah. :rolleyes:
---------- Post added 2012-02-28 at 10:54 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
ges, P$E word for a)e,
There is no PIE word for ax:
Quote:
One notable fact about the reconstructable Proto-$ndo-European le)icon is
that it
lacks a word for ^a)J A%%%D
Some loanwords/Wanderwrter in Indo-European languages.
... so it can't come from anywhere including Sumer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
A%%%D is from (umerian 'ia Akkadian%
The only time word "Sumer" appears in the paper I have |ust quoted:
Quote:
hether it has an)thin. to do $ith Akkadian pilakku
or Sumerian balak seems&er) dou/tful, since those words actually seem
to mean ^spindleJY but in any case this
^a)J word is pretty clearly a loanword%
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
(ee Hallory $(O-$E p% ;56%
Who's this Mallory guy? A linguist maybe?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
gou sound anti-(emitic YD
But please note that I am very pro-Afro-Asiatic. ;)
2012-02-28, 10:35
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
gou sound anti-(emitic YD
By the way I have |ust noticed surprising similarity between maps of J1 spread and Ottoman
Empire:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...J1_(ADN-Y).PNG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...mpire_1812.|pg
So Ottoman Turks were only agents of the J1 unifcation? :o
2012-02-28, 15:14
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
!et me e)plain to you the rules of the game< when $ 9uote two papers
written by groups of linguists and $ add the 9uote from ,$I$PE$3A describing
the consensus 'iew on the proto-(emitic homeland, you must present at
least one scienti:c paper postulating earlier than 1rd millenium origins of
proto-(emitic% ,ithout it no one will pay much attention to what you say%
Consensus view is that Proto-Semitic is as old as Proto-Indo-European! One unreliable
lexicostatistic study cannot change this - read something else than Wikipedia, which lacks much
sources. And still, even your Wikipedia gave other, older datings.
I have already explained you why lexicostatistics cannot give reliable results. If you want sources,
start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexicos...ics#Criticisms
Then you can google out criticism against Gray & Atkinson.
Why do you still act like those datings are reliable? Ask if you don`t understand what I write to
you. I know that you never read any sources anyway, so why do you ask any?
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
Once again - take a look at the location of the $E 4rheimat according to the
Iurgan hipothesis<
%%% and meditate for a while how any (emitic language could be present in
Bth millenium Anot counting AnatolianD there% gou don't ha'e to answer, #ust
think about for yourself%
That is |ust an option, not a fact. And even if Early Proto-Indo-European was spoken in the Middle
Volga area, the Semitic contacts are connected to Late Proto-Indo-European in the Pontic
steppes. Poor imagination you have, if you didn`t fgure this out. Or were you only trolling?
2012-02-28, 15:34
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
And e'en if Early Proto-$ndo-European was spoken in the Hiddle Eolga area,
the (emitic contacts are connected to !ate Proto-$ndo-European in the Pontic
steppes%
Quote:
1%-he common immediate ancestor of most of the earliest known $E proto-
languages W more or less the same static P$E searched for since the start of
$ndo-European studies, before &ittite was deciphered W is usually called !ate
P$E, also $E $$$, often simply Proto-$ndo-European, often dated some time ca%
1566-1666 >. using linguistic or archaeological models, or both%
The Theory of the Three Stages
Somewhat better than Semites at Volga, but still to early to be able to have contacts with Semitic
languages which at that time where not present in the Sumerian Mesopotamia.
If we assume that Semitic languages at that time were confned to the Levant:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...guages.svg.png
... then Southern Europe as closer to the Levant looks like a better place for such contacts than
the Steppe.
So after your reformulation the Semitic loanwords occure the be not very usefull as there is not
much diference between the Carpathian region and the Pontic steppe.
But does annyone know why Semitic loanwords in PIE are postulated, but not Afro-Asiatic?
Does it come from the fact that the there are simply not many good specialists on the AA or there
are more fundamental linguistic reasons.
2012-02-28, 18:14
aregint
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$f we assume that (emitic languages at that time were con:ned to the
!e'ant<
Somewhere in this forum (i can't remember where exactly) there was a link to this blog post that
makes a very interesting point: in Semitic was the trade language, and if trade was done mostly
by water, then there could be Semitic speakers (either native or as a second language) around
the Black Sea.
2012-02-28, 19:02
Palisto
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
ges% -his is what 3ienekes doesn't want you to know, and this is what those
anti-intellectual ARyan ARmenians racial inferiority comple)ed faggots are
too dense to understand<
Host linguists at least agree that the fauna and ?ora designated by
the reconstructed 'ocabulary are temperate-*one types Abirch, otter,
bea'er, lyn), bear, horseD, not Hediterranean Ano cypress,
oli'e, or laurelD and not tropical Ano monkey, elephant,
palm, or papyrusD% -he roots for horseand bee are most
helpful% >ee and honey are 'ery strong reconstructions based on
cognates in most $ndo-European languages%
I looked up the etymology of these words.
*bhereg- birch
Russian bereza, Lithuanian berzas, Latvian brzs, Ossetian brz, Sanskrit bhr|as, German
birihha/Birke, Old Norse b|rk, Latin frxinus, Old Prussian berse, English birce/birch, Thracian
berzas, Old Church Slavonic breza
birch (n.)
O.E. berc, beorc (also the name of the rune for "b"), from P.Gmc. *berk|on (cf. O.S. birka, O.N. brk,
Dan. birk, Swed. b|rk, M.Du. berke, Du. berk, O.H.G. birihha, Ger. Birke), from PIE *bhergo (cf.
Ossetian barz, O.C.S. breza, Rus. bereza, Lith. berZas, Skt. bhur|ah, L. farnus, fraxinus "mountain
ash"), from root *bhereg- "to gleam, white."
You can fnd birch in the Caucasus.
*udras otter
Sanskrit udra, Avestan udra, dra/udris, Lithuanian dra, Russian vydra, Ancient Greek hudros,
English oter/otter, German ottar/Otter, Old Norse otr, Latin lutra, Irish /odar; uydr/; odoirne/, Polish
wydra, Old Church Slavonic vydra, Ossetian wyrd/,Albanian lundra
otter
O.E. otr, otor, from P.Gmc. *utraz (cf. O.N. otr, Swed. utter, Dan. odder, Du. otter, Ger. Otter), from
PIE *udros, lit. "water-creature" (cf. Skt. udrah, Avestan udra "otter;" Gk. hydra "water-serpent,"
enydris "otter;" L. lutra, O.C.S. vydra, Lith. udra, O.Ir. odoirne "otter"), from root *udr- "water."
You can fnd otters in the MIddle East and India, too.
*leuk-s lynx
Ancient Greek lugks, Lithuanian lis, Latvian lusis, Old Prussian luysis, German luhs/Luchs, English
lox/--, Russian rys', Old Armenian [ntuuuntug (lusanunk), Irish lug/
lynx
mid-14c., from L. lynx (cf. Sp., It. lince), from Gk. lyngz, perhaps from PIE *leuk- "light," in reference to
its gleaming eyes or its ability to see in the dark (cf. Lith. luzzis, O.H.G. luhs, Ger. luchs, O.E. lox, Du.
los, Swed. lo "lynx").
You can fnd lynx in Anatolia.
beaver
O.E. beofor, befer (earlier bebr), from P.Gmc. *bebruz (cf. O.S. bibar, O.N. b|orr, M.Du., Du. bever,
Low Ger. bever, O.H.G. bibar, Ger. Biber), from PIE *bhebhrus, reduplication of root *bher- (3)
"brown, bright" (cf. Lith. bebrus, Czech bobr, Welsh befer; see bear (n.) for the likely reason for this).
I could not fnd any Sanskrit or Avestan word for beaver, so maybe the word beaver is a later
invention?
*hrto- bear
Ancient Greek arktos, Latin ursus, Sanskrit rksa, Persian /xers, Old Armenian upg (arj), Gaulish
Artos, Albanian ari, Kamviri ic, Ossetian rs, Welsh arth, Avestan aram, Hittite partagga, Pashto
iz/ig
bear (n.)
O.E. bera "bear," from P.Gmc. *beron, lit. "the brown (one)" (cf. O.N. b|rn, M.Du. bere, Du. beer,
O.H.G. bero, Ger. Br), from PIE *bher- (3) "bright, brown" (see brown). Greek arktos and Latin ursus
retain the PIE root word for "bear" (*rtko), but it is believed to have been ritually replaced in the
northern branches because of hunters' taboo on names of wild animals (cf. the Irish equivalent "the
good calf," Welsh "honey-pig," Lithuanian "the licker," Rus. medved "honey-eater"). Others connect
the Germanic word with Latin ferus "wild," as if it meant "the wild animal (par excellence) of the
northern woods."
Bears are known in the Middle East as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
A deri'ati'e of the term for honey, hmedhu-, was also used for an
into)icating drink, mead, that probably played a prominent role in
Proto-$ndo-European rituals% &oneybees were not nati'e east of the
4ral Hountains, in (iberia, because the hardwood trees Alime and oak,
particularlyD that wild honeybees prefer as nesting sites were rare or
absent east of the 4rals% $f bees and honey did not e)ist in (iberia, the
homeland could not ha'e been there% That remo&es all of Si/eria
and much of northeastern Eurasia from contention, includin.
the Central Asian steppes of "a4akhstan. -he horse, hekhwo-, is
solidly reconstructed and seems also to ha'e been a potent symbol of
di'ine power for the speakers of Proto-$ndo-European%
Honey bees are known in the Middle East as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
Although horses li'ed in small, isolated pockets throughout prehistoric
Europe, the .aucasus, and Anatolia between B566 and L566 >.E, they
were rare or absent in the Near East, $ran, and the $ndian
subcontinent% -hey were numerous and economically important only in
the Eurasian steppes% The term for horse remo&es the @ear East,
!ran, and the !ndian su/continent from serious contention, and
encoura.es us to look closel) at the Eurasian steppes. -his
lea'es temperate Europe, including the steppes west of the 4rals, and
the temperate parts of Anatolia and the .aucasus Hountains%0X
u Anthony, 3a'id ,%, -he &orse, the ,heel, and !anguage< &ow
>ron*e-Age Riders from the Eurasian (teppes (haped the Hodern
,orld, $(>N< 670;;BC;Cq, pp% 06-0;
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
Horses are known for a long time in the Middle East, even in Arabia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
And (anskrit has the word mead, $ take it you know what mead is made of
-hat's right nigga, honey<
A detailed analysis of this and other material has led Faan Puh'el to
propose a Proto-$ndo-European myth and ritual which in'ol'ed the
mating of a :gure from the royal class with a horse from which
ultimately sprung the famous e9uine di'ine twins% &e o+ers some
additional linguistic support for such a ritual in the 'ery name of the
$ndic ceremony, the as'amedha% -his deri'es from the Proto-$ndo-
European hekwo-meydho^horse-drunkJ, attesting a ritual which
included both a horse and drunkenness% -his is 9uite comparable to
the personal name Epomeduos which is found in ancient @aul and
appears to deri'e from hekwo-medu- ^horse-meadJ% -he modern
English mead is transparently part of the same series that gi'es us
(anskrit madhu-, @reek methy, Old .hurch (la'onic medu,
!ithuanian medus, Old $rish mid, and -ocharian > mit, all of which
pro'ide us with our word for the Proto-$ndo-European alcoholic and
ritual drink hmedhu, ^meadJ% &ence, both the $ndic and .eltic worlds
still preser'e the ancient Proto-$ndo-European name of a horse-centred
ceremony in'ol'ing into)ication%X
u F%P% Hallory, $n (earch of the $ndo-Europeans< !anguage,
Archaeology, and Hyth, $(>N 65666565Lq, p% ;17
http<KKen%wikipedia%orgKwikiKAsh'ame%%%eanNcomparison
Interesting, but I don't see the connection between this and the origin/location of PIE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
>ut for those of you who still don't get it, allow me to spoon-feed you the
conclusion< A'estan and its sister language (anskrit, are not nati'e to the
modern geographical borders of ]$ran] and ]$ndia]Y they were brought there
from the Pontic-.aspian steppe and replaced nati'e languages such as
Elamite and 'arious 3ra'idian languages Asome of which are still spoken in
$ndiaD%
Hm. Not convinced yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
>ecause if it were, you would e)pect e'idence of wheels from that time, or
radically di+erent cultural mo'ements, like Afro-Asiatic in /imbabwe, (iberia
or something like that%
I don't get it. My question was:
1. How do you know that the wheel was not invented 6,000 BC?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
Horeo'er, $ndo-European languages wouldn't at all e)ist today, because
whiche'er non-$E people in'ented the wheel would ha'e taken ad'antage of
this technology in much the same way descendants of the proto-$ndo-
Europeans displaced other language families throughout Europe and Asia%
You don't have to be the inventor of the new tool to exploit it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
$t can't ha'e spread independently when they all use the same cognate for
wheel% ,hen you can reconstruct the word for wheel in most $ndo-European
languages to hkwekwlo- then it's highly unlikely all the daughter languages
independently use similar words with similar meaning Arotate, circle, re'ol'e
or whate'erD to refer to the same technology% A simpler, more parsimonious
e)planation is that the proto-$ndo-Europeans themsel'es called the wheel
hkwekwlo-%
Maybe they all |ust had a similar word for let's say spintops and named the wheel after that.
Anyways, I think that the proto-Indo-Europeans invented the wheel but this does not answer the
question where these proto-Indo-Europeans lived.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
,e'll $'ll be damned, someone here actually listens%
-hat's good though% $t'll be interesting to see if you're a freethinker after that
and if you abandon the crackpot idea of Anatolian or Armenian P$E urheimats
and realise that Armenians are genetically not an $ndo-European people%
As I said I will read Mallory's book and will let you know how convincing it is.
---------- Post added 2012-02-28 at 11:05 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
And oh beholdm -hey did not ha'e direct contact with the semites but the
contacts were through pro)y language% Pro)y was some sort of pre-proto-
Iart'elian which was likely spoken in the Iura-Ara)es culture of .aucasus%
PimglinkRhttp<KKupload%wikimedia%orgKwikipediaKcommonsKBKB;K$n?uencedurar
tu;%PN@PKimglinkR
How do you know that the contact had to be through a proxy language?
---------- Post added 2012-02-28 at 11:16 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by are.int
(omewhere in this forum Ai can't remember where e)actlyD there was a link
to this blog post that makes a 'ery interesting point< in (emitic was the
trade language, and if trade was done mostly by water, then there could be
(emitic speakers Aeither nati'e or as a second languageD around the >lack
(ea%
I mentioned here that the Eastern Caucasus is very rich in J1*, while Semitic language speakers
are mostly J1c3.
2012-02-28, 21:49
Humanist
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palisto
$ mentioned here that the Eastern .aucasus is 'ery rich in F;h, while (emitic
language speakers are mostly F;c1%
One note about the above quoted bit. While it is true, that in sheer numbers, J1-P58 is the most
dominant lineage among Semitic-speaking people today, it does not tell the whole story, in my
opinion. Speakers of Arabic have abundant J1c3. Those who speak Aramaic, however, do not
necessarily display J1-P58 > J1* (see below). Also, to whatever extent you rely on STR variance,
J1-P58 has its highest STR variance in the north.
Redfrequencies = J1* > J1c3 (Assyrians, Ma'loula "Aramaeans," and Armenians)
Bluefrequencies = J1c3 > J1*
Black frequencies = breakdown unknown
In fact, among the minority populations, J1 (both P58 and xP58) contributes signifcantly less to
overall Y-DNA frequency, as compared to the Arab populations of today.
Map from this DNA-Forums thread.
http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/..._East_J1_2.|pg
2012-02-28, 22:07
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palisto
$ looked up the etymology of these words%
Good! Let's get down to work then, shall we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palisto
$ could not :nd any (anskrit or A'estan word for bea'er, so maybe the word
bea'er is a later in'ention
The reason why proto-Indo-Iranian lost the word for beaver, is simply because when the proto-
Aryans migrated out of their native region (Pontic-Caspian steppe) and settled in foreign places
such as Iran and India, they lost some of the original vocabulary of proto-Indo-European.
Beaver excludes Iran and India:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...eurobeaver.png
See also:
http://www.naturalhistoryonthenet.co...als/beaver.htm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palisto
>ears are known in the Hiddle East as well%
Yes, but that's not relevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palisto
&oney bees are known in the Hiddle East as well%
Yes, but that's not relevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palisto
&orses are known for a long time in the Hiddle East, e'en in Arabia%
Even if horses were domesticated in Arabia 9,000 years ago, that only means horses were
domesticated again later on by either the proto-Indo-Europeans or a geographically close culture
to the PIEs, such as the the Botai culture. Y-DNA should prove the horse domestication in Arabia
was not the same that of Yamnaya.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palisto
$nteresting, but $ don't see the connection between this and the
originKlocation of P$E%
Well, let me spoon-feed it to you then:
http://scienceblogs.com/myrmecos/Hon...tive_Range.|pg
^^ Native bee range. As you can see, it doesn't cover India, yet the Indo-Aryans of the Rig Veda
knew about honey, which efectively requires them to have come (very recently so too) from
outside of India.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palisto
&m% Not con'inced yet%
That's okay. It'll take some time before it sinks in. But I can tell you so much that if you disagree
with me, you are wrong ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palisto
$ don't get it% Hy 9uestion was<
;% &ow do you know that the wheel was not in'ented 7,666 >.
Because the wheel efectively contributed to civilisation. The oldest evidence of the wheel are
more or less simultaneous in Mesopotamia, northern Caucasus and central Europe, in the 4th
millennium BC. The words for wheel in Sumerian and Semitic seem to be loanwords from proto-
Indo-European. So this means it's highly unlikely that the wheel is older than the 4th millennium
BC, because that's when Mesopotamian civilisation began for real in Mesopotamia and Egypt,
when they got the wheel. So that sets diversifcation of proto-Indo-European to around 6,000
years of age, at its maximum extent.
Diversifcation of PIE began after the wheel was invented, but PIE was still a cohesive unit for a
millennia or two after the wheel. You can't set the age of PIE diversifcation older than the wheel,
because this word is found as related cognates in most modern Indo-European languages and
they are all reconstructible to the same PIE word.
The wheel can't be 8,000 years old, because we would then have civilisation already back in
6,000 BC since the wheel is one of the ma|or requirements for civilisation. Since the wheel is not
8,000 years old, that means proto-Indo-European cannot have begun diversifying that far back in
time. And that also means both Renfrew and Dienekes (and anyone who agrees with them) are
wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palisto
gou don't ha'e to be the in'entor of the new tool to e)ploit it%
That is true.
But in this case, inventor or not, Indo-European speakers did take advantage of the wheel and the
domesticated horse, and that is why IE languages spread so far and so fast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palisto
Haybe they all #ust had a similar word for let's say spintops and named the
wheel after that% Anyways, $ think that the proto-$ndo-Europeans in'ented
the wheel but this does not answer the 9uestion where these proto-$ndo-
Europeans li'ed%
It does, because one of the earliest evidence for wheel comes from Poland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palisto
As $ said $ will read Hallory's book and will let you know how con'incing it is%
I'm looking forward to hearing your opinion then.
And it's not |ust about if you can fnd bears in the Middle East, but it's also about what you can fnd
the Middle East which proto-Indo-European lacks words for, such as olives. It's also about where
all the reconstructible words for Jora and fauna in PIE converge in a geographic region where
they can all be found together and where other Jora and fauna not found in PIE (such as olives)
cannot be found. That's why linguistic palaeontology is so awesome and accurate, because it
narrows down the geographic range to a small urheimat region that fulfls all the lfora and fauna
requirements.
Another thing Dienekes does not compute, is the Hattic substratum in Hittite. There is no Hattic
substratum in other Indo-European daughter languages such as Germanic or Celtic. The fact that
Hittite has a Hattic substratum, ironically, is exactly why it's not a native language to Anatolia.
Likewise, Sanskrit has a Dravidian substratum which is not there in Avestan and other Indo-
European languages. This means Sanskrit and its daughter branches, are foreign to India.
To understand why this is so, I'll use Afrikaans as a case in point: Afrikaans has Bantu and
Khoisan substrates. These Negroid language substrates are lacking in not only Dutch (parent
language of Afrikaans) but also all the other Germanic languages and the rest of the Indo-
European languages. This means Afrikaans did not originate in South Africa.
Dienekes is either too stupid to fgure this out on his own in the case of Hittite, or he understands
it and intentionally ignores it because he has a Greek nationalist agenda to place PIE in Anatolia
because it's the closest he can place it to Greece. Regardless of which, he's wrong either way,
and his opinion can be disregarded on proto-Indo-European, proto-Afro-Asiatic and proto-
Semitic.
2012-03-03, 10:26
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
ges, it is% >ut it's not on the steppe or anywhere near the .aucasus%
As a result, Faska has no choice but to repeat that only linguistics can sol'e
the $ndo-European issue% -he reason he has to repeat this is because
genetics is showing a massi'e mo'ement of Europeans at the proto-$ndo-
European phase pushing into the steppe, and displacing Eurasian
populations%
>ut Faska's theory says that despite this, the language mo'ed from east to
west%
(o we ha'e a problem, because the picture fa'ored by Faska suggests an
unusual situation, in which a pressured people in the east passed on their
language to wa'es of European migrants from the west, who then took that
language and spread it to whence they came from%
I don't think there's a real problem here. The problem as I see it, is that you yourself have said you
don't care about languages because you're mostly interested in population genetics, and that sort
of contributes to the misunderstanding between you and Jaska, because although he's a linguist,
he's not ignorant of the genetic aspect, whereas you're mostly gene-centred.
Here's what you have to understand: proto-Indo-European's earliest linguistic ancestor might be
something like 25,000 years old (probably not that old although could be), and for all I care, it
could have come from Japan (i.e., if "Eurasiatic" is a valid linguistic taxon, which it probably isn't
as it is still highly controversial; heck, even Nostratic is still controversial). But when proto-Indo-
European became what it became out of Nostratic, Eurasiatic or whatever ancient language
macrofamily it branched of from, this most likely happened somwhere in the Pontic-Caspian
steppe, aka Yamnaya horizon. And that's why linguistics is so vital in understanding who the the
proto-Indo-Europeans were, because you cannot date proto-Indo-European to the upper
palaeolithic or anything like that, whereas you can arguably date proto-Afro-Asiatic to something
like 8,000 BC, but you can't do that with proto-Indo-European; it's simply not possible because
that strongly contradicts the archaeological record, and linguistic palaeontology is tightly linked
with the archaeological record.
Now, did the early population of Y-DNA R1a1a men come from Poland or further east? Or did
they come from Anatolia or the Fertile Crescent? These are all valid questions and they need
serious, scientifc answers.
But wherever they came from, they settled for some time in the Pontic-Caspian steppe. And this
is what reconstructed proto-Indo-European shows. Linguistic palaeontology is a valid tool to
identify the Jora, fauna and material culture the proto-Indo-Europeans were familiar with at the
time before they separated into various groups and their language family began diversifying. It
may be so that they themselves came from central-eastern Europe at some point, or India, but if
so, then that means they subsequently Indo-Europeanised their original R1a genepool later on
regardless of whether it was in Poland or India.
Now, I personally think Poland is a much better candidate than India both as far as the linguistic
evidence and the genetic evidence are concerned. But Poland presents problems of its own. For
example, it would make the rapid expansion of the Afanasievo culture more complicated because
it would mean they travelled even farther away from the original PIE urheimat (Poland in this
case), whereas the Pontic-Caspian steppe is signifcantly closer to Afanasievo and Andronovo.
And Afanasievo points back to Yamnaya, and Yamnaya is simply more central to all the early
Indo-European expansions such as Afanasievo, Andronovo, Sintashta, and Corded Ware.
So you'll have to explain how Poland (Corded Ware, Funnelbeaker or whatever) is a more
parsimonious geographic location than Yamnaya. And you'll also have to explain how central-
eastern Europe fts better with the linguistic evidence than Yamnaya, and if it's possible to
associate Afanasievo with any archaeological/material culture and physical type that existed in
ancient Poland.
Once they release the full genomes of the Tocharian and Scythian mummies, we will have more
data to work with and compare with modern populations. All this will be solved once they public
domain the genomes of all the Kurgan graves in Yamnaya as well.
2012-03-14, 19:29
Vetton
R1b in Anatolia is strongest in the north-east (around the Caucasus) and weakest in the south-west (supposed entry point
to Greece). Agriculture spread through the southern coast of Anatolia, not the northern one. In fact there is no known
Neolithic culture in northern Anatolian before the Starcevo-Krs-Karanovo culture in the Balkans. Based on archaeological
evidence alone, agriculture couldn't have spread from northern Anatolia to Europe.
I do not disagree that R1b is older in Anatolia than in Europe and that it ultimately came from there. But I think it much more
likely that R1b penetrated through the steppes across the Caucasus (probably during or |ust before the Maykop period).
The linguistic evidence for Indo-European languages to have spread from the steppes during the Bronze age is
overwhelming. The connection between R1a and R1b in all IE-speaking parts of the world leaves no doubt that both
haplogroups were involved in the spread of IE languages. The combined R1a and R1b's presence in Russia, Siberia,
Central Asia and South Asia, in addition to Europe and the northern Middle East all argue in favour of R1b mixing with R1a
and expanding from the steppes, following the various archaeological cultures that spread between the Dniester and Ural
during the Copper Age.
If R1b originated in Anatolia then cross over to the Caucasus and "converted" R1a population to their language, it would
also explain why the Anatolian branch of Indo-European looks so archaic and split so much earlier from the others. It would
also explain why R1a is so weak in Ukraine (R1b would have expanded from the Caucasus towards the Volga-Ural region).
There isn't a single thing that doesn't make sense. The one thing I am still hesitant about is whether R1b IE-speakers split
into two groups from Anatolia, one going north to the steppes, and the other west to the Danube valley; or did they all go
north, then a branch pushed back westward through Ukraine and to the Danube. The former explains better why Western
Europe ended up being almost only R1b (no mix with steppe people). The latter is better supported by archaeology.
It is also possible that R1b was originally found north of the Caucasus, in the southern steppes, then migrated early to
Anatolia. But that would suppose a mass exodus leaving little R1b in the steppes nowadays. It's possible though.
The PIE Urheimat is not necessary the same as the R1b1b2 homeland. I think that R1b1b2 frst appeared in northern
Anatolia, but PIE may not have developed until R1b1b2 migrated north of the Caucasus and mixed with R1a1a steppe
people. There is enough evidence that both R1b1b and R1a1a spread IE languages. The debate should rather concentrate
on whether Anatolian IE languages should be considered pre-Proto-Indo-European, archaic Proto-Indo-European or as
Indo-European as the rest. But that |ust a matter of defnition.
2012-03-14, 19:46
yankeesfan0130
well the Albanian language is over 9,000 years old and many people consider it proto-indo european
2012-03-14, 20:20
Humanist
Quote:
Originally Posted by Getton
R;b in Anatolia is strongest in the north-east Aaround the .aucasusD and
weakest in the south-west Asupposed entry point to @reeceD%
The ancestral varieties are most abundant in three places. The Caucasus (e.g. Lezgins and
Muslim Tats), Armenian Highland (among the Armenians), and NW Iran (among the ethnic
minorities, such as the S Talysh).
The area in red, below, is (roughly) the area containing the highest frequencies of R-M269 in the
region today. Approaching SW Anatolia, in the area near the N Syrian/Turkish border,
frequencies of AMH type haplotypes increase.
You can add Druze to that list, since their haplotypes are most similar to the AMH. And, their oral
traditions, and their Arabic dialect, indicate that at least a portion of the community migrated from
the area of Aleppo to more southern points in the Levant, several centuries ago.
http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/..._mapopb41c.|pg
2012-03-14, 20:43
aregint
^ R1b and R1a are three times older than PIE. Totally anachronistic.
2012-03-14, 20:50
newtoboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Getton
R;b in Anatolia is strongest in the north-east Aaround the .aucasusD and
weakest in the south-west Asupposed entry point to @reeceD% Agriculture
spread through the southern coast of Anatolia, not the northern one% $n fact
there is no known Neolithic culture in northern Anatolian before the
(tarce'o-Icrcs-Iarano'o culture in the >alkans% >ased on archaeological
e'idence alone, agriculture couldn't ha'e spread from northern Anatolia to
Europe%
$ do not disagree that R;b is older in Anatolia than in Europe and that it
ultimately came from there% >ut $ think it much more likely that R;b
penetrated through the steppes across the .aucasus Aprobably during or #ust
before the Haykop periodD% -he linguistic e'idence for $ndo-European
languages to ha'e spread from the steppes during the >ron*e age is
o'erwhelming% -he connection between R;a and R;b in all $E-speaking parts
of the world lea'es no doubt that both haplogroups were in'ol'ed in the
spread of $E languages% -he combined R;a and R;b's presence in Russia,
(iberia, .entral Asia and (outh Asia, in addition to Europe and the northern
Hiddle East all argue in fa'our of R;b mi)ing with R;a and e)panding from
the steppes, following the 'arious archaeological cultures that spread
between the 3niester and 4ral during the .opper Age%
$f R;b originated in Anatolia then cross o'er to the .aucasus and
]con'erted] R;a population to their language, it would also e)plain why the
Anatolian branch of $ndo-European looks so archaic and split so much earlier
from the others% $t would also e)plain why R;a is so weak in 4kraine AR;b
would ha'e e)panded from the .aucasus towards the Eolga-4ral regionD%
-here isn't a single thing that doesn't make sense% -he one thing $ am still
hesitant about is whether R;b $E-speakers split into two groups from
Anatolia, one going north to the steppes, and the other west to the 3anube
'alleyY or did they all go north, then a branch pushed back westward through
4kraine and to the 3anube% -he former e)plains better why ,estern Europe
ended up being almost only R;b Ano mi) with steppe peopleD% -he latter is
better supported by archaeology%
$t is also possible that R;b was originally found north of the .aucasus, in the
southern steppes, then migrated early to Anatolia% >ut that would suppose a
mass e)odus lea'ing little R;b in the steppes nowadays% $t's possible
though%
-he P$E 4rheimat is not necessary the same as the R;b;bL homeland% $ think
that R;b;bL :rst appeared in northern Anatolia, but P$E may not ha'e
de'eloped until R;b;bL migrated north of the .aucasus and mi)ed with
R;a;a steppe people% -here is enough e'idence that both R;b;b and R;a;a
spread $E languages% -he debate should rather concentrate on whether
Anatolian $E languages should be considered pre-Proto-$ndo-European,
archaic Proto-$ndo-European or as $ndo-European as the rest% >ut that #ust a
matter of de:nition%
I think you are mistaken on R1b in South Asia. The R1b that is not Turkic is probably recent
admixture from persian empires. There is no R1b in South asia.
2012-03-14, 20:57
Humanist
Quote:
Originally Posted by are.int
V R;b and R;a are three times older than P$E% -otally anachronistic%
I was responding to the gentleman's statement regarding R1b. I have never suggested a PIE
association with R1b, or for that matter, R1a.
2012-03-14, 21:12
Vetton
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
$ think you are mistaken on R;b in (outh Asia% -he R;b that is not -urkic is
probably recent admi)ture from persian empires% -here is no R;b in (outh
asia%
Oh yes there is. There are many pockets around Central Asia (notably Xin|iang, Turkmenistan,
Ta|ikistan and Afghanistan), but also in South-Asia (India, Pakistan, Iran and Nepal )
2012-03-14, 21:42
newtoboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Getton
Oh yes there is% -here are many pockets around .entral Asia Anotably
qin#iang, -urkmenistan, -a#ikistan and AfghanistanD, but also in (outh-Asia
A$ndia, Pakistan, $ran and Nepal D
Once again Turkic or Iranian admixture.
Show proof otherwise. R1b is most prevalent in the Hazara and Balochi. One group descends
from altaic nomads and the other somehow speaks a northWEST iranian language.
None of the R1b is native in the sense it isn't neolithic or came with steepe indo-iranians.
2012-03-14, 22:25
Vetton
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humanist
-he ancestral 'arieties are most abundant in three places% -he .aucasus
Ae%g% !e*gins and Huslim -atsD, Armenian &ighland Aamong the ArmeniansD,
and N, $ran Aamong the ethnic minorities, such as the ( -alyshD%
-he area in red, below, is AroughlyD the area containing the highest
fre9uencies of R-HL70 in the region today% Approachin. S Anatolia, in
the area near the N (yrianK-urkish border, fre9uencies of AH& type
haplotypes increase%
gou can add 3ru*e to that list, since their haplotypes are most similar to the
AH&% And, their oral traditions, and their Arabic dialect, indicate that at least
a portion of the community migrated from the area of Aleppo to more
southern points in the !e'ant, se'eral centuries ago%
http<KKi;607%photobucket%comKalbumsK%%%NmapopbB;c%#pg
That's Southeast Anatolia, not Southwest Anatolia.
---------- Post added 2012-03-14 at 22:48 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
Once again -urkic or $ranian admi)ture%
(how proof otherwise% R;b is most pre'alent in the &a*ara and >alochi% One
group descends from altaic nomads and the other somehow speaks a
north,E(- iranian language%
None of the R;b is nati'e in the sense it isn't neolithic or came with steepe
indo-iranians%
The Hazara are roughly a half caucasoid-half mongoloid mixture, as seen on autosomal studies
and their y-dna, their mongoloid side being from the Altaics and other populations (Siberian and
East-Asian). That's also the case of Uygurs (they have also R1a and R1b). It is also possible that
Turkic peoples were already mixed with R1a/R1b, today R1a is high in Altaics.
In fact, Proto-Turkic originated in Mongolia and southern Siberia with such nomadic tribes as the
Xiongnu. Ancient DNA tests have revealed that the Xiongnu were already a hybrid Eurasian
people 2,000 years ago, with mixed European and North-East Asian Y-DNA and mtDNA. Modern
inhabitants of the Xiongnu homeland have approximately 90% of Mongolian lineages against
10% of European ones. The oldest identifed presence of European mtDNA around Mongolia and
Lake Baikal dates back to over 6,000 years ago.
The present-day inhabitants of Central Asia, from Xin|iang to Turkey and from the Volga to the
Hindu Kush, speak in overwhelming ma|ority Turkic languages. This may be surprising as this
corresponds to the region where the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-European speakers expanded,
the Bronze-Age Andronovo culture, and the Iron-Age Scythian territory. So why is it that Indo-
European languages only survives in Slavic Russia or in the southern part of Central Asia, in
places like Ta|ikistan, Afghanistan or some parts of Turkmenistan ? Why don't the Uyghurs,
Uzbeks, Kazakhs and Kyrgyzs, or the modern Pontic-Caspian steppe people (Crimean Tatars,
Nogais, Bashkirs and Chuvashs) speak Indo-European vernaculars ? Genetically these people
do carry Indo-European R1a, and to a lesser extent also R1b, lineages. The explanation is
that Turkic languages replaced the Iranian tongues of Central Asia between the 4th and 11th
century CE.
It appears that Turkic quickly replaced the Scythian and other Iranian dialects all over Central
Asia. Other migratory waves brought more Turkic speakers to Eastern and Central Europe, like
the Khazars, the Avars, the Bulgars and the Turks. All of them were in fact Central Asian nomads
who had adopted Turkic language, but had little if any Mongolian blood. Turkic invasions
therefore contributed more to the difusion of Indo-European lineages (especially R1a1) than East
Asian ones.
Turkic languages have not survived in Europe outside the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Bulgarian
language, despite being named after a Turkic tribe, is actually a Slavic tongue with a mild Turkic
inJuence. Hungarian, sometimes mistaken for the heir of Hunnic because of its name, is in reality
an Uralic language (Magyar).
An early group of R1b1b people is thought to have migrated from Caspian Sea region to Central
Asia, where it evolved into the R1b1b1 (M73) branch. This variety of R1b occurs almost
exclusively in this Central Asian populations.
R1b1b1 probably correspond to a minority branch of R1b that integrated the R1a population in
the Volga-Ural region before the Indo-European expansion to Central and South Asia. It might be
associated with the Tocharian branch of Indo-European languages alongside haplogroup R1. The
modern inhabitants of the Tarim Basin, the Uyghurs, belong both to this R1b-M73 subclade
(about 20%) and to R1a1 (about 30%).
There is some controversy regarding the possible link between the Tarim mummies and the
Tocharian languages, a Centum branch of the Indo-European family which were spoken in the
Tarim Basin from the 3rd to 9th centuries CE. It is easy to assume that the Tarim mummies were
Proto-Tocharian speakers due to the corresponding location and the Indo-European
connection. However, the Tarim mummies predate the appearance of Tocharian by over
two millennia,and Tocharian is a Centum language that cannot be descended from the Satem
Proto-Indo-Iranian branch. Other Centum branches being all related to haplogroup R1b, and
Tocharian being the only eastern Centum language, it is possible that the Tocharian speakers is
instead associated to the Central Asian R1b1b1 (M73) subclade, also found among the modern
Uyghurs inhabiting the Tarim basin.
2012-03-15, 11:37
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
-hat is #ust an option, not a fact% And e'en if Early Proto-$ndo-European was
spoken in the Hiddle Eolga area, the (emitic contacts are connected to !ate
Proto-$ndo-European in the Pontic steppes% Poor imagination you ha'e, if you
didnJt :gure this out% Or were you only trolling
For the record via Elias's post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Da&id Anthon)
estern !ndo-European &oca/ularies contained a fe$ roots that
$ere /orro$ed from Afro-Asiatic lan.ua.es, such as the word for the
domesticated bull, htawr-, and the western gamnaya groups li'ed ne)t to the
-ripolye culture, which might ha'e spoken a language distantly deri'ed from
an Afro-Asiatic language of Anatolia% Eastern !ndo-European .enerall)
lacked these /orro$ed Afro-Asiatic roots.
Exactly as I have expected it is clear from this fragment by Anthony, that the opinions that PIE
contained borrowing from Semitic languages were simply false. Exactly as in the case of Uralic
borrowings which occurred to be from daughter dialects of PIE (namely "proto-Western Indo-
European" and proto-Indo-Iranian) and not from PIE itself here we deal with linguistic contacts
between only "Western Indo-European" and not Eastern IE. So of course any talk about "late PIE"
from the Pontic Steppe as responsible for these linguistic borrowing is probably misplaced.
Besides as I have expected we should talk - as Anthony suggests - about linguistic contacts of
IEs with Afro-Asiatic speakers not Semitic ones, what liquidates the problems produced with
apparent young age of the Semitic family. As Afro-Asiatic family is regarded to be very old and is
often linked with the spread of farming and haplogroups E1b1b, J1c3 and R1b1a-V88 then we
can imagine plenty of opportunities for Western IE to meet with Afro-Asiatic speakers in Southern
Europe. Besides as AA speakers are credited with the invention of ships:
Quote:
-he earliest knowledge of ships comes from Egyptian rock drawings dating
from 7666 >.%
... then we even have the technology which could anable AA colonisation of Southern and
Western Europe.
So to sum up this part of the discussion the arguments about the location of the PIE homeland
based on the Uralic and Semitic linguistic contacts has been invalidated. We are left with the
supposed PIE links with Kartvelian to deal with. If anyone knows any paper describing these
purported PIE-Kartvelian contacts, I would be grateful for sharing.
EliasAlucard
I think this speaks for Poland as the PIE urheimat:
Interestingly, the thinking that links the invention of the cart and the rise of civilisation with
Mesopotamia isn't actually quite backed up by archaeological evidence, either. There is actually
evidence for carts in eastern Europe, far from `civilisation`, |ust as old as that in Mesopotamia. At
Bronocice in Poland, for instance, a ceramic vase dating from 5100-5450 BC was found
showing what looks like ve four-wheeled carts, while clay models from Hungary up to 5,600
years old show clear pictures of four-wheel carts. Then there are some full-sized wooden wheels from
around the same date that have been found in Switzerland and Slovenia. And most impressive of all,
there are remains of complete wagons from the Novotitorovka culture in the Caucasus in Georgia,
also dating from maybe 5,500 years ago. The argument is that the technology of the cart was so
marvellous that it spread rapidly across Europe and Eurasia, and later on to India and China. There is
some evidence for this, interestingly, in the very word `wheel`, which is strikingly similar in languages
across Eurasia. The Sumerian for wheel was girgir, the Hebrewgalgal, the Georgian gorgal and the
Proto-Indo-European 9k'el- k'el. Even the Chinese bears some similarity, with the Mandarin
being gulu and the Cantonesegukluk. All of this suggests at least a connection."
- John Farndon, The World's Greatest Idea, ISBN 1848311966, p. 95
Southern Poland has highest R-M17 diversity, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
>esides as $ ha'e e)pected we should talk - as Anthony suggests - about
linguistic contacts of $Es with Afro-Asiatic speakers not (emitic ones, what
li9uidates the problems produced with apparent young ages of the (emitic
family% As Afro-Asiatic family is regarded to be 'ery old and is often linked
with the spread of farming and haplogroups E;b;b, F;c1 and R;b;a-ECC
then we can imagine plenty of opportunities for ,estern $E to meet with
Afro-Asiatic speakers in (outhern Europe%
If proto-Afro-Asiatic is old, how can proto-Semitic be younger than PIE?
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
(o to sum up this part of the discussion the arguments about the location of
the P$E homeland based on the 4ralic and (emitic linguistic contacts has
been in'alidated% ,e are left with the supposed P$E links with Iart'elian do
deal with% $f anyone knows any paper describing these purported P$E-
Iart'elian contacts, $ would be grateful for sharing%
Anthony has written on it, I'll quote him later. Now I'm of to work!
2012-03-15, 17:11
newtoboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Getton
-hat's (outheast Anatolia, not (outhwest Anatolia%
---------- Post added L6;L-61-;B at LL<BC ----------
-he &a*ara are roughly a half caucasoid-half mongoloid mi)ture, as seen on
autosomal studies and their y-dna, their mongoloid side being from the
Altaics and other populations A(iberian and East-AsianD% -hat's also the case
of 4ygurs Athey ha'e also R;a and R;bD% $t is also possible that -urkic
peoples were already mi)ed with R;aKR;b, today R;a is high in Altaics%
$n fact, Proto--urkic originated in Hongolia and southern (iberia with such
nomadic tribes as the qiongnu% Ancient 3NA tests ha'e re'ealed that the
qiongnu were already a hybrid Eurasian people L,666 years ago, with mi)ed
European and North-East Asian g-3NA and mt3NA% Hodern inhabitants of the
qiongnu homeland ha'e appro)imately 068 of Hongolian lineages against
;68 of European ones% -he oldest identi:ed presence of European mt3NA
around Hongolia and !ake >aikal dates back to o'er 7,666 years ago%
-he present-day inhabitants of .entral Asia, from qin#iang to -urkey and
from the Eolga to the &indu Iush, speak in o'erwhelming ma#ority -urkic
languages% -his may be surprising as this corresponds to the region where
the $ndo-$ranian branch of $ndo-European speakers e)panded, the >ron*e-
Age Androno'o culture, and the $ron-Age (cythian territory% (o why is it that
$ndo-European languages only sur'i'es in (la'ic Russia or in the southern
part of .entral Asia, in places like -a#ikistan, Afghanistan or some parts of
-urkmenistan ,hy don't the 4yghurs, 4*beks, Ia*akhs and Iyrgy*s, or the
modern Pontic-.aspian steppe people A.rimean -atars, Nogais, >ashkirs and
.hu'ashsD speak $ndo-European 'ernaculars 1eneticall) these people
do carr) !ndo-European (3a, and to a lesser extent also (3/,
linea.es% -he e)planation is that -urkic languages replaced the $ranian
tongues of .entral Asia between the Bth and ;;th century .E%
$t appears that -urkic 9uickly replaced the (cythian and other $ranian
dialects all o'er .entral Asia% Other migratory wa'es brought more -urkic
speakers to Eastern and .entral Europe, like the Iha*ars, the A'ars, the
>ulgars and the -urks% All of them were in fact .entral Asian nomads who
had adopted -urkic language, but had little if any Hongolian blood% -urkic
in'asions therefore contributed more to the di+usion of $ndo-European
lineages Aespecially R;a;D than East Asian ones%
-urkic languages ha'e not sur'i'ed in Europe outside the Pontic-.aspian
steppe% >ulgarian language, despite being named after a -urkic tribe, is
actually a (la'ic tongue with a mild -urkic in?uence% &ungarian, sometimes
mistaken for the heir of &unnic because of its name, is in reality an 4ralic
language AHagyarD%
An early group of R;b;b people is thought to ha'e migrated from .aspian
(ea region to .entral Asia, where it e'ol'ed into the R;b;b; AHG1D branch%
-his 'ariety of R;b occurs almost e)clusi'ely in this .entral Asian
populations%
R;b;b; probably correspond to a minority branch of R;b that integrated the
R;a population in the Eolga-4ral region before the $ndo-European e)pansion
to .entral and (outh Asia% $t might be associated with the -ocharian branch
of $ndo-European languages alongside haplogroup R;% -he modern
inhabitants of the -arim >asin, the 4yghurs, belong both to this R;b-HG1
subclade Aabout L68D and to R;a; Aabout 168D%
-here is some contro'ersy regarding the possible link between the -arim
mummies and the -ocharian languages, a .entum branch of the $ndo-
European family which were spoken in the -arim >asin from the 1rd to 0th
centuries .E% $t is easy to assume that the -arim mummies were Proto-
-ocharian speakers due to the corresponding location and the $ndo-European
connection% Ho$e&er, the Tarim mummies predate the appearance of
Tocharian /) o&er t$o millennia, and -ocharian is a .entum language
that cannot be descended from the (atem Proto-$ndo-$ranian branch% Other
.entum branches being all related to haplogroup R;b, and -ocharian being
the only eastern .entum language, it is possible that the -ocharian speakers
is instead associated to the .entral Asian R;b;b; AHG1D subclade, also found
among the modern 4yghurs inhabiting the -arim basin%
Once again R1b in Places like India/Pakistan/Afghanistan is not native and is the result of very
recent admixture. M73 is Central Asian not South-Central Asian.
The only populations with signifcant R1b in Afghanistan/Pakistan/India are
a. Hazaras-R1b comes from central Asia
b. Ta|iks-speakers of a SouthWEST Iranian language and know to live in regions recently setttled
by Sassanid Persians
c. Balochis-speakers of NorthWEST Iranian language
North/NW Iranians are the only Indo-Iranian speaking populations to whom R1b is native.
---------- Post added 2012-03-15 at 16:12 ----------
Also R1b-M73 had nothing to do with the Indo-European expansion into Central And south Asia.
It isn't found among Pashtuns,Pakistanis, NW Indians and if it is then it is the result of recent
admixture with Altaic nomds. No evidence for M73 accompanying Indo-Iranians and not Turkic
speakers.
2012-03-15, 17:27
Vetton
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
Once again R;b in Places like $ndiaKPakistanKAfghanistan is not nati'e and is
the result of 'ery recent admi)ture% HG1 is .entral Asian not (outh-.entral
Asian%
-he only populations with signi:cant R;b in AfghanistanKPakistanK$ndia are
a% &a*aras-R;b comes from central Asia
b% -a#iks-speakers of a (outh,E(- $ranian language and know to li'e in
regions recently setttled by (assanid Persians
c% >alochis-speakers of North,E(- $ranian language
NorthKN, $ranians are the only $ndo-$ranian speaking populations to whom
R;b is nati'e
Also R;b-HG1 had nothing to do with the $ndo-European e)pansion into
.entral And south Asia% $t isn't found among Pashtuns,Pakistanis, N, $ndians
and if it is then it is the result of recent admi)ture with Altaic nomds% No
e'idence for HG1 accompanying $ndo-$ranians and not -urkic speakers%
I have already answered to all these questions. You are repeating yourself. And the Altais have
nothing to do with it, since they have much more R1a than R1b, in fact they have very little R1b.
2012-03-15, 17:32
newtoboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Getton
$ ha'e already answered to all these 9uestions% gou are repeating yourself%
And the Altais ha'e nothing to do with it, since they ha'e much more R;a
than R;b, in fact they ha'e 'ery little R;b%
No.You |ust quoted Eupedia. Which is a garbage source anyways.
R1b-M73 is characteristic of Turkic speakers in Central Asia not Indo-Iranian speakers which is
why it is only found in among Turkic speakers or Indo-Iranian speakers who have mixed
extensivley with Turkic speakers (ie Ta|iks). No R1b-M73 is found among the other Indo-Iranian
groups.
R1b-M269 however is common among North and NW Iranians.
But M73 is as Turkic as you can get.
2012-03-15, 17:58
Vetton
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
No%gou #ust 9uoted Eupedia% ,hich is a garbage source anyways%
R;b-HG1 is characteristic of -urkic speakers in .entral Asia not $ndo-$ranian
speakers which is why it is only found in among -urkic speakers or $ndo-
$ranian speakers who ha'e mi)ed e)tensi'ley with -urkic speakers Aie -a#iksD%
No R;b-HG1 is found among the other $ndo-$ranian groups%
R;b-HL70 howe'er is common among North and N, $ranians%
>ut HG1 is as -urkic as you can get%
There is also plenty of R1a in Turkic speakers, such as Altay or Uyghurs.
2012-03-15, 20:56
newtoboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Getton
-here is also plenty of R;a in -urkic speakers, such as Altay or 4yghurs%
That has nothing to do with a general lack of association of R1b with PIE/IE or at the minimum
with eastern IE languages. The R1b found among Indo-Iranian speakers is the remnant of Turkic
invasions in some cases , in others of neolithic Iranians. It is not from the steepe.
2012-03-15, 21:11
Vetton
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
-hat has nothing to do with a general lack of association of R;b with P$EK$E or
at the minimum with eastern $E languages% -he R;b found among $ndo-
$ranian speakers is the remnant of -urkic in'asions in some cases , in others
of neolithic $ranians% $t is not from the steepe%
Again : R1b is found also in Pakistan, India, Iran, Iraq, Caucasis, Anatolia, Assyria. Your Turkic
invasion doesn't make sense, since there are also Turkic peoples with R1a but not R1b, such as
Altaians, or Kyrgyz, but most of the time turkics share both R1b and R1a.
2012-03-16, 12:04
EliasAlucard
^^ R1b has really nothing to do with proto-Indo-European. And I really mean nada. It can perhaps be connected to Indo-
Europeanised and partially proto-Indo-European descended proto-Celtic and proto-Germanic populations (or perhaps
proto-Celto-Italo-Germanic), but not to proto-Indo-European.
Just because north-west Europeans carry R1b, that doesn't mean the original proto-Indo-Europeans did, because north-
west Europeans (Scandinavians included) are lessproto-Indo-European in ancestry than Balto-Slavs. R1b and I1 is the
likeliest explanation for that. It's not a coincidence that R-M17 reaches highest frequency and variation in and around
Poland whereas in Scandinavia it's around 20-30 percent and less diverse there.
Besides, the proto-Indo-Europeans were patrilineal, so it's unlikely they carried any R1b because that would mean they
allowed male foreigners into their group at an early stage, and nothing in the aDNA so far suggests they did that at the
urheimat, at least not signifcantly so anyway.
You Spaniards, Celto-Germanics and other western Europeans must understand that your region in Europe had nothing to
do with the proto-Indo-Europeans, and western Europe has never been a serious candidate for the PIE urheimat. It's not a
coincidence R1b is so high in western Europe either: it's exactly because western Europe isn't the PIE urheimat.
The only serious candidates left are the Pontic-Caspian steppe and central-eastern Europe. Anatolia is totally out as far as
I'm concerned, and India/Iran are nonsensical at this point.
2012-03-16, 12:18
yahooland
Elias this R1a wannabe :rolleyes:
2012-03-16, 12:23
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by )ahooland
Elias this R;a wannabee <sarcastic<
Not really. And now you're |ust pro|ecting because you're not R1a yourself. Those who typically
champion the "proto-Indo-Europeans were R1b!" cause are typically western Europeans who are
R1b themselves, because it's important to their European identity that they carry patrilineal
descent from the proto-Indo-Europeans.
Aryan Nation Vs Jews: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2DM|efDtk8
^^ Imagine explaining to these clowns (most of which are probably descended from R1b) that
they're not "Aryans" because they're not R-M17. It would totally contradict their ideological world-
view in a scientifc way they |ust cannot imagine much less accept. And so that's why western
Europeans who are interested in population genetics are trying to circumvent the fact that the
proto-Indo-Europeans were exclusively R-M17. Eupedia's Maciamo, Jean Manco, Vetton in this
very thread, and numerous others, are guilty of doing this. But it is |ust not true because R1b
played no part in the proto-Indo-European ethnogenesis because no R1b-M269 has been found
in Tocharians, Andronovo Scythians, South Siberian Scythians and neither is R1b particularly
common amongst Indo-Aryan speakers, and in Balto-Slavs, it's R1a too.
R1b simply doesn't follow any European-Asian expansion consistent with proto-Indo-European.
Also, I'm J-P58 and my marker is pretty much the proto-Semitic marker, and I'm happy with that. I
believe in giving credit where it's due, and that's why I think R-M17 is the proto-Indo-European
marker, and I could care less about what you R1b blokes think about that.
2012-03-16, 12:59
yahooland
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
Not really% And now you're #ust pro#ecting because you're not R;a yourself%
-hose who typically champion the ]proto-$ndo-Europeans were R;bm] cause
are typically western Europeans who are R;b themsel'es, because it's
important to their European identity that they carry patrilineal descent from
the proto-$ndo-Europeans%
Ar)an @ation Gs Je$s< http<KKwww%youtube%comKwatch'U>L3H#ef3tkC
VV $magine e)plaining to these clowns Amost of which are probably
descended from R;bD that they're not dAryansX because they're not R-H;G% $t
would totally contradict their ideological world-'iew in a scienti:c way they
#ust cannot imagine much less accept% And so that's why western Europeans
who are interested in population genetics are trying to circum'ent the fact
that the proto-$ndo-Europeans were e)clusi'ely R-H;G%
Eupedia's Haciamo, Fean Hanco, Eetton in this 'ery thread, and numerous
others, are guilty of doing this% >ut it is #ust not true /ecause (3/
pla)ed no part in the proto-!ndo-European ethno.enesis /ecause no
(3/-;2CD has /een found in Tocharians, Androno&o Sc)thians,
South Si/erian Sc)thians and neither is (3/ particularl) common
amon.st !ndo-Ar)an speakers, and in 'alto-Sla&s, it5s (3/ too%
R;b simply doesn't follow any European-Asian e)pansion consistent with
proto-$ndo-European%
Also, $'m F-P5C and my marker is pretty much the proto-(emitic marker, and
$'m happy with that% $ belie'e in gi'ing credit where it's due, and that's why $
think R-H;G is the proto-$ndo-European marker, and $ could care less about
what you R;b blokes think about that%
Well that's what you think ,it's far from proven ,the only adna of supposed indo-european
civilisation decoded for now is adna of one branch of the tocharians .
Beside that,the Spread of R1b1a2 since 4000years has been more impressive than the spread of
R1a1a in the same time frame ,we conquered West-europe(and we were also present in central
and east-europe in non negligible number) and after that we conquered America, we are the
conquerors! :cool: . Even if R1a1a has been doing well since 4000years too.
2012-03-16, 16:16
Vetton
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
gou (paniards, .elto-@ermanics and other western Europeans must
understand that your region in Europe had nothing to do with the proto-$ndo-
Europeans, and western Europe has ne'er been a serious candidate for the
P$E urheimat% $t's not a coincidence R;b is so high in western Europe either<
it's e)actly because western Europe isn't the P$E urheimat%
-he only serious candidates left are the Pontic-.aspian steppe and central-
eastern Europe% Anatolia is totally out as far as $'m concerned, and $ndiaK$ran
are nonsensical at this point%
I never claimed western Europe to be a PIE urheimat. What im saying is that R1b is also
associated with PIE.
2012-03-16, 16:27
aregint
Ok yahooland, you are a hero carrying a Ydna haplogroup from the gods.
Now, PIE were r1a. Not only the tocharians, also the chieftains buried under the kurgans have it. Get over it.
2012-03-16, 16:35
yahooland
Quote:
Originally Posted by are.int
Now, P$E were r;a% Not only the tocharians, also the chieftains buried under
the kurgans ha'e it% @et o'er it%
PIE were R1a ,there is no doubt,but there is no proof that r1bs weren't, I think the r1b group may
have been slightly small 4000-5000years ago before expanding and the R1a goup was totally
dominating the R group back then,so that could explain why we didn't fnd R1b in Indo-european
remains yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by are.int
Ok yahooland, you are a hero carrying a gdna haplogroup from the gods%
exactly :cool: ,seriously I mainly said that because I'm tired that some People here keep bashing
on R1b.
2012-03-16, 17:22
Vetton
Quote:
Originally Posted by are.int
Ok yahooland, you are a hero carrying a gdna haplogroup from the gods%
Now, P$E were r;a% Not only the tocharians, also the chieftains buried under
the kurgans ha'e it% @et o'er it%
We only have a sample of 7 tarim mummies R1a1a, that's a ridiculous sample to make any
conclusion. Modern people in the same area, have R1a1a, but also R1b.
2012-03-16, 21:01
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by )ahooland
,ell that's what you think
Yes, but it's also how it went down. I look at the PIE question very clearly without any ideological
bias (I have no nationalist agenda as far as PIE is concerned), and I keep all the relevant
evidence, facts and points in mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by )ahooland
it's far from pro'en
It's most defnitely proven. The picture is very clear as far as I'm concerned. If you want to
understand the proto-Indo-Europeans, who they were and where they came from, do it without
thinking about your haplogroup every fve seconds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by )ahooland
the only adna of supposed indo-european ci'ilisation decoded for now is
adna of one branch of the tocharians %
No, there's also the Scythians, and R-M17 from Eulau (Germany) to Krasnoyarsk (Siberia). R1b
simply doesn't correlate with such a wide expansion in Y-DNA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by )ahooland
>eside that,the (pread of R;b;aL since B666years has been more
impressi'e than the spread of R;a;a in the same time frame ,we con9uered
,est-europeAand we were also present in central and east-europe in non
negligible numberD and after that we con9uered America, we are the
con9uerorsm <cool< % E'en if R;a;a has been doing well since B666years too%
Yes, but that has nothing to do with the proto-Indo-Europeans. What you R1b blokes did with the
native tribes of the Americas, that's what the proto-Indo-Europeans did with your R1b ancestors.
