Who were the Proto-Indo-Europeans? Do they have any connection to modern Anglo-Saxons?
Obviously, senpai.
Is this a thinly veiled ''we wuz Greeks n shit'' thread?
>>42447
How can anyone deny that WASPs are the best representatives of ancient Greeks despite all the evidence?
>>42555
>implying greeks arent white
>cant think of an original insult so he uses a reverse version of /pol/s
>>42394
>Who were the Proto-Indo-Europeans?
A group of pastoralists living on the Steppe who contributed massively to the european and indian gene pool. They were the first to domesticate the horse, and most probably invented the wheel. They are also responsible for spreading the gene for lactose tolerance.
Racially, they looked "white".
>>42859
Wasn't Achilles specifically described in the Iliad as being blond haired?
That movie even got the description of Eudoros and the Myrmidon fairly well.
>>42394
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IZ-xwO77xA
A pretty good video on the topic.
>>42859
myceneans are not greeks
>>43135
Doesnt mean he was a nordic. southern europeans with light hair exist
>>43200
>southern europeans with light hair exist
Thanks to the indo-european expansion.
Southern europeans pre-indo-european expansion, such as the minoans, would've looked like swarthy levantines.
>>42914
Greeks are white but I swear I saw people honestly thinking Greeks were blonde before.
Some even claiming Greek elite was Germanic or shit like that.
>>43023
Source on them spreading lactose tolerance? There are African tribes with that mutation iirc
Proto-Indo-Europeans were the inhabitants of the lands from Eastern Europe to Central Asia, whose migrations left a genetic footprint in North and East Africa, the Near East, South Asia and obviously in Europe. They obviously are connected to the modern Brits.
What remains a mystery is where non-Indo-European whites come from.
>>43359
>Source on them spreading lactose tolerance?
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/skin_color_lactose_tolerance_mapping_population_changes_in_bronze_age_eurasia-156073
>There are African tribes with that mutation iirc
Different mutation. Lactose tolerance probably arose in various parts of the world.
>>43419
Yeah but blonde hair was very rare in past. Now you can find blonde Greeks.
Greeks actually became ''whiter'' due to shitload of Slavs emigrating to Greece in early medieval period, and mixing with Greeks over time.
>>43325
Which is absurd considering "Germanic" didn't exist at the time. Indo-Europeans gave birth to all languages in Europe besides finno-ugric and basque.
>>43023
>and most probably invented the wheel
The chariot you mean.
The Illiad was written 500 years after the Trojan war, Homer had no idea what any of the people he is talking about looked like. There were no blonds in Ancient Greece.
'Flavius' is a name just like 'Brutus' , the word for blond would be 'Flavus'
No emperor is described as blond, this is a mistranslation of Anglo translators who had no idea what 'subflavus' or literally 'below yellow' meant.
>>43473
Both.
>>43494
This is what 'below yellow' meant for Romans.
>>43478
People like Etruscans and anyone living in Europe before the arrival of Indo-European speakers.
>>43478
>They have slight indo-european admixture.
Yes but seeing how small that is, blonde hair would have died out pretty fast being a recessive trait, I think.
>>43494
>There were no blonds in Ancient Greece.
Considering that greeks were an indo-european tribe, there were probably plenty of blondes in ancient greece.
>>43423
Very interesting. Do we know where lactose tolerance is most prevalent?
>>43527
It's amazing that modern Greeks and Italians are so beta they let Anglogermanics get away with this kind of bizarre article and misrepresentation of their history.
>>43575
Indians are also Aryan Indo-European tribes, do you think they had blondes too?
inb4 Indra
>>43567
They were farmers originating from the middle east.
>>43570
>Yes but seeing how small that is, blonde hair would have died out pretty fast being a recessive trait, I think.
That's not how genetics work. If people thought blond hair was cute, blonde haired people would have more babies, and thus the % of people with blond hair would grow even if the initial number of people with blond hair was very small.
Anyways, you must yourself conceded that 3 people is not a lot..
>>43200
What is your definition of Nordic?
And before you define it using scientifically valid terminology, I contend that there were more 'nordic' types in ancient greece than there is at this time
>>43614
It's possible, though - at least the first few centuries after the arrival of the Aryans.
>>43659
Got any evidence to back that up? No, R1a1 does not mean that ancient Indians were blonde.
>>43606
Err greeks are the result of proto indo europeans + the local èroto europeans that still make up for the majority of their blood, so while it's true that they were indo european since they spoke an indo european language, calling them an "indo european" tribe is misleading as it can lead to believe that they were only genetically indo european who moved to Greece genociding the previous population, which is not true, the same goes for >>43614
except that the native were dravidians, so very different from proto europeans genetically, this is why greeks and indians are so distant genetically compared to greeks and say, italians or iberians.
>>43575
There is no proof regarding origins of indoeuropeans whatsoever, just speculation.
>>43683
Seeing how they share their haplogroup with Slavs, that should mean the ancient Aryans could have blonde hair.
>>43636
I'm excluding dark blonde andlight brown of course, only people who still have it blonde as adults.
>>43750
also people whom I know very well and have both parents with sardinian native surnames
>>43578
Scandinavia. They also have the highest indo-european admixture out of any people (around 60% iirc)
>>43614
Upper caste hindus do have indo-european admixture. They usually do indeed look more "white" than the low castes, who look more "australoid", and you see from time to time upper caste indians with blue eyes.
Did the indo-europeans culture influence Western civilization? I want to know in what ways. I've been reading The Uniqueness of the West and this has got me interested in that question.
>>43723
>There is no proof regarding origins of indoeuropeans whatsoever
We don't know whether they lived closer to Europe or Asia, but the indo-european expansion undeniably happened.
>>43830
Well, considering half the gene pool of europeans comes from indo-europeans, and that all europeans - save for the basque - speak indo-european languages...
Talking about "europeans" before the indo-european expansion is kind of nonsensical. Europeans were created by this expansion.
Indo-Europeans were not blond haried and blue eyed you fucking retards.
Blond hair is a genetic adaption for extremely low sunlight environments like Scandinavia. The Steppes that the indo-europeans came from were cold as fuck, but there was plenty of sunlight. Indo-europeans weren't blond for the same reason fucking Mongolians aren't blond.
>>43869
>Indo-Europeans were not blond haried and blue eyed you fucking retards.
>>43769
First of all, our history should be Euro centric as most of us live in Western nations.
