If hg. IJ folks were Cro-magnon who were R* folks?

[Kardu]

Goga, btw it's high time that you order a genetic test, who knows whom you might turn out to be. Maybe even R1a1

I personally believe that the first Indo-Europeans were not a single haplogroup (and no ethnic group was even at that time) but a mixture of R1a1, R1b, J2a and G2a...

Indoeuopeans were not Zoroastrians. Zoroastrism is a much later invention in Avestan tradition.
Religious beliefs and practices of the conquerors of the North India are well described in Rig Veda. I advise you to read it.

And you will have to explain from whom did Lithuanians got their archaic language and pagan religion...

 

[Templar]

Neh, You’re just jealous about my history and heritage ..

Nope, I am never jealous of anyone. I actually think that Kurds should have their own states, but the surroundings countries ofcourse don't want to lose territory, so they spread propaganda. The funniest thing I've heard is Turks saying that Kurds are actually Turks, which makes no sense in so many ways.

R1a is amongall Indians from low Cast Indians, Upper cast Indians to castles Indians.

It is much higher among the high castes.

Aryans were Wes tAsian-Cetnral Asian hybrids my friend.

They likely weren't very mixed yet during that time since relatively shortly after coming to modern-day Iran from Central Asia, they went on to invade India. Over time though they blended with the native population of Iran, and formed the Persian ethnicity. They tend to usually look like the average West Asian, but slightly lighter skinned and some have light eyes.

My point of contention with you is that you believe that Indo-Europeans had Scandinavian facial features, and that infuriates me. In a different thread you talked about how Kurds have similar similar noses to "Nordics", which is crazy. In a way you are trying to justify Nordicism and Hitler's delusional thinking.

 

[Goga]

Goga, btw it's high time that you order a genetic test, who knows whom you might turn out to be. Maybe even R1a1

I personally believe that the first Indo-Europeans were not a single haplogroup (and no ethnic group was even at that time) but a mixture of R1a1, R1b, J2a and G2a...

Indoeuopeans were not Zoroastrians. Zoroastrism is a much later invention in Avestan tradition.
Religious beliefs and practices of the conquerors of the North India are well described in Rig Veda. I advise you to read it.

And you will have to explain from whom did Lithuanians got their archaic language and pagan religion...

I don't know anything about their religion but they most probably got Indo-Europised by Indo-Europeans from the Balkans-Central Europe.
As far as I know the sun, fire and the bull (cow) played an important role in proto-Indo-European cultures. And the sun, fire & bull worship is from West Asia!

Lithuanian language is not archaic at all, but a modern Baltic language. Archaic languages died a long time ago.

Aboriginal Dravidians were very dark. Aryans were just lighter than Dravidians. But except from Africans EVERYBODY is lighter than Dravidians. Compared to Dravidians West Asians are very light, lol.

 

[Kardu]

Anyone wishing to hear how Indo-Europeans spoke should come and listen to a Lithuanian peasant.
—Antoine Meillet
​

Lithuanian still retains many of the original features of the nominal morphology found in some ancient Indo-European languages like Sanskrit and Latin, and has therefore been the focus of much study in the area of Indo-European linguistics. Studies in the field of comparative linguistics have shown it to be the most conservative living Indo-European language

• Lith. and Skt. sūnus (son)
• Lith. and Skt. avis and Lat. ovis (sheep)
• Lith. dūmas and Skt. dhūmas and Lat. fumus (smoke)
• Lith. antras and Skt. antaras (second, the other)
• Lith. vilkas and Skt. vṛkas (wolf)
• Lith. ratas and Lat. rota (wheel) and Skt. rathas (carriage).
• Lith. senis and Lat. senex (an old man) and Skt. sanas (old).
• Lith. vyras and Lat. vir (a man) and Skt. vīras (man, hero).
• Lith. angis and Lat. anguis (a snake in Latin, a species of snakes in Lithuanian)
• Lith. linas and Lat. linum (flax, compare with English 'linen')
• Lith. ariu and Lat. aro (I plow)
• Lith. jungiu and Lat. iungo (I join)
• Lith. gentys and Lat. gentes (tribes) and Skt. jánas (genus, race).
• Lith. mėnesis and Lat. mensis and Skt masa (month)
• Lith. dantis and Lat. dentes and Skt dantas (teeth)
• Lith. naktis and Lat. noctes and Skt. naktis (night)
• Lith. sėdime and Lat. sedemus (we sit) and Skt. siedati (sits).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_language

 

[Goga]

Don't get confused. Compared to proto-Indo-European, Sanskrit and Latin are very modern languages. And once again, modern IRANIC languages are MUCH CLOSER to Sanskrit than Balto-Slavic languages!