The euR1be region is basically the Mestizos of Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Getton
$ ne'er claimed western Europe to be a P$E urheimat% ,hat im saying is that
R;b is also associated with P$E%
It's not. And if western Europe is not the PIE urheimat, do you think it's |ust a coincidence that
R1b is much higher than R1a in western Europe?
Quote:
Originally Posted by are.int
Now, P$E were r;a% Not only the tocharians, also the chieftains buried under
the kurgans ha'e it% @et o'er it%
Which are these *weik-potis and what aDNA study are you referring to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Getton
,e only ha'e a sample of G tarim mummies R;a;a, that's a ridiculous
sample to make any conclusion% Hodern people in the same area, ha'e
R;a;a, but also R;b%
It's not |ust the Tarim mummies. It's also the Andronovo and Krasnoyarsk Scythians, and modern
Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan speakers, Germans, Scandinavians and Balto-Slavs.
Look, I'm not saying there's no PIE ancestry in Spaniards; there really is. But it's not directly
patrilineal straight from the proto-Indo-Europeans and it's not as much as Poles and Lithuanians
have ancestry from the proto-Indo-Europeans.
2012-03-16, 22:07
Heladageniskogen
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
ges, but it's also how it went down% $ look at the P$E 9uestion 'ery clearly
without any ideological bias A$ ha'e no nationalist agenda as far as P$E is
concernedD, and $ keep all the rele'ant e'idence, facts and points in mind%
That's why most people select an "alternative" explanation in my opinion, they are simply biased. I
originally went for the Anatolian hypothesis because I (subconsciously) wanted higher Indo-
European ancestry in my people than |ust from Corded Wa1rians and hence them comming from
farming would mean us being more "pure" ! :lol:
Most people are biased on most topics when it comes this to be honest. :p
(By the way you have a highly "important" PM ;) )
2012-03-16, 23:29
Vetton
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
-hat has nothing to do with a general lack of association of R;b with P$EK$E or
at the minimum with eastern $E languages% -he R;b found among $ndo-
$ranian speakers is the remnant of -urkic in'asions in some cases , in others
of neolithic $ranians% $t is not from the steepe%
R1b-M73 seems to have head to the Don-Volga region (where it is still found at high frequency
among the Bashkirs). The oldest known ofshoot from this area in Asia is the Afanasevo culture in
South Siberia (starting from 3600 BCE). Everything fts. The early west-east split among PIE R1b
(the western branch being R1b1b2 (M269) and the eastern one being R1b1b1 (M73)) in the
steppes correspond to the early split of the Tocharian branch from the rest of the Centum
branch. Note that 3600 BCE was 700 years earlier than the start of the Corded Ware
Culture, so the Afanasevo people were probably not R1a people, since bronze technology hadn't
been imported in the northern forest-steppe yet.
2012-03-17, 01:42
aregint
Elias, there's this study about Siberian Kurgans near Krasnoyarsk, several hundred miles away from the tarim basin. I'm
sure there was another study from a place near Omsk but I can't fn it now.
2012-03-17, 03:08
yahooland
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
ges, but it's also how it went down% $ look at the P$E 9uestion 'ery clearly
without any ideological bias A$ ha'e no nationalist agenda as far as P$E is
concernedD, and $ keep all the rele'ant e'idence, facts and points in mind%
Of course saying that the R1b have impregnated the hypothetical female of the R1a in Western-
europe is not biased at all ?
2012-03-17, 04:59
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by are.int
Elias, there's this study about (iberian Iurgans near Irasnoyarsk, se'eral
hundred miles away from the tarim basin% $'m sure there was another study
from a place near Omsk but $ can't :n it now%
I've read that one on Krasnoyarsk. Been a while though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by )ahooland
Of course saying that the R;b ha'e impregnated the hypothetical female of
the R;a in ,estern-europe is not biased at all
Nothing biased at all. Proto-Indo-European culture was a highly inJuential cultural revolution, and
it spread to non-Indo-European males such as R1b and E-V13 blokes. Here Heladageniskogen
discusses the similarities between Slavic paganism and Norse paganism:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helada.enisko.en
And this (la'ic Paganism celebration could be from someone reenacting
Norse paganism #ust aswell% !ooks so similar, would not react if someone
said it was%
http<KKwww%sla'orum%comKinde)%phpKto%%%%htmlkmsg;;;00
^^ Anyone who has celebrated Walpurgisnacht in Sweden knows how "Slavic" it is. But last I
checked, such traditions weren't as common in Iberia or France as they are in traditional R1a
territory. It's basically a Corded Ware tradition as it's observed by "Czechs, Dutch, Estonians,
Finns, Germans, Latvians, Lithuanians, and Swedes" (according to Wikipedia).
Some R1a gene Jow must have been exported to western Europe, and whether it was R1a males
freely sharing their sisters to R1b males or R1b males killing R1a males and stealing their women
is a diHcult question to answer as we don't know how everything went down in ancient history.
But point is, nothing indicates R1b had anything to do with the proto-Indo-Europeans since early
proto-Indo-European regions were overwhelmingly R1a and you know how tribal, ethnocentric
and endogamous people were back then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helada.enisko.en
-hat's why most people select an ]alternati'e] e)planation in my opinion,
they are simply biased% $ originally went for the Anatolian hypothesis
because $ AsubconsciouslyD wanted higher $ndo-European ancestry in my
people than #ust from .orded ,a;rians and hence them comming from
farming would mean us being more ]pure] m <lol<
Host people are biased on most topics when it comes this to be honest% <p
A>y the way you ha'e a highly ]important] PH YD D
Here I was thinking your support of the Anatolian hypothesis was you being pro-wog :p It's good
that you can honestly and openly acknowledge your bias. Most people, like the mental midgets
they are, aren't intellectually honest enough to do that.
2012-03-17, 07:24
yahooland
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
(ome R;a gene ?ow must ha'e been e)ported to western Europe, and
whether it was R;a males freely sharing their sisters to R;b males or R;b
males killing R;a males and stealing their women is a dijcult 9uestion to
answer as we don't know how e'erything went down in ancient history%
I think if we follow your theory,the only logical explanation is that your so called r1a gene Jow to
r1b might have came from the r1b celt who came to western-europe by centrale europe .
2012-03-17, 07:58
Bohemian Rhapsody
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
and whether it was R;a males freely sharing their sisters to R;b males or
R;b males killing R;a males and stealing their women is a dijcult 9uestion
to answer as we don't know how e'erything went down in ancient history%
and you know how tribal, ethnocentric and endogamous people were back
then%
I wish it were that simple, but steppe people weren't as violent as they are often portrayed. The
book Attila: The Barbarian King Who Challenged Rome, shows the more positive and realistic
way of life of the steppe nomads. They only decimated those who opposed them, while others
were treated quite nicely and absorbed and even got the same privileges as other Huns. Even the
sword of Mars that Attila pulled out of the ground has some parallels with the Alanian sword in the
stone motif, meaning that steppe nomads incorporated other peoples culture and most defnitely
genetics, so I'd double check your hypothetical scenario of the mounted archers galloping in and
slaughtering everything in their path. There were a lot more factors at play than that, such as if the
victims of the expanding Proto-Indo-Europeans were submissive or not.
2012-03-17, 08:08
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
$ wish it were that simple, but steppe people weren't as 'iolent as they are
often portrayed% -he book Attila< -he >arbarian Iing ,ho .hallenged Rome,
shows the more positi'e and realistic way of life of the steppe nomads% -hey
only killed those who opposed them, while others were treated 9uite nicely
and absorbed and e'en got the same pri'ileges as other &uns% (o $'d double
check your hypothetical scenario of the mounted archers galloping in and
slaughtering e'erything in their path% -here were a lot more factors at play
than that, such as if the 'ictims of the e)panding Proto-$ndo-Europeans were
submissi'e or not%
That's not my hypothetical scenario at all. I don't think they slaughtered everything in their path,
and if they did, they ceased doing that eventually, because otherwise Scandinavians today would
be 100% R1a, which they aren't.
The proto-Indo-Europeans had a martial, militaristic culture and male descent was more
important to them than female descent. This is reJected in the lack of homogeneity in their
mtDNA (H, U and so on) but with a constant R-M17 pattern, which means they were very
conscious of their paternal ancestors, whereas their female ancestors were of less importance.
Probably, as were the traditions back then (at least in the Middle East), the proto-Indo-Europeans
occasionally also killed males from other tribes and took their women and mixed with the women
from other tribes.
According to Mallory, the linguistic evidence supports patrilineal descent in the PIE community,
and this is strongly corroborated by the dominant (although not total) R-M17 pattern which mirrors
very closely the Old World distribution of Indo-European languages. R1b, does not, and the same
is true of I1, I2, E-V13 and other male haplogroups. Eastern Europe was the PIE home base.
Whether it was in Poland or in the Pontic-Caspian steppe is the big question now. R1b and
western Europe have nothing to do with proto-Indo-European.
2012-03-17, 08:21
Bohemian Rhapsody
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
,hether it was in Poland or in the Pontic-.aspian steppe is the big 9uestion
now% R;b and western Europe ha'e nothing to do with proto-$ndo-European%
Yes, I agree on both parts, but why Poland of all places? Why not North-East of the Carpathians,
in the area that roughly corresponds with the Slavic homeland? TheChernoles culture of Western
Ukraine seems to be a good candidate of the Proto-Slavic homeland from which all Slavs
suddenly dispersed from (due to constant harrasment from Turkic nomads), including the ones
who would take over Poland.
2012-03-17, 09:32
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
ges, $ agree on both parts, but why Poland of all places ,hy not North-East
of the .arpathians, in the area that roughly corresponds with the (la'ic
homeland -he .hernoles culture of ,estern 4kraine seems to be a good
candidate of the Proto-(la'ic homeland from which all (la's suddenly
dispersed from Adue to constant harrasment from -urkic nomadsD, including
the ones who would take o'er Poland%
I don't think it is about Poland or not Poland.
It is rather about the model of either: 1) mounted nomads conquering the peripheries of the
Steppe or 2) Central Europeans fnding a way to expand into the Steppe and beyond in a way
somewhat similar to the way R1b Iberians, British and French expanded into the Atlantic Ocean
and beyond with their Oceanic ships.
Horse riding is central to the frst model, and wheeled vehicles are central to the second model.
We have evidence of the later in the right timeframe, but we are not sure of the former (the
evidence for Neolithic horse-riding presented by Mallory have been strongly criticised by other
researchers).
Poland appears here often only in the context of the PIE-R1a1 link hypothesis as it is the place of
high R1a1 concentration and variation.
2012-03-17, 12:09
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
ges, $ agree on both parts, but why Poland of all places ,hy not North-East
of the .arpathians, in the area that roughly corresponds with the (la'ic
homeland -he .hernoles culture of ,estern 4kraine seems to be a good
candidate of the Proto-(la'ic homeland from which all (la's suddenly
dispersed from Adue to constant harrasment from -urkic nomadsD, including
the ones who would take o'er Poland%
If not the Pontic-Caspian steppe, it should be somewhere in southern Poland and northern
Hungary because of the R-M17 diversity there and also from old wheel evidence found in the
region (Bronocice). It could also be a case of R-M17 settling in southern Poland in prehistoric
times and then a group of R-M17 males moving eastward to the steppe and establishing itself
over there with a new culture and so on, who knows. More aDNA needs to be examined, and they
should also examin IBD segments, Y-STR and Y-SNP, mtDNA, pigmentation genotypes and the
lactose tolerance genotype, |ust to be on the safe side. Of course, needless to say, they should
run a full genome sequencing on all the Yamnaya Kurgans and publish what subclades of R-M17
they had. That way, we'd get a clearer picture, like if R1a-Z93 originated in Yamnaya and not in
India/Iran, and so on.
I think these two arguments are the strongest key points that make the location of the proto-Indo-
European urheimat in central-eastern Europe, possible:
Wagons and :arts from the "hine to the <olga; he #ldest Pictorial Evidence
A two-dimensional image that seems to portray a four-wheeled wagon, harness pole, and
yoke was incised on the surface of a decorated clay mug of the Trichterbecker (TRB)
culture found at the settlement of Bronocice in southern Poland, dated about 3500-3350
BCE(fgure 4.3). The TRB culture is recognized by its distinctive pottery shapes and tombs, which
are found over a broad region in modern Poland, eastern Germany, and southern Denmark. Most
TRB people were simple farmers who lived in small agricultural villages, but the Bronocice settlement
was unusually large, a TRB town covering ffty-two hectares. The cup or mug with the wagon image
incised on its surface was found in a rubbish pit containing animal bones, the broken sherds of fve
clay vessels, and Jint tools. Only this cup had a wagon image. The design is unusual for TRB pottery,
not an accidental combination of normal decorative motifs. The cup's date is the sub|ect of some
disagreement. A cattle bone found in the same pit yielded an average age of about 3500 BCE,
whereas six of the seven other radiocarbon dates for the settlement around the pit average 150 years
later, about 3350 BCE. The excavators accept an age range spanning these results, about 3500-
3350 BCE. The Bronocice wagon image is the oldest well-dated image of a wheeled vehicle in the
world. The two other images could be about the same age, although they probably are somewhat
later. An image of two large-horned cattle pulling what seems to be a two-wheeled cart was scratched
on the wall of a Wartberg culture stone tomb at Lohne-Zschen I, Hesse, central Germany (fgure
4.3.e). The grave was reused over a long period of time between about 3400 and 2800 BCE, so the
image could have been carved any time in that span. Far away to the east, a metal cauldron from the
Evdik kurgan near the mouth of the Volga River bears a repouss image that might show a yoke, a
wheel, a cart, and a draft animal; it was found in a grave with ob|ects of the Novosvobodnaya culture,
dated between 3500 and 3100 BCE (fgure 4.3.a). These images of carts and wagons are
distributed from central Germany through southern Poland to the Russian steppes.
- Anthony, David W., The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the
Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, ISBN: 069114818X, pp. 67-69
^^ This goes perfectly hand in hand with the spread of R-M17 and Indo-European languages both with
highest variation in central-eastern Europe I pointed out here:
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...88&postcount=2
So, central-eastern Europe:
1) Highest variation of R-M17
2) Highest variation of Indo-European languages per "centre of gravity" model
3) Some of the oldest evidence of wheeled vehicles
Of course, if the toy cars found in Mardin really are 7,000 years old, this probably means the proto-Indo-
Europeans did not invent the wheel, but that doesn't matter since the wheel doesn't have to be a proto-Indo-
European invention for it to support the Pontic-Caspian steppe or Poland as the urheimat. Polako has been
saying for a long time that eastern Germany and Poland have highest R-M17 variation, and I don't think that
can |ust be ignored like that. However, in my opinion, the Pontic-Caspian steppe and central-eastern Europe
were probably connected somehow in more ways than one, and it probably wasn't |ust massive gene Jow
from the steppes to Germany, but also a back and forth movement. We have to keep in mind that these
proto-Indo-Europeans were mobile. So, we need to know where the ancestral clades to R-M17 originated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
E)actly as $ ha'e e)pected it is clear from this fragment by Anthony, that the
opinions that P$E contained borrowing from (emitic languages were simply
false% E)actly as in the case of 4ralic borrowings which occurred to be from
daughter dialects of P$E Anamely ]proto-,estern $ndo-European] and proto-
$ndo-$ranianD and not from P$E itself here we deal with linguistic contacts
between only ],estern $ndo-European] and not Eastern $E% (o of course any
talk about ]late P$E] from the Pontic (teppe as responsible for these
linguistic borrowing is probably misplaced%
>esides as $ ha'e e)pected we should talk - as Anthony suggests - about
linguistic contacts of $Es with Afro-Asiatic speakers not (emitic ones, what
li9uidates the problems produced with apparent young age of the (emitic
family% As Afro-Asiatic family is regarded to be 'ery old and is often linked
with the spread of farming and haplogroups E;b;b, F;c1 and R;b;a-
ECC then we can imagine plenty of opportunities for ,estern $E to meet with
Afro-Asiatic speakers in (outhern Europe%
Semitic is still not a young language group ;) Already during the Akkadian Sargonid dynasty
(that's around 2300 BC!), there was a division between east Semitic and west Semitic speakers.
Languages diversify faster when they are geographically separated, but the Semitic languages in
the Fertile Crescent have never really been geographically separated by any wide distance;
they've always been close neighbours. Yet there were multiple daughter languages of proto-
Semitic in a region about the size of Iceland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
>esides as AA speakers are credited with the in'ention of ships<
%%% then we e'en ha'e the technology which could anable AA colonisation of
(outhern and ,estern Europe%
This really could be a cogent explanation of the possible Afro-Asiatic substratum in insular Celtic.
Thanks for pointing that out. And yes, even the ancient Assyrians had boats (lots of sculptures
with Assyrians and boats).
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
(o to sum up this part of the discussion the arguments about the location of
the P$E homeland based on the 4ralic and (emitic linguistic contacts has
been in'alidated%
Nope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
,e are left with the supposed P$E links with Iart'elian to deal with% $f anyone
knows any paper describing these purported P$E-Iart'elian contacts, $ would
be grateful for sharing%
Elias spoon-feeds Wo|ewoda :):
But the evidence for a Caucasian or Anatolian homeland is weak. Many of the terms suggested as
loans from Semitic into Proto-Indo-European have been re|ected by other linguists. The few Semitic-
to-Proto-Indo-European loan words that are widely accepted, words for items like silver and bull,
might be words that were carried along trade and migration routes far from the Semites' Near Eastern
homeland. Johanna Nichols has shown from the phonology of the loans that the Proto-Indo-
European/Proto-Kartvelian/Proto-Semitic contacts were indirect-all the loan words passed through
unknown intermediaries between the known three. One intermediary is required by chronology,
as Proto-Kartvelian is generally thought to have existed after Proto-indo-European and
Proto-Semitic.19 The Semitic and Caucasian vocabulary that was borrowed into Proto-Indo-
European through Kartvelian therefore contains roots that belonged to some Pre-7artvelian or Proto-
7artvelian language in the Caucasus. This language had relations, through unrecorded
intermediaries, with Proto-Indo-European on one side and Proto-Semitic on the other. That is not a
particularly close lexical relationship. If Proto-Kartvelian was spoken on the south side of the North
Caucasus Mountain range, as seems likely, it might have been spoken by people associated with the
Early Transcaucasian Culture (also known as the Kura-Araxes culture), dated about 3500-2200 BCE.
They could have had indirect relations with the speakers of the Proto-Indo-European through the
Maikop culture of the North Caucasus region. Many experts agree that Proto-Indo-European shared
some features with a language ancestral to Kartvelian but not necessarily through a direct face-to-
face link. Relations with the speakers of Proto-Uralic were closer. So who were the neighbors? Proto-
Indo-European exhibits strong links with Proto-Uralic and weaker links with a language ancestral to
Proto-Kartvelian. The speakers of Proto-Indo-European lived somewhere between the
Caucasus and Ural Mountains but had deeper linguistic relationships with the people who
lived around the Urals.
- Anthony, David W., The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the
Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, ISBN: 069114818X, pp. 97-98
^^ I think the problem with Anthony is that he makes statements like "many experts agree" without giving a
single reference and name dropping at least one expert. This is not too much to ask, and it's sloppy
scholarship.
2012-03-17, 12:41
EastPole
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
Elias spoon-feeds ,o#ewoda <D<
Elias, I wouldn`t put much trust into Anthony`s book as far as linguistics is concerned. It is a very
good book for archeological data but all those Anthony`s speculations about Proto-Germanic
coming from Usatovo culture and most of his views about the history of languages are not to be
taken seriously.
Here you have some opinions from Anatole Klyosov about Anthony`s book:
Quote:
-he Anthony's book is known, and it needs an introduction only to people
who are far away from the sub#ect% $ also ha'e it on my shelf, and when $ was
writing the said article, http<KKwww%scirp%orgK#ournalKaaK , $, of course, kept
Anthony's 'iews in mind% &owe'er, his 'iews are not the only ones in the
related :eld of science, furthermore, are not the dominating 'iews% -here
are many serious linguists who discount his book Ain fact, $ ha'e not met one
who would 'alue his book highly from the 'iewpoint of linguistics, howe'er,
by itself it is not an ultimate argument is scienceD% -he ]Pontic steppe]
hypothesis as the ]origin] of $E language is #ust one among others, and not
the fa'orite one%
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.co...-03/1331546057
2012-03-17, 14:09
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
Nope%
What?! Do you want to go back to the begining of this 55-pages long discussion to once again
argue about its results (1) proto-Uraics had contacts only with doughter languages of PIE; 2) PIEs
didn't have contacts with AA/Semitic speakers as Eastern IE languages don't have AA/Semitic
loanwords) no one is contesting? It makes the whole concept of discussion pointless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Da&id Anthon)
>ut the e'idence for a .aucasian or Anatolian homeland is weak% Hany of
the terms suggested as loans from (emitic into Proto-$ndo-European ha'e
been re#ected by other linguists% -he few (emitic-to-Proto-$ndo-European
loan words that are widely accepted, words for items like sil'er and bull,
might be words that were carried along trade and migration routes far from
the (emites' Near Eastern homeland% Fohanna Nichols has shown from the
phonology of the loans that the Proto-$ndo-EuropeanKProto-Iart'elianKProto-
(emitic contacts were indirectuall the loan words passed through unknown
intermediaries between the known three% One intermediary is re9uired by
chronology, as Proto-"art&elian is .enerall) thou.ht to ha&e existed
after Proto-indo-European and Proto-Semitic.;0 -he (emitic and
.aucasian 'ocabulary that was borrowed into Proto-$ndo-European through
Iart'elian therefore contains roots that belonged to some Pre-
Iart'elian or Proto-Iart'elian language in the .aucasus% -his language had
relations, through unrecorded intermediaries, with Proto-$ndo-European on
one side and Proto-(emitic on the other% -hat is not a particularly close
le)ical relationship% $f Proto-Iart'elian was spoken on the south side of the
North .aucasus Hountain range, as seems likely, it might ha'e been spoken
by people associated with the Early -ranscaucasian .ulture Aalso known as
the Iura-Ara)es cultureD, dated about 1566-LL66 >.E% -hey could ha'e had
indirect relations with the speakers of the Proto-$ndo-European through the
Haikop culture of the North .aucasus region% Hany e)perts agree that Proto-
$ndo-European shared some features with a language ancestral to Iart'elian
but not necessarily through a direct face-to-face link% Relations with the
speakers of Proto-4ralic were closer% (o who were the neighbors Proto-$ndo-
European e)hibits strong links with Proto-4ralic and weaker links with a
language ancestral to Proto-Iart'elian% The speakers of Proto-!ndo-
European li&ed some$here /et$een the Caucasus and :ral
;ountains /ut had deeper lin.uistic relationships $ith the people
$ho li&ed around the :rals.
Well, I would like to see these IE words suspected of originating from Kartvelian. After my
experience with supposed Uralic or Semitic contacts of PIE which after closer examinations
occured to be non-existent, I would like to see the evidence myself instead of relying on the
opinion of "many experts".
2012-03-17, 17:52
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
Rproto-4raics had contacts only with doughter languages of P$E
Not. There are PIE (and atleast Late PIE) loans in proto-Uralic (which is exactly what Jaska is
saying in your link).
Mainstream discussion of the topic seem to be if PU and PIE a)share common ancestral
language (ala Kortland or Thomsen) or b) common vocabularity is due loans from archaic PIE to
Uralic (ala Jorma Koivulehto).
You should for starters compare the reconstructed personal pronomins of PU and PIE. You'll be
suprised.
Wether A or B is correct, neither really allow speculation for positioning PIE anywhere else than
north of Black Sea.
Btw; P-Uralic *kme (-ne) = 10 (modern Finnish : kymmenen)
PIE = *k'mtom = 100
Strange coincidence again...
2012-03-17, 18:01
newtoboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
-hat's not my hypothetical scenario at all% $ don't think they slaughtered
e'erything in their path, and if they did, they ceased doing that e'entually,
because otherwise (candina'ians today would be ;668 R;a, which they
aren't%
The proto-!ndo-Europeans had a martial, militaristic culture and
male descent $as more important to them than female descent.
This is reTected in the lack of homo.eneit) in their mtD@A 8H, :
and so on9 /ut $ith a constant (-;3S pattern, $hich means the)
$ere &er) conscious of their paternal ancestors, $hereas their
female ancestors $ere of less importance. Pro/a/l), as $ere the
traditions /ack then 8at least in the ;iddle East9, the proto-!ndo-
Europeans occasionall) also killed males from other tri/es and took
their $omen and mixed $ith the $omen from other tri/es.
According to Hallory, the linguistic e'idence supports patrilineal descent in
the P$E community, and this is strongly corroborated by the dominant
Aalthough not totalD R-H;G pattern which mirrors 'ery closely the Old ,orld
distribution of $ndo-European languages% R;b, does not, and the same is true
of $;, $L, E-E;1 and other male haplogroups% Eastern Europe was the P$E
home base% ,hether it was in Poland or in the Pontic-.aspian steppe is the
big 9uestion now% R;b and western Europe ha'e nothing to do with proto-
$ndo-European%
I seriously question how true this is. Especially considering it is modern Western Europeans who
are often what 80% R1b+ yet have mtdna which is much less homogenous. The same applies to
most races today. more mtdnas and clades than ydnas.
2012-03-17, 18:10
reka
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioterus
>ut -ocharians were Ientum and used &allstatt-.eltic -artans, they are the
lost, famous (teppe .eltsmmm <p
The Tocharians were Slavs.
2012-03-17, 18:12
Vetton
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioterus
>ut -ocharians were Ientum and used &allstatt-.eltic -artans, they are the
lost, famous (teppe .eltsmmm <p
No. They tocharians have nothing to do with the mummies who wore celtic Tartan, and red-
haired. Plus, these were not even tested. Only the much older mummies were tested as R1a1a
(only 7 )
2012-03-17, 19:45
newtoboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by reka
-he -ocharians were (la's%
Wtf?
---------- Post added 2012-03-17 at 18:46 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Getton
No% -hey tocharians ha'e nothing to do with the mummies who wore celtic
-artan, and red-haired% Plus, these were not e'en tested% Only the much
older mummies were tested as R;a;a Aonly G D
That's |ust speculation and you making shit up again. At least you didn't |ust steal eupedia's
garbage info and not cite them this time.
2012-03-17, 19:48
Vetton
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
-hat's #ust speculation and you making shit up again% At least you didn't #ust
steal eupedia's garbage info and not cite them this time%
It's not speculation, smartass. It's a fact.
2012-03-17, 19:51
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
Not% -here are P$E Aand atleast !ate P$ED loans in proto-4ralic Awhich is
e)actly what Faska is saying in your linkD%
Nonsense. Uralic family is too young to have any importance in the considerations related to the
place of proto-Indoeuropean homeland:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
-hese loanwords ha'e been traditionally seen to ha'e occurred between
Proto-$ndo-European and Proto-4ralic, as these stages were considered as
contemporaneous Aw B666 >.D% &owe'er, new linguistic results of the
present millennium show that Proto-4ralic seems to be e'en L 666 years
younger than was supposed AIallio L667Y &=kkinen L660D%
2012-03-17, 19:58
newtoboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Getton
$t's not speculation, smartass% $t's a fact%
Nobody knows if the mummies were Tocharian speakers but its not set in stone that they weren't.
I know you are one of those people trying to connect R1b with Tochairans and PIE. Sorry no such
connection exists. Deal with it.
2012-03-17, 20:15
Vetton
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
Nobody knows if the mummies were -ocharian speakers but its not set in
stone that they weren't%
$ know you are one of those people trying to connect R;b with -ochairans
and P$E% (orry no such connection e)ists% 3eal with it%
I never claimed such thing.
2012-03-17, 21:35
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastPole
Elias, $ wouldnJt put much trust into AnthonyJs book as far as linguistics is
concerned% $t is a 'ery good book for archeological data but all those
AnthonyJs speculations about Proto-@ermanic coming from 4sato'o culture
and most of his 'iews about the history of languages are not to be taken
seriously%
In your opinion, what's wrong with the Usatovo culture for proto-Germanic? Would be nice if you
could elaborate on that so that I can see it from your perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastPole
&ere you ha'e some opinions from Anatole Ilyoso' about AnthonyJs book<
http<KKarchi'er%rootsweb%ancestry%co%%%-61K;11;5B765G
I frst came across Anatole when he bashed Dienekes over Dienekes' Y-STR boycott :D I don't
know much about Y-STR as I'm not really all that interested in how haplogroups work, but I'm with
Anatole on that part, as I think Dienekes is more nonsensical than common sense nowadays. I'm
sure Anatole knows his shit when it comes to haplogroups, but PIE is more than |ust Y-DNA.
However, based on this comment from your link, I don't think Anatole has a clue on the linguistic
aspect:
I have analyzed all those hypothesis, however, not as a linguist (who I am not), but from the point of
haplogroups, their migrations, and timing, and published those observations a couple of years ago.
First, the word "origin" itself for IE language, as well for any other language, except maybe Esperanto,
tied to any particular region, is next to nonsense. It seems that all those four regions, mentioned
above, as well as all 25 or so, were not "origins", there were passing points on a long (in space and
time) migration route of bearers of haplogroup R1a. The language always existed - in its
dynamics - since the "Europeoids"/"Caucasoids" arose some 58,000 years ago, and
probably earlier, though we have no knowledge about it, and it was evolving by both
divergence and convergence, splitting o some derivatives and absorbing others.There
was no "origin" in its sense. There never was one language, "common for all people", there always
was a net of languages.
Anyone who says proto-Indo-European is 60,000 years old has no idea what he's talking about. Sure, PIE
like all language families, goes back to "Africa" and ultimately toproto-Human, which itself is arguably related
to some distant language family our ancestors shared with the Neanderthals and Denisovans. However, as
far as PIE is concerned, we are interested in "TMRCA" of all modern Indo-European languages. And PIE is a
single language family, quite isolated too with its own unique grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation
(examples would be the -os, -ula and -em suHxes which are classically and distinctly unique to proto-Indo-
European speech). I know you dislike Mallory but he explains it here and his logical point cannot be ignored.
PIE didn't exist 60,000 years ago, although some primitive ancestor of PIE did, perhaps as a proto-Nostratic
language or something, who knows. It's questionable if Y-DNA R* existed 60,000 years ago, I don't think it
did.
Anyway, Anatole's criticism of Anthony's book is invalid, although surely, there are lots of Jaws you can point
out in Anthony's book (his ignorance of population genetics for example, whereas he did pay attention to
haplogroups of cattle, sheep and horse, which is totally fucking retarded if you give more attention to the
haplogroups of animals but ignore human haplogroups when you're studying a human language family
:whoco:).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
$ seriously 9uestion how true this is%
Well, R-M17 has been found in high frequencies in Andronovo, Krasnoyarsk and Eulau, all
carrying diferent mtDNA. What conclusion would you make out of this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
Especially considering it is modern ,estern Europeans who are often what
C68 R;b2 yet ha'e mtdna which is much less homogenous%
What do western Europeans have to do with the proto-Indo-Europeans, and why would their
haplogroup frequencies reJect anything of the proto-Indo-Europeans?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
-he same applies to most races today% more mtdnas and clades than ydnas%
Not really, Assyrians alone have lots of mtDNA and Y-DNA variation, and if you want to take it to
the racial level then Europeans as a whole have lots of diferent male and female haplogroups.
2012-03-17, 22:06
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
Nonsense% 4ralic family is too young to ha'e any importance in the
considerations related to the place of proto-$ndoeuropean homeland<
Even if the proposed younger chronology for Uralic turns out to be correct, it will not change
chronology for latePIE contact. I hope you understand the diferent stages of PIE (early, midle,
late) and same for PU ?
This young chronology theory still has to stand the test of time which it hasnt yet done. There are
other arguments tying PIE and PU together more closely than other "families", namely the
personal pronomins and some very basic level vocabularity. Like words for water, name etc.
So even if the linguistic lineage which ultimately became proto-Uralic would be younger than
archaic PIE, it doesnt mean that there was no contacts between Para-Uralic (such as pre-proto-
Uralic) and archaic PIE.
I'm not so sure if there ever was common root language (Indo-Uralic) for PIE and PU, like several
linguistists have proposed during the last 100 years. There however is connection which is not
easy to explain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Ur...sible_cognates
^ Those are not coincide, like is not the Uralic = 10, PIE= 100. What is the nature of those
similarities is diferent topic.
That connection alone means that PIE is forever and ever tied into Uralic. If you move PIE away
from the lower Volga, you move Uralic aswell. Moving Uralic away from Urals requires
extraordinary arguments.
EastPole
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
$n your opinion, what's wrong with the 4sato'o culture for proto-@ermanic
Elias, there is 3000 years gap between Usatovo culture and Proto-Germanic,
Quote:
4sato'o culture, 1566u1666 >.%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usatovo_culture
Quote:
Proto-@ermanic speakers li'ed in southern (candina'ia and along the coast
from the Netherlands in the west to the EistulaPshould be ElbeR in the east
around G56 >.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Germanic_language
Germanic speakers are predominantly R1b -M269 which is absent in the Eastern Europe and
didn`t arrive from Eastern Europe. They are autosomally West Europeans and didn`t come from
the East for that reason too. Nothing links Germanics with the steppe culture like Usatovo 3500
BC. Anthony obviously is not serious. We don`t know what language was spoken in Usatovo.
Anthony also doesn`t know it and was |ust trolling to boost the sales of his book.
Klyosov seems to be interested in Nostratic theory, which tries to go very far in time with
languages history but is not widely accepted. The fact is that some distant languages share some
words. So many theories are possible. Klyosov however |ustly noticed that Anthony is not an
authority in linguistics.
All that can be assumed at the present is that fully developed PIE with wheel and wagon
vocabulary etc. probably was spoken around 3500 BC in Poland and dispersed after that.
Therefore Poland is the most likely PIE urheimat. It fts archeology (oldest wheels, housing types
and IE cultures like CWC), genetics (most diverse R1a1) and linguistics (most archaic and
conservative language with no not-IE substratum).
Anthony`s book is |unk in regard to linguistics because among many other things he didn`t bother
to check basic and widely accessible dictionaries to see who`s got the most complete and archaic
vocabulary related to wheel and wagon.
2012-03-17, 23:22
Wo|ewoda
^The insistance of these Western European nationalists pretending to be ob|ective scientists that they come from Eastern
Europe is rather amusing.
But addmitedly not as amusing as the attempts of Finnish nationalists to associate Uralic language family with "the
Aryans". :rolleyes:
Isn't it the highest time someone told them that Nazis are not going to come back from the dark side of the Moon? :whoco:
2012-03-17, 23:36
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$t is not mine, it is Faska's% 3o you dare to undermine the ultimate authority
of Faska in linguistics Aespecially 4ralic oneD <mad<
It's good that you have idol! Try to keep with the topic, thnx.
Anyhow, I'm not so convinced about Jaska's "short Uralic chronology" but I certainly wouldnt over
rule without checking the possible criticism. Theory so young that we have to wait for peer-review.
Quote:
Nonsense again% At proto-4ralic stage AFaska's styleD &ittite was already
spoken in Anatolia%
But proto-Hittite obviously was |ust another aspect of late PIE.
Interesting article from "Indo-Uralic" pov.
Quote:
http<KKwww%kloekhorst%nlKIloekhorst$%%%licAspects%pdf
Some !ndo-:ralic Aspects of Hittite
Alwin Iloekhorst
4ni'ersity of !eiden
(ince the Anatolian branch has been shown to ha'e been the :rst
one to ha'e split o+ from P$E, in cases where the Anatolian
e'idence di'erges from the e'idence from the other $E
languages it is sometimes problematic to determine which
linguistic situation is more original% $n this article it is claimed
that in some cases e'idence from the 4ralic language family,
which is hypothesi*ed to ha'e been a sister to the $E language
family, may be decisi'e in sol'ing such problems% -wo case studies
are presented that support this claim%
---------- Post added 2012-03-17 at 22:42 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastPole
Nothing links @ermanics with the steppe culture like 4sato'o 1566 >.%
Anthony ob'iously is not serious% ,e donJt know what language was spoken
in 4sato'o% Anthony also doesnJt know it and was #ust trolling to boost the
sales of his book%
Nonsense. You |ust dont understand what Anthony wrote because a) you are borderline retard
pan-SSlav and b) you look things from your slavslavslavcordedwareslavslav-binoculars. Pre-
Proto-Germanic dialect of NW Indo-European dialect of PIE may very well come from Usatovo
sphere.
It's pretty damn ironic that you throw shit on Anthony and same time keep on repeating your
debunked nonsense, including Slavic Sanskrit PIE continuity bs.
2012-03-18, 00:01
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
4ralic language family,
which is hypothesi*ed to ha'e been a sister to the $E language
How can Uralic be regarded as a "sister to the IE language" when these two language groups
have completely diferent structure:
Quote:
Originally Posted by !"!PED!A
A fusional lan.ua.e 8also called inTectin. lan.ua.e9 is a t)pe of
s)nthetic lan.ua.e, distin.uished from a..lutinati&e lan.ua.es /)
its tendenc) to o&erla) man) morphemes in a $a) that can /e
diZcult to se.ment.
E)amples of fusional $ndo-European languages are (anskrit, @reek Aclassical
and modernD, !atin, !ithuanian, Russian, @erman, Polish, (lo'ak and .*ech%
Another notable group of fusional languages is the (emitic languages group%
A%%%D fusional languages generally tend to lose their in?ection o'er the
centuriesusome languages much more 9uickly than others%P;R "or e)ample,
supposedly, (anskrit, !atin, (lo'enian, !ithuanian, and Armenian are about
as fusional as the unattested Proto-$ndo-European, but modern English and
Afrikaans are nearly analytic% The Sla&ic and 'altic lan.ua.es ha&e
.enerall) retained their inTection, alon. $ith 1reek.
Quote:
Originally Posted by !"!PED!A
An agglutinati'e language is a language that uses agglutination e)tensi'ely<
most words are formed by #oining morphemes together% -his term was
introduced by ,ilhelm 'on &umboldt in ;C17 to classify languages from a
morphological point of 'iew%P;R $t is deri'ed from the !atin 'erb agglutinare,
which means ]to glue together]%PLR
$n agglutinati'e languages each aj) typically represents one unit of
meaning Asuch as ]diminuti'e], ]past tense], ]plural], etc%D, and bound
morphemes are e)pressed by aj)es Aand not by internal changes of the
root of the word, or changes in stress or toneD% Additionally, and most
importantly, in an agglutinati'e language aj)es do not become fused with
others, and do not change form conditioned by others%
E)amples of agglutinati'e languages include<
Algon9uian languages, namely .ree and >lackfoot%
Altaic languages, which within include the Turkic, Hongolic, -ungusic
language families, as well as possibly Faponic languages and Iorean%
Athabaskan languages, namely Na'a#o
Austronesian languages
>as9ueKEuskara
>antu languages Asee @andaD
3ra'idian languages, namely -amil, -elugu, Iannada, and Halayalam%
EskimoWAleut languages, namely Aleut, $nuktitut, and gupik
$gboid languages
Iart'elian languages
Huskogean languages
man) :ralic lan.ua.es, namel) Hun.arian, Ainnish, Estonian, and
Sami lan.ua.es
(iouan languages, namely !akota and guchi
many -ibeto->urman languages
Northeast, Northwest and (outh .aucasian languages
some Hesoamerican and nati'e North American languages including
Nahuatl, &uastec, and (alish
ruechua languages and Aymara
Hany languages spoken by Ancient Near East peoples were agglutinati'e<
(umerian
Elamite
&urrian
4rartian
&attic
@utian
!ullubi
Iassite
Compare this to the Jaska's N1c tree:
http://upload2.fototube.pl/pics/2012...c175513f3e.png
Nice ft between linguistics and genetics by the way.
So I wouldn't trust a linguist who call IE and Uralic "sister language families".
2012-03-18, 00:11
EastPole
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
you are borderline retard pan-((la' and bD you look things from your
sla'sla'sla'cordedwaresla'sla'-binoculars% Pre-Proto-@ermanic dialect of
N, $ndo-European dialect of P$E may 'ery well come from 4sato'o sphere%
Slavic languages are several times more similar to Vedic Sanskrit than to Germanic languages.
Check any Rigveda hymn and see how many cognate words you will fnd related to Slavonic and
how many to Germanic languages. Proto-Slavic-Indo-Iranian continuum was a reality. NW IE or
Balto-Slavo-Germanic is a BS.
Celto-Germanic languages originated in Western Europe:
Quote:
origins of the .eltic languages should be sought in the maritime networks of
the Atlantic /one, which reached their peak of intensity in the !ate >ron*e
Age
http://ifc.dpz.es/recursos/publicaci.../54/26koch.pdf
2012-03-18, 10:38
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
&ow can 4ralic be regarded as a ]sister to the $E language] when these two
language groups ha'e completely di+erent structure
I've been wondering that too and it's not the only thing that makes me suspicious of the Indo-
Uralic family. Main point is that there are similarities which are very diHcult to explain and these
similarities go beyondthe proto-language level.
Thus PIE must originate in vicinity of Uralic, no matter if the Indo-Uralic is genetic node or not.
Quote:
(o $ wouldn't trust a linguist who call $E and 4ralic ]sister language families]%
Theory has been alive and kicking for more than 100 years now. It was frst proposed by Vilhelm
Thomsen allready in late 1800's. It's not fringe theory but |ust a controversial one. Controversiality
is because a) similarities are because of loans from archaic PIE to archaic Proto-Uralic or b)
because of common ancestral node. It's not controversial ala EastPole bullshit.
2012-03-18, 19:36
newtoboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Getton
Again < R;b is found also in Pakistan, $ndia, $ran, $ra9, .aucasis, Anatolia,
Assyria% gour -urkic in'asion doesn't make sense, since there are also -urkic
peoples with R;a but not R;b, such as Altaians, or Iyrgy*, but most of the
time turkics share both R;b and R;a%
Once again R1b is native to Iran, Iraq, Caucasus, Anatolia, Assyrian area. When found in
Pakistan , India or Afghanistan it is a sign of admixture from either Iran or from Altaic nomads.
M73 is certainly not native to either pakistan or Afghanistan. And neither is M269.
---------- Post added 2012-03-18 at 18:41 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastPole
(la'ic languages are se'eral times more similar to Eedic (anskrit than to
@ermanic languages% .heck any Rig'eda hymn and see how many cognate
words you will :nd related to (la'onic and how many to @ermanic
languages% Proto-(la'ic-$ndo-$ranian continuum was a reality% N, $E or >alto-
(la'o-@ermanic is a >(%
.elto-@ermanic languages originated in ,estern Europe<
http<KKifc%dp*%esKrecursosKpublicaci%%%K5BKL7koch%pdf
Can you stop? Slavic is closer to Baltic and Western IE languages. Slavic is closer to Iranian than
Indo-Aryan.
2012-03-18, 21:01
Silesian
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
Nobody knows if the mummies were -ocharian speakers but its not set in
stone that they weren't%
$ know you are one of those people trying to connect R;b with -ochairans
and P$E% (orry no such connection e)ists% 3eal with it%
What makes you think that there were no R1b in Tocharians?
2012-03-18, 22:21
Hallteks
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
&ow can 4ralic be regarded as a ]sister to the $E language] when these two
language groups ha'e completely di+erent structure
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
$''e been wondering that too and it's not the only thing that makes me
suspicious of the $ndo-4ralic family% Hain point is that there are similarities
which are 'ery dijcult to e)plain and these similarities go /e)ond the
proto-language le'el%
-hus P$E must originate in 'icinity of 4ralic, no matter if the $ndo-4ralic is
genetic node or not%
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
(o $ wouldn't trust a linguist who call $E and 4ralic ]sister language families]%
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
-heory has been ali'e and kicking for more than ;66 years now% $t was :rst
proposed by Eilhelm -homsen allready in late ;C66's% $t's not fringe theory
but #ust a contro'ersial one% .ontro'ersiality is because aD similarities are
because of loans from archaic P$E to archaic Proto-4ralic or bD because of
common ancestral node% $t's not contro'ersial ala EastPole bullshit%
Maybe there's a clue in Latin grammar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_grammar
2012-03-19, 04:46
newtoboard
Its |ust bullshit. Slavic is closer to Indo-Iranian than Germanic is to Indo-Iranian. But Slavic and Germanic are closer to each
other. And Slavic and Baltic are as close as Avestan and Vedic Sanskirt. Indo-Iranian is closer to Armenian and greek than
it is to Slavic. And Slavic would be closer to East Iranian than Sanskrit anyways.
2012-03-19, 11:51
Pioterus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Getton
No% -hey tocharians ha'e nothing to do with the mummies who wore celtic
-artan, and red-haired% Plus, these were not e'en tested% Only the much
older mummies were tested as R;a;a Aonly G D
OK, I lost you.
Quote:
-heir costumes, and especially te)tiles, ma) indicate a common ori.in
$ith !ndo-European neolithic clothin. techniPues or a common lo$-
le&el textile technolo.). .h=rch=n man wore a red twill tunic and tartan
leggings% Textile expert Eli4a/eth a)land 'ar/er, who e)amined the
tartan-style clothA%%%D, discusses similarities between it and fragments
reco'ered from salt mines associated with the &allstatt culture%PCR
I was making fun of westerners:
Quote:
APCR.hristopher P% -hornton and -heodore @% (churr, ]@enes, language, and
culture< an e)ample from the tarim basin], in< O)ford Fournal of Archaeology,
Eolume L1 $ssue ;, pp C1W;67, L66BD
seeing Celts everywhere, simply...
Quote:
A%%%D, discusses similarities between it and fragments reco'ered from salt
mines associated with the Hallstatt culture%PCR
2012-03-20, 23:39
Radagast
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioterus
OI, $ lost you%
$ was making fun of westerners<
seeing .elts e'erywhere, simply%%%
There is U152 deep into Bashkir territory. The U152 founder likely lived in Switzerland or
thereabouts. Your people fell to Germany in about a week. What makes you think you're special?
2012-03-21, 00:02
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by (ada.ast
-here is 4;5L deep into >ashkir territory% -he 4;5L founder likely li'ed in
(wit*erland or thereabouts% gour people fell to @ermany in about a week%
,hat makes you think you're special
Your butt hurting a bit is it?
The U152 in Bashkirs is of very low STR variance, and probably from a young, limited source. No
one knows where it came from, but Celts aren't a likely source.
2012-03-21, 03:53
yahooland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
gour butt hurting a bit is it
-he 4;5L in >ashkirs is of 'ery low (-R 'ariance, and probably from a
young, limited source% No one knows where it came from, but .elts aren't a
likely source%
And what about the R-U152 found in druze , turks, Russian and Kazakh ?
2012-03-21, 06:23
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by )ahooland
And what about the R-4;5L found in dru*e , turks, Russian and Ia*akh
It seems there were expansions of U152 from Western Asia to Europe and to Central Asia. And
then back movements of U152 with Turkic tribes to Western Asia and Eastern Europe.
So the idea that U152 originated in Switzerland looks like usual horseshit, because Oetzi's people
were living in that area at the time. I would say that whoever carried U152 into that part of Europe,
dominated and absorbed Oetzi's kind, and basically shaped the modern gene pool of Northern
Italians.
These could have been Indo-Europeanized groups in Europe, probably from somewhere in the
north Balkans, and quite possibly Celtic speaking. But those who moved east from West Asia
weren't Celtic, and probably not even Indo-European. The best we can say is that they were late
Neolithic groups of some sort.
2012-03-21, 09:00
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by (ada.ast
-here is 4;5L deep into >ashkir territory% -he 4;5L founder likely li'ed in
(wit*erland or thereabouts%
It's still not consistent with proto-Indo-Europeans, because a) it hasn't been found in any aDNA
associated with early Indo-European expansions and b) you'd have tremendous diHculties
explaining how Irish, French, Italian and Greek R1b is derived from R-U152, because, for
example, R-U152 is not ancestral to the R-L371 in Wales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by (ada.ast
gour people fell to @ermany in about a week% ,hat makes you think you're
special
World War II was not part of the proto-Indo-European period, and losing a war doesn't make you
less proto-Indo-European, so I fail to understand your point.
However, I think the Slavs have been quite dominant in spite of the repeated attempts by many
other Indo-European tribes in trying to dominate the Slavs, because they've never really
succeeded with that and today Slavic Europe is by far the largest territory.
The last word belongs to history. Throughout the centuries, it must have been dicult to be a
Slav: Scythians, Sarmatians, Huns, Alans, Goths, Avars, and nally Swedes all attempted to
annex these tribes who, like their idols, had to become multifaced in order to survive. In
their nature they were profoundly peace loving; in their culture they showed an abiding respect for the
family and for their ancestors. All of this may help to explain an amalgam of rather elusive religious
beliefs, fairly diHcult to pin down-but its very haziness is in and of itself instructive.
- Yves Bonnefoy, American, African, and Old European mythologies, University of Chicago Press,
1993, ISBN 0226064573, p. 248
^^ So by your rationale, if being dominant is a proto-Indo-European trait then surely the Slavs must have most
of the proto-Indo-European ancestry :p
2012-03-21, 11:34
Pioterus
Quote:
Originally Posted by (ada.ast
-here is 4;5L deep into >ashkir territory% -he 4;5L founder likely li'ed in
(wit*erland or thereabouts% gour people fell to @ermany in about a week%
,hat makes you think you're special
Unlike westerners we never failed to fght against those scums, we never felt to neither of both
mass murder ideologies and unlike westerners we faced the Wehrmacht and Red Army with all
we had and head held high, after 200 hundred years of being partitioned and 20 years of trying to
build a modern country (and repelling commie invasion of western Europe by the way)- it's quite
an achievement I would say.
Quote:
-he Polish 4nderground (tate APolish< Polskie Pastwo Pod*iemne, also
known as the Polish (ecret (tateDPaR is a collecti'e term for the ,orld ,ar $$
underground resistance organi*ations in Poland, both military and ci'ilian,
that were loyal to the Polish @o'ernment in E)ile in !ondon% -he :rst
elements of the 4nderground (tate were established in the :nal days of the
@erman in'asion of Poland that begun in (eptember ;010% -he 4nderground
(tate was percei'ed by supporters as a legal continuation of the pre-war
Republic of Poland Aand its institutionsD that waged an armed struggle
against the country's occupying powers< Na*i @ermany and the (o'iet 4nion%
-he 4nderground (tate encompassed not only military resistance, one of the
largest in the world,PbR but also ci'ilian structures, such as education, culture
and social ser'ices%
Polish fghters were able to shoot down massive amount of the "famous" Luftwafe pilots even
though Poles had inferior aircraft, they continued doing so guarding Britain skies, no need to
kneel now.
Quote:
On ; (eptember ;010, at the beginning of the $n'asion of Poland, all the
Polish combat aircraft had been deployed to the :eld, contrary to a
commonly-held belief, based on @erman propaganda, that they had all been
destroyed by bombing at their air bases% -he aircraft destroyed by @erman
bombers on the air:elds were mostly trainer planes% -he :ghter planes were
grouped into ;5 escadres A:'e of them constituted the Pursuit >rigade,
deployed in the ,arsaw areaD% Despite /ein. o/solete, Polish P]<-33
f.hters shot do$n o&er 3S> 1erman planes% 8...9 A great number of
pilots and aircrew managed to escape to "rance and then to >ritain, where
they played a signi:cant part in the defence of the 4nited Iingdom against
Na*i in'asion, during the >attle of >ritain%
Are we special? Yes, by genes or by culture? I dare say - both, as we never imposed any "racial
superiority" of Poles on anyone as we do not feel that way. We simply prefer things that grow to
things that kill.
aaa
A song for you, played by the Vikings.
2012-03-21, 11:37
yahooland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$t seems there $ere expansions of :3M2 from estern Asia to
Europe and to Central Asia% And then back mo'ements of 4;5L with
-urkic tribes to ,estern Asia and Eastern Europe%
(o the idea that 4;5L originated in (wit*erland looks like usual horseshit,
because Oet*i's people were li'ing in that area at the time% $ would say that
whoe'er carried 4;5L into that part of Europe, dominated and absorbed
Oet*i's kind, and basically shaped the modern gene pool of Northern $talians%
-hese could ha'e been $ndo-Europeani*ed groups in Europe, probably from
somewhere in the north >alkans, and 9uite possibly .eltic speaking% >ut
those who mo'ed east from ,est Asia weren't .eltic, and probably not e'en
$ndo-European% -he best we can say is that they were late Neolithic groups
of some sort%
so then how do you explain that R-P312 the mother clade of R-U152 is only found in europe and
in a great number in spain ? :sly:
2012-03-21, 12:18
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by (ada.ast
gour people fell to @ermany in about a week% ,hat makes you think you're
special
By the way I wonder why you have chosen the name of the Slavic deity as your nick-name here:
Quote:
@erman chronicler Adam of >remen, who li'ed in the ele'enth century,
wrote a chronicle called @esta Ponti:cum &ammaburgensis Ecclesiae, which
tells us information about the (la's, not to insist too much on this aspect
religions% !ike its predecessor -hietmar, Adam gi'es a detailed description of
the city 9uite Rethra and temple there% 4nfortunately, two 9uite di+erent
descriptions, which ga'e rise to many discussions about the location of the
city% .hronicler clearly underscores the fact that the (la's were fanatical in
their pagan religion, refusing at all costs .hristiani*ation% Also, Adam of
>remen tells us a cruel e'ent, the time spent<
]$$, ;C P%%%R $n the middle, between them and the most powerful of all are
reutherii, their city the most 'ulgar language, Rethre, is the head9uarters of
idolatry% There is /uilt a .reat temple, $orshipin. demons, $hose
prince is (edi.ast. (tatue is adorned with gold and purple bed% -he
fortress itself has nine gates, closed on all sides by deep lake, a wooden
bridge makes it possible to pass, that only those who make sacri:ces or
re9uire answers are gi'en sway% $ think, signi:cant that the lost souls of
those who ser'e the gods, the chip according to P%%%R
$$$, 56 (o that was shot down with blows clubs, to be confessed faith of
.hrist, then went through each of the cities (la's to beat the game, because
they could not persuade him to gi'e up the name of .hrist, cutting her hands
and feet and threw his body into the market and cut his head, which pagans
dro'e a spear as a sign of 'ictory, they sacri:ced their .od, (edi.ast]%
$n Honument @ermaniae &istorica, E$$$, &ano'er, ;CB7%
2012-03-21, 12:25
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by )ahooland
so then how do you e)plain that R-P1;L the mother clade of R-4;5L is only
found in europe and in a great number in spain <sly<
Yeah, but 150+ is a Near Eastern marker. And the 152+ Bashkirs are all related.
I know that one Kazakh has turned up 152+. Haven't heard anything about the Druze.
I'm not sure? Seems like they had trains and planes back then, and got around like we do today.
That's my explanation, until a better one comes along.
2012-03-21, 13:13
yahooland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
geah, but ;562 is a Near Eastern marker% And the ;5L2 >ashkirs are all
related%
$ know that one Ia*akh has turned up ;5L2% &a'en't heard anything about
the 3ru*e%
$'m not sure (eems like they had trains and planes back then, and got
around like we do today% -hat's my e)planation, until a better one comes
along%
in a old study one of 28 druze belonged to R-u152 (R-u152 was called R1b1b2h back then)
http://u152.org/images/stories/Cruci...quency_All.png
when you said 150+ you meant 152+ ? because U152+ is certainly not middle eastern
2012-03-22, 06:22
Bohemian Rhapsody
Why do Ta|iks, Pashtuns, Uzbeks and Kazakhs have such high North Atlantic scores?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...BWDNSOXc#gid=0
Dienekes run came up with the same, though labeled as West European.
This |ust gets more and more confusing.
It looks as if the Proto-Indo-Europeans were a hybrid of Northwest and Northeast European.
2012-03-22, 07:05
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
,hy do -a#iks, Pashtuns, 4*beks and Ia*akhs ha'e such high North Atlantic
scores
https<KKdocs%google%comKspreadsheetK%%%>,3N(OqckgidU6
3ienekes run came up with the same, though labeled as ,est European%
-his #ust gets more and more confusing%
$t looks as if the Proto-$ndo-Europeans were a hybrid of Northwest and
Northeast European%
It's because proto-Indo-European genes are spread in western Europe too, to some extent. And
the proto-Indo-Europeans weren't 100% of any component. If we could use a handful of proto-
Indo-European aDNA samples from let's say, 20 R-M17 males from Yamnaya or early Corded
Ware or whatever, I doubt any one of them would show 100% Baltic and/or North Atlantic, and I
doubt they wouldn't show some Middle East as well.
2012-03-22, 07:48
Bohemian Rhapsody
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
$t's because proto-$ndo-European genes are spread in western Europe too, to
some e)tent% And the proto-$ndo-Europeans weren't ;668 of any
component% $f we could use a handful of proto-$ndo-European a3NA samples
from let's say, L6 R-H;G males from gamnaya or early .orded ,are or
whate'er, $ doubt any one of them would show ;668 >altic andKor North
Atlantic, and $ doubt they wouldn't show some Hiddle East as well%
For me this means the homeland can be pushed to the west more, in the Carpathian Basin.
