quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: And it makes sense, this is a huge and gigantic region, the size of the continental USA, and has lots and lots of space for horses to travel throughout, which "Indo-european" Whites were the first to domesticate.....
Whites were not the first to domesticate the horse. Whites adopted horses after they met the Kushites in Anatolia.
The Hurrians spoke a non-IE language. Formerly, linguist suggested that the Hurrians were dominated by Indic speakers. Linguist of the IE languages were fond of this theory because some of the names for the earliest Indo-Aryan gods, chariots and horsemenship are found in Hurrian.
This made the Indo-Aryan domination of Hurrians good support for an Anatolia origin for the IE speakers. This theory held high regards until Bjarte Kaldhol studied 500 Hurrian names and found that only 5, were Indo-Aryan sounding. This made it clear that the IA people probably learned horsemenship from the Hurrians, a Kushite ethnic group, not the other way around.
.
. At the base of Nesite, the language of the Hittites is Hattic. Since this language was used as a lingua franca, Nesa was probably not an IE language as assumed by IE linguist. This along with the fact that Diakonoff and Kohl never defeated the Kaska; and the Hurrians introduced horse-drawn war chariots for military purposes indicate that Anatolia probably was not a homeland for the IE speakers.
The Dravidian language is especially close to Tocharian A (TA). It would appear that Tocharian B (TB) has been greatly influenced by the Indo European languages. For example, there is labialization of labiovelars before voiceless consonants in TB.
In TA on the otherhand there are few traces of an earlier distinction between labiovelars and velar plus *w, clusters. For example:
Horse: TB yakwe, Old English eoh, Latin equus > *yakwe PIE *ekwos, Sanskrit asvas, Old Irish ech, TA yuk
Dravidian speaking people probably introduced the horse and chariots to Central Asia. In Mongolian the term for ‘cart’ is terga, this corresponds to Ta. Teer ‘car, chariot’, Ka. teer(u) ‘chariot’ .
The terms used for horse in Central Asia agree with Dravidian terms. This is interesting because it has affinity to Dravidian and Mongolian words for horse including:
Buryat (Mongolian) guun, gu ‘mare’ Tamil: kutirai, Karutai Ka. Karte ‘horse’, Proto-Nilotic *tike:ri donkey Hausa kutur, Kuturi ‘hindquarters of a horse or domkey’ Telugu: gurramu, gadide ‘horse’; Hausa doki , goodiya; Kanuri koś Kol: gurramu Tocharian A yu horse ; Mande wolu Tamil ivuli id. Bambara b’lu, wolo Brahui hulli id. Nubian unde Telugu payyoli id.
. Many researchers may dispute the affinity between Dravidian Ø ivuli # and Tocharian A Ø yuk # 'horse'. Yet the identification of Tocharian A yuk, to Dravidian is much more supportable than the PIE root for horse. This results from the fact that there are five different Proto Indo European (PIE) roots for horse. This multitude of PIE roots for horse makes these terms inconclusive for the PIE lexicon.They also support the view that the horse was not domesticated by the Indo-Europeans.
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: And it makes sense, this is a huge and gigantic region, the size of the continental USA, and has lots and lots of space for horses to travel throughout, which "Indo-european" Whites were the first to domesticate.....
Whites were not the first to domesticate the horse. Whites adopted horses after they met the Kushites in Anatolia.
The Hurrians spoke a non-IE language. Formerly, linguist suggested that the Hurrians were dominated by Indic speakers. Linguist of the IE languages were fond of this theory because some of the names for the earliest Indo-Aryan gods, chariots and horsemenship are found in Hurrian.
This made the Indo-Aryan domination of Hurrians good support for an Anatolia origin for the IE speakers. This theory held high regards until Bjarte Kaldhol studied 500 Hurrian names and found that only 5, were Indo-Aryan sounding. This made it clear that the IA people probably learned horsemenship from the Hurrians, a Kushite ethnic group, not the other way around.
.
. At the base of Nesite, the language of the Hittites is Hattic. Since this language was used as a lingua franca, Nesa was probably not an IE language as assumed by IE linguist. This along with the fact that Diakonoff and Kohl never defeated the Kaska; and the Hurrians introduced horse-drawn war chariots for military purposes indicate that Anatolia probably was not a homeland for the IE speakers.
I am sorry but Anatolian origin of the IE speakers has been debunked and refuted already:
quote: The ancient DNA case against the Anatolian hypothesis
In the debate over the location of the Proto-Indo-European urheimat, Colin Renfrew's Anatolian hypothesis is usually mentioned as the most viable alternative to the steppe or Kurgan hypothesis. But probably not for very much longer.
Below is a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) featuring extant Indo-European and non-Indo-European groups from West Eurasia, a couple of typical early Neolithic farmers from Central Europe, a typical Western Hunter-Gatherer, also from Central Europe, and the Iceman from the Copper Age Tyrolean Alps, again typical of his time and place.*
It's just a taste of the ancient genomic data we have available from prehistoric Europe, but it has almost everything that is pertinent to the issue at hand.
You don't need to be familiar with PCA methodology to be able to read the plot. Basically, it shows that the present-day European population structure is the result of two main events:
- the arrival of early farmers from Anatolia during the Neolithic transition, which eventually caused the extinction of people like the Western Hunter-Gatherer, who is the most obvious outlier on the plot
- the expansion of Kurgan groups such as the Yamnaya, which led to the formation of the Corded Ware horizon across much of Europe and shifted the genetic structure of almost all Europeans to the east, away from the Neolithic and Copper Age samples.
These were massive population turnovers, and, as a rule, massive population turnovers are accompanied by language change. So it's highly unlikely that any Europeans today are speaking languages derived from those of the Western Hunter-Gatherers or early Neolithic farmers of Central Europe (ie. according to Renfrew the ancestors of Celts, Germanics and other Indo-Europeans). Moreover, consider this:
- most present-day Indo-European speaking Europeans form an elongated cluster between the Neolithic farmers and the Corded Ware sample, pointing to the steppe-derived Corded Ware Culture as the proximate agent of the Indo-European expansion in much of Europe
- the only present-day Europeans who closely resemble Neolithic farmers are some Sardinians (the small Romance cluster just above the two Neolithic samples), but Sardinians spoke Paleo-Sardinian or Nuragic languages until they adopted Indo-European speech, in the form of Latin, from the Romans (see page 118 here).
Also, this isn't shown on the plot, but the dominant Y-chromosome haplogroup of early Neolithic farmers is G2a, which is a low frequency marker in Europe today. The two most common Y-chromosome haplogroups among present-day Europeans are R-M198 and R-M269, which are also typical of Corded Ware and Yamnaya males, respectively, and probably originally from the steppe.
So is there any way to rework the Anatolian hypothesis so that it can be salvaged? I doubt it. Even making the steppe a homeland for all of the main Indo-European branches apart from Anatolian and Armenian probably won't help.
It is true that the Yamnaya nomads carried Near Eastern-related ancestry which may represent Proto-Indo-European admixture from outside of the steppe. But there's no evidence that it came from Anatolia.
In fact, if Neolithic Anatolians were basically identical to early Neolithic European farmers, which seems to be the case (see here and here), then it's unlikely that it did, because the latter carried a peculiar genome-wide signal that is missing in Yamnaya genomes (orange cluster in the ADMIXTURE bar graph below).** Heck, even the early Corded Ware genomes from Germany barely show any of it.
I won't go into the linguistics arguments here why the Anatolian hypothesis is implausible. But it might be worth checking out a new book on the topic by linguists Asya Pereltsvaig and Martin W. Lewis: The Indo-European Controversy: Facts and Fallacies in Historical Linguistics. I haven't read it yet, so I welcome the opinions here of those who have. I did, however, read a lot of the online articles on which the book is based. As far as I know most of them are still available here and here.
*Another version of the same PCA, with the samples labeled individually, is available here. All possible combinations of dimensions 1 to 4 are shown here. The samples are listed here. All of the samples are from Haak et al. and Allentoft et al. The PCA was run using ~56K high confidence SNPs listed here.
The Corded Ware sample is a composite of Corded Ware sequences from Germany, Scandinavia, Estonia and Poland. The Yamnaya sample is a composite of Yamnaya sequences from the Kalmykia and Samara regions of Russia.
I chose to use these composites instead of individual sequences because I didn't want to run any samples with genotype rates of less than 98%.
** For a more detailed ADMIXTURE analysis comparing early Neolithic farmers to Yamnaya refer to Haak et al. Supplementary Information 6. Note the minimal sharing of components at the higher K between the early Neolithic farmers and Yamnaya, especially at K=16, which has the lowest median cross-validation (CV) error. This is in agreement with the PCA above.
quote: Why the Anatolian hypothesis is wrong There is a breakdown on John Hawks' blog of a recent paper in Science about the Indo-European expansion. Using a method derived from epidemiology, the authors reached the conclusion that Proto-Indo-European was spoken in Anatolia.
This is the Anatolian hypothesis, that Indo-European languages spread after agriculture was introduced to what is now Turkey, with the expansion dating to some point in the last 10,000 years, perhaps around 6000 BCE.
The method used in the paper is based on a statistical analysis of cognate terms in Indo-European languages, which is not a usual method in historical linguistics. Linguists have experimented with statistical methods in the past, and they have rejected most of them in favour of rigorous analysis of languages. Unless the sample is chosen judiciously, statistical methods are useless. And it's important to remember that historical linguists and archaeologists have other methods, methods with a proven utility.
Among those methods is the Wörter und Sachen method, which involves examining the objects found in archaeological investigations and then seeing how they fit together with a reconstructed language. If you find evidence of wheeled vehicles at a site, and your proto-language has a reconstructed term for wheels, axles, or carts, then there is the possibility that the speakers of the language were also the people who lived at the site. The more reconstructed terms there are for things at a site, the better the case is that the speakers were also the inhabitants.
Proto-Indo-European has terms for all aspects of wool production. It has words for a variety of domesticated animals as used by pastoralists, and its terms of 'wealth' are related to pastoralism. It has words indicating a tribal social structure based around clans with patrilineally-descended heads. All of these things correlate best with a pastoral society inhabiting the steppe, and not with an agricultural economy as the Anatolian hypothesis would predict.
The wool terminology in particular makes no sense if the Anatolian hypothesis is assumed; it is a necessary feature of the Anatolian hypothesis that the expansion, into Europe at least, took place about 8,000 years or so ago, but wool sheep are only found archaeologically from about 4000-3500 BCE. Why would Indo-European languages share words for wool and woollen technologies if the speakers of the proto-language knew nothing about wool because wool sheep literally did not exist at that point?
This is a slightly weak argument, because the reconstructed term, *HwlHn-, could possibly have referred to the short undercoat of sheep. That seems unlikely, but it's technically possible, and so the wool evidence is just one part of the case for a steppe origin.
Proto-Indo-European has a lot of reconstructed words for wheeled vehicles. The earliest wheeled vehicles are found in the Caucasus and on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, not Anatolia, and this vocabulary is most lacking in Hittite, one of the few Indo-European languages actually found in Anatolia. The Hittites were a literate civilization of the mid-to-late second millennium BCE (c. 1400 BCE), and a major power in the Near East.
They were, alongside the Luwians, some of the only Indo-European speakers in the area, which was dominated by non-Indo-European speakers (perhaps an indication that Indo-European speakers came from elsewhere), including the Hattians - the people who gave the Hittites their popular name. The Hittites were famous for using chariots, and they used them to dominate their neighbours, even defeating Egypt under Riʻmīsisu II (Ramesses) at the battle of Kadesh in the 13th century BCE.
But there's something interesting about the Hittite use of chariots: it was clearly introduced from elsewhere, and the people who introduced it spoke Indo-European languages. A chariot manual by a man named Kikkuli, in the Mitanni empire - a Hurrian-speaking empire in what is now Syria - was written almost entirely in Hittite, except for the words for the chariot terminology itself. This terminology, incredibly, was in a language whose closest relation was actually Sanskrit. That makes this manual, and other Mitanni texts, the earliest written attestation of an Indic language anywhere in the world, and it comes from Syria. Quite amazing.
So where did these Indic speakers, who introduced chariots into the Near East, come from? Archaeological evidence shows the earliest use of chariots to be on the Eurasian steppe around the second millennium BCE. The remains are clearly related to those found further west on the steppe as well, and the archaeological cultures related to the emergence of charioteering were steppe pastoralists and metallurgists. These remains, found for instance at a site called Sintashta in modern Russia, are believed to be associated with speakers of Indo-Iranian, the proto-language from which the languages of Persia and India descend.
This identification is particularly secure for a number of reasons. One is that sites like Sintashta show evidence of activities, including ritual and warfare, that correlate perfectly with Indic texts like the Rig Veda. The Rig Veda is a set of over a thousand hymns in Vedic Sanskrit, an archaic form of the language. The hymns describe rituals of all kinds, including especially funerary rituals, and these expositions in the Vedas correlate perfectly with the evidence found at Sintashta and other similar sites.
For instance, Vedic funerals were accompanied by funerary games including chariot races. In these races the chariots would turn left. Not only are chariots found in southern Russia from the right time period (including the earliest known in the world), but the evidence also shows a curious feature: bits for horses that are asymmetrical. The right side of the bit is larger than the left, indicating a consistent preference for turning left!
There's much more evidence than that - especially the fact that most Iranian languages were found in western Central Asia and southern Russia before the Turkic and Slavic expansions, and the fact that the Aryan migrations into India appear on the basis of archaeological evidence to have come from the northwest, and the fact that Iranian migrations into what is now Iran (and was once Elam and Babylon) began in the east. Had the Iranic peoples come from Anatolia, they would surely have attacked the neo-Babylonian empire from the west, instead of taking it under Kurush in the sixth century BCE from a base in modern Fars province, Iran.
In the Science article, there's a map (you can see it on John Hawks' blog) of the distribution of the Indo-European languages, showing the centre of distribution to be in Anatolia, but this is quite wrong; extinct Iranian languages are missed off the map, and they are known to have been spoken in what is now Russia (the Pontic-Caspian steppe) into historical times.
Alan (which became the modern language of Ossetian spoken in the Caucasus), Scytho-Sarmatian - these were Iranic languages spoken on the steppe by pastoralists in historical times. Bactrian was an Iranic language spoken in Central Asia, in what is now Turkic-speaking territory. They are left off the map and the analysis because they are poorly known, but they were certainly spoken on the steppe and they were certainly Iranic.
This is an impossible distribution if you take the Anatolian hypothesis to be true, and they'd also mess up the map if they were placed on it - in fact, they'd distort it completely. If you look at the map provided, it shows a neat distribution of Indo-Iranian east of Anatolia in a neat bubble, implying that Indo-Iranian simply moved east. But that is not the present, and certainly not the past, distribution of Indo-Iranian languages, and it equally certainly fails to represent the actual propagation of those languages in Eurasia.
The homeland of Iranic and Indic languages was in the steppe north of the Caspian sea; that makes most sense of the archaeological and linguistic evidence from all fronts.
The archaeological cultures of the Indo-Iranians show clear continuity with archaeological cultures to their west on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, indicating that they came from further west, and they clearly displaced other groups who had previously resided there. These Pontic-Caspian archaeological cultures show a perfect correlation with the terminology of reconstructed Proto-Indo-European as well.
Looking at it as if Indo-European languages came from Anatolia doesn't make sense of these facts. So instead we should ask, how did Indo-European languages end up in Anatolia? How did Hittite come to be spoken there?
Hittite is an archaic Indo-European language that preserved several features lacking in all other Indo-European sub-families, and at first sight this gives some reason for believing in the Anatolian hypothesis. But actually it doesn't, and the much more plausible view is that the Hittites and Luwians entered Anatolian from west of the Black Sea earlier than the formulation of 'classical' Proto-Indo-European.
The ancestors of the Hittites spoke what is called 'pre-Proto-Indo-European'; the language that became Hittite in Anatolia, after isolation from other Indo-European speakers and contact with non-Indo-Europeans, and Proto-Indo-European on the steppe after linguistic and technological innovations. The reason Hittite preserves archaic features is because it doesn't descend from Proto-Indo-European at all, but rather from the language that became Proto-Indo-European.
This also correlates with the archaeological evidence, which shows a quick migration from the steppes through the country west of the Black Sea and south towards Greece and Asia Minor at the expected time of the propagation of pre-Proto-Indo-European.
Another piece of very good evidence for a steppe homeland for Indo-European comes from the unrelated Uralic languages. Finnish, Hungarian, and Saami are modern Uralic languages found in Europe, and others are to be found further east, including Mordvin and Mari, spoken in Russia. Here is a map showing the present distribution of Uralic languages; they are all to the north of the Black and Caspian Seas, and the geographic centre of distribution is in the Ural mountains, likely on the European side. That is where the Uralic homeland seems to have been.
Here's how this links to Indo-European studies: Proto-Uralic shows the presence of loanwords from Proto-Indo-European. This has been known for some time. The loans are documented in The Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture (Mallory and Adams 1997), as well as David Anthony's brilliant book, The Horse, The Wheel, and Language, which is more recent. They aren't loans from living Indo-European languages into living Uralic languages, but loans from Proto-Indo-European into Proto-Uralic, at a very early period. There is also considerable evidence that a later form of Uralic was in contact with speakers of Indo-Aryan languages, as several Indo-Aryan loanwords have been discovered.
What this means is that Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic were spoken in adjacent areas, and that their speakers were in contact with one another for a sustained period. Proto-Uralic was not spoken in Anatolia, but on the European side of the Ural mountains, adjacent to the Pontic-Caspian steppe, again indicating that Proto-Indo-European was spoken there as well.
I'm not going to go into the rest of the evidence, but needless to say, there's a lot of it. But here's a final point. If the Anatolian hypothesis were actually correct, and Indo-European languages came from Anatolia and not the steppe, then who were those people on the steppe whose archaeological cultures correlate so closely with Indo-European material? Where did they go? Why do we not have evidence of another major language family spreading from the western Pontic-Caspian steppe around 3000 BCE?
In the paper, it is suggested that the steppe hypothesis is possible - after the Anatolian migration had done its work. That is really a little mad. What it claims is that Indo-European expanded into Europe as a result of the introduction of agriculture into Anatolia from the Near East 8,000 years or so ago. Agriculture allowed the Indo-Europeans to migrate, grow large populations, and dominate Europe. That's the Anatolian hypothesis so far.
But then it is necessary to believe that these ardent agriculturalists, people for whom agriculture must have been incredibly important, abandoned agriculture entirely, entered the steppe (without leaving archaeological remains of having done so), became pastoralists, relied on wild foods like Chenopodium for their carbohydrate intake, took to wagons, herded cattle, and then spread across the Eurasian steppe. And, somehow, the peoples of Europe shared their cultural, religious, and linguistic innovations, including the importance of cattle, horses, oaths, sky deities, and youthful tribal warfare. That isn't parsimonious, and it relies solely on the statistical study showing that the Anatolian branch retained the largest number of common cognates - which is already consistent with the idea that Hittite descends from the pre-Proto-Indo-European that came off the steppe before Proto-Indo-European as we know it had formed.
So here is the picture presented by archaeology and linguistics: speakers of pre-Proto-Indo-European originated on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, north of the Black Sea, around the fifth millennium BCE. Some of these speakers migrated west, passing through and attacking the towns of the Cucuteni-Tripolye archaeological culture.
They passed to the south and turned east, eventually ending up in Anatolia, where the pre-Proto-Indo-European language diverged into Hittite and Luwian. These people were in contact with speakers of lots of other language families, and they were also in contact with other groups in the Near East.
The Hittites were migrants into Anatolia, which partially explains why their lives were completely different to those of other Indo-European groups, and why they absorbed and adopted the traits of non-Indo-European native Anatolian groups, like the Hurrians.
The rest of the speakers of pre-Proto-Indo-European stayed just where they were, developing a strongly pastoral economy based on large herds of cattle herded with the aid of wagons and domesticated horses. They were in contact with speakers of Proto-Uralic and probably Kartvelian, and the pre-Proto-Indo-European language became what we know as Proto-Indo-European. The speakers of this language, associated with the Yamnaya archaeological culture, spread in several directions: to the east went wagon-riding pastoralists whose remains show continuity with the Tocharian (Indo-European-speaking) peoples of western China. Also in that direction went people with similar cultural traits whose languages became Indo-Iranian. They centred north of the Caspian sea before some of them migrated south, east of the Caspian, through the cities of Central Asia and the Indus. To the west of the Pontic steppe went speakers of Proto-Indo-European whose languages diverged to form Balto-Slavic (dominant throughout the area north of the Black Sea and up to the Baltic in early historic and prehistoric times), Italo-Celtic, Germanic, and other subgroups of Indo-European.
That is the model that makes most sense of the data. The Anatolian hypothesis makes sense of very little of it, and I don't think any single study of any sub-group of Indo-European languages will ever override the combined evidence of archaeology and linguistics. The phylogeographic model may work well for modelling language families, but it also has to take account of other evidence, and also of extinct languages. The studies in Science do not do this, and the Anatolian hypothesis is simply not correct.
The Anatolian hypothesis is pure outdated junk science and conjecture at this point with all the DNA and historical and evidence gathered so far.
And when I refer to "horses" I am not talking about the supposed African horses in Northern Africa, I talking about EURASIAN HORSES FROM THE STEPPES OF SIBERIA AND CENTRAL ASIA, WHICH WERE LARGER AND A DIFFERENT BREED THEN NEAR-EASTERN AND AFRICAN/ARABIAN ONES, AND WHICH HELPED A LOT OF WHITE EURASIAN TRIBES TAKE OVER TERRITORIES!
There is also the fact that the people who spread agriculture and farming to Europe during the Neolithic, CAME AND PASSED THROUGH ANATOLIA FROM THE SOUTH-WEST ASIA AREA!
So if we are to follow the Anatolian hypothesis, it would mean and indicate that farming and agriculture would also spread to the Eurasian steppe region at around the same time as when farming started there, as far as Siberia; which again THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE OF, HISTORICALLY OR ARCHAEOLOGICALLY WISE, IN CENTRAL ASIA AND SIBERIA WHERE WHITE EURASIAN PEOPLES/INDO-EUROPEANS ORIGINATED FROM!
THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE OF WHITE INDO-EUROPEANS/WHITE EURASIANS PRACTICING FORMAL AGRICULTURE AND FARMING AS SEEN IN THE NEAR EAST-FERTILE CRESCENT-AFRICA-SOUTH ASIA-SOUTHERN CHINA AREA, ZERO!
WHITE INDO-EUROPEAN TRIBES WERE NOT KNOWN OR EVEN RECORDED OF PRACTICING FARMING OR AGRICULTURE AS SEEN IN EARLY CIVILIZATIONS! THEY WERE ALL BARBARIC HORSE NOMADS WHO RAIDED, PILLAGED, LOOTED AND TOOK OVER PLACES LIKE LAND PIRATES AND WHO HAD A NOMADIC NON-SEDENTARY LIFESTYLE, WHICH IS A CLEAR INDICATION THAT THEY DID NOT PRACTICE FORMAL FARMING AND AGRICULTURE OR HAD SETTLED CIVILIZATIONS THAT WERE RELIANT ON FARMING OR AGRICULTURE!