ANATOLIAN languages were MUCH older than Latin or Sanskrit! Don’t get confused!

 

[Taranis]

I have moved this thread to 'ethnography' because it has increasingly little to do with genetics but instead has derided, I'm sorry to say that, into a hodge-podge about anything else, including what sketchily appear to me like 19th century racial ideas...

 

[Alan]

Are you on crack? Indians don't look Europoid at all! Georgians look much more Europoid than Indians and Georgians don't even speak an Indo-European languagge!

He asked you a simple question, your behave is just unacceptable and rude. Its this behave which made you banned on a Kurdish forum for a while.

Anatolian languages (+Armenian etc.) are much closer to ancient Indo-European languages than Balto-Slavic languages are. And Antolian languages are native to West Asia.

Armenian is not very close to ancient Indo-European languages. Its derived from Phrygian. Hittite is very close to ancient Indo-European.

 

[Alan]

I think no, except if R1a is Baltic component,

the light skin, the extra white to pink skin should also be in the same mutation were blondism happened,

R1a homeland is far from Baltic,

I disagree highly on this point. I dont believe that light hair and eyes evolved in the Baltics. In fact this mutation is known as far back as Summerian period (or even further back). If you look at some of the Sumerian statues they show people depicted with Green and Blue eyes. The Assyrians which almost lack the Baltic related North European component have relatively high frequency of Green eyes too.

I believe that this mutations for light hair and eyes evolved much earlier in Paleolithic Western Asia or maybe it was brought into Europe by Neolithic farmers.

 

[Kardu]

Thanks, Alan.

As for blue eyes, the current consensus among scientists is that the responsible mutation occurred about 8000 years ago somewhere in the region north to the Black sea.

 

[Templar]

As for blue eyes, the current consensus among scientists is that the responsible mutation occurred about 8000 years ago somewhere in the region north to the Black sea.

Yep, on the steppes where the Indo-Europeans lived.

 

[Alan]

Thanks, Alan.

As for blue eyes, the current consensus among scientists is that the responsible mutation occurred about 8000 years ago somewhere in the region north to the Black sea.

I doubt that such a widespread phenomenon is the result of only one mutation. And even less that it spread all around the world from North of the Black sea 8000 b.c. . If so we would have to assume that there was a huge movement into Western Asia from North of the steppes during the Neolithic which does not make much sense to me since during this period most if not all movements were rather out of West Asia.

I am sure this current consensus will change during time just like people earlier thought R1b is a paleolithic Haplogroup.

 

[Templar]

If so we would have to assume that there was a huge movement into Western Asia from North of the steppes during the Neolithic

During the Bronze age there was large movement South. How do you think the R1b and R1a got to West Asia?

 

[Alan]

During the Bronze age there was large movement South. How do you think the R1b and R1a got to West Asia?

The R1b is native to West Asia this is the most accepted point of view. About the origin of R1a we are still not entirely sure. But one thing is for sure, during Neolithic the area of the Pontic-Caspian Steppes was settled by East Eurasian like people.

So how is it possible that this mutation occurred 8000 b.c. in the Steppes while this area was settled by non West Eurasian people?

It is getting more and more clear that during Neolithic a population replacement took place in the Steppes and most of Eastern Europe. Even Polako, who was the most hardcore supporter of an European origin of R1a and Indo Europeans has changed his mind and believes that during Neolithic somewhere North of the Levant-Southeast Anatolia a group of R1a and R1b carriers moved into Europe.

 

[ElHorsto]

The R1b is native to West Asia this is the most accepted point of view. About the origin of R1a we are still not entirely sure.

Agreed so far.

But one thing is for sure, during Neolithic the area of the Pontic-Caspian Steppes was settled by East Eurasian like people.

I honestly would like to learn the evidence that makes this so sure.

It is getting more and more clear that during Neolithic a population replacement took place in the Steppes and most of Eastern Europe. Even Polako, who was the most hardcore supporter of an European origin of R1a and Indo Europeans has changed his mind and believes that during Neolithic somewhere North of the Levant-Southeast Anatolia a group of R1a and R1b carriers moved into Europe.

That is not really new, especially based on Eupedia knowledge, but R1a/R1b are merely lineages and we all should know about their (non-)relevance. I also was following these discussions on forumbiodiversity, and honestly some of it didn't make sense to me. To the contrary, there is increasing evidence that even east central asia was partially inhabited by north-european-like peoples. The finno-ugric/pitted-ware background of the Keltiminar culture in southern Kazakhstan is yet another piece in the puzzle. Of course there were many south-european-like peoples too in the steppes and central asia, but it is unknown to which extent and mtDNA is not as reliable as autosomals.