Where else would you fnd a almost perfect balance of West and East components? Though
Hungarians have a little more Baltic/East European but this is because of the Slavic inJuence
during the Middle Ages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
$f we could use a handful of proto-$ndo-European a3NA samples from let's
say, L6 R-H;G males from gamnaya or early .orded ,are or whate'er, $
doubt any one of them would show ;668 >altic andKor North Atlantic, and $
doubt they wouldn't show some Hiddle East as well%
That would be a dream come true. Those Pazyryk mummies do have viable DNA. I |ust wish
someone would take the initiative and extract the DNA like they did with Otzi.
2012-03-22, 08:31
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
,hy do -a#iks, Pashtuns, 4*beks and Ia*akhs ha'e such high North Atlantic
scores
https<KKdocs%google%comKspreadsheetK%%%>,3N(OqckgidU6
3ienekes run came up with the same, though labeled as ,est European%
-his #ust gets more and more confusing%
$t looks as if the Proto-$ndo-Europeans were a hybrid of Northwest and
Northeast European%
There were migrations from West Asia both to the west and the east during the Neolithic, which
largely replaced local hunter gatherers. That's when most of the West Eurasian inJuence got to
South and Central Asia - NOT during the Indo-European expansion, which couldn't replace
populations that had grown since the spread of agriculture. The Indo-European expansion only
added to what was already there.
So let's say that the proto-Indo-Europeans were 75% Baltic. By the time they got to the North
Balkans, they were much less, and when they fnally absorbed and replaced Oetzi's people in
North Italy, they were something like <5%, and the rest of their Baltic alleles went into creating the
North Atlantic cluster.
2012-03-22, 23:08
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
"or me this means the homeland can be pushed to the west more, in the
.arpathian >asin% ,here else would you :nd a almost perfect balance of
,est and East components -hough &ungarians ha'e a little more
>alticKEast European but this is because of the (la'ic in?uence during the
Hiddle Ages%
I don't think so. It's impossible at this point to push the PIE urheimat west of Poland. Poland is
really stretching it, and the only thing that speaks for Poland is its high R-M17 SNP diversity; were
it not for that, Poland would be totally out of the question.
Also, keep in mind what you wrote here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
gou can smart talk and #oke around with sarcasm all you want but you still
can't e)plain the genetic similarities between say, Assyrians and .aucasians%
(outh .aucasus people ARE basically isolated Assyrians% North .aucasus
people are isolated Assyrians but with substantial $ndo-European admi)ture,
hence their North European component%
The "north European" component in Caucasus folks probably came after them assimilating some
PIE women into their tribe as they moved to the Caucasus from Anatolia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
-hat would be a dream come true% -hose Pa*yryk mummies do ha'e 'iable
3NA% $ #ust wish someone would take the initiati'e and e)tract the 3NA like
they did with Ot*i%
Yeah, it sure would be awesome. I think they also should do the same with Sumerian mummies in
the Ziggurats, and also whatever bone remnants they have from ancient Assyrians buried under
Nineveh; aDNA is the shit!
OT-split found here.
//mod
2012-03-23, 01:11
MediaWarLord
LOL
If proto-Indo-Europeans were Northern Europeans than I'm Annunaki from Nibiru! :lol:
2012-03-23, 08:30
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
!O!
$f proto-$ndo-Europeans were Northern Europeans than $'m Annunaki from
Nibirum <lol<
How do you explain the 6-7% "north European" component in Kurds, Iranians and Indians
on Dodecad K12a? It's also there in Armenians at around 4-5% but it's below 2% in Assyrians.
This "north European" component isn't so much Scandinavian as it is east European.
2012-03-23, 08:42
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
!O!
$f proto-$ndo-Europeans were Northern Europeans than $'m Annunaki from
Nibirum <lol<
Hello Annunaki, nice to meet you.
2012-03-23, 11:35
MediaWarLord
Quote:
&ow do you e)plain the 7-G8 ]north European] component in Iurds, $ranians
and $ndians on 3odecad I;La $t's also there in Armenians at around B-58
but it's below L8 in Assyrians% -his ]north European] component isn't so
much (candina'ian as it is east European%
There's some North European component in Kurds due to geographical location of Kurdistan, it is
not so far from Northern Europe and also due to East Iranic folks like Scythians from Central Asia
and Cimmerians from the north.
2012-03-23, 11:59
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
-here's some North European component in Iurds due to geographical
location of Iurdistan, it is not so +ar from Northern Europe and also due to
East $ranic folks like (cythians from .entral Asia and .immerians from the
north%
Kurdistan" doesn't exist ;)
The reason why Kurds/Persians/Hindus/Pakis have a small "north European" component is
simply because that's the remnant of their original proto-Indo-European component, which was
very high in the late proto-Indo-European stage and during the early proto-Aryan era around
3,000-1,000 BC, at least higher than it is now as it has been thinned down by mixing with
the Dsa.
In all seriousness, as a totally proto-Semitic and non-Indo-European Assyrian, I'm genetically
closer to the original proto-Indo-Europeans than you modern Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan
speakers are, because you brown folks have signifcant non-Indo-European ancestors and you
plot quite far away from Europe and most of you can't even be found in intra-Euro PCA plots. So
that's how non-Aryan you are today when Semites like me would have higher genetic similarity
with the proto-Indo-Europeans if you compared me with a Yamnaya individual on 23andMe's
compare genes tool. There's no denying that you Kurds/Persians/Indians/etc. actually do have
some descent from the original proto-Aryan tribe, but most of you with the exception of a few
individual cases, don't really look European enough to count as Aryans, and your genomes aren't
Indo-European today.
And lol, "Kurdistan" is miles away from northern Europe; you're delusional. And it's not about
northern Europe; it's about north-eastern Europe, around Poland, southern Baltikum and the
Black Sea. That's where the proto-Indo-Europeans came from, in that part of the world, and
frankly, you Kurds don't look like east Europeans most of you.
2012-03-23, 12:36
MediaWarLord
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
IurdistanX doesn't e)ist YD
-he reason why IurdsKPersiansK&indusKPakis ha'e a small ]north European]
component is simply because that's the remnant of their original proto-$ndo-
European component Awhich was 'ery high in the late proto-$ndo-European
stage and during the early proto-Aryan era around 1,666-;,666 >.D, at least
higher than it is now as it has been thinned down by mi)ing with the 3Tsa%
$n all seriousness, as a totally proto-(emitic and non-$ndo-European Assyrian,
$'m genetically closer to the original proto-$ndo-Europeans than you modern
$ndo-$ranian and $ndo-Aryan speakers are, because you brown folks ha'e
signi:cant non-$ndo-European ancestors and you plot 9uite far away from
Europe and most of you can't e'en be found in intra-Euro P.A plots% (o
that's how non-Aryan you are today when (emites like me would ha'e
higher genetic similarity with the proto-$ndo-Europeans if you compared me
with a gamnaya indi'idual on L1andHe's compare genes tool% -here's no
denying that you IurdsKPersiansK$ndiansKetc% actually do ha'e some descent
from the original proto-Aryan tribe, but most of you with the e)ception of a
few indi'idual cases, don't really look European enough to count as Aryans,
and your genomes aren't $ndo-European today%
And lol, dIurdistanX is miles away from northern EuropeY you're delusional%
And it's not about northern EuropeY it's about north-eastern Europe, around
the Poland, southern >altikum and the >lack (ea% -hat's where the proto-
$ndo-Europeans came from, in that part of the world, and frankly, you Iurds
don't look like east Europeans most of you%
Lol :lol: ! You're a funny fella. If you think that I'm going to insult you or other races you're wrong
big time.
You asked me where North European component in Kurds comes from. I told you it arrived not so
long ago with the Cimmerians and Scythians. Haplogroup I2 is a great proof to that that some
folks from the north arrived in Kurdistan.
Btw Scythians were East Iranic folks from Central Asia and were actually the same as modern
Ta|iks. But after they arrived in the Pontic Caspian steppe they assimilated many Europeans. A
lot of these hybrids, like Cimmerians and European Scythians came to Kurdistan
---------- Post added 2012-03-23 at 12:40 ----------
"Kurdistan" does exist. And it has been always there. Kurdistan is the homeland of Proto-Indo-
Europeans. The only thing what you're doing is to move PIE homeland to other regions to
Semitize the whole area around Kurdistan. You're not much better as Saddam Hussein who tried
to Arabize Southern Kurdistan!
Original and real Assyrians and their language were from the Levant /Africa and from the south.
Later they mixed with the Hurrians in the Mesopotamia.
Semitic language is an Afro-Asian language and actually doesn't belong in Kurdistan!
:lol:
---------- Post added 2012-03-23 at 12:43 ----------
Also Kurds have lots of East Iranic DNA form Parthians. And East Iranic folks historically had
always more North European component in them than West Iranic folks, like Persians and
ancient proto-Kurds in Kurdistan!
2012-03-23, 12:45
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
!ol <lol< m gou're a funny fella% $f you think that $'m going to insult you or other
races you're wrong big time%
As a Kurd, you're not in the position to do any insults :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
gou asked me where North European component in Iurds comes from% $ told
you it arri'ed not so long ago with the .immerians and (cythians%
&aplogroup $L is a great proof to that that some folks from the north arri'ed
in Iurdistan%
I2 in Kurds (if it even exists?) is more likely to come from Armenians than anything else, as the
Scythians were predominantly R-M17.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
>tw (cythians were East $ranic folks from .entral Asia and were actually the
same as modern -a#iks% >ut after they arri'ed in the Pontic .aspian steppe
they assimilated many Europeans% A lot of these hybrids, like .immerians
and European (cythians came to Iurdistan
You Kurds don't have any Scythian ancestry. Also, you're too dumb to fgure out that the "north
European" component is evenly distributed at around 6-7% in not only Kurds but also in Persians
and Indians. It is very unlikely that a few nomadic Scythian horsemen managed to inJuence all of
Iran and India at exactly around 6-7% with a north European-like component. In actuality, this
"north European" component is what's left of the proto-Aryans' original PIE ancestry, especially as
it peaks in Lithuanians, which points to eastern Europe and it's also around that part of the world
where the PIE urheimat existed.
Perhaps your Kurdish IQ at 85 will get it eventually, but I doubt it because people like you with
your mindset are more ethnocentric than ob|ective, with the idea that the world revolves around
your ethnicity and that it is still somehow Aryan |ust because you speak a language derived from
the Aryans.
You might as well say Spanish-speaking Castizos in America are Europeans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
]Iurdistan] does e)ist% And it has been always there% Iurdistan is the
homeland of Proto-$ndo-Europeans%
That's very funny, especially as there were no Indo-European languages in "Kurdistan" around
2,000 BC, but Semitic was spoken there for sure by the Akkadians and Eblaites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
Original and real Assyrians and their language were from the !e'ant KAfrica
and from the south% !ater they mi)ed with the &urrians in the Hesopotamia%
See Humanist? Agreeing with this anti-Assyrian troll is not a good idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
(emitic language is an Afro-Asian language and actually doesn't belong in
Iurdistanm
Semitic has longer roots in "Kurdistan" than Indo-European does. And you can go fuck yourself
for thinking otherwise. You're |ust self-hating and don't want to accept the reality that you're a) not
"Aryan" and b) more Semitic than you think you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
Also Iurds ha'e lots of East $ranic 3NA form Parthians% And East $ranic folks
historically had always more North European component in them than ,est
$ranic folks, like Persians and ancient proto-Iurds in Iurdistanm
Serious question: how old are you?
2012-03-23, 12:51
MediaWarLord
First you talked about and insulted Iranic (ARYAN) folks by their skin colour now you're talking about my IQ?
Are you angry?
I2 in Kurds is not from Armenians, lol!
Lithuanians? Lithuanians are basically Finno-Ugric folks!
2012-03-23, 12:55
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
"irst you talked about and insulted $ranic AARgAND folks by ther skin colour
now you're talking about my $r
Are you angry
Yes, I'm really pissed of at you brown people and your racial inferiority complexes, especially if
you happen to be Kurdish (I couldn't care less about Hindus though, as most of them are cool).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
$L in Iurds is not from Armenians, lolm
It's not from Scythians though, and it came from the Balkans via the proto-Armenians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
!ithuanians !ithuanians are bsically "inno-4gric folksm
No they're not. It's more like, Finns being Uralicised Lithuanians (by N1c males).
2012-03-23, 12:58
MediaWarLord
LOL, you're very funny! Racial inferiority complexes, LOL! Are you talking about yourself?
? Armenians don't have much of hg. I2. Armenians from the Balkans? are you serious??? Armenians are Urartu/Hurrians!
---------- Post added 2012-03-23 at 13:03 ----------
Population of Finland is 5 million there're 3,5 million Lithuanians.
How is it possible that such a small population was Proto-Indo-European and Indo-Europized billions of people??? :lol:
It's actually that Russians made the Baltic Finno-Ugric folks more Slavic!
2012-03-23, 13:03
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
!O!, you're 'ery funnym Racial inferiority comple)es, !O!m Are you talking
about yourself
You're the one who thinks you're Aryan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
Armenians don't ha'e much of hg% $L% Armenians from the >alkans are
you serious Armenians are 4rartuK&urriansm
Armenians do have some I2, and there's no way to prove that they are Hurro-Urartians since we
don't have any extant speakers of that language family today to compare with, even if it seems
likely that Armenians are descended from the Hurro-Urartians, which either way would make
them a non-Indo-European people on the genetic level. But there's a diference between modern
Armenians and the proto-Armenians (the original speakers of the ancestral Indo-European
derived language that became modern Armenian dialects). This people most likely came from the
Balkans, as evidenced by E-V13 and I2 Y-DNA in modern Armenians. And they were a small
group that inJuenced modern Armenians culturally mostly and not so much genetically.
In much the same, you Kurds are not an Aryan people other than some minor descent from the
proto-Aryans and speaking their language.
2012-03-23, 13:07
MediaWarLord
You don't like it he, when I do call myself ARYAN?
But I AM an Aryan! My language is Aryan, ancient Kurdish religion is ARYAN. My CULTURE is Aryan. My history is
ARAYN. My homeland is ARYAN. Everything about me is ARYAN!
You like it or not I will always show respect to my ancesorts, which you of course hate because they destroyed ancient
Assyrians!
2012-03-23, 13:11
El Andullero
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
gou might as well say (panish-speaking .asti*os in America are Europeans%
It's more like Castizos believing themselves to be Amerindians and hating on their Spaniard
ancestors (like it happens with some Chicanos, i.e. Nation of Aztlan), cuz' Castizos are as much
"Asiatic" as the Turks are (perhaps more). Your comparison would be more on point if your were
mentioning mostly Amerindian admixed (Indomestizo) people from Guatemala or Bolivia
believing themselves to be Spaniards and hating on their Amerind brethen.
2012-03-23, 13:13
MediaWarLord
Kurgan hypothesis was invented by Mari|a Gimbutas who was a Lithuanian nationalist (and a lesbian by the way) who
believed that Lithuanians are the center of the world.
It's very human to think that you're the center of the world. I believe that Kurds are center of the world. You believe that
Assyrians are center of the world, whoever they are.
And Mari|a Gimbutas believed that she and her Finno-Ugric peoples (Lithuanians) were the center of the world.
There're only 3,5 million Lithuanians and they thing that they're the center of the world? And Proto-Indo-European. Are you
serious???
This is the biggest |oke I ever saw!
With other words Mari|a Gimbutas was very biased toward her people!
Huckleberry Finn
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
Iurgan hypothesis was in'ented by Hari#a @imbutas who was a !ithuanian
nationalist Aand a lesbian by the wayD who belie'ed that !ithuanians are the
center of the world%
$t's 'ery human to think that you're the center of the world% $ belie'e that
Iurds are center of the world% gou belie'e that Assyrians are center of the
world, whoe'er they are%
And Hari#a @imbutas belie'ed that she and her "inno-4gric peoples
A!ithuaniansD were the center of the world%
-here're only 1,5 million !ithuanians and they thing that they're the center
of the world And Proto-$ndo-European% Are you serious
-his is the biggest #oke $ e'er sawm
,ith other words Hari#a @imbutas was 'ery biased toward her peoplem
You did not answer the question, Aryan. How old are you?
2012-03-23, 13:29
MediaWarLord
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckle/err) Ainn
gou did not answer the 9uestion, Aryan% &ow old are you
29 years old, my Finno-Ugrian brother ...
2012-03-23, 13:47
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
gou don't like it he, when $ do call myself ARgAN
I couldn't care less what you think you are. But since I know you aren't an Aryan since the Kurdish
genome lacks a signifcant "north European" (read: proto-Indo-European) component, it makes
you look like a total retard with a serious racial inferiority complex when you self-style yourself as
Aryan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
>ut $ AH an Aryanm
Keep telling yourself that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
Hy language is Aryan, ancient Iurdish religion is ARgAN% Hy .4!-4RE is
Aryan% Hy history is ARAgN% Hy homeland is ARgAN% E'erything about me is
ARgANm
I have a suggestion for you:
Buy genetic tests from FamilyTreeDNA and 23andMe if you really want to fnd out how Aryan you
are, and make sure you get the test from FTDNA that checks if you're R1a-Z93 or R1a-Z283.
Then let Polako and Dienekes check your "north European" component in their respective
pro|ects.
It doesn't matter actually, if everything about your culture is classically Aryan and you worshipped
Ahura-Mazda and followed everything Zara8utra said, and prayed for rain to Par|nya every
fucking day. If your genes aren't Aryan, you're not Aryan regardless of how impeccable your
culture is Aryan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
gou like it or not $ will always show respect to my ancesorts, which you of
course hate because they destroyed ancient Assyriansm
Here's a matter of biological fact: I'm more Aryan than you'll ever be, genetically, without even
trying.
The respect you show to your presumed ancestors is simply you worshipping an ancient north
European-like tribe which your modern ethnic group only carries partial and small descent from
and you're aggrandising their ancestry as all of your own and mostly non-Aryan ancestry.
You assholes could pull this sort of horseshit back on pan-Aryan Front, but expect to be bitch-
slapped around here if you insult my intelligence with that nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
Iurgan hypothesis was in'ented by Hari#a @imbutas who was a !ithuanian
nationalist Aand a lesbian by the wayD who belie'ed that !ithuanians are the
center of the world%
Actually, Vere Gordon Childe was the frst to postulate the Russian/Ukrainian steppes as the PIE
urheimat. Gimbutas only brought his hypothesis to attention in the academic community later on,
and J.P. Mallory popularised Childe's hypothesis as he revised Gimbutas' feminist nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
$t's 'ery human to think that you're the center of the world% $ belie'e that
Iurds are center of the world% gou belie'e that Assyrians are center of the
world, whoe'er they are%
In some cases, ethnocentrism has a lot of merit and truth to it. Kurdish ethnocentrism does not,
but Assyrians as the proto-Semites is a lot more correct than Kurds being the proto-Indo-
Europeans, and east Europeans as the remnants of the core proto-Indo-European base is on a
par with Assyrians as the remnants of the original proto-Afro-Asiatic genetic base.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
And Hari#a @imbutas belie'ed that she and her "inno-4gric peoples
A!ithuaniansD were the center of the world%
Who cares about her? I'm not bothered by her opinions. She was a lot smarter than you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
-here're only 1,5 million !ithuanians and they thing that they're the center
of the world And Proto-$ndo-European% Are you serious
You're too dumb to understand that numbers has very little to do with it. That's like saying the
proto-Indo-Europeans were sub-Saharan Negroids |ust because that continent is more numerous
demographically than modern Lithuania.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
-his is the biggest #oke $ e'er sawm
The |oke is on you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
,ith other words Hari#a @imbutas was 'ery biased toward her peoplem
Balto-Slavic peoples carry a lot more R-M17 diversity and autosomal descent from the proto-
Indo-Europeans than Kurds, Persians and Indians do. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Andullero
$t's more like .asti*os belie'ing themsel'es to be Amerindians and hating on
their (paniard ancestors Alike it happens with some .hicanos, i%e% Nation of
A*tlanD, cu*' .asti*os are as much ]Asiatic] as the -urks are Aperhaps moreD%
gour comparison would be more on point if your were mentioning mostly
Amerindian admi)ed A$ndomesti*oD people from @uatemala or >oli'ia
belie'ing themsel'es to be (paniards and hating on their Amerind brethen%
Castizos (75% Natam and 25% European, or did I get the racial admixture wrong?) who call
themselves Latino/Hispanic and thinking they're all white and shit, they're no diferent from these
brown pseudo-Aryans in "Kurdistan."
2012-03-23, 13:51
El Andullero
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
.asti*os AG58 Natam and L58 European, or did $ get the racial admi)ture
wrongD who call themsel'es !atinoK&ispanic and thinking they're all white
and shit, they're no di+erent from these brown pseudo-Aryans in
dIurdistan%X
For clarifcation:
Castizo = 75% Euro, 25% Amerind (i.e. nomar. amerinese and Ashina, for Old World admix
cases)
Mestizo = 50% Euro, 50% Amerind (Decimator, I think)
Indomestizo = 75% Amerind, 25% Euro (i.e. Cuetlachtli, Hoxxx)
2012-03-23, 13:57
MediaWarLord
You still don't get it, right? The so called 'North European' component is actually heavily mixed with Baltic and Finno-Ugrian
DNA, like hg. N1. Of course Kurds don't have much of these North-European Baltic/Finno-Ugrian DNA, since Kurds are
much closer to the Proto-Indo-Europeans and don't have much of "north European' hg. N1.
Ancient Assyrians had nothing to do with Proto-Indo-Europeans. They were an Afro-Asiatic group from the Levant or
something that came and wanted to conquer Kurdistan. But they got stopped by the Aryans of Kurdistan and vanished from
the face of earth!
2012-03-23, 13:58
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
gou like it or not $ will always show respect to my ancesorts, which you of
course hate because they destroyed ancient Assyriansm
Actually, let me clarify on this. I have a great deal of respect for proto-Indo-European culture, and
I respect the original tribe enough that I want to identify them properly with their original genes,
and that's why I disregard Kurdish ethnocentrism on the question as I realise you |ust want to use
the proto-Indo-Europeans to get Kurds some respect on a national level, in much the same way I
disregard R1b nationalism from western Europeans and their ridiculous agendas.
I have always been a great admirer of Greek mythology ever since I was 13, and proto-Indo-
European religion was a beautiful ancestral religion to Greek mythology. I can't think of any worse
way to disrespect the proto-Indo-Europeans by comparing them with a degenerate, disgusting
and ugly people like the Kurds :p
The ancient Assyrians were defeated by a coalition of Scythians, Medes, Cimmerians and
Babylonians (Chaldean tribes). Had there been peace in Assyria and not a civil war and internal
revolt by the Semitic tribes and the Elamites, the nomadic (and quite useless) Aryan tribes would
never had stood a chance against Assyria. More importantly, you Kurds can never pride
yourselves in destroying Assyria because you are the result of the ancient Assyrian females who
were initially dominated by Aryan males, whereas we modern ethnic Assyrians have no Aryan
ancestry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
gou still don't get it, right -he so called 'North European' component is
actually hea'ily mi)ed with >altic and "inno-4grian 3NA% Of course Iurds
don't ha'e much of these North-European >alticK"inno-4grian 3NA, since
Iurds are much closer to the Proto-$ndo-Europeans%
Explain then, how come Kurdish R-M17 is derived from eastern Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
Ancient Assyrians had nothing to do with Proto-$ndo-Europeans% -hey were
an Afro-Asiatic group from the !e'ant or something that came and wanted to
con9uer Iurdistan% >ut they get stopped by the Aryans of Iurdistan and
'anished from the face of earthm
Ancient Assyrian genes are still around, and constitute a ma|or part of your own genome profle.
2012-03-23, 14:04
Huckleberry Finn
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
L0 years old, my "inno-4grian brother %%%
Congrats, you are young for your age then.
2012-03-23, 14:09
MediaWarLord
You're twisting Indo-European history because of your hatred toward Kurds. But your hatred toward Kurds is so deep that
you're trying to change the history of billions of other nations. By twisting the history of the Kurds you're twisting the history
of billions of other races.
If I was an African I would be proud to be an African. But I'm not an African.
I'm who I am. Kurds are who they are. True Aryans and nobody can do anything about that.
I'm very proud being a Kurd and very proud of LEGACY of my ancetors. And by coincidence they were Aryans. That's why
I'm an Aryan too, like my father, grandfarther, greatgrandfather and ancestors.
---------- Post added 2012-03-23 at 14:09 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckle/err) Ainn
.ongrats, you are young for your age then%
And how old are you?
2012-03-23, 14:11
Huckleberry Finn
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
%%%And how old are you
46 and it shows.
2012-03-23, 14:14
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
gou're twisting $ndo-European history because of your hatred toward Iurds%
>ut your hatred toward Iurds is so deep that you're trying to change the
history of billions of other nations% >y twisting the history of the Iurds you're
twisting the history of billions of other races%
I suggest you read this book if you want to understand why modern Indians aren't Aryans aside
from language/religion/Y-DNA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Que..._Vedic_Culture
^^ Edwin Bryant's arguments can be applied on Kurds as well.
I don't need to twist history, and I don't think you understand history. Here's another book I can
recommend you:
http://www.greatwhitedesert.org/docu...an_History.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
$f $ was an African $ would be proud to be an African% >ut $'m not an African%
$'m who $ am% Iurds are who they are% -rue Aryans and nobody can do
anything about that%
$'m 'ery proud being a Iurd and 'ery proud of !E@A.g of my ancetors% And
by coincidence they were Aryans% -hat's why $'m an Aryan too, like my
father, grandfarther, greatgrandfather and ancestors%
Yeah yeah, mountain nigger, go fuck yourself with your stupid anti-intellectual bullshit.
2012-03-23, 14:16
MediaWarLord
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
E)plain then, how come Iurdish R-H;G is deri'ed from eastern Europe%
maybe it came with same folks as hg. I2
Some of Kurdish R1a came to Kurdistan with Cimmerians and mixed Scythians (sarmatians)
(Central Asian Iranic folks mixed with European natives),
other Kurdish R1a like R2a came directly from Central Asian East Iranic tribes like Parthians.
---------- Post added 2012-03-23 at 14:19 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
geah yeah, mountain nigger, go fuck yourself with your stupid anti-
intellectual bullshit%
:lol:
Oh my god :D You're using the n-word! :whoco: :thumbsup:
---------- Post added 2012-03-23 at 14:24 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckle/err) Ainn
B7 and it shows%
Ok
Time pasts fast and we get fast older. Just only in 17 years I'm as old as you're! :
But never forget that time is luck!
2012-03-23, 14:28
newtoboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
Actually, let me clarify on this% $ ha'e a great deal of respect for proto-$ndo-
European culture, and $ respect the original tribe enough that $ want to
identify them properly with their original genes, and that's why $ disregard
Iurdish ethnocentrism on the 9uestion as $ realise you #ust want to use the
proto-$ndo-Europeans to get Iurds some respect on a national le'el, in much
the same way $ disregard R;b nationalism from western Europeans and their
ridiculous agendas%
$ ha'e always been a great admirer of @reek mythology e'er since $ was ;1,
and proto-$ndo-European religion was a beautiful ancestral religion to @reek
mythology% $ can't think of any worse way to disrespect the proto-$ndo-
Europeans by comparing them with a degenerate, disgusting and ugly
people like the Iurds <p
-he ancient Assyrians were defeated by a coalition of (cythians, Hedes,
.immerians and >abylonians A.haldean tribesD% &ad there been peace in
Assyria and not a ci'il war and internal re'olt by the (emitic tribes and the
Elamites, the nomadic Aand 9uite uselessD Aryan tribes would ne'er had
stood a chance against Assyria% Hore importantly, you Iurds can ne'er pride
yoursel'es in destroying Assyria because you are the result of the ancient
Assyrian females who were initially dominated by Aryan males, whereas we
modern ethnic Assyrians ha'e no Aryan ancestry%
E)plain then, how come Iurdish R-H;G is deri'ed from eastern Europe%
Ancient Assyrian genes are still around, and constitute a ma#or part of your
own genome pro:le%
Evidence that Kurdish mtdna is from Assyrian females?
Either way Aryan only refereed to settled Indo-Iranians.
2012-03-23, 14:33
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
E'idence that Iurdish mtdna is from Assyrian females
No need for them to have the same mtDNA as us; their autosomal DNA and Y-DNA (Kurds even
have some J-P58 for crying out loud!) is enough evidence to conclude that Kurds are slightly
Aryan admixed Assyro-Kartvelian group, and highly inbred of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
Either way Aryan only refereed to settled $ndo-$ranians%
Actually, no, that's |ust Humata's nonsensical view (the ancient "settled" Aryan tribes did use this
term before they became sedentary). The Hittites also used Aryan as an ingroup term (perhaps
not on an ethnic level, but they used it), and the Irish also have the term in their language in which
it means "freemen" (aire).
But it doesn't matter what they called themselves. Point is, north-east European-like genes and R-
M17 are spread around in Old World Indo-European speakers and they correlate very well with
each other. We can discuss all night long whether these genes came from the Pontic-Caspian
steppe or around Poland, but the less you have of it, the less "Aryan" you are.
2012-03-23, 14:42
MediaWarLord
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
No need for them to ha'e the same mt3NA as usY their autosomal 3NA and
g-3NA AIurds e'en ha'e some F-P5C for crying out loudmD is enough e'idence
to conclude that Iurds are slightly Aryan admi)ed Assyro-Iart'elian group,
and highly inbred of course%
Actually, no, that's #ust &umata's nonsensical 'iew Athe ancient ]settled]
Aryan tribes did use this term before they became sedentaryD% -he &ittites
also used Aryan as an ingroup term Aperhaps not on an ethnic le'el, but they
used itD, and the $rish also ha'e the term in their language in which it means
]freemen] AaireD%
>ut it doesn't matter what they called themsel'es% Point is, north-east
European-like genes and R-H;G are spread around in Old ,orld $ndo-
European speakers and they correlate 'ery well with each other% ,e can
discuss all night long whether these genes came from the Pontic-.aspian
steppe or around Poland, but the less you ha'e of it, the less dAryanX you
are%
East Europeans don't even speak an ARYAN (Iranic) languages. :whoco: How the hell are they
'more' Aryan than Iranic folks. :whoco:
And all Iranic folks (Ossetians, Persians, Ta|iks, Kurds etc.) are very close related to each other,
which indicates that they didn't changed that much since the ancient times! :D
ARYANS = Iranic peoples; Iranic languages; Iranic religions; Kurdistan (Media) & Persia ! :D
2012-03-23, 14:48
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
East Europeans don't e'en speak an ARgAN A$ranicD language% <whoco<
The core Indo-European language base is found in Europe. The same is true of Y-DNA R1a
diversity. So the proto-Indo-Europeans came from Europe and settled in India/Iran. Read this ten
times over until it sinks in:
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...88&postcount=2
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
&ow the hell are they more Aryan than $ranic folks% <whoco< And all $ranic
folks are 'ery close related to each other, which indicates that they didn't
changed much sicne the ancient timesm <3
Yeah, that's right, you haven't changed much since even before you mixed with the Aryan tribes.
Here's something for you to consider:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...oreyko.svg.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boreyko_coat_of_arms
^^ Balto-Slavs have been using the Swastika since medieval times even before the British
discovered India. Lithuanian is arguably one of the most (if not the most) conservative modern
Indo-European language, and R-M17 reaches serious SNP diversity in Poland.
So you can never be more "Aryan" (whatever the fuck that means) than north-east Europeans.
2012-03-23, 14:51
MediaWarLord
Swastika? Swastika is not even from Europe but from Mesopotamia or the Caucasus.
They found also swastika (sun symbol) in Ubaid or Hassuna culture in Iraq. It's much older than everything in Europe or
Central Asia.
Hassuna culture is 8000 years old!!!
Even the Mongols use Swastika! :whoco:
2012-03-23, 14:52
newtoboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
No need for them to ha'e the same mt3NA as usY their autosomal 3NA and
g-3NA AIurds e'en ha'e some F-P5C for crying out loudmD is enough e'idence
to conclude that Iurds are slightly Aryan admi)ed Assyro-Iart'elian group,
and highly inbred of course%
Actually, no, that's #ust &umata's nonsensical 'iew Athe ancient ]settled]
Aryan tribes did use this term before they became sedentaryD% -he &ittites
also used Aryan as an ingroup term Aperhaps not on an ethnic le'el, but they
used itD, and the $rish also ha'e the term in their language in which it means
]freemen] AaireD%
>ut it doesn't matter what they called themsel'es% Point is, north-east
European-like genes and R-H;G are spread around in Old ,orld $ndo-
European speakers and they correlate 'ery well with each other% ,e can
discuss all night long whether these genes came from the Pontic-.aspian
steppe or around Poland, but the less you ha'e of it, the less dAryanX you
are%
They have the same mtdna because you probably descend from the same proto gene pool.
These mtdnas were in place before any sort of Kurdish or Assyrian identity.
That's not Humata's nonsensical view. Its |ust about everybody's except for a few people who are
still living in the 20th century. History supports it. Scythians were never Aryans. I've heard Birko
support it as well. Unless he is |ust an Assyrian who is an iranian nationalist.
Even if the Ancient Aryan tribes used this their R1a would have been Z93+ (unless of course you
believe Z93+ is West Asians and West Asian males killed all the Z283+ Andronovo carriers and
took their women in which case have fun with that theory). They would have spoken Indo=Iranian.
In their unadmixed form they are long gone. Which is why this word is ridiculous to use in modern
times. And there was no such Balto-Slavic/Indo-iranian unity. If they cared so much about being
Aryan and maintaining their superior Aryan genes shouldn't have admixed with West Asian
BMAC farmers at such an early date. There are no Indo-Iranian languages without West Asian
participation. Just proto Indo-Iranians as opposed to 4 braches of iraic, nuristani, indic and
dardic.
---------- Post added 2012-03-23 at 13:56 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
-he core $ndo-European language base is found in Europe% -he same is true
of g-3NA R;a di'ersity% (o the proto-$ndo-Europeans came from Europe and
settled in $ndiaK$ran% Read this ten times o'er until it sinks in<
http<KKwww%forumbiodi'ersity%comKsho%%%CCipostcountUL
geah, that's right, you ha'en't changed much since e'en before you mi)ed
with the Aryan tribes%
&ere's something for you to consider<
http<KKupload%wikimedia%orgKwikipedi%%%oreyko%s'g%png
http<KKen%wikipedia%orgKwikiK>oreykoNcoatNofNarms
VV >alto-(la's ha'e been using the (wastika since medie'al times e'en
before the >ritish disco'ered $ndia% !ithuanian is arguably one of the most Aif
not the mostD conser'ati'e modern $ndo-European language, and R-H;G
reaches serious (NP di'ersity in Poland%
(o you can ne'er be more dAryanX Awhate'er the fuck that meansD than
north-east Europeans%
No proto-Indo-Europeans settled in India/Iran. Admixed Indo-Iranians did. By the time they got to
India/Iran they already had West Asian (as well as East Eurasian components) admixture.
Aryan in the racial sense should be an unadmixed Indo-iranians. NOBODY like that exists.
Andronovo is long gone. These people are long gone. Indo-Iranian R1a is Z93+ anyways.
2012-03-23, 14:57
MediaWarLord
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...Iraq5000BC.|pg
http://farm1.static.Jickr.com/167/4...101edd2d_m.|pg
Swastika from Kurdistan, 8000 years old !!!!
2012-03-23, 15:00
birko19
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
http<KKi0C%photobucket%comKalbumsKlL%%%$ra95666>.%#pg
http<KKfarm;%static%?ickr%comK;7GKB%%%;6;eddLdNm%#pg
(wastika from Iurdistanm
Samarra culture is not in Kurdistan.
Btw, you've trolled other sites and lasted there, |ust a heads up, you won't last here if you carry
the same attitude you carried on other sites.
2012-03-23, 15:04
MediaWarLord
Quote:
Originally Posted by /irko3D
(amarra culture is not in Iurdistan%
>tw, you''e trolled other sites and lasted there, #ust a heads up, you won't
last here if you carry the same attitude you carried on other sites%
Samarra is in southern parts of Mesopotamia, before Arabs and other Semites the whole
Mesoptamia was ARYANIZED by Kurds from Kurdish mountains.
No worry, I won't stay for a long time here on this anti-Kurdish, anti-ARYAN and Kurdish-bashing
site.
Assyrians and Turks are trolling this site.
The admin, moderatos are Assyrians, I wouldn't expect something else from these racist
Assyrians.
2012-03-23, 15:05
Pioterus
Quote:
Originally Posted by /irko3D
>tw, you''e trolled other sites and lasted there, #ust a heads up, you won't
last here if you carry the same attitude you carried on other sites%
I see Elias being very patient with him, anyway there is no ideological censorship on this forum
(kudos for that), so if this Troll won't get QBQ or otherwise "lawfully" banned we have to simply
witness the waste of many good threads by his idiocies... Freedom of speech for us all.
2012-03-23, 15:10
birko19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioterus
$ see Elias being 'ery patient with him, anyway there is no ideological
censorship on this forum Akudos for thatD, so if this -roll won't get r>r or
otherwise ]lawfully] banned we ha'e to simply witness the waste the good
threads by his idiocies%%% "reedom of speech for us all%
Just read his last message:
"Samarra is in southern parts of Mesopotamia, before Arabs and other Semites the
whole Mesoptamia was ARYANIZED by Kurds from Kurdish mountains."
:lol:
I wasted my time with him on other sites, this time around we all know it's a |oke, moving on to
other important things...
2012-03-23, 15:11
MediaWarLord
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioterus
$ see Elias being 'ery patient with him, anyway there is no ideological
censorship on this forum Akudos for thatD, so if this -roll won't get r>r or
otherwise ]lawfully] banned we ha'e to simply witness the waste of many
good threads by his idiocies%%% "reedom of speech for us all%
I'm sorry to hurt your feelings but the Poles and other Slavs have nothing to do with ARYANS.
You're even more Turcic and Finno-Ugric than Indo-European. Maybe some Aryans from Central
Asia slept with Slavic women in Europe, but that doesn't make you an ARYAN! :lol:
So keep dreamin' with your 99 turbo dreamcar ...
2012-03-23, 15:17
Pioterus
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
$'m sorry to hurt your feelings but the Poles and other (la's ha'e nothing to
do with ARgAN(% gou're e'en more -urcic and "inno-4gric than $ndo-
European% Haybe some Aryans from .entral Asia slept with (la'ic women in
Europe, but that doesn't make you an ARgANm <lol<
(o keep dreamin' with your 00 turbo dreamcar %%%
:thumbsup:
Retard-self-proven, I am sorry you're not for real, standing in front of me as this would be a
pleasure to check your fghting skills :evilgrin:
2012-03-23, 15:22
MediaWarLord
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioterus
<thumbsup<
(etard-self-pro&en, $ am sorry you're not for real, standing in front of me
as this would be a pleasure to check your :ghting skills <e'ilgrin<
:thumbsup:
Is the doctrine of this whole site to insult other people???
2012-03-23, 15:28
Pioterus
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
<thumbsup<
$s the doctrine of this whole site to insult other people
I do not own this site, nor do I build it's reputation so I dunno...
But please read the SCIENTIFIC facts about who is more and who less similar to PIE tribes then
discuss those fatcs with other facts, stop bringing some obsoleted pseudo-science.
If you keep on whining on being insutled and then insult others... you knwo it's hypocrisy?
And using your language - big lolz :whoco: on Poles being fnno-ugric and Turkish. I am
wondering where those idiocies arouse?
EDIT: and got of my dreamcar, do you know it's simply impossible to buy and sustain a good
Saab 99 turbo now as this is the collector's item? Have you noticed the rust in the picture? Yesss
those cars were very prone to rusting and produced in limited number. That's why it's a dreamcar
as I cannot go back in time to buy a brand new one.
2012-03-23, 15:35
MediaWarLord
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioterus
And using your language - big lol* <whoco< on Poles being :nno-ugric and
-urkish% $ am wondering where those idiocies arouse
It's a fact! The Poles live next to the Baltics and are neighbours of the Finns by sea. Those folks
are Finno-Ugric. The aDNA North-European component is partly Baltic/Finno-Ugrian. The Poles
have lots of that.
The Poles are neighbouring the Finno-Ugric peoples in the North (Finland) and North-East (the
Baltics) of course they have some Finno-Ugrian DNA! Am I lying? :thumbsup:
Also modern Slavic and other Central Europeans mixed a lot with the Huns etc.
Nothing wrong about that! No need to shame, we're all humans!
2012-03-23, 15:40
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
$t's a factm -he Poles li'e ne)t to the >altics and are neighbours of the "inns
by sea% -hose folks are "inno-4gric% -he a3NA North-European component is
partly "inno-4grian% -he Poles ha'e lots of that%
-he Poles are neighbouring the "inno-4gric peoples in the North A"inlandD
and North-East Athe >alticsD of course they ha'e some "inno-4grian 3NAm Am
$ lying
The irony here is that Kurds, Persians and Indians show a Finnish component in Polako's latest
run, and that's the result of Finns having about the same degree of the proto-Indo-European
("north European") component as Lithuanians have (Finns are basically descended from proto-
Indo-Europeans and shifted language to Uralic at some point when N1c males migrated to the
region).
The original proto-Indo-Europeans were a north European-like tribe, but as I've been trying to
explain to you, not north European as in Scandinavian but as in eastern Europe. Scandinavians
are genetically less "Aryan" than Balto-Slavs are, and Kurds certainly are less "Aryan" than
Scandianvians are.
Kurdish ideological world-views are hilarious and based on solid, hardcore ignorance all the way.
I remember once Kurds on Flashback bragging about how much better Iranian culture is than
Semitic culture, not realising what Iranian culture actually is and how little ancestry they carry
from the proto-Aryans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
Also modern (la'ic and other .entral Europeans mi)ed a lot with the &uns
etc%
No, they didn't.
2012-03-23, 15:42
Pioterus
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
$t's a factm -he Poles li'e ne)t to the >altics and are neighbours of the "inns
by sea% -hose folks are "inno-4gric% -he a3NA North-European component is
partly "inno-4grian% -he Poles ha'e lots of that%
Also modern (la'ic and other .entral Europeans mi)ed a lot with the &uns
etc%
Use the search function all info is here, search also for Dieneks blog and Polako's blog to see
what diferent nations are made of genetically.
OK guys time for weekend and next week I am Jying to Romania, Germany and Sweden... fuck I
will spend more than 20 hours on the airplane in some 10 |umps in 4 days :mad:
Expect some drunken posting next week :lol:
2012-03-23, 15:43
MediaWarLord
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
-he irony here is that Iurds, Persians and $ndians show a "innish component
in Polako's latest run, and that's the result of "inns ha'ing about the same
degree of the proto-$ndo-European A]north European]D component as
!ithuanians ha'e%
-he original proto-$ndo-Europeans were a north European-like tribe, but as
$''e been trying to e)plain to you, not north European as in (candina'ian but
as in eastern Europe% (candina'ians are genetically less dAryanX than >alto-
(la's are, and Iurds certainly are less dAryanX than (candian'ians are%
Once again, "north European" is an admixture of Baltic/Finno-Ugrian and West Asian DNA. ;)
ARYANS = Iranic language, Iranic culture, Iranic homeland, Iranic religion.
ARYAN = IRANIAN
ARYANS = Nations like Kurds, Persians, Ta|iks, Ossetians. All these Iranic nations are
genetically very close to each other.
2012-03-23, 17:27
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
-hey ha'e the same mtdna because you probably descend from the same
proto gene pool% -hese mtdnas were in place before any sort of Iurdish or
Assyrian identity%
That proto-genepool did not speak Indo-European daughter languages. It spoke Semitic daughter
languages before it spoke Iranian languages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
-hat's not &umata's nonsensical 'iew%
It is, he expressed it here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humata
-he day people stop confusing Proto-$ndo-Europeans with Proto-$ndo-$ranians
with settled $ndo-$ranians Ai%e% AryansD will be a positi'e turn for anyone
interested in the topic% -he three ne'er were e9ui'alents and are all
separated by hundreds Aif not thousandsD of years%
^^ It's a nonsensical view because modern Indo-Iranian speakers don't have a monopoly on the
Aryan identity of Cyrus, and more importantly, the term existed amongst the Hittites long before
proto-Indo-Iranian even existed in the Middle East or India. And like I said, even the Irish have the
term intact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
$ts #ust about e'erybody's e)cept for a few people who are still li'ing in the
L6th century% &istory supports it% (cythians were ne'er Aryans%
You seem to be a big fan of ad populum arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
$''e heard >irko support it as well% 4nless he is #ust an Assyrian who is an
iranian nationalist%
What makes you think Birko has a better understanding of this topic than I do? And yes, I'm
serious with that question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
E'en if the Ancient Aryan tribes used this their R;a would ha'e been /012
Aunless of course you belie'e /012 is ,est Asians and ,est Asian males
killed all the /LC12 Androno'o carriers and took their women in which case
ha'e fun with that theoryD%
I've given my view on Z93+ here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
-hey would ha'e spoken $ndoU$ranian% $n their unadmi)ed form they are
long gone% ,hich is why this word is ridiculous to use in modern times% And
there was no such >alto-(la'icK$ndo-iranian unity% $f they cared so much
about being Aryan and maintaining their superior Aryan genes shouldn't
ha'e admi)ed with ,est Asian >HA. farmers at such an early date% -here
are no $ndo-$ranian languages without ,est Asian participation% Fust proto
$ndo-$ranians as opposed to B braches of iraic, nuristani, indic and dardic%
So if it's ridiculous to use the term in modern times, why aren't you bashing the Kurdish keyboard
warrior then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
No proto-$ndo-Europeans settled in $ndiaK$ran% Admi)ed $ndo-$ranians did% >y
the time they got to $ndiaK$ran they already had ,est Asian Aas well as East
Eurasian componentsD admi)ture%
The admixed Indo-Iranians (btw, that basically, very much, means "Aryan") were direct
descendants of the proto-Indo-Europeans, as evidenced by their culture, language and Y-DNA.
They obviously were not pure descendants of the proto-Indo-Europeans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
Aryan in the racial sense should be an unadmi)ed $ndo-iranians% NO>O3g
like that e)ists% Androno'o is long gone% -hese people are long gone% $ndo-
$ranian R;a is /012 anyways%
Tell that to the Kurd. I'm not the one who's passionate about an Aryan identity. I couldn't care less
about it actually. But what's right is right, and to say that the proto-Indo-Europeans were Kurd-
like, that's like begging to be ridiculed.
In the racial sense, however, in eastern Europe you can still fnd Balto-Slavic populations that
come quite close to the original proto-Aryans before they mixed with BMACs or whatever
population that made them browner.
2012-03-23, 17:55
Palisto
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
No need for them to ha'e the same mt3NA as usY their autosomal 3NA and
g-3NA AIurds e'en ha'e some F-P5C for crying out loudmD is enough e'idence
to conclude that Iurds are slightly Aryan admi)ed Assyro-Iart'elian group,
and highly inbred of course%
Assyrians are similar inbred if not more, which could be seen in the IBD plots.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zioOVQU3E4...00/heatmap.png
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5eo8_aXs88...00/heatmap.png
Some interesting notes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gadim Gerenich
&ere is an interesting paper discussing issues of $>3, $>( and inbreeding
e+ect
@enome (canning for (egments (hared $dentical by 3escent among
3istant Relati'es in $solated Populations
Quote:
-he E+ect of $nbreeding
-o this point, we ha'e ignored the e+ect that inbreeding may ha'e on
calculations of this type, e)cept to note that, in this pedigree structure, the
indi'iduals under study for a recessi'e disease are assumed to be bilineally
related to the ancestral couple% $n fact, young isolated populations may be
strongly inbred, and it is clear that if intermediate ancestors also are
bilineally related to the ancestral couple, then this will tend to increase the
amount of genetic material that those in the current generation share with
the founding couple%
Quote:
!inkage-dise9uilibrium mapping is a techni9ue that can result in a :ner
speci:cation of the locus of a diseasecausing allele% One approach is to apply
this techni9ue in a population that has grown in isolation since it was
founded% $t is assumed that most of the disease chromosomes
in the current generation are descended from an ancestral chromosome in
the founding generation, so that, in the immediate 'icinity of a disease
locus, a distincti'e haplotype should be obser'ed% $deally, enough time, or
generations, will ha'e passed so that the shared region will be small enough
to allow tight speci:cation of the gene locus, but the mutation will be recent
enough so that linkage e9uilibrium with the surrounding alleles has not yet
been reached% -his techni9ue typically is used for :ne mapping, once the
gene has been locali*ed to a region of a particular chromosome, and the
association of a disease locus with se'eral markers or haplotypes in the
'icinity is considered AForde ;005D% $n some studies that were undertaken in
"inland, for e)ample, it was assumed that the population was founded ;66
generations ago A&astbacka et al% ;00LY !ehes#oki et al% ;001D% -hus, the
e)tent of linkage dise9uilibrium Aor the
$>3 regionD between the disease locus and the surrounding markers is small,
probably ; cH% A full genome scan to detect a region of this si*e would
re9uire e)tremely dense genetic maps for each chromosome, making the
number of markers re9uired to locali*e the disease allele prohibiti'ely large
when the current genotyping technology is used%
Additionally, I want to mention that contrary to all other Dodecad participants a lot of Assyrians in
the Dodecad pro|ect are actually related to each other, which can bend the outcome.
DOD135 and DOD599 are cousins.
DOD134 is the uncle of DOD028.
DOD026 is grandmother of DOD028.
DOD163 is related to DOD134, DOD028 and/or DOD026.
DOD037 and DOD243 are cousins.
DOD095 is the uncle of DOD037.
2012-03-23, 18:00
MediaWarLord
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
-he admi)ed $ndo-$ranians Abtw, that basically, 'ery much, means ]Aryan]D
were direct descendants of the proto-$ndo-Europeans, as e'idenced by their
culture, language and g-3NA% -hey ob'iously were not pure descendants of
the proto-$ndo-Europeans%
-ell that to the Iurd% $'m not the one who's passionate about an Aryan
identity% $ couldn't care less about it actually% >ut what's right is right, and to
say that the proto-$ndo-Europeans were Iurd-like, that's like begging to be
ridiculed%
$n the racial sense, howe'er, in eastern Europe you can still :nd >alto-(la'ic
populations that come 9uite close to the original proto-Aryans before they
mi)ed with >HA.s or whate'er population that made them browner%
:lol:
The Medes and the ancient Persians were NOT the direct descendants of the proto-Indo-
Europeans. According to the Greek sources (like Herodotus) the Medes and Persians called
themselves Aryans.
"The Medes were called anciently by all people Aryans"
or
Darius and Xerxes : "I am an Achaemenian, A Persian son of a Persian and an Aryan, of
Aryan stock"
At the time when Darius called himself ARYAN, Persians were in skin tone DARKER than
Greeks!
I'm passionate about Aryan identity because I love history and it's about the LEGACY of my
ancestors. I'm talking about my ancestors that's why I am passionate about it. I LOVE my
ancestors and I'm PROUD of their LEGACY!
You're nothing but |ealous about Kurds & Kurdish history and deny the very existents of Kurds.
According to you Kurds do not exist; so what doesn't exist doesn't have any right to have own
homeland right?
2012-03-23, 18:01
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palisto
Assyrians are similar inbred if not more, which could be seen in the $>3
plots%
We've done our fair share of inbreeding, but I myself am not the least inbred. Can't speak for all
Assyrians though.
Regardless of how inbred we Assyrians are, we've never taken it to the same level as Kurds, and
we could be as inbred as Gypsies for all I care, it still wouldn't make Kurds the same genetic
group as the proto-Indo-Europeans.
How's that Mallory reading coming up, by the way?
2012-03-23, 18:05
MediaWarLord
Modern Kurds (children of the Medes) and modern Persians, Ta|iks, Ossetians are genetically still VERY close to each
other! So not so much race mixing here!
These Iranic folks belong to an ARYAN race!
Herodotus: "The Medes were called anciently by all people Aryans"
or
Darius and Xerxes: "I am an Achaemenian, A Persian son of a Persian and an Aryan, of Aryan stock"
Haters eat your heart out!
2012-03-23, 18:41
Palisto
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
,e''e done our fair share of inbreeding, but $ myself am not the least inbred%
.an't speak for all Assyrians though%
I tested the Iraqi Kurds.
I don't see a big diference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
Regardless of how inbred we Assyrians are, we''e ne'er taken it to the same
le'el as Iurds, and we could be as inbred as @ypsies for all $ care, it still
wouldn't make Iurds the same genetic group as the proto-$ndo-Europeans%
I never said that Kurds are the same genetic group as the proto-Indo-Europeans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
&ow's that Hallory reading coming up, by the way
I am not fnished yet, but linguistics caught my attention since then. Well written, that's for sure.
---------- Post added 2012-03-23 at 10:44 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;ediaar<ord
Hodern Iurds Achildren of the HedesD and modern Persians, -a#iks, Ossetians
are genetically still EERg close to each otherm (o not so much race mi)ing
herem
-hese $ranic folks belong to an ARgAN racem
&erodotus< ]The ;edes $ere called ancientl) /) all people Ar)ans]
or
3arius and qer)es< ]! am an Achaemenian, A Persian son of a Persian
and an Ar)an, of Ar)an stock]
Haters eat )our heart outX
Could you stop arguing like an angry man? If you want to make a point here then argue with
sources including links, so others can follow and verify your thought process.
2012-03-23, 19:18
newtoboard
There is no evidence that proto gene pool ever spoke Smeitic before Iranian. Kurdish mtdna isn't vastly diferent from the
rest of Iranian mtdna and there is no evidence that Semitic languages were ever spoken in Iran.
Your views on Z93+ are |ust speculation. There's no scientifc evidence for them. You reapting Polako's views over and over
doesn't make them right. You two are the only ones who believe Z283 proto Indo iranians mutated into Z93+ populations or
the West Asian Z93+ carriers killed all the Z283+ men. Its a fringe opinion. Utter bullshit. Indo-Iranian and Iranian languages
diferentiated in Asia not Europe (which is why the only branch ever spoken in Europe was the Scythian's northeast Iranian).
Scythians were never a homogenous groups and it is very likely some were |ust proto Slavs and Mongoloids speaking a
Z93+ language.
I have no desire to bash that MediaWarlord for his ridiculous ideas. He isn't worth arging with. I don't believe in this Aryan
nonsense.
If you are defnining Aryan as Northern European then these admixed Indo-Iranians weren't very Aryan. They had their
Northern Europeaness diluted by both West Asian and East Asian components(if not South Asian components as well).
They were mixed by the time they made it to India/Iran and their languages had diferentiated somewhere around the
BMAC. They weren't proto Aryan(fully northern european and speaking proto indo-iranian).
2012-03-24, 02:04
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
-here is no e'idence that proto gene pool e'er spoke (meitic before $ranian%
Iurdish mtdna isn't 'astly di+erent from the rest of $ranian mtdna and there
is no e'idence that (emitic languages were e'er spoken in $ran%
Semitic, Elamite, Kartvelian, Dravidian, take your pick. The proto-genepool spoke a language
ancestral to all these languages before it ever spoke proto-Indo-European.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
gour 'iews on /012 are #ust speculation%
Not really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
-here's no scienti:c e'idence for them%
In time, there will be, once they test the Andronovo/Krasnoyarsk Scythians and the Yamnaya and
Maikop kurgans and see if they're R1a*, R1a1* or R1a1a* and if R-M17 they'll also check if they
are or aren't Z93 and/or Z283. Or simply Z645. We'll know what's what then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
gou reapting Polako's 'iews o'er and o'er doesn't make them right%
I'm not repeating his views. I have my own opinions and it |ust so happens that if I agree with
Polako (or anyone else), then it's because they, much like me, base their opinions on logic. I
disagree with Polako sometimes, like for example, the linguistic evidence which he hasn't paid
much attention to, and I point that out to him.
But Polako is not an idiot, and while certainly not omniscient, he's defnitely more on the right
track than for example Dienekes (who's deliberately trying to misunderstand who the proto-Indo-
Europeans were?).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
gou two are the only ones who belie'e /LC1 proto $ndo iranians mutated into
/012 populations or the ,est Asian /012 carriers killed all the /LC12 men%
$ts a fringe opinion% 4tter bullshit%
Well, since Z93 came from Europe it must have come either from Z283 or straight from Z645 and
Z283- and mutated into Z93+ and spread signifcantly throughout India/Iran. The proto-Aryans
carried R1a-Z645 in any case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
$ndo-$ranian and $ranian languages di+erentiated in Asia not Europe Awhich is
why the only branch e'er spoken in Europe was the (cythian's northeast
$ranianD%
Proto-Indo-Iranian began in eastern Europe before they settled in India/Iran, as evidenced by
their language for crying out loud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
$f you are de:nining Aryan as Northern European then these admi)ed $ndo-
$ranians weren't 'ery Aryan% -hey had their Northern Europeaness diluted by
both ,est Asian and East Asian componentsAif not (outh Asian components
as wellD% -hey were mi)ed by the time they made it to $ndiaK$ran and their
languages had di+erentiated somewhere around the >HA.% -hey weren't
proto AryanAfully northern european and speaking proto indo-iranianD%
I think Stygian Cellarius gave the best explanation to that here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by St).ian Cellarius
$ respond to this man, not because $ take him seriously, but as a general
rebuttal against similar ob#ections like his, whether they be more erudite or
childish like his% -he general principle is the same%
$ only wish they had called themsel'es by another name% !ike a more
general name of a parent population% -hat would make things so much
easier% >ut apparently, their decision to in'ent a new name for themsel'es
after crossing into $ndia, bound them to $ndia and $ndia only%
,hat if they called themsel'es ]East European daughter population]% -hat
would change things considerably% ,hich is ridiculous% All because of a word
change%
Oh okay, that settles it then%
-hey aren't ]Aryans] by name, but they are probably the closest thing to
them 'ia genetic distance% $ndian Europids would be closer if they had not
amalgamated with Helanesians and Australoids%
And what does this mean to you ,hat conclusion do you draw from this
-hey certainly were, but let's play a little game, let's pretend the 3anish clan
left 3enmark and settled in the .ongo% -hey e'entually mi)ed with the
nati'es and were no more% ,ho do you think has the shortest genetic
distance with original 3anish
A% -heir hybrid descendants
>% -he .hinese
.% -he .ongolese
3% -he @ermans
$'d put my money on the @ermans%
2012-03-24, 06:16
Humanist
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palisto
3O3;15 and 3O3500 are cousins%
DBD3=L is the uncle of 3O36LC%
3O36L7 is grandmother of 3O36LC%
3O3;71 is related to 3O3;1B, 3O36LC andKor 3O36L7%
3O361G and 3O3LB1 are cousins%
DBD>DM is the uncle of 3O361G%
DOD095 is not part of the Dodecad Assyrian population. Neither am I (DOD134). Anyway, we are
still inbred (read: ofspring from marriages between 'distant' cousins).