And there is no archaeological or genetic or historical evidence of White Eurasians practicing or even discovering or starting farming in Eurasia either; no written testimony or accounts by outside parties who witnessed Ancient White Eurasian tribes! This is the big dent and hole in the Anatolian hypothesis theory that refutes the Anatolian origin theory all together!
And the Horse originated from North America, like the Camel, and migrated across a bridge to Eurasia proper and spread throughout according to current science. So it makes sense that the Eurasian horse was domesticated by early White Eurasians who migrated to Central Asia and Siberia thousands of years ago.
Also I don't trust pure linguistic evidence as proof of racial markers and categories at this very early point in history.
The supposed Indo-European languages was basically the microsoft of the BC period, where many peoples, both white and non-white spoke it on the silk road routes and in Eurasia, just like there are so many IE language speakers in Southern Asia and in predominantly non-white countries today; which negates the IE language speaker=racially white claim. I mean there are many speakers of English in Jamaica today, but does that make them White Anglo-saxons?
No it doesn't, The IE language should not be used as pure racial marker categories, but should be seen a as shared cultural linguistic social internet matrix of Eurasia at the time, which by all evidence, it was.
And of course Mike has questioned and debunked the whole idea of a people named the Hittites and the false idea of them actually existing let alone being an actual people or singular ethnic group.
Posts: 1558 | From: US | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another account from the same European white guy researcher blog I mentioned with the pictures of White looking Eurasian Chinese pictures, confirming that White Eurasians came from Asia and that Central Asia was the "Middle Earth", referred to in Scandinavian mythology.
quote: The Icelandic saga writer Snorre Sturlason told, that the Aesirs came from Asia. He called them "the Asia Men". Snorre lived hundreds of years closer to the actual events, than we do, and especially he lived before, the Christian tradition turned all history prior to Christianity into some unimportant, outdated pagan stories. Many traditional oral stories and manuscripts must surely have been lost in the early Christian period. In the time of Snorre and Saxo, the traditional stories, handed down from our ancestors, must have been much more alive.
So, why not believe them. They were serious men, who carefully wrote down, what they have been told.
Snorre wrote, that the Aesirs came from Asia. In Asia was, according to his Edda Saga, "Midle Earth" situated.
The Norman history writer, Dudo, wrote, that the Danes came from "Svitjod". He must have ment, the "Great Svitjod", now a days Russia and the endless steppes in the east.
The Danes, also called the Aesirs or the Asia-men, are known to have driven out the Heruls from their settlements in Scandinavia, or at least some of them. The Greek history writer, Prokopius, tells it.
The displaced Heruls went south to the Roman Empire and earned their bread there as mercenaries. Unfortunately, their king died without leaving any sons. Therefore they sent a deputation back to the old country in Scandinavia, where some Heruls still lived. They wanted to get a new king of their ancient and holy royal family.
In order to reach their relatives, the remaining Heruls, the deputation had to travel through the land of the Danes, that is their old country. At the time, before the Viking ships, the route up through Scandinavia probably have gone up through Jutland, crossing the narrow stream to Funen, crossing the bigger stream between Funen and Zealand and further on to Sweden and Norway.
Odense is the main town on the island of Funen. It is named after the god of the Aesirs, Odin, so it's very reasonable to assume, that it was on this island the Danes, also called the Aesirs, settled down, and that it was from here, the Heruls were displaced.
The Herulian deputation should therefore travel across Funen to go to the remaining Heruls, who then may have been living on Zealand or in Scania, or both.
In the History of the Langobards by Paul the Deacon is told about a Herul king named Rodulf, short of stature, who very much recalls Rolf Krake, a well known king of Zealand from Danish ancient history. And the legends about Rolf Krake and his royal family, called "Skjoldungerne" (it means something like "Shield Cubs"), are very closely connected to the island of Zealand and the city of "Lejre".
So it must with some probability has been like this, that the Herulian delegation travelled through Jutland and across Funen and then they came to an island, Zealand, which still was inhabited by their fellow Heruls, still ruled by kings of the old Herulian royal family.
In eastern Funen is a village called "Herrested". From the mediaval document, "Valdemars Jordebog", it is known, that it was before called "Herrul-sted". This means that the special thing about this place, in contrast to the rest of Funen, was that some Heruls still lived here.
The suffix "-sted" is most often linked to place names from 200 to 500 AC. If Heruls had been living everywhere on the island at this time, there would have been no reason to call a certain village "Herrul-sted". So we can assume, that the rest of the island was no longer populated by Heruls. The Danes, also called the Aesirs, had settled down on the island.
"Odense has been named after Odin."
They built a fortress in the middles of the island, which they called Odins-oye. It was named after the god, "Odin", and "-oye" meant "island", perhaps it was surrounded by the river for defence purpose.
The term Odins-oye were used by Snorre (see: Flemming Rickfors). Try to say "Odins-oye" 20 times in succession, and it will sound like "Odense", the modern main city of the island of Funen.
Snorre wrote, that "Vodin broke up from Turk-Land, and with him he had a large troop of old and young people, men and women, and with them they had many precious things. And everywhere, they travelled over the land; they were hold in high esteem. They seemed to be more like gods than like humans.
And they did not stop their journey, until they came to the north of the country, now named Sax-land. Here Odin dwelled for a long time and conquered to a great extend this land. Odin assigned three of his sons as rulers over this country. Vegdegg ruled East Saxland, Beldeg ruled Vestfal and Seggi ruled over Frakkland. "From all these great and many powerful families had come." Snorre wrote. He noted, that Veggdeg was the great-grandfather to Hejngest.
Assuming that it was this Hejngest, who was the Saxon king, who conquered England in 450 AC; That would imply, that Odin and his men may have come to the middle of Funen perhaps around 350 - 400AC. But this is all very uncertain, may be Snorre just meant, that Hejngest descended from Veggdeg.
"Waggon train of American settlers at Santa Fe."
Some may argue, that it is the most unrealistic theory, they have ever heard. Travelling from Asia to Scandinavia two thousand years ago, before the modern means of transport, it could not be done. It is too far and the terrain was too difficult.
But try to consider how the American settlers came from the Mississippi area to Oregon and California. They also travelled over long distances, through deserts and over mountains. The journey to Oregon could be done in three to six months. The settlers' technology was wagons with large wheels, drawn by mules or oxes.
This technology was in general also available for Dan of the Aesirs descent two thousand years ago. It was entirely possible to travel from the heart of Asia to Scandinavia in a reasonable short span of years.
Once again, WE HAVE A WHITE ALBINO EUROPEAN RESEARCHER AND BLOGGER, ADMITTING AND CONFIRMING WHAT PROFESSOR CHEIN HAS POSTULATED HERE! THAT IS THAT WHITE EURASIANS CAME FROM CENTRAL ASIA AND SIBERIA, AND THAT MODERN DAY WHITES HAD STORIES AND FOLKLORES CONFIRMING THAT THEY CAME FROM EURASIA AND ASIA PROPER INSTEAD OF ELSEWHERE!
The region of Central Asia and the Western China+westernmost side of Siberia is referred to as "middle Earth" in old Scandinavian folklores and stories. So professor Chein here is correct and is ideas are sound!Posts: 1558 | From: US | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged |
Modern humans and Neanderthals 'interbred in Europe'
22 June 2015 Between 6% and 9% of the Oase individual's genome is from Neanderthals - an unprecedented amount. By comparison, present-day Europeans have between 2% and 4%. Oase was probably not responsible for passing on Neanderthal ancestry to present-day Europeans. The analysis shows the man was more closely related to modern East Asians and Native Americans than to today's Europeans.
_________________
wow, maybe Mindovermatter does have a point
Posts: 43014 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: this, simply keeps adding support and credence to the fact; that the alternative posited hypothesis of the place that the Indo-European whites settled when they arrived to Eurasia, must have been in a region that encompassed BOTH Siberia and the Eastern portions of Central Asia!
Do you think the story of Big Foot testifies to this history/ hypotheses?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: modern Europeans are a mix of people wake the f up.
This is indeed what the study says, posted by you, when you cited Mike.
The received admixture via bottleneck occurrence, from preceding populations. The in contrast with Chien's analyses makes it inevitable and the ultimate truth.
Posts: 22247 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Modern Europe was formed by milk-drinking Russians
Modern Europe was only formed 5,000 years ago when mass migration from southern Russia and Georgia brought new languages, technology and dairy farming to the continent, a study has revealed.
Researchers in one of the largest studies of the DNA of Bronze Age skeletons, found that a huge shift of people from the Caucasus region in third millennium BC, brought migrants to northern Europe.
And they carried a genetic mutation that allowed adults to tolerate drinking cow’s milk.
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: And it makes sense, this is a huge and gigantic region, the size of the continental USA, and has lots and lots of space for horses to travel throughout, which "Indo-european" Whites were the first to domesticate.....
Whites were not the first to domesticate the horse. Whites adopted horses after they met the Kushites in Anatolia.
The Hurrians spoke a non-IE language. Formerly, linguist suggested that the Hurrians were dominated by Indic speakers. Linguist of the IE languages were fond of this theory because some of the names for the earliest Indo-Aryan gods, chariots and horsemenship are found in Hurrian.
This made the Indo-Aryan domination of Hurrians good support for an Anatolia origin for the IE speakers. This theory held high regards until Bjarte Kaldhol studied 500 Hurrian names and found that only 5, were Indo-Aryan sounding. This made it clear that the IA people probably learned horsemenship from the Hurrians, a Kushite ethnic group, not the other way around.
.
. At the base of Nesite, the language of the Hittites is Hattic. Since this language was used as a lingua franca, Nesa was probably not an IE language as assumed by IE linguist. This along with the fact that Diakonoff and Kohl never defeated the Kaska; and the Hurrians introduced horse-drawn war chariots for military purposes indicate that Anatolia probably was not a homeland for the IE speakers.
I am sorry but Anatolian origin of the IE speakers has been debunked and refuted already:
quote: The ancient DNA case against the Anatolian hypothesis
In the debate over the location of the Proto-Indo-European urheimat, Colin Renfrew's Anatolian hypothesis is usually mentioned as the most viable alternative to the steppe or Kurgan hypothesis. But probably not for very much longer.
Below is a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) featuring extant Indo-European and non-Indo-European groups from West Eurasia, a couple of typical early Neolithic farmers from Central Europe, a typical Western Hunter-Gatherer, also from Central Europe, and the Iceman from the Copper Age Tyrolean Alps, again typical of his time and place.*
It's just a taste of the ancient genomic data we have available from prehistoric Europe, but it has almost everything that is pertinent to the issue at hand.
You don't need to be familiar with PCA methodology to be able to read the plot. Basically, it shows that the present-day European population structure is the result of two main events:
- the arrival of early farmers from Anatolia during the Neolithic transition, which eventually caused the extinction of people like the Western Hunter-Gatherer, who is the most obvious outlier on the plot
- the expansion of Kurgan groups such as the Yamnaya, which led to the formation of the Corded Ware horizon across much of Europe and shifted the genetic structure of almost all Europeans to the east, away from the Neolithic and Copper Age samples.
These were massive population turnovers, and, as a rule, massive population turnovers are accompanied by language change. So it's highly unlikely that any Europeans today are speaking languages derived from those of the Western Hunter-Gatherers or early Neolithic farmers of Central Europe (ie. according to Renfrew the ancestors of Celts, Germanics and other Indo-Europeans). Moreover, consider this:
- most present-day Indo-European speaking Europeans form an elongated cluster between the Neolithic farmers and the Corded Ware sample, pointing to the steppe-derived Corded Ware Culture as the proximate agent of the Indo-European expansion in much of Europe
- the only present-day Europeans who closely resemble Neolithic farmers are some Sardinians (the small Romance cluster just above the two Neolithic samples), but Sardinians spoke Paleo-Sardinian or Nuragic languages until they adopted Indo-European speech, in the form of Latin, from the Romans (see page 118 here).
Also, this isn't shown on the plot, but the dominant Y-chromosome haplogroup of early Neolithic farmers is G2a, which is a low frequency marker in Europe today. The two most common Y-chromosome haplogroups among present-day Europeans are R-M198 and R-M269, which are also typical of Corded Ware and Yamnaya males, respectively, and probably originally from the steppe.
So is there any way to rework the Anatolian hypothesis so that it can be salvaged? I doubt it. Even making the steppe a homeland for all of the main Indo-European branches apart from Anatolian and Armenian probably won't help.
It is true that the Yamnaya nomads carried Near Eastern-related ancestry which may represent Proto-Indo-European admixture from outside of the steppe. But there's no evidence that it came from Anatolia.
In fact, if Neolithic Anatolians were basically identical to early Neolithic European farmers, which seems to be the case (see here and here), then it's unlikely that it did, because the latter carried a peculiar genome-wide signal that is missing in Yamnaya genomes (orange cluster in the ADMIXTURE bar graph below).** Heck, even the early Corded Ware genomes from Germany barely show any of it.
I won't go into the linguistics arguments here why the Anatolian hypothesis is implausible. But it might be worth checking out a new book on the topic by linguists Asya Pereltsvaig and Martin W. Lewis: The Indo-European Controversy: Facts and Fallacies in Historical Linguistics. I haven't read it yet, so I welcome the opinions here of those who have. I did, however, read a lot of the online articles on which the book is based. As far as I know most of them are still available here and here.
*Another version of the same PCA, with the samples labeled individually, is available here. All possible combinations of dimensions 1 to 4 are shown here. The samples are listed here. All of the samples are from Haak et al. and Allentoft et al. The PCA was run using ~56K high confidence SNPs listed here.
The Corded Ware sample is a composite of Corded Ware sequences from Germany, Scandinavia, Estonia and Poland. The Yamnaya sample is a composite of Yamnaya sequences from the Kalmykia and Samara regions of Russia.
I chose to use these composites instead of individual sequences because I didn't want to run any samples with genotype rates of less than 98%.
** For a more detailed ADMIXTURE analysis comparing early Neolithic farmers to Yamnaya refer to Haak et al. Supplementary Information 6. Note the minimal sharing of components at the higher K between the early Neolithic farmers and Yamnaya, especially at K=16, which has the lowest median cross-validation (CV) error. This is in agreement with the PCA above.
quote: Why the Anatolian hypothesis is wrong There is a breakdown on John Hawks' blog of a recent paper in Science about the Indo-European expansion. Using a method derived from epidemiology, the authors reached the conclusion that Proto-Indo-European was spoken in Anatolia.
This is the Anatolian hypothesis, that Indo-European languages spread after agriculture was introduced to what is now Turkey, with the expansion dating to some point in the last 10,000 years, perhaps around 6000 BCE.
The method used in the paper is based on a statistical analysis of cognate terms in Indo-European languages, which is not a usual method in historical linguistics. Linguists have experimented with statistical methods in the past, and they have rejected most of them in favour of rigorous analysis of languages. Unless the sample is chosen judiciously, statistical methods are useless. And it's important to remember that historical linguists and archaeologists have other methods, methods with a proven utility.
Among those methods is the Wörter und Sachen method, which involves examining the objects found in archaeological investigations and then seeing how they fit together with a reconstructed language. If you find evidence of wheeled vehicles at a site, and your proto-language has a reconstructed term for wheels, axles, or carts, then there is the possibility that the speakers of the language were also the people who lived at the site. The more reconstructed terms there are for things at a site, the better the case is that the speakers were also the inhabitants.
Proto-Indo-European has terms for all aspects of wool production. It has words for a variety of domesticated animals as used by pastoralists, and its terms of 'wealth' are related to pastoralism. It has words indicating a tribal social structure based around clans with patrilineally-descended heads. All of these things correlate best with a pastoral society inhabiting the steppe, and not with an agricultural economy as the Anatolian hypothesis would predict.
The wool terminology in particular makes no sense if the Anatolian hypothesis is assumed; it is a necessary feature of the Anatolian hypothesis that the expansion, into Europe at least, took place about 8,000 years or so ago, but wool sheep are only found archaeologically from about 4000-3500 BCE. Why would Indo-European languages share words for wool and woollen technologies if the speakers of the proto-language knew nothing about wool because wool sheep literally did not exist at that point?
This is a slightly weak argument, because the reconstructed term, *HwlHn-, could possibly have referred to the short undercoat of sheep. That seems unlikely, but it's technically possible, and so the wool evidence is just one part of the case for a steppe origin.
Proto-Indo-European has a lot of reconstructed words for wheeled vehicles. The earliest wheeled vehicles are found in the Caucasus and on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, not Anatolia, and this vocabulary is most lacking in Hittite, one of the few Indo-European languages actually found in Anatolia. The Hittites were a literate civilization of the mid-to-late second millennium BCE (c. 1400 BCE), and a major power in the Near East.
They were, alongside the Luwians, some of the only Indo-European speakers in the area, which was dominated by non-Indo-European speakers (perhaps an indication that Indo-European speakers came from elsewhere), including the Hattians - the people who gave the Hittites their popular name. The Hittites were famous for using chariots, and they used them to dominate their neighbours, even defeating Egypt under Riʻmīsisu II (Ramesses) at the battle of Kadesh in the 13th century BCE.
But there's something interesting about the Hittite use of chariots: it was clearly introduced from elsewhere, and the people who introduced it spoke Indo-European languages. A chariot manual by a man named Kikkuli, in the Mitanni empire - a Hurrian-speaking empire in what is now Syria - was written almost entirely in Hittite, except for the words for the chariot terminology itself. This terminology, incredibly, was in a language whose closest relation was actually Sanskrit. That makes this manual, and other Mitanni texts, the earliest written attestation of an Indic language anywhere in the world, and it comes from Syria. Quite amazing.
So where did these Indic speakers, who introduced chariots into the Near East, come from? Archaeological evidence shows the earliest use of chariots to be on the Eurasian steppe around the second millennium BCE. The remains are clearly related to those found further west on the steppe as well, and the archaeological cultures related to the emergence of charioteering were steppe pastoralists and metallurgists. These remains, found for instance at a site called Sintashta in modern Russia, are believed to be associated with speakers of Indo-Iranian, the proto-language from which the languages of Persia and India descend.
This identification is particularly secure for a number of reasons. One is that sites like Sintashta show evidence of activities, including ritual and warfare, that correlate perfectly with Indic texts like the Rig Veda. The Rig Veda is a set of over a thousand hymns in Vedic Sanskrit, an archaic form of the language. The hymns describe rituals of all kinds, including especially funerary rituals, and these expositions in the Vedas correlate perfectly with the evidence found at Sintashta and other similar sites.
For instance, Vedic funerals were accompanied by funerary games including chariot races. In these races the chariots would turn left. Not only are chariots found in southern Russia from the right time period (including the earliest known in the world), but the evidence also shows a curious feature: bits for horses that are asymmetrical. The right side of the bit is larger than the left, indicating a consistent preference for turning left!
There's much more evidence than that - especially the fact that most Iranian languages were found in western Central Asia and southern Russia before the Turkic and Slavic expansions, and the fact that the Aryan migrations into India appear on the basis of archaeological evidence to have come from the northwest, and the fact that Iranian migrations into what is now Iran (and was once Elam and Babylon) began in the east. Had the Iranic peoples come from Anatolia, they would surely have attacked the neo-Babylonian empire from the west, instead of taking it under Kurush in the sixth century BCE from a base in modern Fars province, Iran.
In the Science article, there's a map (you can see it on John Hawks' blog) of the distribution of the Indo-European languages, showing the centre of distribution to be in Anatolia, but this is quite wrong; extinct Iranian languages are missed off the map, and they are known to have been spoken in what is now Russia (the Pontic-Caspian steppe) into historical times.
Alan (which became the modern language of Ossetian spoken in the Caucasus), Scytho-Sarmatian - these were Iranic languages spoken on the steppe by pastoralists in historical times. Bactrian was an Iranic language spoken in Central Asia, in what is now Turkic-speaking territory. They are left off the map and the analysis because they are poorly known, but they were certainly spoken on the steppe and they were certainly Iranic.
This is an impossible distribution if you take the Anatolian hypothesis to be true, and they'd also mess up the map if they were placed on it - in fact, they'd distort it completely. If you look at the map provided, it shows a neat distribution of Indo-Iranian east of Anatolia in a neat bubble, implying that Indo-Iranian simply moved east. But that is not the present, and certainly not the past, distribution of Indo-Iranian languages, and it equally certainly fails to represent the actual propagation of those languages in Eurasia.
The homeland of Iranic and Indic languages was in the steppe north of the Caspian sea; that makes most sense of the archaeological and linguistic evidence from all fronts.
The archaeological cultures of the Indo-Iranians show clear continuity with archaeological cultures to their west on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, indicating that they came from further west, and they clearly displaced other groups who had previously resided there. These Pontic-Caspian archaeological cultures show a perfect correlation with the terminology of reconstructed Proto-Indo-European as well.
Looking at it as if Indo-European languages came from Anatolia doesn't make sense of these facts. So instead we should ask, how did Indo-European languages end up in Anatolia? How did Hittite come to be spoken there?
Hittite is an archaic Indo-European language that preserved several features lacking in all other Indo-European sub-families, and at first sight this gives some reason for believing in the Anatolian hypothesis. But actually it doesn't, and the much more plausible view is that the Hittites and Luwians entered Anatolian from west of the Black Sea earlier than the formulation of 'classical' Proto-Indo-European.
The ancestors of the Hittites spoke what is called 'pre-Proto-Indo-European'; the language that became Hittite in Anatolia, after isolation from other Indo-European speakers and contact with non-Indo-Europeans, and Proto-Indo-European on the steppe after linguistic and technological innovations. The reason Hittite preserves archaic features is because it doesn't descend from Proto-Indo-European at all, but rather from the language that became Proto-Indo-European.
This also correlates with the archaeological evidence, which shows a quick migration from the steppes through the country west of the Black Sea and south towards Greece and Asia Minor at the expected time of the propagation of pre-Proto-Indo-European.
Another piece of very good evidence for a steppe homeland for Indo-European comes from the unrelated Uralic languages. Finnish, Hungarian, and Saami are modern Uralic languages found in Europe, and others are to be found further east, including Mordvin and Mari, spoken in Russia. Here is a map showing the present distribution of Uralic languages; they are all to the north of the Black and Caspian Seas, and the geographic centre of distribution is in the Ural mountains, likely on the European side. That is where the Uralic homeland seems to have been.
Here's how this links to Indo-European studies: Proto-Uralic shows the presence of loanwords from Proto-Indo-European. This has been known for some time. The loans are documented in The Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture (Mallory and Adams 1997), as well as David Anthony's brilliant book, The Horse, The Wheel, and Language, which is more recent. They aren't loans from living Indo-European languages into living Uralic languages, but loans from Proto-Indo-European into Proto-Uralic, at a very early period. There is also considerable evidence that a later form of Uralic was in contact with speakers of Indo-Aryan languages, as several Indo-Aryan loanwords have been discovered.