Secondly, saying that Pakis best represent ancient Indo Europeans would be like me saying all white people descend from aliens.
Without you providing proof, that is
>>43869
Ancient Slavs were described as red-haired, tall people.
>>43866
>half
no
EEF WHG ANE
Albanian: 78.1 / 9.2 / 12.7
Ashkenazi_Jew: 93.1 / 0 / 6.9
Basque: 59.3 / 29.3 / 11.4
Belarusian: 41.8 / 43.1 / 15.1
Bergamo: 71.5 / 17.7 / 10.8
Bulgarian: 71.2 / 14.7 / 14.1
Croatian: 56.1 / 29.3 / 14.5
Czech: 49.5 / 33.8 / 16.7
English: 49.5 / 36.4 / 14.1
Estonian: 32.2 / 49.5 / 18.3
French: 55.4 / 31.1 / 13.5
French_South: 67.5 / 19.5 / 13
Greek: 79.2 / 5.8 / 15.1
Hungarian: 55.8 / 26.4 / 17.9
Icelandic: 39.4 / 45.6 / 15
Lithuanian: 36.4 / 46.4 / 17.2
Maltese: 93.2 / 0 / 6.8
Norwegian: 41.1 / 42.8 / 16.1
Orcadian: 45.7 / 38.5 / 15.8
Sardinian: 81.7 / 17.5 / 0.8
Scottish: 39 / 42.8 / 18.2
Sicilian: 90.3 / 0 / 9.7
Spainish: 80.9 / 6.8 / 12.3
Spainish_North: 71.3 / 12.5 / 16.3
Tuscan: 74.6 / 13.6 / 11.8
Ukrainian: 46.2 / 38.7 / 15.1
>>43403
>Being this wrong and retarded.
Holy shit, some retard out there actually believes this.
>>43909
There are blond people in every society. Show me evidence that the MAJORITY were blond haired and blue eyes.
Quit trying to steal literally every other culture you snowniggerboo
>>43782
>Upper caste hindus do have indo-european admixture
this is true
>from time to time upper caste indians with blue eyes
this is false. indians can have green or hazel eyes but even the upper caste rarely have blue or gray eyes without some recent european mixture in their genes
>>43909
blonde hair was a very recent mutation during that time
most of them would have had light to medium skin and dark hair + eyes
>>43915
persians best represent indo-europeans to be honest
>>43745
I already said R1a1 doesn't mean ancient Indians had blonde hair, dolt. Y-chromosome DNA clades do not tell you anything about physical phenotypes.
>Upper caste hindus do have indo-european admixture.
First define what you mean by "indo-european admixture." Indo-European is a primarily linguistic and cultural concept, not a genetic one.
Again, inb4 R1a1 because we still don't know whether it originated in the Eurasian steppes or in South Asia, where it has the most diversity.
>>43937
[citation needed]
This is from a reich paper from this year.
>>42394
The proto-indo-europeans were probably a Uralic people that diverged into proto-caucasoid and proto-mongoloid people. That would explain the origins of the Aryans and the source of the Aryan invasion, as well as several Turkic and Siberian groups throughout Asia. Could maybe explain the existence of the Ainu in Hokkaido.
>>43993
The latest Academic [Lazaridis] figures from April 2014;
p.111: http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/s...4/001552-3.pdf
>>44000
What Aryan invasion?
>>43970
>There are blond people in every society
Really?
Show me native blond congolese people, please.
>>43981
>this is false. indians can have green or hazel eyes but even the upper caste rarely have blue or gray eyes without some recent european mixture in their genes
Light eyes. Whatever.
>blonde hair was a very recent mutation during that time
How do you know that?
>most of them would have had light to medium skin and dark hair + eyes
How do you know that?
>persians best represent indo-europeans to be honest
Modern persians have nothing to do with ancient persians. Few countries have been so thoroughly ethnically cleansed as Persia.
Hindus have a higher indo-european admixture than modern persians.
I hate how most modern academics pretend to believe that the Indo-European expansion was peaceful and based on trade and cultural exchanges. Of course that's political, the truth is that the Indo-Europeans conquered the shit out of everyone from India to Portugal, slaughtered the men and raped the women. That's why their societies are always based upon tripartite castes with a warrior caste at the top.
>>44052
The one that in their mind created all western civilization, because the Natzis said so.
At least they stopped claiming they came from Atlantis.
>>43834
Either originating in the steppes or the middle east mountains, which are associated with different peoples.
>>44000
Caucasoids and Mongoloids diverged way earlier than the appearance of proto-indo-europeans...
>>43866
Hmm... I'm talking about culture, not genes. Perhaps the West's individualism is gene-determined, but I don't have evidence for this.
>>44073
I'm the guy writing about Aryans a couple of posts above. Sorry, I though the Indo-Aryan theory was the commonly accepted one.
>>44101
>Hmm... I'm talking about culture, not genes.
Well, usually they're linked. When europeans settled in north america they brought with them their genes and culture.
Think of the indo-european expansion as the european conquest of the Americas.
>>44060
>Modern persians have nothing to do with ancient persians. Few countries have been so thoroughly ethnically cleansed as Persia.
That's a whole lot of bullshit without any source.
>Hindus
You mean the followers of Hinduism?
>>44060
OMG DID THE ARYANS TRAVEL TO THE SOLOMON ISLANDS AND SPREAD THEIR MAGICAL WHITE SEED?
Blond is just a genetic quirk, it can be developed any time in any culture.
>>44141
>Think of the indo-european expansion as the european conquest of the Americas.
I didn't know the Indo-Europeans brought diseases with them to which their neighboring populations weren't immune.
>>44149
>That's a whole lot of bullshit without any source.
Well, take haplogroups for example. R1a is more prevalent in upper caste hindus than in persians.
But genetic analysis is not even necessary. Persia has been conquered so many times, it's genetic makeup has obviously been altered. It was under turkic domination for close to a millenia.
>>43993
This is a nonsensical methodology, they set Yamnaya as a reference(component) and the people related to them came out as partially them, you can set any European population as reference and all others will come out as partially this population.
>>44180
genetic analysis has also shown the blonde that solomon islanders have is controlled by a different gene than the blonde that europeans have
>>44060
if hindus have higher indo-european admixture and indo-europeans were blonde than why are blondes in india almost non-existent? sure they mixed with the local dravidians but if higher castes really were more pure aryan you expect at least a small amount of indians to have naturally light hair
>>44180
No, blondism is native to solomon islanders. Fun fact : it's a different mutation from the mutation which causes blondism in europeans.