Edit: Also, DOD026 is my grandmother. Not my uncle's grandmother. DOD028 is my uncle.
2012-03-24, 07:39
Reality Check
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
$t's a nonsensical 'iew because modern $ndo-$ranian speakers don't ha'e a
monopoly on the Aryan identity of .yrus, and more importantly, the term
e)isted amongst the &ittites long before proto-$ndo-$ranian e'en e)isted in
the Hiddle East or $ndia% And like $ said, e'en the $rish ha'e the term intact%
evidence please? I mean I did read what you have to say about scythians earlier in another
thread, so I can say about you Elias is that you are quite a noob when it comes to the topic of
indo-iranians
TruthSeeker
Seems that people diverted from the main purpose of this thread:
"Is Central-Eastern Europe the proto-Indo-European urheimat?"
We have to come back to the notion of the homeland:
- is it a lingustic Urheimat-based on predominant reconstruction theories
- is it a DNA genealogy derived possible homeland
- is it a combination (most likely!!!) of both
If you ask me,
- Archaeology gives you only one facet of an unknown true picture, leaving interpretation to other felds of science
- DNA Genealogy gives you a SCIENTIFIC hint to possible origins of populations
- Lingustics is still candid, though, alas, not much (to be suHcient!) cognate info was analysed
The whole thread seems to be thriving only on neverending attempts to disrupt it:(
Valid conclusions of the thread face a danger of being drowned in trivia...
I chose the word 'Hint' because of those 95% confdence limits, which EXCLUDE any attested proof.
2012-03-24, 10:12
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
"inns are basically descended from proto-$ndo-Europeans and shifted
language to 4ralic at some point when N;c males migrated to the region
Now you are being anti-intellectual. Try to be atleast atleast consistent with your theories.
Elias: Proto-IE's were R-M417 (R1a1a1). European and Asian branches of PIE decendants are
z93+ and z283+.
Elias: Kurds are Indo-Europeanised Semites as they only have little R1a1a*.
Elias: Finns are Uralicised (by N1c1* males) Proto-Indo-Europeans.
Fact is that we (Finns) have only little R1a1a*, something like 80-90% of our paternal y-dna pool
consists of only N1c1* and I1d*. Little R1a1a* we have can be easily explained by historical
(13th, 14th century) Swedish migration to Finland as R1a1a* indeed is most common on those
parts of Finland where there was known Swedish migration!
Following your line of reasoning there is no way we are Uralicised PIEs, as your y-dna reasoning
does not allow such conclusion.
2012-03-24, 10:15
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by (ealit) Check
e'idence please
Here you go:
The most loaded term in the reconstructed lexicon is *h4ers or *h4erys member of ones own
groupwhich in Indo-Iranian is generally represented as `Aryan`. From *h=er>s we have Anatolian,
e.g. Hit ar- member of one's own group, peer, friend, Lyc arus- citizens,while
*h=ery>s yields (perhaps) OIr aire `freeman`, more certainly Av airya- `Aryan`,
Skt ary?- `kind`, @rya- `Aryan` (cf. arA- `faithful`). The evidence suggests that the word was, at
least initially, one that denoted one who belongs to the community in contrast to an
outsider; a derivative of the word is found in Hit ra (what is) tting and natta ra not
right,cf. the use ofkosher which originally meant (in Hebrew) `what is ftting`. Although in Indo-
Iranian the word takes on an ethnic meaning, there are no grounds for ascribing this semantic use to
Proto-Indo-European, i.e. there is no evidence that the speakers of the proto-language referred to
themselves explicitly as `Aryans`.
The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World, p. 266, ISBN-
10: 0199296685
And see also this post:
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...1&postcount=81
If you want to discuss Aryans, do it in that thread where it belongs. In this thread, we discuss central-eastern
Europe and if it's possible to place the proto-Indo-European urheimat around Poland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by (ealit) Check
$ mean $ did read what you ha'e to say about scythians earlier in another
thread, so $ can say about you Elias is that you are 9uite a noob when it
comes to the topic of indo-iranians
Actually, I'm an expert in the making. I |ust bought this book from the Kindle store:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Que..._Vedic_Culture
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
(eems that people di'erted from the main purpose of this thread<
]!s Central-Eastern Europe the proto-!ndo-European urheimatY]
,e ha'e to come back to the notion of the homeland<
- is it a lingustic :rheimat -based on predominant reconstruction theories
- is it a 3NA genealogy deri'ed possi/le homeland
- is it a combination Amost likelymmmD of both
$f you ask me,
- Archaeology gi'es you only one facet of an unknown true picture, lea'ing
interpretation to other :elds of science
- 3NA @enealogy gi'es you a (.$EN-$"$. hint to possible origins of
populations
- !ingustics is still candid, though, alas, not much Ato be sujcientmD cognate
info was analysed
-he whole thread seems to be thri'ing only on ne'erending attempts to
disrupt it<A
Ealid conclusions of the thread face a danger of being drowned in tri'ia%%%
$ chose the word '&int' because of those 058 con:dence limits, which
Eq.!43E any attested proof%
The problem here is the anti-intellectuals, of whom MediaWarLord is the eternal posterboy (and
an embarrassment to the more serious Kurdish members of the forum).
The proto-Indo-European urheimat is a question that revolves around a line of evidence in frst
and foremost, the linguistic feld, and second of all, in the feld of population genetics. Then we
have the archaeological evidence and how compatible they are with both the linguistic and
genetic evidence (for example, fnding graves with males carrying R-M17 and light pigmentation
is an excellent clue as to where Indo-European descendants settled).
Linguistic palaeontology is the most valid linguistic technique to understand where the original
proto-group lived. I wouldn't be surprised once they test the Yamnaya individuals if they come out
as R-M17. If they don't, however, we'll have to revise our view and look for aDNA in Poland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
Now you are being anti-intellectual%
Nope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
-ry to be atleast atleast consistent with your theories%
I am too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
Elias< Proto-$E's were R-HB;G AR;a;a;D% European and Asian branches of P$E
decendants are *012 and *LC12%
I've never said the PIEs were R-M417. The proto-Indo-European in the absolutely most archaic
stages were R-M17/R-M198 and possibly also R-M420* at some point too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
Elias< Iurds are $ndo-Europeanised (emites as they only ha'e little R;a;ah%
Kurds have around 20% or so of R-M17, and that's about the same level as Swedes. Kurds have
non-Semitic and non-IE ancestry too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
Elias< "inns are 4ralicised Aby N;c;h malesD Proto-$ndo-Europeans%
Basically, what happened, was that a small group of N1c males took a small group of mtDNA
H5a women (and some other women who were Indo-European speakers) and imposed their
culture on them. After a while, they became known as Finns. Hence why Iranians, Kurds and
Indians show a Finnish component on Eurogenes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
"act is that we A"innsD ha'e only little R;a;ah, something like N>-D>? of our
paternal y-dna pool consists of onl) @3c30 and !3d0% !ittle R;a;ah we ha'e
can be easily e)plained by historical A;1th, ;Bth centuryD (wedish migration
to "inland as R;a;ah indeed is most common on those parts of "inland
where there was known (wedish migrationm
Yes, but the Y-DNA is not the know all, end all of the debate. It's the autosomal DNA you Finns
have inherited from the proto-Indo-Europeans that matters, and back in ancient times, males
competed over the females.
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
"ollowing your line of reasoning there is no way we are 4ralicised P$Es, as
your y-dna reasoning does not allow such conclusion%
You're anti-intellectual.
2012-03-24, 10:24
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
And there was no such >alto-(la'icK$ndo-iranian unity%
You are absolutely correct that B-S and I-I never formed genetic node in cladistic sense of IE tree.
B-S stemming from Northwest Indo-European dialect of Corded Ware horizon while I-I stemming
directly from Yamnaya based late proto-Indo-European dialects.
There however was AREAL unity between the two. They were neighbours. This is why both I-I
and B-S went through satemisation. At some very early point of history B-S and I-I
formed sprachbund, which allowed I-I innovations (such as satemisation) to spread as
adstrata/superstrata over the B-S speaking tribes. This must have happened around the time
when the initial expansion of I-I speakers begun eastwards.
---------- Post added 2012-03-24 at 09:30 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
$''e ne'er said the P$E were R-HB;G% -he proto-$ndo-European in the
absolutely most archaic stages were R-H;GKR-H;0C and possibly also R-
HBL6h at some point too%
Irrelevant in Finnish context. We have only very little anykind of R1a* derived lineages.
Quote:
Iurds ha'e around L68 or so of R-H;G, and that's about the same le'el as
(wedes% Iurds ha'e non-(emitic and non-$E ancestry too%
Thats still over double what we have.
Quote:
ges, but the g-3NA is not the know all end all of the debate% $t's the
autosomal 3NA you''e inherited from the proto-$ndo-Europeans%
Perhaps it's rather general Northeast European dna, where PIEs were simply |ust one segment.
PIEs didnt |ust drop from sky but had actual physical ancestors.
Quote:
gou're anti-intellectual%
Nonsense. We have only marginal amount of R1a1a*, yet we have loads of N1c1* and I1d*. Thus
we cant be ma|or lineal decendants of R1a1a* males.
Your "Finns are Uralicised PIEs" theory is not valid under your own criteria.
2012-03-24, 10:37
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
$rrele'ant in "innish conte)t% ,e ha'e only 'ery little anykind of R;ah
deri'ed lineages%
Here's the irony: you Finns have very little R1a and don't even speak an Indo-European language
as your frst language, yet you have more Indo-European ancestry than Indians who carry
shitloads of R1a and practise an Indo-European religion and speak two main Indo-European
languages (Hindi and English) as their oHcial languages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
-hats still o'er double what we ha'e%
Doesn't matter. You can have 0% R1a as long as the autosomal DNA is derived from the proto-
Indo-Europeans it's really the same shit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
Perhaps it's rather general Northeast European dna, where P$Es were simply
#ust one segment% P$Es didnt #ust drop from sky but had actual physical
ancestors%
Are you implying the proto-Indo-Europeans and proto-Uralics were the same genetic group? I fnd
that highly unlikely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
Nonsense% ,e ha'e only marginal amount of R;a;ah, yet we ha'e loads of
N;c;h and $;dh% -hus we cant be ma#or lineal decendants of R;a;ah males%
And the autosomal DNA you carry from N1c isn't exactly huge.
Look, you Finns are basically the same genetic group as Lithuanians, with less R1a and more
N1c and a slightly higher Mongoloid component. So you're the anomaly here in that you deviate a
little from the Indo-European speakers of north-eastern Europe. You Finns are basically
genetically modifed Lithuanians, and you were modifed by Uralic speaking N1c males. The
modifcation wasn't huge though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
gour ]"inns are 4ralicised P$Es] theory is not 'alid under your own criteria%
It's not only valid under my own critera, Pbo agrees:
Similarly, studies of mtDNA have identifed large genetic distances between the Saami and other
Europeans, including the Finns (Sa|antila and Pbo 1995; Sa|antila et al. 1995). Likewise, Lahermo
et al. (1996) found no overlap between Saami and the remaining European mtDNA patterns and
concluded that the Saami and the Finns must have diferent genetic histories. One alternative
hypothesis to explain the presence of genetic dierences and language similarities in the
Finns and the Saami involves a language shift by the Finns from Indo-European to Finno-
Ugric(Sa|antila and Pbo 1995).
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1181943
So who's the anti-intellectual now?
2012-03-24, 10:38
Polako
Finns are Uralicised Northeast Europeans, and the proto-Indo-Europeans were from near the Baltic. Thus, both shared
many of the same ancestors.
I should also add that the proto-Indo-Europeans happened when Neolithic farmers from the south, met Hunter Gatherers
from the North. So there's no reason to assume that the proto-Indo-Europeans carried 100% of the Baltic component, or
even as much of it as modern Lithuanians.
2012-03-24, 11:03
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
"inns are 4ralicised Northeast Europeans, and the proto-$ndo-Europeans
were from near the >altic% -hus, both shared many of the same ancestors%
Proto-Uralics were themself Northeast Europeans.
At this point any of these 3 may be correct:
1) Finns are Uralicised mesolithic paleo-northeuropeans or para-Uralics (+ later inJuences).
2) Finns are directly stemming from Proto-Uralics (+ later inJuences).
3) Finns are mix of 1&2.
Quote:
$ should also add that the proto-$ndo-Europeans happened when Neolithic
farmers from the south, met &unter @atherers from the North%
There is nothing indicating that PIE people were farmers. They were herders and to lesser degree
hunters as shown by the gravegoods of Khvalynsk burials.
2012-03-24, 11:19
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
-here is nothing indicating that P$E people were farmers% -hey were herders
and to lesser degree hunters as shown by the gra'egoods of Ih'alynsk
burials%
The proto-Indo-Europeans knew about farming, it's |ust that they had a nomadic lifestyle and
relied more heavily on the cow for nutrition (hence why the cow is so sacred in Indo-European
religions).
And yes, they did come from the Middle East because R1a* in itself is derived from Anatolia or
Mesopotamia or the northern Levant and the autosomal DNA of all Europeans isn't totally
unrelated with northern Middle Easterners either. The original Mesolithic hunter gatherers were
mostly wiped out although the Neolithic farmers did mix with them to some extent.
OT-split about Aryan identity moved to the Aryan thread. In this thread, we discuss
central-eastern Europe.
//mod
2012-03-24, 11:41
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
3oesn't matter% gou can ha'e 68 R;a as long as the autosomal 3NA is
deri'ed from the proto-$ndo-Europeans it's really the same shit%
Except that our autosomal dna can not come from R1a1* carrying ancestors if we dont have
R1a1* ancestors.
Quote:
Are you implying the proto-$ndo-Europeans and proto-4ralics were the same
genetic group $ :nd that highly unlikely%
They were certainly overlapping.
Quote:
And the autosomal 3NA you carry from N;c isn't e)actly huge%
Pure speculation.
Quote:
!ook, you "inns are basically the same genetic group as !ithuanians, with
less R;a and more N;c
There is very deep and old diference between N1c1d* of Lithuanians (and Poles) and N1c1* of
Finns. They may have splitted as long as 6kya ago.
Quote:
(o you're the anomaly here in that you de'iate a little from the $ndo-
European speakers of north-eastern Europe% gou "inns are basically
genetically modi:ed !ithuanians, and you were modi:ed by 4ralic speaking
N;c males% -he modi:cation wasn't huge though%
Please learn something about other Uralic speakers of Northeast Europe before making
conclusions. Most Uralic speaking populations are not that diferent from us. Some of them have
pretty large "recent" Turkic input but if you drop that of, you are left with "generic Northeast
European" genepool.
Mordvinian girl from Volga:
[imglink]http://i041.radikal.ru/0807/62/d8fecf7adc84.|pg[/imglink]
Udmurt girl from the Urals:
[imglink]http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x251/zemelmete/Udmurti/1208710893.|pg[/imglink]
Quote:
$t's not only 'alid under my own critera, P==bo agrees
Oh geez. Geneticists dropping of linguistic terms year 1995. Thats really anti-intellectual from
them (and you).
2012-03-24, 11:55
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
E)cept that our autosomal dna can not come from R;a;h carrying ancestors
if we dont ha'e R;a;h ancestors%
It most certainly can, through the women. Autosomal DNA isn't strictly tied to one haplogroup
forever. The proto-Indo-Europeans themselves weren't asexual males you know.
Here's evidence of the Semitic-like autosomal DNA you Finns carry from the proto-Indo-
Europeans:
Studies of ancient DNA have found H5 in four individuals of around 6800 BC from the Pre-pottery
Neolithic B site of Tell Halula, Syria.[7] H5a has been found in a Tagar (800 BC100 AD) man on
the Russian steppe whose Y-DNA was R1a1a [14] and in Margrethe, alias Estrid, 11th
century AD Queen of Denmark.[15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogr...29#Ancient_DNA
As you know, mtDNA H5a exists in Finland too. And I seriously doubt you think these mtDNA H5a women
have spoken proto-Uralic derived languages the past 6,000 years. They were brought to Finland from the
northern Middle East by proto-Indo-European descendants who carried R-M17, and it's no coincidence H5a
reaches high distribution amongst Poles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
-hey were certainly o'erlapping%
Prove it through aDNA then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
Pure speculation%
You're the one who's doing the speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
-here is 'ery deep and old di+erence between N;c;dh of !ithuanians Aand
PolesD and N;c;h of "inns% -hey may ha'e splitted as long as 7kya ago%
Prove it through aDNA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
Please learn something about other 4ralic speakers of Northeast Europe
before making conclusions% Host 4ralic speaking populations are not that
di+erent from us% (ome of them ha'e pretty large ]recent] -urkic input but if
you drop that o+, you are left with ]generic Northeast European] genepool%
N1c came from the east.
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
Hord'inian girl from Eolga<
PimglinkRhttp<KKi6B;%radikal%ruK6C6GK7LKdCfecfGadcCB%#pgPKimglinkR
4dmurt girl from the 4rals<
PimglinkRhttp<KKi;C7%photobucket%comKalbumsK)L5;K*emelmeteK4dmurtiK;L6C
G;6C01%#pgPKimglinkR
For fuck's sake man, Mordovia:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Russia.svg.png
Kurgan hypothesis:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._expansion.png
If you think these Uralic speaking women are purely derived from the proto-Uralics with no
ancestry whatsoever from the proto-Indo-Europeans, you're delusional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
Oh gee*% @eneticists dropping o+ linguistic terms year ;005% -hats really
anti-intellectual from them Aand youD%
I think you have a problem in accepting what Mallory wrote back in 1989, that while Indo-
European languages have a tendency of "winning", they don't always "win". You Finns being a
good case in point of proto-Indo-European descendants whose linguistic culture didn't prevail
against the Uralic outgroup.
2012-03-24, 14:02
TruthSeeker
Those two pictures cannot demonstrate anything! If only national costumes:-)
Especially the frst one (as if Mordvinian) - keeps Joating on the wide opens of the INet.
BTW, note true fair hair, as it looks in the frst pic.
People with this color being grown-up, had really blond hair in childhood.
2012-03-24, 14:36
Lemminkinen
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
-hose two pictures cannot demonstrate anythingm $f only national
costumes<-D
Especially the :rst one Aas if Hord'inianD - keeps ?oating on the wide opens
of the $Net%
>-,, note true fair hair, as it looks in the :rst pic%
People with this color being grown-up, had really blond hair in childhood%
Neither I see the reason for those pictures. I dont know are "Uralic girls" better proofs of the origin
of Finns than "Baltic roofs" of the origin of Balts :)
2012-03-25, 15:04
Hallteks
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
-here are P$E Aand atleast !ate P$ED loans in proto-4ralic%
Hainstream discussion of the topic seem to be if P4 and P$E
a9 share common ancestral language Aala Iortland or -homsenD or
/9 common 'ocabularity is due loans from archaic P$E to 4ralic Aala Forma
Ioi'ulehtoD%
,ether A or > is correct, neither really allow speculation for positioning P$E
anywhere else than north of >lack (ea%
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
-he irony here is that Iurds, Persians and $ndians show a "innish component
in Polako's latest run, and that's the result of "inns ha'ing about the same
degree of the proto-$ndo-European A]north European]D component as
!ithuanians ha'e A"inns are basically descended from proto-$ndo-Europeans
and shifted language to 4ralic at some point when N;c males migrated to
the regionD%
If we combine these two with Baltic N1c1d we might fnd out how FU and IE are related, and
come closer to the proto-IE Urheimat.
Something for you pseudo-intellectuals.
2012-03-25, 15:12
MediaWarLord
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallteks
$f we combine these two with >altic N;c;d we might :nd out how "4 and $E
are related, and come closer to the proto-$E 4rheimat%
(omething for you pseudo-intellectuals%
There aint no hg. N1.. in India, but a lot West-Asian (hg. J2.. , G2.. etc.) haplogroups instead.
+ Central Asian R2a and some native Indian R1a.
Most haplogroups that are not native in India are from West Asia and not from Europe or
something, like J2!
2012-03-25, 15:48
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallteks
$f we combine these two with >altic N;c;d we might :nd out how "4 and $E
are related, and come closer to the proto-$E 4rheimat%
(omething for you pseudo-intellectuals%
No N-M146 has been found in the Yamnaya horizon as far as I know, and I don't think they'll fnd
any N1c males carrying pigmentation genotypes for blue eyes and such in the Yamnaya horizon.
As for the relation between proto-Indo-European and proto-Uralic, I'll post this again:
Many higher-level relationships between Proto-Indo-European and other language families have
been proposed, but these hypothesized connections are highly controversial. A proposal often
considered to be the most plausible of these is that of an Indo-Uralic family, encompassing PIE and
Uralic. The evidence usually cited in favor of this consists in a number of striking morphological and
lexical resemblances. Opponents attribute the lexical resemblances to borrowing from Indo-European
into Uralic. Frederik Kortlandt, while advocating a connection, concedes that "the gap
between Uralic and Indo-European is huge", while Lyle Campbell, an authority on Uralic,
denies any relationship exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-I...ic_connections
Phylogenetic-wise, the last recent common ancestor Y-DNA N1c and R1a had with each other was K-M526.
Those Mordvinian and Udmurt women Hweinlant posted have blonde hair and blue eyes exactly because
they have proto-Indo-European ancestors from a few thousand years ago, before their ancestors
experienced a language shift. The original proto-Uralic people were not "north Europeans", and that will be
very clear once they fnd aDNA from northern Siberia showing ancestral clades to Y-DNA N1c1, they're not
going to have "proto-Europoid" genomes, but rather, Mongoloid-like genomes. So what happened is that a
group of Siberian males migrated to Europe, managed to intermarry with local Indo-European women in
Russia/Finland, and passed on their Y-DNA and language and some minor autosomal DNA to the groups
that became Finns. Genetically speaking, Finns are still autosomal-wise mostly of proto-Indo-European
descent but with a diferent language and Y-DNA, and also some minor non-Indo-European autosomal DNA.
2012-03-25, 16:06
MediaWarLord
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
-he original proto-4ralic people were not ]north Europeans], and that will be
'ery clear once they :nd a3NA from northern (iberia showing ancestral
clades to g-3NA N;c;, they're not going to ha'e ]proto-Europoid] genomes,
but rather, Hongoloid-like genomes% (o what happened is that a group of
(iberian males migrated to Europe, managed to intermarry with local $ndo-
European women in RussiaK"inland, and passed on their g-3NA and language
and some minor autosomal 3NA to the groups that became "inns%
@enetically speaking, "inns are still autosomal-wise mostly of proto-$ndo-
European descent but with a di+erent language and g-3NA, and also some
minor non-$ndo-European autosomal 3NA%
You're WRONG big time. The native North Europeans were always N1c1 folks. N1c1 is hardcore
native to northern Europe!
The Finns ARE native to Northern Europe. They always have been living in Finland and the
Baltics.
Sami folks in Lapland are the most native folks in Europe! And these folks are N1c1 + some
subclades of I1 and I2! Indo-Europeans from the south-east came and killed many of them.
The North-European a DNA component (Nordic Europeans) mostly = N1c1+ native European
hg. R1a+ some subclades of hg. I1..and I2...
And there aint no hg. N1c1, I1.. ,I2.. in India, but West Asian hg J2.. and hg. G2.. instead!
2012-03-26, 17:53
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
$t most certainly can, through the women% Autosomal 3NA isn't strictly tied
to one haplogroup fore'er%
Except that according to you it is. R1a* and North European DNA.
Quote:
&ere's e'idence of the (emitic-like autosomal 3NA you "inns carry from the
proto-$ndo-Europeans
Middle Eastern neolithic farmer mtdna most likely. Only secondary connection to Indo-
Europeans, if even that. I'm H36 myself, which is tightly connected to H5 btw.
Quote:
&5a has been found in a -agar AC66 >.W;66 A3D man on the Russian steppe
whose g-3NA was R;a;a
There is strong linguistic association Tagar = South Samoyedic. Not all Europoids at North Asia
were Indo-Europeans you know. Yenisei Kyrgyz and Khakass were also Samoyedics. Modern
Samoyedics are mostly language changers (only Nenets have typical Uralic paternal lineages,
while Selkups are 80%+ hg Q* and Nganasans allmost fully N1b*).
Quote:
-hey were brought to "inland from the northern Hiddle East by proto-$ndo-
European descendants who carried R-H;G, and it's no coincidence &5a
reaches high distribution amongst Poles%
Speculation, speculation. Presence of R1a* at Finland doesnt seem to be very old.
Quote:
-opic was< O'erlap of proto-4ralics and P$Es
Pro'e it through a3NA then%
We dont have any y-dna aDna from the region, not from postulated proto-Uralic urheimat nor from
postulated PIE urheimat. Only near by aDna is from proto-Yamna and is linked to South Siberian
mtdna C*
You're the one who's doing the speculation.
Quote:
N;c came from the east%
It's pretty hard for it to come from the west to Fennoscandia as otherwise it would have to come
via atlantic route from Americas. Association of eastern route is true for allmost all modern y-dna
at Europe. Ultimately most modern Eurasian males (N,O,R,Q) come from upper paleolithic
|ungles of Southeast Asia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogr...29_%28Y-DNA%29
Quote:
Iurgan hypothesis<
http<KKupload%wikimedia%orgKwikipedi%%%Ne)pansion%png
Uralic adventures:
http://i44.tinypic.com/52hzqr.|pg
Quote:
$f you think these 4ralic speaking women are purely deri'ed from the proto-
4ralics with no ancestry whatsoe'er from the proto-$ndo-Europeans, you're
delusional%
No I dont think so. I allready wrote that early Uralics and early IEs overlapped genetically.
My main point for those pics was that a) Eastern Uralics are not that diferent from Finns and b)
Finns are no anomaly like you argued.
Linguistic map of Northeastern Europe has changed dramitically in 1000 years. Just millenia ago
I could have walked from Finland to Mordovia and speak nothing but Uralic languages. North
Russians have massive amount of genetics from these Uralic speakers who used to inhabit the
region. They also score very high with North(east) European dna.
Quote:
$ think you ha'e a problem in accepting what Hallory wrote back in ;0C0,
that while $ndo-European languages ha'e a tendency of ]winning], they
don't always ]win]% gou "inns being a good case in point of proto-$ndo-
European descendants whose linguistic culture didn't pre'ail against the
4ralic outgroup%
According to you we are a) more genetically PIE than the vaste ma|ority of modern IE speakers
and b) speak Uralic while everywhere else the IE were winning and left few % of autosomal dna
to the modern IE speakers... Yeah right.
2012-03-26, 19:44
aeon
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
speak 4ralic while e'erywhere else the $E were winning
Ever heard of Hungary? Oh wait, Central Europe has always been Ugric speaking.
2012-03-26, 19:47
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by aeon
E'er heard of &ungary Oh wait, .entral Europe has always been 4gric
speaking%
Lol, the old grumpy has awaken from the winter hibernation. Perhaps the 9th century Magyars are
not exactly the benchmark for original Uralic range.
2012-03-27, 03:52
Bohemian Rhapsody
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
-he ]north European] component in .aucasus folks probably came after
them assimilating some P$E women into their tribe as they mo'ed to the
.aucasus from Anatolia%
I don't think so. Despite the lack of R1a there were still male migrations of Scythians and even the
legendary Cimmerians to and across the Caucasus. As to why R1a doesn't have a strong
presence in these areas I don't know.
http://i41.tinypic.com/13zb9c9.png
http://books.google.com/books?id=l8U...thians&f=false
2012-03-27, 04:40
yahooland
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
$ don't think so% 3espite the lack of R;a there were still male migrations of
(cythians and e'en the legendary .immerians to and across the .aucasus%
As to why R;a doesn't ha'e a strong presence in these areas $ don't know%
http<KKiB;%tinypic%comK;1*b0c0%png
http<KKbooks%google%comKbooksidUlC4%%%thiansifUfalse
Because Cimmerians were predominantly R1b :evilgrin:
2012-04-18, 21:49
|alethewhale
^I agree. I think all language families probably originated around the Caucasus which is probably also why most
haplogroups can trace their origins to there too.
Not to mention that over 50 languages (of all ma|or language families) are spoken in the Caucasus today which surely tells
us something.
2012-04-19, 03:09
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by #alethe$hale
Not to mention that o'er 56 languages Aof all ma#or language familiesD are
spoken in the .aucasus today which surely tells us something%
It tells us that the Caucasus is a refuge zone from the Indo-European expansion.
In the areas near the Indo-European expansion - the European Plain - no other language families
survived.
That's because there was nowhere to hide, and the Plain + Steppe environment facilitated a rapid
expansion.
2012-04-19, 05:02
|alethewhale
^ frstly other language families are also spoken in Europe but you're right its much less diverse than the Caucasus. But still
what you're saying confrms it because anywhere expansion has occurred more rapidly means there was obviously less
competition and thus represents a more recent movement. Which means Indo-European expanded to Europe and not from
it.
2012-04-19, 05:21
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by #alethe$hale
V :rstly other language families are also spoken in Europe but you're right
its much less di'erse than the .aucasus% >ut still what you're saying
con:rms it because anywhere e)pansion has occurred more rapidly means
there was ob'iously less competition and thus represents a more recent
mo'ement% ,hich means $ndo-European e)panded to Europe and not from
it%
There are no other language families on the European Plain apart from Indo-European and Uralic,
and the former precedes the latter in the area.
On the other hand, Ossetian and Tat are the only Indo-European languages in the North
Caucasus, and they arrived there in historic times. Armenian is the only Indo-European language
in the South Caucasus, and it isn't the proto-Indo-European language, but might have arrived
there from the Balkans.
So it seems very strange that anyone would propose an origin of Indo-European in the Caucasus
ahead of the European Plain.
Indo-European languages didn't come to the European Plain, they expanded across it and from it.
2012-04-19, 05:33
|alethewhale
^ kurdish and talysh are also indo-european languages spoken in the South Caucasus.
Anyway were talking about PIE which means far before these languages had the chance to develop into what they are
today. Obviously Proto-Aryan was located somewhere else (around Western Central Asia imo) and thus means IE
languages returned to the Caucasus via Iranian languages.
Armenian was never native to the Caucasus but to Anatolia instead.
Anyway I honestly don't know where PIE was.
2012-04-19, 05:38
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by #alethe$hale
V kurdish and talysh are also indo-european languages spoken in the (outh
.aucasus%
Anyway were talking about P$E which means far before these languages had
the chance to de'elop into what they are today% Ob'iously Proto-Aryan was
located somewhere else Aaround ,estern .entral Asia imoD and thus means
$E languages returned to the .aucasus 'ia $ranian languages%
Armenian was ne'er nati'e to the .aucasus but to Anatolia instead%
Anyway $ honestly don't know where P$E was%
The European Plain has the greatest Indo-European language diversity in the world.
No part of Asia can match it. Defnitely not the Caucasus.
2012-04-19, 05:45
|alethewhale
^ how many individual languages are in the entire Balto-Slavic group? I bet there are more Iranian languages than the entire
group.
2012-04-19, 06:20
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by #alethe$hale
V how many indi'idual languages are in the entire >alto-(la'ic group $ bet
there are more $ranian languages than the entire group%
I bet there aren't. But that's not relevant, since the number of recent languages doesn't say much
about the origins of the entire family. It's more important to look at old language groups.
The European Plain had the following in historic times: Baltic, Celtic, Germanic, Indo-Iranian,
Romance and Slavic. Since then, Celtic has been pushed out to the western fringes of Ireland
and Britain, while Indo-Iranian was replaced by Uralic and Slavic.
If we include the Balkans with the European Plain, then Asia looks even worse in comparison.
And to top it all of, European Indo-European languages more readily show proto-IE
characteristics.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...isoglosses.png
* Blue: Centum languages
* Red-orange: Satem languages
* Orange: Languages exhibiting augment
* Green: Languages exhibiting PIE *-tt- > -ss-
* Tan: Languages exhibiting PIE *-tt- > -st-
* Pink: Languages in which the instrumental, dative, and ablative plurals, as well as certain
singulars and duals, exhibit endings beginning in -m-, rather than the usual *-bh-.
2012-04-19, 06:41
|alethewhale
I think you're trying to say that Balto-Slavic is more similar to Iranian languages than to other European groups?
But is there even any proof that Iranian was ever spoken in Europe? Any artefacts/inscriptions/evidences with Iranian found
in Europe?
And what do you mean IE languages in Europe are more characteristic of PIE? source?
2012-04-19, 06:49
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by #alethe$hale
V how many indi'idual languages are in the entire >alto-(la'ic group $ bet
there are more $ranian languages than the entire group%
Indo-European languages have by far higher subgroup diversity in central-eastern Europe as
opposed to India/Iran, and this matches Y-SNP diversity of R-M17:
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...88&postcount=2
^^ Read through that a few times before it sinks in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by #alethe$hale
And what do you mean $E languages in Europe are more characteristic of
P$E source
Here you go:
What is most striking is that Lithuanian shows roughly the same general retention of the
Proto-Indo-European forms(naturally mitigated by minor sound shifts)as does Sanskrit, despite
the fact that the latter language is attested nearly 3,000 years earlier than Lithuanian. This
apparent archaism has mesmerized many linguists for over a century now and has led
some to the conclusion that the Indo-European homeland must have lain in or near the
Baltic.The case for a Baltic homeland has been augmented by a series of studies made by
Wolfgang P. Schmid who has argued that the Baltic region even retains the Proto-Indo-European
names for rivers. This hydronymic evidence we will pass over, since attempts to analyze river names
in terms of Proto-Indo-European itself tend to be wildly sub|ective and seldom convince the ma|ority
of historical linguists.30 Nevertheless, we are still left with the apparent conservatism of Lithuanian.
Moreover, Vittore Pisani has observed that those languages west of the Baltic all show an
abandonment of the Indo-European free accent31 while Lithuanian and a number of the
Slavic languages retain traces of it. And here we can observe that, although Slavic is not
quite so conservative as Lithuanian, it still displays an extremely high retention of Indo-
European noun forms.
The evidence of Lithuanian, and to some extent Slavic, has predisposed many to seek the homeland
in this region of Eastern Europe, or at least proximate to the Baltic and Slavic territories. It would be
misleading to imagine that both of these branches of Indo-European did not show marked innovations
as well as conservatism, and this is especially apparent in the verbs. Nevertheless, this cannot
detract from the overall, subjective if you will, impression that the Indo-European
languages of Eastern Europe have shown a stronger tendency to retain earlier Indo-
European forms than have some of their neighbours.But this alone does not provide a secure
solution to our problem. We have no more right to assume that interference is the prime cause of
language change than the other factors upon which solutions have been constructed. Moreover, even
if we were to attribute the conservative nature of Lithuanian to a lack of interference from non-Indo-
European substrates, this need not indicate the absence of non-Indo-Europeans in the Baltic region
but merely the efectiveness of intruding Indo-Europeans at assimilating a native population. Recall
here the trivial impact of the Celtic languages of Britain on the development of English. Here some
future linguist, ignorant of the evidence of both history and placenames, might conclude that England
had always been occupied by Germanic-speaking peoples.
While our excursus into the internal linguistic evidence cannot provide us with a
conclusively demonstrated homeland, it does emphasize a recurrent pattern of support for
a homeland which should lie between Central Europe and the east Caspian."
- J.P. Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology, and Myth, ISBN
050005052X, pp. 157-158
And |ust as an example of how much more conservative Lithuanian is compared to Albanian:
Beyond the family, several institutions appear. One is the clan, and its leader (*weik-potis) is
seen in the striking comparison between Avestan vispaitis clan-chief, household chief,
and Lithuanian viespats lord, formerly clan-chief,together with its very nontransparent
Albanian cognate 8ot `lord`."
- Ibid., p. 124
You happy now? :)
2012-04-19, 07:04
|alethewhale
Actually it's interesting that your article is based around Lithuanian because their culture and language fascinates me. I |ust
don't see why you think it's more archaic then Iranian languages because the article doesn't even suggest that. It's |ust
saying it might be as old or might be the oldest IE language in use in Europe.
Funny story also because we happen to have a Lithuanian channel on our Persian satellite and I listen to it a lot. Few weeks
ago this lady was counting from 1 to 10 for a game of bingo and I literally understood 6 of the 10 numbers which btw
sounded exactly like how we pronounce them in Persian. Let's |ust say it kind of freaked me out a bit.
Anyway, any evidence that Iranian was ever spoken in Europe? I'm still waiting. :)
2012-04-19, 07:13
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by #alethe$hale
Actually it's interesting that your article is based around !ithuanian because
their culture and language fascinates me% $ #ust don't see why you think it's
more archaic then $ranian languages because the article doesn't e'en
suggest that% $t's #ust saying it might be as old or might be the oldest $E
language in use in Europe%
Mallory points out that modern Lithuanian is about as conservative as Sanskrit and Avestan.
Imagine how conservative proto-Baltic was when Avestan and Sanskrit were spoken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by #alethe$hale
"unny story also because we happen to ha'e a !ithuanian channel on our
Persian satellite and $ listen to it a lot% "ew weeks ago this lady was counting
from ; to ;6 for a game of bingo and $ literally understood 7 of the ;6
numbers which btw sounded e)actly like how we pronounce them in Persian%
!et's #ust say it kind of freaked me out a bit%
Well, not that similar but I do see some interesting similarities:
Lithuanian venas d trys keturi penki sheshi septyni ashtuoni devyni de:shimt
Farsi yak do se chaha:r pan| shesh haft hasht noh dah
http://www.zompist.com/euro.htm
Lithuanian is defnitely way more conservative than Farsi.
Quote:
Originally Posted by #alethe$hale
Anyway, any e'idence that $ranian was e'er spoken in Europe $'m still
waiting% <D
The Scythians probably were Iranian speakers, and they lived in eastern Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythian_languages
2012-04-19, 07:13
thetick
Quote:
Originally Posted by #alethe$hale
$t's #ust saying it might be as old or might be the oldest $E language in use in
Europe%
Linguists have found far more similarities between ancient Sanskrit and Lithuanian than any other
European language.
Quote:
Originally Posted by #alethe$hale
"unny story also because we happen to ha'e a !ithuanian channel on our
Persian satellite and $ listen to it a lot% "ew weeks ago this lady was counting
from ; to ;6 for a game of bingo and $ literally understood 7 of the ;6
numbers which btw sounded e)actly like how we pronounce them in Persian%
!et's #ust say it kind of freaked me out a bit%
Anyway, any e'idence that $ranian was e'er spoken in Europe $'m still
waiting% <D
Haha you answered you own question in the paragraph above the line you asked the
question.:confused:
2012-04-19, 07:22
|alethewhale
Lithuanian is interesting language, I wonder if there are more similarities.
Anyway I still think that the PIE location was somewhere around the Caspian coast. Probably Northeast of it now that I think
the Caucasus Mountains would have been too big of a barrier they must have gone around them.
2012-04-19, 09:00
EastPole
Quote:
Originally Posted by thetick
!inguists ha'e found far more similarities between ancient (anskrit and
!ithuanian than any other European language%
It is not true. There are European languages much more similar to Vedic Sanskrit than Lithuanian.
Several times more similar.
I would like to see books or scientifc papers where such similarities between Sanskrit and
Lithuanian are demonstrated and proved. I don`t think there are any.
2012-04-19, 12:08
cinnamona
Imho, there are much more informaton about Slavic languages than Baltic ones whether it talks about connections to
Sanskrit or Germanic languages. Simply because our nations aren't very populous compared to whole Slavic region which
is...Big?
Here are some examples:
http://www.lituanus.org/1969/69_3_02.htm
Written about connections to Sanskrit and Baltic archaicness:
p. 77-80
2012-04-19, 15:14
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jalethe$hale
>ut is there e'en any proof that $ranian was e'er spoken in Europe Any
artefactsKinscriptionsKe'idences with $ranian found in Europe
There are masses of Iranian loanwords in the Uralic languages, from Finnish to Khanty.
Especially there are many Iranian words in the Permic languages, and it is thought that the steppe
Iranians escaped the Turkic expansion to the north.
Besides, already Proto-Aryan was born in the Caspian steppe:
http://www.mv.helsinki.f/home/|phak...icEvidence.pdf
2012-04-19, 20:58
EastPole
Assuming that PIE homeland was in Central-Eastern Europe this is most likely (IMO) scenario of genetic IE expansion as
seen in MDS space from Eurogenes recent plots. It fts my current views on R1a1 expansion, language expansion and
archeological data:
http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/...expansion1.png
In this model of IE expansion I am trying to predicting the outcome of expected future aDNA tests.
In other words, if aDNA from early Ukrainian Steppe Proto-Scythians or Illyrains, Hittites, Thracians, Hellens and Hallstatt
Celts are tested blue ellipses denote where I predict their genetic position to be located in MDS space.
MDS positions of aDNA samples from later phases of those historical populations will be located somewhere along black
lines.
Other models and predictions are welcome.
2012-04-20, 08:43
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
-here are masses of $ranian loanwords in the 4ralic languages, from "innish
to Ihanty% Especially there are many $ranian words in the Permic languages,
and it is thought that the steppe $ranians escaped the -urkic e)pansion to
the north%
>esides, already Proto-Aryan was born in the .aspian steppe<
http<KKwww%m'%helsinki%:KhomeK#phak%%%icE'idence%pdf
So in that PDF you're arguing that proto-Indo-Europeans could not have come from East Central
Europe because...Uralic has loanwards from archaic Indo-European?
That really doesn't work, because if proto-Indo-Europeans moved to the Volga from East Central
Europe, then that's exactly the scenario you'd expect.
Indeed, we know that early Indo-Europeans did move en masse from somewhere in the west to
the Volga. This also fts with DNA, with Y-DNA lineages like R1a-Z280 and Wo|ewodas's I1
commonly seen in Volga Finns.
And like I already told you, there's no evidence of any Middle Eastern inJuence around Ukraine,
but plenty in Central Europe. That's because the Black Sea and the Caucasus blocked of contact
between the Middle East and the Ukrainian steppe. On the other hand, the vast ma|ority of
Neolithic migrations from the Middle East moved into Central and Western Europe via the
Balkans.
---------- Post added 2012-04-20 at 08:45 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastPole
http<KKi;6G7%photobucket%comKalbumsK%%%e)pansion;%png
lol
I'm in the middle of the PIE circle. I like it, except the pink color. Not very manly.
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
A%%%D ,o#ewodas's $; commonly seen in Eolga "inns% A%%%D
Do you mean I1-T2 (Z63+)? At the FTDNA I1 Pro|ect it seems to be rather rare east of Poland
(one pin in Lithuania, one pin in Finland, one pin in Russia around Voronezh and 2 pins at the
same location in Ukraine).
2012-04-20, 09:02
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
3o you mean $;--L A/712D At the "-3NA $; Pro#ect it seems to be rather
rare east of Poland Aone pin in !ithuania, one pin in "inland, one pin in Russia
around Eorone*h and L pins at the same location in 4kraineD%
Right...well, I thought I1-T2 was seen in Erzya? Doesn't matter if it isn't, because R1a-Z280 and
R1a-M458 are.
2012-04-20, 12:04
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
(o in that P3" you're arguing that proto-$ndo-Europeans could not ha'e
come from East .entral Europe because%%%4ralic has loanwards from archaic
$ndo-European
-hat really doesn't work, because if proto-$ndo-Europeans mo'ed to the
Eolga from East .entral Europe, then that's e)actly the scenario you'd
e)pect%
If you read carefully, you will fnd it out:
"Consequently, we have a situation where we have two very close dialects of Proto-Indo-
European spoken in adjacent areasin the easternmost Europe near the great Volga bend at
the 3rd millennium BC. The farther in time and space we go from there, the more implausible is
the solution concerning the Proto-Indo-European homeland.No language remains unchanged
for millennia, least of all when spreading thousands of kilometers to new areas.It is most
credible to derive these dialects from the homeland from less than 1 000 kilometers southwest
and one millennium back in time (the Copper/Bronze Age steppe homeland). It would be very
improbable indeed to derive them from more than 2 000 kilometers southwest, behind the Black
Sea, and up to 4 000 years back in time (the Neolithic Anatolian homeland). So much we get from
the Uralic anchor: the Kurgan theory seems to be the only credible one."
Concerning the Central European homeland hypothesis, the temporal aspect is as good as that
with the steppe homeland. However, the spatial aspect is much worse: No language remains
unchanged for millennia, least of all when spreading thousands of kilometers to new
areas.
Northwest Indo-European dialect and Early Proto-Aryan were still so closely related languages,
that it is diHcult to see them arriving from very far.
1. The distance from Central Europe to the Proto-Uralic homeland is more than twice the distance
from the steppe!
2. There was a sharp cultural border between Central Europe and steppe, which means that the
foreign inJuence to the spreading language would have been huge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$ndeed, we know that early $ndo-Europeans did mo'e en masse from
somewhere in the west to the Eolga%
Yes. The Corded Ware people = Northwest Indo-Europeans. If you read Mallory, you will see that
it is easier to explain the birth of the CWC from the steppe than to explain the birth of the steppe
culture from Central Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
-his also :ts with 3NA, with g-3NA lineages like R;a-/LC6 and ,o#ewodas's
$; commonly seen in Eolga "inns%
It is very easy to fnd ftting thing, because there are so many genetic lineages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
And like $ already told you, there's no e'idence of any Hiddle Eastern
in?uence around 4kraine, but plenty in .entral Europe% -hat's because the
>lack (ea and the .aucasus blocked o+ contact between the Hiddle East
and the 4krainian steppe% On the other hand, the 'ast ma#ority of Neolithic
migrations from the Hiddle East mo'ed into .entral and ,estern Europe 'ia
the >alkans%
These Neolithic migrations to Balkan have nothing to do with the Indo-Europeans. There are clear
contacts with Caucasus and steppe and Caucasus and Near-East (Kura-Araxes, Maykop etc.):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kura-Araxes_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maykop_culture
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$'m in the middle of the P$E circle% $ like it, e)cept the pink color% Not 'ery
manly%
Those gay Proto-Indo-Europeans! :)
2012-05-03, 19:38
geomattica
Thank you for bringing this up East Pole. Just a few things though:
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastPole
-here are many models proposed for the population of .entral Europe from
the (teppe% (ome of them are discussed in<
dA (patial Analysis of Neolithic .ultures throughout Eastern, .entral, and
Northern Europe in Relation to Proto-@ermanicX Hatthew F% Rifkin L66G
http<KKwww%Bshared%comKojceKlIgou;%%%inN51-C;N%html
Rifkin discusses @imbutasJ model :rst<
,e know now from genetics that @imbutasJ model i%e% massi'e incursion of
steppe people into Poland and reestablishing itself as the @lobular Amphora
culture is unlikely%
-herefore alternati'e model is worthy considering%
Actually, we know that Gimbutas' theory was wrong since Globular Amphora culture is not
originally from the steppes. Radiocarbon dating places GAC's initial development squarely in
central present day Polish territory. In other words, earliest GAC sites are from central Poland and
from there, GAC material cultural elements spread further east (eventually into Ukraine) and west
(into German territory and even somewhat beyond). Also the cultural characteristics of GAC are
initially more like the TRB in its earliest phases. GAC doesn't become "steppe-like" unitl its later
phases and then there is a very late apparent migration c. 2900 into present day SW Ukrainian
territory since burial rites of late GAC type are found there. This is what the study is actually
saying here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastPole
L066 >. @A. entered the steppes of 4kraine, they had horses and wheeled
'ehicles, there were also many ob'ious $E elements in that culture%
GAC only has few clear cases of horse remains found within its cultural context but its not clear if
they were wild or domesticated. Wislanski in the book "The Neolithic in Poland" as well as others
in the Batlic-Pontic book series felt it was likely not domesticated and likely a wild horse kept as
quarry. Szmyt is really the only one who feels they are domesticated, but mentions they appear
ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES.
There is no hard evidence of GAC having wheeled vehicles. Only an amber "sun disc" that has
four lines interpreted as the sun's rays or spoked wheels is sometimes considered to possbily
represent a wheel but only in an artistic sense.
Wheeled vehicles ARE found within the Yamnaya culture. Any domesticated horse proper would
have come from the Pontic-Caspian steppe territory. So GAC would have borrowed horses form
NPS cultures most likely. Not the other way around.
That is what study is getting at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastPole
-he story told by Rifkin is as follows<
-he point is that it was not necessary that massi'e migrations of steppe
tribes caused the $ndo-Europeani*ation of .entral Europe% Actually it is
debated<
Actually it is also not certain that gamnaya tribes were $E and @lobular
Amphora NON-$E% $t could be the opposite%
You only picked out a small bit of what the study actually said and have presented it out of
context. Here is the full quote:
Quote:
As ,islanki pointed out, the main contirbutor of the @A. was the "unnel-
Necked >eaker culture A-R>D% -he oldest @A. sites are found in .entral
Poland% -he same also applies for the -R> roughly ;666 years before the
ad'ent of the @A. AHidgley ;00LD% ,hat the scores indicating high clustering
for her model most likely mean is that there was in?uence or interaction
between the @A. among the 'arious cultures that she felt constituted
Haykop% A $holesale mi.ration /) the people inha/itin. the
southern areas of the @PS in central Europe is still &er)
Puestiona/le.
Remember, Gimbutas felt that the GAC descended from the Maykop culture via migration from
the southern part of the Pontic Caspian steppes which is where the Maykop culture is located.
She postulated this before the use of radiocarbon dating on the basis that she noted some pottery
types found within the Maykop culture as possesing traits that could be connected to the GAC.
They were minority pottery types and she c-14 dates have since proven here wrong.
Likewise the GAC's eastward migration does not seem to have any hard evidence that its
practictioners made their way to where the Maykop culture was located. Rather the vessels that
are derived from the GAC would have made their way into Maykop territory via trade, some sort
of contact etc. from GAC people located in SW Ukraine. Ergo, a wholesale migration of people
from Central Europe into the NPS is highly questionable as to why GAC pottery types appear
Maykop territory.
That is what the study is actually getting at.
Regarding genetics, Underhill et al. does not feel that Poland is where M-17 originates. Rather,
study feels its origins lie in Northern India or Central Asia. The fact that M-17 has been divided
into two diferent clades 1) found in in east Europe among Balts and Slavs and 2) the other found
among Indo-Iranian speaking people of N. India, Afghanistan, Ta|ikistan, and eatern Iran rules
with a much higher diversity rate rules against this. Since the Indo-Iranian clade is much older
based on diversity, this shifts the geographic weight of the M-17's marker further away from
Europe and even out of Ukraine (!!!).
Still, there are studies like the one Dupuy did which have suggested that males bearing the M-17
lineage did indeed make there way into S. Scandinavia during the time of the CWC based on
Coalescence Theory.
Also, the earliest hard evidence for horse domestication comes from the Botai-Teresk site located
in NW Kazakhstan c. 3700 BC. Not anywhere in C. Europe.
Unfortunately, we'll never know for sure if the Sredny Stog horse remains of central Ukraine c.
4000 BC which numbered in the thousands, mind you, were domesticated or not since they were
discarded during the Soviet era due to an alleged lack of storage space.
Also, David Anthony's book, "the Horse, the Wheel and Language" clearly explains the
relationship of the horse's domesictication to the wheeled vehicle on the Pontic Caspian steppe.
Ergo, assuming the people of Yamnaya culture possesing these things isn't really an assumption
at all, rather its fact.
GAC people possessing wheeled vehicles, domesticated horses etc. is mostly fction and the
hard archaeological evidence simply is not there for such proclamation.
I worked at a Neolithic archaeological site in SE Poland (around Rzeszow) and had a local
archaeologist show me the town's museum of pre- and proto-history. In the museum and
according to my archaeologist friend, the Slavic period in Poland does not begin until c. 500 AD
and nothing disctincly Slavic is found prior, particularly the worship of Perun. And sure enough,
the appearance of the "Perun stone totem" does not appear in Polish territroy to around that time.
Historians of Poland do not regard the Slavs as indigeneous to most of Poland and, at best, only
consider the possibility that Slavs were in SE Polandsince pre-historic times.
The origins of PIE will always be debatable but David Anthony has done an exceptional |ob
placing and arguing for the Pontic-Caspian region as the "homeland". Even linguist David Ringe,
conceded that Anthony is most likely correct and it is still in good reason to place PIE there than
anywhere else.
2012-06-07, 20:17
Italian Norman
No, I favour the Anatolian Hypothesis.
2012-06-07, 21:02
blue3000
Quote:
Originally Posted by .eomattica
&istorians of Poland do not regard the (la's as indigeneous to most of
Poland and, at best, only consider the possibility that (la's were in SE
Polandsince pre-historic times%
Interesting.
The question is how do they distinguish slavs, upon what grounds. Do you know?
2012-06-07, 21:45
geomattica
When I worked with archaeologists in Poland, they took me to a local museum and showed me the material remains of the
periods prior to Slavic (early Slavic period in Poland = c.500 to 700 AD) of the SE Polish region. The following ethnic
periods are recognized in SE Poland based on my observations at the Rzeszow museum:
Scythian (Scytowie)/Tarnobrzeska kultura luzycka: c.800-400 BC (defned based on certain arrowheads, burial types)
Celtowie: c.400-200 BC (based on various metalurgical artifacts like swords that had a rather "Celtic" character to them
kinda like La Tene style)
Wielbark culture: c. 100-500 AD is considered Germanic or related to the Goths. A metal shield but I saw was very
"Visogothic" in character at the museum.
Slavic cultural period: c. 500-700 AD
There are also other archaeological cultures scattered throughout Polish territory suspected to releate to Celts, Balts, and
Germanic tribes.
The historian for the book "Gods Playground: a History of Poland" humored the idea that SE Poland may have been
indigenously Slavic but truthfully that is likely him being generous.
The reasoning behind material culture and ethinicity is best explained in David Anthony's book "The Horse, the Wheel and
Language".
2012-06-07, 22:41
blue3000
Big thanks. It is really interesting how diferent the views of some Polish members are to this. Well, everybody has the right
to their own opinion.
No I am sceptical about a central-eastern urheimat. Perhaps frisian islands was the urheimat;). We will probably never know
and why is it important anyway?. We should instead be busy preserving indo-european languages and dialects because
soon everybody in europe will be speaking english and there will only be english urheimat.
2012-06-08, 03:22
aregint
Quote:
Originally Posted by !talian @orman
No, $ fa'our the Anatolian &ypothesis%
Man, we've been discussing several thousand pages of research papers and books and maps for
many months, and you come here, without doing any reading, to spam a one-liner? Come on...
2012-06-08, 03:48
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by .eomattica
Rather, study feels its origins lie in Northern $ndia or .entral Asia% -he fact
that H-;G has been di'ided into two di+erent clades ;D found in in east
Europe among >alts and (la's and LD the other found among $ndo-$ranian
speaking people of N% $ndia, Afghanistan, -a#ikistan, and eatern $ran rules
with a much higher di'ersity rate rules against this% (ince the $ndo-$ranian
clade is much older based on di'ersity, this shifts the geographic weight of
the H-;G's marker further away from Europe and e'en out of 4kraine AmmmD%
M17 doesn't have two clades, |ust because one lab somewhere said so and managed to get it
into 3ature maga8ine. In fact, it has many clades.
But, Central and South Asia seem to have only have one clade, which is a late one (Z93), and the
vast ma|ority of Europeans and Western Asians are ancestral for it.
Indeed, the diversity of South Asian R1a you're referring to is bogus, because it's based on STR
calculations, which we now know can't be used to pinpoint Y-DNA haplogroup origins or
expansion times.
Western Europe, Central Europe and Western Asia are hot spots for R1a SNP diversity, while
South Asia and Central Asia really don't have much at all.
On the origins and expansions of R1a and R1b - part 2
So the most plausible scenario, is that R1a is a Neolithic marker, with origins in West Asia, and
spread onto the steppes from Central Europe.
This would also ft very nicely with what we're seeing via autosomal DNA, with no evidence
showing of any migration from Central Asia to Europe, but plenty of evidence showing that
Europe was populated from West Asia (via the Mediterranean and the Balkans) and then Central
Asia was colonized from Europe and West Asia.