What this means is that Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic were spoken in adjacent areas, and that their speakers were in contact with one another for a sustained period. Proto-Uralic was not spoken in Anatolia, but on the European side of the Ural mountains, adjacent to the Pontic-Caspian steppe, again indicating that Proto-Indo-European was spoken there as well.
I'm not going to go into the rest of the evidence, but needless to say, there's a lot of it. But here's a final point. If the Anatolian hypothesis were actually correct, and Indo-European languages came from Anatolia and not the steppe, then who were those people on the steppe whose archaeological cultures correlate so closely with Indo-European material? Where did they go? Why do we not have evidence of another major language family spreading from the western Pontic-Caspian steppe around 3000 BCE?
In the paper, it is suggested that the steppe hypothesis is possible - after the Anatolian migration had done its work. That is really a little mad. What it claims is that Indo-European expanded into Europe as a result of the introduction of agriculture into Anatolia from the Near East 8,000 years or so ago. Agriculture allowed the Indo-Europeans to migrate, grow large populations, and dominate Europe. That's the Anatolian hypothesis so far.
But then it is necessary to believe that these ardent agriculturalists, people for whom agriculture must have been incredibly important, abandoned agriculture entirely, entered the steppe (without leaving archaeological remains of having done so), became pastoralists, relied on wild foods like Chenopodium for their carbohydrate intake, took to wagons, herded cattle, and then spread across the Eurasian steppe. And, somehow, the peoples of Europe shared their cultural, religious, and linguistic innovations, including the importance of cattle, horses, oaths, sky deities, and youthful tribal warfare. That isn't parsimonious, and it relies solely on the statistical study showing that the Anatolian branch retained the largest number of common cognates - which is already consistent with the idea that Hittite descends from the pre-Proto-Indo-European that came off the steppe before Proto-Indo-European as we know it had formed.
So here is the picture presented by archaeology and linguistics: speakers of pre-Proto-Indo-European originated on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, north of the Black Sea, around the fifth millennium BCE. Some of these speakers migrated west, passing through and attacking the towns of the Cucuteni-Tripolye archaeological culture.
They passed to the south and turned east, eventually ending up in Anatolia, where the pre-Proto-Indo-European language diverged into Hittite and Luwian. These people were in contact with speakers of lots of other language families, and they were also in contact with other groups in the Near East.
The Hittites were migrants into Anatolia, which partially explains why their lives were completely different to those of other Indo-European groups, and why they absorbed and adopted the traits of non-Indo-European native Anatolian groups, like the Hurrians.
The rest of the speakers of pre-Proto-Indo-European stayed just where they were, developing a strongly pastoral economy based on large herds of cattle herded with the aid of wagons and domesticated horses. They were in contact with speakers of Proto-Uralic and probably Kartvelian, and the pre-Proto-Indo-European language became what we know as Proto-Indo-European. The speakers of this language, associated with the Yamnaya archaeological culture, spread in several directions: to the east went wagon-riding pastoralists whose remains show continuity with the Tocharian (Indo-European-speaking) peoples of western China. Also in that direction went people with similar cultural traits whose languages became Indo-Iranian. They centred north of the Caspian sea before some of them migrated south, east of the Caspian, through the cities of Central Asia and the Indus. To the west of the Pontic steppe went speakers of Proto-Indo-European whose languages diverged to form Balto-Slavic (dominant throughout the area north of the Black Sea and up to the Baltic in early historic and prehistoric times), Italo-Celtic, Germanic, and other subgroups of Indo-European.
That is the model that makes most sense of the data. The Anatolian hypothesis makes sense of very little of it, and I don't think any single study of any sub-group of Indo-European languages will ever override the combined evidence of archaeology and linguistics. The phylogeographic model may work well for modelling language families, but it also has to take account of other evidence, and also of extinct languages. The studies in Science do not do this, and the Anatolian hypothesis is simply not correct.
The Anatolian hypothesis is pure outdated junk science and conjecture at this point with all the DNA and historical and evidence gathered so far.
And when I refer to "horses" I am not talking about the supposed African horses in Northern Africa, I talking about EURASIAN HORSES FROM THE STEPPES OF SIBERIA AND CENTRAL ASIA, WHICH WERE LARGER AND A DIFFERENT BREED THEN NEAR-EASTERN AND AFRICAN/ARABIAN ONES, AND WHICH HELPED A LOT OF WHITE EURASIAN TRIBES TAKE OVER TERRITORIES!
There is also the fact that the people who spread agriculture and farming to Europe during the Neolithic, CAME AND PASSED THROUGH ANATOLIA FROM THE SOUTH-WEST ASIA AREA!
So if we are to follow the Anatolian hypothesis, it would mean and indicate that farming and agriculture would also spread to the Eurasian steppe region at around the same time as when farming started there, as far as Siberia; which again THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE OF, HISTORICALLY OR ARCHAEOLOGICALLY WISE, IN CENTRAL ASIA AND SIBERIA WHERE WHITE EURASIAN PEOPLES/INDO-EUROPEANS ORIGINATED FROM!
THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE OF WHITE INDO-EUROPEANS/WHITE EURASIANS PRACTICING FORMAL AGRICULTURE AND FARMING AS SEEN IN THE NEAR EAST-FERTILE CRESCENT-AFRICA-SOUTH ASIA-SOUTHERN CHINA AREA, ZERO!
WHITE INDO-EUROPEAN TRIBES WERE NOT KNOWN OR EVEN RECORDED OF PRACTICING FARMING OR AGRICULTURE AS SEEN IN EARLY CIVILIZATIONS! THEY WERE ALL BARBARIC HORSE NOMADS WHO RAIDED, PILLAGED, LOOTED AND TOOK OVER PLACES LIKE LAND PIRATES AND WHO HAD A NOMADIC NON-SEDENTARY LIFESTYLE, WHICH IS A CLEAR INDICATION THAT THEY DID NOT PRACTICE FORMAL FARMING AND AGRICULTURE OR HAD SETTLED CIVILIZATIONS THAT WERE RELIANT ON FARMING OR AGRICULTURE!
And there is no archaeological or genetic or historical evidence of White Eurasians practicing or even discovering or starting farming in Eurasia either; no written testimony or accounts by outside parties who witnessed Ancient White Eurasian tribes! This is the big dent and hole in the Anatolian hypothesis theory that refutes the Anatolian origin theory all together!
And the Horse originated from North America, like the Camel, and migrated across a bridge to Eurasia proper and spread throughout according to current science. So it makes sense that the Eurasian horse was domesticated by early White Eurasians who migrated to Central Asia and Siberia thousands of years ago.
Also I don't trust pure linguistic evidence as proof of racial markers and categories at this very early point in history.
The supposed Indo-European languages was basically the microsoft of the BC period, where many peoples, both white and non-white spoke it on the silk road routes and in Eurasia, just like there are so many IE language speakers in Southern Asia and in predominantly non-white countries today; which negates the IE language speaker=racially white claim. I mean there are many speakers of English in Jamaica today, but does that make them White Anglo-saxons?
No it doesn't, The IE language should not be used as pure racial marker categories, but should be seen a as shared cultural linguistic social internet matrix of Eurasia at the time, which by all evidence, it was.
And of course Mike has questioned and debunked the whole idea of a people named the Hittites and the false idea of them actually existing let alone being an actual people or singular ethnic group.
You have not presented any evidence that Indo-Europeans domesticated the horse. You have not disputed my linguistic evidence illustrating the Indo-Europen names for horses.
There is no way to dispute the existence of Hittites in Anatolia. The Kushites were called Hattic, the I-E speakers were called Hittites in the European literature.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Modern Europe was formed by milk-drinking Russians
Modern Europe was only formed 5,000 years ago when mass migration from southern Russia and Georgia brought new languages, technology and dairy farming to the continent, a study has revealed.
Researchers in one of the largest studies of the DNA of Bronze Age skeletons, found that a huge shift of people from the Caucasus region in third millennium BC, brought migrants to northern Europe.
And they carried a genetic mutation that allowed adults to tolerate drinking cow’s milk.
The point of this thread was to DISPROVE the false idea and claim that, THE WHITE INDO-EUROPEANS ORIGINATED FROM THE PONTIC CASPIAN SOUTHERN RUSSIAN BLACK SEA REGION, THAT THE EUROCENTRIC ALBINO’S KEEP REPEATING AGAIN AND AGAIN! They are trying to repeat the claim and idea, with easily refutable grounds and evidences, so that everyone ends up believing it BECAUSE OF THAT!
HOWEVER, Professor Chein is trying to refute that and IS TELLING US that the Eurocentrist researchers are lying to us, and shoving the false idea of the Indo-European whites having roots ONLY IN CENTRAL ASIA AND IN THE PONTIC CASPIAN SOUTHERN RUSSIAN REGION; AND NOT IN THE GIANT REGION OF SIBERIA AND THE EASTERN PORTION OF CENTRAL ASIA, WHERE THEIR FIRST SO CALLED SETTLED HOMELAND (I.E PROTO-INDO EUROPEAN HOMELAND) WAS MOST LIKELY ACCORDING TO THE DATE OF THE ACCOUNTS AND TIMELINES, OF THE WITNESS TESTIMONY AND WRITTEN ACCOUNTS OF THE ANCIENT CHINESE; OF WHITE INDO-EUROPEANS IN NORTHERN ASIA, SIBERIA AND EASTERN CENTRAL ASIA!
The Albino Eurocentrist ARE TRYING TO STRATEGICALLY AND CALCULATINGLY PLACE THEIR SUPPOSED ORIGINAL HOMELAND REGION IN THE SOUTHERN RUSSIA CASPIAN SEA REGION FALSELY, WHICH INCIDENTALLY IS CLOSE TO EUROPE, TO MAKE IT SEEM AS THOUGH MODERN PRESENT DAY WHITE EUROPEANS WERE CLOSE ENOUGH TO HAVE A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP TO THE ORIGINAL NEOLITHIC EUROPEANS OF ANTIQUITY AND THE PENINSULA OF EUROPE IN GENERAL! And Professor Chein is indirectly TELLING US THIS, THROUGH HIS DIVULGING OF THE ANCIENT CHINESE ACCOUNTS OF WHITE EURASIAN INDO-EUROPEANS IN NORTHERN ASIA/SIBERIA AND EASTERN CENTRAL ASIA!
BECAUSE THE ANCIENT CHINESE HAVE RECORDS AND WITNESS TESTIMONY OF WHITE INDO-EUROPEAN LIKE PEOPLE IN NORTHERN ASIA AND IN THE REGION OF SIBERIA PROPER, AND BECAUSE THEY HAVE RECORDS OF INDO-EUROPEAN WHITES ENTERING THEIR REGION AT DATES AND TIMES IN THE PAST, THAT CONTRADICT WHAT THE EUROCENTRIC RESEARCHERS ARE TELLING US; IT REFUTES THE PONTIC CASPIAN SOUTHERN RUSSIA REGION HYPOTHESIS OF INDO-EUROPEANS BECAUSE THE CHINESE WITNESS TESTIMONY AND ACCOUNTS SHOW A HEAVY INDO-EUROPEAN PRESENCE IN NORTHERN ASIA AND SIBERIA, THAT THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE ON A PURE LOGICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL BASIS AND ACCORDING TO THE DATES AND TIMELINES OF WHEN WHITES SPREAD ALL THOUGHOUT ASIA ACCORDING TO THE FALSE PONTIC STEPPE THEORY!
Professor’s Chein research into the Ancient Chinese interactions and accounts and writings of White Indo-European like people, DISPROVE AND REFUTES THE PONTIC STEPPE THEORY, BECAUSE ON A GEOGRAPHIC AND TECHNOLOGY AND GEOLOGIC AND HISTORIC BASIS, THE INDO-EUROPEAN CENTRAL ASIANS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE ACCOUNTS AND RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE ANCIENT CHINESE CIVILIZATIONS IN CHINA AT THIS POINT IN HISTORY AT THE DATES AND TIMES HE OFFERS IN HIS RESEARCH; AN ANCIENT CHINA WHICH IS SORROUNDED BY VARIOUS GEOGRAPHICAL BARRIERS THAT HISTORICALLY MADE CHINA A DIFFICULT REGION FOR EURASIAN BARBARIANS TO INTRUDE INTO AND TAKE OVER!
THE ONLY WAY THAT BARBARIAN INVADERS COULD COMPLETELY TAKE OVER ANCIENT CHINA IN HISTORICAL TIMES WAS GOING THROUGH THE SIBERIAN ROUTE FROM NORTHERN ASIA INTO CHINA THAT ALLOWS A CLEAR PASSAGE TO CHINA UNLIKE, THE OTHER LOCATIONS AND REGIONS SURROUNDING CHINA EXEMPTING THE NORTHERN SIBERIAN ASIAN BORDER! INFACT THE JAPANESE STRATEGICALLY USED THE SIBERIAN ENTRANCE INTO THE CHINA REGION TO TAKE OVER CHINA BEFORE WWII!
HOWEVER BECAUSE THE EARLY INDO-EUROPEAN BARBARIAN TRIBES THAT PROFESSOR CHEIN MENTIONS, WITH THE ZHOU INDO-EUROPEAN PEOPLE IN CHINESE HISTORY INCLUDED, CAME OVER AND TRIED TAKING OVER THE CHINA AREA FROM SIBERIA AND NORTHERN ASIA IN VERY EARLY POINTS IN HISTORY, IT REFUTES THE PONTIC CASPIAN SEA ORIGIN THEORY THAT THE EURO CENTRISTS ARE TELLING US, BECAUSE THE INDO-EUROPEANS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO HAVE DONE THAT TO THE ANCIENT CHINESE HISTORICALLY, IF THEIR SUPPOSED HOMELAND WAS GEOGRAPHICALLY IN THE SOUTHERN RUSSIA REGION; AS OPPOSED TO THEIR FIRST SETTLED HOMELAND PLACE BEING IN A REGION THAT ENCOMPASSED SIBERIA/NORTHERN ASIA AND EASTERN CENTRAL ASIA! THAT IS BASICALLY WHAT PROFESSOR CHEIN’S RESEARCH AND SHARING OF ANCIENT CHINESE RECORDS ARE TELLING US, AND THAT IS WHAT HE IS TELLING US, TO THE READERS!
And Professor’s Chein’s postulation and claim of the idea of the supposed first settled homeland and region of the Proto-Indo-Europeans and Indo-Europeans in general, BEING IN SIBERIA, NORTHERN ASIA ABOVE THE CHINA REGION, AND EASTERN CENTRAL ASIA AS OPPOSED TO SOUTHERN RUSSIA AND THE PONTIC STEPPES, MAKES PERFECT SENSE WHEN YOU READ AND TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE EARLY WRITTEN RECORDS AND THE DATES THEY WERE WRITTEN AT AND TIMES THEY APPEARED, OF THE ANCIENT CHINESE ACCOUNTS OF INDO-EUROPEAN BARBARIANS ON THEIR BORDER REGIONS AND IN THEIR CIVILIZATIONS AT POINTS IN THEIR EARLY HISTORY! Because again, SINCE CHINA IS GEOGRAPHICALLY VERY HARD FOR INVADERS TO INTRUDE INTO, UNLESS IT WAS THROUGH SIBERIA AND NORTHERN ASIA, IT PLAYED A ROLE IN THE CHINESE CIVILIZATIONS ISOLATON AND INTROVERTED-NESS TO THE REST OF THE WORLD HISTORICALLY!
If the Indo-Europeans originated from the Southern Russia and Caspian region, they are not supposed to have known or intruded into China FROM NORTHERN ASIA AND SIBERIA, AT THE TIMES THAT THE EARLIESTS ANCIENT CHINESE ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS OF INDO-EUROPEAN TYPE BARBARIANS AT THEIR BORDERS WERE WRITTEN!
Therefore the only conclusion that one can come to, as correctly stated by Professor Chein, IS THAT THE SUPPOSED FIRST HOMELAND OF THE WHITE INDO-EUROPEANS PEOPLES HAD TO BEEN FURTHER INTO NORTHERN ASIA, SIBERIA AND THE EASTERN FRINGES OF CENTRAL ASIA AS OPPOSED TO THE PONTIC CASPIAN STEPPES BECAUSE THE INDO-EUROPEAN WHITES TRIED TAKING OVER THE ANCIENT CHINESE PEOPLE IN THEIR EARLY HISTORIES, WHICH THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GEOGRAPHIC WISE AND TIMEWISE IF THEIR ORIGINS WERE IN SOUTHERN RUSSIA AND THE PONTIC CASPIAN STEPPES!
AND IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE that the first settled homeland of White Indo-Europeans would BE IN REGION THAT ENCOMPASSED BOTH PARTS OF CENTRAL ASIA, AND major portions of NORTHERN ASIA AND SOUTHERN SIBERIA PROPER! Because GEOGRAPHICALLY SPEKAING, the region of Siberia and Central Asia taken together, as opposed to JUST THE SOUTHERN RUSSIA AND PONTIC CASPIAN SEA REGION, IS BIGGER THEN THE ENITRE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES; AND THIS IS IMPORTANT TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT HERE BECAUSE WHITE INDO-EUROPEANS WERE KNOWN FOR HISTORICALLY TO HAVE FIRST DOMESTICATED THE HORSE AND USING IT MILITARILY TO CONQUER AND TAKE OVER TERRITORIES ON THE EURASIAN AND SIBERIAN STEPPES!
The region of BOTH Siberia and Central Asia allows LOTS AND LOTS of room for horse nomad barbarians to move around and go around space wise, AS WOULD BE EXPECTED IN A REGION WHERE HORSES WERE ADAPTED TO AND WERE SAID TO HAVE MADE THEIR HOME! And the White barbarians of Ancient China, USED THE HORSE TO TAKE ATTACK AND TRY AND INVADE ANCIENT CHINA FROM NORTHERN ASIA AND SIBERIA AS PROFESSOR CHEIN TELLS US IN HIS RESEARCH, which automatically indicates that the first homeland of the Indo-Europeans HAD TO HAVE BEEN IN AN AREA THAT ENCOMPASED SIBERIA, NORTHERN ASIA AND EASTERN CENTRAL ASIA WHEN THEY DID!
Basically both Dandabet and Professor Chein, have proved and are telling us indirectly, is that through these early Chinese accounts, murals, witness testimonies, records, stories, folklores, histories, of White Indo-European barbarians and their history with them in their early histories, that the Ancient White Indo-European had deep roots in Siberia and Central Asia, enough to take their supposed original homeland out of the Black sea pontic steppe region orbit. They prove to us that through their research of all these Ancient Chinese accounts, that White Indo-Europeans ORIGINATE FROM ASIA AND DEEP IN ASIA/SIBERIA PROPER!
The present day white Indo-Europeans folklores and traditions even have hints and information IN THEM, that reveal they had DEEP ROOTS IN ASIA AS OPPOSED TO EUROPE, AND DEEP IN ASIA INTO SIBERIA; AS CAN BE SEEN IN HOW THEY BOTH DEDUCED THAT THE MIDDLE EARTH IN THE SCANDANIVIAN SAGA’S, REFERRED TO THE REGION OF CENTRAL ASIA AND REGIONS SORROUNDING IT!
And the fact that many OF THESE WHITE INDO-EUROPEAN TRADITIONS AND FOLKLORES HAD SIMILARITIES IN CHARACTERS AND DEITIES TO ANCIENT CHINESE TRADITIONS AND FOLKLORES AND ALSO THE FOLKLORES OF THE ANCIENT BARBARIANS THAT TRIED TAKING OVER ANCIENT CHINA, AS REVEALED TO US BY BOTH PROFESSOR CHEIN AND DANDABET, SUPPORT AND PROVIDE CREDENCE TO THE IDEA THAT WHITE INDO-EUROPEANS FIRST HOMLAND WAS IN NORTHERN ASIA, SIBERIA, AND EASTERN CENTRAL ASIA! And conclusively that White Indo-Europeans HAVE EASTERN ROOTS AS OPPOSED TO WESTERN ROOTS!
And what both Professor Chein and Dandabet, ARE TRYING TO TELL US INDIRECLTY IS THAT THE WHITE EUROCENTRISTS, THE
ONES WHO HAVE STUDIED THIS HISTORY THROUGHOULY, KNOW ABOUT THESE ANCIENT CHINESE ACCOUNTS AND TESTIMONIES OF WHITE INDO-EUROPEANS AROUND THEIR BORDERS AND IN THEIR CIVILIZATIONS, BUT ARE INTENTIONALLY IGNORING IT AND NOT TAKING IT ACCOUNT SERIOUSLY AND ONLY BRIEFLY MENTIONING THEM, TO MAKE IT SEEM AS THOUGH WHITE INDO-EUROPEANS HAVE A CLOSER RELATIONSHIP TO “EUROPE AND THE WEST”, THEN TO THEIR ACTUAL ROOTS DEEP IN ASIA IN THE EAST; AND THIS CAN BE SEEN IN HOW WHITE EURO CENTRIST RESEARCHERS FALSELY CLAIM THAT THE ORIGINAL HOMELAND OF INDO-EUROPEAN WHITE PEOPLES WAS IN SOUTHERN RUSSIA AND THE PONTIC CASPIAN STEPPES AND DO NOT REALLY STUDY OR RESEARCH OR GET DEEP INTO ANCIENT CHINESE ACCOUNTS OF WHITE INDO-EUROPEANS IN HISTORY TOO SERIOUSLY! And they are doing it to place their origin homeland as close to Europe as possible, through the pontic steppe theory, AS OPPOSED TO THEIR HIGHLY LIKELY ORIGINS BEING FURTHER EAST IN ASIA!
So Ish Gebor, the whole point of this thread is to refute the Eurocentric researcher’s bullshit lies and claims about their origins being in the pontic Caspian steppes and Southern Russia region ORIGINALLY, because both Dandabet and Professor Chein disproves it through their research as I showed all of you here.
And the research you posted to me, about White scientists and researchers claiming they came from Southern Russia and pontic steppes, is part and parcel of their fabrications and lies, designed to hide and obfuscate THEIR REAL ORIGIN ROOTS DEEP IN ASIA, FURTHER EAST, THEN THIS POSTULATED REGION THEY KEEP HARPING ABOUT INCESSENTLY IN A LYING MANNER THROUGH THE RESEARCH LINK ARTICLES YOU LINKED TO ME!
Posts: 1558 | From: US | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: And it makes sense, this is a huge and gigantic region, the size of the continental USA, and has lots and lots of space for horses to travel throughout, which "Indo-european" Whites were the first to domesticate.....
Whites were not the first to domesticate the horse. Whites adopted horses after they met the Kushites in Anatolia.