Anyways, you shifted the goalposts. I didn't ask for a solomon islander, I asked for a congolese. I could also ask for a han chinese, a japanese, a native american,...
You wouldn't have a single example, because blondism only appeared in two instances : among indo-europeans, and among melanesians.
>Blond is just a genetic quirk, it can be developed any time in any culture.
HA, yeah right, so if China just changes its culture all of a sudden chinese people will have blonde hair? Kill yourself.
>>44226
Why is it nonsensical?
>>44255
>if hindus have higher indo-european admixture and indo-europeans were blonde than why are blondes in india almost non-existent?
Because dravidian genes killed blondism.
Look how rare blonde hair is in southern europe, and these peoples have way more indo-european admixture than upper caste hindus.
>>44215
>R1a is more prevalent in upper caste hindus than in persians.
You mean R1a1. And like I said, there's still debate as to where it originated.
>Some researchers found that Indian, or more generally, South Asian populations, had the highest STR diversity.[1] Other studies variously proposed Eastern European, Central Asian and even Western Asian origins for the R1a1.[2]
If it originated in India, then by your logic the Indo-European expansion happened OUT of India.
>Persia has been conquered so many times, it's genetic makeup has obviously been altered. It was under turkic domination for close to a millenia.
This is a history board, go somewhere else if you want to spout nonsense.
>>44338
>If it originated in India, then by your logic the Indo-European expansion happened OUT of India
That's an interesting theory. We can't really know for sure with the little evidence we have.
>>44338
>You mean R1a1. And like I said, there's still debate as to where it originated.
It's not debated among WHO it originated. It originated among indo-europeans.
>If it originated in India, then by your logic the Indo-European expansion happened OUT of India.
Perhaps, it wouldn't change a single thing if it happened out of the central asian steppe, out of India or out of Timbuktu.
>This is a history board, go somewhere else if you want to spout nonsense.
Let me guess, you're a persian who desperately clings to "muh aryan heritage".
I'm sorry, what little aryan admixture your ancestors had has been thoroughly watered down by arabs, turks, and mongols. (mostly turks)
>>44207
I think he's talking about the initial migration of humans to the Americas via the Bering Strait land-bridge.
>>44207
>I didn't know the Indo-Europeans brought diseases with them to which their neighboring populations weren't immune.
Perhaps, we wouldn't know that.
What I was alluding to was that they significantly altered the european gene pool.
>>44421
>>That's an interesting theory.
But it flies straight in the fucking face of every piece of linguistic, cultural and archaeological evidence we have so far about the IE expansion.
>Perhaps, it wouldn't change a single thing if it happened out of the central asian steppe, out of India or out of Timbuktu.
See above.
>Let me guess, you're a persian who desperately clings to "muh aryan heritage".
Again, this is a history board. If you want to shitpost, you have /pol/ and /int/ waiting with open arms to welcome your meme spouting.
>what little aryan admixture your ancestors had has been thoroughly watered down by arabs, turks, and mongols. (mostly turks)
You talk a lot, but present no sources. Interesting.
>>44533
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/oct/22/plague-has-infected-humans-since-bronze-age-dna-study-shows
>>43260
>the minoans
appear to have been different from mainland Europeans. They were semites I believe
>>44568
>they were semites
no
First and foremost, Indo-European is a linguistic group, not an ethnic one. Second, when we talk about the dispersal of the IE languages, we are talking about the adoption of cultural and linguistic patterns, not of massive "Volkerwanderungs" going from the steppe (which would not have the necessary surplus of people to replace the populations of agricultural breadbaskets like the Danube valley or the Indus valley) Simply put, we dont need large scale migrations to explain its dispersal.
>>44067
There's little to no evidence for the "Aryan invasion" model, its got nothing to do with politics
>>44634
Only sensible post in this thread. Thank you.
>>44543
>Again, this is a history board.
Right. You better stop ignoring the fact that Persia has been conquered again and again over its long history. Stop with this nonsense "we beez aryans n sheeit".
>You talk a lot, but present no sources. Interesting.
Pic related
>>44634
>(which would not have the necessary surplus of people to replace the populations of agricultural breadbaskets like the Danube valley or the Indus valley)
They didn't replace it but they did incluence their genepool significantly.
>>44661
>Persia has been conquered again and again over its long history.
India has probably been invaded more, yet your theory is that Indians are apparently more "Indo-European" than Persians.
>bringing up R1a1 again and again
I see. You're a moron.
>>44568
>appear to have been different from mainland Europeans
They were levantine/anatolian immigrants.
>>44634
>Second, when we talk about the dispersal of the IE languages, we are talking about the adoption of cultural and linguistic patterns
Honestly, how do you believe culture and language spread in 2000 B.C.? Trade? Stop being ridiculous.
>not of massive "Volkerwanderungs" going from the steppe (which would not have the necessary surplus of people to replace the populations of agricultural breadbaskets like the Danube valley or the Indus valley
Yeah, I'm sure the dispersal of the R haplogroup is a complete coincidence...
>>44719
>R haplogroup
Probably originated in India.
>>44708
>India has probably been invaded more
Not true. And indians have always had a larger population, thus any incursion, which were usually just plunder raids, didn't alter much the gene pool.
>I see. You're a moron.
Well, considering it's the "aryan" haplogroup, I think it's rather relevant, don't you think?
I'm going to go to bed soon, so please tell me: you're persian, aren't you?
>>44802
>Probably originated in India.
Probably not. Probably originated in Russia.
>>44719
>trade
since we know of long distance trade since neolithic times, I don't see why not.
Why can we never have this discussion without it ended up about race, racism and whiteness?
The PIE were people from the Steppes of Eurasia, the exact location hasn't been agreed upon, which leads me to think it's probably a large area. Around 5000 years ago they migrated West into Europe, in two routes, and east into Iran and India. They absolutely dominated the natives, they became the rulers and upper classes, their language quickly became the dominant one. Only those natives with strong cultures survived into antiquity such as the Etruscans. The PIE didn't exterminate the natives but bred with them, as a result most Europeans and most Indians are about 50% IE 50% native.
The natives of Europe were pale as they had been there for 40,000 years, and the PIE were quite pale, so it's would have been difficult to tell them apart. In India it's different as the natives were quite dark.