2012-06-08, 04:15
geomattica
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
H;G doesn't ha'e two clades, #ust because one lab somewhere said so and
managed to get it into Nature maga*ine% $n fact, it has many clades%
Yes I know but this was before our conversation and things are constantly changing with the
discovery of new clades. I was simply discussing the Underhill paper. Which I never completely
agreed w. based on other factors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
>ut, .entral and (outh Asia seem to ha'e only ha'e one clade, which is a
late one A/01D, and the 'ast ma#ority of Europeans and ,estern Asians are
ancestral for it%
Yes, a diferentiating demographic process took place. But I won't speculate, I'd rather |ust see
the aDNA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$ndeed, the di'ersity of (outh Asian R;a you're referring to is bogus,
because it's based on (-R calculations, which we now know can't be used to
pinpoint g-3NA haplogroup origins or e)pansion times%
The concept never made any sense to me but that didn't stop the POV pushers over at Wikipedia
from mating a furious "Indigenous Aryan" trolling campaign. Good times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
(o the most plausible scenario, is that R;a is a Neolithic marker, with origins
in ,est Asia, and spread onto the steppes from .entral Europe%
I'd rather wait to see what the aDNA has to say on this matter, particularly for the upcoming TRB-
CWC aDNA studies as well as this alleged Yamna culture study I've been hearing so much about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
would also :t 'ery nicely with what we're seeing 'ia autosomal 3NA, with no
e'idence showing of any migration from .entral Asia to Europe, but plenty of
e'idence showing that Europe was populated from ,est Asia A'ia the
Hediterranean and the >alkansD and then .entral Asia was coloni*ed from
Europe and ,est Asia%
For clarifcation purposes, are you lumping Eneolithic to Bronze age Ukraine in as central
Europe? Reason I say this is that in terms of archaeology, the material culture that is viewed as
having to do with steppe colonization has its roots in Eneolithic-Bronze age Ukraine. Afanasevo,
Poltavka, and Andronovo cultural horizons all have links to Yamna culture but not TRB or GAC.
Such archaeological grounds for a source stemming from Central Europe (Poland, Germany)
have nothing to do with the "taming" of the steppes (Neolithic Central Europe = TRB, GAC).
Central Europe has little to no archaeological grounds for earliest epicenter of horse
domestication at the moment which as we all know plays a factor in how the steppes were
"tamed".
2012-06-08, 04:28
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by .eomattica
"or clari:cation purposes, are you lumping Eneolithic to >ron*e age 4kraine
in as central Europe Reason $ say this is that in terms of archaeology, the
material culture that is 'iewed as ha'ing to do with steppe coloni*ation has
its roots in Eneolithic->ron*e age 4kraine% (uch archaeological grounds for a
source stemming from .entral Europe APoland, @ermanyD ha'e nothing to do
with the steppes ANeolithic .entral Europe U -R>, @A.D% .entral Europe has
little to no archaeological grounds for earliest epicenter of horse
domestication at the moment which as we all know plays a factor in how the
steppes were ]tamed]%
The last I read, was that horse domestication spread from the Western steppe, and that's based
on modern horse DNA.
Horse domestication originated on the European steppe
The two sample points from which this expansion of horse domestication apparently took place
are today located in Lviv, Ukraine, and in Lithuania. Unfortunately, no sites further west were
tested.
I have no idea how that fts with archeological data, but an expansion like this, of horses and men,
would match very well the spread of R1a and autosomal DNA from west to east, which we can
see both in ancient and modern DNA.
But like I say below, to settle the issue, we have to wait a little bit for more ancient DNA.
Quote:
$nterestingly, mt3NA results from Androno'o burials suggest that a people of
European origin migrated across the steppe during the .halcolithic and
>ron*e Age, and added new, increasingly e)otic, female lineages to their
family groups as they trekked east% On the other hand, it seems the males
remained largely of the same western stock, because almost all of the
samples tested carried g-3NA haplogroup R;a% (o e'erything seems to :t
with the theory that Europeans coloni*ed the Eurasian steppes during the
early metal ages% >ut, of course, more ancient 3NA results, from horse
remains, as well as Androno'o and (cythian mummies, will settle this issue
once and for all, probably within the ne)t couple of years, if not much
sooner%
2012-06-08, 04:32
annihilus
But we still link horses to R1a right? Don't want anybody messing with that!;)
2012-06-08, 04:48
newtoboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
H;G doesn't ha'e two clades, #ust because one lab somewhere said so and
managed to get it into Nature maga*ine% $n fact, it has many clades%
>ut, .entral and (outh Asia seem to ha'e only ha'e one clade, which is a
late one A/01D, and the 'ast ma#ority of Europeans and ,estern Asians are
ancestral for it%
$ndeed, the di'ersity of (outh Asian R;a you're referring to is bogus,
because it's based on (-R calculations, which we now know can't be used to
pinpoint g-3NA haplogroup origins or e)pansion times%
,estern Europe, .entral Europe and ,estern Asia are hot spots for R;a (NP
di'ersity, while (outh Asia and .entral Asia really don't ha'e much at all%
On the origins and e)pansions of R;a and R;b - part L
(o the most plausible scenario, is that R;a is a Neolithic marker, with origins
in ,est Asia, and spread onto the steppes from .entral Europe%
-his would also :t 'ery nicely with what we're seeing 'ia autosomal 3NA,
with no e'idence showing of any migration from .entral Asia to Europe, but
plenty of e'idence showing that Europe was populated from ,est Asia A'ia
the Hediterranean and the >alkansD and then .entral Asia was coloni*ed
from Europe and ,est Asia%
Isn't the ma|ority of West Asian R1a also Z93+ though?
---------- Post added 2012-06-08 at 03:54 ----------
What part of Andronovo mtdna looks exotic? The West Asian looking lineages seem to have
more matches with Tripoyle than South-Central Asia or South Asia. Other than that we see a high
concentration of U2e/U4/U5.
I also really doubt R1a is a Neolithic marker. This would siggest Northern components came from
an original I or even N carrying population. I2 has a Balkan origin and I1 is a Germanic thing. N1c
is originally from a bit farther east.I also doubt Z93+ is West Asian. That makes no sense. Where
did the the Z280+/Z283+ go? I suspect early Indo-Iranians were a mixture of Z93+/Z280+/Z283+
but the Z93+ ended up being bottlenecked. It doesn't make sense to say that later migrations
changed the demographic. Why would invaders assimilate the Z93+ men but not the
Z280+/Z283+ men? There is very little in west Asia and no doubt that is related to Indo-Iranian
languages as well as the empires of those people. I still believe it originated in the border region
of Central Asia and Europe.
The Botai and Keltiminar culture precede Andronovo in Kazakhstan. i fnd it hard to believe those
lineages weren't picked up by Andronovo unless there was sever bottlenecking (I have no idea
what lineages would represent each of those cultures). The Botai is the source of horse
domestication. Don't know how that fts in with the Western steepe theory but part of Kazakhstan
is in East Europe so maybe part of the Botai region is considered the Western Steepe.
Also lol the Anatolian hypothesis winning this poll.
2012-06-08, 04:58
Humanist
Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilus
>ut we still link horses to R;a right 3on't want anybody messing with thatmYD
Perhaps not the only ancient folks linked to horses. Here come the "Arbins?" :p
Spoiler:
2012-06-08, 05:03
geomattica
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
-he last $ read, was that horse domestication spread from the ,estern
steppe, and that's based on modern horse 3NA%
-he two sample points from which this e)pansion of horse domestication
apparently took place are today located in !'i', 4kraine, and in !ithuania%
4nfortunately, no sites further west were tested%
I consider this Eastern Europe. This is also why we can't completely throw out Eneolithic-Bronze
age Ukraine as early(itst) epicenters of horse domestication. Damn Soviets. I really |ust wish they
stuck to propaganda posters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$ ha'e no idea how that :ts with archeological data, but an e)pansion like
this, of horses and men, would match 'ery well the spread of R;a and
autosomal 3NA from west to east, which we can see both in ancient and
modern 3NA%
Quite honestly not well considering that TRB and GAC cultural groups display no earliest
evidence for horse domestication. These people are more concerned with other subsistent
strategies.
I fnd the whole Central European homeland concept (particularly Hausler' version) highly dubious
when factoring in linguistics and archaeology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
like $ say below, to settle the issue, we ha'e to wait a little bit for more
ancient 3NA%
Concur.
2012-06-08, 05:19
annihilus
Polako, what is the Kurgan hypothesis exactly?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._expansion.png
---------- Post added 2012-06-08 at 04:28 ----------
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...stribution.png
So when you look at this is clear, that origin is not west or east, it is in the middle where little is left. Something kicked R1a's
ass there.
2012-06-08, 05:32
mac
Quote:
Originally Posted by ne$to/oard
Also lol the Anatolian hypothesis winning this poll%
I meant to vote for Pontic-Caspian steppe (Yamnaya horizon; Pit Grave culture) but accidentally
voted for Anatolian when I voted. :p
2012-06-08, 05:40
Humanist
Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilus
http<KKupload%wikimedia%orgKwikipedi%%%stribution%png
(o when you look at this is clear, that origin is not west or east, it is in the
middle where little is left% (omething kicked R;a's ass there%
You are not wrong in stating that some group, or groups, may have swept through and
"kicked...ass," but I would not rely on that little blip in the middle. The Near East minority R1a
map, with R1a limited to the Caspian area, SW Iran, and other parts of Iran is more
representative of reality for the ME (as far back as we can take it, with modern populations), in my
opinion.
2012-06-08, 05:48
annihilus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humanist
gou are not wrong in stating that some group, or groups, may ha'e swept
through and ]kicked%%%ass,] but $ would not rely on that little blip in the
middle% -he Near East minority R;a map, with R;a limited to the .aspian
area, and (, $ran, is more representati'e of reality for the HE Aas far back
as we can take it, with modern populationsD, in my opinion%
Well, I said something not someone (not that is not possible ofc). I am thinking of many things but
with wars and stuf one would expect a more even distribution, selection wouldn't have been
made on genetics. It is for me clear that selection was made by nature, my gues is it happened
relatively recent, about 6000 yrs ago and it was caused by a natural disaster.
2012-06-08, 05:52
Humanist
Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilus
,ell, $ said something not someone Anot that is not possible ofcD% $ am
thinking of many things but with wars and stu+ one would e)pect a more
e'en distribution, selection wouldn't ha'e been made on genetics% $t is for
me clear that selection was made by nature, my gues is it happened
relati'ely recent, about 7666 yrs ago and it was caused by a natural disaster%
I see. Interesting perspective. And, again, perhaps not incorrect. There is this, for instance:
Quote:
-he B%L kiloyear >P aridi:cation e'ent was one of the most se'ere climatic
e'ents of the &olocene period in terms of impact on cultural uphea'al%P;R
(tarting in LL66 >., it probably lasted the entire LLnd century >.% $t is
'ery likely to ha'e caused the collapse of the Old Iingdom in Egypt as well
as the Akkadian Empire in Hesopotamia%PLR -he drought may ha'e also
initiated southeastward habitat tracking within the &arappan cultural
domain%P1R
Source: Wikipedia
http://www.fournel.org/images/agade.|pg
And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event
2012-06-08, 13:29
newtoboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humanist
$ see% $nteresting perspecti'e% And, again, perhaps not incorrect% -here is
this, for instance<
(ource< ,ikipedia
http<KKwww%fournel%orgKimagesKagade%#pg
And this< http<KKen%wikipedia%orgKwikiK5%0NkiloyearNe'ent
What are they suggesting about Harrappa? I doubt those people moved anywhere in mass
numbers.
2012-06-09, 00:03
OldPretan
Quote:
Originally Posted by /lue=>>>
>ig thanks% $t is really interesting how di+erent the 'iews of some Polish
members are to this% ,ell, e'erybody has the right to their own opinion%
No $ am sceptical about a central-eastern urheimat% Perhaps frisian islands
was the urheimatYD% ,e will probably ne'er know and why is it important
anyway% ,e should instead be busy preser'ing indo-european languages
and dialects because soon e'erybody in europe will be speaking english and
there will only be en.lish urheimat%
Which some think might be West Flanders:-
http://www.proto-english.org/l6.html
Quote:
-he (a)ons came from (achsen A(a)oniaD in @ermany% -his region is ^a)edJ
between the ri'ers ,eser and Elbe, stretching from the North (ea to
-chechia, hence its name% P;R
-he Angles came from the coast of (achsen, southwest of 3enmark% -he
name is deri'ed from angle-like shape of the @erman North (ea coast% -he
name Angles was used for all coastal inhabitants, from "riesland up to
3enmark% According to ojcial history the local language or dialect of those
regions should be the closest language to English% Ne'ertheless, itJs not%
Ojcially, the closest language to AojcialD English is AojcialD 3utch% @eneral
3utch is a compromise language between se'eral distinct dialects% $t is a
recent standard A;Gth centuryD% "ries is a part of the 3utch language group,
but considered a separate language% -he "risian language is announced to
be the closest language to English% -here is howe'er another candidate to
that< ,estern "lemish% "riesland borders @ermany and originally stretched
beyond that border% -he attempt to link the "ries language to English was
clearly induced by the close location of "riesland to (achsen and the fact
that some "ries took part in the Anglo-(a)on migration% $n other words< it :ts
the ojcial theory% $nsidious studies tried to pro'e a close link between the
"ries language and English% -he "ries people ne'er were genuine @ermans,
and are proud of that% $t is unlikely that only the "ries language generated
English% -he Anglo-(a)ons dominated England, nobody speaks or spoke
about "riso-(a)ons or Anglo-"ries% -his indicates that the "ries alone were
not numerous enough to impose their language upon other Anglo-(a)ons%
-hey must be considered minority amongst the Anglo-(a)ons% "ries is not
easy to learn, not for the 3utch, not for @ermans% $t's an unlikely candidate
for a compromise language%
$n fact, another language is also 'ery close to English < western "lemish% -his
language is still locally spoken today A>ruges, the >elgian coast, $eper,
Iortri#kD% -his language is considered to be a dialect of general 3utch and is
an important fraction of the 3utch language group% Hore and more linguists
consider it a separate language, #ust like "ries% $t was once more widely
spread% -he coast of "landers A>elgiumD is also the geographically the closest
to the English southeast coast% Nearby .alais A"ranceD, and the region
around it, was until the late Hiddle Ages "lemish territory% -he relation with
English can be illustrated as follows< words like thin, pit, hill are translated in
general 3utch as dun, put, heu'el but in western "lemish as dinne, pit, hille
Ae%g% the place-name (talhilleD% $t is no coincidence that both languages, "ries
and western "lemish are close to English as the three ha'e the most
$ngweoon PLR characteristics% $ngweoon was a name for a set of northern
@erman tribes A a subdi'ision of @ermanyD and was reported by the Roman
historian -acitus%
This ties in with the Belgic Early Iron age migrations to southern Britain from 500 BC attested by
the Romans.
2012-06-09, 08:50
blue3000
Interesting sub|ect which deserves a new thread.
That site seems abit unreliable. My frst impression. I have bookmarked it for later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BldPretan
-his ties in with the >elgic Early $ron age migrations to southern >ritain from
566 >. attested by the Romans%
Frankish migrations?.
Or are you talking about belgian language and Hilversum culture?.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_language
Please elaborate in a new thread.:)
Quote:
"lemish consists of @ermanic language 'arieties% $t e'ol'ed from those of the
"rankish tribes whose in?uence gradually grew after the demise of Roman
rule% As a result, so-called d,estern !ow "rankishX came into being, spread
from the mouths of ,estern EuropeJs great ri'ers all the way deep into
todayJs "rance% -his is the earliest ancestor of "lemish% -he language
branched o+ from the .ontinental @ermanic group primarily due to non-
participation in the &igh @erman sound shifts%
http://www.lowlands-l.net/talk/eng/i...p?page=Jemish
2012-07-06, 23:17
EastPole
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
-he last $ read, was that horse domestication spread from the ,estern
steppe, and that's based on modern horse 3NA%
&orse domestication originated on the European steppe
-he two sample points from which this e)pansion of horse domestication
apparently took place are today located in !'i', 4kraine, and in !ithuania%
4nfortunately, no sites further west were tested%
$ ha'e no idea how that :ts with archeological data, but an e)pansion like
this, of horses and men, would match 'ery well the spread of R;a and
autosomal 3NA from west to east, which we can see both in ancient and
modern 3NA%
>ut like $ say below, to settle the issue, we ha'e to wait a little bit for more
ancient 3NA%
Quote:
Originally Posted by .eomattica
ruite honestly not well considering that -R> and 1AC cultural .roups
displa) no earliest e&idence for horse domestication% -hese people
are more concerned with other subsistent strategies%
$ :nd the whole .entral European homeland concept Aparticularly &ausler'
'ersionD highly dubious when factoring in linguistics and archaeology%
Geomattica, there is solid evidence that horses were domesticated by Globular Amphor Culture in
Poland:
Quote:
-&E &OR(E, ,A@ON AN3 ROA3(
$n our paper we would like to present the results of research into the triad of
din'entionsX mentioned in the title that has been carried out by Polish
archaeologists o'er the period of the last 16 years% (umming up our re'iew,
it must be obser'ed that a number of highlight dates, indicating a prologue
of fundamental changes in the means of transport, were documented by
source e'idence from the drainages of the Eistula and Oder ri'ers% The frst
of these dates, i.e. ca. =CM>-=L>> 'C, refers to the introduction of
the $a.on 8the most important fndF 'ronocice9 and the turnin. of
trails into roads 8e... fnds from ^u_a$ka ;a_a9, the next one 8after
ca. =2>> 'C9 stands for the inception of horse raisin. 8data from
"u#a$), Central Poland, sho$ the special role of 1lo/ular Amphora
culture societies in the domestication of the horse on the Central
European Plain9 with the and still another one uca% L;56 >.urelates to
the :rst use of a horse din harnessX Athe disputable :nd from (marglinD% $n
the late Bth and early 1rd millennium >. or its :rst half, one can obser'e a
stabili*ation of communication trails, which is shown by fragments of roads
crossing marshes and bogs%
http://www.arheolog-ck.ru/08-Koles.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50559065/H...agon-And-Roads
First horse grave in Europe was found in a GAC site from Potyry in Mazowsze, Poland.
In some GAC sites in Poland horse remains in post-consumption materials was exceeding at
times as much as 16 %, which is several times more than average for wild animals, and is a clear
signal of horse domestication by GAC.
Horses, wagons, linguistics, DNA, GAC, Corded Ware, expansion East, Andronovo - everything
fts. I think Central European homeland is very probable.
2012-07-07, 00:33
geomattica
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastPole
@eomattica, there is solid e'idence that horses were domesticated by
@lobular Amphor .ulture in Poland<
http<KKwww%arheolog-ck%ruK6C-Ioles%pdf
http<KKwww%scribd%comKdocK56550675K&%%%agon-And-Roads
"irst horse gra'e in Europe was found in a @A. site from Potyry in
Ha*ows*e, Poland%
$n some @A. sites in Poland horse remains in post-consumption materials
was e)ceeding at times as much as ;7 8, which is se'eral times more than
a'erage for wild animals, and is a clear signal of horse domestication by
@A.%
&orses, wagons, linguistics, 3NA, @A., .orded ,are, e)pansion East,
Androno'o W e'erything :ts% $ think .entral European homeland is 'ery
probable%
All that study says is that there is an increase in horse remains from the time of the TRB to GAC.
It doesn't declare GAC as the original or even among the frst or earliest sites of horse
domestication located on the Eurasian continent. Currently, Botai has earliest date for horse
domestication (c 3700 BC).
Furthermore, its been long surmised that GAC had contact with people who lived contemporary to
them on the Pontic Caspian steppes. Botai, Khvalynsk, Sredny Stog, and Yamna horizons all
have sites w/ ample amounts of horse remains that are all older then any GAC.
Czebreszuk even wrote this paper:
Corded Ware from East to West (Janusz Czebreszuk)
He himself even sees CWC as stemming from cultural currents of the steppes.
Any horse remains that are found in a GAC context that show evidence of domestication are
almost certainly imports from the Pontic Caspian steppes.
As for Bronocice, the evidence for wagon is indirect in that it is only depicted on a pot. That being
said, wagon is probably in use during TRB but not w/ horses. Again, Czebreszuk and others felt it
was cattle pulling it.
East Pole, I can tell you are a proud Pole (apparently from the east) but there's no reason to
misrepresent the archaeological record like you choose to do. Even your fellow countrymen who I
worked with and Czebreszuk don't see Corded Ware as west to east but rather east to west and
the horse is ultimately from the Eurasian steppe where it was found in the wild and domesticated.
Horses, IE linguistics, Corded Ware = east to west.
Wagons = We don't know precisely since the wheel pops up simultaneously in so many diferent
places at once. But currently, oldest indirect evidence of wheeled vehicle is from Poland. So you
kinda have that.
GAC= Originates in Poland. There, you can defnitely have that.
Andronovo = west to east but not ultimately from Poland!
DNA = we wait and see what upcoming Yamna study says.
2012-07-07, 16:29
EastPole
Quote:
Originally Posted by .eomattica
.*ebres*uk e'en wrote this paper<
Corded are from East to est 8Janus4 C4e/res4uk9
&e himself e'en sees .,. as stemming from cultural currents of the
steppes%
East Pole, $ can tell you are a proud Pole Aapparently from the eastD but
there's no reason to misrepresent the archaeological record like you choose
to do% E'en your fellow countrymen who $ worked with and C4e/res4uk
don5t see Corded are as $est to east /ut rather east to $est and
the horse is ultimately from the Eurasian steppe where it was found in the
wild and domesticated%
Geomattica, I have that paper : "CORDED WARE FROM EAST TO WEST" Janusz Czebreszuk
2004. He doesn`t seem to say what you are suggesting:
Quote:
The earliest-known carbon-;B dates for .orded ,are come from Iu#a'ia
and Haoopolska in central and southern Poland% -hese include a gra'e at
Irus*a /amkowa in Iu#a'ia and a barrow at rednia in Haoopolska dating to
the transition from the fourth to the third millennium >%.% .arbon-;B dating
of the remaining central European regions shows that .orded ,are
appeared after LCC6 >%.% Around that time, in LGL5 >%.%, the :rst pile
settlements Adwellings built on pilings at the edge of lakesD appeared in the
Alpine foothills% (uch sites ha'e yielded materials characteristic of .orded
,are% -he latest dates, about the middle of the third millennium >%.%, are
from the Russian Plain% -he most likely hypothesis, then, is that Corded
are frst appeared 8on the transition /et$een the fourth and third
millennia '.C.9 in the central part of its domain and spread from
east to $est. $n LGL5 >%.% it reached its southwestern edge% A/out 2M>>
'.C., Corded are spread in another direction, to the northeast, and
it is e'entually found on the upper Eolga%
Page 468-469
If I understand that text correctly prof. Czebreszuk suggests that Corded Ware "rst appeared
(on the transition between the fourth and third millennia B.C.) in the central part of its
domain", i.e. in central and southern Poland, and then "spread from east to west. In 2725
B.C. it reached its southwestern edge" i.e Alpine foothills.
It also spread from west to east: "About 2500 B.C., Corded Ware spread in another
direction, to the northeast, and it is eventually found on the upper Volga"
So we have expansion of CW east to west from Poland to Germany and Scandinavia and another
expansion west to east from Poland to Volga-Ural and probably to Asia.
The genesis of Corded Ware is complex and most likely there were some inJuences from the
steppe but whether they were |ust cultural or involved direct migration of people is not known:
Quote:
The .enesis of the Corded are culture must ha'e been a protracted
and complicated process that in&ol&ed representati&es of the
traditional central European cultures as $ell as peoples $ho came
from the steppes near the 'lack Sea. $t does not seem probable that the
action of local factors could be limited to any of the regional encla'es% -he
main local element in the genesis of .orded ,are was the "unnel >eaker
culture% The second inTuence $as the steppe societies, /ut at this
time it is not possi/le to determine $hether it $as a direct
mi.ration of people from the steppes near the 'lack Sea or the
steppe characteristics reached the northern Europe-an lo$lands
throu.h the a.enc) of eastern or southern nei.h/ors%
Page 473
Horse could have been domesticated somewhere else on the steppe earlier than GEC and CWC
but we are not sure that steppe cultures were IE. Whereas we are sure about CWC:
Quote:
.orded ,are is also the frst culture in central Europe $hose
characteristics are &isi/l) linked to the !ndo-European examples. PQR
.orded ,are sites re'eal the process of the $ndo-Europeani*ation of all of
central, northern, and northeastern Europe
Page 474
The question still remains where did Yamnaya get wheels and wagons from, they didn`t invent it. I
think it is possible that from GEC or CWC when they expanded east. It would explain why
Chinese are using Slavonic `kolo` for wheel.
West to east migrations of Corded Ware and Globular Amphora may be responsible for
similarities between Slavonic and Indo-Iranian languages:
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...4&postcount=28
The west to east migrations are well documented:
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...11&postcount=5
We know that GEC entered Ukraine in an eastern exodus c. 2900 BC:
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...&postcount=406
I wonder whether that east to west expansion of Corded Ware may be responsible for some
similarity between Slavonic and Germanic languages:
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...postcount=3750
For example it is believed that the Germanic word for `hammer` arose in the stone age, when
hammers were produced from stone which is Pol. `kamien`. Then most likely `Thor hammer`
comes from `Peru kamener`.
I hope all those questions and doubts will be settled with the help of genetics soon.
Czebreszuk paper is slightly outdated as he still seems to link Corded Ware to Celtic, Germanic
and Slavonic ethnicities but now we know that Celts and Germans, predominantly R1b, are more
related to Bell Beaker culture and not Cored Ware R1a. Corded Ware seems to be very well
correlated with the spread of Slavonic languages or linguistic inJuences and genes.
2012-07-07, 16:50
Ph|amaalane
Is it a coincidence that all Poles think that Poland is the "original" Proto Indo-European area and Poles are the only "true"
and purest Indo-Europeans?
That's over-the-top nationalism in my opinion.
2012-07-07, 18:02
geomattica
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastPole
@eomattica, $ ha'e that paper < d.OR3E3 ,ARE "ROH EA(- -O ,E(-X
Fanus* .*ebres*uk L66B% &e doesnJt seem to say what you are suggesting<
No, he IS in fact saying what I am saying:
The genesis of the Corded Ware culture must have been protracted and complicated
process that involved representatives of the traditional central European cultures as
well as peoples who came from the steppes near the Black Sea. I does not seem
probable that the action of local factors could be limited to any of the regional enclaves.
The main local elements in the genesis of Corded Ware was the Funnel Beaker culture.
The second inuence was the steppe societies, but at this time it is not possible to
determine whether it was a direct migration of people from the steppes near the Black
Sea or the steppe characteristics reached the northern European lowlands through the
agency of eastern or southern neighbors.
So how is that any diferent than what I said? Why do you feel the need to misquote others (which
I've already caught you once doing) and skew texts? Perhaps its this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by P%h#amaalane
$s it a coincidence that all Poles think that Poland is the ]original] Proto $ndo-
European area and Poles are the only ]true] and purest $ndo-Europeans
-hat's o'er-the-top nationalism in my opinion%
Then there's this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastPole
&orse could ha'e been domesticated somewhere else on the steppe earlier
than @E. and .,. but we are not sure that steppe cultures were $E%
,hereas we are sure about .,.<
Here let me tweak this. Horse was domesticated earlier than GAC and CWC. We know this
thanks to Radiocarbon dating of the Botai culture site. There is also no frm evidence GAC
domesticated horses. Why?
No evidence of harnessing is found currently known for GAC
No evidence of bit ware on P2 molars is currently found for GAC
No evidence of mares milk consumption is found for GAC
No evidence that they were stockaded exist is found for GAC
Whereas Botai culture dated to 3700 BC has evidence of all this above.
All Janusz does is make a vague and meandering statement that "GAC has inception of horse
raising" apparently at c. 3200 BC. Big deal. Yamna, Khvalynsk, Sredny Stog has |ust as much
evidence if not more for this then GAC does and ALL are dated waaaaay earlier.
Also to be perfectly fair, we don't know for sure that CWC was IE. It is |ust the most likely
scenario. Unless, you invent the time machine, or fnd the long lost IE texts of the CWC people,
then we may say we are sure.
West to east migrations of CWC are the Fatyanovo-Balanovo cultural variants. Here is map:
[imglink]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Fatyanovo-culture.|pg[/imglink]
Fatyanovo-Balanovo is shown in pink. Note it is separated geographically from Polish or Central
European CWC variants and has its own local unique characteristics. Please don't make me
quote David Anthony for all its unique characteristics. Read article and realize it is from Ukrainian
variant of CWC the Middle Dnieper culture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatyanovo-Balanovo_culture
Genetics will only clear up demographic issues and biological kinship unequivocally. It will never
clear up ethno-linguistic identity issues.
Don't may unequivocal 1 to 1 correlations with language and genes. Don't fall into this trap.
Finally, we wait and see if there is a certain directional movement of R1a1a between Yamna AND
TRB/CWC aDNA studies.
2012-07-07, 21:51
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by .eomattica
3on't may unePui&ocal ; to ; correlations with language and genes% 3on't
fall into this trap%
He has fallen even deeper into trap hole. He thinks archeological culture [sic]= dna = language =
ethnicity. This translates to: Corded Ware=R1a=Slavic=Polish.
2012-07-07, 21:59
geomattica
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
&e has fallen e'en deeper into trap hole% &e thinks archeological
culture PsicRU dna U language U ethnicity% -his translates to< .orded
,areUR;aU(la'icUPolish%
Somehow I feel I may be pissing in the wind here. And yes, that hole is pretty damn deep.
:whoco::whoco::whoco::whoco::whoco::whoco::whoco:: whoco::whoco::whoco::whoco::whoco:
2012-07-07, 22:18
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by .eomattica
(omehow $ feel $ may be pissing in the wind here% And yes, that hole is pretty
damn deep%
So as you see it is 201% certain that Poles are trve Corded Ware-R1a- proto-Indo-European-
Slavs. All the evidence points towards this necessary and logical conclusion ;)
2012-07-07, 22:20
geomattica
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
(o as you see it is L6;8 certain that Poles are tr'e .orded ,are-R;a- proto-
$ndo-European-(la's% All the e'idence points towards this necessary and
logical conclusion YD
Yes. Indeed. And while we're at it I think von Dniken had some really good ideas.;)
2012-07-07, 22:27
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by .eomattica
ges% $ndeed% And while we're at it $ think &on 3=niken had some really good
ideas%YD
Oh my, that sounds awfully German. He propably intentionally falsifed the fact that aliens are not
really Germanic but R1a-Slavo-PIEs from Central Eastern Europe.
2012-07-07, 22:33
blue3000
Quote:
Originally Posted by H$einlant
(o as you see it is L6;8 certain that Poles are tr'e .orded ,are-R;a- proto-
$ndo-European-(la's% All the e'idence points towards this necessary and
logical conclusion YD
And every opposition is nazi bullshit. :
He is not the only one however who seem to have negative attitudes toward everything
germanic(in particulary German).
I am not against slavic nationalism but...
Btw: I read something about early Chinese language and Germanic languages today. :evilgrin:
---------- Post added 2012-07-07 at 23:34 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by .eomattica
'on 3=niken
Who?
2012-07-07, 22:38
EastPole
Dna + language + (archeological culture/s) = ethnicity
We have a correlation of dna, languages and archeological cultures. That`s enough to make a sound hypothesis. See the
map in the right upper corner:
http://www.nature.com/e|hg/|ournal/v...g2009194f2.|pg
CWC and GAC were not Celto-Germanic, Armenian or Greek IMO.
2012-07-07, 22:42
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastPole
3na 2 language 2 Aarcheological cultureKsD U ethnicity
Mammoth Steppe during LGM:
[imglink]http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6047/1285/F1.medium.gif[/imglink]
Finnic domain imo.
2012-07-07, 22:46
geomattica
Man, I dunno what you're all taking about. Here are the real Proto-Indo-Europeans:
[imglink]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_O3||EyWqYX0/TS-
97kGTcuI/AAAAAAAAADs/YnJnuwM1Gr4/s1600/aliens2.|pg[/imglink]
von Daniken would be proud.
BTW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_Dniken
2012-07-07, 23:14
EastPole
Link between R1a1 and Corded Ware was noticed by Underhill at al. 2009:
Quote:
.opper and >ron*e age parallels
"igure L also shows a remarka/le .eo.raphic concordance of the
(3a3aS-;LMN distri/ution $ith the Chalcolithic and Earl) 'ron4e
A.e Corded are 8C9 cultures of Europe that prospered from ca.
M.M`L.M "EA 'P% Ancient 3NA e'idence from a B766-year-old multiple
burial unearthed near Eulau, @ermany and attributed to the .entral
European ., culture, identi:ed the remains of three males carrying the
(Rg;6C1;%L mutation
http://www.nature.com/e|hg/|ournal/v...g2009194a.html
Figure 2 is this one:
http://www.nature.com/e|hg/|ournal/v...g2009194f2.|pg
R1a1a7-M458 is generally assumed to be a Slavonic marker.
Slavs are also very likely related to Andronovo:
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...35&postcount=6
Quote:
Originally Posted by /lue=>>>
$ am not against sla'ic nationalism but%%%
>tw< $ read something about early .hinese language and @ermanic
languages today% <e'ilgrin
Blue3000, it has nothing to do with Slavic nationalism, it is a fact, you can read about Chinese
`kolo` here:
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...8&postcount=52
2012-07-07, 23:21
blue3000
Quote:
.orded ,are period human remains at Eulau from which g-3NA was
e)tracted of R;a haplogroup appear to be R;a;ahA)HB5CD Awhich they found
most similar to the modern @erman R;a;ah haplotype%D
:):):):)
geomattica
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastPole
!ink between R;a; and .orded ,are was noticed by 4nderhill at al% L660<
Oh yeah? Well so do these guys:
[imglink]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_O3||EyWqYX0/TS-
97kGTcuI/AAAAAAAAADs/YnJnuwM1Gr4/s1600/aliens2.|pg[/imglink]
And last time I checked, aliens are in space ships. And space ships are above earth. And space
ships w/ aliens kick ass! So naturally that eclipses your whole R1a1 corded ware autochtonus
slavonic theory.
so the formula:
space ships + aliens + intergalactic travel + r1a1 + von Daniken = truthiness awesomeness rock
on!
Tah Dah!
2012-07-07, 23:30
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by .eomattica
so the formula<
space ships 2 aliens 2 intergalactic tra'el 2 r;a; 2 'on 3aniken U
truthiness awesomeness rock onm
-ah 3ahm
Cant argue with that! Space ships beeming Slavic-R1a all over the place also explains why all
R1a everywhere and allways must be Slavic-Corded Ware!
Amen!
2012-07-07, 23:37
EastPole
Geomattica, what is your nationality?
Fingols are |ealous, it`s natural but what is your agenda?
2012-07-07, 23:41
geomattica
ha! I have no agenda. I |ust hate seeing the archaeological record used and abused. While I don't think archaeologists give
the right amount of attention to genetics, I also think geneticists muddle up things w/ their interpretation of archaeology in
relation to people genes and languages.
And now apparently some of the linguists are getting in on the act!
Ethnicity has |ack to do with all this. And it shouldn't even be a factor. Nationalism has plagued the IE debate for quite some
time, and now its really painful to see Poles get in on the act who I thought would know better.
2012-07-07, 23:46
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by P%h#amaalane
$s it a coincidence that all Poles think that Poland is the ]original] Proto $ndo-
European area and Poles are the only ]true] and purest $ndo-Europeans
You dare to say that only because luckily all Estonians are not like you. :)
Still, it`s quite amusing that you say that, because you are |ust like EastPole yourself, only from
diferent nationality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by :rPolisch
3na 2 language 2 Aarcheological cultureKsD U ethnicity
Unbelievable! Are you serious?!
Ethnicity is based on shared identity, which is caused by the same language and similar manners
and habits or other cultural traits, but DNA has absolutely nothing to do with ethnicity!
You are not born into ethnicity, you are raised into it. Therefore your genes are totally irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by :rPolisch
.,. and @A. were not .elto-@ermanic, Armenian or @reek $HO%
Neither were they Slavic nor Polish. Corded Ware Culture is best argued to match the Northwest
Indo-European - that is, the common ancestor of Germanic, Balto-Slavic, Italo-Celtic and
perhaps also Illyrian and Thracian. There existed no Slavic language before Proto-Baltic split into
thrice: West Baltic, East Baltic and South Baltic = Slavic at the 2nd millennium BC. Frederik
Kortlandt has scrutinized the Balto-Slavic sound history with higher resolution than anybody else.
But of course you won`t read his studies because he is not supporting your ber-nazionalistische
views.
Quote:
Originally Posted by a/erPolisch
>lue1666, it has nothing to do with (la'ic nationalism, it is a fact, you can
read about .hinese ^koloJ here<
I already told you back then that because Chinese had no labiovelar stops, it would have in any
case substituted normal *k for PIE *kw. It is |ust a coincidence that this common satem group
simplifcation *kw > *k has occurred also in Slavic. The Chinese word is most probably of Proto-
Tocharian origin.
2012-07-07, 23:49
Ph|amaalane
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
gou dare to say that only because luckily all Estonians are not like you% <D
(till, itJs 9uite amusing that you say that, because you are #ust like EastPole
yourself, only from di+erent nationality%
Contrary to Poles, I don't believe in one single theory. There are several which are plausible, but
we don't know yet which one is correct.
One thing is ridiculous, though. Indo-Europeans predating Finno-Ugrians in Estonia & Finland. No
sane linguist, archeologist, scientist, historian etc. would say something like that.
2012-07-07, 23:57
Qu84
Quote:
Originally Posted by P%h#amaalane
.ontrary to Poles, $ don't belie'e in one single theory% -here are se'eral
which are plausible, but we don't know yet which one is correct%
One thing is ridiculous, though% $ndo-Europeans predating "inno-4grians in
Estonia i "inland% No sane linguist, archeologist, scientist, historian etc%
would say something like that%
You write "ALL" far too easily. Also, please try to direct/link your statements/comments with
particular persons and THEIR opinions rather than ALL Poles. Thanks.
2012-07-08, 00:08
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by P%h#amaalane
.ontrary to Poles, $ don't belie'e in one single theory% -here are se'eral
which are plausible, but we don't know yet which one is correct%
Yes we do. You know it too, but you are either too stubborn or too stupid to accept it. Sorry about
the harsh words, but this is the truth. It is up to you whether to maintain your stubbornness or
accept the best argued view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by P%h#amaalane
One thing is ridiculous, though% $ndo-Europeans predating "inno-4grians in
Estonia i "inland% No sane linguist, archeologist, scientist, historian etc%
would say something like that%
All the sane linguists say that nowadays. All the sane scientists from other disciplines, who have
read the argumentation, agree with the new dating, too: Proto-Uralic expansion did not begin until
around 2000 BC from the Lower Kama region, so it follows that IE language was in Baltia earlier
than Uralic language.
It is so simple. I wonder how many years you will resist the scientifc arguments? The more years
it takes, the more you are embarrassed when it fnally hits you.
You may start with this - it gives some work for your brain cell for the next decades:
http://www.mv.helsinki.f/home/|phak...icEvidence.xps
http://www.mv.helsinki.f/home/|phak...icEvidence.pdf
It is in English, so you cannot make up any poor excuses for not to read it. You could even try to
understand it - it is |ust right within the limits of your capacity. Kisses & hugs.
2012-07-08, 00:10
Qu84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
4nbelie'ablem Are you seriousm
Ethnicity is based on shared identity, which is caused by the same language
and similar manners and habits or other cultural traits, but 3NA has
absolutely nothing to do with ethnicitym
gou are not born into ethnicity, you are raised into it% -herefore your genes
are totally irrele'ant%
Well, not totally since there is a positive correlation beetween genes and ethnicity.
2012-07-08, 00:26
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by buNL
,ell, not totally since there is a positi'e correlation beetween genes and
ethnicity%
True, the people of the same ethnicity tend to have similar genes, because ethnicity is maintained
by internal contacts, including endogamy. But at the individual level genes are irrelevant: it is
enough if one is raised into the ethnicity so that (s)he masters the language and habits.
2012-07-08, 08:58
EastPole
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
.orded ,are .ulture is best argued to match the Northwest $ndo-European W
that is, the common ancestor of @ermanic, >alto-(la'ic, $talo-.eltic
There is no evidence that Italo-Celto-Geramnic languages originated in Eastern Europe. Current
view is that they have arisen in Western Europe from local Sprachbund phenomena. Andrew
Garrett writes about it:
Quote:
the formation of a .eltic subgroup of $ndouEuropean, the formation of an
$talic subgroup, and e'en the formation of ^@reekJ itself may ha'e been
secondary (prachbund phenomena< local responses to areal and cultural
connections that could 'ery well ha'e arisen in @reece, on the $talian
peninsula, and in western and central Europe% -hese would represent
linguistic areas, not merely the :nal landing sites of three discrete $ndou
European subgroups after some millennial peregrination from the steppes% $f
this 'iew is right, it makes no sense to ask $hat route the speakers of
cProtoV1reekd, cProtoV!talicd, or cProtoVCelticd follo$ed from the
!ndoVEuropean homelandF no such lan.ua.es existed, and no such
populations. !t is an accident of histor) that these three families
and apparent /ranches of !ndoVEuropean ha&e arisen Aor four, if we
restore Albanian to its place among the li'ingD% -his accident re'eals nothing
about $ndouEuropean, its speakers, or the dispersal of $ndouEuropean
languages and their speakers%
http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/garrett/BLS1999.pdf
Italic and Celtic languages have arisen in Western Europe. There is no doubt that Germanic is
closely related to Italic and Celtic and has also arisen in Western Europe:
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...postcount=3750
Italic-Celtic-Germanic languages very well correlate with R1b hg. in Western Europe and are now
commonly linked with Bell Beaker culture and not Corded Ware which is an Eastern European
phenomenon and correlates with R1a.
To put it shortly: Italo-Celtic-Germanic speakers didn`t arrive from Eastern Europe. It is a retarded
XIX view. Most likely those languages and ethnicities evolved in Western Europe from local
substratum, Bell Beakers with some Eastern European inJuences.
Northwest Indo-European never existed. It is nonsense. Slavonic languages are much more
similar to Indo-Iranian languages than to Italo-Celto-Germanic.
2012-07-08, 10:52
blue3000
R1a is found outside slavic lands. I repeat:
Quote:
&owe'er they also note e'idence contrary to a connection< .orded ,are
period human remains at Eulau from which g-3NA was e)tracted of R;a
haplogroup appear to be R;a;ahA)HB5CD A$hich the) found most similar
to the modern 1erman (3a3a0 haplot)pe.D
Try to prove that all R1a is slavic!. Is is impossible.
Obviously eastern europe has more connection to the asian peoples and cultures than western
europeans, you dont need genetics to work that out. But slavic culture is relativly recent and not
uniform. It has been shaped by history |ust like everybody else.
You are |ust envious that Tacitus didn't write about Poles.
2012-07-08, 10:53
geomattica
BTW all, I have started threads on Italic/Italo-Celtc in the linguistics section:
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=34993
Feel free to discuss or express your opinion on this whole other convoluted IE debate component there.
2012-07-08, 11:06
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastPole
Host likely those languages and ethnicities e'ol'ed in ,estern Europe from
local substratum
How did the Italo-Celtic and Germanic evolved into Indo-European languages from non-Indo-
European substrata languages ?
:)
2012-07-09, 20:20
newtoboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastPole
-here is no e'idence that $talo-.elto-@eramnic languages originated in
Eastern Europe% .urrent 'iew is that they ha'e arisen in ,estern Europe
from local (prachbund phenomena% Andrew @arrett writes about it<
http<KKlinguistics%berkeley%eduKwgarrettK>!(;000%pdf
$talic and .eltic languages ha'e arisen in ,estern Europe% -here is no doubt
that @ermanic is closely related to $talic and .eltic and has also arisen in
,estern Europe<
http<KKwww%forumbiodi'ersity%comKsho%%%postcountU1G56
$talic-.eltic-@ermanic languages 'ery well correlate with R;b hg% in ,estern
Europe and are now commonly linked with >ell >eaker culture and not
.orded ,are which is an Eastern European phenomenon and correlates with
R;a%
-o put it shortly< $talo-.eltic-@ermanic speakers didnJt arri'e from Eastern
Europe% $t is a retarded q$q 'iew% Host likely those languages and ethnicities
e'ol'ed in ,estern Europe from local substratum, >ell >eakers with some
Eastern European in?uences%
Northwest $ndo-European ne'er e)isted% $t is nonsense% Sla&onic
lan.ua.es are much more similar to !ndo-!ranian lan.ua.es than to
!talo-Celto-1ermanic.
Nope.
2012-07-21, 21:19
saran
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastPole
%%%
(la'onic languages are much more similar to $ndo-$ranian languages than to
$talo-.elto-@ermanic%
http://www.languagesandpeoples.com/E...eighborNet.htm
2012-07-22, 03:38
thetick
Quote:
Originally Posted by saran
http<KKwww%languagesandpeoples%comKE%%%eighborNet%htm
Very good info. Thanks for posting.
2012-07-22, 15:11
Jaska
Yes, but EastPole will not understand that Slavic is closer to other Northwest IE branches than Aryan; he can only see what
he wants to see and is blind to everything else.
2012-07-22, 18:35
Wo|ewoda
Can someone explain to me how Balto-Slavic can be closer to Italo-Celtic and Germanic than to Indo-Iranian if it is
separated from the former and linked with the later by important linguistic innovations:
http://uploadpic.org/storage/2011/AX...169GIto7hF.|pg
2012-07-22, 18:52
linkus
Baltic languages are only partially satemized - and Slavic also, though they were satemized to a greater extent.
So, satemization could very well be explained by contacts rather than a common origin.
2012-07-22, 19:11
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
.an someone e)plain to me how >alto-(la'ic can be closer to $talo-.eltic and
@ermanic than to $ndo-$ranian if it is separated from the former and linked
with the later by important linguistic inno'ations<
Yes, easily.
Satem and RUKI-rule have diferent extent in diferent languages, which makes those features
more probably contact-induced. On the other hand, common sound changes and morphological
innovations shared with Northwest Indo-European branches cannot be so easily explained as
contact-induced.
2012-07-22, 20:00
Wo|ewoda
In the trees which can be found in the A comparison of Phylogenetic Reconstruction Methods on an IE Dataset Baltic and
Slavic languages group with Indo-Iranian languages more often than with Germanic languages:
http://uploadpic.org/storage/2011/R6...RKDiOPl5Fx.|pg
http://uploadpic.org/storage/2011/kE...5IFRfHdpVZ.|pg
http://uploadpic.org/storage/2011/eA...ppaizLYYUL.|pg
http://uploadpic.org/storage/2011/Km...D4pLppTVdL.|pg
---------- Post added 2012-07-22 at 21:00 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
On the other hand, common sound changes and morphological inno'ations
shared with Northwest $ndo-European branches cannot be so easily
e)plained as contact-induced%
Could you name them?
2012-07-22, 21:18
Wo|ewoda
Another tree:
http://uploadpic.org/storage/2011/Fe...KLJC8|ApZQ.|pg
The summary of the Golqb's views:
http://uploadpic.org/storage/2011/DV...ppn0zn9AI1.|pg
Another quote:
Quote:
Common 'alto-Sla&ic inno&ations include se'eral other prominent, but
non-e)clusi'e isoglosses, such as the satemi4ation, (uki, chan.e of P!E o
e 'Sl. 0a 8shared $ith @ermanic, !ndo-!ranian and AnatolianD and the
loss of la/iali4ation in P!E la/io&elars 8shared $ith !ndo-!ranian,
Armenian and -ocharianD%
---------- Post added 2012-07-22 at 22:59 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by linkus
>altic languages are only partially satemi*ed - and (la'ic also, though they
were satemi*ed to a greater e)tent%
(o, satemi*ation could 'ery well be e)plained by contacts rather than a
common origin%
Quote:
$n $ndo-$ranian hr and hl merged, and the change worked e'en after the new
sound% -his has been cited as e'idence by many scholars as an argument for
the later in?uence of $ranian languages on Proto-(la'ic% -here are ob'ious
drawbacks in the theory% "irst, the two sounds must ha'e been 'ery close
ArKlD, so that both could ha'e triggered the change in $ndo-$ranian% (econd,
there are no real e)amples of this change working in (la'ic, and it is also
doubtful that only this change ArukiD and no other such change of sibilants
Ae%g% s hD was borrowed into (la'ic%
....
2012-07-23, 00:53
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$n the trees which can be found in the A comparison of Phylogenetic
Reconstruction Hethods on an $E 3ataset >altic and (la'ic languages group
with $ndo-$ranian languages more often than with @ermanic languages<
Most of those phylogenetic studies only apply the lexical level, and you cannot distinguish
inherited from borrowed in the lexical level.Therefore the data of Heggarty et al. is more
reliable from the taxonomic point of view. Also Ringe et al. took the phonological an morphological
data in, but they presented many diferent trees, not only the one you showed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
.ould you name them
Take a look at the data in the link they gave above:
http://www.languagesandpeoples.com/E...eighborNet.htm
2012-07-23, 11:14
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
-ake a look at the data in the link they ga'e abo'e<
http<KKwww%languagesandpeoples%comKE%%%eighborNet%htm
Germanic - Balto-Slavic isoglosses are kind of not very interesting, as they are natural due to
geographic proximity of both groups. What is relly interesting here is if Balto-Slavic and Indo-
Iranian isoglosses are old - dating from the times of presumed pra-Balti-Slavic and pra-Indo-
Iranian contact - or late dating from the areal contacs with Scythians/Sarmatians.
I have no competence to answer this question, but it seems to my untrained eye that these
isoglosses are of such fundamental nature that explaining them by late Scytho-Sarmatian
inJuence is simply wrong.
If these Balto-Slavic/Indo-Iranian isogloses are indeed old - and fact that they are shared by
Albanian and Armenian too suggest this - then they tell us very interesting things about the
relative proximity of the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranians respective Urheimats. In fact they tell as
that either Balto-Slavs come from around Andronovo region or Indo-Iranians come from aroud
Corded Ware region.
It could look like this (Satem Northern dialects and Southern dialects):
http://farm5.static.Jickr.com/4131/...c7de708d13.|pg
2012-07-23, 11:25
EliasAlucard
This thread is about a possible Indo-European urheimat, not Indo-European sound laws and relatedness. I may
split the thread later, or just delete the o topic, but please don't continue discussing that stu in this thread.
Start a new thread instead.
//mod
2012-07-23, 17:33
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
-o ,o#ewoda<
].ommon >alto-(la'ic inno'ations include se'eral other prominent, but non-
e)clusi'e, isoglosses, such as the (atemi*ation, Ruki, change of P$E hKoK to
P>(l% hKaK Ashared with @ermanic, $ndo-$ranian and Anatolian branchD and the
loss of labiali*ation in P$E labio'elars Ashared with $ndo-$ranian, Armenian
and -ocharianD% A number of these, howe'er, :t only in the relati'e
chronology of other otherwise e)clusi'e >alto-(la'ic isoglosses, which makes
them speci:c >alto-(la'ic inno'ation%]
http<KKen%wikipedia%orgKwikiK>alto-(la'icNlanguages
-he bolded sentence means that e'en some of these wide-spread
phenomena must be late in >alto-(la'ic, because they are later than some
e)clusi'ely >alto-(la'ic de'elopments% -hat is e)actly the reason why it is no
more supported an idea that there would be satem-dialect% (atemi*ation
spread through already separated dialects%
gour map is wortheless< >alkan is one of the least possible homeland
candidate for P$E% gou should read that Hallory which you must ha'e already
downloaded, $ ha'e linked it so many times%
I have already given you a quote from Mallory:
http://uploadpic.org/storage/2011/AX...169GIto7hF.|pg
Pay attention to the last sentence.
2012-07-23, 19:02
Wo|ewoda
Mallory(&Adams) once again (2007):
Quote:
-he $ndo-$ranian and >alto-(la'ic languages share both satemisation and the
ruki-rule and may ha'e de'eloped as some form of westWeast Aor northwestW
south-eastD continuum with certain features running through them%
2012-07-23, 19:46
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
HalloryAiAdamsD once again AL66GD<
]-he $ndo-$ranian and >alto-(la'ic languages share both satemisation and
the ruki-rule and may ha'e de'eloped as some form of westWeast Aor
northwestWsouth-eastD continuum with certain features running through
them%]
Yes?
Such a continuum is very well possible, but it is not "genetic" but areal by nature: features spread
to already diferentiated dialects/languages. As I told you, these features are younger than some
Balto-Slavic-restricted features, which shows their contact-based origin.
2012-07-23, 21:50
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
ges
(uch a continuum is 'ery well possible, but it is not ]genetic] but areal by
nature< features spread to already di+erentiated dialectsKlanguages%
How such area of satemization would look like?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
As $ told you, these features are younger than some >alto-(la'ic-restricted
features, which shows their contact-based origin%
Do you have any source for this claim?
What is your date for Balto-Slavic separation?
What is your date for the satemization process?
EDIT:
Quote:
Originally Posted by "ortlandt
$f this identi:cation is correct, the satemi4ation process can /e dated to
the last centuries of the forth millenium%
Is Balto-Slavic really that old?
EDIT: Another opinion:
Quote:
1reek, 'alto-Sla&ic and !ndo-!ranian are so close lin.uisticall) that
separation couldn5t ha&e occurred much /efore =>>> 'C, but there is
no historical e'idence as would be e)pected if separation occurred more
recently than the arri'al of @reek-speaking Achaeans in @reece about LL66
>.%
Not much time for samemization occuring after Balto-Slavic separation.
Let's consider another opinion:
Quote:
(tage ; represents a time when Proto-$ndo-European AP$ED is a single
language, spoken in the homeland% (tage L represents a time when P$E,
while still a single language, has begun to e'idence signs of emerging
dialects A@i$ label them Area A and Area >, not shown hereD that would
show their e+ects in later macro-families%
$n stage 1, AProto-DAnatolian has emerged as a distinct macro-family, with all
other P$E dialects remaining less di+erentiated% $n stage B the latter group
has split, one subgroup comprising $talo-.eltic--ocharian and the other
comprising all the rest Alater to become &ellenic, Armenian, Aryan, >alto-
(la'ic and @ermanicD%
$n stage 5, the two groups that emerged in stage B ha'e themsel'es split,
resulting in &elleno-Armeno-Aryan, >alto-(la'ic-@ermanic, $talo-.eltic, and
the -ocharian macro-family%
$n stage 7, the &ellenic macro-family has split from Armeno-Aryan, the
@ermanic macro-family has split from >alto-(la'ic, and the $talic i .eltic
macro-families ha'e di'erged% Also in sta.e C, -satemi4ation- is
o/ser&ed in Armeno-Ar)an and [.eo.raphicall) ad#acent\ 'alto-
Sla&ic
What would be the location of Armeno-Aryan if it was "geographically ad|acent" to Balto-Slavic?
2012-07-23, 22:17
Hweinlant
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$s >alto-(la'i really that old
Satemisation could have happened allready at stage of northeast dialect of late proto-Northwest
Indo-European ie. eastern dialect of Corded Ware Zone lingua franca that ultimately sprung up
proto-Baltoslav as one the branches.
Note that there might have been (and likely were) other dialects of eastern CWC zone that led to
other "proto-groups" (like the speculative Venedic) which were then absorbed into expanding
proto-Baltoslav in diferent stages of development.
To put it short: Satemisation is Aryan inJuence over the eastern dialect of CWC zone, one of
those dialects became proto-Baltoslav. Purely areal phenomenom which mimics the Elite
Dominance-model.
Uralic*1 languages have also loaned with Aryan loans so their inJuence must have been strong.
1* example would be Finnish word for god, |umala; which is a loanword from Aryan *dyuman.
What comes to location, imo all of the late stage Yamna horizon was speaking in proto-Aryan and
even the frst stages of Indo-Aryan were spoken in the vicinity of Southern Urals.
2012-07-23, 22:47
Subzero
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
No, it doesn't mean blond, blue eyed Northern Euros are Aryans% And yes,
the "rench dude is an idiot%
"or some reason, these e+orts to try and document ancient population
mo'ements and ancestral connections are always turned into accusations
that this or that modern group wants to claim glory 'ia links to this or that
ancient group%
$t really doesn't matter whether (la's can be termed the ne)t best thing to
the ancient Androno'o groups, or not% ,hat matters is that the close
relationship between modern (la's and these ancient tribes shows us where
they came from, how they e)panded, and thus how modern groups are
related to each other 'ia that e)pansion%
-he picture is 'ery clear now% All the bullshit about Eastern Europe being
o'errun by $ndians, .entral Asians or North .aucasians is #ust that, pure
bullshit% $ wouldn't mind it if it were true, but as it is, it's pure bullshit, and so
$ fail to see the reason why some people continue with it%
-ruth is, the e)pansion took place from .entral-Eastern Europe% -hat's why
there are no Asian /012 lineages in Europe% And that's why mt3NA lineages
deri'ed from those found in Neolithic 4krainians are seen in Androno'o
kurgans% Oh, and that's also why 56-768 of these guys were blond and had
light eyes%
Enough with the bullshit, $ say% No one will gain anything from it, and
e'entually we'll see full genome se9uences of the Androno'o mummies,
which will humiliate all the bullshit propagators out there% Actually, $'ll be
naming some names on my blog, speci:cally of some of those boneheads
from 3NA-forums that $ had to deal with%
I disagree, i think the proto-Indo-European urheimat is in the Indus Valley, considering the high
diversity of R1a in the region, but also because of the recent evidence that suggests that the
Indus people where part of the Vedic civilization.
2012-07-23, 23:09
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
&ow such area of satemi*ation would look like
Neighborhood of Proto-Aryan = Pontic-Caspian steppes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
3o you ha'e any source for this claim
Yes, every "Introduction to Indo-European linguistics" which has been written during the last
decades. Go fnd out; there are plenty of those, some even in Google Books.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
,hat is your date for >alto-(la'ic separation
Not my date, but consensus date is that Proto-Balto-Slavic occurred soon after the (Corded
Ware) Northwest IE, that is at the early 2nd millennium BC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
,hat is your date for the satemi*ation process
Earlier in Aryan, later in Balto-Slavic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$s >alto-(la'ic really that old
Only if we think that it split of right after the initial spread of Northwest Indo-European.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
!et's consider another opinion<
,hat would be the location of Armeno-Aryan if it was ]geographically
ad#acent] to >alto-(la'ic
It is often seen that Graeco-Armenian is a sub-branch of Southeast Indo-European, together with
Aryan (Indo-Iranian). That source likes the idea of Armeno-Aryan, but because he still considers
Balto-Slavic descending from Northwest IE, satemization could well be areal also in the
southeast.