The Hurrians spoke a non-IE language. Formerly, linguist suggested that the Hurrians were dominated by Indic speakers. Linguist of the IE languages were fond of this theory because some of the names for the earliest Indo-Aryan gods, chariots and horsemenship are found in Hurrian.
This made the Indo-Aryan domination of Hurrians good support for an Anatolia origin for the IE speakers. This theory held high regards until Bjarte Kaldhol studied 500 Hurrian names and found that only 5, were Indo-Aryan sounding. This made it clear that the IA people probably learned horsemenship from the Hurrians, a Kushite ethnic group, not the other way around.
.
. At the base of Nesite, the language of the Hittites is Hattic. Since this language was used as a lingua franca, Nesa was probably not an IE language as assumed by IE linguist. This along with the fact that Diakonoff and Kohl never defeated the Kaska; and the Hurrians introduced horse-drawn war chariots for military purposes indicate that Anatolia probably was not a homeland for the IE speakers.
I am sorry but Anatolian origin of the IE speakers has been debunked and refuted already:
quote: The ancient DNA case against the Anatolian hypothesis
In the debate over the location of the Proto-Indo-European urheimat, Colin Renfrew's Anatolian hypothesis is usually mentioned as the most viable alternative to the steppe or Kurgan hypothesis. But probably not for very much longer.
Below is a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) featuring extant Indo-European and non-Indo-European groups from West Eurasia, a couple of typical early Neolithic farmers from Central Europe, a typical Western Hunter-Gatherer, also from Central Europe, and the Iceman from the Copper Age Tyrolean Alps, again typical of his time and place.*
It's just a taste of the ancient genomic data we have available from prehistoric Europe, but it has almost everything that is pertinent to the issue at hand.
You don't need to be familiar with PCA methodology to be able to read the plot. Basically, it shows that the present-day European population structure is the result of two main events:
- the arrival of early farmers from Anatolia during the Neolithic transition, which eventually caused the extinction of people like the Western Hunter-Gatherer, who is the most obvious outlier on the plot
- the expansion of Kurgan groups such as the Yamnaya, which led to the formation of the Corded Ware horizon across much of Europe and shifted the genetic structure of almost all Europeans to the east, away from the Neolithic and Copper Age samples.
These were massive population turnovers, and, as a rule, massive population turnovers are accompanied by language change. So it's highly unlikely that any Europeans today are speaking languages derived from those of the Western Hunter-Gatherers or early Neolithic farmers of Central Europe (ie. according to Renfrew the ancestors of Celts, Germanics and other Indo-Europeans). Moreover, consider this:
- most present-day Indo-European speaking Europeans form an elongated cluster between the Neolithic farmers and the Corded Ware sample, pointing to the steppe-derived Corded Ware Culture as the proximate agent of the Indo-European expansion in much of Europe
- the only present-day Europeans who closely resemble Neolithic farmers are some Sardinians (the small Romance cluster just above the two Neolithic samples), but Sardinians spoke Paleo-Sardinian or Nuragic languages until they adopted Indo-European speech, in the form of Latin, from the Romans (see page 118 here).
Also, this isn't shown on the plot, but the dominant Y-chromosome haplogroup of early Neolithic farmers is G2a, which is a low frequency marker in Europe today. The two most common Y-chromosome haplogroups among present-day Europeans are R-M198 and R-M269, which are also typical of Corded Ware and Yamnaya males, respectively, and probably originally from the steppe.
So is there any way to rework the Anatolian hypothesis so that it can be salvaged? I doubt it. Even making the steppe a homeland for all of the main Indo-European branches apart from Anatolian and Armenian probably won't help.
It is true that the Yamnaya nomads carried Near Eastern-related ancestry which may represent Proto-Indo-European admixture from outside of the steppe. But there's no evidence that it came from Anatolia.
In fact, if Neolithic Anatolians were basically identical to early Neolithic European farmers, which seems to be the case (see here and here), then it's unlikely that it did, because the latter carried a peculiar genome-wide signal that is missing in Yamnaya genomes (orange cluster in the ADMIXTURE bar graph below).** Heck, even the early Corded Ware genomes from Germany barely show any of it.
I won't go into the linguistics arguments here why the Anatolian hypothesis is implausible. But it might be worth checking out a new book on the topic by linguists Asya Pereltsvaig and Martin W. Lewis: The Indo-European Controversy: Facts and Fallacies in Historical Linguistics. I haven't read it yet, so I welcome the opinions here of those who have. I did, however, read a lot of the online articles on which the book is based. As far as I know most of them are still available here and here.
*Another version of the same PCA, with the samples labeled individually, is available here. All possible combinations of dimensions 1 to 4 are shown here. The samples are listed here. All of the samples are from Haak et al. and Allentoft et al. The PCA was run using ~56K high confidence SNPs listed here.
The Corded Ware sample is a composite of Corded Ware sequences from Germany, Scandinavia, Estonia and Poland. The Yamnaya sample is a composite of Yamnaya sequences from the Kalmykia and Samara regions of Russia.
I chose to use these composites instead of individual sequences because I didn't want to run any samples with genotype rates of less than 98%.
** For a more detailed ADMIXTURE analysis comparing early Neolithic farmers to Yamnaya refer to Haak et al. Supplementary Information 6. Note the minimal sharing of components at the higher K between the early Neolithic farmers and Yamnaya, especially at K=16, which has the lowest median cross-validation (CV) error. This is in agreement with the PCA above.
quote: Why the Anatolian hypothesis is wrong There is a breakdown on John Hawks' blog of a recent paper in Science about the Indo-European expansion. Using a method derived from epidemiology, the authors reached the conclusion that Proto-Indo-European was spoken in Anatolia.
This is the Anatolian hypothesis, that Indo-European languages spread after agriculture was introduced to what is now Turkey, with the expansion dating to some point in the last 10,000 years, perhaps around 6000 BCE.
The method used in the paper is based on a statistical analysis of cognate terms in Indo-European languages, which is not a usual method in historical linguistics. Linguists have experimented with statistical methods in the past, and they have rejected most of them in favour of rigorous analysis of languages. Unless the sample is chosen judiciously, statistical methods are useless. And it's important to remember that historical linguists and archaeologists have other methods, methods with a proven utility.
Among those methods is the Wörter und Sachen method, which involves examining the objects found in archaeological investigations and then seeing how they fit together with a reconstructed language. If you find evidence of wheeled vehicles at a site, and your proto-language has a reconstructed term for wheels, axles, or carts, then there is the possibility that the speakers of the language were also the people who lived at the site. The more reconstructed terms there are for things at a site, the better the case is that the speakers were also the inhabitants.
Proto-Indo-European has terms for all aspects of wool production. It has words for a variety of domesticated animals as used by pastoralists, and its terms of 'wealth' are related to pastoralism. It has words indicating a tribal social structure based around clans with patrilineally-descended heads. All of these things correlate best with a pastoral society inhabiting the steppe, and not with an agricultural economy as the Anatolian hypothesis would predict.
The wool terminology in particular makes no sense if the Anatolian hypothesis is assumed; it is a necessary feature of the Anatolian hypothesis that the expansion, into Europe at least, took place about 8,000 years or so ago, but wool sheep are only found archaeologically from about 4000-3500 BCE. Why would Indo-European languages share words for wool and woollen technologies if the speakers of the proto-language knew nothing about wool because wool sheep literally did not exist at that point?
This is a slightly weak argument, because the reconstructed term, *HwlHn-, could possibly have referred to the short undercoat of sheep. That seems unlikely, but it's technically possible, and so the wool evidence is just one part of the case for a steppe origin.
Proto-Indo-European has a lot of reconstructed words for wheeled vehicles. The earliest wheeled vehicles are found in the Caucasus and on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, not Anatolia, and this vocabulary is most lacking in Hittite, one of the few Indo-European languages actually found in Anatolia. The Hittites were a literate civilization of the mid-to-late second millennium BCE (c. 1400 BCE), and a major power in the Near East.
They were, alongside the Luwians, some of the only Indo-European speakers in the area, which was dominated by non-Indo-European speakers (perhaps an indication that Indo-European speakers came from elsewhere), including the Hattians - the people who gave the Hittites their popular name. The Hittites were famous for using chariots, and they used them to dominate their neighbours, even defeating Egypt under Riʻmīsisu II (Ramesses) at the battle of Kadesh in the 13th century BCE.
But there's something interesting about the Hittite use of chariots: it was clearly introduced from elsewhere, and the people who introduced it spoke Indo-European languages. A chariot manual by a man named Kikkuli, in the Mitanni empire - a Hurrian-speaking empire in what is now Syria - was written almost entirely in Hittite, except for the words for the chariot terminology itself. This terminology, incredibly, was in a language whose closest relation was actually Sanskrit. That makes this manual, and other Mitanni texts, the earliest written attestation of an Indic language anywhere in the world, and it comes from Syria. Quite amazing.
So where did these Indic speakers, who introduced chariots into the Near East, come from? Archaeological evidence shows the earliest use of chariots to be on the Eurasian steppe around the second millennium BCE. The remains are clearly related to those found further west on the steppe as well, and the archaeological cultures related to the emergence of charioteering were steppe pastoralists and metallurgists. These remains, found for instance at a site called Sintashta in modern Russia, are believed to be associated with speakers of Indo-Iranian, the proto-language from which the languages of Persia and India descend.
This identification is particularly secure for a number of reasons. One is that sites like Sintashta show evidence of activities, including ritual and warfare, that correlate perfectly with Indic texts like the Rig Veda. The Rig Veda is a set of over a thousand hymns in Vedic Sanskrit, an archaic form of the language. The hymns describe rituals of all kinds, including especially funerary rituals, and these expositions in the Vedas correlate perfectly with the evidence found at Sintashta and other similar sites.
For instance, Vedic funerals were accompanied by funerary games including chariot races. In these races the chariots would turn left. Not only are chariots found in southern Russia from the right time period (including the earliest known in the world), but the evidence also shows a curious feature: bits for horses that are asymmetrical. The right side of the bit is larger than the left, indicating a consistent preference for turning left!
There's much more evidence than that - especially the fact that most Iranian languages were found in western Central Asia and southern Russia before the Turkic and Slavic expansions, and the fact that the Aryan migrations into India appear on the basis of archaeological evidence to have come from the northwest, and the fact that Iranian migrations into what is now Iran (and was once Elam and Babylon) began in the east. Had the Iranic peoples come from Anatolia, they would surely have attacked the neo-Babylonian empire from the west, instead of taking it under Kurush in the sixth century BCE from a base in modern Fars province, Iran.
In the Science article, there's a map (you can see it on John Hawks' blog) of the distribution of the Indo-European languages, showing the centre of distribution to be in Anatolia, but this is quite wrong; extinct Iranian languages are missed off the map, and they are known to have been spoken in what is now Russia (the Pontic-Caspian steppe) into historical times.
Alan (which became the modern language of Ossetian spoken in the Caucasus), Scytho-Sarmatian - these were Iranic languages spoken on the steppe by pastoralists in historical times. Bactrian was an Iranic language spoken in Central Asia, in what is now Turkic-speaking territory. They are left off the map and the analysis because they are poorly known, but they were certainly spoken on the steppe and they were certainly Iranic.
This is an impossible distribution if you take the Anatolian hypothesis to be true, and they'd also mess up the map if they were placed on it - in fact, they'd distort it completely. If you look at the map provided, it shows a neat distribution of Indo-Iranian east of Anatolia in a neat bubble, implying that Indo-Iranian simply moved east. But that is not the present, and certainly not the past, distribution of Indo-Iranian languages, and it equally certainly fails to represent the actual propagation of those languages in Eurasia.
The homeland of Iranic and Indic languages was in the steppe north of the Caspian sea; that makes most sense of the archaeological and linguistic evidence from all fronts.
The archaeological cultures of the Indo-Iranians show clear continuity with archaeological cultures to their west on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, indicating that they came from further west, and they clearly displaced other groups who had previously resided there. These Pontic-Caspian archaeological cultures show a perfect correlation with the terminology of reconstructed Proto-Indo-European as well.
Looking at it as if Indo-European languages came from Anatolia doesn't make sense of these facts. So instead we should ask, how did Indo-European languages end up in Anatolia? How did Hittite come to be spoken there?
Hittite is an archaic Indo-European language that preserved several features lacking in all other Indo-European sub-families, and at first sight this gives some reason for believing in the Anatolian hypothesis. But actually it doesn't, and the much more plausible view is that the Hittites and Luwians entered Anatolian from west of the Black Sea earlier than the formulation of 'classical' Proto-Indo-European.
The ancestors of the Hittites spoke what is called 'pre-Proto-Indo-European'; the language that became Hittite in Anatolia, after isolation from other Indo-European speakers and contact with non-Indo-Europeans, and Proto-Indo-European on the steppe after linguistic and technological innovations. The reason Hittite preserves archaic features is because it doesn't descend from Proto-Indo-European at all, but rather from the language that became Proto-Indo-European.
This also correlates with the archaeological evidence, which shows a quick migration from the steppes through the country west of the Black Sea and south towards Greece and Asia Minor at the expected time of the propagation of pre-Proto-Indo-European.
Another piece of very good evidence for a steppe homeland for Indo-European comes from the unrelated Uralic languages. Finnish, Hungarian, and Saami are modern Uralic languages found in Europe, and others are to be found further east, including Mordvin and Mari, spoken in Russia. Here is a map showing the present distribution of Uralic languages; they are all to the north of the Black and Caspian Seas, and the geographic centre of distribution is in the Ural mountains, likely on the European side. That is where the Uralic homeland seems to have been.
Here's how this links to Indo-European studies: Proto-Uralic shows the presence of loanwords from Proto-Indo-European. This has been known for some time. The loans are documented in The Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture (Mallory and Adams 1997), as well as David Anthony's brilliant book, The Horse, The Wheel, and Language, which is more recent. They aren't loans from living Indo-European languages into living Uralic languages, but loans from Proto-Indo-European into Proto-Uralic, at a very early period. There is also considerable evidence that a later form of Uralic was in contact with speakers of Indo-Aryan languages, as several Indo-Aryan loanwords have been discovered.
What this means is that Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic were spoken in adjacent areas, and that their speakers were in contact with one another for a sustained period. Proto-Uralic was not spoken in Anatolia, but on the European side of the Ural mountains, adjacent to the Pontic-Caspian steppe, again indicating that Proto-Indo-European was spoken there as well.
I'm not going to go into the rest of the evidence, but needless to say, there's a lot of it. But here's a final point. If the Anatolian hypothesis were actually correct, and Indo-European languages came from Anatolia and not the steppe, then who were those people on the steppe whose archaeological cultures correlate so closely with Indo-European material? Where did they go? Why do we not have evidence of another major language family spreading from the western Pontic-Caspian steppe around 3000 BCE?
In the paper, it is suggested that the steppe hypothesis is possible - after the Anatolian migration had done its work. That is really a little mad. What it claims is that Indo-European expanded into Europe as a result of the introduction of agriculture into Anatolia from the Near East 8,000 years or so ago. Agriculture allowed the Indo-Europeans to migrate, grow large populations, and dominate Europe. That's the Anatolian hypothesis so far.
But then it is necessary to believe that these ardent agriculturalists, people for whom agriculture must have been incredibly important, abandoned agriculture entirely, entered the steppe (without leaving archaeological remains of having done so), became pastoralists, relied on wild foods like Chenopodium for their carbohydrate intake, took to wagons, herded cattle, and then spread across the Eurasian steppe. And, somehow, the peoples of Europe shared their cultural, religious, and linguistic innovations, including the importance of cattle, horses, oaths, sky deities, and youthful tribal warfare. That isn't parsimonious, and it relies solely on the statistical study showing that the Anatolian branch retained the largest number of common cognates - which is already consistent with the idea that Hittite descends from the pre-Proto-Indo-European that came off the steppe before Proto-Indo-European as we know it had formed.
So here is the picture presented by archaeology and linguistics: speakers of pre-Proto-Indo-European originated on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, north of the Black Sea, around the fifth millennium BCE. Some of these speakers migrated west, passing through and attacking the towns of the Cucuteni-Tripolye archaeological culture.
They passed to the south and turned east, eventually ending up in Anatolia, where the pre-Proto-Indo-European language diverged into Hittite and Luwian. These people were in contact with speakers of lots of other language families, and they were also in contact with other groups in the Near East.
The Hittites were migrants into Anatolia, which partially explains why their lives were completely different to those of other Indo-European groups, and why they absorbed and adopted the traits of non-Indo-European native Anatolian groups, like the Hurrians.
The rest of the speakers of pre-Proto-Indo-European stayed just where they were, developing a strongly pastoral economy based on large herds of cattle herded with the aid of wagons and domesticated horses. They were in contact with speakers of Proto-Uralic and probably Kartvelian, and the pre-Proto-Indo-European language became what we know as Proto-Indo-European. The speakers of this language, associated with the Yamnaya archaeological culture, spread in several directions: to the east went wagon-riding pastoralists whose remains show continuity with the Tocharian (Indo-European-speaking) peoples of western China. Also in that direction went people with similar cultural traits whose languages became Indo-Iranian. They centred north of the Caspian sea before some of them migrated south, east of the Caspian, through the cities of Central Asia and the Indus. To the west of the Pontic steppe went speakers of Proto-Indo-European whose languages diverged to form Balto-Slavic (dominant throughout the area north of the Black Sea and up to the Baltic in early historic and prehistoric times), Italo-Celtic, Germanic, and other subgroups of Indo-European.
That is the model that makes most sense of the data. The Anatolian hypothesis makes sense of very little of it, and I don't think any single study of any sub-group of Indo-European languages will ever override the combined evidence of archaeology and linguistics. The phylogeographic model may work well for modelling language families, but it also has to take account of other evidence, and also of extinct languages. The studies in Science do not do this, and the Anatolian hypothesis is simply not correct.
The Anatolian hypothesis is pure outdated junk science and conjecture at this point with all the DNA and historical and evidence gathered so far.
And when I refer to "horses" I am not talking about the supposed African horses in Northern Africa, I talking about EURASIAN HORSES FROM THE STEPPES OF SIBERIA AND CENTRAL ASIA, WHICH WERE LARGER AND A DIFFERENT BREED THEN NEAR-EASTERN AND AFRICAN/ARABIAN ONES, AND WHICH HELPED A LOT OF WHITE EURASIAN TRIBES TAKE OVER TERRITORIES!
There is also the fact that the people who spread agriculture and farming to Europe during the Neolithic, CAME AND PASSED THROUGH ANATOLIA FROM THE SOUTH-WEST ASIA AREA!
So if we are to follow the Anatolian hypothesis, it would mean and indicate that farming and agriculture would also spread to the Eurasian steppe region at around the same time as when farming started there, as far as Siberia; which again THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE OF, HISTORICALLY OR ARCHAEOLOGICALLY WISE, IN CENTRAL ASIA AND SIBERIA WHERE WHITE EURASIAN PEOPLES/INDO-EUROPEANS ORIGINATED FROM!
THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE OF WHITE INDO-EUROPEANS/WHITE EURASIANS PRACTICING FORMAL AGRICULTURE AND FARMING AS SEEN IN THE NEAR EAST-FERTILE CRESCENT-AFRICA-SOUTH ASIA-SOUTHERN CHINA AREA, ZERO!
WHITE INDO-EUROPEAN TRIBES WERE NOT KNOWN OR EVEN RECORDED OF PRACTICING FARMING OR AGRICULTURE AS SEEN IN EARLY CIVILIZATIONS! THEY WERE ALL BARBARIC HORSE NOMADS WHO RAIDED, PILLAGED, LOOTED AND TOOK OVER PLACES LIKE LAND PIRATES AND WHO HAD A NOMADIC NON-SEDENTARY LIFESTYLE, WHICH IS A CLEAR INDICATION THAT THEY DID NOT PRACTICE FORMAL FARMING AND AGRICULTURE OR HAD SETTLED CIVILIZATIONS THAT WERE RELIANT ON FARMING OR AGRICULTURE!
And there is no archaeological or genetic or historical evidence of White Eurasians practicing or even discovering or starting farming in Eurasia either; no written testimony or accounts by outside parties who witnessed Ancient White Eurasian tribes! This is the big dent and hole in the Anatolian hypothesis theory that refutes the Anatolian origin theory all together!
And the Horse originated from North America, like the Camel, and migrated across a bridge to Eurasia proper and spread throughout according to current science. So it makes sense that the Eurasian horse was domesticated by early White Eurasians who migrated to Central Asia and Siberia thousands of years ago.
Also I don't trust pure linguistic evidence as proof of racial markers and categories at this very early point in history.
The supposed Indo-European languages was basically the microsoft of the BC period, where many peoples, both white and non-white spoke it on the silk road routes and in Eurasia, just like there are so many IE language speakers in Southern Asia and in predominantly non-white countries today; which negates the IE language speaker=racially white claim. I mean there are many speakers of English in Jamaica today, but does that make them White Anglo-saxons?
No it doesn't, The IE language should not be used as pure racial marker categories, but should be seen a as shared cultural linguistic social internet matrix of Eurasia at the time, which by all evidence, it was.
And of course Mike has questioned and debunked the whole idea of a people named the Hittites and the false idea of them actually existing let alone being an actual people or singular ethnic group.
You have not presented any evidence that Indo-Europeans domesticated the horse. You have not disputed my linguistic evidence illustrating the Indo-Europen names for horses.
There is no way to dispute the existence of Hittites in Anatolia. The Kushites were called Hattic, the I-E speakers were called Hittites in the European literature.
.
I am sorry you haven't really refuted anything either and it's commonly accepted fact that the Indo-Europeans were THE FIRST DOMESTICATE THE HORSE IN EURASIA! That is accepted by all mainstream scholars, and THAT FACT IS CENTRAL TO THE ARYAN MIGRATION THEORY! The Anatolian hypothesis is completely false and is outdated junk science and false conjecture at this point, JUST ON PURE LOGICAL GROUNDS!
The first region and location, as mainstream sources tell us, WHERE THE EURASIAN HORSE WAS SAID TO HAVE BEEN DOMESTICATED, WAS IN THE REGION OF CENTRAL ASIA 5,000 YEARS AGO, WHERE THE INDO-EUROPEAN PEOPLES WERE SAID TO HAVE THEIR FIRST MAJOR PRESENCE ON THE WORLD STAGE IN!
The horse, like the camel again, migrated from North America through the Bering land bridge, to Eurasia and Central Asia in prehistory as modern science tell us. And the EURASIAN VARIETY OF THE HORSE, WAS DOMESTICATED IN A REGION WHERE WHITE INDO-EUROPEANS ARE SAID TO HAVE THEIR HOMELAND IN AND ORIGINATE FROM! Is that a coincidence? Probably not!
So yes White Indo-Europeans did indeed domesticate the horse and THE ANCIENT CHINESE RECORDS OF THEM THAT I PROVIDED TO YOU IN THIS THREAD ATTEST TO THIS!
And you also failed to disprove that the so called Indo-European languages was a language social matrix as opposed to pure racial markers, and refuted the debunking of the Anatolian hypothesis in my two links I provided.