The migrations being under 5000 years old makes it a very recent human migration. The languages and original cultures of the different IE splinter groups still retained considerable similarities even up until now.
In my personal opinion, the Celts and Germans were more influenced by the native Europeans than the Greeks and Romans, as the Celts/Germans native religions are quite different from the Roman/Greek which also matches the Indian religions more closely.
I could be mistaken, but doesn't the Indo-European concept stem from late 19th-early 20th century culture historical theories? As in it's a reflection of material culture rather than genetics? It's not really my area though
> new poster
>>44820
It is first cousins with Q on the phylogenetic tree, Q being Native American and north Eurasian.
>>44870
>as a result most Europeans and most Indians are about 50% IE 50% native.
No, they are over 50% native in most cases if you exclude nordic countries like Sweden and Norway.
>>44634
>First and foremost, Indo-European is a linguistic group, not an ethnic one
Linguistic groups and ethnic groups go hand in hand but one has been conquered or assimilated. In the ancient world, if you spoke a language, then you were of the genetic group which that language evolved with. To claim that the original PIE speakers weren't PIE genetically is ridiculous. Did they just pick the language up from thin air?
>>44870
What do you think of this?
> Ancient Ethiopian genome reveals extensive Eurasian admixture throughout the African continent.
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26449472
> Here, we present a 12.5x coverage ancient genome of an Ethiopian male ('Mota') who lived approximately 4,500 years ago. We use this genome to demonstrate that the Eurasian backflow into Africa came from a population closely related to Early Neolithic farmers, who had colonized Europe 4,000 years earlier. The extent of this backflow was much greater than previously reported, reaching all the way to Central, West and Southern Africa, affecting even populations such as Yoruba and Mbuti, previously thought to be relatively unadmixed, who harbor 6-7% Eurasian ancestry.
Early European farmers migrated out of Egypt into all areas of Africa from around 2000BC
>>44944
Nordic countries usually have the most native don't they? The rest tends to be under 50%.
I believe the I Ydna is native European.
>>44973
language doesn't imply genetics. German Americans speak English, are they genetically British?
>>45024
There are three main ethnic groups who contributed to the european gene pool:
hunter gatherers, neolithic farmers and proto indo europeans.
Southern European countries have the most neolithic farmer blood while Nordic countries have more native european and indo european blood on average.
>>44978
Yeah it's odd. At some point they went back into Africa. Just look how high it is in west Africa.
The funny part to me is that that part of Africa has a hell of a lot of trouble and it's the part with the most, i suppose proto-European DNA. Which just shows racists are retarded
>>44855
Because trade does not cause a people to completely abandon its culture and language.
>>44870
Good post.
>>44889
Yes, and?
>>45024
What he meant is that most europeans are of "anatolian farmer" stock, especially in the south. Southern europe was peopled by middle eastern farmers prior to the indo european expansion.
now it's easier to hide now with no ID tags so you fags can sit here with your we wuz blonde and spout your pseudo eurasian aryan theories.
>>44806
So far your only evidence for your thesis of massive Iranian admixture with Turks and Arabs and God knows what other ethnic group you want to mongrelize is the map of R1a1. Which probably originated in India. Which means that the Indo-European migration according to you happened backwards. Of course, according to this, it obviously means that modern Iranians are not the same as ancient Iranians! Hell of an ass pull, I must say. Never mind any of the genetic evidence about Iranians you could have brought up, no. Slavs are linked with Indians, ergo Iranians are not white!
>you're persian, aren't you?
Well, since you're pressing so hard, no I'm actually Indian. Since you desperately want to make this personal, are you some pan-Arabist on a crusade against anything Iranian?
>>45058
To compare the very specific case of european migrants to America in the 19th and 20th century, to the spread of language in 2000 B.C. is absurd.
>>43325
A lot of them were before the fucking Turks came and ethnically cleansed them.
>>45137
Acculturation is a well-understood phenomenon. I'll use an historical example. The inhabitants of what would become England were not replaced by Anglo-Saxon migrants in the 5th-6th century, but they adopted the language and aspects of their material culture
>>45115
>So far your only evidence for your thesis of massive Iranian admixture with Turks and Arabs and God knows what other ethnic group you want to mongrelize is the map of R1a1
Also, the fact that Iran's population was decimated on numerous occasions. Lest I remind you that Iran's population fell to 200 000 after the mongol invasions...
>Which probably originated in India
It probably originated in Russia.
> Of course, according to this, it obviously means that modern Iranians are not the same as ancient Iranians! Hell of an ass pull, I must say. Never mind any of the genetic evidence about Iranians you could have brought up, no. Slavs are linked with Indians, ergo Iranians are not white!
At this point, you're babbling hysterically.
>Well, since you're pressing so hard, no I'm actually Indian.
[spoiler]So am I[/spoiler] Why the hard-on for proving that modern day persians are perfectly well preserved specimens of the original aryans?
>>45058
Your argument is fallacious. That is today not thousands of years ago. Today language is very unlikely to correlate to ethnic group.
In the past, it would have. Languages evolved amongst a certain people with a shared culture and genetics. Go for an obvious example, the language of the Australian abboriginies is clearly matched to their genetic group. It's their language, tied to their ethnicity. If by some miracle Abbos conquer Australia and all the whites start speaking abbo, then sure, it's no longer tied to an ethnic group, but originally it was. Like i said, languages don't appear from nowhere, they develop amongst an ethnic group.
>>45112
don't need theories, it's a scientific fact.
>>44978
> Ancient west Eurasian ancestry in southern and eastern Africa.
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24550290
> we also find evidence for two admixture events in the history of Kenyan, Tanzanian, and Ethiopian populations, the earlier of which involved populations related to west Eurasians and which we date to ~2,700-3,300 y ago. We reconstruct the allele frequencies of the putative west Eurasian population in eastern Africa and show that this population is a good proxy for the west Eurasian ancestry in southern Africa. The most parsimonious explanation for these findings is that west Eurasian ancestry entered southern Africa indirectly through eastern Africa.
>>45190
>The inhabitants of what would become England were not replaced by Anglo-Saxon migrants in the 5th-6th century, but they adopted the language and aspects of their material culture
They weren't replaced, but they mixed extensively. Around 1/3rd of the gene pool of modern day english people is anglo saxon in origin...
>>45190
Yet the Saxons were a genetically germanic people who spoke a germanic language.
>>45233
>They weren't replaced, but they mixed extensively. Around 1/3rd of the gene pool of modern day english people is anglo saxon in origin...