Armenian has spread to Armenia via Balkan and Anatolia, so at the time of satemization we must
locate Pre-Proto-Armenian somewhere close to the Pontic steppes. Balto-Slavic was also close,
somewhere in the Dnieper region.
---------- Post added 2012-07-24 at 01:16 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Su/4ero
$ disagree, i think the proto-$ndo-European urheimat is in the $ndus Ealley,
considering the high di'ersity of R;a in the region, but also because of the
recent e'idence that suggests that the $ndus people where part of the Eedic
ci'ili*ation%
Sorry, but even if R1a1 was from there, it could not testify anything about the origin of the Proto-
Indo-European language. Besides, linguistic results show that India is out of the question as a
homeland candidate:
http://www.mv.helsinki.f/home/|phak...icEvidence.pdf
2012-07-23, 23:21
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
ges, e'ery ]$ntroduction to $ndo-European linguistics] which has been written
during the last decades% @o :nd outY there are plenty of those, some e'en in
@oogle >ooks%
Are you bluHng?
---------- Post added 2012-07-24 at 00:31 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
Neighborhood of Proto-Aryan U Pontic-.aspian steppes%
As Balto-Slavs probably had nothing to do with the Caspian Sea, so are you suggesting that we
had proto-Aryan in Ukraine in the 2nd millenium?
2012-07-24, 00:14
Subzero
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
(orry, but e'en if R;a; was from there, it could not testify anything about
the origin of the Proto-$ndo-European language% >esides, linguistic results
show that $ndia is out of the 9uestion as a homeland candidate<
http<KKwww%m'%helsinki%:KhomeK#phak%%%icE'idence%pdf
I do think R1a1 did originate there, as for the language, i do not think the "evidence" you linked
takes into account the possibility that the Indus people might have spoken indo-european
languages, if they did then their civilization would be one of the earliest if not theearliest place of
"aryan" culture and language.
Also the Indus Valley Civilization was the largest of the ancient civilizations of that time period,
and it reached far outside present day India and had trade contact with mesopotamian kingdoms,
so saying India is "out of the question" doesnt technically exclude the Indus Valley. This trading
relationship with far away civilizations might explain some of those loan words in proto-aryan.
2012-07-24, 03:03
saran
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
%%%
As >alto-(la's probably had nothing to do with the .aspian (ea, so are you
suggesting that we had proto-Aryan in 4kraine in the Lnd millenium
We do see some M458 in the Caucasus. It may well be of relatively recent vintage, as the variety
is high, non star like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:R-...stribution.PNG
2012-07-24, 03:13
Bohemian Rhapsody
Quote:
$s .entral-Eastern Europe the proto-$ndo-European urheimat
Eastern Europe, defnitely. Central Europe |ust received a good raping from the Proto-Indo-
Europeans with Corded Ware Culture being the result of that.
2012-07-24, 09:45
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
Are you blujng
No. There are books like:
Szemernyi, Oswald: Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics.
Clackson, James: Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction.
Beekes, Robert S.P: Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction.
Baldi, Philip: An Introduction to the Indo-European Languages.
These are |ust the frst Google hits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
As >alto-(la's probably had nothing to do with the .aspian (ea, so are you
suggesting that we had proto-Aryan in 4kraine in the Lnd millenium
Proto-Aryan area began right to the east from Graeco-Armenian area, because these branches
share areal isoglosses. So yes, Pontic steppes were Aryan, too, after Late Proto-Indo-European.
But soon at the 2nd millennium BC the language here changed into Proto-Iranian.
---------- Post added 2012-07-24 at 11:53 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Su/4ero
$ do think R;a; did originate there, as for the language, i do not think the
]e'idence] you linked takes into account the possibility that the $ndus people
might ha'e spoken indo-european languages, if they did then their
ci'ili*ation would be one of the earliest if not the earliest place of ]aryan]
culture and language%
How could they speak IE language? What IE language? Proto-Indo-European? How do you then
explain the spread of Indo-European languages from India? Then you have to suppose that the
language went away to Pontic-Caspian steppes, there it developed into Proto-Aryan, and then it
spread back to India. Do you really think that is a credible alternative? No, it's not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Su/4ero
Also the $ndus Ealley .i'ili*ation was the largest of the ancient ci'ili*ations of
that time period, and it reached far outside present day $ndia and had trade
contact with mesopotamian kingdoms, so saying $ndia is ]out of the
9uestion] doesnt technically e)clude the $ndus Ealley% -his trading
relationship with far away ci'ili*ations might e)plain some of those loan
words in proto-aryan%
Indus Valley is equally out of the question. Linguistic results do not match with that area at all.
Loanwords are not borrowed from very distant languages. We have consistently ancient
loanwords only from certain languages: from those which were spoken in ad|acent areas. There
are no Indic loanwords in Celtic, nor Semitic loanwords in Finnish. Not even Celtic loanwords in
Finnish.
2012-07-31, 21:48
George1
Dolgopolsky on the two homelands of PIE
A classic study of the problem, which makes the two most important linguistic points:
1.Lexical borrowing between PIE and Kartvelian/Semitic languages places the early PIE homeland in the Near East
2.The maximum dialectal diversity within IE in the Balkansplaces the secondary PIE homeland in Southeastern Europe
1.Biblos -> 2.Pre-Sesklo
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ardial_map.png
2012-08-01, 10:16
Wo|ewoda
http://uploadpic.org/storage/2011/bB...NycgpXyBer.png
From "Reconstruction, typology, and the "orginal homeland" of Indo-Europeans", Peter R. Kitson
Alaron
Origin of PIE is probably the Pontic-Caspian steppes.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...an_climate.png
Anatolian Urhemait supporters are mostly butthurt Meds.
2012-08-01, 11:20
Wo|ewoda
^
Quote:
Note that the traditional Iurgan hypothesis is far from perfect%
The main pro/lem is that the reconstructed late P!E Tora and fauna
is simpl) @BT of the steppe t)pe. @either oak, nor horn/eam, nor
pine, nor /eech normall) .ro$ in the Ponto-Caspian steppes, in fact,
the) .ro$ an)$here except this re.ion. And if the steppes had been
co'ered by light woods in the past, the e)isting conditions might not ha'e
been suitable for domestication of horses% -he late P$E wild life must ha'e
been of a mi)ed type consisting of many 'arieties of trees and animals, with
sujcient meadows for pasturing horses, sheep and cattle, and this kind of
en'ironment is typically found in mountainous and coastal regions%
http://indo-european-migrations.scie....net/trees.gif
"Indo-European Origins and Geography"
2012-08-01, 13:26
geomattica
^All of those maps overlap with Yamna and Sredny stog culture horizon territories. There's also the steppes and forrest
steppes. Forrest steppes, indeed would have had ample resources of lumber and forrest steppes is |ust slightly to the north
of the Pontic-Caspian steppes. So its not unlikely that people slightly further south of the forrest steppes would have been
completely unaware of such resources. Peoples lives at c. 4000-3000 BC are not entirely disconnected from other's |ust
some relatively slight distance away.
Also, I can't tell if the cartographer was having a scaling issue or not when making these blob maps, but some of the
boundaries for the tree types actually does fall on the Ponitc-Caspian steppes. Not the best maps in the world. This is
probably one of the better, if not more accurate maps representing the Eurasian steppe belt below:
http://muamgrassroutes.fles.wordpre...teppes-map.gif
2012-08-01, 13:28
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaron
Anatolian 4rhemait supporters are mostly butthurt Heds%
True dat ;)
OT-split here.
//mod
2012-08-01, 15:20
geomattica
A rough, rather approximate representation of the Pontic Caspian steppes in terms of boubdary but one that is more explicit
then some of the other representations:
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/6323/ponticsteppes.|pg
Note its proximity to forrested regions but also mountain ranges as can be seen from the topography.
2012-08-01, 16:26
Wo|ewoda
http://uploadpic.org/storage/2011/RO...eveQBn|qAk.|pg
....
2012-08-01, 19:12
Arch Hades
too much con|ecture goes into this bullshit discussion. It |ust get's really old and boring.
It's uncertain
2012-08-01, 19:58
geomattica
^There's BS/con|ecture in any conversation on this board! I thought it was plainly evident by now. At least this isn't another
one of the frequent whiney black person threads popping up these days or "who are the Jew's, where are they from? we
don't have an f'n clue!." There are a plenty of spreadsheets regarding Jewish admixture results and historical records of
Jews since 1500 BC yet everyone still acts clueless on that issue or tries to argue for something ridiculous like Jews being
100% Euro or 100% ME. Whatev....
Anyway, Wo|ewda thanks for posting Janos Makkay's perspective on PIE. His stance is for the LBK as the PIE
homeland or where it developed. This would fall more in line w/ the agricultural wave of advance theory or IE spreads w/
agriculture from out of Anatolian.
I think that position is stronger then Paleolithic continuance from C. Europe though it seems that based on what we know
now about LBK from aDNA, people could have spoken a language more like those of present day Near East or Caucases
since some of the Y-DNA and mtDNA HG results of LBK people are more like people from said areas.
Perhaps the time of LBK explains better why language isolates like Etruscan or even Basque exist(ed). Both are
aggluntative languages which are more characteristic of the Caucases. Present day Tuscan towns near ancient Etruscan
settlements have a higher than average frequency of Y-DNA G and the Basque have it among them too though far lower
than R1b. The aDNA of LBK males was predominantly Y-DNA G if I recall correctly so far.
Just one way of looking at the LBK.
2012-08-01, 20:15
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
http<KKuploadpic%orgKstorageKL6;;Kb>%%%Nycgpqy>er%png
"rom ]Reconstruction, typology, and the ]orginal homeland] of $ndo-
Europeans], Peter R% Iitson
Exactly! late sixth, ffth, and fourth millennia b.c.
It is
2.Pre-Sesklo -> 3.Linear Pottery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eu..._Neolithic.gif
Linear Pottery G2a3 + F*(XIJ, G, K, H) (late sixth, ffth, and fourth millennia b.c.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
http<KKuploadpic%orgKstorageKL6;;KRO%%%e'er>n#9Ak%#pg
%%%%
it is the territory of the Linear Pottery culture.
2012-08-01, 20:32
geomattica
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
E)actlym late si)th, :fth, and fourth millennia b%c%
$t is
L%Pre-(esklo -[ =.<inear Potter)
http<KKen%wikipedia%orgKwikiK"ile<Eu%%%NNeolithic%gif
!inear Pottery @La1 2 "hAq$F, @, I, &D Alate si)th, :fth, and fourth millennia
b%c%D
The problem I see with that, is if you argue for LBK as PIE and given its relation to Pre-Sesklo,
you are in essence saying PIE is really Anatolian rather than C. European. It would be the same
really if one considers TRB as PIE or even its successor GAC since GAC is essentially a
continuation of the TRB population.
Or
More in line w/ Renfrew's stance these days, Anatolia witnessed pre-PIE and than C. Europe is
where developled PIE proper. He often uses this logic to explain the peculiarity of Hittite and the
other Anatolian IE languages.
I think David Anthony's explanation of Hittite/Anatolian IE in relation to PIE actually makes more
sense though. It would have seperated earlier then all other PIE hence some of its rather unique
IE features and why its actually 50% non-IE. He cites some interesting archaeology as a potential
match for a group that split from the Pontic-Caspian steppes very early on.
2012-08-01, 20:38
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by .eomattica
V-here's >(Kcon#ecture in any con'ersation on this boardm $ thought it was
plainly e'ident by now% At least this isn't another one of the fre9uent whiney
black person threads popping up these days or ]who are the Few's, where
are they from we don't ha'e an f'n cluem%] -here are a plenty of
spreadsheets regarding Fewish admi)ture results and historical records of
Fews since ;566 >. yet e'eryone still acts clueless on that issue or tries to
argue for something ridiculous like Fews being ;668 Euro or ;668 HE%
,hate'%%%%
Anyway, ,o#ewda thanks for posting Fanos Hakkay's perspecti'e on P$E%
&is stance is for the !>I as the P$E homeland or where it de'eloped% -his
would fall more in line wK the agricultural wa'e of ad'ance theory or $E
spreads wK agriculture from out of Anatolian%
$ think that position is stronger then Paleolithic continuance from .% Europe
though it seems that based on what we know now about !>I from a3NA,
people could ha'e spoken a language more like those of present day Near
East or .aucases since some of the g-3NA and mt3NA &@ results of !>I
people are more like people from said areas%
Perhaps the time of !>I e)plains better why language isolates like Etruscan
or e'en >as9ue e)istAedD% >oth are aggluntati'e languages which are more
characteristic of the .aucases% Present day -uscan towns near ancient
Etruscan settlements ha'e a higher than a'erage fre9uency of g-3NA @ and
the >as9ue ha'e it among them too though far lower than R;b% -he a3NA of
!>I males was predominantly g-3NA @ if $ recall correctly so far%
Fust one way of looking at the !>I%
Aggluntinative languages in Caucasus are Adyghe Abazin Karachay-Balkar(Turkic)
R1a is high among this people, Turkic and Uralians have high R1a and they have Aggluntinative
languages.
Georgian(Kartvelian) is West Nostratic is close to IE and isn't Aggluntinative language.
---------- Post added 2012-08-01 at 22:49 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by .eomattica
-he problem $ see with that, is if you argue for !>I as P$E and gi'en its
relation to Pre-(esklo, you are in essence saying P$E is really Anatolian rather
than .% European% $t would be the same really if one considers -R> as P$E or
e'en its successor @A. since @A. is essentially a continuation of the -R>
population%
Or
Hore in line wK Renfrew's stance these days, Anatolia witnessed pre-P$E and
than .% Europe is where de'elopled P$E proper% &e often uses this logic to
e)plain the peculiarity of &ittite and the other Anatolian $E languages%
$ think 3a'id Anthony's e)planation of &ittiteKAnatolian $E in relation to P$E
actually makes more sense though% $t would ha'e seperated earlier then all
other P$E hence some of its rather uni9ue $E features and why its actually
568 non-$E% &e cites some interesting archaeology as a potential match for a
group that split from the Pontic-.aspian steppes 'ery early on%
This is how I see that
Levant West Nostratic(IE + Kartvelian + Afroasiatic) 13000 BC
Levant(Biblos) Indo-Kartvelian 10000BC
Pre-Sesklo Indo-Hittite 6700BC (Hittite-Luwian people came from Balkans Greko-Armenians
pushed them to the east)
LBK Indo-Tocharian 5900BC
LBK Indo-Greek 5300BC
2012-08-01, 20:54
geomattica
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
Aggluntinati'e languages in .aucasus are Adyghe Aba*in Iarachay-
>alkarA-urkicD
R;a is high among this people, -urkic and 4ralians ha'e high R;a and they
ha'e Aggluntinati'e languages%
@eorgianAIart'elianD is ,est Nostratic is close to $E and isn't Aggluntinati'e
language%
True, and that's why it can be fruitless to make a one to one correlation w/ genes and languages.
This can be particularly nuanced in regards to haplogroups. However there can be positive
correlations as noted by others. Another thing to consider is admixture analysis based on
autosomal components. Some people have pointed out based on their own research that R1a
clades typically have a positive correlation w/ autosomal components classifed as Meso or "N.
Europeans". Likewise, the present day populations of Europe have a "Neolithic" or "Near Eastern"
component that is best attributed to migratory LBK farmer ultimately from the Near East.
There are also the sub clades of haplogroups to consider which adds another layer of complexity
to the whole picture. Right now there are clades of R1a that have stronger associations w/ Turkic
groups and some more with Germanic vs. Indo-Iranian vs. Slavic etc. etc.
Also keep in mind that people from R1a clades may have spoken one language at one time then
switched to another for various socio-political reasons.
A key to understanding all this in keeping in mind and paying attention to the complex ethno-
linguitstic and genetic-demographic attributes of Kazakhstan. There was indeed a Sakha period
there or Iranian speaking. This changed over time though.
Likewise, somewhere in the Near East could have been the PIE homeland but due to
demographic shifts and conquests, Semetic and languages more like those of the Caucases
persist.
edit: Hittite in relation to the PIE homeland concept in Anatolia/Near East is kinda a double edged
sword since its 50% IE and 50% non-IE/local Anatolian. Has raised much debate over the years
as to the whole likelihood of PIE indigineous to the region or rather if Hittite the result of intrusive
population mixing w/ a local Anatoliain thus producing the hyprid IE Anatolian group.
2012-08-01, 21:04
Arch Hades
Quote:
V-here's >(Kcon#ecture in any con'ersation on this boardm $ thought it was
plainly e'ident by now% At least this isn't another one of the fre9uent whiney
black person threads popping up these days or ]who are the Few's, where
are they from we don't ha'e an f'n cluem%] -here are a plenty of
spreadsheets regarding Fewish admi)ture results and historical records of
Fews since ;566 >. yet e'eryone still acts clueless on that issue or tries to
argue for something ridiculous like Fews being ;668 Euro or ;668 HE%
,hate'%%%%
Well I agree that there is a shit ton of that on this board.
But about "who are Jews, where are they from" etc etc. We can answer that with defnitive hard
data since Jews today exist and their DNA is available for hard scientifc analysis.
However, A proto language that has never been recorded is not. There's nothing defnitive about
any of it...basically you |ust have a bunch of homers arguing what they believe the most. I think all
sides other than super absurd ones argue solid points [well at least the ones that are good at
arguing], but there's also a lot of uncertaintly too, and too many gaps to say anything defnitive.
It was the biggest LOL when Elias a while back tried to say the Kurgan hypothesis for PIE
timescale breakdown and homeland was a verifed scientifc theory..no diferent than the theory of
gravity or evolution or relatively.
2012-08-01, 21:11
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arch Hades
$t was the biggest !O! when Elias a while back tried to say the Iurgan
hypothesis for P$E timescale breakdown and homeland was a 'eri:ed
scienti:c theory%%no di+erent than the theory of gra'ity or e'olution or
relati'ely%
The Kurgan theory is a scientifc theory because it is backed up by evidence from archeology,
linguistics and genetics. The Anatolian and Armenian hypotheses on the other hand are both
nonsensical and they're popular amongst wogs who champion this nonsense because of ethnic
self-aggrandisement. Yeah, I know it's an ad hominem, but it's true.
2012-08-01, 21:21
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by .eomattica
-rue, and that's why it can be fruitless to make a one to one correlation wK
genes and languages%
Indo-Hittites 6700 BC. (G2a 9000-11000)
_Hittite-Luvians 2500 BC (G2a1 5000-4000)
_Indo-Tocharian 5900 BC. (G2a3 8000)
__Toharian 300 AC
__Indo-Greeks 5300 BC. (G2a3 8000 + J2b)
___Greco-Armenians 5000 BC (G2a3a 7500 + J2b1)
___Young Indo-European 4900 BC. (G2a3b1 7000 + J2b2)
____Indo-Albanian 4600 BC (G2a3b1 * 7000 + J2b2*)
____European branch 4500 BC. (G2a3b1a 7000)
_____ Leto-Slavic 1400 BC
_____West Europeans 4100 BC. (G2a3b1a2 6000 + J2b2a)
______Celts 900 BC
______German-Italian 3500 BC.(G2a3b1a2a)
http://www.dhushara.com/book/unraveltree/indeurl.|pg
2012-08-01, 21:31
geomattica
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
$ndo-&ittites 7G66 >.% A@La w0666-;;666D
N&ittite-!u'ians L566 >. A@La; w5666-B666D
N$ndo--ocharian 5066 >.% A@La1 wC666D
NN-oharian 166 A.
NN$ndo-@reeks 5166 >.% A@La1 C666 2 FLbD
NNN@reco-Armenians 5666 >. A@La1a wG566 2 FLb;D
NNNgoung $ndo-European B066 >.% A@La1b; G666 2 FLbLD
NNNN$ndo-Albanian B766 >. A@La1b; h wG666 2 FLbLhD
NNNNEuropean branch B566 >.% A@La1b;a wG666D
NNNNN !eto-(la'ic 1B66 >.
NNNNN,est Europeans B;66 >.% A@La1b;aL w7666 2 FLbLaD
NNNNNN.elts 066 >.
NNNNNN@erman-$talian 1566 >.%
http<KKwww%dhushara%comKbookKunra'eltreeKindeurl%#pg
These could defnitely be viewed as having postive correlations but its always dangerous ground
to a make an absolute one to one correlation w/ people genes and languages. You can have
diferent DNA then the language group as a whole yet speak the same language. Alternatively:
http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/...chart|an31.gif
edit: are not some G2a variants found among Kartevelian speakers? Ergo the logic becomes
rather circular regardless. Constructing totalities alone from genetics regarding PIE is highly
problematic.
2012-08-02, 06:09
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by .eomattica
http<KKi;6;0%photobucket%comKalbumsK%%%chart#an1;%gif
R1a is absent in Spain, Lusitans Celtici Suevi Vandals Alans Goths Greeks Italic people were
there, 8 diferent or more IE groups in Spain, so it should be 8 or more subclades of one
haplogroup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by .eomattica
edit< are not some @La 'ariants found among Iarte'elian speakers Ergo the
logic becomes rather circular regardless% .onstructing totalities alone from
genetics regarding P$E is highly problematic%
G2a3b1a1d(2200+/-350) + G2a1a1(only in north west Georgia) + G2a*(maybe the G2a* is
Kartvelian)
Kartvelians have IE Substrat.
And they are together with IE West-Nostrats.
2012-08-02, 06:20
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
V
http<KKindo-european-migrations%scie%%%%netKtrees%gif
]$ndo-European Origins and @eography]
Conference on the Languages of the Caucasus, 7-9 December 2007, Max Plank Institute for
Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig
Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European Plant-Names
(the conifers: fr, fr (-tree), pine (-tree))
Marine Ivanishvili
(G. Tsereteli Institute of Oriental Studies, GAS)
http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/confere...Kartvelian.pdf
2012-08-02, 06:21
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
R;a is absent in (pain, !usitans .eltici (ue'i Eandals Alans @oths @reeks
$talic people were there, C di+erent or more $E groups in (pain, so it should
be C or more subclades of one haplogroup%
R1a isn't absent in Spain.
And no, there don't need to be 8 diferent subclades present in Spain, since the main agents of
the spread of Indo-European speech carried mostly R1b (descendants of Bell Beakers Indo-
Europeanized by Corded Ware in Central Europe).
Also, the Germanic impact on Spain was low. That's what the latest IBD analysis shows.
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/3492/ralphcoop2.png
Long IBD gives clues to migrations across Europe from the Iron Age to the present - take 2
2012-08-02, 07:17
banr|eer
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
-he Iurgan theory is a scienti:c theory because it is backed up by e'idence
from archeology, linguistics and genetics% -he Anatolian and Armenian
hypotheses on the other hand are both nonsensical and they're popular
amongst wogs who champion this nonsense because of ethnic self-
aggrandisement% geah, $ know it's an ad hominem, but it's true%
the kurgan hypothesis is non empirical.
linguistic evidence:
the kurgan language is unknown there are no preserved scripts contrast this with preserved
linguistic evidence of hittite, luwian, lydian , phrygian and mitanni etc.
the anatolian evidence is considered inconclusive. The kurgan hypothesis is on an even weaker
footing.
genetic evidence: inconclusive, the most parsimonious r1a snp distribution is perhaps in europe,
the most parsimonious distribution for r lineages are in iran and south asia. you could argue
anything and come to no conclusion.
archeology: There is no archeological cultural trail leading out of this region southwards. perhaps
the kurgan culture had some peripheral inJuence in europe. Even that seems doubtful.
2012-08-02, 07:25
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by /anr#eer
genetic e'idence< inconclusi'e, the most parsimonious r;a snp distribution is
perhaps in europe, the most parsimonious distribution for r lineages are in
iran and south asia% you could argue anything and come to no conclusion%
R lineages are irrelevant. The only relevant Y-DNA is R1a, because of all the ancient DNA and
SNP results.
All the right skeletons carry R1a, from Germany to the Tarim Basin, and the key SNPs, which are
Z283 and Z93, seem to be the right age.
The only possible reason for anyone not to accept the outcome based on this data is because
they simply don't like it.
Quote:
archeology< -here is no archeological cultural trail leading out of this region
southwards% perhaps the kurgan culture had some peripheral in?uence in
europe% E'en that seems doubtful%
There's really no problem if we assume that Corded Ware was early Indo-European, because it
was all over Northern/Central and Eastern Europe at the right stage, and shows very close links
to cultures as far east as Central Asia. There's also that Corded Ware R1a.
Seriously, things are looking great for R1a now as a PIE marker.
2012-08-02, 07:46
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by .eomattica
V-here's >(Kcon#ecture in any con'ersation on this boardm $ thought it was
plainly e'ident by now% At least this isn't another one of the fre9uent whiney
black person threads popping up these days or ]who are the Few's, where
are they from we don't ha'e an f'n cluem%] -here are a plenty of
spreadsheets regarding Fewish admi)ture results and historical records of
Fews since ;566 >. yet e'eryone still acts clueless on that issue or tries to
argue for something ridiculous like Fews being ;668 Euro or ;668 HE%
,hate'%%%%
Anyway, ,o#ewda thanks for posting Fanos Hakkay's perspecti'e on P$E%
&is stance is for the !>I as the P$E homeland or where it de'eloped% -his
would fall more in line wK the agricultural wa'e of ad'ance theory or $E
spreads wK agriculture from out of Anatolian%
$ think that position is stronger then Paleolithic continuance from .% Europe
though it seems that based on what we know now about !>I from a3NA,
people could ha'e spoken a language more like those of present day Near
East or .aucases since some of the g-3NA and mt3NA &@ results of !>I
people are more like people from said areas%
Perhaps the time of !>I e)plains better why language isolates like Etruscan
or e'en >as9ue e)istAedD% >oth are aggluntati'e languages which are more
characteristic of the .aucases% Present day -uscan towns near ancient
Etruscan settlements ha'e a higher than a'erage fre9uency of g-3NA @ and
the >as9ue ha'e it among them too though far lower than R;b% -he a3NA of
!>I males was predominantly g-3NA @ if $ recall correctly so far%
Fust one way of looking at the !>I%
Indeed Makkay links IE with LBK. Now when we know the LBK' association with hg G, we could
think of a scenario in which European mesolithic aboriginals develop to the PIE stage under the
inJuence of Neolithic LBK haplogrop G bearing people coming into Central-Europe from
Anatolia/Caucasus/Middle East. This could explain some linguistic links posited for PIE, if we
assumed that language(s) of the LBK were somehow Kartvelian-like of Afro-Asiatic like. I am not
saying this is a prefered scenario, but I at least it is not totaly unprobable I believe. Of course the
strongest point favouring some version of the Kurgan Steppe theory vs North-Central European
Urheimat theories is the lack of native European haplogroup I in India, what makes all scenarios
postulating movement of people from Europe to India less probable.
2012-08-02, 07:54
Bohemian Rhapsody
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
(teppe theory 's North-.entral European 4rheimat theories is the lack of
nati'e European haplogroup $ in $ndia, what makes all scenarios postulating
mo'ement of people from Europe to $ndia less probable%
It's likely haplogroup I did not have the same distribution as it does now. For all we know the
Cucuteni-Tryptillians could have been high in R1a and I folks took their place coming from the
south-west.
2012-08-02, 08:04
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
$ndo-&ittites 7G66 >.% A@La w0666-;;666D
N&ittite-!u'ians L566 >. A@La; w5666-B666D
N$ndo--ocharian 5066 >.% A@La1 wC666D
NN-oharian 166 A.
NN$ndo-@reeks 5166 >.% A@La1 C666 2 FLbD
NNN@reco-Armenians 5666 >. A@La1a wG566 2 FLb;D
NNNgoung $ndo-European B066 >.% A@La1b; G666 2 FLbLD
NNNN$ndo-Albanian B766 >. A@La1b; h wG666 2 FLbLhD
NNNNEuropean branch B566 >.% A@La1b;a wG666D
NNNNN !eto-(la'ic ;B66 >.
NNNNN,est Europeans B;66 >.% A@La1b;aL w7666 2 FLbLaD
NNNNNN.elts 066 >.
NNNNNN@erman-$talian 1566 >.%A@La1b;aLaD
http<KKwww%dhushara%comKbookKunra'eltreeKindeurl%#pg
Looks nice, but I see two problems for this hypothesis. When we look at the map of the hg G
distribution we see it concentrated in the Dravidian South of India:
http://geocurrents.info/wp-content/u...plogroup_G.png
This is rather consistent with assumtion that hg G people brought Neolithic package to India as
they it did in Europe (Dravidians as pre-IE inhabitants of India).
Secondly if we assume that hg G arrived in India in Neolithic as it did in Europe - are you making
this assumpion? - it would be strange they they developed there only one IE family - Indian. To
explain this lack of linguistic diversity we would have to postulate very late entry of hg G into India,
but why would it show such assymetry versus Europe in this regard (why hg G would be
responsible for Neolithic in Europe but not in India?)?
2012-08-02, 13:48
geomattica
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$ndeed Hakkay links $E with !>I% Now when we know the !>I' association
with hg @, we could think of a scenario in which European mesolithic
aboriginals de'elop to the P$E stage under the in?uence of Neolithic !>I
haplogrop @ bearing people coming into .entral-Europe from
AnatoliaK.aucasusKHiddle East% -his could e)plain some linguistic links
posited for P$E, if we assumed that languageAsD of the !>I were somehow
Iart'elian-like of Afro-Asiatic like% $ am not saying this is a prefered scenario,
but $ at least it is not totaly unprobable $ belie'e% Of course the strongest
point fa'ouring some 'ersion of the Iurgan (teppe theory 's North-.entral
European 4rheimat theories is the lack of nati'e European haplogroup $ in
$ndia, what makes all scenarios postulating mo'ement of people from
Europe to $ndia less probable%
The biggest problem for Paleolithic/Central European Autochtonous Development theory for PIE
is that it fails to efectively explain migration to India relating to European Hunter gatherers.
Almost all PCT's for Europe rely on the Kurgan model somehow to explain IE intrusion into India.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
@La1b;a;dALL662K-156D 2 @La;a;Aonly in north west @eorgiaD 2
@LahAmaybe the @Lah is Iart'elianD
Iart'elians ha'e $E (ubstrat% And they are together with $E ,est-Nostrats%
Its still somewhat of an uphill battle for "G" of any type the way I see since its so prevelant in the
Caucases and has a very strong positive correlation with Kartevelian speakers. Also it can be
diHcult to tell what is substrata and what is rather derived from an adstrata or areal contact. PIE's
of the steppes may have provided this to Caucases people rather than PIE of the Caucases
providing it to steppe people or anywhere else. Archaeological evidence suggests Pontic-
Caspian steppe and Caucus populations were in contact with each other since at least 4000 BC.
Also the cosmology of IE speaking people typically revolved around male dieties associated w/
horses and the horse plays a prominent role in IE mythology generally speaking. Current
evidence for earliest horse domestication is still the steppes (Botai culture). So based on such
cosmology we'd look to an area where horses are most native in the wild and play a prominent
role in everday life. That would be the Eurasian steppes.
IE mythology/cosmology is rooted more on aspects of steppe culture in which the horse has
always been ever so prominent. The world or environment of PIE speakers would have reJected
this since cosmology tends to be based on ones' immediate surroundings and then made into
mythic proportions. The steppes satisfes this most IMO, particularly when we reconstruct PIE
religion/mythology/cosmology and take into account the common linguistic cognates nearly all IE
languages have for 'horse'.
2012-08-02, 15:15
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by .eomattica
-he biggest problem for PaleolithicK.entral European Autochtonous
3e'elopment theory for P$E is that it fails to e+ecti'ely e)plain migration to
$ndia relating to European &unter gatherers% Almost all P.-'s for Europe rely
on the Iurgan model somehow to e)plain $E intrusion into $ndia%
India is home to only one - Indo-Iranian - branch of IE language family. I think all of the people
who have preference for the Central-Northern European (or any other European probably)
Urheimat assume that one branch of PIE colonised Steppe at some point of time (like R1b people
colonised Oceans many thousands years later) and from the Steppe fltered in the later Bronze
Age into Iran and India and settled there.
If we accept the IE-R1a1 link, then it seems that one R1a1-Z93 man was the ancestor of later
Indo-Iranians. Z283's stayed behind close to the homeland.
2012-08-02, 17:28
Arch Hades
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
-he Iurgan theory is a scienti:c theory because it is backed up by e'idence
from archeology, linguistics and genetics% -he Anatolian and Armenian
hypotheses on the other hand are both nonsensical and they're popular
amongst wogs who champion this nonsense because of ethnic self-
aggrandisement% geah, $ know it's an ad hominem, but it's true%
Who cares about fanboys dude.
Virtually all the inventors and ma|or proponents of the Anatolian model in Academiaare not
"wogs" anyway. Remember I named them of, Colin Renfrew, Vyacheslav Ivanov, Robert Drews,
Dolgolpolsky, Tamaz Gamkrelidze, Gray & Atkinson, etc.
But those guys, |ust like the Kurgan supporters, do not have the proper tools or data available to
turn their hypothesis into an accepted Scientifc theory.
2012-08-02, 17:50
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
R lineages are irrele'ant% -he only rele'ant g-3NA is R;a, because of all the
ancient 3NA and (NP results%
All the right skeletons carry R;a, from @ermany to the -arim >asin, and the
key (NPs, which are /LC1 and /01, seem to be the right age%
R1a, from Germany, are descendants of hunter-gatherers
Tarim Basin , the Agneans-Kucheans(PseudoTocharians) were there in 200-900 AC.
The results of aDna are 2000 years old
Two branches of Tocharian are known from documents dating from the 3rd to 9th centuries AD:
2012-08-02, 20:16
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by .eomattica
Also the cosmology of $E speaking people typically re'ol'ed around male
dieties associated wK horses and the horse plays a prominent role in $E
mythology generally speaking% .urrent e'idence for earliest horse
domestication is still the steppes A>otai cultureD% (o based on such
cosmology we'd look to an area where horses are most nati'e in the wild and
play a prominent role in e'erday life% -hat would be the Eurasian steppes%
$E mythologyKcosmology is rooted more on aspects of steppe culture in
which the horse has always been e'er so prominent% -he world or
en'ironment of P$E speakers would ha'e re?ected this since cosmology
tends to be based on ones' immediate surroundings and then made into
mythic proportions% -he steppes satis:es this most $HO, particularly when
we reconstruct P$E religionKmythologyKcosmology
Published in July 2005
By Dr. Nicholas D. Kazanas
Anatolian bull and Vedic horse in the Indo-European difusion
Argument. In this paper I examine the presence of bull and horse in the various IE branches. It is
notheworthy that the IE stem for `horse` is absent in Hittite while all other ma|or branches have it.
The horse has no place at all in the religion, ritual or mythology; the horse`s function is taken over
by the bull.
Quote:
Originally Posted by .eomattica
and take into account the common linguistic cognates nearly all $E
languages ha'e for 'horse'%
Some branches of IE
TocharianA - yuk=horse
TocharianB - yakwe=horse
Greek - ipp(os)=horse
Armenian - Ji=horse
Albanian - kal=horse
And I don't know the word for the Hittite
- - - Updated - - -
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
!ooks nice, but $ see two problems for this hypothesis% ,hen we look at the
map of the hg @ distribution we see it concentrated in the 3ra'idian (outh of
$ndia<
http<KKgeocurrents%infoKwp-contentKu%%%plogroupN@%png
Well, it is known that the White Huns(Xiono-Oiono-Ephtal) destroyed all the North Indian states,
and after that they destroyed the Central Indian Gupta Empire.
The G2a(mostly G2a3b1*) and J2b2* is in all India, and only among brahmins, and Dravidian
Brahmin religion("Aryan" religion) came from the north, among Dravidians only Dravidian
Brahmins have G2a.
Iyengar 13.3% G2a, Iyengar or Ayyangar ([e|:eqgd:r]) is a caste given to Hindu Brahmins
Iyer 10.3% G2a, Iyer (also spelt as Ayyar, Aiyar, Ayer or Aiyer) is the title given to the caste
of Hindu Brahmin
Pallar-Pallan 0% G, The Pallar (previously Mallar)[1] are a caste from the Indian state of Tamil
Nadu. They are mostly agriculturalists in Tamil Nadu
Vellalar 0% G, Kshatriya clan
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
-his is rather consistent with assumtion that hg @ people brought Neolithic
package to $ndia as they it did in Europe A3ra'idians as pre-$E inhabitants of
$ndiaD%
(econdly if we assume that hg @ arri'ed in $ndia in Neolithic as it did in
Europe - are you making this assumpion - it would be strange they they
de'eloped there only one $E family - $ndian% -o e)plain this lack of linguistic
di'ersity we would ha'e to postulate 'ery late entry of hg @ into $ndia, but
why would it show such assymetry 'ersus Europe in this regard Awhy hg @
would be responsible for Neolithic in Europe but not in $ndiaD
Lets compaire Dravidian G2a3b1* results
MJJQP Yazd (ftdna 120462 Shekari Yazdi Iran) Unknown G* Other 67 0
YJ2QF Rangaswamy Bangalore, India G2a3b1 (tested) Family Tree DNA 67 21
HVQQT SR Thiruvarur, India G2a3b1 (tested) Family Tree DNA 67 20
SNSPS Lengel Germany Unknown Ancestry.com 67 22
6VTCB Lengel Germany G2a3b1 (tested) Family Tree DNA 67 22
HVQQT SR Thiruvarur, India G2a3b1 (tested) Family Tree DNA 67 0
YJ2QF Rangaswamy Bangalore, India G2a3b1 (tested) Family Tree DNA 67 7
MJJQP Yazd (citizen from) Unknown G* Other 67 20
Diference with central Iranian 67 20 Is that Neolithic times?
2012-08-02, 21:46
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$ndeed Hakkay links $E with !>I% Now when we know the !>I' association
with hg @, we could think of a scenario in which European mesolithic
aboriginals de'elop to the P$E stage under the in?uence of Neolithic !>I
haplogrop @ bearing people coming into .entral-Europe from
AnatoliaK.aucasusKHiddle East% -his could e)plain some linguistic links
posited for P$E, if we assumed that languageAsD of the !>I were somehow
Iart'elian-like of Afro-Asiatic like% $ am not saying this is a prefered scenario,
but $ at least it is not totaly unprobable $ belie'e% Of course the strongest
point fa'ouring some 'ersion of the Iurgan (teppe theory 's North-.entral
European 4rheimat theories is the lack of nati'e European haplogroup $ in
$ndia, what makes all scenarios postulating mo'ement of people from
Europe to $ndia less probable%
The LBK doesn't explain why the Hittite people were more swarthy than the local autochthonous
Anatolians and why they had yellow skin(Beta-thalassemia?).
I believe that the LBK are the Indo-Greeks(without the Hittites).
- - - Updated - - -
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
R;a isn't absent in (pain%
Ashkenazim branch of R1a1a1h1a, and tiny group R1a1a1g2*.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
And no, there don't need to be C di+erent subclades present in (pain, since
the main agents of the spread of $ndo-European speech carried mostly R;b
Adescendants of >ell >eakers $ndo-Europeani*ed by .orded ,are in .entral
EuropeD%
If not 8 at least 5 ->
a)Vandals, Suevi, Goths
b)Greeks
c)Italic people
d)Celtici, Lusitanians
e)Alans
2012-08-02, 22:07
Ardi
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
-he !>I doesn't e)plain why the &ittite people were more swarthy than the
local autochthonous Anatolians and why they had yellow skinA>eta-
thalassemiaD%
How do you know about their complexion and skin color..?
2012-08-02, 22:26
George1
They were Armenoids(swarthy) and the Local were Pontids(like North Caucasians).
Table of Nations, these Hittites were the dark, swarthy descendants of Heth
Egyptian monuments describe them as ugly in appearance with yellow skins, black hair, receding foreheads, oblique eyes,
and protruding upper |aws. The type may still be found in Cappadocia.
Swarthy Cappadocian warriors in the Kteioi mentioned in Odyss.
2012-08-02, 23:39
Ardi
I for one don't think a religious text, ancient art and an epic are exactly the best anthropological references, but be as it may.
2012-08-02, 23:56
soulblighter
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
Published in Fuly L665
-he @LaAmostly @La1b;hD and FLbLh is in all $ndia, and only among
brahmins, and 3ra'idian >rahmin religionA]Aryan] religionD came from the
north, among 3ra'idians only 3ra'idian >rahmins ha'e @La%
!)en.ar 3=.=? 12a, $yengar or Ayyangar AP#||rRD is a caste gi'en
to Hindu 'rahmins
!)er 3>.=? 12a, $yer Aalso spelt as Ayyar, Aiyar, Ayer or AiyerD is the title
gi'en to the caste of Hindu 'rahmin
Pallar-Pallan >? 1, -he Pallar Apre'iously HallarDP;R are a caste from the
$ndian state of -amil Nadu% -hey are mostly a.riculturalists in Tamil @adu
Gellalar >? 1, "shatri)a clan
!ets compaire 3ra'idian @La1b;h results
HFFrP ga*d Aftdna ;L6B7L (hekari ga*di $ranD 4nknown @h Other CS >
gFLr" Rangaswamy >angalore, $ndia @La1b; AtestedD "amily -ree 3NA CS
23
&Err- (R -hiru'arur, $ndia @La1b; AtestedD "amily -ree 3NA CS 2>
(N(P( !engel @ermany 4nknown Ancestry%com 7G LL
7E-.> !engel @ermany @La1b; AtestedD "amily -ree 3NA 7G LL
&Err- (R -hiru'arur, $ndia @La1b; AtestedD "amily -ree 3NA 7G 6
gFLr" Rangaswamy >angalore, $ndia @La1b; AtestedD "amily -ree 3NA 7G G
HFFrP ga*d Aciti*en fromD 4nknown @h Other 7G L6
3iference with central $ranian CS 2> $s that Neolithic times
Very interesting. I did the same analysis, but with |ust three samples of G2a3b1* (two Indian and
one Iranian), it seems diHcult to draw more conclusions. I hope we fnd more G2a3b1* samples
from Iran.
Haplogroup G has been left on the way side by FTDNA and other researchers, because it is not
as interesting as R1a and R1b(considering the groups rarity).
It is true that G2a3b1* and J2b2* in South India seem restricted to Iyers/Iyengars (with an oral
history of migration from the North a thousand years ago) based on data collected so far.
2012-08-03, 00:06
geomattica
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
Published in Fuly L665
>y 3r% Nicholas 3% Ia*anas
Anatolian bull and Eedic horse in the $ndo-European di+usion
Argument% $n this paper $ e)amine the presence of bull and horse in the
'arious $E branches% $t is notheworthy that the $E stem for ^horseJ is absent in
&ittite while all other ma#or branches ha'e it% -he horse has no place at all in
the religion, ritual or mythologyY the horseJs function is taken o'er by the
bull%
Yep, remember reading that a year after it came out. Defnitely one of the more useful articles to
have regarding cosmology w/in the IE debate. What's interesting is that in early Vedic mythology
(Rigveda) we see how Indra's name is evoked more than any other diety and how he rides a
horse drawn chariot and wields the var|a (a type of cudgel..interestingly enough a late Yamna
style kurgan excavation unearthed a male with what is believed to be the
var|a:http://www.archaeology.org/0203/newsbriefs/cudgel.html). He is of course aided by the
divine twins, the Asvins, whose very name posses the old Indo-Aryan word for horse:asva. Fast
forward to the the Authuraveda, and we see the importance if Indra begin to diminish and the
gradual emergence of the bull as central to Vedic and eventually Hindu thought. Alot of this has to
do with concepts of wealth and fortune in which the cow becomes more associated w/ such. On
the steppes, the horse provides everything: transportation, a meal, and also drink (mares milk).
Thus one could say, we have an observable declination of the horse's role among an IE group
due to the IE speakers coming into a land where cattle were more abundant and utilized and thus
cattle culture more central to life and cosmology.
In regards to Hittite/Anatolia, the lack of horse could be seen two ways regarding debate:
1) In accordance with agricultural wave of advance from Anatolia and pre-proto-IE, Hittites and
other Anatolian IE's preserve the archaicness of cosmology revolving around the bull over
anything else or....
2) Like the Indo-Aryans, the Anatolian IE left the PIE of the steppes and arrive in an area where
cattle and utilization of cattle are more central/vital to everyday life and thus adopt the
cosmological importance of the beast over the horse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
-ocharianA - yukUhorse
-ocharian> - yakweUhorse
@reek - ippAosDUhorse
Armenian - FiUhorse
Albanian - kalUhorse
And $ don't know the word for the &ittite
Let me also add:
Latin: equus (represents Italic)
Old Irish: ech (represents Celtic)
Old English: eoh (represents Germanic)
Lithuanian: esva (represents Baltic defnitely and perhaps Balto-Slavic)
Sanskrit: asva (represents Indo-Aryan)
Old Persian: asa (represents Iranian)
All derived from PIE ek'hos: 'horse'
Lot's of people like to point out how Slavic lacks a cognate derived from PIE 'horse' for obvious
reasons. Some Slavic languages like Russian adopt Turkic 'loschad'. Can't remember the origins
for the other Slavic word for horse (kon) but likely another Turkic adoption. Hence why
Baltic esva may preserve what the original Slavic word for horse was.
2012-08-03, 00:19
Alaron
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
-hey were ArmenoidsAswarthyD and the !ocal were PontidsAlike North
.aucasiansD%
-able of Nations, these &ittites were the dark, swarthy descendants of &eth
Egyptian monuments describe them as ugly in appearance with yellow skins,
black hair, receding foreheads, obli9ue eyes, and protruding upper #aws% -he
type may still be found in .appadocia%
(warthy .appadocian warriors in the Itteioi mentioned in Odyss%
I thought the depiction was the other way around.Hattians=more Taurid/Dinaricized while Hittites
were diferent from them.Clearly intruders there.
2012-08-03, 00:22
soulblighter
Quote:
Originally Posted by .eomattica
gep, remember reading that a year after it came out% 3e:nitely one of the
more useful articles to ha'e regarding cosmology wKin the $E debate% ,hat's
interesting is that in early Eedic mythology ARig'edaD we see how $ndra's
name is e'oked more than any other diety and how he rides a horse drawn
chariot and wields the 'ar#a Aa type of cudgel%%interestingly enough a late
gamna style kurgan e)ca'ation unearthed a male with what is belie'ed to be
the 'ar#a< http<KKwww%archaeology%orgK6L61KnewsbriefsKcudgel%htmlD% &e is of
course aided by the di'ine twins, the As'ins, whose 'ery name posses the
old $ndo-Aryan word for horse< as'a% "ast forward to the the Authura'eda,
and we see the importance if $ndra begin to diminish and the gradual
emergence of the bull as central to Eedic and e'entually &indu thought% Alot
of this has to do with concepts of wealth and fortune in which the cow
becomes more associated wK such% On the steppes, the horse pro'ides
e'erything< transportation, a meal, and also drink Amares milkD% -hus one
could say, we ha'e an obser'able declination of the horse's role among an $E
group due to the $E speakers coming into a land where cattle were more
abundant and utili*ed and thus cattle culture more central to life and
cosmology%
$n regards to &ittiteKAnatolia, the lack of horse could be seen two ways
regarding debate<
;D $n accordance with agricultural wa'e of ad'ance from Anatolia and pre-
proto-$E, &ittites and other Anatolian $E's preser'e the archaicness of
cosmology re'ol'ing around the bull o'er anything else or%%%%
LD !ike the $ndo-Aryans, the Anatolian $E left the P$E of the steppes and
arri'e in an area where cattle and utili*ation of cattle are more centralK'ital
to e'eryday life and thus adopt the cosmological importance of the beast
o'er the horse%
!et me also add<
!atin< e9uus Arepresents $talicD
Old $rish< ech Arepresents .elticD
Old English< eoh Arepresents @ermanicD
!ithuanian< es'a Arepresents >altic de:nitely and perhaps >alto-(la'icD
(anskrit< as'a Arepresents $ndo-AryanD
Old Persian< asa Arepresents $ranianD
All deri'ed from P$E ekwhos< 'horse'
!ot's of people like to point out how (la'ic lacks a cognate deri'ed from P$E
'horse' for ob'ious reasons% (ome (la'ic languages like Russian adopt -urkic
'loschad'% .an't remember the origins for the other (la'ic word for horse
AkonD but likely another -urkic adoption% &ence why >altic es'a may
preser'e what the original (la'ic word for horse was%
Very interesting discussion!
Indra is likened to a bull in the Rig-Veda also, and is the master of all cattle. Also, all rivers are
compared to cows as they are the "giver of wealth".
By the way, why is the Tocharian word for horse diferent? Is it borrowed from proto-Turkic/East
asian?
2012-08-03, 00:26
geomattica
Quote:
Originally Posted by soul/li.hter
>y the way, why is the -ocharian word for horse di+erent $s it borrowed
from proto--urkicKEast asian
Nope, its cognate to PIE 'ekwhos' as well. Just drop the 'y' and it should be more apparent: 'akwe'
2012-08-03, 01:51
soulblighter
Yes I realized that after posting. I still have been trying to explain one question. How did the population of R1a1a Z93+, get
so big in India so quickly in such a short time?
2012-08-03, 06:45
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by soul/li.hter
ges $ reali*ed that after posting% $ still ha'e been trying to e)plain one
9uestion% &ow did the population of R;a;a /012, get so big in $ndia so
9uickly in such a short time
In America the European groups get so big in few centuries. The R1a1a1h1a and R1a1a1h1a1 is
comon for N.Indians and for some Arabs, the R1a1a1h1a and R1a1a1h1a1 are even in Yemen
and Oman, only White Huns came there.
The second golden era began after the second reign of Kavadh I. With the support of the
Hephtalites
second golden era
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...empire_map.png
- - - Updated - - -
Quote:
Originally Posted by .eomattica
Nope, its cognate to P$E 'ekwhos' as well% Fust drop the 'y' and it should be
more apparent< 'akwe'
What about Armenian and Greek did those derived from PIE ekwhos?
Greek - ipp(os)=horse
Armenian - Ji=horse
TocharianA - yuk=horse
TocharianB - yakwe=horse
Albanian - kal=horse
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by .eomattica
!ot's of people like to point out how (la'ic lacks a cognate deri'ed from P$E
'horse' for ob'ious reasons% (ome (la'ic languages like Russian adopt -urkic
'loschad'% .an't remember the origins for the other (la'ic word for horse
AkonD but likely another -urkic adoption% &ence why >altic es'a may
preser'e what the original (la'ic word for horse was%
In Polish "horse" is "kon" in dialectical Polish oftern pronounced as "kuon" with "u" pronounced as
"w" in English "window", so we have "kwon"<-"(e)kwhos".
Also in Polish "mare" is "kobyla"<"caballo".
2012-08-03, 10:53
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
-he @LaAmostly @La1b;hD and FLbLh is in all $ndia, and only among
brahmins, and 3ra'idian >rahmin religionA]Aryan] religionD came from the
north, among 3ra'idians only 3ra'idian >rahmins ha'e @La%
!)en.ar 3=.=? 12a, $yengar or Ayyangar AP#||rRD is a caste gi'en
to Hindu 'rahmins
!)er 3>.=? 12a, $yer Aalso spelt as Ayyar, Aiyar, Ayer or AiyerD is the title
gi'en to the caste of Hindu 'rahmin
Pallar-Pallan >? 1, -he Pallar Apre'iously HallarDP;R are a caste from the
$ndian state of -amil Nadu% -hey are mostly a.riculturalists in Tamil @adu
Gellalar >? 1, "shatri)a clan
WIKIPEDIA gives after Sengupta (2006) hg G at 0.5% among Indo-European speaker and 2.3%
among Dravidian speakers. That is not a result expected from an IE marker.
Indian castes versus tribals from WIKIPEDIA after Cordeaux (2004):
Code:
castes tribals difference
L 19 7 12
R1a 20,9 8,9 12
J 11,7 2,9 8,8
R2 10 4,4 5,6
G 0,2 0 0,2
P 3,1 6 -2,9
C 5,2 8,6 -3,4
O 1,2 6,7 -5,5
F 9,6 18,1 -8,5
H 12 31,1 -19,1
Q
1b
!
So if we want to have correlation with the caste system we can contemplate only R1a, L, J, R2 and G
(but minuscule presence of G makes it rather irrelevant).
Let's compare no lower castes and middle castes (WIKIPEDIA data after Trivedi 2004):
Code:
"iddle l#$er difference
R1a 26,3 15,7 10,6
J 9,7 3,1 6,6
P 2,9 2,3 0,6
F 5,1 4,6 0,5
L 5,7 5,4 0,3
% & & &
1b & & &
C &,6 &,8 -&,2
O & &,4 -&,4
! 1,7 4,6 -2,9
H 21,1 27,6 -6,5
2 18,9 27,6 -8,7
Here we have the positive correlation with the caste rank for R1a, J, P (?) F and L.
And now upper castes vs middle:
Code:
'((er "iddle difference
R1a 36,5 26,3 10,2
L 11,4 5,7 5,7
H 23,3 21,1 2,2
R1b 0,5 0 0,5
J 10 9,7 0,3
C 0,9 0,6 0,3
% & & &
O & & &
P 1,9 2,9 -1
! & 1,7 -1,7
F 1,9 5,1 -3,2
2 9 18,9 -9,9
As one can see R1a1 always show the desired correlation: upper>middle>lower>tribals.
It is true also for hg L, but of course geographical distribution of L excludes it from the IE discussion.
The only other hg with the "correct" correlation is hg J. Hg G don't really is important in India, so it
can't be regarded as important marker.
At this momemt only R1a1 and J stay in the "race".
Let's take a look at lingustic aHliations - the diference between hg frequency among IE speakers and
maximum of hg frequency among Dravidian, Austro-Asiatic and Sino-Tibetan speaker:
Code:
R1a 18,8
R2 7,5
R1b 1,2
C 0,7
Q 0,7
J 0,2
% -1,8
H -4,1
F -6,9
) -7,7
O -81,3
J is still in the game by barely, and of course R1a1 leads by the large margin.
Let's take a look for geographical associations (we want to have IE marker higher in the North than in
the South and higher in the West than in the East):
Code:
North-South !"t-#a"t "u$
R1a 35,5 1,8 37,3
H -3 14 11
J 2,2 7,2 9,4
C -1,9 4,6 2,7
L -9,1 9,9 0,8
G 0,6 0 0,6
P -1,6 -&,2 -1,8
F -2,9 -2,2 -5,1
! -5,1 -3,3 -8,4
O 2,3 -2&,7 -18,4
2 -1&,4 -9,1 -19,5
The picture stays the same: R1a1 leads by the large margin with J still in the game.
So to conclude: R1a1 is uncontestable as an IE marker in India. As we know the presence of R1a1
from Germany in Neolithic to Bronze Age Tarim Basin so the only conclusion is that R1a1-Z93 came
down to India from the North.
The only other haplogroup which may be also considered is hg J, but the strength of this signal is
much weaker as if it was older or as if hg J was present also among non-IE groups (my bet is that J2
is an Elamo-Harappan Bronze Age marker).
It would make sense IMHO to assume that Indo-Iranian branch of IE came to existence after the
contact with J2 Elamo-Harappans of Iran and Indus Valley. I wonder if lingustics conform the
presence of such substrate in II languages.
2012-08-03, 11:24
geomattica
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
,hat about Armenian and @reek did those deri'ed from P$E ekwhos
@reek - ippAosDUhorse
Armenian - FiUhorse
-ocharianA - yukUhorse
-ocharian> - yakweUhorse
Albanian - kalUhorse
Greek yes, its |ust a sound shift that went something like this:
ekwho>iquo>ippo
Armenian I really don't know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
$n Polish ]horse] is ]ko] in dialectical Polish oftern pronounced as ]kuo]
with ]u] pronounced as ]w] in English ]window], so we ha'e
]kwo]-]AeDkwhos]%
Interesting. I thought I read somewhere that the etymology of 'kon' was Turkic. Do you have a
source for that by any chance regarding the PIE etymology?
2012-08-03, 12:02
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by .eomattica
$nteresting% $ thought $ read somewhere that the etymology of 'kon' was
-urkic% 3o you ha'e a source for that by any chance regarding the P$E
etymology
WIKIPEDIA gives:
Quote:
"rom Proto-(la'ic hkon#S, from Proto-$ndo-European hem- AdhornlessXD
... but I like my amateurish etymology more. :)
2012-08-03, 12:11
cinnamona
In Lithuanian avienis means "a work horse", but the folklore talks about avieniai "the white twin horses of the sun", horses
of the sun had special signs.
And ava means "a mare", not |ust a horse in general.
2012-08-03, 12:16
geomattica
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
,$I$PE3$A gi'es<
%%% but $ like my amateourish etymology more% <D
ah-huh! I knew it.
nah psyche, |ust kidding...that's fne nothing wrong w/ taking a shot at it. But yeah I believe the
'peer-reviewed' etymology of 'kon' goes back to that one JIES article.
But ya never know you may be on to something there.
2012-08-03, 12:50
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by .eomattica
>ut ya ne'er know you may be on to something there%
Of course I am:
Quote:
!usitanian, the Pre-.eltic $ndo-European language of the &ispanic Peninsula,
demonstrates
numerous similarities in theonymy to the .eltic areas, e%g% !usit% !ccona
8dat. s..9 K 1aul.