And we have already gone over the so called existence and idea of the "Hittite" people many times in this forum, and even people like Mike disputes whether a peopled named the "Hittites" ever really existed or were "Indo-European" peoples, as white researchers like to claim.
Posts: 1558 | From: US | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: modern Europeans are a mix of people wake the f up.
This is indeed what the study says, posted by you, when you cited Mike.
The received admixture via bottleneck occurrence, from preceding populations. The in contrast with Chien's analyses makes it inevitable and the ultimate truth.
Furthermore what studies like this prove, is what I have been saying on here for a long time, since I joined the forum; and again the genetic and historical evidence is just too much to deny at this point, it is this:
quote: Now you don't seem to understand the big picture of my theory/idea and the significance of it in explaining who these european albino's are. Otherwise you would realize just how relevant it is.
When we look at traditional "white groups" in Europe, such as Germans/Scandinavians/Irish/ etc etc etc, we find a confusing set of DNA patterns and genes.
First we find that even modern day Europeans have major non-white haplogroups as their primary DNA markers, and they are primarily from different areas of the globe. We find that they have afro-asiatic haplogroup R1b and Eurasian haplogroup R1a and a spattering of other african rooted black genes as well.
Accordingly they should be pretty dark and "normal" looking which they aren't. Except for areas in Southern Europe, even the Europeans with african or foreign haplogroups are extremely white looking or just not "normal" looking.
The obvious explanation is of course albinism, but what gets confusing is the combination of genes that they have and why White Europeans look distinct from even Dravidian and African albino's to an extent, which you can see if you look at pictures carefully.
It seems as though they are a distinct race of albino's that even the skeptic will find it hard to believe they are albino's just based on their distinctive looks alone. So there has to be an explanation; Cavorlli-Savofza and all the genetic studies proves the genetics of these "white groups" and how black rooted and dravidian rooted they are but still the puzzle remains as to their distinct appearance from other albino populations.
Yet these people are some of the most albino looking on earth and yet how did they come to be so white, despite carrying all these dark group genes like R1b and R1a? And how did they evolve as a distinct group themselves from the rest of the planet? Even the albino Nuristani, Kalash, and Afghans look kinda different from white Europeans despite sharing similar genes like R1a!
And how come there are so many of them in Europe today when albinism is rare? Surely the climate of Europe has to be favorable to someone with albinism as well as the geography.
So my explanation is the answer to all this:
Here is what happened in simple terms:
1)Europe was settled by Blacks from Africa, some of whom had albino's of their own, as seen by the blue eyes of the hunter gatherers there A MAJOR CLUE! They carried genetic haplogroup R1b and genes like I etc etc.
2) The favorable climate of Europe towards these albino's who carried R1b, allowed them to seek refuge in caves, in mountains and in the northern parts of Europe, allowing them to inbreed with each other and hide from black europeans. They breed a sizable population of themselves in Europe.
3) Europe still had a sizable black European population all over, and they start giving these Black European albino's, who carried R1b, the tanzanian treatment and start attacking and enslaving them and preventing them into their civilizations in Europe.
4) The Dravidian albino's have started settling Eurasia and Central Asia/Siberia in general, aka the Kurgan people; they start tearing down forests and just being expansionary people. They hear about more fertile places and better places in Europe, the Middle East, South Asia etc. Competition with themselves and Mongoloids bring them to arrive in these locations in waves with the horse.
These people carried haplogroup R1a, and are mostly R1a in genetic composition, they are the present day dravidian albino's of Eastern Europe and the Baltics who are also mostly R1a.
5) The first wave of Dravidian albino's arrive in Europe and immediately there is conflict between them and the Black Europeans. The Black Europeans are forced to accommodate the Dravidian albino's because they have superior cavalry in terms of how many horses they have brought with them. This results in the greek "centaur myth".
6) The Dravidian albino's breed and mix with the black Europeans AND WITH THE ALBINO BLACK EUROPEANS AS WELL! The Dravidian albino's allowed some of the black European R1b albino's some freedom.
7) There are still Black European albino's scattered across Europe, and in particular northern european since Europe is thickly covered in forests.
8) Fast forward several hundred years, civilizations and societies are popping up all over Europe with the expansion of the Greeks and the Roman empire. Black Europeans start increasing in population AS WELL AS THEIR ALBINO'S WHO CARRIED R1b AND SOME OF THE MIXED R1a/R1b Dravidian Albino/Black European mixed people!
9) Due to conflict, wars, need for more land and resources, more and more Dravidian Albino's start coming in waves like illegal mexican immigrants, INTO EUROPE, as a result of the expansion of the Hunnic/Mongolian empires of the Central Asia steppes, as well their failure to secure land in area in the Middle East due to defeats at the hands of people like the Assyrians.
10) This huge population influx of nomadic steppe barbaric dravidian albino's and the resultant conflict with the Huns/mongoloids, causes a disturbance of the status quo and black european civilizations in Europe.
11) By the time the waves of Dravidian albino's start arriving in Europe, there are already a large number of R1b Black European albino's as WELL AS MIXED R1a DRAVIDIAN/EUROPEAN BLACK MIXED OFF-SPRING!
12) The huge albino migrant population in Europe, hailing from Central Asia, are seen as how Mexicans are seen today in the U.S, by the black Europeans. They start demanding power and start to seek to usurp and take over Europe.
13) They ally with the mixed black Europeans and R1b Black European albino population of Europe and attack Black European society and civilization. They rampage and destroy most of black European civilization such as in the thirty years war and the fall of the Roman empire. THEY HOWEVER MIX WITH THE R1B BLACK EUROPEAN ALBINO POPULATIONS!
14) The Dravidian/Black European Albino mix population have a demographic upperhand and a numerical upperhand in population due to the decline of black European civilization in Europe due to time by now.
15) Eventually the Black Europeans and the mixed non-albino Black Europeans are either exterminated, killed, or sent off to different places but particularly in the New world, by the combination of Black European albino's and Dravidian albino's.
16) This increases and whitens Europe's main demographics tremendously, and the Dravidian and Black European albino's have now bred with each other extensively RESULTING IN MODERN WESTERN/EUROPEAN POPULATIONS TODAY!
17) This explains how Western Europeans and even Central Europeans are so goddamn albino white today DESPITE CARRYING ALL THESE DIFFERENT AFRICAN/WOG GENES AND STILL BEING SO GODDAMN WHITE!
18) This explains the HUGE PRESENCE, of haplogroup R1b in Western Europe, WHICH THE DRAVIDIAN ALBINO'S DO NOT HAVE! If we were to mix a Dravidian albino with a black European, the resultant admixture would be relatively swarthy as we can see in Southern Europe.
19) How does one explain then how North-Western European populations are so white today, despite genetically being the admixture of Black Europeans/and Dravidian albino's as seen by their sharing of haplo R1a and R1b?
The ANSWER IS OBVIOUS! THEY ARE THE RESULT OF BLACK EUROPEANS ALBINO'S AND DRAVIDIAN EURASIAN ALBINO'S MIXING AND BREEDING WITH EACH OTHER, THIS GENETIC DIVERSITY ALLOWED THEM TO BREED A LARGE POPULATION, WHERAS PREVIOUSLY THEY WERE TOO INBRED TO BREED A LARGE POPULATION! THE CLIMATE OF EUROPE ALSO HELPED THEM BREED A LARGE POPULATION OF ALBINO'S!
THE BLACK EUROPEANS WERE KILLED AND SENT OFF AWAY, ALLOWING THESE TWO ALBINO POPULATIONS TO SAFELY BREED AND CREATE A POPULATION OF THEIR OWN IN WESTERN/NORTHERN EUROPE!
So my example of whitening them up IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT ILLUSTRATES HOW MODERN NORTH-WEST EUROPEANS ARE SO ALBINO AND ARE AN ALBINO RACE, YET IT ALSO EXPLAINS HOW MODERN WESTERN EUROPEANS LOOK DISTINCT FROM DRAVIDIAN ALBINO'S TODAY!
This distinct White European look of Western and northern Europeans, separate to that of albino's elsewhere, IS THE RESULT OF DRAVIDIAN ALBINO'S BREEDING WITH BLACK EUROPEAN ALBINO'S EXCLUSIVELY!
and this:
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
quote:Originally posted by kdolo: Ok. So the Black Europeans ...
Weakened and reduced by plaques which disproprtionatley affect dense population center, climate changes, general cultural decline, and invasions are overwhelmed by agressive Albinos....
These albinos come in as nomads, refugees, but eventually due to numbers make their way up the social ladder and eventually usurp Black rule altogether and rewrite history.
The part i dont get.
Why do you insist that the Dravidians mixed with Black Euro Albinos ........as opposed to the non Albino Black Euros. ??
For various reasons, and which I explained to in the thread I linked to.
First, I am using genetic and climatic science to my theory.
In history, when you had albino tribes they often lived in isolation and away from major populations or normal people. This was the case in South Asia and in Africa even.
With a glimpse at a genetic table, you can see that modern Europeans are hybrids and contain many different genes along with a major Eurasian DNA presence.
And Southern Europeans look different from Northern Europeans. And groups like the Irish, English, French can be very albino looking despite having "southern European genes/African genes".
So my explanation is, since most of the major population centers in early Europe were in Southern, South-Western Europe and Central Europe, this is where most of the Black Europeans were.
As a result, most of the plagues and weather shifts hit those Black Europeans first and the most.
The Albino's of these black Europeans lived in the forests and mountains of Northern European, or mountains/caves in Europe elsewhere in isolation as albino tribes would normally. They carried Haplogroup R1b like the Basque.
As the Eurasian albino hordes started coming, AFTER SEVERAL PLAGUES HAD ALREADY HIT EUROPE, and THE LITTLE ICE STARTED HAPPENING, THEY BRED WITH THE BLACK EUROPEAN ALBINO'S IN NORTHERN AND CENTRAL NORTHERN EUROPE!
This mixture created the modern day Germanic peoples:
quote: A Adogit, Aelvaeones, Aeragnaricii, Ahelmil, Alamanni or Alemanni, Ambrones, Ampsivarii or Ampsivari, Anglii/Angli or Angles/Engla or Englisc, Angrivarii or Angrivari, Arochi, Atuatuci, Augandzi, Avarpi, Aviones.
B Baemi, Banchaemae, Batavii or Batavi, Batavians, Batini, Bavarii, Bergio, Brisgavi, Brondings, Bructeri, Burgundiones, Buri.
The preserved mythical founders and namesakes of some Germanic tribes:
Angul — Angles (the Kings of Mercia, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, other Anglo-Saxon dynasties are derived from other descendants of Woden)
This is evident by the presence of BOTH haplogroup R1b and R1a in Scandinavians, who are a hybrid albino race and R1b being the primary haplogroup IN WESTERN AND NORTHWEST EUROPE!
These Germanics/Northern Europeans started attacking and populating the entirety of Europe along with later Eurasian albino steppe nomads like the Slavs/Turks once word got out that civilizations in the South and South-West started declining and the population was getting wiped out.
This is exactly how it happened as described in historical records! Once Black Europe got weakened, these Albino's started launching attacks and raids and wars from Northern and Eastern Europe to black civilizations in Europe.
See the Germanic invasions, the viking age, the invasions of the Avars, the Turks taking over constantinopole.
What I'm saying is that the albino bred with BOTH, Black Europeans in the South as is evident today AND BLACK EUROPEAN ALBINO'S IN THE NORTH! This explains why Northern Europeans have african and non-white genes IN THEM!
The Black European albino's and Dravidian Albino's created the modern Germans, Scandinavians and people like the Irish and Dutch. I'm saying this due to the DNA haplogroup and genes IN MODERN WHITE EUROPEANS TODAY!
I am saying this to describe and explain why White Europeans LOOK THE WAY THAT THEY DO TODAY! And they are distinct looking even as albino's from Dravidian albino's.
posted
^It's hard to read, when you use bold fonts and fat caps, in a response. It reads unpleasant.
Posts: 22247 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: And it makes sense, this is a huge and gigantic region, the size of the continental USA, and has lots and lots of space for horses to travel throughout, which "Indo-european" Whites were the first to domesticate.....
Whites were not the first to domesticate the horse. Whites adopted horses after they met the Kushites in Anatolia.
The Hurrians spoke a non-IE language. Formerly, linguist suggested that the Hurrians were dominated by Indic speakers. Linguist of the IE languages were fond of this theory because some of the names for the earliest Indo-Aryan gods, chariots and horsemenship are found in Hurrian.
This made the Indo-Aryan domination of Hurrians good support for an Anatolia origin for the IE speakers. This theory held high regards until Bjarte Kaldhol studied 500 Hurrian names and found that only 5, were Indo-Aryan sounding. This made it clear that the IA people probably learned horsemenship from the Hurrians, a Kushite ethnic group, not the other way around.
.
. At the base of Nesite, the language of the Hittites is Hattic. Since this language was used as a lingua franca, Nesa was probably not an IE language as assumed by IE linguist. This along with the fact that Diakonoff and Kohl never defeated the Kaska; and the Hurrians introduced horse-drawn war chariots for military purposes indicate that Anatolia probably was not a homeland for the IE speakers.
I am sorry but Anatolian origin of the IE speakers has been debunked and refuted already:
quote: The ancient DNA case against the Anatolian hypothesis
In the debate over the location of the Proto-Indo-European urheimat, Colin Renfrew's Anatolian hypothesis is usually mentioned as the most viable alternative to the steppe or Kurgan hypothesis. But probably not for very much longer.
Below is a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) featuring extant Indo-European and non-Indo-European groups from West Eurasia, a couple of typical early Neolithic farmers from Central Europe, a typical Western Hunter-Gatherer, also from Central Europe, and the Iceman from the Copper Age Tyrolean Alps, again typical of his time and place.*
It's just a taste of the ancient genomic data we have available from prehistoric Europe, but it has almost everything that is pertinent to the issue at hand.
You don't need to be familiar with PCA methodology to be able to read the plot. Basically, it shows that the present-day European population structure is the result of two main events:
- the arrival of early farmers from Anatolia during the Neolithic transition, which eventually caused the extinction of people like the Western Hunter-Gatherer, who is the most obvious outlier on the plot
- the expansion of Kurgan groups such as the Yamnaya, which led to the formation of the Corded Ware horizon across much of Europe and shifted the genetic structure of almost all Europeans to the east, away from the Neolithic and Copper Age samples.
These were massive population turnovers, and, as a rule, massive population turnovers are accompanied by language change. So it's highly unlikely that any Europeans today are speaking languages derived from those of the Western Hunter-Gatherers or early Neolithic farmers of Central Europe (ie. according to Renfrew the ancestors of Celts, Germanics and other Indo-Europeans). Moreover, consider this:
- most present-day Indo-European speaking Europeans form an elongated cluster between the Neolithic farmers and the Corded Ware sample, pointing to the steppe-derived Corded Ware Culture as the proximate agent of the Indo-European expansion in much of Europe
- the only present-day Europeans who closely resemble Neolithic farmers are some Sardinians (the small Romance cluster just above the two Neolithic samples), but Sardinians spoke Paleo-Sardinian or Nuragic languages until they adopted Indo-European speech, in the form of Latin, from the Romans (see page 118 here).
Also, this isn't shown on the plot, but the dominant Y-chromosome haplogroup of early Neolithic farmers is G2a, which is a low frequency marker in Europe today. The two most common Y-chromosome haplogroups among present-day Europeans are R-M198 and R-M269, which are also typical of Corded Ware and Yamnaya males, respectively, and probably originally from the steppe.
So is there any way to rework the Anatolian hypothesis so that it can be salvaged? I doubt it. Even making the steppe a homeland for all of the main Indo-European branches apart from Anatolian and Armenian probably won't help.
It is true that the Yamnaya nomads carried Near Eastern-related ancestry which may represent Proto-Indo-European admixture from outside of the steppe. But there's no evidence that it came from Anatolia.
In fact, if Neolithic Anatolians were basically identical to early Neolithic European farmers, which seems to be the case (see here and here), then it's unlikely that it did, because the latter carried a peculiar genome-wide signal that is missing in Yamnaya genomes (orange cluster in the ADMIXTURE bar graph below).** Heck, even the early Corded Ware genomes from Germany barely show any of it.
I won't go into the linguistics arguments here why the Anatolian hypothesis is implausible. But it might be worth checking out a new book on the topic by linguists Asya Pereltsvaig and Martin W. Lewis: The Indo-European Controversy: Facts and Fallacies in Historical Linguistics. I haven't read it yet, so I welcome the opinions here of those who have. I did, however, read a lot of the online articles on which the book is based. As far as I know most of them are still available here and here.
*Another version of the same PCA, with the samples labeled individually, is available here. All possible combinations of dimensions 1 to 4 are shown here. The samples are listed here. All of the samples are from Haak et al. and Allentoft et al. The PCA was run using ~56K high confidence SNPs listed here.
The Corded Ware sample is a composite of Corded Ware sequences from Germany, Scandinavia, Estonia and Poland. The Yamnaya sample is a composite of Yamnaya sequences from the Kalmykia and Samara regions of Russia.
I chose to use these composites instead of individual sequences because I didn't want to run any samples with genotype rates of less than 98%.
** For a more detailed ADMIXTURE analysis comparing early Neolithic farmers to Yamnaya refer to Haak et al. Supplementary Information 6. Note the minimal sharing of components at the higher K between the early Neolithic farmers and Yamnaya, especially at K=16, which has the lowest median cross-validation (CV) error. This is in agreement with the PCA above.
quote: Why the Anatolian hypothesis is wrong There is a breakdown on John Hawks' blog of a recent paper in Science about the Indo-European expansion. Using a method derived from epidemiology, the authors reached the conclusion that Proto-Indo-European was spoken in Anatolia.
This is the Anatolian hypothesis, that Indo-European languages spread after agriculture was introduced to what is now Turkey, with the expansion dating to some point in the last 10,000 years, perhaps around 6000 BCE.
The method used in the paper is based on a statistical analysis of cognate terms in Indo-European languages, which is not a usual method in historical linguistics. Linguists have experimented with statistical methods in the past, and they have rejected most of them in favour of rigorous analysis of languages. Unless the sample is chosen judiciously, statistical methods are useless. And it's important to remember that historical linguists and archaeologists have other methods, methods with a proven utility.
Among those methods is the Wörter und Sachen method, which involves examining the objects found in archaeological investigations and then seeing how they fit together with a reconstructed language. If you find evidence of wheeled vehicles at a site, and your proto-language has a reconstructed term for wheels, axles, or carts, then there is the possibility that the speakers of the language were also the people who lived at the site. The more reconstructed terms there are for things at a site, the better the case is that the speakers were also the inhabitants.
Proto-Indo-European has terms for all aspects of wool production. It has words for a variety of domesticated animals as used by pastoralists, and its terms of 'wealth' are related to pastoralism. It has words indicating a tribal social structure based around clans with patrilineally-descended heads. All of these things correlate best with a pastoral society inhabiting the steppe, and not with an agricultural economy as the Anatolian hypothesis would predict.
The wool terminology in particular makes no sense if the Anatolian hypothesis is assumed; it is a necessary feature of the Anatolian hypothesis that the expansion, into Europe at least, took place about 8,000 years or so ago, but wool sheep are only found archaeologically from about 4000-3500 BCE. Why would Indo-European languages share words for wool and woollen technologies if the speakers of the proto-language knew nothing about wool because wool sheep literally did not exist at that point?
This is a slightly weak argument, because the reconstructed term, *HwlHn-, could possibly have referred to the short undercoat of sheep. That seems unlikely, but it's technically possible, and so the wool evidence is just one part of the case for a steppe origin.
Proto-Indo-European has a lot of reconstructed words for wheeled vehicles. The earliest wheeled vehicles are found in the Caucasus and on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, not Anatolia, and this vocabulary is most lacking in Hittite, one of the few Indo-European languages actually found in Anatolia. The Hittites were a literate civilization of the mid-to-late second millennium BCE (c. 1400 BCE), and a major power in the Near East.
They were, alongside the Luwians, some of the only Indo-European speakers in the area, which was dominated by non-Indo-European speakers (perhaps an indication that Indo-European speakers came from elsewhere), including the Hattians - the people who gave the Hittites their popular name. The Hittites were famous for using chariots, and they used them to dominate their neighbours, even defeating Egypt under Riʻmīsisu II (Ramesses) at the battle of Kadesh in the 13th century BCE.
But there's something interesting about the Hittite use of chariots: it was clearly introduced from elsewhere, and the people who introduced it spoke Indo-European languages. A chariot manual by a man named Kikkuli, in the Mitanni empire - a Hurrian-speaking empire in what is now Syria - was written almost entirely in Hittite, except for the words for the chariot terminology itself. This terminology, incredibly, was in a language whose closest relation was actually Sanskrit. That makes this manual, and other Mitanni texts, the earliest written attestation of an Indic language anywhere in the world, and it comes from Syria. Quite amazing.
So where did these Indic speakers, who introduced chariots into the Near East, come from? Archaeological evidence shows the earliest use of chariots to be on the Eurasian steppe around the second millennium BCE. The remains are clearly related to those found further west on the steppe as well, and the archaeological cultures related to the emergence of charioteering were steppe pastoralists and metallurgists. These remains, found for instance at a site called Sintashta in modern Russia, are believed to be associated with speakers of Indo-Iranian, the proto-language from which the languages of Persia and India descend.
This identification is particularly secure for a number of reasons. One is that sites like Sintashta show evidence of activities, including ritual and warfare, that correlate perfectly with Indic texts like the Rig Veda. The Rig Veda is a set of over a thousand hymns in Vedic Sanskrit, an archaic form of the language. The hymns describe rituals of all kinds, including especially funerary rituals, and these expositions in the Vedas correlate perfectly with the evidence found at Sintashta and other similar sites.
For instance, Vedic funerals were accompanied by funerary games including chariot races. In these races the chariots would turn left. Not only are chariots found in southern Russia from the right time period (including the earliest known in the world), but the evidence also shows a curious feature: bits for horses that are asymmetrical. The right side of the bit is larger than the left, indicating a consistent preference for turning left!
There's much more evidence than that - especially the fact that most Iranian languages were found in western Central Asia and southern Russia before the Turkic and Slavic expansions, and the fact that the Aryan migrations into India appear on the basis of archaeological evidence to have come from the northwest, and the fact that Iranian migrations into what is now Iran (and was once Elam and Babylon) began in the east. Had the Iranic peoples come from Anatolia, they would surely have attacked the neo-Babylonian empire from the west, instead of taking it under Kurush in the sixth century BCE from a base in modern Fars province, Iran.
In the Science article, there's a map (you can see it on John Hawks' blog) of the distribution of the Indo-European languages, showing the centre of distribution to be in Anatolia, but this is quite wrong; extinct Iranian languages are missed off the map, and they are known to have been spoken in what is now Russia (the Pontic-Caspian steppe) into historical times.