Source on this bullshit?
>>43614
>what is the caste system and why is it significant
>what is Sanskrit, and why is the Rig Veda significant
>>45257
Not him but there's meant to be about 500,000 Germanic migrants who moved over to England when there was only like 2 million Romano-Celts living there. The Saxons were definitely not just an invading ruling class, it was a full blown population movement.
>>44067
>warrior caste at the top
Actually, it's the priests on top.
>>45257
>Source on this bullshit?
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/18/genetic-study-30-percent-white-british-dna-german-ancestry
I honestly don't know why you have such a hard time believing that the indo-europeans mixed with the people they conquered. Is the gene pool of modern day americans mostly native american?
>>44719
>Honestly, how do you believe culture and language spread in 2000 B.C.? Trade? Stop being ridiculous.
Excuse me? Yes, its one of the ways in which language spread, even to this day. In the Indo-european case we are mainly refering to elite trade, meaning the trading of elite, status giving, and ritually meaningfull objects. Trade its not the only way though, the most important one is the adoption of a pastoralist way of life, specailly in the face of agricultural collapse, like the one that engulfed the Cucutenu-Tripolye culture in the lower Danube region, with IE speaking chiefs positioning themselves as patrons. Thus we have a model of elite spreading the language, culture and religious patterns of the IE from the steppe
Read David Anthony "The Horse, the Wheel and the Language"
>Yeah, I'm sure the dispersal of the R haplogroup is a complete coincidence...
Do you know of any archeological evidence that could sustain the large movement of population from the steppe, enough to replace agricultural civilizations?
>>44973
>Linguistic groups and ethnic groups go hand in hand but one has been conquered or assimilated. In the ancient world, if you spoke a language, then you were of the genetic group which that language evolved with. To claim that the original PIE speakers weren't PIE genetically is ridiculous. Did they just pick the language up from thin air?
You are talking IE or PIE? because original PIE speakers would have been genetically similar, as they would have been confined in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, but I'm talking about the IE language groups (Anatolian, Indo-Aryan, Greek, Albanian, Italo-Celtic, etc) Language doesnt come in the genes, there are many ways in which one could adopt another language. Aramaic speaking people from Mesopotamia werent genetically replaced by the original aramaic speaking pastoralist. Latin speaking Gauls weren't genetically replaced by the original Latin speaking Romans. Culture plays a central role in its spread.
A horse raising culture that probably came from the Steppe somewhere.
>Do they have any connection to modern Anglo-Saxons
Yes, of course. It's the same connection they have with all of their linguistic descendants.
If you're asking if the Angles or the Saxons are the one true descendants of the PIEs, then no, probably not.
>>44634
>little to no evidence for the "Aryan invasion" model
Sure, it's not like the Vedas exist or anything.
>>45313
500.000 really seems like an exaggeration
>>45325
I'm not the other guy
>>44655
faggot
>>45326
>Excuse me? Yes, its one of the ways in which language spread, even to this day
Give me a historical example, please. From 2000 B.C., preferably.
>Read David Anthony "The Horse, the Wheel and the Language"
Horribly outdated. Read current genetic studies.
>Do you know of any archeological evidence that could sustain the large movement of population from the steppe, enough to replace agricultural civilizations?
I'm not very proficient in archeology, but genes don't lie anon. Europeans have a huge indo-european admixture. They didn't get it through "trade".
>>45233
>Around 1/3rd of the gene pool of modern day english people is anglo saxon in origin
This does not mean that 1/3 of the population of the country moved over from the mainland during that period. That study was based on the Y chromosome and guess what? A smallish number of elite males will leave a disproportionately large genetic marker. Obviously there was some general settlement but not much.
>>45238
I didn't say they weren't.
>>45200
there are numerous examples throughout history. identity is very fluid, it's easy to overestimate the impact of genetics on how people see themselves.
>>45193
>Also, the fact that Iran's population was decimated on numerous occasions. Lest I remind you that Iran's population fell to 200 000 after the mongol invasions...
OK. OK. So where's the genetic evidence? Where's the evidence that modern Iranians are in fact not largely descended from the ancient population. And no, that R1a1 map that has fuck all to do with Iran is not evidence.
>It probably originated in Russia.
You're a special case, that's why I have to repeat myself.
"Until 2012, there was extensive scholarly debate as to the origins of haplogroup R1a1. Some researchers found that Indian, or more generally, South Asian populations, had the highest STR diversity.[1] Other studies variously proposed Eastern European, Central Asian and even Western Asian origins for the R1a1.[2]"
>At this point, you're babbling hysterically.
Makes sense, I was only summarizing you.
>Why the hard-on for proving that modern day persians are perfectly well preserved specimens of the original aryans?
Why the hard on for saying nonsense like an entire population was magically wiped and replaced with Arabs and Turks and chinks? Are you one of those people who think modern day Turks aren't mostly the same as Anatolians? The kind that thinks that invading armies have dicks so massive that they completely transform the gene pool of a large population in a few decades?
>>45259
What does that have to with blondes in ancient India?
>>45351
And in Europe? or Anatolia? 'cause the Vedas doesnt exist there. Any archeological evidence for that model?
>>45326
I'm talking about PIE and the PIE invaders. Once you start talking about Greek Celtic etc then they've already invaded, settled and become culturally distinct.
>Language doesnt come in the genes, there are many ways in which one could adopt another language. Aramaic speaking people from Mesopotamia werent genetically replaced by the original aramaic speaking pastoralist. Latin speaking Gauls weren't genetically replaced by the original Latin speaking Romans.
Yeah i fully get what you're saying but what im saying is that all those languages origins lie in a genetic group. The origin language. When you go further back in time, even to the time when conquest didn't happen and it was just hunter gatherers, this becomes a lot more important and common.
>>45452
I am speaking of the origin of the language. The PIE language developed amount genetically PIE people. I don't know why everyone is having a hard time understanding this.
>>45489
But you can't use language as a measure of the extent of a migration any more than you can use material culturre
>>45521
>The PIE language developed amount genetically PIE people
correct
but this does not mean all those who later came to speak an IE language are descended from PIE peoples.
>>45544
You can track the PIE migrations by language because it ties into their signature Y DNA, R
If it were just an osmosis of IE language then you would see Europeans speaking IE language with the original genetic stock, but we don't.