 

[Alan]

I honestly would like to learn the evidence that makes this so sure.

http://dienekes.blogspot.de/2011/09/east-eurasian-mtdna-in-ukrainian.html

To the contrary, there is increasing evidence that even east central asia was partially inhabited by north-european-like peoples. The finno-ugric/pitted-ware background of the Keltiminar culture in southern Kazakhstan is yet another piece in the puzzle. Of course there were many south-european-like peoples too in the steppes and central asia, but it is unknown to which extent and mtDNA is not as reliable as autosomals.

But these cultures are from Central Asia during Bronze Age, I was specifically talking about the Steppes Southern Russia and Ukraine during Neolithic.

 

[ElHorsto]

http://dienekes.blogspot.de/2011/09/east-eurasian-mtdna-in-ukrainian.html

Thanks, but I wouldn't consider this convincing evidence. A certain asian shift has been consistently shown to co-exist with north-european components, not only in eastern europe, but even in British islands, where it is just diminished by increasing Atlantic-med admixture. So it wouldn't be surprising to find a few east asian or amerindian HGs among north-europeans (examples are Y-HG N east of the baltic sea and some - probably more ancient Y-HG Q west of the baltic sea). Further, MtDNA C is believed to came 60000 yrs. ago from central Asia, thus it is by no means indicative of mongoloids (as we rightfully also don't claim R1a to be all from Indians for instance). Sure, HG C is rare in Europe today (once case in Iceland), but instead some Y-HG Q (at least as exotic as mtDNA C) occurs in Scandinavia. East of the baltic sea, these sparse exotic HGs might have been erased by newer lineages N and R1a. A remote paleolithic co-ancestry of north-europeans and east-asians/amerindians seems more likely to me than a completely different population in the neolthic steppes.

But these cultures are from Central Asia during Bronze Age, I was specifically talking about the Steppes Southern Russia and Ukraine during Neolithic.

Well, ok.

 

[Alan]

Thanks, but I wouldn't consider this convincing evidence. A certain asian shift has been consistently shown to co-exist with north-european components, not only in eastern europe, but even in British islands, where it is just diminished by increasing Atlantic-med admixture. So it wouldn't be surprising to find a few east asian or amerindian HGs among north-europeans (examples are Y-HG N east of the baltic sea and some - probably more ancient Y-HG Q west of the baltic sea). Further, MtDNA C is believed to came 60000 yrs. ago from central Asia, thus it is by no means indicative of mongoloids (as we rightfully also don't claim R1a to be all from Indians for instance). Sure, HG C is rare in Europe today (once case in Iceland), but instead some Y-HG Q (at least as exotic as mtDNA C) occurs in Scandinavia. East of the baltic sea, these sparse exotic HGs might have been erased by newer lineages N and R1a. A remote paleolithic co-ancestry of north-europeans and east-asians/amerindians seems more likely to me than a completely different population in the neolthic steppes.

A few East Asian lineages is good but all 6 samples came out as East Eurasian. Its hard for me to believe this is just coincidence.

 

[ElHorsto]

A few East Asian lineages is good but all 6 samples came out as East Eurasian. Its hard for me to believe this is just coincidence.

I agree that it is significant. I merely can't see proof that mtDNA C itself is always mongol or east asian. It is most frequent in east asia today, but according to Wikipedia, "C is believed to have arisen somewhere between the Caspian Sea and Lake Baikal some 60,000 years before present. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_C_(mtDNA)
This location is right north from the maximum of the gedrosia component, which is BTW still present in Altaians and North-west europeans today. (although the NW-european Gedrosian is likely of much later origin, but doesn't matter)

C is low in Chinese and Japanese today and has a significant diversity in Amerindians today, which fits well to the paleolithic north-eurasian-american tundra. If these 6 samples can be traced back to backmigration from north-east asia, then your hypothesis would get more weight. Else, they are more likely migrants coming from central asia.

 

[Kardu]

I didn't mean that the first people with blue eyes were R1a1.

According to current research unlike blond hair the mutation for blue eyes did occur only once and it most probably happened north to the Black sea.

And blue eyes are not the same a s green eyes.

 

[Alan]

I didn't mean that the first people with blue eyes were R1a1.

According to current research unlike blond hair the mutation for blue eyes did occur only once and it most probably happened north to the Black sea.

And blue eyes are not the same a s green eyes.

Green eyes are simply a cross of genes for Blue and Brown Eyes. That this mutation occurred only once is impossible since today in one generation we have several examples of Blue Eyes which are not connected to this one mutation.


Look at this African kid