Alan (which became the modern language of Ossetian spoken in the Caucasus), Scytho-Sarmatian - these were Iranic languages spoken on the steppe by pastoralists in historical times. Bactrian was an Iranic language spoken in Central Asia, in what is now Turkic-speaking territory. They are left off the map and the analysis because they are poorly known, but they were certainly spoken on the steppe and they were certainly Iranic.
This is an impossible distribution if you take the Anatolian hypothesis to be true, and they'd also mess up the map if they were placed on it - in fact, they'd distort it completely. If you look at the map provided, it shows a neat distribution of Indo-Iranian east of Anatolia in a neat bubble, implying that Indo-Iranian simply moved east. But that is not the present, and certainly not the past, distribution of Indo-Iranian languages, and it equally certainly fails to represent the actual propagation of those languages in Eurasia.
The homeland of Iranic and Indic languages was in the steppe north of the Caspian sea; that makes most sense of the archaeological and linguistic evidence from all fronts.
The archaeological cultures of the Indo-Iranians show clear continuity with archaeological cultures to their west on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, indicating that they came from further west, and they clearly displaced other groups who had previously resided there. These Pontic-Caspian archaeological cultures show a perfect correlation with the terminology of reconstructed Proto-Indo-European as well.
Looking at it as if Indo-European languages came from Anatolia doesn't make sense of these facts. So instead we should ask, how did Indo-European languages end up in Anatolia? How did Hittite come to be spoken there?
Hittite is an archaic Indo-European language that preserved several features lacking in all other Indo-European sub-families, and at first sight this gives some reason for believing in the Anatolian hypothesis. But actually it doesn't, and the much more plausible view is that the Hittites and Luwians entered Anatolian from west of the Black Sea earlier than the formulation of 'classical' Proto-Indo-European.
The ancestors of the Hittites spoke what is called 'pre-Proto-Indo-European'; the language that became Hittite in Anatolia, after isolation from other Indo-European speakers and contact with non-Indo-Europeans, and Proto-Indo-European on the steppe after linguistic and technological innovations. The reason Hittite preserves archaic features is because it doesn't descend from Proto-Indo-European at all, but rather from the language that became Proto-Indo-European.
This also correlates with the archaeological evidence, which shows a quick migration from the steppes through the country west of the Black Sea and south towards Greece and Asia Minor at the expected time of the propagation of pre-Proto-Indo-European.
Another piece of very good evidence for a steppe homeland for Indo-European comes from the unrelated Uralic languages. Finnish, Hungarian, and Saami are modern Uralic languages found in Europe, and others are to be found further east, including Mordvin and Mari, spoken in Russia. Here is a map showing the present distribution of Uralic languages; they are all to the north of the Black and Caspian Seas, and the geographic centre of distribution is in the Ural mountains, likely on the European side. That is where the Uralic homeland seems to have been.
Here's how this links to Indo-European studies: Proto-Uralic shows the presence of loanwords from Proto-Indo-European. This has been known for some time. The loans are documented in The Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture (Mallory and Adams 1997), as well as David Anthony's brilliant book, The Horse, The Wheel, and Language, which is more recent. They aren't loans from living Indo-European languages into living Uralic languages, but loans from Proto-Indo-European into Proto-Uralic, at a very early period. There is also considerable evidence that a later form of Uralic was in contact with speakers of Indo-Aryan languages, as several Indo-Aryan loanwords have been discovered.
What this means is that Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic were spoken in adjacent areas, and that their speakers were in contact with one another for a sustained period. Proto-Uralic was not spoken in Anatolia, but on the European side of the Ural mountains, adjacent to the Pontic-Caspian steppe, again indicating that Proto-Indo-European was spoken there as well.
I'm not going to go into the rest of the evidence, but needless to say, there's a lot of it. But here's a final point. If the Anatolian hypothesis were actually correct, and Indo-European languages came from Anatolia and not the steppe, then who were those people on the steppe whose archaeological cultures correlate so closely with Indo-European material? Where did they go? Why do we not have evidence of another major language family spreading from the western Pontic-Caspian steppe around 3000 BCE?
In the paper, it is suggested that the steppe hypothesis is possible - after the Anatolian migration had done its work. That is really a little mad. What it claims is that Indo-European expanded into Europe as a result of the introduction of agriculture into Anatolia from the Near East 8,000 years or so ago. Agriculture allowed the Indo-Europeans to migrate, grow large populations, and dominate Europe. That's the Anatolian hypothesis so far.
But then it is necessary to believe that these ardent agriculturalists, people for whom agriculture must have been incredibly important, abandoned agriculture entirely, entered the steppe (without leaving archaeological remains of having done so), became pastoralists, relied on wild foods like Chenopodium for their carbohydrate intake, took to wagons, herded cattle, and then spread across the Eurasian steppe. And, somehow, the peoples of Europe shared their cultural, religious, and linguistic innovations, including the importance of cattle, horses, oaths, sky deities, and youthful tribal warfare. That isn't parsimonious, and it relies solely on the statistical study showing that the Anatolian branch retained the largest number of common cognates - which is already consistent with the idea that Hittite descends from the pre-Proto-Indo-European that came off the steppe before Proto-Indo-European as we know it had formed.
So here is the picture presented by archaeology and linguistics: speakers of pre-Proto-Indo-European originated on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, north of the Black Sea, around the fifth millennium BCE. Some of these speakers migrated west, passing through and attacking the towns of the Cucuteni-Tripolye archaeological culture.
They passed to the south and turned east, eventually ending up in Anatolia, where the pre-Proto-Indo-European language diverged into Hittite and Luwian. These people were in contact with speakers of lots of other language families, and they were also in contact with other groups in the Near East.
The Hittites were migrants into Anatolia, which partially explains why their lives were completely different to those of other Indo-European groups, and why they absorbed and adopted the traits of non-Indo-European native Anatolian groups, like the Hurrians.
The rest of the speakers of pre-Proto-Indo-European stayed just where they were, developing a strongly pastoral economy based on large herds of cattle herded with the aid of wagons and domesticated horses. They were in contact with speakers of Proto-Uralic and probably Kartvelian, and the pre-Proto-Indo-European language became what we know as Proto-Indo-European. The speakers of this language, associated with the Yamnaya archaeological culture, spread in several directions: to the east went wagon-riding pastoralists whose remains show continuity with the Tocharian (Indo-European-speaking) peoples of western China. Also in that direction went people with similar cultural traits whose languages became Indo-Iranian. They centred north of the Caspian sea before some of them migrated south, east of the Caspian, through the cities of Central Asia and the Indus. To the west of the Pontic steppe went speakers of Proto-Indo-European whose languages diverged to form Balto-Slavic (dominant throughout the area north of the Black Sea and up to the Baltic in early historic and prehistoric times), Italo-Celtic, Germanic, and other subgroups of Indo-European.
That is the model that makes most sense of the data. The Anatolian hypothesis makes sense of very little of it, and I don't think any single study of any sub-group of Indo-European languages will ever override the combined evidence of archaeology and linguistics. The phylogeographic model may work well for modelling language families, but it also has to take account of other evidence, and also of extinct languages. The studies in Science do not do this, and the Anatolian hypothesis is simply not correct.
The Anatolian hypothesis is pure outdated junk science and conjecture at this point with all the DNA and historical and evidence gathered so far.
And when I refer to "horses" I am not talking about the supposed African horses in Northern Africa, I talking about EURASIAN HORSES FROM THE STEPPES OF SIBERIA AND CENTRAL ASIA, WHICH WERE LARGER AND A DIFFERENT BREED THEN NEAR-EASTERN AND AFRICAN/ARABIAN ONES, AND WHICH HELPED A LOT OF WHITE EURASIAN TRIBES TAKE OVER TERRITORIES!
There is also the fact that the people who spread agriculture and farming to Europe during the Neolithic, CAME AND PASSED THROUGH ANATOLIA FROM THE SOUTH-WEST ASIA AREA!
So if we are to follow the Anatolian hypothesis, it would mean and indicate that farming and agriculture would also spread to the Eurasian steppe region at around the same time as when farming started there, as far as Siberia; which again THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE OF, HISTORICALLY OR ARCHAEOLOGICALLY WISE, IN CENTRAL ASIA AND SIBERIA WHERE WHITE EURASIAN PEOPLES/INDO-EUROPEANS ORIGINATED FROM!
THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE OF WHITE INDO-EUROPEANS/WHITE EURASIANS PRACTICING FORMAL AGRICULTURE AND FARMING AS SEEN IN THE NEAR EAST-FERTILE CRESCENT-AFRICA-SOUTH ASIA-SOUTHERN CHINA AREA, ZERO!
WHITE INDO-EUROPEAN TRIBES WERE NOT KNOWN OR EVEN RECORDED OF PRACTICING FARMING OR AGRICULTURE AS SEEN IN EARLY CIVILIZATIONS! THEY WERE ALL BARBARIC HORSE NOMADS WHO RAIDED, PILLAGED, LOOTED AND TOOK OVER PLACES LIKE LAND PIRATES AND WHO HAD A NOMADIC NON-SEDENTARY LIFESTYLE, WHICH IS A CLEAR INDICATION THAT THEY DID NOT PRACTICE FORMAL FARMING AND AGRICULTURE OR HAD SETTLED CIVILIZATIONS THAT WERE RELIANT ON FARMING OR AGRICULTURE!
And there is no archaeological or genetic or historical evidence of White Eurasians practicing or even discovering or starting farming in Eurasia either; no written testimony or accounts by outside parties who witnessed Ancient White Eurasian tribes! This is the big dent and hole in the Anatolian hypothesis theory that refutes the Anatolian origin theory all together!
And the Horse originated from North America, like the Camel, and migrated across a bridge to Eurasia proper and spread throughout according to current science. So it makes sense that the Eurasian horse was domesticated by early White Eurasians who migrated to Central Asia and Siberia thousands of years ago.
Also I don't trust pure linguistic evidence as proof of racial markers and categories at this very early point in history.
The supposed Indo-European languages was basically the microsoft of the BC period, where many peoples, both white and non-white spoke it on the silk road routes and in Eurasia, just like there are so many IE language speakers in Southern Asia and in predominantly non-white countries today; which negates the IE language speaker=racially white claim. I mean there are many speakers of English in Jamaica today, but does that make them White Anglo-saxons?
No it doesn't, The IE language should not be used as pure racial marker categories, but should be seen a as shared cultural linguistic social internet matrix of Eurasia at the time, which by all evidence, it was.
And of course Mike has questioned and debunked the whole idea of a people named the Hittites and the false idea of them actually existing let alone being an actual people or singular ethnic group.
You have not presented any evidence that Indo-Europeans domesticated the horse. You have not disputed my linguistic evidence illustrating the Indo-Europen names for horses.
There is no way to dispute the existence of Hittites in Anatolia. The Kushites were called Hattic, the I-E speakers were called Hittites in the European literature.
.
I am sorry you haven't really refuted anything either and it's commonly accepted fact that the Indo-Europeans were THE FIRST DOMESTICATE THE HORSE IN EURASIA! That is accepted by all mainstream scholars, and THAT FACT IS CENTRAL TO THE ARYAN MIGRATION THEORY! The Anatolian hypothesis is completely false and is outdated junk science and false conjecture at this point, JUST ON PURE LOGICAL GROUNDS!
The first region and location, as mainstream sources tell us, WHERE THE EURASIAN HORSE WAS SAID TO HAVE BEEN DOMESTICATED, WAS IN THE REGION OF CENTRAL ASIA 5,000 YEARS AGO, WHERE THE INDO-EUROPEAN PEOPLES WERE SAID TO HAVE THEIR FIRST MAJOR PRESENCE ON THE WORLD STAGE IN!
The horse, like the camel again, migrated from North America through the Bering land bridge, to Eurasia and Central Asia in prehistory as modern science tell us. And the EURASIAN VARIETY OF THE HORSE, WAS DOMESTICATED IN A REGION WHERE WHITE INDO-EUROPEANS ARE SAID TO HAVE THEIR HOMELAND IN AND ORIGINATE FROM! Is that a coincidence? Probably not!
So yes White Indo-Europeans did indeed domesticate the horse and THE ANCIENT CHINESE RECORDS OF THEM THAT I PROVIDED TO YOU IN THIS THREAD ATTEST TO THIS!
And you also failed to disprove that the so called Indo-European languages was a language social matrix as opposed to pure racial markers, and refuted the debunking of the Anatolian hypothesis in my two links I provided.
And we have already gone over the so called existence and idea of the "Hittite" people many times in this forum, and even people like Mike disputes whether a peopled named the "Hittites" ever really existed or were "Indo-European" peoples, as white researchers like to claim.
Rhectoric does not supercede facts. Where is your data disputing my linguistic evidence?
As usual you are just repeating things the white man taught you.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: ^It's hard to read, when you use bold fonts and fat caps, in a response. It reads unpleasant.
K I edited it....
Thanks.
The purpose of those posts was to show that:
1) Chien was correct on his analysis.
2) To show the Doxie aka Celticharlot, that science confirms modern European origin lies somewhere else from what she claims. The debate is now, from where exactly.
I also posted: "Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia, Allentoft et al. 2015", which caters to Chien his analysis in someway.
I also looked at the reference used by Chien: Snorri Sturluson.
posted
Chein is claiming that the Indo-European homeland, or at least the first place they settled when humans started arriving to the region from Southern Asia, was in a region North of the China area, encompassing Siberia AND CENTRAL ASIA; NOT THE PONTIC CASPIAN SOUTHERN RUSSIA REGION AS THE EUROCENTRISTS ARE TRYING TO CLAIM, WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE SIBERIA!
It's important everyone understands this, because the evidence so far does seem to indicate this. The Pontic Caspian sea region was a region that the White Indo-Europeans GOT TO AND COLONIZED, AFTER THEY SETTLED IN SIBERIA AN EASTERN CENTRAL ASIA AND NORTHERN ASIA FIRST!
And I too have gathered evidence and research providing more support to Prof Chein's claims, involving the origins of the Zhou dynasty in China which was, from all the clues gathered, an Indo-European dynasty in question. I will post my research later.
But basically the Zhou, the Jie, the Xianbei, the Di, Xiongnu, HU etc etc, were basically White Indo-European barbarians who intruded UPON INTO ANCIENT CHINA FROM THE NORTH AND NORTH-WEST REGIONS!
This refutes the bullshit research and claims made by the Eurocentrists who claim that the Indo-Europeans originated from the pontic caspian steppes, because these barbarians wouldn't have been able to intrude upon Ancient China if they did, as opposed to them originating from Northern Central Asia & Siberia...
Basically the Eurocentrist theories like here, are lying and not explaining the entire story as Professor's chein's accounts are telling us:
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Chein is claiming that the Indo-European homeland, or at least the first place they settled when humans started arriving to the region from Southern Asia, was in a region North of the China area, encompassing Siberia AND CENTRAL ASIA; NOT THE PONTIC CASPIAN SOUTHERN RUSSIA REGION AS THE EUROCENTRISTS ARE TRYING TO CLAIM, WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE SIBERIA!
It's important everyone understands this, because the evidence so far does seem to indicate this. The Pontic Caspian sea region was a region that the White Indo-Europeans GOT TO AND COLONIZED, AFTER THEY SETTLED IN SIBERIA AN EASTERN CENTRAL ASIA AND NORTHERN ASIA FIRST!
And I too have gathered evidence and research providing more support to Prof Chein's claims, involving the origins of the Zhou dynasty in China which was, from all the clues gathered, an Indo-European dynasty in question. I will post my research later.
But basically the Zhou, the Jie, the Xianbei, the Di, Xiongnu, HU etc etc, were basically White Indo-European barbarians who intruded UPON INTO ANCIENT CHINA FROM THE NORTH AND NORTH-WEST REGIONS!
This refutes the bullshit research and claims made by the Eurocentrists who claim that the Indo-Europeans originated from the pontic caspian steppes, because these barbarians wouldn't have been able to intrude upon Ancient China if they did, as opposed to them originating from Northern Central Asia & Siberia...
Basically the Eurocentrist theories like here, are lying and not explaining the entire story as Professor's chein's accounts are telling us:
The Zhou were not Indo-Europeans. The Zhou belonged to the Hua tribe. These were the first modern Chinese to enter China.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Chein is claiming that the Indo-European homeland, or at least the first place they settled when humans started arriving to the region from Southern Asia, was in a region North of the China area, encompassing Siberia AND CENTRAL ASIA; NOT THE PONTIC CASPIAN SOUTHERN RUSSIA REGION AS THE EUROCENTRISTS ARE TRYING TO CLAIM, WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE SIBERIA!
It's important everyone understands this, because the evidence so far does seem to indicate this. The Pontic Caspian sea region was a region that the White Indo-Europeans GOT TO AND COLONIZED, AFTER THEY SETTLED IN SIBERIA AN EASTERN CENTRAL ASIA AND NORTHERN ASIA FIRST!
And I too have gathered evidence and research providing more support to Prof Chein's claims, involving the origins of the Zhou dynasty in China which was, from all the clues gathered, an Indo-European dynasty in question. I will post my research later.
But basically the Zhou, the Jie, the Xianbei, the Di, Xiongnu, HU etc etc, were basically White Indo-European barbarians who intruded UPON INTO ANCIENT CHINA FROM THE NORTH AND NORTH-WEST REGIONS!
This refutes the bullshit research and claims made by the Eurocentrists who claim that the Indo-Europeans originated from the pontic caspian steppes, because these barbarians wouldn't have been able to intrude upon Ancient China if they did, as opposed to them originating from Northern Central Asia & Siberia...
Basically the Eurocentrist theories like here, are lying and not explaining the entire story as Professor's chein's accounts are telling us:
The problem is, Europeans have been writing history, for the last few hundred years. This is why Doxie and Lioness et al. panic when a non-western/ European is writing on world history, at it doesn't fit their perspectives. It's as if they are thinking they have world history patented.
Posts: 22247 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: The problem is, Europeans have been writing history, for the last few hundred years. This is why Doxie and Lioness et al. panic when a non-western/ European is writing on world history, at it doesn't fit their perspectives. It's as if they are thinking they have world history patented. [/QB]
Is the topic history or the prehistoric?
MIndovermatter is right, the earliest Europeans are more related to East Asians and Neanderthals.
Oase 2The analysis shows the man was more closely related to modern East Asians and Native Americans than to today's Europeans.
BBC
Modern humans and Neanderthals 'interbred in Europe'
22 June 2015 Between 6% and 9% of the Oase individual's genome is from Neanderthals - an unprecedented amount. By comparison, present-day Europeans have between 2% and 4%. Oase was probably not responsible for passing on Neanderthal ancestry to present-day Europeans.
Posts: 43014 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: The problem is, Europeans have been writing history, for the last few hundred years. This is why Doxie and Lioness et al. panic when a non-western/ European is writing on world history, at it doesn't fit their perspectives. It's as if they are thinking they have world history patented.
Is the topic history or the prehistoric?
MIndovermatter is right, the earliest Europeans are more related to East Asians and Neanderthals.
Oase 2The analysis shows the man was more closely related to modern East Asians and Native Americans than to today's Europeans.
BBC
Modern humans and Neanderthals 'interbred in Europe'
22 June 2015 Between 6% and 9% of the Oase individual's genome is from Neanderthals - an unprecedented amount. By comparison, present-day Europeans have between 2% and 4%. Oase was probably not responsible for passing on Neanderthal ancestry to present-day Europeans. [/QB]
The topic is history in general, and in particular modern europeans origin.
Pes ̧tera cu Oase 2 and the cranial morphology of early modern Europeans
The Oase 2 Cranium. As one of the oldest modern human crania known from Europe, Oase 2 presents an unusual mosaic of features relative to the relevant potentially ancestral samples of Middle Paleolithic east African and southwest Asian modern humans and Eurasian Neanderthals , and with reference to the more recent EUP and MUP European modern humans. It has a sufficient number of derived modern human traits to warrant that designation, but there is a suite of characteristics that distinguish it from one or more of those Late Pleistocene modern human samples.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: The problem is, Europeans have been writing history, for the last few hundred years. This is why Doxie and Lioness et al. panic when a non-western/ European is writing on world history, at it doesn't fit their perspectives. It's as if they are thinking they have world history patented.
Is the topic history or the prehistoric?
MIndovermatter is right, the earliest Europeans are more related to East Asians and Neanderthals.
Oase 2The analysis shows the man was more closely related to modern East Asians and Native Americans than to today's Europeans.
BBC
Modern humans and Neanderthals 'interbred in Europe'
22 June 2015 Between 6% and 9% of the Oase individual's genome is from Neanderthals - an unprecedented amount. By comparison, present-day Europeans have between 2% and 4%. Oase was probably not responsible for passing on Neanderthal ancestry to present-day Europeans.
The topic is history in general, and in particular modern europeans origin.
Pes ̧tera cu Oase 2 and the cranial morphology of early modern Europeans
The Oase 2 Cranium. As one of the oldest modern human crania known from Europe, Oase 2 presents an unusual mosaic of features relative to the relevant potentially ancestral samples of Middle Paleolithic east African and southwest Asian modern humans and Eurasian Neanderthals , and with reference to the more recent EUP and MUP European modern humans. It has a sufficient number of derived modern human traits to warrant that designation, but there is a suite of characteristics that distinguish it from one or more of those Late Pleistocene modern human samples.
Abstract Neanderthals are thought to have disappeared in Europe ~39,000–41,000 years ago but they have contributed one to three percent of the DNA of present-day people in Eurasia1. Here, we analyze DNA from a 37,000–42,000-year-old2 modern human from Peştera cu Oase, Romania. Although the specimen contains small amounts of human DNA, we use an enrichment strategy to isolate sites that are informative about its relationship to Neanderthals and present-day humans. We find that on the order of six to nine percent of the genome of the Oase individual is derived from Neanderthals, more than any other modern human sequenced to date. Three chromosomal segments of Neanderthal ancestry are over 50 centimorgans in size, indicating that this individual had a Neanderthal ancestor as recently as four to six generations back. However, the Oase individual does not share more alleles with later Europeans than with East Asians, suggesting that the Oase population did not contribute substantially to later humans in Europe.
More direct insight into the interactions between modern and archaic humans can be obtained by studying genomes from modern humans who lived at a time when they could have met Neanderthals. Recent analyses of genomes from a ,43,000–47,000-year-old modern human from western Siberia15 and a ,36,000–39,000-year-old mod- ern human from eastern Europe16 showed that Neanderthal gene flow into modern humans occurred before these individuals lived. The Siberian individual’s genome contained some segments of Neanderthal ancestry as large as 6 million base pairs (bp), suggesting that some Neanderthal gene flow could have occurred a few thousand years before his death15.