>>45351
>implying you know shit about what you're talking about
Battles in the Vedas almost always refer to internal conflicts, between the Aryan tribes. The Battle of the Ten Kings is an Aryan civil war of tribes vying for power in the Punjab and northwest India. Yes, Indra destroys the fortresses of the barbarians but these could easily refer to non-Vedic Iranian tribes. The mutual demonization that occurred during the Indo-Iranian split (Deva vs. Asura and their reversed Iranian counterparts) also points to conflicts within the Indo-Iranian tribes rather than an invasion of non-IE populations.
>>45452
>This does not mean that 1/3 of the population of the country moved over from the mainland during that period
I never implied that. At this point, you're shifting the goalposts.
Anglo-saxons left a big mark on the gene pool of Britain. That is all that there needs to be said.
>>45456
>OK. OK. So where's the genetic evidence?
R1a haplogroup map, which you refuse to acknowledge because it contradicts your ideology.
>You're a special case, that's why I have to repeat myself.
You do realize that your quote does not say that R1a originated in India, right? It says it's one of the possible regions where it could have originated.
>Makes sense, I was only summarizing you.
Well your summarizing skills suck.
>Why the hard on for saying nonsense like an entire population was magically wiped and replaced with Arabs and Turks and chinks?
Because I value historical accuracy over ideology. Do you also deny that the indian population was significantly changed following the aryan invasion in India? Do you also deny that the american population was significantly changed after european colonization?
>Are you one of those people who think modern day Turks aren't mostly the same as Anatolians?
Well Turks certainly impacted the anatolian gene pool. Probably less than in Iran though.
>The kind that thinks that invading armies have dicks so massive that they completely transform the gene pool of a large population in a few decades?
Not decades, we're talking centuries.
Let me ask you a question : has every single ethnic group in the world lived at exactly the same place for the past tens of thousands of years?
>>45583
Of course not, in the future the whole world will speak an IE language, English, it doesn't make them British.
But i think it's fairly obvious that Europe and India was physically invaded by PIE people, it's not just a spread of culture. And don't forget the Hindu texts basically document it.
>>45081
>hunter gatherers, neolithic farmers
Which one was Cro-Magnon man?
>>45675
>comparing the total genocide of the american antives who are now like less tha 1% of the usa population to the pie migration who mixed with the natives who still make up for most of the european people's genepool
>>45768
hunter gatherers
>>44067
It would be pretty remarkable if it was a peaceful migration, considering how all human societies are almost constantly engaged in warfare. If that is true, it sounds to me like the Aryans are actually an exceptionally wise and noble race. How do like the sound of that, liberals!
>>45774
The IE migration was basically what happened in Mexico.
>>42394
>Who were the Proto-Indo-Europeans?
Pic related.
>>45807
no, mexican people are mostly of european descent with like 1/4-1/3 of native blood, so basically the opposite of most european countries
>>45672
nice wiki research
>Indo-Iranian
lol
>>45839
Having seen mexicans i find that hard to believe. A lot of them are full blown jaguar men
I have a theory that the reason the mexican cartels are so gory and brutal is because the original mexican cultures linger on. Or it's in their genetics to be cunts like that.
>>45839
>no, mexican people are mostly of european descent with like 1/4-1/3 of native blood
Even mestizos? Anyways, my point still stands. Modern day europeans are mestizos between IEs, cromagnons and anatolian farmers.
>>45675
>R1a haplogroup map, which you refuse to acknowledge because it contradicts your ideology.
I've repeated myself many times on why that map is nonsensical when it comes to IE migrations, but you appear to love being a total retard.
>It says it's one of the possible regions where it could have originated.
Locations with the most genetic diversity of a marker are the most probably areas for where they originated. lrn2genetics. And linguistics too.
>Do you also deny that the indian population was significantly changed following the aryan invasion in India? Do you also deny that the american population was significantly changed after european colonization?
I deny that stupid comparison you just made. Are you for real?
>Not decades, we're talking centuries.
Still waiting on you giving some studies or citations from genetics corroborating your claims.
> has every single ethnic group in the world lived at exactly the same place for the past tens of thousands of years?
Of course not. Then why are you saying modern Indians are more IE than modern Iranians?
>>45774
>genocide of the american natives
sure, just forget the fact that nobody fucking knows how many natives lived in the Americas before the arrival of the Europeans and that their numbers were wrecked by disease in the years preceding European settlement.
>>45899
>Having seen mexicans
how many have you seen? I'm asking for a degree of precision cause it matters.
Are you aware of the differences between say Mexicans and perhaps Guatemalans or Brazilians?
>>45992
Well I've been there and i had a mexican girlfriend once. She was American i guess but both her parents were mexican and did not speak any english.
Yes of course im aware, I'm not retarded. Brazil is another country.
>>45675
>thinking haplogroup matter in indicating gnetical admixture
according to haplogroup maps sardinia would be mostly hunter gatherer while in reality hunter gatherer admixture is under <20% there
>>45475
>5 seconds on wikipedia
>The excavation of the Harappa, Mohenjo-daro and Lothal sites of the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) in the 1920,[31] showed that northern India already had an advanced culture when the Indo-Aryans migrated into the area. The theory changed from a migration of advanced Aryans towards a primitive aboriginal population to a migration of nomadic people into an advanced urban civilization, comparable to the Germanic migrations during the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, or the Kassite invasion of Babylonia.[32]
The difference in terms between migration and invasion is mostly aesthetic where people already live there.
>>45902
>I've repeated myself many times
Really? Must have missed that. From looking at your posts, your reaction to me posting the R1a haplogroup map was "I see. You're a moron." Is this what passes for an argument nowadays?
>Locations with the most genetic diversity of a marker are the most probably areas for where they originated
Possibly. It's not been concluded, and anyways it's irrelevant if it originated in India, in China or in fucking Greenland.
>I deny that stupid comparison you just made. Are you for real?
Well if you deny my arguments then I guess there's not much room for me to maneuver in. Anything I say you will block your ears and scream "LALALA" like a child throwing a tantrum.
>Still waiting on you giving some studies or citations from genetics corroborating your claims.
In case you missed it, I provided a map showing the distribution of the R1a haplogroup, which was spread by the aryans.
>Of course not. Then why are you saying modern Indians are more IE than modern Iranians?
Because modern indians have a higher admixture of IE dna.
I honestly don't understand why you're trying to minimize the aryan contribution to the indian gene pool. You're not one of those dirty dravidian nationalists, are you?
>>46089
This. Haplogroups are the Male or Female line of descent. It's great for tracking migrations but it doesn't always relate to overall genetic make up. You can be haplogroup R1a which is Indo-European but the rest of your genetics are of a black mans.
>>46089
Haplogroups can be misleading, sure, but when you're talking about population mixing through conquest they're rather accurate.
>>45445
>Give me a historical example, please. From 2000 B.C., preferably.
The spread of the IE languages itself is an evidence
>Horribly outdated. Read current genetic studies.
Horribly outdated? Give me a break, the book is from 2007, in which way it is outdated?. Which genetic studie are you refering to?
>I'm not very proficient in archeology, but genes don't lie anon. Europeans have a huge indo-european admixture. They didn't get it through "trade".
Archeology doesnt lie either, find me some proof of:
A) the pastoralist societies of the Pontic-Caspian steppe had a massive surplus population
B) These surplus replaced the autoctonous population of Europe, Central Asia, and North India
>>46113
>Indus Valley
Nice try, I've said in Europe and Anatolia.
>The difference in terms between migration and invasion is mostly aesthetic where people already live there.
The difference is that violent invasion and destruction shows in the archeological record as that, violent invasion and destruction. The "Aryan invasion" model speaks of military invasion and subjugation, that is what I was refering to.
>>46240
>The spread of the IE languages itself is an evidence
IE languages spread through conquest and mixing, you fucking moron.
>Horribly outdated? Give me a break, the book is from 2007, in which way it is outdated?. Which genetic studie are you refering to?
Reich's study on genetic admixture in modern day europeans, for instance. Genetics has made considerable progress since 2007.
>Archeology doesnt lie either,
>B) These surplus replaced the autoctonous population of Europe, Central Asia, and North India
The spread of the corded ware culture was due to the indo-european migration, for instance.
Also, the fact that between 20 and 60% of the modern european gene pool is fucking IE in origin.
>>46240
Aren't you two guys saying the same thing? That it was conquest.
>>46375
>20 and 60%
that's a huge overstimation
>>46528
prove it
>>43993
Where are the Russians?
>>46740
Russia, duh!
>>46375
>IE languages spread through conquest and mixing, you fucking moron.
First of all, no need to insult, when I do it, you do it, but that is unnecessary. Second, there is no evidence of pastoralist societies from the steppe militarily conquering the area of the Danube valley (which is closer to the PIE homeland), let alone all the way to Ireland.
>Reich's study on genetic admixture in modern day europeans, for instance. Genetics has made considerable progress since 2007.
But the David Anthony book is about archeology and linguistics, not much with genetics. Did you read it? How do you came to the conclusion that it is "horribly outdated"
Genetics without the archeological information is of little use.
>The spread of the corded ware culture was due to the indo-european migration, for instance.
The spread of corded ware pottery does not imply population movement, since pottery making patterns can be adopted, specially through a culture of elite-exchange (which existed in the Pontic Caspian steppe) and simply trade
>>46385
No, because he seems keen on the idea that the IE languages spread ONLY through military subjugation, and while I dont deny that there could have been some episodes of conquest, there is simply no evidence to say that ALL the IE languages where militarily imposed. Along with some episodes of raiding and conflict (especially on the borders of the steppe) another models of dispersals are not only usefull, but more probable (elite exchanging, IE patrons setting themselves above newly pastoralist peoples, the adoption of said pastoralist culture, et all)
>>46943
Read the chart. You can see the corded ware being more than 90% IE genetically speaking.
At this point, you're ignoring facts.
>>46114
A numbered list for your thick skull.
1. R1a1 most likely originated in India, because it is most diverse in South Asia.
2. So the IE genetic migration happened out of India towards Europe.
3. This is in complete disagreement of the general modern consensus based on linguistic, cultural and archaeological evidence that IE expanded from somewhere in Eurasia in both east and west directions.
Therefore the map of R1a1 does not corroborate the hypothesis that it is evidence of IE migration because it does not agree with the vast evidence saying that the migration happened the other way.
>anyways it's irrelevant if it originated in India, in China or in fucking Greenland.
How is it irrelevant? Are you being deliberately stupid at this point? Would you say it's irrelevant if tomorrow a study turned up saying that a previously thought autochthonous African haplogroup was found to originate in North America?
>Well if you deny my arguments then I guess there's not much room for me to maneuver in. Anything I say you will block your ears and scream "LALALA" like a child throwing a tantrum.
Nah, that's just you. Except replace "LALALA" with "R1A1 MAP R1A1 MAP"
>I provided a map showing the distribution of the R1a haplogroup, which was spread by the aryans.
Is that it? No journal articles, no scientific studies about genetic sampling done on the Iranian population? No evidence at all apart from one picture? Can you refute the fact that R1a1-Z93 which is common in Iran is also common in bodies found with the Sintashta culture, which is one of the archaeological candidates for an early expnading IE culture? But I'm sure you can, you'll just post the R1a1 map again!
>>46114
>>47029
>I honestly don't understand why you're trying to minimize the aryan contribution to the indian gene pool.
Wait, are YOU one of those Hindutva "we wuz Aryan n sheet" people? Calling others Persians and Dravidians while screaming that Vedic culture is trillions of years old and had nukes? Makes sense that you're also pushing the Out of India theory as well. चूतिया।
>>46943
I think it's pretty obvious that the primary method that it spread was through migrations. The military aspect is just a natural consequence of walking into another land.
Culture and language does not become as dominant as IE is through any other method than subjugation and ruling. Trade and bordering each other simply doesn't cause one language to dominate another.
The fact of the matter is that it's genetically proven that they did move in, in significant enough numbers to become a major sometimes dominant admixture in the modern genetics.
It's the same as Americans in the USA. That wasn't a military invasion of America by Europeans, it was a migration. Conflict just naturally occurs from that.
>>47041
>lol ad hominem
I'm not even that guy, but they might've had nukes or some shit idk.
>>47029
Kek you're so butthurt.
>1. R1a1 most likely originated in India, because it is most diverse in South Asia.
Emphasis on most probably. No one knows.
>2. So the IE genetic migration happened out of India towards Europe.
Probably not.
>3. This is in complete disagreement of the general modern consensus based on linguistic, cultural and archaeological evidence that IE expanded from somewhere in Eurasia in both east and west directions.
Hence why R1a probably didn't originate in India.
>Therefore the map of R1a1 does not corroborate the hypothesis that it is evidence of IE migration because it does not agree with the vast evidence saying that the migration happened the other way.
Yes it does, as you can see by the high admixture of R1a in eastern europe. Might wanna get your eyes checked.
>How is it irrelevant?
The conclusion would be the same : indians and europeans have more indo-european admixture than persians.
>Would you say it's irrelevant if tomorrow a study turned up saying that a previously thought autochthonous African haplogroup was found to originate in North America?
Not even comparable. It would be irrelevant if it was found that the han chinese originated in SEA and migrated north, rather than originated in Mongolia and migrated south.
>Nah, that's just you. Except replace "LALALA" with "R1A1 MAP R1A1 MAP"
I'm going to continue referring to it. Just because you deny its validity doesn't mean that it isn't valid.
>Is that it? No journal articles, no scientific studies about genetic sampling done on the Iranian population?
I'm sure you can find those on your own.
>>47041
Tam brahm mustard race. I don't believe Vedic culture to be trillions of years old. I do belive that vedic culture originated from the indo-european migration.
>>43023
The first people to mutate the blue eyes gene lived to the north of the Black sea and anthropologists call them Yamnaya(Pit grave). Their expansion to the West resulted in the creation of the Corded-Ware culture.
>>47221
Can you refute the fact that R1a1-Z93 which is common in Iran is also common in bodies found with the Sintashta culture, which is one of the archaeological candidates for an early expnading IE culture?
>>47029
When did R1a1 originate?
>>47061
All of which is speculation, because there's hardly archeological evidence for that military conquest, which as I've said, show in the archeo record. Pastoralist cultures does not generate the surplus population needed to replace agricultural, river valley populations, and the spread of pottery tipes cannot be used to explain pop movements, since those are cultural patterns that can be adopted.
>>47002
>But the David Anthony book is about archeology and linguistics, not much with genetics. Did you read it? How do you came to the conclusion that it is "horribly outdated"
could you answer me this please?
>>47248
false, ancient europeans hunter gatherers already developed blue eyes
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/europeans-had-dark-skin-blue-eyes-7-000-years-ago-1.2512465
>>47280
>Can you refute the fact that R1a1-Z93 which is common in Iran
Post proofs.
>>47315
No, I didn't read it. I was advised that it was outdated.
You might say "ha! Then how can you criticize it??", but honestly, based on the way which you completely ignore the genetic evidence of the IE expansion, you're only reinforcing my prejudice against that book.
>>47317
another one but I can't post the link ebcause this shit site identifies it as spam
Ancient DNA has been retrieved from another Mesolithic hunter-gatherer, who is dated to 7,000 years ago and comes from La Braña-Arintero, Spain. We again see a strange combination of dark skin and light eyes. If we look at the three genes that produce white skin, only one of them, TYRP1, had the derived ‘European’ allele. The other two had the ancestral allele. So this Mesolithic individual was a bit lighter-skinned than the one from Luxembourg, dated to 8,000 BP, who had ancestral alleles at all three loci:
Media reports describe the two Mesolithic individuals from Spain and Luxembourg as blue-eyed, although this is not what either study actually found. All we know is that their eyes were not brown. They had blue, gray, hazel, or green eyes:
>>47398
>Post proofs.
I'm sure you can find those on your own :^)
>>47398
>No, I didn't read it. I was advised that it was outdated.
By who? Did he said "outdated" in an specific field? Because like I said, the books is about linguistics and archeology, not much about genetics.
>You might say "ha! Then how can you criticize it??", but honestly, based on the way which you completely ignore the genetic evidence of the IE expansion, you're only reinforcing my prejudice against that book.
Then you should read it and see for yourself, instead of letting anons on the internet shape your opinion of a book you didnt read. Maybe you are in a better postition to better understand the theory, since I'm not familiar at all with genetic studies
>>47584
I couldn't actually.
Anyways, if I posted proofs you'd just deny them like you denied that R1a map, so what's the point?
>>47619
>Because like I said, the books is about linguistics and archeology, not much about genetics.
And that's the problem. This would be like analyzing the shift in culture in North America from the 1600s to today while ignoring the shift in ethnicity.
>>47629
>I couldn't actually.
You can't Google? Sad.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=21698
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml#Indo-Iranian
>Anyways, if I posted proofs you'd just deny them like you denied that R1a map, so what's the point?
Cute cop out. Do you always do this?
>>47317
Kurgan culture is older than 10,000 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypothesis#Yamna_culture
>>47678
Not a comparable situation in any way, but alright do what you want. I think its your loss if you only cling to genetic studies.
>>47866
You do realize that none of your sources contain the string of characters "R1a1-Z93", right?
I'm done. You're beyond retarded at this point.
>>47927
>Bronze and Iron age Kurgen people (most likely spoke Indo Iranian branch of Indo European) had pale skin, and majority light eyes and hair
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?96539-Indo-Iranian-and-Tocheiran-DNA
>>44634
Are you a communist? Of course there is evidence of invasion, it just doesn't fit the political interests of the leftist academia to investigate it further.
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433
The Maykop and Yamna are the best guesses so far.
>>48062
Predicted eyecolor based on a dna sample from the remains of a man from Yamna culture.
>>47954
>You're beyond retarded at this point.
Nope, just you. Typical Madrassi; speaks a Dravidian language yet claims that he's pure Aryan.
>>45109
>Because trade does not cause a people to completely abandon its culture and language.
You don't understand man, it's not only trade. The past was all about different peoples getting together in a spirit of sharing to teach each other their arts, their crafts, their languages, their values, their hopes, their dreams, that's how Indo-European languages expanded, it was only capitalism and class division that invented war, but thanks communism is here to teach us how to defeat that.
>that's what leftists actually believe
>>48062
Autosomal breakdown and haplogroups of individuals from Yamna and Bell Beaker cultures.
>>48062
Autosomal breakdown of the so called Sok river remains from Lebyazhinka IV site.
>>44889
>>44802
The oldest ever tested ydna R is from the Mal'ta site in northern Mongolia. The carrier was around half way caucasian and half way native american, only with a slight affinity towards the amerindian side.
>>47029
>R1a1 originated in India because it is most diverse
Yeah nah mate, incidence of mutation rate is a function of both population and time, the statement that R1a1 comes from india requires a migration wave that starts in india and ends up in europe, which we dont have.
>>48510
>>43614
Aren't Indians mixed? Even before the Aryans came in.