Epona cthe horse-.oddessd, A%%%D
ON THE INDO-EUROPEAN ORIGIN OF TWO LUSITANIAN THEONYMS (LAEBO AND REVE)
;)
EDIT: It seems that I wasn't frst: SLAVIC *KOMONJL AND ITS PROBABLE CELTIC SOURCE,
VACLAV BLAZEK
Quote:
6% $ntroduction
-he main purpose of the present study is to demonstrate that besides the
traditional >alto-(la'ic etymology of (la'ic hkomon#S driding horseX, based
on the >altic designation of dbridleX, there is an alternati'e identifying in the
(la'ic word an adaptation of the syntagm dhorse of roadX[ driding horseX,
e)pressed in a hypothetical .eltic source from .entral Europe as hepos A
hekwosD or hmarkos hkammanios, with the following ellipsis of the word for
dhorseX%
;% Attestation
(la'ic hkomon#S [ Old .hurch (la'ic komonS de9uus, caballusX A;) Eenc-
NikD, Old and poetic .*ech komo driding horseXY Old Russian komonS,
kumonS driding horseX, Russian Aarch%D kZmo, dial% also kom, komn id%,
4krainian Aarch%D komZ id% A-rubane', E((F ;6%;GG-GCY Ealnko' ;007< 11L-
11 AE(F( 7DY Hachek ;07C< LG;-GLD%
L% 3eri'ati'es
L%;% Ad#ecti'e< hkomonSnMA#SD [ .*ech Aarch%D komonn dAofD horseX, Old
Polish komonny, komunny id%, dof ca'alry], probably a loan from RussiaY
Russian Adial%D komannZ#, komnny# dhealthy, li'ingX, Old 4krainian
komonni#, 4krainian komZnny# dAofD horseX AE((F ;6%;GCY (oawski ;05C-75<
B6L-61D%
L%L% Nomen agentis< hkomonSnikM [ .*ech Aarch%D komonn_k drider, ca'alier,
knightX, Old Polish komonik, kommonik, komonnik, komunAnDik dca'alryY
rider, knightX, 4krainian Aarch%D komonnk drider, knightX AE((F ;6%;GCY
(oawski ;05C-75< B6L-61D%
L%1% .ollecti'e< hkomonSst'o [ Old .*ech komonst'o dca'alryX [ (lo'ak
komonst'o id%, Polish komastwo dsocietyX AHachek ;07C< LG;Y (oawski
;05C-75< B6L-61D%
1% $nternal structure
$n (la'ic the suffi) h-on#S forms the words with e)pressi'e semantics
Ahti)on#S < hti)M, hk'ton#S < hk'tM, hSron#S < hSr3 W see (oawski ;0GB< ;1LD
or hypocoristics AhRadon#S from the personal name of the type
(!AE$. hIOHONF AN3 $-( PRO>A>!E .E!-$. (O4R.E
;L
hRadosla'M, hRadomilM etc% W see ('oboda ;07B< ;7;D% (la'ic hkomon#S is
probably the only e)ception as a word with the neutral meaning%
B% -raditional etymology
$f the word hkomon#S is really formed by the suffi) h-on#S, this suffi) is
analysable as h-on- e)tended by the possessi'e suffi) h-#S% $n this case the
hypothetical une)tended protoform hkomonM hkomono- would correspond
with !ithuanian k-manos dbridle with a bitX Aformally the proto->altic pl%
hkamanTs, indicating the unattested sg% 2kamanTD% &ence (la'ic hkomon#S
Ahkomono-D would mean dbelonging to hkomono-X or dcharacteristic by
hkomono-X% "or the driding horseX the dbridle with a bitX is undoubtedly
characteristic enough% Other etymologies are discussed by Ealnko' AE(F(
7%11L-11D, -rubane' AE((F ;6%;GG-GCD and -oporo' A;0C6< ;07D%
5% Alternati'e etymology
Although the preceding etymology is acceptable from the point of
phonology, morphology and semantics, the e)ceptional rarity of the
ine)pressi'e function of the suffi) h-on#S legitimi*es to seek any alternati'e
solution% $t is possible to think about adaptation and elliptic simpli:cation of
the .ontinental .eltic syntagm hAeposKhekwos or hmarkosD hkammanios
driding AhorseDX corresponding to @erman Reitpferd, where the attribute
represented a deri'ati'e of the word hkamman dstepX A hkangsman
hkgsmD, reconstructed on the basis of .eltiberian A>otorrita A5D acc% sg%
kamanom droadXY Old $rish ctimm neut% dact of stepping towards,
approachingY resorting toY step, pace, strideY degreeY stageY dignity, rankY
courseX A3$! . ;66%6;D, acc% pl% inna cemmen gl% ^gresusJY Old ,elsh
cemmein gl% ^in gradibusJ hkammanO, Hiddle ,elsh camm dstepX, ,elsh
cam, pl% -au dstride, stepX, .ornish cam dmarche, pasX, Hiddle >reton cam
dun pasXY cf% also @allo-!atin AGth cent%D camminus droad, streetX A!E$A .-5B-
55Y -hurneysen ;0B7< 0B, L;6Y de >ernardo (tempel ;000< L75Y &older
;C07< G;0Y (chri#'er ;005< 1G5Y "alileye' L666< L5Y 3elamarre L66;< C5D and
its Romance continuants in $talian cammino, Engadin, "riuli k'amin, "rench
chemin, Pro'encal, .atalonian cam_, (panish camino, Portuguese caminho
dway, roadX AHeyer-!bke ;015< k;55LD%
7% E)ternal parallels
7%;% .losest cognate can be identi:ed in a !usitanian word .OHA$AH,
appearing in the inscription from .abeo das "rguas< O$!AH -RE>OPA!A
$N3$ POR.OH !AE>O .OHA$AH $..ONA !O$H$NNA O$!AH 4((EAH
-RE>AR4NE $N3$ -A4ROH $"A3EH %% RE4E -RE%% ,itc*ak AL665< 7C-G6D
refers to the following interpretation<
E.!AE >!AEI
;1
^O'em -rebopalae et porcum !aribus, e9uam Eponae Eirgini, o'em
anniculam -rebaroni et taurum futuentem $o'iJ, i%e% da sheep Aacc% sg%D to
-rebopala Adat% sg%D and a pig Aacc% sg%D to !aPhRes Adat% pl%D, a mare Aacc% sg%D
to $ccona Ae9uine goddessD 'irgin Adat% sg%D, a yearly sheep to -rebaruna
and a bull Aacc% sg%D to Reuos Adat% sg%DX% -he word .OHA$AH designating an
animal determined as a sacri:ce for the goddess $..ONA so should be the
acc% sg% of the h-T stems, according to ,itc*ak dmareX with regard to a
probable e9uine specialisation of $..ONA% ,itc*ak AL665< 116-1;D discussed
two etymologies of hkomaT< AiD comparison with Prussian camnet dhorseX
and (la'ic hkomonS dhorseXY AiiD comparison with Old $ndic mya- dhorseX,
myO- dmareX, pre:)ed by the ^pe#orati'eJ pre:) ka-% -he following solution
modi:es the 'ariant AiD< -he hypothetical !usitanian nom% sg% hkomaT can
re?ect older hkomanT% -his change looks as a rule postulated ad hoc, but a
similar tendency appears in Portuguese which could inherit it #ust from
!usitanian, its substratum, cf% the ancient city-name .onimbriga continuing
in .oimbra today, or !atin panis dbreadX [ Portuguese p-o etc% AHeyer-!bke
;015< k7;0CD%
7%L% .oncerning Prussian kampnit gl% ^pferdtJ P@runau @ 7R, camnet id%
P@runau A B;R U gl% ^e9uusJ P@runau " B;R, there are two possible starting-
points< AiD hkamAaDntas, e)actly corresponding to the !ithuanian part% pret%
pass% kaman#tas from the 'erb kaman#ti dto mo'eX, itself from the noun
k-manos dbridle with a bitX A-oporo' ;0C6< ;0;-07DY AiiD hkamnitis
hkamanOtOs, interpretable as a diminuti'e, implying a primary protoform
hkamanOs AHaiulis ;001< ;65 deri'es it further from the ad#% hkaman#a-,
formed from the noun hkamana-KT- dbridleXD% -he place-name .amnitien
attested in (amland in ;111 A@erullis ;0LL< 5BD supports the solution AiiD% $n
this case one of the hypothetical predecessors of the Prussian designations
of ]horse], hkamanOs or hkaman#a-, can represent an adaptation of (la'ic
hkomon#S driding horseX%
G% .onclusion
$f the preceding arguments are 'alid, it is possible to add this etymology to
the scanty, but e)traordinarily important group of .elto-(la'ic parallels
which cannot be e)plained as a common heritage% "or apparent phonological
and morphological reasons the (la'ic data should be interpreted as .eltic
loans% -he classic e)amples of this type were analysed by (talmas*c*yk i
,itc*ak A;005D%
2012-08-03, 13:07
soulblighter
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
,$I$PE3$A gi'es after (engupta AL667D hg @ at 6%58 among $ndo-European
speaker and L%18 among 3ra'idian speakers% -hat is not a result e)pected
from an $E marker%
Wo|e, what George is trying to claim is that R1a is present in all castes and even tribes of India,
where as G is only present in Brahmins of the south, who speak a Dravidian language today(but a
heavy mixture of sanskrit with it)
I agree, the samples are so small for haplogroup G, that it is diHcult to come to a conclusion.
Regarding caste distribution of R1a and other haplogroups, it has to be shown that the ancient
tribal groups have a diferent R1a than the caste groups (as they were historically excluded from
the caste system).
2012-08-03, 13:55
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by soul/li.hter
Regarding caste distribution of R;a and other haplogroups, it has to be
shown that the ancient tribal groups ha'e a di+erent R;a than the caste
groups Aas they were historically e)cluded from the caste systemD%
"Shown" is too strong a word here IMHO. I have never seen any later confrmation of the
existance of these supposed exotic/divergent tribal R1a1 STR hapotypes. Neither - AFAIK - no
such haplotype exists in any public database (but of course testing bias may be the reason). So it
would be good to see some verifcation of this claim made in the papers published several years
ago.
2012-08-03, 14:09
cinnamona
Wo|ewoda, interesting that your article does not mention Lithuanian kBmC, kumDlC "a female horse".
2012-08-03, 14:45
Wo|ewoda
^Any relationship to "kumys"?
2012-08-03, 15:36
cinnamona
I don't think so:
Windekens gives such connections:
Toch. B cEnm-, c@nm (to string) tie) link(
Toch. A kanti ` "a string, bind"
old Icelandic hemFa "to curb, bridle", hemill "legcufs"
2012-08-03, 16:17
soulblighter
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
](hown] is too strong a word here $H&O% $ ha'e ne'er seen any later
con:rmation of the e)istance of these supposed e)oticKdi'ergent tribal R;a;
(-R hapotypes% Neither - A"A$I - no such haplotype e)ists in any public
database Abut of course testing bias may be the reasonD% (o it would be good
to see some 'eri:cation of this claim made in the papers published se'eral
years ago%
Wo|e that is why I said it has to be shown. If tribal and caste populations of India all share the
same type of Z93+, then the whole Aryan migration into the subcontinent is under question.
2012-08-03, 17:36
geomattica
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
E3$-< $t seems that $ wasn't :rst< (!AE$. hIOHONF AN3 $-( PRO>A>!E
.E!-$. (O4R.E, E.!AE >!AEI
Interesting. I know east Poland and west Ukraine are regionally known as Galicia. Any type of
region w/ such a name like Gaul or Galicia was used typically as an exonym by Roman sources
for where 'Celts' presumably lived.
I like your 'ekwon' idea too as Old Irish 'ech' is close prefx wise but the authors seem to suggest
slightly diferent derivation in terms of sound shifts.
If this is the case, then Baltic 'asva' may actually preserve the original term deriving from Proto-
Balto-Slavic for horse. Also makes sense since 'kon' is clearly Centum inJuenced regarding the
Celtic hypo. I'd be more inclined to see the Proto-Balto-Slavic term for horse reJecting a process
of Satemization though am aware that Balto-Slavic languages are incompletely Satemized.
Interesting too how various IE languages change their term for 'horse' semantic-wise as diferent
breeds/types of horses emerge gradually over time for certain functions.
2012-08-03, 17:43
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by soul/li.hter
,o#e that is why $ said it has to be shown% $f tribal and caste populations of
$ndia all share the same type of /012, then the whole Aryan migration into
the subcontinent is under 9uestion%
Quite contary - it would prove it! The same way as the presence of R1b among American tribals
proves European Invasion Theory. :)
2012-08-03, 20:23
soulblighter
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
ruite contary - it would pro'e itm -he same way as the presence of R;b
among American tribals pro'es European $n'asion -heory% <D
This is assuming that the invasion was truly an invasion, and eradication of existing male lineages
like in the Americas.
This poses multiple questions, and I am quite convinced that this was not the case. I guess we
can discuss that in a diferent thread.
2012-08-03, 21:24
George1
Khoton Turkic people in Mongolia have 82.5% R1a1
http://s008.radikal.ru/i306/1102/43/56102d4b2df6.|pg
http://s46.radikal.ru/i112/1102/96/890b5e7b1c64.|pg
2012-08-03, 21:43
geomattica
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
"hoton Turkic people in ;on.olia ha&e N2.M? (3a3
http<KKs66C%radikal%ruKi167K;;6LKB1K57;6LdBbLdf7%#pg
http<KKsB7%radikal%ruKi;;LK;;6LK07KC06b5eGb;c7B%#pg
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...l=1#post807264
2012-08-03, 22:00
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by .eomattica
http<KKwww%forumbiodi'ersity%comKsho%%%lU;kpostC6GL7B
I'm sure if you take out of them the Mongolian admixture, they will be the same with northern
hunters and gatherers which are probably Uralo-Altaic.
http://i43.tinypic.com/20ztrmt.png
2012-08-03, 22:32
geomattica
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
$'m sure if you take out of them the Hongolian admi)ture, they will be the
same with northern hunters and gatherers which are probably 4ralo-Altaic%
Haven't seen spreadsheet results for Khoton Mongols but Altai people, a Turkic group nearby in
the Altai Republic of Russia have a 10-15% Euro. component and so do Uigurs according to
Eurogenes K8 Pagani spreadsheet. Alot of the aDNA studies of Iron Age C. Asia showed that
Scythian R1a males began to take on brides with E. Asian mtdna hg's as time went on.
2012-08-03, 23:41
George1
By Herodotus the only true Scythians are the Skolotoi, R1a is found in Arimaspean teritory, why do you naming them
Scythians?
Even the Issedonians(Not Scythian tribe) and Massagetae(Not Scythian tribe) are closer to this region than the Scythians.
2012-08-04, 00:12
geomattica
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
>y &erodotus the only true (cythians are the (kolotoi, R;a is found in
Arimaspean teritory, why do you naming them (cythians
E'en the $ssedoniansANot (cythian tribeD and HassagetaeANot (cythian tribeD
are closer to this region than the (cythians%
Because its also a blanket term for the Iranian speaking nomads of the steppes. The Sakha
period of Kazakhstan is widely believed to comprise of Iranian speaking nomads as well. From
Herodotus himself of the wikipedia page for Scythians:
Quote:
-he (acae, or (cyths, were clad in trousers, and had on their heads tall sti+
caps rising to a point% -hey bore the bow of their country and the daggerY
besides which they carried the battle-a)e, or sagaris% -hey were in truth
Amyrgian A,esternD (cythians, but the Persians called them (acae, since
that is the name which they ga'e to all (cythians%
Also per aDNA:
Ricaut, F. et al. 2004. Genetic Analysis and Ethnic Anities From Two Scytho-Siberian
Skeletons. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 123:351360
Clisson, I. et al. 2002. Genetic analysis of human remains from a double inhumation in a
frozen kurgan in Kazakhstan (Berel site, Early 3rd Century BC). International Journal of
Legal Medicine. 116:304308
2012-08-04, 08:34
George1
Sacae were in some parts of Southern Kazakhstan and in some parts of Turkmenistan, not in Siberia.
The Massagetae were to the north of Sacae in central Kazakhstan, and the Massagetae aren't Scyths.
2012-08-04, 10:52
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
>y &erodotus the only true (cythians are the (kolotoi, A%%%D
Does anybony know any etymology of the name "Skolotai"? I ask because if we exclude predix
"s-" and ending -"tai" (typical for ethnic names in plural) ending what we are left is the word for
"wheel": S-kolo-tai, which would make sense as Scythians were the people who lived in the
"houses on wheels".
- - - Updated - - -
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
"hoton Turkic people in ;on.olia ha&e N2.M? (3a3
http<KKs66C%radikal%ruKi167K;;6LKB1K57;6LdBbLdf7%#pg
http<KKsB7%radikal%ruKi;;LK;;6LK07KC06b5eGb;c7B%#pg
Hun's descendants?
R1a1/U2e male in 2,000-year old Mongolian Xiongnu
Quote:
Originally Posted by !"!PED!A
-he name qiongnu may be cognate to the name &uns, but the e'idence for
this is contro'ersial%
;)
2012-08-04, 12:06
geomattica
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
Sacae were in so9e par8s o@ Sou8hern 4aa!hs8an and in so9e par8s
o@ >ur!9enis8an" no8 in Siberia.
-he Hassagetae were to the north of (acae in central Ia*akhstan, and the
Hassagetae aren't (cyths%
From Wikipedia Siberia history article:
Quote:
early history of (iberia is greatly in?uenced by the sophisticated nomadic
ci'ili*ations of the (cythians APa*yrykD and qiongnu ANoin-4laD, both
?ourishing before the .hristian era% -he steppes of (outh (iberia saw a
succession of nomadic empires, including the -urkic Empire and the Hongol
Empire% $n the late Hiddle Ages, -ibetan >uddhism spread into the areas
south of !ake >aikal%
$ndo-$ranian in?uences in southern (iberia can be dated as far back as the
L166W;666 >.E Androno'o culture% >etween the Gth and 1rd centuries >.
the $ndo-$ranian (cythians ?ourished in the Altai region APa*yryk cultureD%
-hey were a ma#or in?uence on all later steppe empires%
from the Pazyryk culture article:
Quote:
Pa*yryk culture is an $ron Age archaeological culture Aca% 7th to 1rd centuries
>.D identi:ed by e)ca'ated artifacts and mummi:ed humans found in the
(iberian permafrost in the Altay Hountains% -he mummies are buried in long
barrows Aor ]kurgans]D similar to the tomb mounds of western (cythian
culture in modern 4kraine% -he type site are the Pa*yryk burials of the 4kok
Plateau%P;R Hany artifacts ha'e been found at this location, including the $ce
Princess, indicating a ?ourishing culture at this location that bene:ted from
the many trade routes and cara'ans of merchants passing through the area%
PLR
Other kurgan cemeteries associated with the culture include those of
>ashadar, -uekta, 4landryk, Polosmak and >erel% -here are so far no known
sites of settlements associated with the burials, suggesting a purely nomadic
lifestyle%
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
@eorgianAIart'elianD is ,est Nostratic is close to $E and isn't Aggluntinati'e
language%
:confused:
Quote:
Hore importantly, it is wrong to talk about 4ral-Altaic groups as dthe
agglutinati'e folkX because the agglutinati'e model is found in many di'erse
tongues around the world, including languages spoken in Europe A>as9ue,
isolateD, Asia AIannada, 3ra'idianD, Africa A(wahili, >antuD, and the Americas
A.ree, Algon9uianD% ?anguages in 8he 8hree 9ajor language @a9ilies
indigenous 8o 8he 7aucasus regionA%b!ha in ,or8hwes8 7aucasian
@a9ily" ?egin in ,or8heas8 7aucasian @a9ily" and /eorgian in
4ar8Belian @a9ilyAare 9os8ly agglu8ina8iBe as well. Other agglutinati'e
languages include >urmese A-ibeto->urmanD, Fapanese and Iorean,
(9uamish A(alishD, ruechua, and @reenlandic AEskimo-AleutD% Aboriginal
Australian languages in the Pama-Nyungan family are agglutinati'e as well%
,ould the &ungarian nationalists posting their dagglutinati'e folkX 'ideos on
gou-ube want to include all of those groups within their dfolkX $ doubt it%
Source: http://geocurrents.info/cultural-geo...#ixzz22Z|x3JK3
2012-08-04, 17:25
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
3oes anybony know any etymology of the name ](kolotai] $ ask because if
we e)clude predi) ]s-] and ending -]tai] Atypical for ethnic names in pluralD
ending what we are left is the word for ]wheel]< (-kolo-tai, which would
make sense as (cythians were the people who li'ed in the ]houses on
wheels]%
Zko/tt < *skula-ta < *skua-ta < *skuda-ta(=archers?)
Roo/otot < *paradta(ahead of, at the head?)
2012-08-06, 19:28
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
Another tree<
http<KKuploadpic%orgKstorageKL6;;K"e%%%I!F.C#Ap/r%#pg
I don't quite know the reasoning behind the plots below, but I paste them here for comparison:
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_zAeGFbarHks/Sw..._dJIQ/fala.|pg
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_zAeGFbarHks/Sw...DE8/glotto.|pg
Slavonic language seem to occupy central position in both diagrams, which could be interpreted
as the central position of the Slavic homeland among IE groups.
2012-08-07, 09:06
Wo|ewoda
Another scheme this time by a Russian author:
http://bialczynski.fles.wordpress.c...pg?w=600&h=447
2012-08-07, 17:35
cinnamona
So you suggest that Slavic is equally related to all other language groups?
2012-08-07, 19:27
Wo|ewoda
^ I am not crazy enough to suggest anything or not suggest. ;)
2012-08-07, 23:59
aregint
How very interesting! Having read |ust one book on the sub|ect I can't comment on this, but please keep posting, it's great
to read something diferent.
2012-08-08, 02:39
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
(la'onic language seem to occupy central position in both diagrams, which
could be interpreted as the central position of the (la'ic homeland among $E
groups%
Of course. But that is areallycentral position: it means that it was surrounded by IE languages in
every direction (north: Balts, west: Germanics, southwest: Thracians; southeast: Aryans).
But of course this kind of location cannot tell anything about the original Proto-Indo-European
homeland.
2012-08-09, 06:30
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
Of course% >ut that is areall) central position< it means that it was
surrounded by $E languages in e'ery direction Anorth< >alts, west<
@ermanics, southwest< -hraciansY southeast< AryansD%
>ut of course this kind of location cannot tell anything about the original
Proto-$ndo-European homeland%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arederik "ortlandt
-he $ndo-Europeans who remained after the migrations became speakers of
>alto-(la'ic%
The spread of Indo-Europeans, Frederik Kortlandt
2012-08-09, 07:10
Jaska
Kortlandt also explicitly mentions that the Balto-Slavic area (Middle Dnieper Culture) WAS NOTthe original PIE homeland
(Sredni Stog Culture). Kortlandt means that after the other central IE groups (Graeco-Armenian and Aryan) had expanded,
|ust like the peripheral groups before them, the Balto-Slavs did not expand so far.
So, you now agree with Kortlandt that Slavic = South Baltic dialect? :)
2012-08-09, 07:16
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
Iortlandt also e)plicitly mentions that the >alto-(la'ic area AHiddle 3nieper
.ultureD ,A( NO- the original P$E homeland A(redni (tog .ultureD% Iortlandt
means that after the other central $E groups A@raeco-Armenian and AryanD
had e)panded, #ust like the peripheral groups before them, the >alto-(la's
did not e)pand so far%
If Slavs are identifed by R1a1-M458, then there is not much sign that they come from the region
of Dniepr. By the way these Middle Dniepr Culture Corded Ware guys kicked out Yamna loosers
from their homeland:
Quote:
Originally Posted by !"!PED!A
The ;iddle Dnieper culture is an eastern extension of the Corded
are culture, ca% 1L66uL166 >. of northern 4kraine and >elarus% As the
name indicates, it was centered on the middle reach of the 3nieper Ri'er
and is contemporaneous with the latter phase and then a successor to
the !ndo-European Eamna culture, as well as to the latter phase of the
-ripolye culture%
;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
(o, you now agree with Iortlandt that (la'ic U (outh >altic dialect <D
Who am I to agree or not agree with Kortlandt? ;)
But no, I have preference for scenario in which that Balts are these IEs (undiferenciated proto-
Balto-Slavs) who moved north of the Temperate zone and heavily mixed with N1c people of the
Boreal zone. So for me Balt = Slav + N1c.
2012-08-10, 07:38
Wo|ewoda
By the way a decisive argument by Dolgopolsky:
http://uploadpic.org/storage/2011/bZ...ZJptMcf8Cd.|pg
From The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate, Edwin Bryant
2012-08-10, 23:02
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
>ut no, $ ha'e preference for scenario in which that >alts are these $Es
Aundi+erenciated proto->alto-(la'sD who mo'ed north of the -emperate *one
and hea'ily mi)ed with N;c people of the >oreal *one% (o for me >alt U (la'
2 N;c%
Yes, this seems agreeable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
>y the way a decisi'e argument by 3olgopolsky<
Stubbornness of the Russian school: they want to believe that Proto-Uralic was spoken in Asia,
so they do not accept any PIE loanwords in Proto-Uralic. Elsewhere in the world those PIE
loanwords in Uralic have been known and accepted already at the 80's. But of course recently the
situation has changed a bit, because Late Proto-Uralic seems to be too late stage to
have properProto-Indo-European loanwords, so these archaic Indo-European words must be
explained some other way:
http://www.mv.helsinki.f/home/|phak...icEvidence.pdf
But it still seems the most credible alternative that Pre-Proto-Uralic indeed was spoken in Asia, as
I |ust linked in the "Uralic adventures" thread:
http://www.sgr.f/sust/sust264/sust264_hakkinen|.pdf
So, Dolgopolsky was wrong at that time. Here is more updated view in the book Indo-Aryan
Controversy.
http://books.google.pl/books?id=8VnA...oversy&f=false
(This should also be updated with my frst link.)
2012-08-10, 23:43
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
ges, this seems agreeable%
;
(tubbornness of the Russian school< they want to belie'e that Proto-4ralic
was spoken in Asia, so they do not accept any P$E loanwords in Proto-4ralic%
Elsewhere in the world those P$E loanwords in 4ralic ha'e been known and
accepted already at the C6's% >ut of course recently the situation has
changed a bit, because !ate Proto-4ralic seems to be too late stage to
ha'e proper Proto-$ndo-European loanwords, so these archaic $ndo-
European words must be e)plained some other way<
http<KKwww%m'%helsinki%:KhomeK#phak%%%icE'idence%pdf
>ut it still seems the most credible alternati'e that Pre-Proto-4ralic indeed
was spoken in Asia, as $ #ust linked in the ]4ralic ad'entures] thread<
http<KKwww%sgr%:KsustKsustL7BKsustL7BNhakkinen#%pdf
(o, 3olgopolsky was wrong at that time% &ere is more updated 'iew in the
book $ndo-Aryan .ontro'ersy%
http<KKbooks%google%plKbooksidUCEnA%%%o'ersyifUfalse
A-his should also be updated with my :rst link%D
Well, I remain sceptical:
Quote:
$n conclusion, the earliest $ndo-European loanword strata in (aami, namely
proto-$ndo-European, Proto-$ndo-$ranian and Proto->alto-(la'ic, are also the
most dijcult to distinguish%
Stratigraphy of Indo-European loanwords in Saami
This relates to Saami, but I don't think it can be much better at Uralic level (but what do I know!).
2012-08-11, 00:14
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
,ell, $ remain sceptical<
(tratigraphy of $ndo-European loanwords in (aami
-his relates to (aami, but $ don't think it can be much better at 4ralic le'el
Abut what do $ knowmD%
What? Kallio |ust shows how those can be distinguished! And he also tells about other criterions:
"In conclusion, the earliest iIndo-European loanword strata in Saami, namely Proto-Indo-
European, Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Balto-Slavic, are also the most diHcult to distinguish.This
fact makes sense, of course, since the further back we go in time, the closer the Indo-European
languages are to each other. Unfortunately, the Indo-European phonemes whose Saami
substitutes best reveal the source language of the loanword in question occur only in a relatively
few words (cf. proto-indo-European *m, *n > proto-indo-iranian *a; proto-balto-Slavic *im, *in;
proto-germanic *um, *un)."
Of course there are some words which cannot be told exactly from what early IE language they
have been borrowed, but those which can distinguished, have nothing susceptible in them. There
is no place for sceptisism:
1. When the words can be distinguished, the case is clear.
2. When the words cannot be distinguished, we |ust have to say that they are early/archaic IE.
Words of both types are still equally real IE loanwords.
2012-08-11, 10:38
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaskaUDCL>N=
Bf course there are some $ords $hich cannot /e told exactl) from
$hat earl) !E lan.ua.e the) ha&e /een /orro$ed, /ut those $hich
can distin.uished, ha&e nothin. suscepti/le in them. There is no
place for sceptisismF
3. hen the $ords can /e distin.uished, the case is clear.
2. hen the $ords cannot /e distin.uished, $e #ust ha&e to sa) that
the) are earl)Warchaic !E.
['
,ords of both types are still e9ually real $E loanwords%PK>R
As far as the question of IE homeland is concerned we are interested only in PIE loanwords not
PII or PBS. Which are these loanwords? Can you give some examples?
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
>ut it still seems the most credible alternati'e that Pre-Proto-4ralic indeed
was spoken in Asia, as $ #ust linked in the ]4ralic ad'entures] thread<
http<KKwww%sgr%:KsustKsustL7BKsustL7BNhakkinen#%pdf
Maybe there is something in the Uralic-Yukagir connection:
Quote:
Originally Posted by !"!PED!A
4ralicWgukaghir is a proposed language family composed of 4ralic and
gukaghir% $t is also known as 4ralo-gukaghir%
... as Yukagirs are surprisingly high on the list of Finnish FastIBD matches in one of the latest
Dienekes' experiments.
2012-08-13, 05:22
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
Haybe there is something in the 4ralic-gukagir connection<
%%% as gukagirs are surprisingly high on the list of "innish "ast$>3 matches
in one of the latest 3ienekes' e)periments%
Maybe Dienekes didn't remove the Yukagirs with lots of Russian admix? That would certainly
afect the results.
2012-08-13, 05:31
Wo|ewoda
^ Yes, that would explain this result.
2012-08-13, 06:58
Bohemian Rhapsody
I been thinking, what if Proto-Indo-European was the default language spoken by Mesolithic Europeans and the only thing
that caused the languages to diverge into Albanian, Germanic, Slavic, etc. was substratum coming from Neolithic groups. It
seems like the Lithuanians who have the least Neolithic farmer ancestry also have the most in tact Indo-European language
that is closest to PIE.
2012-08-13, 09:34
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
$ been thinking, what if Proto-$ndo-European was the default language
spoken by Hesolithic Europeans and the only thing that caused the
languages to di'erge into Albanian, @ermanic, (la'ic, etc% was substratum
coming from Neolithic groups% $t seems like the !ithuanians who ha'e the
least Neolithic farmer ancestry also ha'e the most in tact $ndo-European
language that is closest to P$E%
The main problem with this hypothesis is the diference in mtDNA pools of the Mesolithic
inhabitants of Europe:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SsfoItOgM3...32473.s003.|pg
... later Neolithic groups:
http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/...032473s004.|pg
... and contemporary Europeans.
So it looks as if Mesolithic people were largely replaced by later migrants (Neolithic and later) at
least on the maternal side (we don't know about paternal).
Besides:
Quote:
Originally Posted by !"!PED!A
45 has been found in human remains dating from the Hesolithic in England,
@ermany, !ithuania, Poland, Portugal, Russia P;1R, (weden P;BR, "rance P;5R
and (pain% P;7R &aplogroup 45 and its subclades :Ma and :M/ form the
hi.hest population concentrations in the far north, in Sami, Ainns,
and Estonians, but it is spread widely at lower le'els throughout Europe%
-his distribution, and the age of the haplogroup, indicate indi'iduals from
this haplogroup were part of the initial e)pansion tracking the retreat of ice
sheets from Europe w;6kya%
It would have been strange that despite such level of population replacement Mesolithic language
was retained.
On the other hand autosomaly Mesolithic people seem to cluster with Northern Europeans
scoring almost 100% "Atlantic-Baltic":
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-c85cMFdDxb...ancientdna.png
It doesn't seem to add up.
But I can think of a scenario in which uniform mtDNA U of Mesolithic ("Uralic-like?") people was
replaced by the much more diversifed mtDNA pool of the Neolithic groups coming from Middle
East, but then came a "Revange of the Mesolithic Men" (North European autosomaly) who
survided somewhere (Steppe?) the arrival of farmers, stole their cows and wagons, turned to
herding, multiplied and subsequently during one of the climate downturns expanded back, killing
farmers and taking their swarthy women. ;) EDIT. From these times comes the Polish expression
used when referring to the highest noble "Na||asnie|szy Panie" the exact meaning of which is
"the FairestLord". ;);) EDIT2: So mtdna hg U Mesolithic Elves, Neolithic Dwarfs, hg R-ace of Men
and Sauron from Asia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kq0HI...feature=fvwrel
;););)
2012-08-13, 15:07
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
$ been thinking, what if Proto-$ndo-European was the default language
spoken by Hesolithic Europeans and the only thing that caused the
languages to di'erge into Albanian, @ermanic, (la'ic, etc% was substratum
coming from Neolithic groups% $t seems like the !ithuanians who ha'e the
least Neolithic farmer ancestry also ha'e the most in tact $ndo-European
language that is closest to P$E%
PIE was Centum.
Common Balto-Slavic innovations include several other prominent, but non-exclusive, isoglosses,
such as the Satemization, Ruki, change of PIE */o/ to PBSl. */a/ and the loss of labialization in
PIE labiovelars
2012-08-13, 15:37
linkus
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
-he main problem with this hypothesis is the di+erence in mt3NA pools of
the Hesolithic inhabitants of Europe<
http<KK1%bp%blogspot%comK-(sfo$tOgH1%%%1LBG1%s661%#pg
(o it looks as if Hesolithic people were largely replaced by later migrants
ANeolithic and laterD at least on the maternal side Awe don't know about
paternalD%
I take it that you don't consider Iberia as part of Europe in that case? ;)
Ancient mitochondrial DNA from the Basque Country and Cantabria: unmistakable
mtDNA H in Magdalenian Cantabria
---------- Post Merged at 17:37 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
.ommon >alto-(la'ic inno'ations include se'eral other prominent, but non-
e)clusi'e, isoglosses, such as the Satemi4ation, Ruki, change of P$E hKoK to
P>(l% hKaK and the loss of labiali*ation in P$E labio'elars
Balto-Slavic languages are only partialy Satemized to begin with. The level of Satemization also
difers greatly between Baltic and Slavic groups (Lithuanian klausyti - Polish sluchac; LT ko - PL
co; LT penki - PL pic; LT keturi - Old Church Slavonic chetre; LT dukra - OCS dshti; LT naktis
- OCS nosht; LT geltonas - OCS zhlt; LT dukra - OCSdshti; LT kirmis - OCS chrv; such
examples are extremely abundant) and even within the Baltic group. This shouldn't be the case if
Satemization already existed in Proto-Balto-Slavic, should it?
But also, you are wrong about PIE being Centum. It was neither Centum, nor Satem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centum-satem_isogloss
Quote:
-he .entumW(atem isogloss is now understood to be a chronological
de'elopment of P$E% .entumi*ation remo'ed the palato'elars from the
language, lea'ing none to satemi*e% $n addition there is residual e'idence of
'arious sorts in satem languages of a former distinction between 'elar and
labio'elar consonants, indicating the earlier centum state% $t is therefore
clear that centumi*ation was followed by satemi*ation% &owe'er the
e'idence of Anatolian indicates that centum was not the original state of P$E%
2012-08-13, 16:44
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by linkus
$ take it that you don't consider $beria as part of Europe in that case YD
Ancient mitochondrial D@A from the 'asPue Countr) and Canta/riaF
unmistaka/le mtD@A H in ;a.dalenian Canta/ria
Bingo! Maybe this is not accidental that mtDNA H frequency reaches its peak at 61.5% among
Basques and Basques speak... well Basques language?
2012-08-13, 17:58
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by linkus
-he .entumW(atem isogloss is now understood to be a chronological
de'elopment of P$E% .entumi*ation remo'ed the palato'elars from the
language, lea'ing none to satemi*e% $n addition there is residual e'idence of
'arious sorts in satem languages of a former distinction between 'elar and
labio'elar consonants, indicating the earlier centum state% $t is therefore
clear that centumi*ation was followed by satemi*ation% &owe'er the
e'idence of Anatolian indicates that centum was not the original state of P$E%
Interesting the Proto-Anatolian was neither Centum, nor Satem.
P.S Proto-Anatolians came from the south Balkans.
2012-08-13, 19:39
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
A%%%D (o mtdna hg 4 Hesolithic El'es A%%%D
YDYDYD
http://uploadpic.org/storage/2011/nm...kO59d64Zm6.|pg
Complete Mitochondrial Genomes Reveal Neolithic Expansion into Europe
Tolkien was quite smart I must say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by !"!PED!A
F% R% R% -olkien began to construct his :rst El&en ton.ue c% ;0;6W;0;; while
he was at the Iing Edward's (chool, >irmingham% &e later called it renya Ac%
;0;5D, and e'en later wrote it ruenya% -olkien was then already familiar with
!atin, @reek, (panish, and se'eral ancient @ermanic languages, @othic, Old
Norse and Old English% &e had in'ented se'eral cryptographic codes Aone
called AnimalicD, and two or three constructed languages Aas Na+arinD% >ut
then he disco&ered Ainnish, and was :lled with #oy% -olkien wrote, many
years later< ]$t was like disco'ering a complete wine-cellar :lled with bottles
of an ama*ing wine of a kind and ?a'our ne'er tasted before% $t 9uite
into)icated me%]PGR &e had started his study of the "innish language to be
able to read the Iale'ala epic%
-he ingredients in ruenya are 'arious, but worked out into a self-consistent
character not precisely like any language that $ know% "innish, which $ came
across when $ had :rst begun to construct a 'mythology' was a dominant
in?uence, but that has been much reduced Pnow in late ruenyaR% $t sur'i'es
in some features< such as the absence of any consonant combinations
initially, the absence of the 'oiced stops b, d, g Ae)cept in mb, nd, ng, ld, rd,
which are fa'ouredD and the fondness for the ending -inen, -ainen, -oinen,
also in some points of grammar, such as the in?e)ional endings -sse Arest at
or inD, -nna Amo'ement to, towardsD, and -llo Amo'ement fromDY the personal
possessi'es are also e)pressed by suj)esY there is no gender%P0R
-olkien with his ruenya pursued a double aesthetic goal< ]classical and
in?ected]%P;6R -his urge, in fact, was the moti'ation for his creation of a
'mythology'% ,hile the language de'eloped, he needed speakers, history for
the speakers and all real dynamics, like war and migration< ]$t was primarily
linguistic in inspiration and was begun in order to pro'ide the necessary
background of ^historyJ for El'ish tongues]
When I read this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by !"!PED!A
-he larger El'es are also inspired by -olkien's personal .atholic theology u
as representing the state of Hen in Eden who ha'e not yet ]fallen], similar to
humans but fairer and wiser, with greater spiritual powers, keener senses,
and a closer empathy with nature% -olkien wrote of them< ]-hey are made by
man in his own image and likenessY but freed from those limitations which
he feels most to press upon him% -hey are immortal, and their will is directly
e+ecti'e for the achie'ement of imagination and desire%]P;6R
... I feel like Tolkien knew our resident ABF posters from Finland personally. ;)
EDIT: Also:
Quote:
3war'ish is essentially >as9ue as spoken by 3war'es%
... found here: Essentialist Explanations. ;););)
2012-08-13, 22:04
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by linkus
>alto-(la'ic languages are only partialy (atemi*ed to begin with% -he le'el of
(atemi*ation also di+ers greatly between >altic and (la'ic groups
A!ithuanian klausyti - Polish soucha\Y !- ko - P! coY !- penki - P! pi\Y !-
keturi - Old .hurch (la'onic chetyreY !- dukra - O.( dshtiY !- naktis -
O.(noshtY !- geltonas - O.( *hltY !- dukra - O.( dshtiY !- kirmis -
O.( chr'Y such e)amples are e)tremely abundantD and e'en within the
>altic group% -his shouldn't be the case if (atemi*ation already e)isted in
Proto->alto-(la'ic, should it
Centumizationis what happens when migrating PIE encounters a foreign substratum. ;)
---------- Post Merged at 23:04 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
>ut $ can think of a scenario in which uniform mt3NA 4 of Hesolithic A]4ralic-
like]D people was replaced by the much more di'ersi:ed mt3NA pool of the
Neolithic groups coming from Hiddle East, but then came a ](e&an.e of
the ;esolithic ;en] ANorth European autosomalyD who sur'ided
somewhere A(teppeD the arri'al of farmers, stole their cows and wagons,
turned to herding, multiplied and subse9uently during one of the climate
downturns e)panded back, killing farmers and taking their swarthy
women% YD E3$-% "rom these times comes the Polish e)pression used when
referring to the highest noble ]Na##anie#s*y Panie] the e)act meaning of
which is ]the Aairest !ord]% YDYD E3$-L< (o mtdna hg 4 Hesolithic El'es,
Neolithic 3warfs, hg(-ace of Hen and (auron from Asia<
http<KKwww%youtube%comKwatch'Uk96&$!n)nAwifeatureUf'wrel
YDYDYD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bcta&if Alexandre
-he Easco-.aucasian hypothesis
Although the idea of a genetical relationship between >as9ue and .aucasian
languages was en'isaged by L6th century linguists like Alfredo -rombetti,
Rent !afon and Iarl >ouda, it wasn't properly formulated until circa ;0G6,
when the Polish geographer >ogdan /aborski grouped >as9ue, .aucasian
languages and >urushaski into an Asianitic family%
$n the 06's, the American linguist Fohn >engtson proposed a Hacro-
.aucasian Aalso called Easco-.aucasianD phylum comprising >as9ue, North
.aucasian; and >urushaski Asee his seminal paperD, and being part of a
larger 3ene-.aucasian Aalso called (ino-.aucasianD phylum comprising (ino-
-ibetan, genisseian and Na-3ent, :rst posited by the Russian linguists (ergei
(tarostin and (ergei Nikolaye'L% 4nfortunately, >engtson's work is full of
methodological and factual errors% -his is why $ ha'e created an independent
line of research, whose guidelines $'m going to e)plain in this blog%
!n m) &ie$, the Gasco-Caucasian famil) spread throu.h Europe in
the @eolithic f la (enfre$, lea&in. su/strate loan$ords in the !E
lan.ua.es $hich superseded it in the 'ron4e A.e. And although this
might be correct as regarding the whole picture, it needs some corrections
at a smaller scale% "or e)ample, Etruscan Apossibly a Easco-.aucasian
languageD was brought to $taly by seafaring in'aders from the Aegean Aone
of the (ea PeoplesD who ga'e rise to the $ron Age Eillano'ian culture%
Vasco-Caucasian - an ancient language macro-family, Paleolinguistics and etymology
2012-08-14, 16:45
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
$ been thinking, what if Proto-$ndo-European was the default language
spoken by Hesolithic Europeans and the only thing that caused the
languages to di'erge into Albanian, @ermanic, (la'ic, etc% was substratum
coming from Neolithic groups% $t seems like the !ithuanians who ha'e the
least Neolithic farmer ancestry also ha'e the most in tact $ndo-European
language that is closest to P$E%
There is no basis to think that the most archaic language is spoken in the centre of the
protolanguage. Just the opposite: the principle of lateral areas can be seen in the Uralic language
family, where the most archaic languages are spoken in the remote ends: Finnic and Saami vs.
Samoyed. Similarly, archaic Indo-European languages are quite peripheral: Greek, Hittite,
Tocharian, Lithuanian...
Quote:
Originally Posted by <inkus
>alto-(la'ic languages are only partialy (atemi*ed to begin with% -he le'el of
(atemi*ation also di+ers greatly between >altic and (la'ic groups
A!ithuanian klausyti - Polish soucha\Y !- ko - P! coY !- penki - P! pi\Y !-
keturi - Old .hurch (la'onic chetyreY !- dukra - O.( dshtiY !- naktis - O.(
noshtY !- geltonas - O.( *hltY !- dukra - O.( dshtiY !- kirmis - O.(
chr'Y such e)amples are e)tremely abundantD and e'en within the >altic
group% -his shouldn't be the case if (atemi*ation already e)isted in Proto-
>alto-(la'ic, should it
There are later developments of *k > africate or sibilant, and such changes are not satemization;
satemization only concerns the original palatalized *k'.
---------- Post Merged at 18:45 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
As far as the 9uestion of $E homeland is concerned we are interested only in
P$E loanwords not P$$ or P>(% ,hich are these loanwords .an you gi'e some
e)amples
As I wrote, nowadays we don't suppose true PIE loanwords in Uralic; they are dialectal IE at
earliest. Still, we can conclude something about the earliest dialectal IE loanwords in Uralic:
http://www.mv.helsinki.f/home/|phakkin/UralicEvidence.pdf
2012-08-15, 01:52
linkus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
-here are later de'elopments of hk [ a+ricate or sibilant, and such changes
are not satemi*ationY satemi*ation only concerns the original palatali*ed hk'%
Thanks for clarifcation, so some of the words I listed don't ft the rule (klausyti, ...).
*k'is the same as *k, isn't it? And Satemization also concerns *g K *g, right? So, what
about those where PIE has palatalized dkz8 dgz and Lithuanian does too while in Slavic
languages it was not retained? I'm not sure I understand. Slavic languages went through some
sound changes which are identical to Satemization but aren't Satemization?
Root: ketu er-, ketur-, ketur- m., ketes(o)r- f.
English meaning: four
Latin: quattuor
Lithuanian: keturi (the consonants preceding vowels [i], [y] and [e]are always moderately
palatalized in Lithuanian)
Old Church Slavic: etvrbt
Avestan: a8wr
Root: penke
English meaning: fve
Lithuanian: penki (again, it's preceding [i], so it's moderately palatalized)
I couldn't fnd it for Old Church Slavonic here, but in Polish it's pi, much like in Old Indian
pca, avestan pana
Root: gei -3 and gei e- : g(i)i - : g(i)i - : g-
English meaning: to live
Lithuanian: gyventi
Old Church Slavic: iti `live'; itb `life'
Root: gel-1
English meaning: to stick; pain, death
Lithuanian: glti `prick'
Old Church Slavic: dzlo (zlo)
Root: kr mi-
English meaning: worm, grub
Lithuanian: kirmis, kirmele
Slavic: *brmb; *brvb, Russian ervb
Root: nek-(t-), nok-t-s
English meaning: night
Lithuanian: naktis
Old Church Slavic: nosht
---------- Post Merged at 03:52 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
http<KKuploadpic%orgKstorageKL6;;Knm%%%kO50d7B/m7%#pg
.omplete Hitochondrial @enomes Re'eal Neolithic E)pansion into Europe
You somehow missed the part in bold :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by linkus
$ take it that you don't consider $beria as part of Europe in that case YD
Ancient mitochondrial 3NA from the >as9ue .ountry and .antabria<
unmistakable mt3NA & in ;a.dalenian .antabria
Quote:
Originally Posted by httpFWWen.$ikipedia.or.W$ikiW;a.dalenian
-he Hagdalenian A"rench< HagdaltnienD, refers to one of the later cultures of
the :pper Paleolithic in western Europe, dating from around ;5,666
>.Eto G,666 >.E% $t is named after the type site of !a Hadeleine, a rock
shelter located in the Et*re 'alley, commune of -ursac, in
the3ordognedepartment of "rance%
Originally termed ]!'ge du renne] Athe Age of the ReindeerD by douard
!artet and &enry .hristy, the :rst systematic e)ca'ators of the type site, in
their publication of ;CG5, the Hagdalenian is synonymous in many people's
minds with reindeer hunters, although Hagdalenian sites also contain
e)tensi'e e'idence for the hunting of red deer, horse and other large
mammals present in Europe towards the end of the last ice age% -he culture
was geographically widespread, and later Hagdalenian sites ha'e been
found from Portugal in the west to Poland in the east%
The English article doesn't mention it but Magdalenian culture also extended to Lithuania in the
East, not only to Poland. There's a bit of info about it in Lithuanian wikipedia page about
Magdalenians [1]
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ion_map-de.svg
In case you also didn't check out the link, here's a short quote:
Quote:
Ancient mitochondrial 3NA from the >as9ue .ountry and .antabria<
unmistakable mt3NA & in Hagdalenian .antabria
-his seems a 'ery important paper because, if e'erything is correct, it is the
:rst peer-re'iewed publication to establish conclusi'ely that mitochondrial
haplogroup &, the most common matrilineage of Europe today, e)isted
in Paleolithic populations in Europe, speci:cally in .antabria, (pain%
---------- Post Merged at 04:42 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
EDIT. From these times comes the Polish expression used when referring to
the highest noble "Najjasniejszy Panie" the exact meaning of which is
"the Aairest Lord". YDYD
That's nothing new. "White" translates to Lithuanian as "baltas" and it used to be
used synonymously with "good" and "beautiful" up until very recently. No kidding.
ast !altic "!altas# not only 'white' but also 'dear$ good'
%uote#
$n
Quote:
some of the best dictionaries of !at'ian and !ithuanian the ad#ecti'e
baltsrespecti'ely bltas has not only the meaning ^whiteJ, but also ^good,
dear, kindJ% cf%<
$% the dictionary of Hhlenbach-end*elin AHe i L5CD notes under balts< 5%
^lieb, gut, wertJ A^good, dear, worthJD% e)amples gi'en here are e)clusi'ely
from the
language of !at'ian folksongs AdainasD
A%%%D
$$% -he great Academic 3ictionary of !ithuanian A!I $, L-nd ed%, 7;6D
distinguished among a lot of meanings of the word bltas the :gurati'e
meaning
^mielas, brangusJ A^good, dearJD with records only from !ithuanian folklore%
A%%%D
2012-08-15, 03:56
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by linkus
-hanks for clari:cation, so some of the words $ listed don't :t the rule
Aklausyti, %%%D%
0k5 is the same as hkg, isn't it
No no! It is |ust diHcult to get the right sign; palatalized *k is (I try through Word symbols) *k

- no,
it does not recognize it... But it is marked also with *:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_vocabulary
In Proto-IE there were three manners of articulation: *, *k and *kw (and voiced, too: *g etc.). In
satem languages the last two coalesced, in centum languages the frst two coalesced. Both in
Aryan and Balto-Slavic there have occured also secondary assibilations of "normal" *k (also <
*kw) before front vowel.
2012-08-15, 05:26
Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by linkus
gou somehow missed the part in bold <p
I know what Magdalenian is. But it doesn't necesserily conJict with my identifcation of hg U with
Mesolithic - Saami-like - Elves and hg H as Neolithic - Basque-like - Dwarves. First of all Elves
lived in the North, and Spain is in the South. Secondly we don't know if Spanish Paleolothic H is
the source of Neolithic Dwarfsh H in Europe. Thirdly even if it is Neolithic farmers seem to be
autosomally Sardinian-like and Basque-like as if hg H Dwarves came from South Western
(Megalithic?) Europe (what fts with the Magdalenian H in Spain). And fnally there are still some
doubts about this result (the tested remains were dig out few tens of years ago and were
udated;seediscussion at the Dienekes blog).
---------- Post Merged at 06:26 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
>oth in Aryan and >alto-(la'ic there ha'e occured also secondary
assibilations of ]normal] hk Aalso hkwD before front 'owel%
And what about Slavic "kolo" (wheel/circle) and English "cycle". They seem to come from the
same "kwe-kwlo" PIE root, by Slavic form has "k" and English is pronounced with "s". Shouldn't it
be the other way round?
EDIT: By the way here is a nice overwiew of the "wheel" related IE vocabulary: Armchair
prehistory, Indo-European wheel words
Quote:
!ooking at the words supposedly deri'ed from hkwekwlo- it seems that all
apart from cakr and ca)rem and hwol re9uire some manipulation of the
P$E form% -here is at least the need for a second, possibly ablauted, form,
hkwokwlo- and possibly for a third Asay hkwukwelo-D%
These poor linguists seem not to know that this lacking form is Slavic diminutive "klko" - "small
circle/wheel". ;)
2012-08-15, 12:28
cinnamona
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
E3$-< >y the way here is a nice o'erwiew of the ]wheel] related $E
'ocabulary< Armchair prehistory, $ndo-European wheel words
-hese poor linguists seem not to know that this lacking form is (la'ic
diminuti'e ]kZoko] - ]small circleKwheel]% YD
Some words in your link are mising.
#ld Prussian kelan) meaning Gmill 'heelH
Reconstructed dictionary of Prussian language:
KELLIN n <35> [Kelan E 295] "a wheel"
KELLIN n <37> [Kelian E 422] "a spear"
9h6nebh-) GnaveH or GhubH %n&
NABBIS <40> [Nabis E 123] "a navel", [Nabis E 297] "a hub"
9iug>-) GyokeH %v&
Lith. |ungas "a yoke", |ungti "to |oin"
JUGGAN <35> [|ungas + |gs + igo MK]
2012-08-15, 14:37
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
And what about (la'ic ]kolo] AwheelKcircleD and English ]cycle]% -hey seem
to come from the same ]kwe-kwlo] P$E root, by (la'ic form has ]k] and
English is pronounced with ]s]% (houldn't it be the other way round
Of course not. That word is not satemized, but shows later developments. English word comes
originally from Greek, and the s-like pronounciation is very late.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o#e$oda
E3$-< >y the way here is a nice o'erwiew of the ]wheel] related $E
'ocabulary< Armchair prehistory, $ndo-European wheel words
-hese poor linguists seem not to know that this lacking form is (la'ic
diminuti'e ]kZoko] - ]small circleKwheel]% YD
Already Proto-Indo-European may well have had diferent derivations. Nothing changes the fact
that the meaning 'wheel' and many other wagon-related concepts were known to PIE speakers.
2012-08-16, 12:39
Bohemian Rhapsody
I'd like to lock in my answer. The Indo-European homeland was on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, I'm almost 100% sure of it.
What else could explain contacts with Uralic and also to some degree, Kartvelian speakers? Also, the Proto-Indo-
Europeans might not have been a single type of people, but a conglomerate, which included Neolithic people and the
descendants of the UP Cro-Magnons. I think the problem is both sides (West-Asians and Europeans) are trying to pull the
Urheimat to their side, when really it was somewhere in between.
2012-08-16, 12:49
Padre Organtino
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
$'d like to lock in my answer% -he $ndo-European homeland was on the Pontic-
.aspian steppe, $'m almost ;668 sure of it% ,hat else could e)plain contacts
with 4ralic and also to some degree, Iart'elian speakers Also, the Proto-
$ndo-Europeans might not ha'e been a single type of people, but a
conglomerate, which included Neolithic people and the descendants of the
4P .ro-Hagnons% $ think the problem is both sides A,est-Asians and
EuropeansD are trying to pull the 4rheimat to their side, when really it was
somewhere in between%
Actually this explains very well the NE admix in North Caucasians, the new evidence on linguistic
exchange between them and to some degree correlation between WA ancestral component and
IE languages in Europe. Basically these ancient IE people had some contact with proto-NC folks
and had some genetic exchange. They latter transfered these Caucasus/Anatolian genes to the
parts of Europe which they have expanded to. Keep in mind that this would also explain why we
get so many hits for North Caucasian ancestry in SupportMix analysis routine.
2012-08-16, 13:03
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
$'d like to lock in my answer% -he $ndo-European homeland was on the Pontic-
.aspian steppe, $'m almost ;668 sure of it% ,hat else could e)plain contacts
with 4ralic and also to some degree, Iart'elian speakers Also, the Proto-
$ndo-Europeans might not ha'e been a single type of people, but a
conglomerate, which included Neolithic people and the descendants of the
4P .ro-Hagnons% $ think the problem is both sides A,est-Asians and
EuropeansD are trying to pull the 4rheimat to their side, when really it was
somewhere in between%
Pontic-Caspian steppe doesn't explain the contacts with Afroasiatic languages.
The Kartvelians Kardu people came from north Levant region.
And as I know the Hittite-Luwian don't have contacts with Uralic languages.
So the pre-PIE must be from Levant, and PIE from pre-Sesklo, pre-Sesklo were the frst city in the
Europe and it was related to the Levant.
The mediteranean type LBK people in Central Europe are the descedants of the pre-Sesklo.
2012-08-16, 13:09
EliasAlucard
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'ohemian (hapsod)
$'d like to lock in my answer% -he $ndo-European homeland was on the Pontic-
.aspian steppe, $'m almost ;668 sure of it% ,hat else could e)plain contacts
with 4ralic and also to some degree, Iart'elian speakers Also, the Proto-
$ndo-Europeans might not ha'e been a single type of people, but a
conglomerate, which included Neolithic people and the descendants of the
4P .ro-Hagnons% $ think the problem is both sides A,est-Asians and
EuropeansD are trying to pull the 4rheimat to their side, when really it was
somewhere in between%
The only West Asians trying to pull the PIE urheimat to the Middle East are some Armenians,
Kurds and Persians. With the exception of Armenians, real Middle Easterners (Semites) have
never argued that the PIE urheimat was in West Asia.
I agree with you though, that the Pontic-Caspian steppe seems most likely, because proto-Indo-
European had linguistic contacts with Kartvelian, Uralic and Semitic, combine this with the
archaeological record and the known R1a aDNA from the vicinity of the steppes, and I think we
have a serious case here.
I personally think the proto-Indo-Europeans were the main ancestral component of modern north
Europeans, and considering the descriptions of the buried Yamnaya males as "massive, wide-
faced proto-Europoids", I bet the proto-Indo-Europeans looked like Dolph Lundgren.
2012-08-16, 13:13
Bohemian Rhapsody
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
because proto-$ndo-European had linguistic contacts with Iart'elian, 4ralic
and (emitic
And Northwest Caucasian languages as well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Pontic
2012-08-16, 13:45
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
Actually this e)plains 'ery well the NE admi) in North .aucasians, the new
e'idence on linguistic e)change between them and to some degree
correlation between ,A ancestral component and $E languages in Europe%
>asically these ancient $E people had some contact with proto-N. folks and
had some genetic e)change% -hey latter transfered these
.aucasusKAnatolian genes to the parts of Europe which they ha'e e)panded
to% Ieep in mind that this would also e)plain why we get so many hits for
North .aucasian ancestry in (upportHi) analysis routine%
http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-...2-08-01.pdf
24 regions admixture newest work
Indo-European
North Ossetians 1.8% Baltic
Those who have agglutinative Caucasus languages(the Uralic languages are agglutinative)
Lezgins 8.7% Baltic
Adyghe 6.5% Baltic
Chechen 4.3% Baltic
Dargin 4.4% Baltic
Caucasus Turkic people
Nogay(Turkic agglutinative) 10.1% Baltic
Balkar(Turkic agglutinative) 6.5% Baltic
Kumuk(Turkic agglutinative) 5.1% Baltic
---------- Post Merged at 15:40 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
$ agree with you though, that the Pontic-.aspian steppe seems most likely,
because proto-$ndo-European had linguistic contacts with Iart'elian, 4ralic
and (emitic, combine this with the archaeological record and the known R;a
a3NA from the 'icinity of the steppes, and $ think we ha'e a serious case
here%
R1a aDNA in Asia possibly Turkic(Xiongnu R1a1) or Samoyedic-Selkup(Pazyryk), R1a aDNA in
N.Europe are hunters and gatherers possibly proto-Uralic
Quote:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
$ personally think the proto-$ndo-Europeans were the main ancestral
component of modern north Europeans, and considering the descriptions of
the buried gamnaya males as ]massi'e, wide-faced proto-Europoids], $ bet
the proto-$ndo-Europeans looked like 3olph !undgren%
Yamna are the descedants of Sredny Stog.
Sredny Stog people were the mix of mediteranean type LBK people, and nordic type Dnieper-
Donets people.
---------- Post Merged at 15:45 ----------
May be the Yamna is PNII proto-Nuristano-Indo-Iranian
2012-08-16, 13:53
linkus
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
http<KKwww%dnatribes%comKdnatribes-%%%L-6C-6;%pdf
LB regions admi)ture newest work
$ndo-European
North Ossetians 3.N? 'altic
-hose who ha'e agglutinati'e .aucasus languagesAthe 4ralic languages are
agglutinati'eD
!e*gins C%G8 >altic
Adyghe 7%58 >altic
.hechen B%18 >altic
3argin B%B8 >altic
.aucasus -urkic people
NogayA-urkic agglutinati'eD ;6%;8 >altic
>alkarA-urkic agglutinati'eD 7%58 >altic
IumukA-urkic agglutinati'eD 5%;8 >altic
It's a bad example.
'Baltic-Urals' from DNAtribes is not the same as 'Baltic' from ancestry pro|ects. DNAtribes must
be using some kind of supervised run to determine these percentages - otherwise, there's no way
that Belarus (66.1%) would score less in the cluster that is modal in Lithuanians (75.5%) than
Vologda Russians (72.4%).
2012-08-16, 13:55
Padre Organtino
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
http<KKwww%dnatribes%comKdnatribes-%%%L-6C-6;%pdf
LB regions admi)ture newest work
$ndo-European
North Ossetians 3.N? 'altic
-hose who ha'e agglutinati'e .aucasus languagesAthe 4ralic languages are
agglutinati'eD
!e*gins C%G8 >altic
Adyghe 7%58 >altic
.hechen B%18 >altic
3argin B%B8 >altic
.aucasus -urkic people
NogayA-urkic agglutinati'eD ;6%;8 >altic
>alkarA-urkic agglutinati'eD 7%58 >altic
IumukA-urkic agglutinati'eD 5%;8 >altic
---------- Post Herged at ;5<B6 ----------
R;a a3NA in Asia possibly -urkicAqiongnu R;a;D or (amoyedic-
(elkupAPa*yrykD, R;a a3NA in N%Europe are hunters and gatherers possibly
proto-4ralic
gamna are the descedants of (redny (tog%
(redny (tog people were the mi) of mediteranean type !>I people, and
nordic type 3nieperW3onets people%
---------- Post Herged at ;5<B5 ----------
Hay be the gamna is PN$$ proto-Nuristano-$ndo-$ranian
First of all DNA Tribes is not precise thing. Secondly, what do Ossetians show here, anyway?
They're |ust more South-Caucasus shifted due to more recent geneJow frome there compared to
other NC probably. And using Turkic folks is pretty much agreeing with East Euro urheimat - they
have acquired NE admix from IE nomads (well, not them difrectly but their Turkic ancestors).
2012-08-16, 14:06
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
http<KKwww%dnatribes%comKdnatribes-%%%L-6C-6;%pdf
gamna are the descedants of (redny (tog%
(redny (tog people were the mi) of mediteranean type !>I people, and
nordic type 3nieperW3onets people%
---------- Post Herged at ;5<B5 ----------
Hay be the gamna is PN$$ proto-Nuristano-$ndo-$ranian
Elena Efmovna Kuzmina Russian archaeologist wrote that Yamna is PNDII
---------- Post Merged at 16:01 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
"irst of all 3NA -ribes is not precise thing% (econdly, what do Ossetians show
here, anyway -hey're #ust more (outh-.aucasus shifted due to more recent
gene?ow frome there compared to other N. probably% And using -urkic folks
is pretty much agreeing with East Euro urheimat - they ha'e ac9uired NE
admi) from $E nomads Awell, not them difrectly but their -urkic ancestorsD%
Georgian historians wrote that the S.Ossetians came to the Georgia from the North Caucasus.
---------- Post Merged at 16:06 ----------
-
-
The west Nostratic people(Afroasiatic + Indo-Kartvelians) had mostly East Mediteranean
autosomal Dna, and they came from Levant.
2012-08-16, 14:10
Padre Organtino
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
@eorgian historians wrote that the (%Ossetians came to the @eorgia from the
North .aucasus%
Nope, they specifcally mentioned Alans and not Ossetians per se. SO are |ust a product of
"Aryanization" of Dwals. Sure, they have migrated a bit South in the last several centuries but their
presence around Java and to the Northhas a pretty long history. So most probably there were
some Kartvelian/Nakh people that were less mixed with PIE folks than other NC dwellers and
then they got Indo-Europeanized by Alans who were heavily mixed but the time they arrived to
North Caucasus. This would explain why NO have one of the largest Mongoloid admixtures in all
of Caucasus.
---------- Post Merged at 13:10 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
-he west Nostratic peopleAAfroasiatic 2 $ndo-Iart'eliansD had mostly East
Hediteranean autosomal 3na, and they came from !e'ant%
Unfortunately for your retarded claim there's no correlation with Med admix IE languages. So let's
not even discuss this idiocy further.
2012-08-16, 14:19
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
Nope, they speci:cally mentioned Alans and not Ossetians per se% (O are
#ust a product of ]Aryani*ation] of 3wals% (ure, they ha'e migrated a bit
(outh in the last se'eral centuries but their presence around Fa'a and to the
Northhas a pretty long history% (o most probably there were some
Iart'elianKNakh people that were less mi)ed with P$E folks than other N.
dwellers and then they got $ndo-Europeani*ed by Alans who were hea'ily
mi)ed but the time they arri'ed to North .aucasus% -his would e)plain why
NO ha'e one of the largest Hongoloid admi)tures in all of .aucasus%
You are wrong, the Alans were in Georgia in Egris mountains, the Tenghuri river Jows from the
Alani monts, Alani-Soani were in the same region, the Georgian Tzetzes wrote that the Alans are
the third nation of Iberia.
And the Ovsi Ovseti were in the north they had there their own Kingdom before the arrival of the
Tataro-Mongols.
2012-08-16, 14:24
Padre Organtino
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
gou are wrong, the Alans were in @eorgia in Egris mountains, the -enghuri
ri'er ?ows from the Alani monts, Alani-(oani were in the same region, the
@eorgian -*et*es wrote that the Alans are the third nation of $beria%
And the O'si O'seti were in the north they had there their own Iingdom
before the arri'al of the -ataro-Hongols%
Svans are a Kartvelian group not connected to Alan nomads. The term was sometimes
incorrectly used for NW-Caucasians unelated to real Alans.
2012-08-16, 14:25
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
Nope, they speci:cally mentioned Alans and not Ossetians per se% (O are
#ust a product of ]Aryani*ation] of 3wals%
4nfortunately for your retarded claim there's no correlation with Hed admi)
$E languages% (o let's not e'en discuss this idiocy further%
Dwals have J2a4b more than other Ossetians.
The Med admix is the only comon on the west Nostratic People.
2012-08-16, 14:31
Padre Organtino
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
3wals ha'e FLaBb more than other Ossetians%
-he Hed admi) is the only comon on the west Nostratic People%
Sardinians and Basques are the most Mediterranean people in the world yet neither Basque nor
Paleo-Sardinian have anything to do with IE let alone some kind of semi-fantasy Nostratic super-
family.
2012-08-16, 14:44
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
('ans are a Iart'elian group not connected to Alan nomads% -he term was
sometimes incorrectly used for N,-.aucasians unelated to real Alans%
The Upper Svans only in Language are Kartvelians, in the ancient map you can see the Suani-
Sarmatae(Upper Svans) and the Suano-Iberi(Lower Svans)
Strabon wrote that the ma|ority of the people who came to the Dioscuriada for products are the
Sauromatae. And the montainus Iberians are Scytho-Sarmatians.
The priest Feodor who was of Alanian origin, wrote that the Alans came to Crymea from the
region that is among the Iberians and the Caucasus mons.
If you know Russian here
http://www.alanica.ru/library/Feod/text.htm
Enuckona 4eopopa "Anauckoe nocnauue"
5. He octauosuncn ua stou tot snonoruu u no uctuue poctoub ctonuun oyk. Ho tak
kak ub bnu erneuauu s anauckou ceneuuu uenopaneky ot Xepcoua (nneun sto paccenuo u
npoctupaetcn , ppesuu npepen ux popuub; ouu sosnkunu
nocbnatb uekue uuoronkpube sbcenku, tak uto uanonuunu noutu sck Ckuquk u Capuatuk),
2012-08-16, 14:45
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
Hay be the gamna is PN$$ proto-Nuristano-$ndo-$ranian
Impossible - Proto-Indo-Iranian is thousands of years later stage.
http://www.mv.helsinki.f/home/|phak...icEvidence.pdf
2012-08-16, 14:52
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
(ardinians and >as9ues are the most Hediterranean people in the world yet
neitehr >as9ue nor Paleo-(ardinian ha'e anything to do with $E let alone
some kind of semi-fantasy Nostratic super-family%
I mean East Mediteranian
Sardinians and Basques are "Iberians" or "West Mediteranians".
"Iberians" or "West Mediteranians" is in the same branch with the Baltic-Uralic.
Basques 0.5% East Mediteranian
---------- Post Merged at 16:52 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
$mpossible - Proto-$ndo-$ranian is thousands of years later stage%
http<KKwww%m'%helsinki%:KhomeK#phak%%%icE'idence%pdf
Society of Yamna culture collapsed, and split 4300 years ago, this is the age of the Indo-Iranians
2012-08-16, 14:56
Padre Organtino
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
$ mean East Hediteranian
(ardinians and >as9ues are ]$berians] or ],est Hediteranians]%
]$berians] or ],est Hediteranians] is in the same branch with the >altic-
4ralic%
>as9ues 6%58 East Hediteranian
They're all the same Mediterraneans. The clusters at high K's pop up due to genetic drift and
isolation. In teh same way North Caucasus and Persian in DNA tribes are |ust West Asian mixed
with some other components.
---------- Post Merged at 13:56 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
-he 4pper ('ans only in !anguage are Iart'elians, in the ancient map you
can see the (uani-(armataeA4pper ('ansD and the (uano-$beriA!ower ('ansD
(trabon wrote that the ma#ority of the people who came to the 3ioscuriada
for products are the (auromatae% And the montainus $berians are (cytho-
(armatians%
-he priest "eodor who was of Alanian origin, wrote that the Alans came to
.rymea from the region that is among the $berians and the .aucasus mons%
Svans speak the most arachaic Kartvelian language and there's no pre-Kartvelian substrate
there.
2012-08-16, 15:14
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
-hey're all the same Hediterraneans% -he clusters at high I's pop up due to
genetic drift and isolation% $n teh same way North .aucasus and Persian in
3NA tribes are #ust ,est Asian mi)ed with some other components%
The new work showed that East Med is closer to West Asian, and West Med is closer to Baltic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
---------- Post Herged at ;1<57 ----------
('ans speak the most arachaic Iart'elian language and there's no pre-
Iart'elian substrate there%
Balkars speak the most arachaic Kipchac, so what?
2012-08-16, 15:26
Padre Organtino
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
-he new work showed that East Hed is closer to ,est Asian, and ,est Hed
is closer to >altic%
Yes, that is normal as the two components are basically Ancient Med mixed with some Baltic and
West Asian alleles. That's how Structure and Admixture tools work. Once you increase the
number of desired ancestral components the new spurious clusters caused by genetic drift and
isolation start to form.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
>alkars speak the most arachaic Iipchac, so what
Balkar has clear traces of other language strata while Svan - not.
2012-08-16, 15:39
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
ges, that is normal as the two components are basically Ancient Hed mi)ed
with some >altic and ,est Asian alleles% -hat's how (tructure and Admi)ture
tools work% Once you increase the number of desired ancestral components
the new spurious clusters caused by genetic drift and isolation start to form%%
No, the clear Iberian(West Med) autosomal dna is closer to Baltic, and the clear East Med
autosomal dna is closer to North Caucasian, and I don't mean geographically.
So the Iberian(West Med) is autochvonus European like the Baltic, and the East Mediteranean is
West Asian like the North Caucasus autosomal dna.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
>alkar has clear traces of other language strata while ('an - not%
Are you sure about Ballian(Upper Svan) dialect?
For example I know Scythian name on Svans Sozar-Sozir.
2012-08-16, 15:46
Padre Organtino
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
No, the clear $berianA,est HedD autosomal dna is closer to >altic, and the
clear East Hed autosomal dna is closer to North .aucasian, and $ don't mean
geographically%
(o the $berianA,est HedD is autoch'onus European like the >altic, and the
East Hediteranean is ,est Asian like the North .aucasus autosomal dna%
Once again, those clusters |ust form because you have a mix of components. Like SW-Asian
being |ust a mixture of ancient Med alleles with some East African ones. Same here. Educate
yourself on how these tests work.
There are tonns of foreign names in Georgia.
2012-08-16, 15:57
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
Once again, those clusters #ust form because you ha'e a mi) of components%
!ike (,-Asian being #ust a mi)ture of ancient Hed alleles with some East
African ones% (ame here% Educate yourself on how these tests work%
-here are tonns of foreign names in @eorgia%
This is it http://s017.radikal.ru/i427/1208/a3/ca7edc200dfd.|pg
http://s017.radikal.ru/i427/1208/a3/ca7edc200dfd.|pg
Padre Organtino
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
-his is it http<KKs6;G%radikal%ruKiBLGK;L6CKa1KcaGedcL66dfd%#pg
http<KKs6;G%radikal%ruKiBLGK;L6CKa1KcaGedcL66dfd%#pg
Oh God, this is DNA Tribes which is very imprecise and gives faulty results |ust like Caucasus
Natives being over 80 percent European. I've already explained to ou that if you keep creating
lots of new clusters you'll end up with ones fused from diferent ancestral components. Srsly,
relying on their data is a fail.
2012-08-16, 16:13
George1
I disagree, everything is ok in this last work.
---------- Post Merged at 18:13 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
Oh @od, this is 3NA -ribes which is 'ery imprecise and gi'es faulty results
#ust like .aucasus Nati'es being o'er C6 percent European% $''e already
e)plained to ou that if you keep creating lots of new clusters you'll end up
with ones fused from di+erent ancestral components% (rsly, relying on their
data is a fail%
And this over 80 percent, not by clusters, but regional. For example they pushed cluster
N.Caucasus and cluster East Med to reg.Europe.
2012-08-16, 16:18
Padre Organtino
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
$ disagree, e'erything is ok in this last work%
---------- Post Herged at ;C<;1 ----------
And this o'er C6 percent, not by clusters, but regional% "or e)ample they
pushed cluster N%.aucasus and cluster East Hed to reg%Europe%
These results are spurious and pretty impractical. Hence noone takes DNA Tribes seriously
unless having a weird agenda (like in your case).
2012-08-16, 16:24
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
-hese results are spurious and pretty impractical% &ence noone takes 3NA
-ribes seriously unless ha'ing a weird agenda Aliek in your caseD%
Your Avatar is weird, and not my agenda.
2012-08-16, 16:42
Padre Organtino
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
gour A'atar is weird, and not my agenda%
My Av's cool while your agenda - not.
BTW in the same DNA Tribes report we can see that Indians score some Baltic-Urals while no
East Med. It's particularly funny that it's precisely the North-West Indians, upper casts and Kalash
who have elevated levels of Baltic-Urals. So there's a clear correlation between IE langauge and
this element there while there is no "East Med" in South Asia. So even with this you fail.
2012-08-16, 17:31
Jaska
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
(ociety of gamna culture collapsed, and split B166 years ago, this is the age
of the $ndo-$ranians
Yamna was replaced by many cultures already before that in many areas, and the Proto-Aryans
are connected to the Poltavka culture.
2012-08-16, 17:40
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
Hy A''s cool while your agenda - not%
>-, in the same 3NA -ribes report we can see that $ndians score some
>altic-4rals while no East Hed% $t's particularly funny that it's precisely the
North-,est $ndians, upper casts and Ialash who ha'e ele'ated le'els of
>altic-4rals% (o there's a clear correlation between $E langauge and this
element there while there is no ]East Hed] in (outh Asia% (o e'en with this
you fail%
Well I wrote that PIE and before them the west Nostratic(PWN) people had mostly East
Mediteranian autosomal dna.
In their path the PNDII(PII) changed their autosomal dna(by taking every time in new places local
women) mostly to "N.Caucasian" and "Persian(Caspian)" autosomal dna.
The White Huns mighty Hephtalites brought the Baltic-Uralic autosomal dna in the region.
---------- Post Merged at 19:40 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska
gamna was replaced by many cultures already before that in many areas,
and the Proto-Aryans are connected to the Polta'ka culture%
Poltavka culture is "proto-Srubna" culture, they are the local remnants of some NDII(II), they
aren't PNDII(PII)
2012-08-16, 18:24
Padre Organtino
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
,ell $ wrote that P$E and before them the west NostraticAP,ND people had
mostly East Hediteranian autosomal dna%
$n their path the PN3$$AP$$D changed their autosomal dnaAby taking e'ery
time in new places local womenD mostly to ]N%.aucasian] and
]PersianA.aspianD] autosomal dna%
-he ,hite &uns mighty &ephtalites brought the >altic-4ralic autosomal dna
in the region%
Another fail. The Persian component there is not correlated with IE ancestry as it peaks only
people close to Pakistan and signals recenrt West Asian ancestry (once again this component is
as artifcial as East Med one and is mix of West Asian and South Asian alleles).
2012-08-16, 18:47
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
Another fail% -he Persian component there is not correlated with $E ancestry
as it peaks only people close to Pakistan and signals recenrt ,est Asian
ancestry Aonce again this component is as arti:cial as East Hed one and is
mi) of ,est Asian and (outh Asian allelesD%
You are confusing "Persian" with the "Baloch"
"Persian" peaks in the Turkmenistan in the region of BMAC culture.
All the II somehow are related to BMAC culturally.
2012-08-16, 18:51
Padre Organtino
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
gou are confusing ]Persian] with the ]>aloch]
]Persian] peaks in the -urkmenistan in the region of >HA. culture%
All the $$ somehow are related to >HA. culturally%
BMAC is a West Asian culture infuenced by IEs later. That's all about it. This is a spurious cluster
poorly correlated with actual IE ancestry as it's lower in Gu|aratis for example.
2012-08-16, 18:59
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
>HA. is a ,est Asian culture infuenced by $Es later% -hat's all about it% -his
is a spurious cluster poorly correlated with actual $E ancestry as it's lower in
@u#aratis for e)ample%
Gu|aratis are not so important as the Brahmin are.
"Persian"(Caspian) is more than the "Baltic" in the Brahmins.
2012-08-16, 19:30
Padre Organtino
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
@u#aratis are not so important as the >rahmin are%
]Persian]A.aspianD is more than the ]>altic] in the >rahmins%
"Correlation" means that the two things follow along nicely. "Persian" peaks along tih Baltic-Urals
for Brahmins and does not show as much as BU for everyone else among South Asian IE
speakers. Which means that it's |ust an artifcial cluster made up of North Euro and West Asian
genes. No wonder that it peaks in Kurds who show high West Asian/Caucasus and some North
Euro in Dodecad and Eurogenes.
To not argue more I'll point out specifc points that make your whole theory crap:
1.There is no Nostratic family. This is a theory popular among Russian comparativists but not
recognized by anyone else. Hence there's no point in relying on it as there really are no common
origins for IE, Kartvelian and Afro-Asiatic especially when all of them have very diferent genetic
markers correlated with their spread. Namely even had there been some autosomal shift (like we
see with Indian languages where Euro invaders have not left a really great impact on local genes
or with Armenians who have close to zero North Euro ancestry) you still have haplogroup markers
tracing the origins os the language (E and I with Armenians who recieved their lingua from Indo-
Europeanized Balkan dwellers and R1a in case of South Asians). Semitic is absolutely
dierent in markers from IE which was carried by R1a. So if there had been a common
family they would have had the same markers which is not the case.
2.DNA Tribes is a commercial company with a really poor inference algorythm. It's not that bad
overall for tracing individual ancestry but very bad for understanding ancient migrations and
ancestry. The same is true for 23 andme which gives 80-90 percent European ancestry to South
Asians and Ethiopians. You need data from specialized genetic pro|ects like Dodecad or
preferably Eurogenes. Those clusters in DNA Tribes are spurious and not real as they are
obtained by using 24 clusters. If they utilize tools similar to Admixture or Structure then
this is a big fail since everyone with some knowledge of genetic inference can tell you
that results with high Ks (above 12 and 15) re very unreliable as you get many false
signals and wrong clusters.
2012-08-16, 19:57
|oseph capelli
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
L%3NA -ribes is a commercial company with a really poor inference
algorythm% $t's not that bad o'erall for tracing indi'idual ancestry but 'ery
bad for understanding ancient migrations and ancestry% -he same is true for
L1 andme which gi'es C6-06 percent European ancestry to (outh Asians and
Ethiopians% gou need data from speciali*ed genetic pro#ects like 3odecad or
preferably Eurogenes% -hose clusters in 3NA -ribes are spurious and not real
as they are obtained by using LB clusters% !f the) utili4e tools similar to
Admixture or Structure then this is a /i. fail since e&er)one $ith
some kno$led.e of .enetic inference can tell )ou that results $ith
hi.h "s 8a/o&e 32 and 3M9 re &er) unrelia/le as )ou .et man) false
si.nals and $ron. clusters.
This and the fact that some components have misleading names.
2012-08-16, 19:58
George1
Semitic isn't absolutely diferent
West Nostratic people have common haplogroups
I am proposing their common haplogroups
IE G2a3 G2a2 G2a1 and J2b (And maybe J1* Z1834- L136-)
Afroasiatic G2a* G2* G2b G1 and subclades of J2a (And maybe J1c)
Kartvelian G2a* and subclades of J2a (And maybe J1* Z1834+)
And
Indo-Hittites 6700 BC. (G2a 9000-11000)
_Hittite-Luvians 2500 BC (G2a1 5000-4000)
_Indo-Tocharian 5900 BC. (G2a3 8000)
__Toharian 300 AC
__Indo-Greeks 5300 BC. (G2a3 8000 + J2b)
___Greco-Armenians 5000 BC (G2a3a 7500 + J2b1)
___Young Indo-European 4900 BC. (G2a3b1 7000 + J2b2)
____Indo-Albanian 4600 BC (G2a3b1 * 7000 + J2b2*)
____European branch 4500 BC. (G2a3b1a 7000)
_____ Leto-Slavic 1400 BC
_____West Europeans 4100 BC. (G2a3b1a2 6000 + J2b2a)
______Celts 900 BC (part of G2a3b1a2*)
______German-Italian 3500 BC.(G2a3b1a2a)
http://www.dhushara.com/book/unraveltree/indeurl.|pg
2012-08-16, 20:13
Padre Organtino
Once again - fail. G2a has close to zero correaltion with IE languages especially in South and Central Asia.
2012-08-16, 20:20
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
Once again - fail% @La has close to *ero correaltion with $E languages
especially in (outh and .entral Asia%
G2a+J2b 10-15% in Iran, and G2a+J2b Among Brahmins 5-20%
Central Asia is Altaic.
2012-08-16, 21:23
Padre Organtino
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
@La2FLb ;6-;58 in $ran, and @La2FLb Among >rahmins 5-L68
.entral Asia is Altaic%
Yeah, ancient Elamo-Harappan and BMAC markers. Wo|ewoda already explained to you that
G2a has zero credibility for South Asian data. Stop going in circles and admit you theory's false.
2012-08-16, 22:23
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
geah, ancient Elamo-&arappan and >HA. markers%%
fantasy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
,o#ewoda already e)plained to you that @La has *ero credibility for (outh
Asian data% (top going in circles and admit you theory's false%
Lets took than the Iberian peninsula, 8 distant groups of IE was there Celtici Lusitanians Greeks
Vandals Suevi Alani Goths and Italic people, only haplogroup G2a have there so many
subgroups.
The R1a have only one sugroup there the R1a1a1g2* and it is almost absent in that region
---------- Post Merged at 00:23 ----------
-
-
-
The bigest groups in Iran
Persian Fars 7% G2a, 4.5% R1a
Lur Lurestan 13.7% G2a, 5.9% R1a
Gilak Gilan 14.1% G2a, 9.4% R1a
Mazandarani 16.7% G2a, 10.1% R1a
2012-08-16, 22:30
Padre Organtino
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
fantasy
Reality dumbass.
For everyone else - this post by Wo|ewoda
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
<ets took than the !/erian peninsula, N distant .roups of !E $as
there Celtici <usitanians 1reeks Gandals Sue&i Alani 1oths and !talic
people, onl) haplo.roup 12a ha&e there so man) su/.roups.
-he R;a ha'e only one sugroup there the R;a;a;gLh and it is almost absent
in that region
Are you braindead? Language diferentiation does not have anything to do with subgroups of
haplogroups. Greek expansion markers are J and also E. IE languages have been brought there
by R1B Bell-beaker culture heirs who got Indo-Europeanized through contacts with IE carriers.
Hence the whole Centum langauges that indicate some pre-IE substrate in them.
I can't believe you're so dumb to blindly lump all totally diferent groups of IE that came from
diferent parts of the world into one category. Do you realize that Goths and Vandals are |ust
various East Germanic tribes and if you think that there need to be special subgroups of
halplogroup marker for each IE language no haplogroup would qualify.
Seriously, this guy's very dumb.
---------- Post Merged at 21:30 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
-he bigest groups in $ran
Persian "ars G8 @La, B%58 R;a
!ur !urestan ;1%G8 @La, 5%08 R;a
@ilak @ilan ;B%;8 @La, 0%B8 R;a
Ha*andarani ;7%G8 @La, ;6%;8 R;a
G2a is native to Iranian plateau and surrounding places and correlates with ancient farmers. Zero
explanatory power in IE migration in South and Central Asia. Dismissed.
2012-08-16, 22:52
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
Are you braindead !anguage di+erentiation does not ha'e anything to do
with subgroups of haplogroups% @reek e)pansion markers are F and also E% $E
languages ha'e been brought there by R;> >ell-beaker culture heirs who got
$ndo-Europeani*ed through contacts with $E carriers% &ence the whole
.entum langauges that indicate some pre-$E substrate in them%
$ can't belie'e you're so dumb to blindly lump all totally di+erent groups of $E
that came from di+erent parts of the world into one category% 3o you reali*e
that @oths and Eandals are #ust 'arious East @ermanic tribes and if you think
that there need to be special subgroups of halplogroup marker for each $E
language no haplogroup would 9ualify%
(eriously, this guy's 'ery dumb%%
I Reported your post as a rude post.
Greek expansion marker is also G2a3a(See the Kalash people) you can see it in Iberian
peninsula
How do you know that Bell-beaker got Indo-Europeanized?
Yes, the Suevi Vandals and Goths are Germanic people but they are from diferent subgroups,
this is why you can fnd in Iberian Peninsula diferent-enough haplotypes of haplogroup
G2a3b1a2a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
@La is nati'e to $ranian plateau and surrounding places and correlates with
ancient farmers% /ero e)planatory power in $E migration in (outh and .entral
Asia% 3ismissed%
Do you have any ancient Dna from that region?
The IE were farmers like the G2a, and not only gatherers like R1a.
Almost all the G2a's from S.Asia of G ftdna pro|ect have close-enough relatives in Europe.
2012-08-16, 23:03
Padre Organtino
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
$ Reported your post as a rude post%
@reek e)pansion marker is also @La1aA(ee the Ialash peopleD you can see it
in $berian peninsula
&ow do you know that >ell-beaker got $ndo-Europeani*ed
ges, the (ue'i Eandals and @oths are @ermanic people but they are from
diferent subgroups, this is why you can :nd in $berian Peninsula di+erent
haplotypes of haplogroup @La1b;aLa
I've added your "brrilliant" post to my sig. BTW Greek ancestry of Kalash's is bullshit as they are
native South-Central Asian population with no connection to Greeks. Seehere. Once again,
legends and myths (some) don't survive genetic examination.
Trash theory about G2a is no worth wasting time on as you lum together IE languages from
various diferent families and those that belong to one family. There used to be tonns of IE
languages in South Asia, Eastern Europe and etc. Why the fuch did you decide to focus on Iberia
of all the things. I know the answer: that's the only way to "tie up" the absurd claim about G2a with
reality (actually it's not as I've shown above but you tend to believe the idea).
2012-08-16, 23:18
Rita
Why are people still trying to connect Haplogroups to ancient peoples??? This is psuedo-science at best, because there is
no support for it. Even R1a is not exclusively Indo-European because the timelines don't even match. Let's accept that even
the ancient Indo-Europeans were a mix of various haplogroupsand move on. Thank you.
2012-08-16, 23:21
Padre Organtino
Quote:
Originally Posted by (ita
,hy are people still trying to connect &aplogroups to ancient peoples
-his is psuedo-science at best, because there is no support for it% E'en R;a is
not e)clusi'ely $ndo-European because the timelines don't e'en match% !et's
accept that e'en the ancient $ndo-Europeans $ere a mix of &arious
haplo.roups and mo'e on% -hank you%
Certainly, there were no pure lineages but all in all if there were rapid expansions of more or less
homogenous groups there'd be traces of them. For example Spaniars are in no way homogenous
in terms of haplogroups but still R1B is a very good signal for Spanish/Iberian ancestry in the New
World. I think it's pretty obvious that the same can be also said about R1a ad PIE people.
2012-08-16, 23:25
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by (ita
,hy are people still trying to connect &aplogroups to ancient peoples
-his is psuedo-science at best, because there is no support for it% E&en (3a
is not exclusi&el) !ndo-European /ecause the timelines don5t e&en
match. !et's accept that e'en the ancient $ndo-Europeans $ere a mix of
&arious haplo.roups and mo'e on% -hank you%
What makes you think the timelines don't match? They're starting to look pretty good IMO.
http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/4425/r1am198.|pg
2012-08-16, 23:31
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
$''e added your ]brrilliant] post to my sig% >-, @reek ancestry of Ialash's is
bullshit as they are nati'e (outh-.entral Asian population with no connection
to @reeks% (ee here% Once again, legends and myths AsomeD don't sur'i'e
genetic e)amination%
-rash theory about @La is no worth wasting time on as you lum together $E
languages from 'arious di+erent families and those that belong to one
family% -here used to be tonns of $E languages in (outh Asia, Eastern Europe
and etc% ,hy the fuch did you decide to focus on $beria of all the things% $
know the answer< that's the only way to ]tie up] the absurd claim about @La
with reality Aactually it's not as $''e shown abo'e but you tend to belie'e the
ideaD%
In Iberia and in all West Europe the G2a is more than R1a
In the biggest groups of Iran the G2a is more than R1a
In Italy the G2a is more than R1a
In Armenia the G2a is more than R1a(R1a is almost absent)
In Ossetia the G2a is more than R1a (R1a is absent)
In the teritory of the Greek civilization the G2a is more than R1a
2012-08-16, 23:33
Rita
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
.ertainly, there were no pure lineages but all in all if there were rapid
e)pansions of more or less homogenous groups there'd be traces of them%
"or e)ample (paniars are in no way homogenous in terms of haplogroups
but still R;> is a 'ery good signal for (panishK$berian ancestry in the New
,orld% $ think it's pretty ob'ious that the same can be also said about R;a ad
P$E people%
The colonization of the Americas is a much more recent event, and a lot better documented. You
can't compare it to the Proto-IE that lived 4000 years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
,hat makes you think the timelines don't match -hey're starting to look
pretty good $HO%
http<KKimg5B1%imageshack%usKimg5B1KBBL5Kr;am;0C%#pg
What is your theory for the R1b1b* lineages then? As it is also mostly exclusive to Indo-European
groups.
2012-08-16, 23:36
Padre Organtino
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
$n $beria and in all ,est Europe the @La is more than R;a
$n the biggest groups of $ran the @La is more than R;a
$n $taly the @La is more than R;a
$n Armenia the @La is more than R;aAR;a is almost absentD
$n Ossetia the @La is more than R;a AR;a is absentD
$n the teritory of the @reek ci'ili*ation the @La is more than R;a
Coincidentally none of the places is Satem except for Ossetians and most carry very large Med
admixture. Otzi, the guy with G2 clusters with Sardinians and proto-Sardinian was not IE. So
wrong once again.
2012-08-16, 23:38
George1
Only G2a tree match perfectly to the lexo-statistical tree
Indo-Hittites 6700 BC. (G2a 9000-11000)
_Hittite-Luvians 2500 BC (G2a1 5000-4000)
_Indo-Tocharian 5900 BC. (G2a3 8000)
__Toharian 300 AC
__Indo-Greeks 5300 BC. (G2a3 8000 + J2b)
___Greco-Armenians 5000 BC (G2a3a 7500 + J2b1)
___Young Indo-European 4900 BC. (G2a3b1 7000 + J2b2)
____Indo-Albanian 4600 BC (G2a3b1 * 7000 + J2b2*)
____European branch 4500 BC. (G2a3b1a 7000)
_____ Leto-Slavic 1400 BC
_____West Europeans 4100 BC. (G2a3b1a2 6000 + J2b2a)
______Celts 900 BC (part of G2a3b1a2*)
______German-Italian 3500 BC.(G2a3b1a2a)
http://www.dhushara.com/book/unraveltree/indeurl.|pg
West Nostratic people have common haplogroups
I am proposing their common haplogroups
IE G2a3 G2a2 G2a1 and J2b (And maybe J1* Z1834- L136-)
Afroasiatic G2a* G2* G2b G1 and subclades of J2a (And maybe J1c)
Kartvelian G2a* and subclades of J2a (And maybe J1* Z1834+)
2012-08-16, 23:47
Padre Organtino
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
Only @La tree match perfectly to the le)o-statistical tree
$ndo-&ittites 7G66 >.% A@La w0666-;;666D
N&ittite-!u'ians L566 >. A@La; w5666-B666D
N$ndo--ocharian 5066 >.% A@La1 wC666D
NN-oharian 166 A.
NN$ndo-@reeks 5166 >.% A@La1 C666 2 FLbD
NNN@reco-Armenians 5666 >. A@La1a wG566 2 FLb;D
NNNgoung $ndo-European B066 >.% A@La1b; G666 2 FLbLD
NNNN$ndo-Albanian B766 >. A@La1b; h wG666 2 FLbLhD
NNNNEuropean branch B566 >.% A@La1b;a wG666D
NNNNN !eto-(la'ic ;B66 >.
NNNNN,est Europeans B;66 >.% A@La1b;aL w7666 2 FLbLaD
NNNNNN.elts 066 >. Apart of @La1b;aLhD
NNNNNN@erman-$talian 1566 >.%A@La1b;aLaD
http<KKwww%dhushara%comKbookKunra'eltreeKindeurl%#pg
,est Nostratic people ha'e common haplogroups
$ am proposing their common haplogroups
$E @La1 @LaL @La; and FLb AAnd maybe F;h /;C1B- !;17-D
Afroasiatic @Lah @Lh @Lb @; and subclades of FLa AAnd maybe F;cD
Iart'elian @Lah and subclades of FLa AAnd maybe F;h /;C1B2D
Theory=fail. Zero signifcance of G2a for South Asia and rather poor correspondance between
date of haplogroup splits and actual language separation. Additionally no explanation is given to
why there is langauge split on some stages accompanied by new haplotype and for some splits
there is none.
Give up already.
2012-08-16, 23:51
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by (ita
,hat is your theory for the R;b;bh lineages then As it is also mostly
e)clusi'e to $ndo-European groups%
R1b Bell Beakers from Southwest Europe interacted and mixed with R1a Corded Ware Indo-
Europeans in Central Europe.
They then expanded back to the west, in various Indo-Europeanized forms. This process has
been picked up with physical anthropology and archeology. The Kurgan-insipred Unetice and
Tumulus cultures of Central Europe were the frst steps along the way to the Italo-Celtic branch of
the Indo-Europeans.
I'm sure that ancient DNA will confrm this scenario, considering that all putative early Indo-
European remains tested to date are almost 100% R1a, while the only Bell Beaker site tested
produced R1b.
2012-08-16, 23:52
Rita
I've noticed that people online will always want their haplogroup to be related to their ethno-linguistic origins. So if they are
R1a they will argue to death that the Indo-Europeans were R1a's... or if they are G1a's they will argue to death that the Indo-
Europeans were G1a's. It's a fascinating phenomena but the reality is far from it because Ancient People were probably |ust
as mixed as the people today.
2012-08-16, 23:53
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
.oincidentally none of the places is (atem e)cept for Ossetians and most
carry 'ery large Hed admi)ture% Ot*i, the guy with @L clusters with
(ardinians and proto-(ardinian was not $E% (o wrong once again%
Armenian and Iranian are Satem,
The Satemisation begined with the mixing with not IE people.
Only the big part of Hittite-Luwians keeped the language without Centumisation and without
Satemisation.
Otzi may be in the group of the proto-Italic people.
East Med. is west Nostratic, and Ossetians together with the Abkhazians are claiming that they
are the descedants of the Hittite people.
2012-08-16, 23:56
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by (ita
$t's a fascinating phenomena but the reality is far from it because Ancient
People were probably #ust as mi)ed as the people today%
I don't think the early Indo-Europeans were mixed in terms of Y-DNA, because all the early
remains thought to be Indo-European are coming back R1a, from Germany to South Siberia and
the Tarim Basin.
There's a good reason for that, and it's called patrilineality.
2012-08-16, 23:56
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
-heoryUfail% /ero signi:cance of @La for (outh Asia and rather poor
correspondance between date of haplogroup splits and actual language
separation% Additionally no e)planation is gi'en to why there is langauge
split on some stages accompanied by new haplotype and for some splits
there is none%
@i'e up already%
The bigest groups in Iran
Persian Fars 7% G2a, 4.5% R1a
Lur Lurestan 13.7% G2a, 5.9% R1a
Gilak Gilan 14.1% G2a, 9.4% R1a
Mazandarani 16.7% G2a, 10.1% R1a
Almost all the G2a's from S.Asia of G ftdna pro|ect have close-enough relatives in Europe.
2012-08-17, 00:01
Padre Organtino
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
-he bigest groups in $ran
Persian "ars G8 @La, B%58 R;a
!ur !urestan ;1%G8 @La, 5%08 R;a
@ilak @ilan ;B%;8 @La, 0%B8 R;a
Ha*andarani ;7%G8 @La, ;6%;8 R;a
Almost all the @La's from (%Asia of @ ftdna pro#ect ha'e close-enough
relati'es in Europe%
G2a is native to that region. Do you understand? Yes? No?
---------- Post Merged at 23:01 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
Armenian and $ranian are (atem,
-he (atemisation begined with the mi)ing with not $E people%
Only the big part of &ittite-!uwians keeped the language without
.entumisation and without (atemisation%
Ot*i may be in the group of the proto-$talic people%
East Hed% is west Nostratic, and Ossetians together with the Abkha*ians are
claiming that they are the descedants of the &ittite people%
Otzi is unrelated to Levant and Caucasus. He is Mediterranean and clusters with Sardinians.
Sardinians did not speak neither IE nor any "Nostratic" (bullshit family bit still) language. Are you
able to comprehend it.
And no, only some Ablhaz scholars claim that Abkhaz is related to Hatt language. Hatts were not
IE and not even "Nostratic".
Srsly, |ust stop posting this whole crap. It's embarassing to read this stuf.
2012-08-17, 00:01
Rita
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$ don't think the early $ndo-Europeans were mi)ed in terms of g-3NA,
because all the early remains thought to be $ndo-European are coming back
R;a, from @ermany to (outh (iberia and the -arim >asin%
-here's a good reason for that, and it's called patrilineality%
How many have been tested and from where? Do you have a source?
2012-08-17, 00:03
Padre Organtino
Quote:
Originally Posted by (ita
$''e noticed that people online will always want their haplogroup to be
related to their ethno-linguistic origins% (o if they are R;a they will argue to
death that the $ndo-Europeans were R;a's%%% or if they are @;a's they will
argue to death that the $ndo-Europeans were @;a's% $t's a fascinating
phenomena but the reality is far from it because Ancient People were
probably #ust as mi)ed as the people today%
Doesn't concern me. I support R1a purely due to it being the only consistent option.
2012-08-17, 00:05
Rita
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
3oesn't concern me% $ support R;a purely due to it being the only consistent
option%
How exactly is it consistent? Because a few mummies came back R1a? Or care to enlighten me?
2012-08-17, 00:05
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
$ don't think the early $ndo-Europeans were mi)ed in terms of g-3NA,
because all the early remains thought to be $ndo-European are coming back
R;a, from @ermany to (outh (iberia and the -arim >asin%
-here's a good reason for that, and it's called patrilineality%
Uralo-Altaic hunters and gatherers in N.Germany, Xiongnu is R1a1, from Tarim Basin it is of 3
centuries older than the appearance of pseudo-Tocharians, and not only them inhabited there.
Pazyryk is Samoedic-Selkup.
2012-08-17, 00:12
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by (ita
&ow many ha'e been tested and from where 3o you ha'e a source
I can't be bothered looking for this stuf now. If you're really interested in this topic, then Google for
papers and blog posts about...
R1a in Corded Ware remains from Germany
R1a in Urnfeld remains from Germany
R1a in Andronovo remains from South Siberia
R1a in Bronze Age remains from the Tarim Basin
...and...
R1b from Bell Beaker remains from Germany
Padre Organtino
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
4ralo-Altaic hunters and gatherers in N%@ermany, qiongnu is R;a;, from
-arim >asin it is of 1 centuries older than the appearance of pseudo-
-ocharians, and not only them inhabited there%
Pa*yryk is (amoedic-(elkup%
Turks are a mix of R1a and C. Some small groups have prelevance of R1a due to the bottleneck
efect. Coincidentally they have some North Euro family and we have documented PIE interaction
with people of the steppe.
---------- Post Merged at 23:14 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by (ita
&ow e)actly is it consistent >ecause a few mummies came back R;a Or
care to enlighten me
Mainly because R1a is the only marker that accompanies IE in every parts of the world afected
by their expansion in a consistent way. Neither J2 nor G2 fulfll the criterium.
2012-08-17, 00:15
Rita
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
R;b >ell >eakers from (outhwest Europe interacted and mi)ed with R;a
.orded ,are $ndo-Europeans in .entral Europe%
-hey then e)panded back to the west, in 'arious $ndo-Europeani*ed forms%
-his process has been picked up with physical anthropology and archeology%
-he Iurgan-insipred 4netice and -umulus cultures of .entral Europe were
the :rst steps along the way to the $talo-.eltic branch of the $ndo-Europeans%
$'m sure that ancient 3NA will con:rm this scenario, considering that all
putati'e early $ndo-European remains tested to date are almost ;668 R;a,
while the only >ell >eaker site tested produced R;b%
What about R1b in West and Central Asia? One could argue that it was taken to Europe by the
Proto-IE's.
2012-08-17, 00:16
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
@La is nati'e to that region% 3o you understand ges No%
Theirs haplotypes are closly related to European haplotypes. Do you understand? Yes? No?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
---------- Post Herged at L1<6; ----------
Ot*i is unrelated to !e'ant and .aucasus% &e is Hediterranean and clusters
with (ardinians% (ardinians did not speak neither $E nor any ]Nostratic]
Abullshit family bit stillD language% Are you able to comprehend it%%
See again, Otzi is related to Levant(51.52% Near_East) and not to Sardinians(18.8% Near_East)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
And no, only some Ablha* scholars claim that Abkha* is related to &att
language% &atts were not $E and not e'en ]Nostratic]%
(rsly, #ust stop posting this whole crap% $t's embarassing to read this stu+%
The Hattic language was the language of the Hittite priests. So they are claming that they are
descedants of Hittite priests.
2012-08-17, 00:24
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by (ita
,hat about R;b in ,est and .entral Asia One could argue that it was taken
to Europe by the Proto-$E's%
Defnitely not Central Asia. The Central Asian R1b-M73 isn't found in Europe.
European R1b looks like it comes from the Near East and the Mediterranean. And I can tell you
that putting the proto-Indo-Europeans near the Mediterranean is pushing shit up a very steep hill.
2012-08-17, 00:24
Padre Organtino
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
-heirs haplotypes are closly related to European haplotypes% 3o you
understand ges No
(ee again, Ot*i is related to !e'antA5;%5L8 NearNEastD and not to
(ardiniansA;C%C8 NearNEastD
-he &attic language was the language of the &ittite priests% (o they are
claming that they are descedants of &ittite priests%
These halpotypes have relation to European ones due to common Meolithic farmer ancestry not
related to IE people. You fail for nth time in a row.
Hattic language is language of Hatts. Hatts are not IE and not even "Nostratic". It's a member of
hypothetic Sino-Caucasian family. To claim any relation to those priests is simply retarded. Otzi is
most related to Sardinians. BTW, where from did you get that fgure?
2012-08-17, 00:25
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
-urks are a mi) of R;a and .% (ome small groups ha'e prele'ance of R;a
due to the bottleneck e+ect% .oincidentally they ha'e some North Euro
family and we ha'e documented P$E interaction with people of the steppe%%
Bashkirs is small group?
What about big R1a groups Khakas , Kirgiz, Turkmens, Tatars, Chuvash etc they are smal
groups?
In Bashkir dna pro|ect you can see that the only related group to Scytho-Sauromatians are the
Yurmi=G2a1a.
The Turkic groups are R1a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
---------- Post Herged at L1<;B ----------
Hainly because R;a is the only marker that accompanies $E in e'ery parts of
the world a+ected by their e)pansion in a consistent way% Neither FL nor @L
ful:ll the criterium%
And again
In Iberia and in all West Europe the G2a is more than R1a
In the biggest groups of Iran the G2a is more than R1a
In Italy the G2a is more than R1a
In Armenia the G2a is more than R1a(R1a is almost absent)
In Ossetia the G2a is more than R1a (R1a is absent)
In the teritory of the Greek civilization the G2a is more than R1a
2012-08-17, 00:28
Rita
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
3e:nitely not .entral Asia% -he .entral Asian R;b-HG1 isn't found in Europe%
European R;b looks like it comes from the Near East and the Hediterranean%
And $ can tell you that putting the proto-$ndo-Europeans near the
Hediterranean is pushing shit up a 'ery steep hill%
Funny that you say that because Central Asian R1b is actually the ancestral clad of European
R1b. However Asian R1a is not an ancestral clad of European R1a, but rather a diversion from a
common ancestral clad.
2012-08-17, 00:43
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by (ita
"unny that you say that because .entral Asian R;b is actually the ancestral
clad of European R;b%
No, it's not.
2012-08-17, 00:55
Rita
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
No, it's not%
Both R-M269 and R-M73 is found in Central and West Asia. R-M269 being the ancestral clad of
all European R1b.
2012-08-17, 00:59
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by (ita
>oth R-HL70 and R-HG1 is found in .entral and ,est Asia% R-HL70 being the
ancestral clad of all European R;b%
Ancestral lineages of R-M269 are found in the Near East, and they expanded to Central Asia and
to Europe from there.
European R1b doesn't come from Central Asia, because if it did, we'd see R-M73 in Europe.
2012-08-17, 01:12
Rita
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polako
Ancestral lineages of R-HL70 are found in the Near East, and they e)panded
to .entral Asia and to Europe from there%
European R;b doesn't come from .entral Asia, because if it did, we'd see R-
HG1 in Europe%
We don't see R-M73 in Europe, but we do see R-M269 in Central Asia and West Asia.
Particularly among Indo-Iranian groups.
2012-08-17, 01:20
Polako
Quote:
Originally Posted by (ita
,e don't see R-HG1 in Europe, but we do see R-HL70 in .entral Asia and
,est Asia% Particularly among $ndo-$ranian groups%
Yes, it migrated to Central Asia from the Near East, and was eventually picked up by the Indo-
Europeans moving into Asia from the north, around the top of the Caspian Sea.
R1b-M269 wasn't present in the early Indo-Europeans of Central Asia, because it's missing from
Indo-European speakers from South Central and South Asia. They mostly carry R-Z93, which
probably comes from Europe.
2012-08-17, 07:32
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
-hese halpotypes ha'e relation to European ones due to common Heolithic
farmer ancestry not related to $E people% gou fail for nth time in a row%
&attic language is language of &atts% &atts are not $E and not e'en
]Nostratic]% $t's a member of hypothetic (ino-.aucasian family% -o claim any
relation to those priests is simply retarded% Ot*i is most related to
(ardinians% >-,, where from did you get that :gure
No,
time of diferences is of Bronze ages, with diferences 5000-3500.
Hattic is isolate language, it isn't Sino-Caucasian, and Megrelian(part of Nostratic Georgian) and
Abhazian(part of Adyghe-Abkhasian) have a substratum from this language.
Some Hattic words can be found in religious tablets of Hittite priests, dating from the 14th and
13th centuries BC. Those passages contained between the lines of the text signs with the
explanation "the priest is now speaking in Hattili".[4]
I believe that Hattic language was dead language, only Hittite priests used this language.
Otzi(51.52% Near_East) from here
http://dienekes.blogspot.gr/2012/08/...-champion.html
I have already made a map of Oetzi's genome. His overall admixture proportions using weac2
are:
1.05% Palaeoafrican
43.94% Atlantic_Baltic
0.00% Northeast_Asian
51.52% Near_East
1.54% Sub_Saharan
0.00% South_Asian
1.95% Southeast_Asian
2012-08-17, 07:51
Padre Organtino
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
No,
time of di+erences is of >ron*e ages, with di+erences 5666-1566%
&attic is isolate language, it isn't (ino-.aucasian, and HegrelianApart of
Nostratic @eorgianD and Abha*ianApart of Adyghe-AbkhasianD ha'e a
substratum from this language%
(ome &attic words can be found in religious tablets of &ittite priests, dating
from the ;Bth and ;1th centuries >.% -hose passages contained between
the lines of the te)t signs with the e)planation ]the priest is no$
speakin. in Hattili]%PBR
$ belie'e that &attic language was dead language, only &ittite priests used
this language%
Ot*iA5;%5L8 NearNEastD from here
http<KKdienekes%blogspot%grKL6;LK6CK%%%-champion%html
$ ha'e already made a map of Oet*i's genome% &is o'erall admi)ture
proportions using weacL are<
;%658 Palaeoafrican
B1%0B8 AtlanticN>altic
6%668 NortheastNAsian
5;%5L8 NearNEast
;%5B8 (ubN(aharan
6%668 (outhNAsian
;%058 (outheastNAsian
Hattic is a separate language from Hittian and unrelated to any other non Sino-Caucasian.
Hattians lived there before Hittits have arrived. It was not a priest language for Hitits and there's
no indcation of that in the text you quote |ust mentioning that some priest knew this old language.
Fail.
Neither Hattic nor Hurrian were Indo-European. Not only that but they were also not "Nostratic".
What's even more funny is that G2a in Armenians is older than one in Caucasus natives and older
than arrival of Armenian there. So the haplogroups correspond to non-IE and non-Nostratic
people.
As for Oetzi:
Again, these match quite well the world9 values for Sardinians, who are a bit more Atlantic_Baltic
and a little less Southern than Oetzi, as noted before for the K7b comparison that is similar to
world9, with the addition of the Amerindian and Australasian components.
Overall, this is a nice demonstration that Oetzi's genome is indeed Sardinian-like as argued by
Keller et al., and also that the Dodecad Pro|ect calculators based on the idea of "zombies" are
indeed working as they're supposed to. (Note that the previous K=7 and K=12 comparisons were
not based on "zombies", but produced quite the same conclusion as the supervised runs in this
post).
Claiming that "Near East" from one calculator equals "East Med" from another (totally unrelated
pro|ect with diferent numbers of ancetral components) is extremely silly.
In short your theory=crap. Let's move on to something less absurd.
2012-08-17, 14:20
George1
Look again "using weac2"
Look again "Some Hattic words" and not "Some priests"
Look again "the priest is now speaking in Hattili"
G2a in Armenia isn't older than in Europe, and Armenians came from S.E.Europe.
2012-08-17, 15:23
Padre Organtino
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
!ook again ]using weacL]
!ook again ](ome &attic words] and not ](ome priests]
!ook again ]the priest is now speaking in &attili]
12a in Armenia isn5t older than in Europe, and Armenians came from
S.E.Europe%
4
I quoted Dienekes for you and don't make me repeat that Hattic language has nothing to do
neither with IE nor with Nostratic ones. Hittites were IE conquerors from Europe that invaded
Antolia.
Armenians are native Anatolians speaking IE language.
2012-08-17, 16:49
George1
Domestication of the Felis Catus in Cyprus and Levant
Indo-Kartvelian(?) Kata=Catus
Georgian K'at'a
Greek Gata
Ossetian Gady
Armenian Katow
Russian Kot
Latin Catus
---------- Post Merged at 18:49 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
B
$ 9uoted 3ienekes for you and don't make me repeat that &attic language
has nothing to do neither with $E nor with Nostratic ones% &ittites were $E
con9uerors from Europe that in'aded Antolia%
Armenians are nati'e Anatolians speaking $E language%
Hattic language has nothing to do with IE, but only Hittite priests could give words of this dead
language to Megrels and Abkhazes.
Armenians are in the same Group with Greeks and their common haplogroup is also G2a3a,
G2a3 came from Europe, and G2a3a with "proto-Greko-Armenian" language came from Europe.
2012-08-17, 17:01
Padre Organtino
Kartvelians had contacts with ancient IEs and hence the correpondence. In places of cat domestication the root for the word
is totally diferent. BTW, since you have failed to address the previously presented criticism of G2a theory it's better to drop
it all together and focus on something more productive instead.
---------- Post Merged at 16:01 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
&attic language has nothing to do with $E, but only &ittite priests could gi'e
words of this dead language to Hegrels and Abkha*es%
Armenians are in the same @roup with @reeks and their common haplogroup
is also @La1a, @La1 came from Europe, and @La1a with ]proto-@reko-
Armenian] language came from Europe%
Hatts lived with the ancestors of Georgians and likely Abkhazs in Anatolia long before IE invasion
of Hittits.
G2a is a signal of Printed Cardium Pottery culture and Neolithic farmer migrations taht have
spread both to Europe and Caucasus not so long ago. Hence the relatively recent split Armenians
have with Euros.
Signals of Blakan ancestry in Armenians are E and I subclades.
2012-08-17, 17:03
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
3omestication of the "elis .atus in .yprus and !e'ant
$ndo-Iart'elianAD IataU.atus
@eorgian I'at'a
@reek @ata
Ossetian @ady
Armenian Iatow
Russian Iot
!atin .atus
Arabic word for cat
A male cat = qitt

A female cat = qitta

Cats = qitat The Q is kind of like a

'k', but is produced deeper in your throat.
2012-08-17, 17:14
Padre Organtino
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
Arabic word for cat
A male cat K Pitt

A female cat K Pitta

Cats K Pitat The

b is kind of like a 5k5, /ut is produced deeper in )our throat.
Yes, it is regarded as a borrowing from Afro-Asiatic by other languages. What is surprising about
borrowing from the langauge family that domesticated the animal? Fail yet again.
2012-08-17, 17:21
George1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre Br.antino
ges, it is regarded as a borrowing from Afro-Asiatic by other languages% ,hat
is surprising about borrowing from the langauge family that domesticated
the animal "ail yet again%
If it is a borrowing word from Afro-Asiatic, then the Indo-Kartvelians borrowed this word in Levant.
2012-08-17, 17:27
Padre Organtino
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1eor.e3
$f it is a borrowing word from Afro-Asiatic, then the $ndo-Iart'elians
borrowed this word in !e'ant%
Nah, Egypotians sold Cats to Greeks, Romans and other IE and the term most probably came to
IE languages from them.
2012-08-17, 17:58
EliasAlucard
Lots of posts in this thread have nothing to do with the topic and purpose of this thread, which is the question
if the PIE urheimat was in central-eastern Europe. Discussing words for cat, Y-DNA G2a and so on, is simply o
topic. What we want to understand here and nd out is a scientic yes or no to the question about central-
eastern Europe = PIE homeland.
Thread closed for o topic deletion.
//mod