We report genome-wide data from a modern human mandible, Oase 1, found in 2002 in the Pe ̧stera cu Oase, Romania. The age of this specimen has been estimated to be ,37,000–42,000 years by direct radiocarbon dating2,17,18. Oase 1 is therefore one of the earliest modern humans in Europe. Its morphology is generally modern but some aspects are consistent with Neanderthal ancestry
The Oase 1 genome shows that mixture between modern humans and Neanderthals was not limited to the first ancestors of present-day people to leave Africa, or to people in the Near East; it occurred later as well and probably in Europe. The fact that the Oase 1 individual had a Neanderthal ancestor removed by only four to six generations allows this Neanderthal admixture to be dated to less than 200 years before the time he lived. However, the absence of a clear relationship of the Oase 1 individual to later modern humans in Europe suggests that he may have been a member of an initial early modern human population that interbred with Neanderthals but did not contribute much to later European populations. To better understand the interactions between early modern and Neanderthal populations, it will be important to study other specimens that, like Oase 1, have been suggested to carry morphological traits suggestive of admixture with Neanderthals
Posts: 43014 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL At the above, now you claim the be a genetics specialist? lol
I mean really?
The 2006 study on Oase cranium confirms the migration from Africa/ Asia into Europe. It is in support of this, you big bumbo!
I really had to laugh, I mean rolling, on your eyeball comment. Since that is all you do and are known for doing.
But I understand that it pains you that the reconstruction look Khoisan. It troubles you tremendous, self-proclaimed "African America black woman". lol
quote:comparing craniometric and neutral genetic affinity matrices have concluded that, on average, human cranial variation fits a model of neutral expectation. While human craniometric and genetic data fit a model of isolation by geographic distance, it is not yet clear whether this is due to geographically mediated gene flow or human dispersal events. Recently, human genetic data have been shown to fit an iterative founder effect model of dispersal with an African origin, in line with the out-of-Africa replacement model for modern human origins, and Manica et al. (Nature 448 (2007) 346-349) have demonstrated that human craniometric data also fit this model. However, in contrast with the neutral model of cranial evolution suggested by previous studies, Manica et al. (2007) made the a priori assumption that cranial form has been subject to climatically driven natural selection and therefore correct for climate prior to conducting their analyses. Here we employ a modified theoretical and methodological approach to test whether human cranial variability fits the iterative founder effect model. In contrast with Manica et al. (2007) we employ size-adjusted craniometric variables, since climatic factors such as temperature have been shown to correlate with aspects of cranial size.
Despite these differences, we obtain similar results to those of Manica et al. (2007), with up to 26% of global within-population craniometric variation being explained by geographic distance from sub-Saharan Africa. Comparative analyses using non-African origins do not yield significant results. The implications of these results are discussed in the light of the modern human origins debate.
--von Cramon-Taubadel N1, Lycett SJ.
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008 May;136(1):108-13.
Brief communication: human cranial variation fits iterative founder effect model with African origin.
Posts: 22247 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: [QB] LOL At the above, now you claim the be a genetics specialist? lol
Of course not, refer to the article on the DNA of Oase 1
I didn't write it
Of course you didn't. Nor did you write on the crania metric, which apparently shows clusters with the genetics. You can love it, or hate it.
quote: The dwindling South African tribe who number just 100,000 - but were once the most common humans on earth
New genetic research has revealed that a small group of hunter-gatherers now living in Southern Africa once was so large that it comprised the majority of living humans.
Only during the last 22,000 years have the other African ethnicities, including the ones giving rise to Europeans and Asians, have become the bigger populations, researchers say.
However, their fall has been quick - the Khoisan (who sometimes call themselves Bushmen) now number about 100,000 individuals, while the rest of humanity numbers 7 billion.
By comparing nearly all the genes of these individuals with the genomes of 1,462 people from around the world, the researchers discovered that the inflow of new genes into the Khoisan peoples has been quite restricted the past 150,000 years, indicating that this large hunter-gatherer culture was physically isolated for most of its history and that its men typically did not take wives from outside the group.
'Khoisan hunter-gatherers in Southern Africa always have perceived themselves as the oldest people' said Stephan Schuster, a former Penn State University professor now at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore.
Researchers on the project included scientists at Penn State and other research universities in the United States, Brazil, and Singapore.
The Nature Communication paper analyses five study participants from different tribes in Namibia.
The study investigated 420,000 genetic variants across 1,462 genomes from 48 ethnic groups in populations worldwide.
These analyses reveal that Southern African Khoisans are genetically distinct not only from Europeans and Asians, but also from all other Africans.
Stunning footage gives a short glimpse into Khoisan heritage
the Buluoji were the final amalgamation of various zahu tribes, then they naturally included the Jie, well known for their Caucasian, "high nosed and heavy-handed" physical features.
Another piece of evidence that the Bulouji possessed Caucasian traits is the rather sudden change of the primary meaning of the Chinese character hu to referring to the Xiongnu to designating the Caucasian central asians, which happened to have concide with the appearance of the Zahu.
To summarize, the Bulouji, or the Bulgars of China according to Boodberg, appear to be a group that consisted of the remnants of the Xiongnu confederation that were not absorbed by the suceeding Xianbei conglomerate, with a conspicuous Europoid admixture.
without recognizing that the original form of Boliugu of the sinified clan name Lu was yet another variant of the root Bulouji. Even today, one cannot but marvel at the great accomplishments of such a presumably marginal "mixed Barbarian" group in Medieval China.
However as presented earlier, these two different rather different interpretations may not necessarily be mutually exclusive and can infact coexist in the case of the Bulouji in China: the group represented both a "mixed race" and a persistent "trouble maker". Morever a century earlier, a "Barbarian" chieftain.
Helian Bobo, declared that his tribal name, Tiefu, originally interpreted as "Xiongnu father, Xianbei mother" also stood for Tiefa "iron strike". This is clearly another case for similar double-meaning of a Steppe origin ethnonym...
there is little doubt that the Xiongnu also profited amply from the human resources of the Western regions, which also provides an important case for strong Caucasian elements among the Xiongnu, in addition to indigenous Indo-European tribes that may have inhabited north and northwest China in prehistoric times.
But each Eurocentric and Sinocentric sensitivities aside may not be appreciated at all by many ancient as well as modern groups who did not find being of a mixed race in any way dishonorable. An example is the medieval tribal group in Northern China named Tiefu..."In the North, people call by name Teifu those whose father is Xiongnu and whose mother is Xianbei. And this has been taken [by themselves] as their clan name." In other words, this is a clear case that a Northern group had taken a word meaning "Xiongnu father and Xianbei mother"as their self-identity.
Incidentally, the Xiongnu-father-and-Xianbei-mother" Tiefu clans mentioned earlier had a similar repute. Not only they were almost rebelling or fighting againsts the Tuoba and other Xianbei groups; their leader Helian Bobo gave the name Tiefu a new spin- Tiefa, "iron-strike," a clear warning to his enemies that this "mixed race" was not to be trifled with. One is tempted to ascribe such "trouble maker" character to mixed group's inherent difficulty in conforming to mainstream populations.
DAMN! So even back then there were high yella's and red bone's who had "trouble fitting in" and were always "stirring **** up" and causing mayhem in Ancient China and were attacked because they were "passing for white".
I guess history just repeats itself again and again huh?
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Clyde & Mindovermatter - If you know of specific instances where ancient EASTERN writers spoke of people with RED hair, could you please cite the work, and perhaps include a link to the work?
Those people would of course be Albinos, Tacitus spoke of them in the West, but we have nothing in the East.
Mike there is also this on wikipedia, not a great source but worth a shot:
quote: It is believed that the Quanrong during the Western Zhou-Warring States period (1122-476 B.C.) spoke a Tibeto-Burman branch of the Sino-Tibetan languages, and united with the Jiang clan to rebel against the Zhou.[14][15]
The 7th century commentary to the Hanshu by Yan Shigu says: "Among the various Rong tribes in the Western Regions, the Wusun's shape was the strangest; and the present barbarians who have green eyes and red hair, and are like a macaque, belonged to the same race as the Wusun."[16][17]
Xirong was also the name of a state during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods of Chinese history.[citation needed] The Xirong together with the eastern Dongyi, northern Beidi, and southern Nanman were collectively called the Siyi 四夷 "Four Barbarians". The Liji "Record of Rites" details ancient stereotypes about them.
The people of those five regions – the Middle states, and the [Rong], [Yi], (and other wild tribes round them) – had all their several natures, which they could not be made to alter. The tribes on the east were called [Yi]. They had their hair unbound, and tattooed their bodies. Some of them ate their food without its being cooked. Those on the south were called Man. They tattooed their foreheads, and had their feet turned in towards each other.
Some of them (also) ate their food without its being cooked. Those on the west were called [Rong]. They had their hair unbound, and wore skins. Some of them did not eat grain-food. Those on the north were called [Di]. They wore skins of animals and birds, and dwelt in caves. Some of them also did not eat grain-food.
The people of the Middle states, and of those [Yi], Man, [Rong], and [Di], all had their dwellings, where they lived at ease; their flavours which they preferred; the clothes suitable for them; their proper implements for use; and their vessels which they prepared in abundance. In those five regions, the languages of the people were not mutually intelligible, and their likings and desires were different.
To make what was in their minds apprehended, and to communicate their likings and desires, (there were officers) – in the east, called transmitters; in the south, representationists; in the west, [Di-dis]; and in the north, interpreters.[8][The term 狄鞮 didi (ti-ti) is identified as: “(anc.) Interpreter of the Di, barbarians of the west.” [9] Translated and adapted from the French.]
According to Nicola Di Cosmo,[10] 'Rong' was a vague term for warlike foreigner. He places them from the upper Wei River valley and along the Fen River to the Taiyuan basin as far as the Taihang Mountains. This would be the northwestern edge of what was then China and also the transition zone between agricultural and steppe ways of life.
Doesn't this sound EXACTLY like how the Romans and Greeks described the albino tribes like the Scythians, Goths, Germanics who also covered themselves in animals and lived like these Rong?
quote: In the light of the His/Dry of Herodotus (1,201) and others, it can be known that the inhabitants In the valleys of the Rivers IIi and Chu were the Issedones by the end of the 7th century B.C.[32] It has been suggested that the Wusun described by the Shyi and the Hanshu are exactly the Issedones of Herodotus.
[33] In my opinion, this theory is unconvincing. [34] The Wusun had not moved west to the valleys of the Rivers IIi and Chu until c.130 B.C. Obviously, they were not identical with the Issedones who had already appeared in the above-stated area in the late 7th century B.C.
Moreover, the Issedones may have been Sakis who were so called by the Persians since Darius I came to the throne, and are the Sai described by the Hanshu, ch. 96. In the Hanshu, it is recorded clearly that the Wusun lived in "the land of the Sai" after having moved west.
This shows also that the Issedones were not the same as the Wusun. However there were many relations between them and the Issedones. 1.
The Issedones were a tribal confederacy, made up of four tribes, the AsH, the Toehari, the Sacarauli, and the Gasiani. Herodotus records them simply as "Issedones" (Le., "Asii"), probably because the Asii were once chief of the confederacy.
In c.l77/176 B.C., the Da Yuezhi were forced ·by the Xiongnu to moved west, and the Issedones were forced to withdraw from the valleys of the Rivers IIi and Chu. A group of them moved south and entered the Pamir region, and then moved east and entered the Tarim Basin; others crossed over the Suspended Crossing ~J.l and entered Jibin fd 1\t . 2.
The four tribes who made up the Issedones in the valleys of the Rivers IIi and Chu probably came from the Hexi Region in the late 7th century B.C. "Asii" 140 TAISHAN YU, A STUDY OF SAKA HISTORY Sino-Platonic Papers, 80 (July, 1998) might be identical with "the Rong of the Surname Yun" ft:!r:1:ZEG recorded by the Zuozhuan ti1W-. 3.
"Wu-sun [a-siuen]" may be considered to be a transcription of "Yun Xing" it tr:t or "Yun [Xing]". The Rong of Surname Yun lived in the Hexi Region, and the former land of the Wusun lay to the west of Yiwu 1jt.:g..
However, the sphere of the former was not necessarily limited to Dunhuang in the west, and the original settlement of the latter lay also probably in the Hexi Region. Therefore, the Rong of the Surname Yun might have grown out of the Wusun, or both' of them may have risen from the same source. Those who moved into the valleys of the Rivers IIi and Chu in the late 7th century B.C. were the Issedones or Asii of the Western historical records,and those who moved in c.130 B.C. were the Wusun of Chinese records[35] The names of the oases in the Tarim Basin recorded by the Hanshu, ch. 96: "Yixun WYru", "Wulei I~~'" and "Yanqi" can be taken as transcriptions of "Asii" or "Issedones". This shows that the Asii, who moved south from the valleys of the River IIi and Chu had entered the Tarim Basin.
Also "Qiuci" may be taken as a trascription of "Gasiani", which seems to show that the Gasiani also had this oasis. In the Yiqiejing Yinyi -{J]~Iif~, it is recorded: "[Quzhi ft115[ (i.e., Qiuci)] is also 'Wusun' or 'Wulei'." Up to now, there has been no reasonable explanation for this record.
I think ~at it may result from the fact that among those who entered this oasis at the same time, in addition to the Gasiani, there were the Asii who belonged to one and the same tribal confederacy as "Wusun" and "Wulei"; all can be taken as transcriptions of "Asii". This seems to prove indirectly that "Wusun" of the Hanshu is a transcription of "Asii". 5. There is a state named "Nandou .~" in the Hanshu, ch. 96A.
The state was situated at the present Gilgit,l36] which was on the road that must have been followed by the Asii who moved south from the Pamir Region after having given up the valleys of the IIi and Chu rivers. "Nandou", the name of the state, was the same as IINandoumill , the name of earliest ancestor of the Wusun. This cannot be a coincidence. It is possible that the state of Nandou took its name from the Asii who passed this area and moved south.
This also shows that the "Wusun" of the Hanshu and the Asii came from one and the same source. 6. According to the Hanshu, ch. 96B, after the Wusun had driven out the Da Yuezhi and occupied the valleys of the IIi and Chu rivers, among their people "there are the Sai race and the Da Yuezhi race."
Since the Sai tribes included the Asii, this seems to show that there was a difference between the Asii and the Wusun. However, if one considers that they had already separated and gone different ways in the late 7th century B.C., it is comprehensible that there were several differences in language, custom, and physical characteristics between them.
In other words, it is incorrect to deny that they had one and the same source because of these differences. 7.
The Asii and the other tribes were Europoid and spoke in Indo-European languages. The Wusun stemmed from the same source as the Asii, the Wusun therefore were Europoid and spoke an Indo-European language.
Also, the anthropological data considered to belong to the Wusun seems to prove that the Wusun were Europoid.137] According to Van Shigu's ~arp~ commentary on the Hanshu, ch. 96A: "Among the various Rong in the Western Regions, the Wusun's shape was the strangest; and the present barbarians who have BLUE EYES and RED HAIR, 141 THEWUSUN and are like a macaque, belonged to the same race as the Wusun. 1I This might have some basis. It has been suggested that the Wusun were a Tiirkic tribe and used a Tiirkic language.
The evidence is that the tradition about the wolfs race of the Wusun is similar to that of the Turks, and that offical titles of the Wusun "Mi ~'" "Xihou" and "Cenzou ~J!lf{" can respectively be taken as the Tiirkic "Bak", "Yehu ~tiI (Yabgu)" and "She ~ (Sad)", and that name "Wustin" might be a transcription of "Ash ina ~iiJ .ase ~~".[38]
In my opinion, this theory is unconvincing. Firstly, the tradition surrounding the wolfs race did not necessarily occur among the Altai tri bes. Secondly, even if "Mill, "Xihoull and "Cenzou", etc., were indeed Altai words, the possibility could not be ruled out that the Wusun had been influenced by the Altai tribes. Thirdly, "Mi", "Xihou" and "Cenzou", etc. can be explaned in Indo-European languges.
In other words, the Tiirkic official titles "Yehu", etc. can be derived from the Europoid. [39J Fourthly, if the name "Wusun" was indeed a transcription of "Ashina",[40] then the latter would have been the same source as the Wusun. The Tiirks, in a sense, can be taken as a·mixed blood tribe of Mongoloids and Europoids.
In the Zhoushu 1m1lf, ch. 50, it is recorded that: "The ancestors [of the Tiirks] stemmed from the state of Suo ~." It has been suggested that "Suo" was a transcription of "Saka" or "Sai".[4I] If this is correct, there would be a blood relationship between the family of Ashina and the Wusun.
and this:
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Clyde & Mindovermatter - If you know of specific instances where ancient EASTERN writers spoke of people with RED hair, could you please cite the work, and perhaps include a link to the work?
Those people would of course be Albinos, Tacitus spoke of them in the West, but we have nothing in the East.
quote: "Xinjiang, showing the site of Mongghul Kiira (near the Hi [Yili] River), the approximate Wusun territory - The Alans, Ammianus writes, were "tall and handsome [and] their hair inclines to be blond" (31.2.2; see Rolfe 1939, 3:391).
quote: The Tall Ones Known as the Wu Suns Come Into Central Asia - "Barbarians who have green eyes and red hair."
The Wusun (pronounced Oo-soon) whose home was originally in the northwest of China were described in the 7th century commentary to the Hanshu by Yan Shigu, "Among the various Rong in the Western Regions, the Wusun's shape was the strangest; and the present barbarians who have green eyes and red hair, and are like macaques, belonged to the same race as the Wusun."
[b] Sakas and Wu Suns, the Saka-Suns or Saxones Form Various Tribes The facts are that the Scythians, Saka and Wu Suns were the most formidable tribes in this area of Central Asia at the time. You will find that when you combine Sacae or Sakas with the Wu Suns you get the Sacae-Suns or Sakas-Suns. The Sacae-Suns or Saka-Suns sounds very familiar to the Saxons which I believe to be the true origins of the English name "Saxones or Saxons." The Wu Suns were the race who the Chinese had called the "tall ones" and who had BLUE or GREEN EYES with BLONDE or WHITE HAIR and WHITE SKIN
[AKA albino traits]
The Jiankun or Kyrgyz were rather strong in the third century when they were neighbors of the Wusun. As stated above, the Jiankun were said to be TALL AND HAVE WHITE HAIR, WHITE SKIN AND GREEN EYES.
They were also described in Tang Dynasty texts as having "RED HAIR AND GREEN EYES", while those with dark hair and eyes were said to be descendants of a Chinese general Li Ling.
This description is very similar to that given to us of the Wusuns which tells me they were certainly either related or the same peoples. On Wikipedia they are described as the early Kyrgyz people, known as Yenisei Kyrgyz or Xiajiasi (黠戛斯), first appear in written records in the Chinese annals of the Sima Qian's Records of the Grand Historian (compiled 109 BC to 91 BC), as Gekun or Jiankun (鬲昆 or 隔昆).
Another description of the Wu Sun can also be found in the book, "Marching Sands" by Harold Lamb, "The ancient Chinese annals," observed Sir Lionel" observed Sir Lionel tolerantly, "state that the Wusun, the 'Tall Ones,' were formidable fighters.
The Sacae or Scythians from whom they are descended were one of the conquering races of the world. It is this heritage of strength which has preserved the remnant of the Wusun—for us to find."
Another account I found says, "Xinjiang, showing the site of Mongghul Kiira (near the Hi [Yili] River), the approximate Wusun territory - The Alans, Ammianus writes, were "tall and handsome [and] their HAIR inclines to be BLOND" (31.2.2; see Rolfe 1939, 3:391). The description given to us in Wikipedia says;
" The Wūsūn (Chinese: 烏孫; literally "Grandchildren of The Crow") were either an Indo-European speaking or Turkic speaking nomadic or semi-nomadic steppe people who, the Chinese histories say originally lived in western Gansu in northwest China, near the Yuezhi people. After being defeated by the Xiongnu (circa 176 BCE) they fled to the region of the Ili river and (lake) Issyk Kul where they remained for at least five centuries and formed a powerful force." Some scholars have proposed that the Wusun may have been identical with the people described by Herodotus (IV.16-25) and in Ptolemy's Geography as Issedones.
Their exact location of their country in Central Asia is unknown. The Issedones are "placed by some in Western Siberia and by others in Chinese Turkestan," according to E. D. Phillips.
Herodotus, who allegedly got his information through both Greek and Scythian sources, describes them as living east of Scythia and north of the Massagetae, while the geographer Ptolemy (VI.16.7) appears to place the trading stations of Issedon Scythica and Issedon Serica in the Tarim Basin.
Chinese records first mention the "Ushi" in Andin and Pinlian (modern Pinlian and Guüan in the Peoples Republic of China) between the Lu-hun and Kuyan tribes. The transcription of Ushi means "raven generation", and is semantically identical with U-sun - "raven descendants". The presence of a raven as clan totem among the ancient Usuns is beyond doubt. In Usun legend, the ancestors of the Usuns were a raven and a wolf. This is reflected in the Usun-Ashina (Oshin) tamga with an image of raven.
The first historical records concerning the Wusun, name them as a separate and distinct tribe of the Xiongnu confederacy, living on the territory of the modern province of Gansu, in the valley of the Ushui-he (Chinese Raven river). It is not clear whether the river was named after the Usun tribe or vice versa.
Historical records also give us proof of this powerful force of the Wusuns that had went to battle with the Yuechis; "The Yue-Tchi, repulsed by the Wu-Suns in 130 B. C, hurled themselves upon Bactria" (see the notes to p. 119 : 13).
"The Sacx were then masters of it and their dispossession resulted in pressing them in part into India where they founded a kingdom and also in part into the Pro-Pamirian valleys, especially that of the Oxus. The Yue-Tchi ruled over central Asia until 425 A. D. They were dispossessed in their turn by the Hoas, or Epthalite Huns" (White Huns).
The Scythians and Saka of the Se Nation - "All Sakai were Scythians, but not all Scythians were Sakai."
I found this page with sources on it, mentions more albino's this time with white hair and green eyes and red hair. These are all albino traits and only an albino can have white hair, white body and green eyes.
Is this good enough? Also mike did you see the pictures I posted in the last post of the first page of this thread?
Looks like Professor Chein is indeed correct, if these Indo-European type Eurasian albino tribes appeared in early Chinese history at this point in history, it means that the Indo-European whites originated from the postulated region of Northern Asia, Siberia, and Eastern Central Asia; AS OPPOSED TO THE BULLSHIT PONTIC CASPIAN STEPPES THEORY LOCATION!
And not only do we have additional confirmation in these passages, but we also have indirect admissions that they were albino's with the white hair traits etc etc.
Posts: 1558 | From: US | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because the Albino's lied that Whites originated from the Caucauses region of Western Asia and various numbers of them still do despite the genetic evidence against it; we all know that the Caucuses region was first OCCUPIED BY BLACK AFRICAN TYPE PEOPLE!
Ancient Greek writer Herodotus said that the Caucauses region was first occupied by a people named the Colchins, who looked exactly like the Ancient Egyptians. Mike has posted pictures of Black Abkhazians and Black Caucasus people from the 1800's many many times here.
So clearly the albino lies are just albino lies! They came up with the theory because some delusional albino from the 1800's found "European like skulls" from that region, and thought that all European albino's came from there.
Clearly the albino's got there AFTER Black Egyptian types had ALREADY SETTLED THAT REGION! And there are Greek accounts revealing this...
And even TO THIS DAY, people from the Caucuses, like the Chechens, Georgians, Abkhazians, Armenians, Azeri's are not as seen as "white people" in Russia and Eastern European countries TO THIS DAY!
Hell even Putin referred to people from there as "Blacks" lol....
Posts: 1558 | From: US | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Oase is form a Romanian site, why are you posting on Khosians which have virtually no genetic affiliation to the Oase genome?
Is this some kind of distraction tactic?
This has nothing to do with their modern DNA, fake African American black woman, it has to do with ancient DNA. And the bottle neck occurrence, of a specific group related to Khoisan who moved out of Africa, who then decade distant from the original population in Africa. This is why Khosian are considered the oldest people amongst mankind. People similar to them started to populate the world, and Oase is evident of this. On top of that we have proto-Aurignacian, found in Africa. So it all is just too convenient for you to ignore.
Posts: 22247 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:At about 40,000 years ago, however, Homo sapiens, in the form of the Cro-Magnons, began trickling into Europe, probably from an initially African place of origin.
quote:"The so-called Old Man [Cro-Magnon 1] became the original model for what was once termed the Cro-Magnon or Upper Paleolithic "race" of Europe.. there's no such valid biological category, and Cro-Magnon 1 is not typical of Upper Paleolithic western Europeans- and not even all that similar to the other two make skulls found at the site. Most of the genetic evidence, as well as the newest fossil evidence from Africa argue against continuous local evolution producing modern groups directly from any Eurasian pre-modern population.. there's no longer much debate that a large genetic contribution from migrating early modern Africans infuenced other groups throughout the Old World.“
--B. Lewis et al. 2008. Understanding Humans: Introduction to Physical
quote: If this analysis shows nothing else, it demonstrates that the oft-repeated European feeling that the Cro-Magnons are “us” (47) is more a product of anthropological folklore than the result of the metric data available from the skeletal remains.
--C. Loring Brace(2006) The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form
quote: It has been proposed that heat adapted, relatively long-legged Homo sapiens from Africa replaced the cold adapted, relatively short-legged Homo neandertalensis of the Levant and Europe
--J Hum Evol 32 (1997a) 423], Bogin B, Rios L. et al.
quote: The subsequent post-28,000-B.P. Gravettian human sample of Europe includes numerous associated skeletons (Table 2) (Zilhão & Trinkaus 2002). Most of these specimens are fully modern in their morphology, and there is a persistence in them of both linear (equatorial) limb proportions and more "African" nasal morphology (Trinkaus 1981, Holliday 1997, Franciscus 2003). However, one Iberian specimen (Lagar Velho 1) exhibits Neandertal limb segment proportions and a series of relatively archaic cranial and postcranial features (Trinkaus & Zilhão 2002). In addition, central incisor shoveling, ubiquitous among the Neandertals, absent in the Qafzeh-Skhul sample, and variably present in the earlier European sample, persists at modest frequencies. And scapular axillary border dorsal sulci, an apparently Neandertal feature also absent in the Qafzeh-Skhul sample, is present
--Trinkaus 2005
quote: "Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some looked more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by OBJECTIVE anatomical categorizations, as is the case with some early modern skulls from the Upper Cave at Zhoukoudian in China."
-- Am J Phys Anthropol. 1975 May;42(3):351-69,
quote:In modern humans, this elongation is a pattern characteristic of warm-adapted populations, and this physique may be an early Cro-Magnon retention from African ancestors. Similar retentions may be observed in certain indices of facial shape [ ...]
--Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory: Second Edition by Eric Delson
Posts: 22247 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Was North Africa the Launch Pad for Modern Human Migrations?
Michael Balter
Until very recently, most researchers studying the origins of Homo sapiens focused on the fossils of East Africa and the sophisticated tools and ornaments of famed South African sites such as Blombos Cave. Few scientists thought that much of evolutionary significance had gone on in North Africa, or that the region's big-toothed, somewhat archaic-looking hominins might be closely related to the ancestors of many living people. Now, thanks to new excavations and more accurate dating, North Africa boasts unequivocal signs of modern human behavior as early as anywhere else in the world, including South Africa. Climate reconstructions and fossil studies now suggest that the region was more hospitable during key periods than once thought. The data suggest that the Sahara Desert was a land of lakes and rivers about 130,000 years ago, when moderns first left Africa for sites in what is today Israel. And new studies of hominin fossils suggest some strong resemblances—and possible evolutionary connections—between North African specimens and fossils representing migrations out of Africa between 130,000 and 40,000 years ago.
quote: The 2002 discovery of a robust modern human mandible in the Peştera cu Oase, southwestern Romania, provides evidence of early modern humans in the lower Danubian Corridor. Directly accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon (14C)-dated to 34,000–36,000 14C years B.P., the Oase 1 mandible is the oldest definite early modern human specimen in Europe and provides perspectives on the emergence and evolution of early modern humans in the northwestern Old World. The moderately long Oase 1 mandible exhibits a prominent tuber symphyseos and overall proportions that place it close to earlier Upper Paleolithic European specimens. Its symmetrical mandibular incisure, medially placed condyle, small superior medial pterygoid tubercle, mesial mental foramen, and narrow corpus place it closer to early modern humans among Late Pleistocene humans. However, its cross-sectional symphyseal orientation is intermediate between late archaic and early modern humans, the ramus is exceptionally wide, and the molars become progressively larger distally with exceptionally large third molars. The molar crowns lack derived Neandertal features but are otherwise morphologically undiagnostic. However, it has unilateral mandibular foramen lingular bridging, an apparently derived Neandertal feature. It therefore presents a mosaic of archaic, early modern human and possibly Neandertal morphological features, emphasizing both the complex population dynamics of modern human dispersal into Europe and the subsequent morphological evolution of European early modern humans.
--Erik Trinkaus* at al.
An early modern human from the Peştera cu Oase, Romania
quote: Between 2003 and 2005, the Peştera cu Oase, Romania yielded a largely complete early modern human cranium, Oase 2, scattered on the surface of a Late Pleistocene hydraulically displaced bone bed containing principally the remains of Ursus spelaeus. Multiple lines of evidence indicate an age of ≈40.5 thousand calendar years before the present (≈35 ka 14C B.P.). Morphological comparison of the adolescent Oase 2 cranium to relevant Late Pleistocene human samples documents a suite of derived modern human and/or non-Neandertal features, including absence of a supraorbital torus, subrectangular orbits, prominent canine fossae, narrow nasal aperture, level nasal floor, angled and anteriorly oriented zygomatic bones, a high neurocranium with prominent parietal bosses and marked sagittal parietal curvature, superiorly positioned temporal zygomatic root, vertical auditory porous, laterally bulbous mastoid processes, superiorly positioned posterior semicircular canal, absence of a nuchal torus and a suprainiac fossa, and a small occipital bun. However, these features are associated with an exceptionally flat frontal arc, a moderately large juxtamastoid eminence, extremely large molars that become progressively larger distally, complex occlusal morphology of the upper third molar, and relatively anteriorly positioned zygomatic arches. Moreover, the featureless occipital region and small mastoid process are at variance with the large facial skeleton and dentition. This unusual mosaic in Oase 2, some of which is paralleled in the Oase 1 mandible, indicates both complex population dynamics as modern humans dispersed into Europe and significant ongoing human evolution once modern humans were established within Europe.
--He ́le`ne Rougier, Erik Trinkaus*‡ et al.
Peştera cu Oase 2 and the cranial morphology of early modern Europeans
quote: If we bear in mind that objects and ideas can travel much faster than people and their genes, these conclusions carry the further implication that, on a regional basis, the biological affinities of the different groups involved in the emergence of modern human morphology in Europe cannot be simplistically inferred from the nature of the archaeological assemblages. In other words, it remains conceivable that the earliest Aurignacian of Europe (the Protoaurignacian and the Aurignacian I) may have been manufactured by people that, taxonomically speaking, would be classified as modern humans in the east, Neanderthals in the west, and variably mixed in between.
Given the palaeontological evidence, it is in any case clear that the pattern of cultural exchange suggested for Europe by the personal ornaments of the earliest Aurignacian must have been associated with a similar level of genetic exchange. A significant degree of admixture (the assimilation model of modern human emergence) has been repeatedly proposed since the early 1980s (cf. Trinkaus & Zil- hão 2002; Smith et al. 2005; Trinkaus 2007), and the growing body of securely dated and adequately analyzed human remains, from Romania to Portugal, from 40,000 to 30,000 cal. bp, only reinforce what is
--João Zilhão, Erik Trinkaus et al
The Peştera cu Oase People, Europe’s Earliest Modern Humans
posted
^ So you think if you put up 13 quotes over 3 separate posts in a row that that means we can ignore the more recent DNA analysis? Is that your distraction strategy?
Posts: 43014 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ish please don't feed Lioness and her attempts at hijacking this thread and diverting attention. We have already posted enough information here for people to come to their own conclusions. Just ignore Lioness and pretend she doesn't exist and let it be....
Posts: 1558 | From: US | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Ish please don't feed Lioness and her attempts at hijacking this thread and diverting attention. We have already posted enough information here for people to come to their own conclusions. Just ignore Lioness and pretend she doesn't exist and let it be....
The situation is simple. Compare Oase, La Brana, and Otzi to modern humans and see which modern populations their DNA is most similar to, rather than superficial comparisons of on skin color.
Posts: 43014 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^ So you think if you put up 13 quotes over 3 separate posts in a row that that means we can ignore the more recent DNA analysis? Is that your distraction strategy?
Fake African American black women. I posted those in support of the genetics. I know it pains you. And that a good thing.
Proto-Aurignacian is at Africa, logically this means that the Aurignacian assemblage and tool-industry came from people how originated in Africa. This is in support of genetic-founder effect and physical anthropology, weirdo.
The genetics study on its own is insufficient, in population-genetics. And nope, I didn't post them for you, but for readers in general. Posts: 22247 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Ish please don't feed Lioness and her attempts at hijacking this thread and diverting attention. We have already posted enough information here for people to come to their own conclusions. Just ignore Lioness and pretend she doesn't exist and let it be....
The situation is simple. Compare Oase, La Brana, and Otzi to modern humans and see which modern populations their DNA is most similar to, rather than superficial comparisons of on skin color.
These modern populations carry carry snippets from genetic bottlenecks. Nothing changed, migrations from Asia still occurred multiple times, which led to population replacement.
Posts: 22247 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Where's the proof? Where's the genetic proof? Where's the linguistic proof? Where's the depictions of these people proving they were White Rock paintings/figurines)? Where's the remains of these people (skeletons/mummies)? Where's the proof they were indigenous to the area,oh wait you and your Anti-White ilk claim Whites have no homeland/are indigenous to nowhere on earth. Why should any self respecting White person with any amount of pride believe what a bunch of Blacks who hate Whites with a passion (ie You,MOM,Mike,Clyde,Zarahan,Kdolo,XY-YT-hater,etc) and wish nothing more than to destroy White children say. Why would we believe what an Asian who hates White people (you can tell he's an Asian supremacist by his writings) such as that Chien bozo says? Why should we believe what the self haters amongst our people say? Name me one good reason. I know that you are only out to erase Whites from history and leave White children with nothing. After all its you and your ilk who preach that Whites have no history, no heritage,no homeland, no right to racial pride of any kind after all you and your ilk preach that their ancestors built/achieved nothing, are inferior defective diseased non-humans, are wicked/evil people from birth except when they follow your Anti-White bull crap. BTW you still haven't said what harlot was a metaphor for lol.
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CelticWarrioress: Troll Patrol,
Where's the proof? Where's the genetic proof? Where's the linguistic proof? Where's the depictions of these people proving they were White Rock paintings/figurines)? Where's the remains of these people (skeletons/mummies)? Where's the proof they were indigenous to the area,oh wait you and your Anti-White ilk claim Whites have no homeland/are indigenous to nowhere on earth. Why should any self respecting White person with any amount of pride believe what a bunch of Blacks who hate Whites with a passion (ie You,MOM,Mike,Clyde,Zarahan,Kdolo,XY-YT-hater,etc) and wish nothing more than to destroy White children say. Why would we believe what an Asian who hates White people (you can tell he's an Asian supremacist by his writings) such as that Chien bozo says? Why should we believe what the self haters amongst our people say? Name me one good reason. I know that you are only out to erase Whites from history and leave White children with nothing. After all its you and your ilk who preach that Whites have no history, no heritage,no homeland, no right to racial pride of any kind after all you and your ilk preach that their ancestors built/achieved nothing, are inferior defective diseased non-humans, are wicked/evil people from birth except when they follow your Anti-White bull crap. BTW you still haven't said what harlot was a metaphor for lol.
Doxie you dumbfuck, there is tons of linguistic to archaeological to genetic to historical accounts proving that you albino's are from Siberia and Central Asia proper and not Europe. We have given you all those things countless times, but to no avail because you were too dumb and in denial to accept all the resources we give to you.
If you don't have anything constructive to add or say, which you never do, to this thread, then please get the **** out of here and don't bother us with your stupidity and pretensions.
Posts: 1558 | From: US | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged |
Between 6% and 9% of the Oase individual's genome is from Neanderthals - an unprecedented amount.
By comparison, present-day Europeans have between 2% and 4%.
Oase was probably not responsible for passing on Neanderthal ancestry to present-day Europeans. The analysis shows the man was more closely related to modern East Asians and Native Americans than to today's Europeans.Posts: 43014 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Between 6% and 9% of the Oase individual's genome is from Neanderthals - an unprecedented amount.
By comparison, present-day Europeans have between 2% and 4%.
Oase was probably not responsible for passing on Neanderthal ancestry to present-day Europeans. The analysis shows the man was more closely related to modern East Asians and Native Americans than to today's Europeans.
This was cited already from many studies. And in my last explanation on the specimen and bottleneck occurrences.
Posts: 22247 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CelticWarrioress: Troll Patrol,
Where's the proof? Where's the genetic proof? Where's the linguistic proof? Where's the depictions of these people proving they were White Rock paintings/figurines)? Where's the remains of these people (skeletons/mummies)? Where's the proof they were indigenous to the area,oh wait you and your Anti-White ilk claim Whites have no homeland/are indigenous to nowhere on earth. Why should any self respecting White person with any amount of pride believe what a bunch of Blacks who hate Whites with a passion (ie You,MOM,Mike,Clyde,Zarahan,Kdolo,XY-YT-hater,etc) and wish nothing more than to destroy White children say. Why would we believe what an Asian who hates White people (you can tell he's an Asian supremacist by his writings) such as that Chien bozo says? Why should we believe what the self haters amongst our people say? Name me one good reason. I know that you are only out to erase Whites from history and leave White children with nothing. After all its you and your ilk who preach that Whites have no history, no heritage,no homeland, no right to racial pride of any kind after all you and your ilk preach that their ancestors built/achieved nothing, are inferior defective diseased non-humans, are wicked/evil people from birth except when they follow your Anti-White bull crap. BTW you still haven't said what harlot was a metaphor for lol.
Doxie you dumbfuck, there is tons of linguistic to archaeological to genetic to historical accounts proving that you albino's are from Siberia and Central Asia proper and not Europe. We have given you all those things countless times, but to no avail because you were too dumb and in denial to accept all the resources we give to you.
If you don't have anything constructive to add or say, which you never do, to this thread, then please get the **** out of here and don't bother us with your stupidity and pretensions.
I am getting tired of this Doxie too. It's just stupid and irrational ranting. Remember, Doxie represents the average hilly bill from the Appalachians.
Posts: 22247 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Awww too bad because I'm not going anywhere. I'm also not going to stop calling you ou for the White people haters you are. How else do you think this forum got the reputation of being a Black supremacist Anti-White hate site lol.
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CelticWarrioress: Awww too bad because I'm not going anywhere. I'm also not going to stop calling you ou for the White people haters you are. How else do you think this forum got the reputation of being a Black supremacist Anti-White hate site lol.
WHITE SCIENTISTS and COMMON EDUCATED WHITES SAY ASIAN ORIGIN!!! LOL. DUMB-DOWN TRICK CALLED DOXIE, BLAMES BLACKS.LOL AMUSING. HOW DUMB CAN ONE GET? See, you can rant whatever you want, it's still irralivant and laughable hogwash nonsense. They would literally laugh your dumb ass away from symposiums. Then slowly escorted or hard drag you ass out of the building.
This one was written a long time ago, by whites one whites, for whites:
Origins of the Indo-Europeans: genetic evidence.
quote: Two theories of the origins of the Indo-Europeans currently compete. M. Gimbutas believes that early Indo-Europeans entered southeastern Europe from the Pontic Steppes starting ca. 4500 B.C. and spread from there. C. Renfrew equates early Indo-Europeans with early farmers who entered southeastern Europe from Asia Minor ca. 7000 BC and spread through the continent. We tested genetic distance matrices for each of 25 systems in numerous Indo-European-speaking samples from Europe. To match each of these matrices, we created other distance matrices representing geography, language, time since origin of agriculture, Gimbutas' model, and Renfrew's model. The correlation between genetics and language is significant. Geography, when held constant, produces a markedly lower, yet still highly significant partial correlation between genetics and language, showing that more remains to be explained. However, none of the remaining three distances--time since origin of agriculture, Gimbutas' model, or Renfrew's model--reduces the partial correlation further. Thus, neither of the two theories appears able to explain the origin of the Indo-Europeans as gauged by the genetics-language correlation.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992 Aug 15; 89(16): 7669–7673. PMCID: PMC49772 Origins of the Indo-Europeans: genetic evidence. --R R Sokal, N L Oden, and B A Thomson
I already posted, Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia, Allentoft et al. 2015 LOL this too was written by whites on whites for whites.
quote: Principal Component Analysis and ADMIXTURE. A projection prin- cipal component analysis (PCA) was used to investigate the ge- netic affinities of our four ancient Irish genomes, alongside 78 published ancient samples (SI Appendix, Table S9.1; selection criteria detailed in SI Appendix, Section S4) (5–10, 21–26) using 677 modern individuals from Western Eurasia (8) as a reference population (Fig. 1 A and B and SI Appendix, Sections S9.1 and S10). In Fig. 1A, we see a clear division between hunter–gatherer and early farmer individuals, with the Ballynahatty female plot- ting with five other MN samples from Germany, Spain, and Scandinavia. However, a large shift in genetic variation is seen between Ballynahatty and the three Irish Early Bronze Age samples, Rathlin1, Rathlin2, and Rathlin3, who fall in a separate central region of the graph along with Unetice and other Early Bronze Age genomes from Central and North Europe. These plots imply that ancient Irish genetic affinities segregate within European archaeological horizons rather than clustering geo- graphically within the island.
Model-based approaches allow the decomposition of individ- uals into coefficients contributed by a set number (K) of ances- tral populations. We investigated this by using ADMIXTURE (Version 1.23) (27) with ancient individuals included in the analysis alongside 1,941 modern samples from diverse worldwide populations (8) (SI Appendix, Section S11). Fig. 1C shows the plot of estimated ancestry proportions for each ancient genome at a value of K = 11. These partition similarly to previous analyses (7, 9, 10), with three major ancestral coefficients manifesting in west and central Europe. The first (colored red) forms the near totality of ancestry in hunter–gatherer samples, and admixes with a second (orange) component found at high levels in Neolithic and also modern Near Eastern populations (SI Appendix, Section S11.1).
Ballynahatty is similar to other MN samples with a majority orange “early farmer” component but with an elevated level of the red “hunter–gatherer” component compared with Early Neolithic genomes. The ancestry of Yamnaya, Early Bronze Age herders from the Pontic Steppe, is evenly divided between this same red component and the third major European coefficient, colored in green, which has been identified with a Caucasus origin (28). This Caucasus component is encountered subsequently, introduced via Yamnaya, in Late Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central Europe (9, 10) and features in the three Irish Early Bronze Age samples within profiles similar to continental Bronze Age genomes.
[...]
Bronze Age Replacement. Prior studies (7, 9, 10) convincingly demonstrate that Central European genomes from the late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age differ from the preceding MN due to a substantial introgression originating with Steppe herders linked to cultures such as the Yamnaya. Accordingly, we used a series of tests to gauge whether the ancestries of the Rathlin Early Bronze Age genomes were subject to this influence. D statistics confirmed that Ballynahatty and other MN individuals form clades with each other to the exclusion of these Irish Bronze Age samples. Specific disruption of continuity between the Irish Neolithic and Bronze Age is clear with significant evidence of both Yamnaya and EHG introgression into Irish Bronze Age samples when placed in a clade with any MN.
However, like other European Bronze Age samples, this introgression is incomplete, as they also show significant MN ancestry when placed in a clade with Yamnaya. The highest levels of MN ancestry were observed when either Ballynahatty or Gok2 (Scandinavian) was the sample under study. However, when paired with central European Bronze Age populations, the Rathlin samples show no trace of significant introgression from Ballynahatty, suggesting that earlier Irish populations may not have been a source of their partial MN ancestry.
These analyses, taken with the PCA and ADMIXTURE results, indicate that the Irish Bronze Age is composed of a mixture of European MN and introgressing Steppe ancestry (9, 10). To estimate the proportion of Yamnaya to MN ancestry in each Irish Bronze Age sample, we took three approaches. First, from ADMIXTURE analysis (Fig. 1), we examined the green Caucasus ancestry component. We presume an ultimate source of this as the Yamnaya where it features at a proportion of 40% of their total ancestry. In our three Irish Bronze Age samples, it is present at levels between 6–13%, which, when scaled up to include the remaining 60% of Yamnaya ancestry, imply a total of 14–33% Yamnaya ancestry and therefore 67–86% MN in the Irish Bronze Age. Second, for each Bronze Age Irish individual, we calculated the proportion of MN ancestry by using the ratio f4 (Mbuti, Bally-nahatty; X, Dai)/f 4 (Mbuti, Ballynahatty; Gok2, Dai), which gave estimates between 72 ± 4%to 74 ± 5%, implying again a substantial Yamnaya remainder. Third, we followed the methods described in Haak et al. (9), which use a collection of outgroup populations, to estimate the mixture proportions of three different sources, Line-arbandkeramik (Early Neolithic; 35 ± 6%), Loschbour (WHG; 26 ± 12%), and Yamnaya (39 ± 8%), in the total Irish Bronze Age group. These three approaches give an overlapping estimate of ∼32% Yamnaya ancestry.
--Lara M. Cassidya,1, Rui Martinianoa,1, Eileen M. Murphyb, Matthew D. Teasdalea, James Malloryb, Barrie Hartwellb, and Daniel G. Bradleya,2
Neolithic and Bronze Age migration to Ireland and establishment of the insular Atlantic genome (2016)
This basically makes you look dumber than you already are.
Posts: 22247 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic