The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Was the Prehistoric Aryan Invasion of Europe Peaceful?

Carl Zimmer reports in the NYT:

DNA Deciphers Roots of Modern Europeans
JUNE 10, 2015

… On Wednesday in the journal Nature, two teams of scientists — one based at the University of Copenhagen and one based at Harvard University — presented the largest studies to date of ancient European DNA, extracted from 170 skeletons found in countries from Spain to Russia. Both studies indicate that today’s Europeans descend from three groups who moved into Europe at different stages of history.

The first were hunter-gatherers who arrived some 45,000 years ago in Europe.

Then came farmers who arrived from the Near East about 8,000 years ago.

Finally, a group of nomadic sheepherders from western Russia called the Yamnaya arrived about 4,500 years ago. The authors of the new studies also suggest that the Yamnaya language may have given rise to many of the languages spoken in Europe today.

In other words, with “the Yamnaya” we’re likely talking about more or less the people also known as the Proto-Indo-Europeans, who used to be called the Aryans.

… Until about 9,000 years ago, Europe was home to a genetically distinct population of hunter-gatherers, the researchers found. Then, between 9,000 and 7,000 years ago, the genetic profiles of the inhabitants in some parts of Europe abruptly changed, acquiring DNA from Near Eastern populations.

Archaeologists have long known that farming practices spread into Europe at the time from Turkey. But the new evidence shows that it wasn’t just the ideas that spread — the farmers did, too.

The hunter-gatherers didn’t disappear, however. They managed to survive in pockets across Europe between the farming communities.

“It’s an amazing cultural process,” said David Reich, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School who led the university’s team. “You have groups which are as genetically distinct as Europeans and East Asians. And they’re living side by side for thousands of years.”

Between 7,000 and 5,000 years ago, however, hunter-gatherer DNA began turning up in the genes of European farmers. “There’s a breakdown of these cultural barriers, and they mix,” said Dr. Reich.

Poussin, 1634

Perhaps like the breakdown of the cultural barriers between the Roman men and the Sabine women?

About 4,500 years ago, the final piece of Europe’s genetic puzzle fell into place. A new infusion of DNA arrived — one that is still very common in living Europeans, especially in central and northern Europe.

The closest match to this new DNA, both teams of scientists found, comes from skeletons found in Yamnaya graves in western Russia and Ukraine.

Archaeologists have long been fascinated by the Yamnaya, who left behind artifacts on the steppes of western Russia and Ukraine dating from 5,300 to 4,600 years ago. The Yamnaya used horses to manage huge herds of sheep, and followed their livestock across the steppes with wagons full of food and water.

It was an immensely successful way of life, allowing the Yamnaya to build huge funeral mounds for their dead, which they filled with jewelry, weapons and even entire chariots.

David W. Anthony, an archaeologist at Hartwick College and a co-author on the Harvard study, said it was likely that the expansion of Yamnaya into Europe was relatively peaceful. “It wasn’t Attila the Hun coming in and killing everybody,” he said.

It’s a stereotype that the Eurasian Steppe tends to be violent, so therefore it can’t be true. The real reason Eastern Europe is called The Bloodlands is because of the beautiful red sunsets. Everybody knows that.

Instead, Dr. Anthony thought the most likely scenario was that the Yamnaya “entered into some kind of stable opposition” with the resident Europeans that lasted for a few centuries. But then gradually the barriers between the cultures eroded.

For a dissenting view of the values and predilections of Eurasian steppe peoples:

On the other hand, Dr. Anthony cogently rebutted:

The Copenhagen team’s study suggests that the Yamnaya didn’t just expand west into Europe, however. The scientists examined DNA from 4,700-year-old skeletons from a Siberian culture called the Afanasievo. It turns out that they inherited Yamnaya DNA, too.

Dr. Anthony was surprised by the possibility that Yamnaya pushed out over a range of about 4,000 miles.

What with them being so peaceful and all.

“I myself have a hard time wrapping my head around explanations for that,” he said.

I bet you do.

The two studies also add new fuel to a debate about how languages spread across Europe and Asia. Most European tongues belong to the Indo-European family, which also incudes languages in southern and Central Asia.

For decades, linguists have debated how Indo-European got to Europe. Some favor the idea that the original farmers brought Indo-European into Europe from Turkey. Others think the language came from the Russian steppes thousands of years later.

The new genetic results won’t settle the debate, said Eske Willerslev, an evolutionary biologist at Copenhagen University who led the Danish team. But he did think the results were consistent with the idea that the Yamnaya brought Indo-European from the steppes to Europe. …

“We can just say that the expansion fits very well with the geographical spread of the Indo-European language,” said Dr. Willerslev.

 
• Category: History, Science • Tags: Anthropology, Aryans, Indo-Europeans, Yamnaya 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. First the Yamnaya brought their sheep, using the allure of delicate woolen fabric to woo the indigenous women. Then they brought their horses to demonstrate equestrian prowess, perhaps polo. When neither of these worked, they brought in Dee-Jay and held offensive pool parties.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/was-the-aryan-conquest-of-europe-peaceful/#comment-973710
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. There are Asian peoples living in Northern Europe since forever. The Finns are the typical example but their language isn’t Indo-European so not a good example for this thread.

    What’s clearly disturbing to a lot of people, but for different reasons, is that it’s clear that the current Europeans also can disappear. Suddenly ‘we’ may look completely different with only a few genetical hints of a past with blond hair. Racists don’t like that thought but smarter SJW’s, if there is such a thing, would also be disturbed by the fact that genes matter…

    Other people also can see that teaching your womenfolk certain lessons is a matter of life and death.

    Read More
    • Replies: @OilcanFloyd
    "There are Asian peoples living in Northern Europe since forever. The Finns are the typical example but their language isn’t Indo-European so not a good example for this thread."

    The Lapps are the example you are looking for. Finns are basically Swedes with 5%, or so, Lapp admixture.
    , @SPMoore8
    Finns, the closely associated Estonians, and Hungarians are all part of the same group, whose homeland is usually cited in the Urals, approximately to the east of Moscow, IIRC. The family is "Finno-Ugric" and I believe there are about 14 languages in the family, most of them largely (of course at this point) wiped out (from disuse, not conquest.) The general theory is that the Finns, etc. migrated along the northern area and that the Magyars hitched a ride with the large Turkic invasions in the medieval period (I think the Magyars showed up around 900 A.D. or something like that.)

    The thing is, all of these peoples have interbred for centuries. Compare Renee Zellwegger.

    If you want to look for "aboriginal" Europeans you'd probably be better off looking at the Basques, who, as far as I know, are the closest thing to a still existing language isolate in Europe. I expect the Basques are the closest you could get to the original homo sapiens in Europe also (after the Neanderthals.)
    , @Cracker
    The Finns are to the Koreans, at least that's what I remember reading somewhere. And the Russians made a mistake of messing with them in that Winter War, especially Simo Hayha.
    , @24AheadDotCom
    smarter SJW’s, if there is such a thing

    Since SJWs have been winning at nearly every turn for decades, one wonders exactly how the superiority of their opponents shows itself. They control the horizontal and vertical while the other side does nothing, follows worthless entertainers like Coulter, descends into a shallow copy of theapricity dot com, and so on.

    P.S. The path of @JustineTunney is interesting. A younger version of Caitlyn who took over @OccupyWallSt and RTed things about "cisgender", but who now appears to be a neoroyalist, with Eric Schmidt as her desired king.
    , @Jim
    The Finnish genotype does show some Asian influence but it is relatively small. Finns are predominantly Nordic. The Finnish Lapps are genetically about 20% Asian and Russian Lapps are about 30% Asian. The Hungarian population is very little different genetically form other Eastern European people.
  3. As a general rule, our ancestors murdered each other(and others who are not our ancestors for reasons that should be obvious) with wanton abandon.

    Read More
  4. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “In other words, with “the Yamnaya” we’re likely talking about more or less the people also known as the Proto-Indo-Europeans, who used to be called the Aryans.”

    It’s as though they want us to feel we all have a very multicultural background, rather than simply a European one. What the heck?

    From Wikipedia for “Proto-Indo-Europeans”:

    “Historically, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the term Aryan was used to refer to the Proto-Indo-Europeans and their descendants. Though the term more properly applies to the Indo-European branch that settled Persia and India it came to be used for the broader ethnic family. By the early twentieth century this term had come to be widely used in a racist context referring to a hypothesized white master race, culminating with the pogroms of the Nazis in Europe. Subsequently the term Aryan as a general term for Indo-Europeans has been largely abandoned by scholars (though the term Indo-Aryan is still used to refer to the branch that settled in India).[2]”

    This stuff gives me a headache.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Crawfurdmuir
    Here is Rudyard Kipling's use of the term Aryan, with specific reference to the branch that settled in India:

    “Now it is not good for the Christian's health to hustle the Aryan
    brown,
    For the Christian riles, and the Aryan smiles and he weareth the
    Christian down;
    And the end of the fight is a tombstone white with the name of
    the late deceased,
    And the epitaph drear: "A Fool lies here who tried to hustle the
    East."

    [ from The Naulahka, 1891-2]
  5. The idea that Europe was settled in waves like this is fairly well known, at least in the sequence of hunter gatherers, agriculturalists, and then pastoralists. The real question is which of the latter two were Indo Europeans as we understand the term. The agriculture explanation which tends to be associated with Colin Renfrew (IIRC) would have the point of entry via Turkey while the pastoral explanation would have the migration along the north side, rather than the south side, of the Black Sea. Part of the problem is that the part of Turkey where agriculture is supposed to have originated (the Eastern part) is supposed to have been the point of origin for the Hittites, who were also Indo Europeans.

    The main factor for the extent of the Aryan migration (don’t forget they also colonized the Indian subcontintent and parts of Western China (Tocharian)) was probably the horse and chariot. That has long been suspected.

    Whether the expansion was particularly violent, I do not know, I suspect it wasn’t, because the Aryans brought horsemanship and chariots while the agriculturalists (also Aryans?) had mastered crops and clearly Europe’s development depended heavily on such mastery.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike Sylwester

    The main factor for the extent of the Aryan migration (don’t forget they also colonized the Indian subcontintent and parts of Western China (Tocharian)) was probably the horse and chariot.
     
    I think that armies used chariots mostly to supply their best warriors, who were fighting on foot.

    The best warriors rarely were standing on the chariots while they were fighting.

    The chariots would bring weapons, armor, water and other supplies to the best warriors and would take away and redistribute the same kinds of items that were captured. Chariots were mostly a logistics asset.

    Also, chariots allowed the best warriors to save a lot of energy that otherwise would be expended on walking and running.

    The Iliad described the use of chariots in battle. Here is an excerpt from a webpage titled Chariots and Horses in the Homeric World.


    Most chariots in The Iliad are drawn by teams of either two or four horses. Each chariot carries two people: a warrior – usually one of the Greek or Trojan heroes – and a charioteer. Chariots are used to transport the heroes to, from, and on the battlefield. Once the hero spots an enemy, he normally dismounts to engage him on foot, his charioteer manoeuvring to a place of safety where he waits for his master to call on him. Rarely do the heroes fight directly from their chariots.
     
    http://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/pw/ancient-warfare/blog/chariots-and-horses-in-the-homeric-world/

    Also, a society that built chariots developed the mathematics, materials and crafts necessary to manufacture wheels. This important new industry employed a lot of people and stimulated technological innovation that improved the society as a whole.

    , @Difference Maker
    The Hittite core is famously arid horse territory. The Hittites ruled over the natives of the land, non Indo European speakers who lived there already, predating the Hittite settlement.

    Steppe invasions have regularly routed through the Caucasus mountains since recorded history. Even violent massive sweeps don't have to settle down, especially in difficult mountain terrain. The example of the Celts making it to Galatia, or perhaps even of the Goths leaving the Balkans, are instructive.

    Armenians and Ossetians in the Caucasus to the east of Hittite Anatolia, presumably closer to the Renfrewian urheimat and the origin point of the immigration, are surrounded by non Indo European speakers, and Ossetians we can be sure are a late arrival

    Later Indo Aryans, still quite early in history, would rule the Mitanni in Syria, further south of Hittite territory to the southeast, imposing themselves on the native population.

  6. If the encounter was peaceful, then the original population’s contribution to the modern European DNA will have come equally from males and females.

    If it was an invasion, then the original population’s contribution to the modern European DNA will have mostly come from the females.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Father O'Hara
    Unless the original pop. won.
    , @Michael
    i dont think so except in very recent western societies 90% of women bred with 15% of the men HBD chicks up on this. however my very vague genetic knowledge seems to think what can be done is tell which males bred with which females and vice versa so if i understand you theory to test it you could see if the tide went in both directions or only one way
    , @aeolius
    I cannot cite the study, but I am sure that this has shown up in the Bantu expansion. Where the ydna/mtdna ratios for Bantu/hunter gathers were different. The simplest answer was the "kill the men. Breed the women war cry" As we have seen recently in Darfur and Bosnia. And IIRC is common behavior in other primates.
  7. @Fredrik
    There are Asian peoples living in Northern Europe since forever. The Finns are the typical example but their language isn't Indo-European so not a good example for this thread.

    What's clearly disturbing to a lot of people, but for different reasons, is that it's clear that the current Europeans also can disappear. Suddenly 'we' may look completely different with only a few genetical hints of a past with blond hair. Racists don't like that thought but smarter SJW's, if there is such a thing, would also be disturbed by the fact that genes matter...

    Other people also can see that teaching your womenfolk certain lessons is a matter of life and death.

    “There are Asian peoples living in Northern Europe since forever. The Finns are the typical example but their language isn’t Indo-European so not a good example for this thread.”

    The Lapps are the example you are looking for. Finns are basically Swedes with 5%, or so, Lapp admixture.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The Lapps are the example you are looking for. Finns are basically Swedes with 5%, or so, Lapp admixture.

    Swedes are Germans with 5% Sami admixture. Germans have 5% Hun admixture. Therefore, Finns are Mongoloids, evidenced by their love for maths, cell phones, stoicism, and low crime rates. Do you know why Germans are so obedient? It's because of their Mongoloid admixture.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    The question that has had me wondering since I first came across PC-KIMMO in 1997 is why have the Finns been so remarkably important in computational linguistics? Is there something about Finnish that accounts for it?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauri_Karttunen
    and
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimmo_Koskenniemi

    were important in a manner almost up to the level of Godel (how do I get the umlaut on top of the o?) to mathematical logic, or Von Neumann to computing or game theory. And what's with the K? Does it have magic powers in Finnish or in Finland?
    , @Andrew
    Ulkomaalainen:

    "Finns are basically Swedes with 5% or so, Lapp admixture"

    That sounds like an oversimplification. Charts like this:

    http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/1015/nelis2009mds.png

    show Finns as a rather very distinct equal mix of Balts and Swedes, with Balts being a bulge off of Russians and Swedes a bulge off of North Germans.
  8. @Fredrik
    There are Asian peoples living in Northern Europe since forever. The Finns are the typical example but their language isn't Indo-European so not a good example for this thread.

    What's clearly disturbing to a lot of people, but for different reasons, is that it's clear that the current Europeans also can disappear. Suddenly 'we' may look completely different with only a few genetical hints of a past with blond hair. Racists don't like that thought but smarter SJW's, if there is such a thing, would also be disturbed by the fact that genes matter...

    Other people also can see that teaching your womenfolk certain lessons is a matter of life and death.

    Finns, the closely associated Estonians, and Hungarians are all part of the same group, whose homeland is usually cited in the Urals, approximately to the east of Moscow, IIRC. The family is “Finno-Ugric” and I believe there are about 14 languages in the family, most of them largely (of course at this point) wiped out (from disuse, not conquest.) The general theory is that the Finns, etc. migrated along the northern area and that the Magyars hitched a ride with the large Turkic invasions in the medieval period (I think the Magyars showed up around 900 A.D. or something like that.)

    The thing is, all of these peoples have interbred for centuries. Compare Renee Zellwegger.

    If you want to look for “aboriginal” Europeans you’d probably be better off looking at the Basques, who, as far as I know, are the closest thing to a still existing language isolate in Europe. I expect the Basques are the closest you could get to the original homo sapiens in Europe also (after the Neanderthals.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The modern European populations with the greatest amount of ancient hunter-gatherer ancestry live in Northeast Europe. The Yamnaya themselves were a mixture of Western Hunter-Gatherers, Ancient North Eurasians and Early European Farmers by the time they arrived in Europe proper, but they had more of the WHG and ANE components than the farming populations they overtook. The population genetic evidence shows that the Yamnaya / Proto-Indo-Europeans contributed more to the genomes of modern Balts and Slavs than they did to modern Western or Southern Europeans.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Finns, the closely associated Estonians, and Hungarians are all part of the same group…
     
    The Finnish and Hungarian tongues forked about 5,000 years ago. That's about the relationship of English and Urdu.

    Still, a young Hungarian new to Finland once told me he felt a familiarity with the speech around him. I think it was the underlying rhythm.
    , @Shaikorth
    The theory about Basques being cro-magnons or a paleolithic relic is quite outdated. The mesolithic hunter-gatherers of Western Europe were more related to present day Eastern Europeans. Basques are an isolate more related to Neolithic farmers whose closest living relatives are Sardinians.



    To quote Lazaridis et al. 2014, "Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans":

    "We highlight two clusters: Stuttgart joins all Sardinian individuals in cluster A and Loschbour joins a cluster B that encompasses all Belarusian, Ukrainian, Mordovian, Russian, Estonian, Finnish, and Lithuanian individuals. These results confirm Sardinia as a refuge area where ancestry related to Early European Farmers has been best preserved, and also the greater persistence of WHG-related ancestry in present-day Eastern European populations. The latter finding suggests that West European Hunter-Gatherers (so-named because of the prevalence of Loschbour and La Braña) or populations related to them have contributed to the ancestry of present-day Eastern European groups."
    , @Anonymous
    Hello SPMoore8. I find your posts very insightful. Thank you. A related topic discussed several times on the blog comment section has been the question of Asiatic DNA in Europeans. You mentioned Renee Zellwegger, who has known Sami/Lapp ancestry. Other examples of Europeans with obvious Asiatic features include:

    Bjork
    Arnold Schwarzenegger
    Leonardo DiCaprio
    Zsa Zsa Gabor

    Asiatic features are not uncommon near the Arctic circle (Sami/Lapp) and where previous invasions/migrations occurred (ie. Russia, Germany/Austria, Hungary, Czech, etc) If you include Jews, then it becomes even more interesting. Of course there is the Khazar theory, but you have

    Sara Silverman
    Joseph Gordon-Levitt

    It sounds like an argument for multiculturalism... but my stance is that once a people self-identify as a specific people, then that should be respected.
    , @Tacitus2016
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sofia_Jannok

    Zellweger is supposed to be part Sami and with those cheeks and eyes I would believe it. Sami singer Jannok above. Nordic peoples can have that Asiatic look about them.
    , @Southfarthing

    " I expect the Basques are the closest you could get to the original homo sapiens in Europe also (after the Neanderthals.)"
     
    The proto-Europeans were dark-skinned and blue-eyed.

    The Basques look just like their French and northern-Spanish neighbors: pale with mostly dark eyes.
    , @Joe Walker
    I think the Basques are supposed to be descended from the first farmers to come to Europe.
  9. Mideast’s worst case: A ‘big war’ pitting Shia Muslims against Sunni

    U.S. and foreign experts say the U.S still has not developed a strategy for dealing with the Sunni extremists who now hold more territory Iraq and Syria than one year ago.

    Because “the U.S.” is in charge of US foreign policy. Not, say, Barack Hussein Obama.

    President Barack Obama on Monday acknowledged that the U.S. strategy in Iraq was a work in progress. “We don’t have, yet, a complete strategy, because it requires commitments on the part of Iraqis as well,” Obama said at the close of the G-7 summit in Germany. “The details are not worked out.”

    The experts criticize America’s detachment from the four wars now under way in the region. And they say the Obama administration is banking on Iran to stabilize the region, a very dubious course.

    Because “America” is in charge of American foreign policy. Not, say, Barack Hussein Obama. “America” is detached, because “America” is responsible for American foreign policy. Not, say, Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama is very, very attached. Totally not detached. It’s all America’s fault, not Barack Hussein Obama’s.

    “We really don’t have a strategy at all. We’re basically playing this day by day,” Robert Gates, a former secretary of defense, told MSNBC last month.

    “We” are to blame. “We” really have no strategy at all. And that’s our fault. “We” should have come up with a strategy by now. It’s definitely not Barack Hussein Obama’s job to make sure “we” have a strategy, and aren’t just “playing this day by day.”

    The one conflict where the U.S. has poured money, weapons and military advisers is Iraq, but the outlook after the Sunni city of Ramadi fell to the Sunni extremists is for a long, drawn-out conflict.

    The U.S., as mentioned above, is really screwing the pooch. They should take their cues from Barack Hussein Obama; he never does dumb shit like pour money, weapons, and military advisors into Iraq, with nothing to show for it.

    Why can’t “we,” the “U.S.,” “America,” why can’t we be more like Barack Hussein Obama?

    What worries scholars and expert observers the most is the seeming U.S. detachment from the region’s wars – in Syria and Iraq, from Yemen, where Saudi forces are bombing pro-Iranian insurgents, and from Libya, where Egypt has mounted airstrikes against Islamic State -linked insurgents.

    There’s that pesky “U.S. detachment” again. You know, I’m getting pretty tired of their attitude. Hey, I know; maybe we should put Barack Hussein Obama in charge of U.S. foreign policy. If the U.S. doesn’t want to lift a finger to help in the region, then let’s give Barack Hussein Obama the job. He’ll get things done. He isn’t “detached.” He’s very not-detached.

    “I don’t want to call the leaders today sleepwalkers, but maybe they have entered into a situation that nobody intended or wanted,” he said.

    Those damned “leaders.” If Jagland won’t call them “sleepwalkers,” then I will. Shiftless, lazy, stupid, worthless “leaders.” If only Barack Hussein Obama were in charge. If Barack Hussein Obama were the Leader of the Free World, things would be different. He wouldn’t sleepwalk. He’d get results.

    On a serious note, I say to hell with the lot of them. The journalists who are too cowardly to call Barack Hussein Obama a spade, and the cowards they quote, who dance around the truth and refuse to put the blame where it belongs: on Barack Hussein Obama. They can’t even say his name and admit he’s who they’re talking about, but we’re supposed to…what? Fight a war on their behalf?

    Read More
    • Replies: @MisterCharlie
    Misplaced comment by Svigor. This thread is about immigration into Europe thousands of years ago.
  10. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @SPMoore8
    Finns, the closely associated Estonians, and Hungarians are all part of the same group, whose homeland is usually cited in the Urals, approximately to the east of Moscow, IIRC. The family is "Finno-Ugric" and I believe there are about 14 languages in the family, most of them largely (of course at this point) wiped out (from disuse, not conquest.) The general theory is that the Finns, etc. migrated along the northern area and that the Magyars hitched a ride with the large Turkic invasions in the medieval period (I think the Magyars showed up around 900 A.D. or something like that.)

    The thing is, all of these peoples have interbred for centuries. Compare Renee Zellwegger.

    If you want to look for "aboriginal" Europeans you'd probably be better off looking at the Basques, who, as far as I know, are the closest thing to a still existing language isolate in Europe. I expect the Basques are the closest you could get to the original homo sapiens in Europe also (after the Neanderthals.)

    The modern European populations with the greatest amount of ancient hunter-gatherer ancestry live in Northeast Europe. The Yamnaya themselves were a mixture of Western Hunter-Gatherers, Ancient North Eurasians and Early European Farmers by the time they arrived in Europe proper, but they had more of the WHG and ANE components than the farming populations they overtook. The population genetic evidence shows that the Yamnaya / Proto-Indo-Europeans contributed more to the genomes of modern Balts and Slavs than they did to modern Western or Southern Europeans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Thank you. This suggests that the Celtic wave brought the agriculture and the Germanic wave brought the chariots.
  11. David W. Anthony, an archaeologist at Hartwick College and a co-author on the Harvard study…

    As I noted in a comment on the women’s soccer post, this is the school that trained the mind that gave us Dilbert.

    From the school’s site:

    In 1994, the college changed the name of it’s [sic!] athletic teams from the Hartwick Warriors to the Hartwick Hawks.

    Nope, you can’t make this stuff up. You needn’t bother!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy
    Just wait for Hartwick to change the mascot again, after being called for for speciesism. Think of how the poor, downtrodden hawk has suffered.
  12. Fascinating stuff. Also consider that some people in the Caucusus region, such as Georgians and Chechens, do not speak Indo-European languages, even though they were in extremely close proximity to the proto-Indo European homeland. That just shows the defensive advantage that the Caucusus Mountains gave them. They were able to resist being conquered by the Proto-Indo Europeans, or at least conquered to such a degree that they had the conquerors’ language forced on them.

    Also, I’m of the mind that the genes for blond hair and blue eyes did not originate with the Aryans, or whatever you want to call them, but rather with that first group of hunter-gatherers. Besides, if you look at a map of the distribution of blond hair, the highest concentration seems to be around the Finland/Karelia region; an area where the Aryans didn’t seem to leave as much of an imprint as elsewhere. I imagine the Aryans looked more like Conan as envisioned by Robert E. Howard, slightly swarthy with dark hair and eyes; closer to the Jason Momoa/Khal Drogo version than the Ahnold version.

    Read More
    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    "I imagine the Aryans looked more like Conan as envisioned by Robert E. Howard, slightly swarthy with dark hair and eyes; "

    Howard describes him as having blue eyes
    , @syonredux

    I imagine the Aryans looked more like Conan as envisioned by Robert E. Howard, slightly swarthy with dark hair and eyes; closer to the Jason Momoa/Khal Drogo version than the Ahnold version.
     
    REH's Conan has a dark complexion and black hair, but his eyes are blue.


    For a Howard hero with dark eyes, black hair, and a dark complexion, read his tales of the Pictish king Bran Mak Morn
  13. @Reg Cæsar

    David W. Anthony, an archaeologist at Hartwick College and a co-author on the Harvard study…
     
    As I noted in a comment on the women's soccer post, this is the school that trained the mind that gave us Dilbert.

    From the school's site:

    In 1994, the college changed the name of it's [sic!] athletic teams from the Hartwick Warriors to the Hartwick Hawks.
     

    Nope, you can't make this stuff up. You needn't bother!

    Just wait for Hartwick to change the mascot again, after being called for for speciesism. Think of how the poor, downtrodden hawk has suffered.

    Read More
  14. @SPMoore8
    Finns, the closely associated Estonians, and Hungarians are all part of the same group, whose homeland is usually cited in the Urals, approximately to the east of Moscow, IIRC. The family is "Finno-Ugric" and I believe there are about 14 languages in the family, most of them largely (of course at this point) wiped out (from disuse, not conquest.) The general theory is that the Finns, etc. migrated along the northern area and that the Magyars hitched a ride with the large Turkic invasions in the medieval period (I think the Magyars showed up around 900 A.D. or something like that.)

    The thing is, all of these peoples have interbred for centuries. Compare Renee Zellwegger.

    If you want to look for "aboriginal" Europeans you'd probably be better off looking at the Basques, who, as far as I know, are the closest thing to a still existing language isolate in Europe. I expect the Basques are the closest you could get to the original homo sapiens in Europe also (after the Neanderthals.)

    Finns, the closely associated Estonians, and Hungarians are all part of the same group…

    The Finnish and Hungarian tongues forked about 5,000 years ago. That’s about the relationship of English and Urdu.

    Still, a young Hungarian new to Finland once told me he felt a familiarity with the speech around him. I think it was the underlying rhythm.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    I think you misconstrued my "and": Hungarian split off a long time ago, I think it's closest cousin is on the other side of the Urals still.

    There are a lot of similarities between the Ugric (the Hungarian part) and the Finnic part still. First of all, the grammar and the characteristic agglutinative nature of speech.* Second, the long vowels, with double vowels in Finnic but with diacritics in Magyar. Third, there are certain consonant changes (think Grimm's Law for Germanic languages, v > f, t > d), I forget most of them except I know they exist.

    * e.g., kutya (dog), kutyam (my dog), kutyaim (my dogs), kutyaimmel (with my dogs), etc. Of course IE does a lot of this too with declensions, the difference is that F-U languages (sorry, that's what it is!) put basically all prepositions and declensions in strings at the end of words.
  15. Shaikorth [AKA "Grelsson17"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @SPMoore8
    Finns, the closely associated Estonians, and Hungarians are all part of the same group, whose homeland is usually cited in the Urals, approximately to the east of Moscow, IIRC. The family is "Finno-Ugric" and I believe there are about 14 languages in the family, most of them largely (of course at this point) wiped out (from disuse, not conquest.) The general theory is that the Finns, etc. migrated along the northern area and that the Magyars hitched a ride with the large Turkic invasions in the medieval period (I think the Magyars showed up around 900 A.D. or something like that.)

    The thing is, all of these peoples have interbred for centuries. Compare Renee Zellwegger.

    If you want to look for "aboriginal" Europeans you'd probably be better off looking at the Basques, who, as far as I know, are the closest thing to a still existing language isolate in Europe. I expect the Basques are the closest you could get to the original homo sapiens in Europe also (after the Neanderthals.)

    The theory about Basques being cro-magnons or a paleolithic relic is quite outdated. The mesolithic hunter-gatherers of Western Europe were more related to present day Eastern Europeans. Basques are an isolate more related to Neolithic farmers whose closest living relatives are Sardinians.

    To quote Lazaridis et al. 2014, “Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans”:

    “We highlight two clusters: Stuttgart joins all Sardinian individuals in cluster A and Loschbour joins a cluster B that encompasses all Belarusian, Ukrainian, Mordovian, Russian, Estonian, Finnish, and Lithuanian individuals. These results confirm Sardinia as a refuge area where ancestry related to Early European Farmers has been best preserved, and also the greater persistence of WHG-related ancestry in present-day Eastern European populations. The latter finding suggests that West European Hunter-Gatherers (so-named because of the prevalence of Loschbour and La Braña) or populations related to them have contributed to the ancestry of present-day Eastern European groups.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    The theory about Basques being cro-magnons or a paleolithic relic is quite outdated.

    I am interested in these things more from a linguistic than a racial-genetic POV. Therefore I am curious what this means in terms of the Basque language. If the original agriculturalists were not IE (the standard Renfrew argument) then where do the Hittites fit into this? And if the original agriculturalists spoke Basque (or something like it) does this support tie-ins with Kartvelian? I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on that.
  16. @Anonymous
    "In other words, with “the Yamnaya” we’re likely talking about more or less the people also known as the Proto-Indo-Europeans, who used to be called the Aryans."

    It's as though they want us to feel we all have a very multicultural background, rather than simply a European one. What the heck?

    From Wikipedia for "Proto-Indo-Europeans":

    "Historically, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the term Aryan was used to refer to the Proto-Indo-Europeans and their descendants. Though the term more properly applies to the Indo-European branch that settled Persia and India it came to be used for the broader ethnic family. By the early twentieth century this term had come to be widely used in a racist context referring to a hypothesized white master race, culminating with the pogroms of the Nazis in Europe. Subsequently the term Aryan as a general term for Indo-Europeans has been largely abandoned by scholars (though the term Indo-Aryan is still used to refer to the branch that settled in India).[2]"

    This stuff gives me a headache.

    Here is Rudyard Kipling’s use of the term Aryan, with specific reference to the branch that settled in India:

    “Now it is not good for the Christian’s health to hustle the Aryan
    brown,
    For the Christian riles, and the Aryan smiles and he weareth the
    Christian down;
    And the end of the fight is a tombstone white with the name of
    the late deceased,
    And the epitaph drear: “A Fool lies here who tried to hustle the
    East.”

    [ from The Naulahka, 1891-2]

    Read More
  17. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @SPMoore8
    Finns, the closely associated Estonians, and Hungarians are all part of the same group, whose homeland is usually cited in the Urals, approximately to the east of Moscow, IIRC. The family is "Finno-Ugric" and I believe there are about 14 languages in the family, most of them largely (of course at this point) wiped out (from disuse, not conquest.) The general theory is that the Finns, etc. migrated along the northern area and that the Magyars hitched a ride with the large Turkic invasions in the medieval period (I think the Magyars showed up around 900 A.D. or something like that.)

    The thing is, all of these peoples have interbred for centuries. Compare Renee Zellwegger.

    If you want to look for "aboriginal" Europeans you'd probably be better off looking at the Basques, who, as far as I know, are the closest thing to a still existing language isolate in Europe. I expect the Basques are the closest you could get to the original homo sapiens in Europe also (after the Neanderthals.)

    Hello SPMoore8. I find your posts very insightful. Thank you. A related topic discussed several times on the blog comment section has been the question of Asiatic DNA in Europeans. You mentioned Renee Zellwegger, who has known Sami/Lapp ancestry. Other examples of Europeans with obvious Asiatic features include:

    Bjork
    Arnold Schwarzenegger
    Leonardo DiCaprio
    Zsa Zsa Gabor

    Asiatic features are not uncommon near the Arctic circle (Sami/Lapp) and where previous invasions/migrations occurred (ie. Russia, Germany/Austria, Hungary, Czech, etc) If you include Jews, then it becomes even more interesting. Of course there is the Khazar theory, but you have

    Sara Silverman
    Joseph Gordon-Levitt

    It sounds like an argument for multiculturalism… but my stance is that once a people self-identify as a specific people, then that should be respected.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Yeltsin had slightly Asian looking eyes.

    The top football player at my high school was a huge Russian guy with a Mongolian look. He figured he was descended from Genghis Khan and opposing players weren't inclined to disagree.

    , @yaph
    Sarah Silverman did an entire episode of her TV show about how russian jews were "raped by the Mongols".
    , @kaganovitch
    "If you include Jews, then it becomes even more interesting. Of course there is the Khazar theory, but you have"

    The aforementioned Zsa Zsa Gabor is as jewish as Sara Silverman
    , @syonredux

    If you include Jews, then it becomes even more interesting. Of course there is the Khazar theory,
     
    Gene studies don't support the Khazar hypothesis.Ashkenazi Jews are a mixture of European (mostly Italian) and Middle Eastern:

    I’m looking at abstracts on Ashkenazi genetics from ASHG 2013 and SMBE 2014 – by the same group, with Shai Carmi as the lead author. They did 128 whole genomes, 50x deep.

    They concluded Ashkenazi Jews were about 50% Middle Eastern and 50% European. In the 2013 abstract, they were pretty specific: they estimated the European ancestry fraction at 55% , plus or minus 2%. ( In our book, we had a crude estimate of about 40% European ancestry.) They estimated the split between Europeans and Middle Easterners at about 9000 BC: which sounds about the right date for the entry of the Sardinian-like farmers. From other data (mtDNA) , and from the fact that you see almost zero WHG or ANE in Ashkenazi autosomal genes, one can conclude that the European admixture was mostly Italian, with some southern French. Very little German or Slavic – by that time serious endogamy had set in..
     
    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/ashkenazi-ancestry/
  18. @SPMoore8
    Finns, the closely associated Estonians, and Hungarians are all part of the same group, whose homeland is usually cited in the Urals, approximately to the east of Moscow, IIRC. The family is "Finno-Ugric" and I believe there are about 14 languages in the family, most of them largely (of course at this point) wiped out (from disuse, not conquest.) The general theory is that the Finns, etc. migrated along the northern area and that the Magyars hitched a ride with the large Turkic invasions in the medieval period (I think the Magyars showed up around 900 A.D. or something like that.)

    The thing is, all of these peoples have interbred for centuries. Compare Renee Zellwegger.

    If you want to look for "aboriginal" Europeans you'd probably be better off looking at the Basques, who, as far as I know, are the closest thing to a still existing language isolate in Europe. I expect the Basques are the closest you could get to the original homo sapiens in Europe also (after the Neanderthals.)

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sofia_Jannok

    Zellweger is supposed to be part Sami and with those cheeks and eyes I would believe it. Sami singer Jannok above. Nordic peoples can have that Asiatic look about them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
    Jannok is a good singer. She is a decent jazz singer, interpolating joiks with jazz riffs:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3-ZUU2wLK0

    Swedes do cool jazz well, because well, they are cool, and thus have half the equation already.

    There's also a Sami heavy metal group from Norway, Intrigue.

    About this Yamnaya stuff, it looks as though Maria Gimbutas was right, after all:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypothesis

    She came up with this hypothesis a long time ago. I think it was always thought of as speculative and "out there." She was right after all. And Steve is her biggest supporter!

    "Gimbutas believed that the expansions of the Kurgan culture were a series of essentially hostile, military incursions where a new warrior culture imposed itself on the peaceful, matriarchal cultures of "Old Europe", replacing it with a patriarchal warrior society,[27] a process visible in the appearance of fortified settlements and hillforts and the graves of warrior-chieftains"

    , @dr kill
    But what about the cheeks of Kenny Chesney? Clenched?
  19. “Was the Prehistoric Aryan Invasion of Europe Peaceful?”

    Is that supposed to be a rhetorical question? Anyway, is there archaeological evidence reflecting conquest? Population replacement? Symbiosis? Anybody know?

    Read More
    • Replies: @hodag
    There is fair evidence it was not. Iirc, there were scattered farming communities, little evidence of cities or things like chiefs or kings. Then the communities got really big but still no chiefs or kings, as if defensively against invaders - cities don't work for farmers since you have to walk really far to your fields since you don't have horses. Then the big communities were destroyed.

    The big advantages were horses and the wheel.
  20. OT:

    Jerry Brown, 77 years old, has lived in California his entire life, woke up today and noticed that California has gotten very crowded. I tell you, we are in good hands with sharp men like Jerry Brown.

    Read More
  21. See the books End of Bronze Age and The Coming of the Greeks by Robert Drews, which links chariot use (mobility) with the spread of the Indo-Europeans from Ireland to India and China (Tocharian). Drews likens war chariots, which were very expensive lightweight mobile archery platforms manned by bronze armed and armored warrior elites, to the military role of modern fighter jets and their downfall to iron making cheap metal weapons ubiquitous. See also Lawrence Keeley’s War Before Civilization, where he talks about prehistoric European fortifications–excuse me–”enclosures”. The truth is that people were killing each other before the Indo-Europeans arrived and kept doing it afterward.

    Also interesting is that blue eyes may have come from the hunter-gatherers but their hair was likely dark and their skin was likely relatively dark ( http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25885519 ). The Tarim mummies found in China, with pale skin, light or red hair, blue eyes, and plaid cloth and their association with the Tocharians suggests that a lot of what we consider European appearance came in with that Indo-European wave. As for the Basques, their genes are as tied to later migrations as others from that region and they seem to have a particularly strong connection to the aboriginal hunter-gatherers of Europe.

    Note that the Yamnaya may have also contributed lactose tolerance to Europe, which could also explain a great deal (non-beligerantly) about their genetic expansion, since animal milk is a great way to get and preserve (in the form of butter, cheese, etc.) lots of protein.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    + 10 to Lawrence Keeley’s War Before Civilization. It completely destroys the noble savage myth.
    My local library did not have it so I got it from VMI on an inter-library loan, I was the first person to check it out. I wrote the author an attaboy, but never heard back. Probably still trying to save face in his profession.
    Check it out.
    , @SPMoore8
    I think your explanation is close to my own, but evidently the new genetic evidence doesn't settle the argument either way.

    I've often felt Renfrew's hypothesis, known as The Anatolian Hypothesis, was a little stretched but I also think that Marija Gimbutas, advocate of the alternative "Kurgan Hypothesis" was even farther out there.

    Also:

    ~ I am a little disappointed that this discussion has apparently already shown signs of turning into a turf war. To that end, I will only mention the argument that Basque comes from the Dogon language in Sub-Saharan Africa.

    ~ I am also disappointed that the discussion of the correctness of the Renfrew vs. Gimbutas hypothesis seems to have turned into a progressive, transgender accepting agriculturalist model versus a bloodthirsty Republican hyperphobic model. This is not necessary.
  22. How would you feel if some bloody horse-borne shepherd wanted to pasture his flocks on your fields? Or wanted to graze your hunting grounds? About as happy as the Sioux, I’d think.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Oscar Hammerstein had the answer to that:

    The farmer and the cowman should be friends.
    Oh, the farmer and the cowman should be friends.
    One man likes to push a plough, the other likes to chase a cow,
    But that's no reason why they cain't be friends.

    Territory folks should stick together,
    Territory folks should all be pals.
    Cowboys dance with farmer's daughters,
    Farmers dance with the ranchers' gals.
     
  23. @Fredrik
    There are Asian peoples living in Northern Europe since forever. The Finns are the typical example but their language isn't Indo-European so not a good example for this thread.

    What's clearly disturbing to a lot of people, but for different reasons, is that it's clear that the current Europeans also can disappear. Suddenly 'we' may look completely different with only a few genetical hints of a past with blond hair. Racists don't like that thought but smarter SJW's, if there is such a thing, would also be disturbed by the fact that genes matter...

    Other people also can see that teaching your womenfolk certain lessons is a matter of life and death.

    The Finns are to the Koreans, at least that’s what I remember reading somewhere. And the Russians made a mistake of messing with them in that Winter War, especially Simo Hayha.

    Read More
  24. It’s worthwhile to keep in mind, since you’re reinstating the term “Aryan” and write frequently about race, that it WASN’T the Yamnaya or any related group that brought white skin genetics to Europe. Nor was it the indigenous hunter gatherers who first sporadically settled Europe. It was the Neolithic farmers from the Middle East. And, despite the massive population turnovers caused by these Yamnaya-like groups, Aryans, Hyperboreans, Proto-IEs, or whatever else you want to call them, the bulk of Europeans’ ancestry is still derived from these farmers.

    What’s more is that the Yamnaya themselves appear to be a cross between far eastern hunters and a near eastern population from around the Caucuses (though of a different type of near eastern than the Neolithic farmers). The picture is far from settled science and gets increasingly more complex each time new ancient genomes are released, as in this paper. I bet more surprises are ahead.

    Yes, it *is* indeed remarkable how a few 19th and early 20th century anthropologists and linguists were able to deduce large chunks of the truth — but it’s also important to point out when they, and people who later cited their work, were completely wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Walker
    the bulk of Europeans’ ancestry is still derived from these farmers

    I wouldn't be so sure of that. Skin color is controlled by a relatively small number of genes.
  25. @Daniel H
    OT:

    Jerry Brown, 77 years old, has lived in California his entire life, woke up today and noticed that California has gotten very crowded. I tell you, we are in good hands with sharp men like Jerry Brown.

    Do you have a link?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel H
    http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/10/jerry-brown-worries-about-overpopulation-amid-ca-drought/
  26. @Anonymous
    Hello SPMoore8. I find your posts very insightful. Thank you. A related topic discussed several times on the blog comment section has been the question of Asiatic DNA in Europeans. You mentioned Renee Zellwegger, who has known Sami/Lapp ancestry. Other examples of Europeans with obvious Asiatic features include:

    Bjork
    Arnold Schwarzenegger
    Leonardo DiCaprio
    Zsa Zsa Gabor

    Asiatic features are not uncommon near the Arctic circle (Sami/Lapp) and where previous invasions/migrations occurred (ie. Russia, Germany/Austria, Hungary, Czech, etc) If you include Jews, then it becomes even more interesting. Of course there is the Khazar theory, but you have

    Sara Silverman
    Joseph Gordon-Levitt

    It sounds like an argument for multiculturalism... but my stance is that once a people self-identify as a specific people, then that should be respected.

    Yeltsin had slightly Asian looking eyes.

    The top football player at my high school was a huge Russian guy with a Mongolian look. He figured he was descended from Genghis Khan and opposing players weren’t inclined to disagree.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I think it supports the several waves theory. There are Europeans with Asiatic features with known Asiatic ancestors (Sami, Tatars) Renee Zellwegger, Charles Bronson

    And then there are Europeans with Asiatic features with no known recent Asiatic ancestors (Zsa Zsa, Arnold, Leonardo), which I attribute to older invasions and migrations.

    Also, the Arctic circle is Asiatic on every continent

    , @The Snitch
    V. Lenin always looked somewhat Asiatic to me as well.
    , @escher
    Putin anyone?
  27. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Steve Sailer
    Yeltsin had slightly Asian looking eyes.

    The top football player at my high school was a huge Russian guy with a Mongolian look. He figured he was descended from Genghis Khan and opposing players weren't inclined to disagree.

    I think it supports the several waves theory. There are Europeans with Asiatic features with known Asiatic ancestors (Sami, Tatars) Renee Zellwegger, Charles Bronson

    And then there are Europeans with Asiatic features with no known recent Asiatic ancestors (Zsa Zsa, Arnold, Leonardo), which I attribute to older invasions and migrations.

    Also, the Arctic circle is Asiatic on every continent

    Read More
    • Replies: @midtown
    The Danish actress Birgitte Sorenson looked rather Asiatic in a Game of Thrones episode:

    http://photos.vanityfair.com/2015/06/01/556bfd82378caf0d670e5041_GOT508_111414_HS__DSC0452%5B1%5D.jpg
  28. @SPMoore8
    Finns, the closely associated Estonians, and Hungarians are all part of the same group, whose homeland is usually cited in the Urals, approximately to the east of Moscow, IIRC. The family is "Finno-Ugric" and I believe there are about 14 languages in the family, most of them largely (of course at this point) wiped out (from disuse, not conquest.) The general theory is that the Finns, etc. migrated along the northern area and that the Magyars hitched a ride with the large Turkic invasions in the medieval period (I think the Magyars showed up around 900 A.D. or something like that.)

    The thing is, all of these peoples have interbred for centuries. Compare Renee Zellwegger.

    If you want to look for "aboriginal" Europeans you'd probably be better off looking at the Basques, who, as far as I know, are the closest thing to a still existing language isolate in Europe. I expect the Basques are the closest you could get to the original homo sapiens in Europe also (after the Neanderthals.)

    ” I expect the Basques are the closest you could get to the original homo sapiens in Europe also (after the Neanderthals.)”

    The proto-Europeans were dark-skinned and blue-eyed.

    The Basques look just like their French and northern-Spanish neighbors: pale with mostly dark eyes.

    Read More
  29. @Anonymous
    The modern European populations with the greatest amount of ancient hunter-gatherer ancestry live in Northeast Europe. The Yamnaya themselves were a mixture of Western Hunter-Gatherers, Ancient North Eurasians and Early European Farmers by the time they arrived in Europe proper, but they had more of the WHG and ANE components than the farming populations they overtook. The population genetic evidence shows that the Yamnaya / Proto-Indo-Europeans contributed more to the genomes of modern Balts and Slavs than they did to modern Western or Southern Europeans.

    Thank you. This suggests that the Celtic wave brought the agriculture and the Germanic wave brought the chariots.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    No, the Early European Farmers from the Middle East brought agriculture to Europe thousands of years before the Proto-Indo-Europeans / Yamnaya arrived.
    , @Joe Walker
    How so?
  30. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @SPMoore8
    Thank you. This suggests that the Celtic wave brought the agriculture and the Germanic wave brought the chariots.

    No, the Early European Farmers from the Middle East brought agriculture to Europe thousands of years before the Proto-Indo-Europeans / Yamnaya arrived.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Unless the agriculturalists were also IE. That's the whole point of Renfrew's thesis. According to the article, the latest information doesn't settle that argument. It's not my argument.

    If the earliest agriculturalists were not IE, and spoke languages similar to Basque, OK, that's one thing. (However, they weren't Semitic, and they weren't IE, so what were they?)
  31. @Reg Cæsar

    Finns, the closely associated Estonians, and Hungarians are all part of the same group…
     
    The Finnish and Hungarian tongues forked about 5,000 years ago. That's about the relationship of English and Urdu.

    Still, a young Hungarian new to Finland once told me he felt a familiarity with the speech around him. I think it was the underlying rhythm.

    I think you misconstrued my “and”: Hungarian split off a long time ago, I think it’s closest cousin is on the other side of the Urals still.

    There are a lot of similarities between the Ugric (the Hungarian part) and the Finnic part still. First of all, the grammar and the characteristic agglutinative nature of speech.* Second, the long vowels, with double vowels in Finnic but with diacritics in Magyar. Third, there are certain consonant changes (think Grimm’s Law for Germanic languages, v > f, t > d), I forget most of them except I know they exist.

    * e.g., kutya (dog), kutyam (my dog), kutyaim (my dogs), kutyaimmel (with my dogs), etc. Of course IE does a lot of this too with declensions, the difference is that F-U languages (sorry, that’s what it is!) put basically all prepositions and declensions in strings at the end of words.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    There are a lot of similarities between the Ugric (the Hungarian part) and the Finnic part still.
     
    Don't forget the freight-train-length words with the strong stress on the first syllable.

    Initial stress is also found Czech and Slovak, Hungarian's Indo-European neighbors. Makes one wonder.
  32. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @OilcanFloyd
    "There are Asian peoples living in Northern Europe since forever. The Finns are the typical example but their language isn’t Indo-European so not a good example for this thread."

    The Lapps are the example you are looking for. Finns are basically Swedes with 5%, or so, Lapp admixture.

    The Lapps are the example you are looking for. Finns are basically Swedes with 5%, or so, Lapp admixture.

    Swedes are Germans with 5% Sami admixture. Germans have 5% Hun admixture. Therefore, Finns are Mongoloids, evidenced by their love for maths, cell phones, stoicism, and low crime rates. Do you know why Germans are so obedient? It’s because of their Mongoloid admixture.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    What's even more peculiar is the genetic closeness of Finnish Spitz and Korean Jindo
    , @Jim
    Utter nonsense.
  33. @Shaikorth
    The theory about Basques being cro-magnons or a paleolithic relic is quite outdated. The mesolithic hunter-gatherers of Western Europe were more related to present day Eastern Europeans. Basques are an isolate more related to Neolithic farmers whose closest living relatives are Sardinians.



    To quote Lazaridis et al. 2014, "Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans":

    "We highlight two clusters: Stuttgart joins all Sardinian individuals in cluster A and Loschbour joins a cluster B that encompasses all Belarusian, Ukrainian, Mordovian, Russian, Estonian, Finnish, and Lithuanian individuals. These results confirm Sardinia as a refuge area where ancestry related to Early European Farmers has been best preserved, and also the greater persistence of WHG-related ancestry in present-day Eastern European populations. The latter finding suggests that West European Hunter-Gatherers (so-named because of the prevalence of Loschbour and La Braña) or populations related to them have contributed to the ancestry of present-day Eastern European groups."

    The theory about Basques being cro-magnons or a paleolithic relic is quite outdated.

    I am interested in these things more from a linguistic than a racial-genetic POV. Therefore I am curious what this means in terms of the Basque language. If the original agriculturalists were not IE (the standard Renfrew argument) then where do the Hittites fit into this? And if the original agriculturalists spoke Basque (or something like it) does this support tie-ins with Kartvelian? I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @greysquirrell
    Hittites conquered Anatolia ; they were not native to the region as evidenced by the Hattic substratum in Hittite.

    The Yamnaya Indo-European horsemen may or may not have violently overthrown most of Old Europe but it was a conquest nonetheless because the natives lost their identity . You don't have to kill all the males for it to be a conquest, you can infiltrate and scheme to push your language so as to subsume the natives with the intention being to make the natives leave their identity and swear allegiance to the identity of the dominating group.

    There are plenty of examples of Indo-Europeans dominating the natives and imposing their language through the elite dominance model so I hazard a guess the same happened in Western Europe.

    Now this begs the question: Most of Western Europe is Y-dna R1b and I subclades. So is R1b1b subclades found in Western Europe from Yamanaya?
  34. @Anonymous
    No, the Early European Farmers from the Middle East brought agriculture to Europe thousands of years before the Proto-Indo-Europeans / Yamnaya arrived.

    Unless the agriculturalists were also IE. That’s the whole point of Renfrew’s thesis. According to the article, the latest information doesn’t settle that argument. It’s not my argument.

    If the earliest agriculturalists were not IE, and spoke languages similar to Basque, OK, that’s one thing. (However, they weren’t Semitic, and they weren’t IE, so what were they?)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Semitic languages didn't exist when Middle Eastern ancestors of the Early European farmers entered Europe. Their migration was early for PIE as well. It's quite possible that they spoke Basque-like languages and/or others we know nothing about. After all, we're discussing events before the development of written language, and small-scale languages frequently die out.
  35. @Anonymous
    Hello SPMoore8. I find your posts very insightful. Thank you. A related topic discussed several times on the blog comment section has been the question of Asiatic DNA in Europeans. You mentioned Renee Zellwegger, who has known Sami/Lapp ancestry. Other examples of Europeans with obvious Asiatic features include:

    Bjork
    Arnold Schwarzenegger
    Leonardo DiCaprio
    Zsa Zsa Gabor

    Asiatic features are not uncommon near the Arctic circle (Sami/Lapp) and where previous invasions/migrations occurred (ie. Russia, Germany/Austria, Hungary, Czech, etc) If you include Jews, then it becomes even more interesting. Of course there is the Khazar theory, but you have

    Sara Silverman
    Joseph Gordon-Levitt

    It sounds like an argument for multiculturalism... but my stance is that once a people self-identify as a specific people, then that should be respected.

    Sarah Silverman did an entire episode of her TV show about how russian jews were “raped by the Mongols”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Then how come Russian Jews didn't inherit a conquering mentality?
    , @Joe Walker
    She should thank the Mongols then.
  36. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous
    The Lapps are the example you are looking for. Finns are basically Swedes with 5%, or so, Lapp admixture.

    Swedes are Germans with 5% Sami admixture. Germans have 5% Hun admixture. Therefore, Finns are Mongoloids, evidenced by their love for maths, cell phones, stoicism, and low crime rates. Do you know why Germans are so obedient? It's because of their Mongoloid admixture.

    What’s even more peculiar is the genetic closeness of Finnish Spitz and Korean Jindo

    Read More
    • Replies: @HA
    "What’s even more peculiar is the genetic closeness of Finnish Spitz and Korean Jindo"

    Are they really closer to one another than to any of the numerous other spitz breeds throughout northern Europe and north and east Asia?

    To me, a Jindo looks more like an oversized Shiba Inu than any European breed.
  37. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @yaph
    Sarah Silverman did an entire episode of her TV show about how russian jews were "raped by the Mongols".

    Then how come Russian Jews didn’t inherit a conquering mentality?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Walker
    They did. They just conquer people economically instead of militarily.
    , @cwhatfuture
    When they were in Russia, they had no opportunity. As soon as they hit Israel, they seemed to take to it. Israel is not Scandinavia. And what is with Scandinavia? Did all the aggressive ones go Viking and move out leaving the peaceful farmers behind?
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Then how come Russian Jews didn’t inherit a conquering mentality?

     

    You've never been to Hollywood, have you? Or the US Senate?
  38. @AnonNJ
    See the books End of Bronze Age and The Coming of the Greeks by Robert Drews, which links chariot use (mobility) with the spread of the Indo-Europeans from Ireland to India and China (Tocharian). Drews likens war chariots, which were very expensive lightweight mobile archery platforms manned by bronze armed and armored warrior elites, to the military role of modern fighter jets and their downfall to iron making cheap metal weapons ubiquitous. See also Lawrence Keeley's War Before Civilization, where he talks about prehistoric European fortifications--excuse me--"enclosures". The truth is that people were killing each other before the Indo-Europeans arrived and kept doing it afterward.

    Also interesting is that blue eyes may have come from the hunter-gatherers but their hair was likely dark and their skin was likely relatively dark ( http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25885519 ). The Tarim mummies found in China, with pale skin, light or red hair, blue eyes, and plaid cloth and their association with the Tocharians suggests that a lot of what we consider European appearance came in with that Indo-European wave. As for the Basques, their genes are as tied to later migrations as others from that region and they seem to have a particularly strong connection to the aboriginal hunter-gatherers of Europe.

    Note that the Yamnaya may have also contributed lactose tolerance to Europe, which could also explain a great deal (non-beligerantly) about their genetic expansion, since animal milk is a great way to get and preserve (in the form of butter, cheese, etc.) lots of protein.

    + 10 to Lawrence Keeley’s War Before Civilization. It completely destroys the noble savage myth.
    My local library did not have it so I got it from VMI on an inter-library loan, I was the first person to check it out. I wrote the author an attaboy, but never heard back. Probably still trying to save face in his profession.
    Check it out.

    Read More
  39. WhatEvvs [AKA "Prada Yada Yada"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Tacitus2016
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sofia_Jannok

    Zellweger is supposed to be part Sami and with those cheeks and eyes I would believe it. Sami singer Jannok above. Nordic peoples can have that Asiatic look about them.

    Jannok is a good singer. She is a decent jazz singer, interpolating joiks with jazz riffs:

    Swedes do cool jazz well, because well, they are cool, and thus have half the equation already.

    There’s also a Sami heavy metal group from Norway, Intrigue.

    About this Yamnaya stuff, it looks as though Maria Gimbutas was right, after all:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypothesis

    She came up with this hypothesis a long time ago. I think it was always thought of as speculative and “out there.” She was right after all. And Steve is her biggest supporter!

    “Gimbutas believed that the expansions of the Kurgan culture were a series of essentially hostile, military incursions where a new warrior culture imposed itself on the peaceful, matriarchal cultures of “Old Europe”, replacing it with a patriarchal warrior society,[27] a process visible in the appearance of fortified settlements and hillforts and the graves of warrior-chieftains”

    Read More
  40. @dearieme
    How would you feel if some bloody horse-borne shepherd wanted to pasture his flocks on your fields? Or wanted to graze your hunting grounds? About as happy as the Sioux, I'd think.

    Oscar Hammerstein had the answer to that:

    The farmer and the cowman should be friends.
    Oh, the farmer and the cowman should be friends.
    One man likes to push a plough, the other likes to chase a cow,
    But that’s no reason why they cain’t be friends.

    Territory folks should stick together,
    Territory folks should all be pals.
    Cowboys dance with farmer’s daughters,
    Farmers dance with the ranchers’ gals.

    Read More
  41. @PA
    If the encounter was peaceful, then the original population's contribution to the modern European DNA will have come equally from males and females.

    If it was an invasion, then the original population's contribution to the modern European DNA will have mostly come from the females.

    Unless the original pop. won.

    Read More
  42. @AnonNJ
    See the books End of Bronze Age and The Coming of the Greeks by Robert Drews, which links chariot use (mobility) with the spread of the Indo-Europeans from Ireland to India and China (Tocharian). Drews likens war chariots, which were very expensive lightweight mobile archery platforms manned by bronze armed and armored warrior elites, to the military role of modern fighter jets and their downfall to iron making cheap metal weapons ubiquitous. See also Lawrence Keeley's War Before Civilization, where he talks about prehistoric European fortifications--excuse me--"enclosures". The truth is that people were killing each other before the Indo-Europeans arrived and kept doing it afterward.

    Also interesting is that blue eyes may have come from the hunter-gatherers but their hair was likely dark and their skin was likely relatively dark ( http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25885519 ). The Tarim mummies found in China, with pale skin, light or red hair, blue eyes, and plaid cloth and their association with the Tocharians suggests that a lot of what we consider European appearance came in with that Indo-European wave. As for the Basques, their genes are as tied to later migrations as others from that region and they seem to have a particularly strong connection to the aboriginal hunter-gatherers of Europe.

    Note that the Yamnaya may have also contributed lactose tolerance to Europe, which could also explain a great deal (non-beligerantly) about their genetic expansion, since animal milk is a great way to get and preserve (in the form of butter, cheese, etc.) lots of protein.

    I think your explanation is close to my own, but evidently the new genetic evidence doesn’t settle the argument either way.

    I’ve often felt Renfrew’s hypothesis, known as The Anatolian Hypothesis, was a little stretched but I also think that Marija Gimbutas, advocate of the alternative “Kurgan Hypothesis” was even farther out there.

    Also:

    ~ I am a little disappointed that this discussion has apparently already shown signs of turning into a turf war. To that end, I will only mention the argument that Basque comes from the Dogon language in Sub-Saharan Africa.

    ~ I am also disappointed that the discussion of the correctness of the Renfrew vs. Gimbutas hypothesis seems to have turned into a progressive, transgender accepting agriculturalist model versus a bloodthirsty Republican hyperphobic model. This is not necessary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
    No, Gimbutas got it mostly right. Guys here dismiss her theories because (a) she leaned a little too heavily on the 'matriarchy' word, and (b) she's a woman, and nothing that a woman says can be taken seriously, cannit?
  43. The Yamnaya themselves were a mixed population with significant European hunter gatherer ancestry, from what I gather. So genetically speaking (and probably physically speaking as well) it seems the immigrant farmers from the Middle East are the ones who really took a beating in Europe with their arrival.

    But they weren’t eradicated. Thomas Jefferson, for example, was apparently descended from an ancient neolithic paternal lineage that is currently most common in the Horn of Africa, although his specific variety is most common in Egypt today (could it explain the symbolism on the Great Seal? :) j/k).

    Read More
  44. I imagine the Aryans looked more like Conan as envisioned by Robert E. Howard, slightly swarthy with dark hair and eyes; closer to the Jason Momoa/Khal Drogo version than the Ahnold version.

    Didn’t Howard pattern the Cimmerians after the Celts?

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    "Didn’t Howard pattern the Cimmerians after the Celts?"

    More or less.From REH's essay, The Hyborian Age:

    the Cimmerians are tall and powerful, with dark hair and blue or grey eyes.[.....]


    They came into these countries as Aryans. But there were variations among these primitive Aryans, some of which are still recognized today, others which have long been forgotten. The blond Achaians, Gauls and Britons, for instance, were descendants of pure-blooded Æsir. The Nemedians of Irish legendry were the Nemedian Æsir. The Danes were descendants of pure-blooded Vanir; the Goths—ancestors of the other Scandinavian and Germanic tribes, including the Anglo-Saxons—were descendants of a mixed race whose elements contained Vanir, Æsir and Cimmerian strains. The Gaels, ancestors of the Irish and Highland Scotch, descended from pure-blooded Cimmerian clans. The Cymric tribes of Britain were a mixed Nordic-Cimmerian race which preceded the purely Nordic Britons into the isles, and thus gave rise to a legend of Gaelic priority. The Cimbri who fought Rome were of the same blood, as well as the Gimmerai of the Assyrians and Grecians, and Gomer of the Hebrews. Other clans of the Cimmerians adventured east of the drying inland sea, and a few centuries later mixed with Hyrkanian blood, returned westward as Scythians. The original ancestors of the Gaels gave their name to modern Crimea.
     
    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/42182/42182-h/42182-h.htm
  45. This twitter conversation with Billare, Razib Khan and Alan Rogers is relevant:

    Billare: “Um, where’s the evidence that the Yamnaya expansion was peaceful? AFAIK chariots & the horse fit well into machinery of warfare”

    Rogers notes: “Also the fact that the Neolithic Y chromosomes disappeared when the Corded Ware/Yamnaya arrived.”

    Not sure which study he’s referring to though. But very telling if Y chromosomes are all gone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Middle Eastern-origin Y chromosomes aren't all gone from Europe, but they are present at only low frequencies outside of southern Europe and the Balkans.
  46. Perhaps like the breakdown of the cultural barriers between the Roman men and the Sabine women?

    Steve, since you were adding humorous YouTube clips, you missed an opportunity for a great Seven Brides for Seven Brothers clip…

    They was fit to be tied!

    Between 7,000 and 5,000 years ago, however, hunter-gatherer DNA began turning up in the genes of European farmers. “There’s a breakdown of these cultural barriers, and they mix,” said Dr. Reich.

    Don’t you see… that’s why the children of Mexican immigrants haven’t done better in education and income: it takes several thousand years for these thing to happen…

    Read More
  47. @SPMoore8
    The theory about Basques being cro-magnons or a paleolithic relic is quite outdated.

    I am interested in these things more from a linguistic than a racial-genetic POV. Therefore I am curious what this means in terms of the Basque language. If the original agriculturalists were not IE (the standard Renfrew argument) then where do the Hittites fit into this? And if the original agriculturalists spoke Basque (or something like it) does this support tie-ins with Kartvelian? I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on that.

    Hittites conquered Anatolia ; they were not native to the region as evidenced by the Hattic substratum in Hittite.

    The Yamnaya Indo-European horsemen may or may not have violently overthrown most of Old Europe but it was a conquest nonetheless because the natives lost their identity . You don’t have to kill all the males for it to be a conquest, you can infiltrate and scheme to push your language so as to subsume the natives with the intention being to make the natives leave their identity and swear allegiance to the identity of the dominating group.

    There are plenty of examples of Indo-Europeans dominating the natives and imposing their language through the elite dominance model so I hazard a guess the same happened in Western Europe.

    Now this begs the question: Most of Western Europe is Y-dna R1b and I subclades. So is R1b1b subclades found in Western Europe from Yamanaya?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    I have no idea if the takeover of Europe was peaceful or violent. I am inclined to think that the Yamnaya model was a more successful model for survival and therefore people took to it, in the same way that everyone wants to speak English today. It's the language of success, status, and survival. You can call that "elite dominance" but I don't know if we really have to be that S/M about the whole thing. Hittite/Hatti duly noted.

    At the same time, it would not have been in the interests for the Chariot drivers to destroy the agricultural model, since it ultimately has proven very useful. I expect the Yamnaya expanded, brought their crops in, and subjugated the natives, sort of the same way the Aryans in India did it. But there was obviously enough affinity between the groups that a formalized caste system never developed, unlike in India.

    That doesn't answer the question, which the article leaves in suspense, as to whether: (a) the Renfrew argument is false (i.e., agriculture came to Europe from Turkey and brought IE with it), and (b) whether the pastoral takeover of the agriculturalists was two IE groups (e.g., Kurgan hypothesis doesn't allow much time to get to Crete), (c) how Basque fits into all of this, (d) what person today looks like a neolithic pre-IE person: please don't say Charles Bronson.
    , @n/a
    "Now this begs the question: Most of Western Europe is Y-dna R1b and I subclades. So is R1b1b subclades found in Western Europe from Yamanaya?"

    Yes.
  48. David W. Anthony wrote “The Horse, the Wheel & Language”, which was heavily focused on the importance of war chariots to proto-Indo Europeans. I don’t know why he’s so convinced their entry into Europe was peaceful. Although checking on Wikipedia I see he thinks they expanded a lot by “recruiting” neighbors rather than through conquest. I completely forgot any of that being in the book, which had more information on the wearing down of horse teeth than I ever wanted to know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill P
    He isn't convinced of that. Like most contemporary anthropologists (and virtually 100% of white male anthropologists), he is a well-trained liar. Razib Khan is a notable exception to this, and it's why he isn't writing for the NY Times today.
    , @Numinous

    David W. Anthony wrote “The Horse, the Wheel & Language”, which was heavily focused on the importance of war chariots to proto-Indo Europeans.
     
    Wrong! He demonstrated how war chariots were important to (and probably an innovation of) Indo-Iranians, the last remaining IE branch on the steppes after the other branches (Anatolian, Tocharian, Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, roughly in that order) had dispersed from their homeland as posited by the Kurgan theory. The pre-Indo-Iranians seemed to have the horse and the wheel but not the chariot. The oldest chariot remains that have been unearthed thus far are from Sintashta (south Siberia) in the Andronovo horizon around 2000 BC. In a more recent talk I heard Anthony give, he seems to think that the Greeks also ought to be included in the "Indo-Iranian" group as the last remnant of the IE-speaking steppe populations, and perhaps the chariot was an innovation of this Greco-Indo-Iranian subgroup.
    , @WhatEvvs
    "I don’t know why he’s so convinced their entry into Europe was peaceful. "

    Maybe it depends on what your definition of peaceful is. I don't think lack of bloodshed per se is peaceful. It could just mean that they encountered feeble resistance, and did what they wanted. Is this peace?
  49. @TGGP
    David W. Anthony wrote "The Horse, the Wheel & Language", which was heavily focused on the importance of war chariots to proto-Indo Europeans. I don't know why he's so convinced their entry into Europe was peaceful. Although checking on Wikipedia I see he thinks they expanded a lot by "recruiting" neighbors rather than through conquest. I completely forgot any of that being in the book, which had more information on the wearing down of horse teeth than I ever wanted to know.

    He isn’t convinced of that. Like most contemporary anthropologists (and virtually 100% of white male anthropologists), he is a well-trained liar. Razib Khan is a notable exception to this, and it’s why he isn’t writing for the NY Times today.

    Read More
  50. @Tacitus2016
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sofia_Jannok

    Zellweger is supposed to be part Sami and with those cheeks and eyes I would believe it. Sami singer Jannok above. Nordic peoples can have that Asiatic look about them.

    But what about the cheeks of Kenny Chesney? Clenched?

    Read More
  51. @greysquirrell
    Hittites conquered Anatolia ; they were not native to the region as evidenced by the Hattic substratum in Hittite.

    The Yamnaya Indo-European horsemen may or may not have violently overthrown most of Old Europe but it was a conquest nonetheless because the natives lost their identity . You don't have to kill all the males for it to be a conquest, you can infiltrate and scheme to push your language so as to subsume the natives with the intention being to make the natives leave their identity and swear allegiance to the identity of the dominating group.

    There are plenty of examples of Indo-Europeans dominating the natives and imposing their language through the elite dominance model so I hazard a guess the same happened in Western Europe.

    Now this begs the question: Most of Western Europe is Y-dna R1b and I subclades. So is R1b1b subclades found in Western Europe from Yamanaya?

    I have no idea if the takeover of Europe was peaceful or violent. I am inclined to think that the Yamnaya model was a more successful model for survival and therefore people took to it, in the same way that everyone wants to speak English today. It’s the language of success, status, and survival. You can call that “elite dominance” but I don’t know if we really have to be that S/M about the whole thing. Hittite/Hatti duly noted.

    At the same time, it would not have been in the interests for the Chariot drivers to destroy the agricultural model, since it ultimately has proven very useful. I expect the Yamnaya expanded, brought their crops in, and subjugated the natives, sort of the same way the Aryans in India did it. But there was obviously enough affinity between the groups that a formalized caste system never developed, unlike in India.

    That doesn’t answer the question, which the article leaves in suspense, as to whether: (a) the Renfrew argument is false (i.e., agriculture came to Europe from Turkey and brought IE with it), and (b) whether the pastoral takeover of the agriculturalists was two IE groups (e.g., Kurgan hypothesis doesn’t allow much time to get to Crete), (c) how Basque fits into all of this, (d) what person today looks like a neolithic pre-IE person: please don’t say Charles Bronson.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Related... Theories on the spread of rice cultivation from SE Asia into North Asia (China/Korea) It is hypothesized that farming spread because sons of farmers needed their own farms and the easiest way was to migrate to a new area. Hunter/gatherers did not generally see farmers as a threat, because they provided food/labor. As hunter/gatherers killed each other off for territory, increasing numbers of females of the hunter/gatherers would marry sons of farmers. Possibly one of many reasons why Y haplogroups are so widespread in comparison to more static mt haplogroups.
    , @Bill P

    At the same time, it would not have been in the interests for the Chariot drivers to destroy the agricultural model, since it ultimately has proven very useful. I expect the Yamnaya expanded, brought their crops in, and subjugated the natives, sort of the same way the Aryans in India did it. But there was obviously enough affinity between the groups that a formalized caste system never developed, unlike in India.
     
    India was already civilized before Yamnaya/Aryans came in. Neolithic Europe was probably more like pre-civilized mound builders in pre-Columbian Missouri. Formal caste systems can only develop in places where genealogy is practicable, i.e. literate societies.

    Another difference between Europe and India is that the Yamnaya themselves were largely comprised of tribes that were European in origin. They wouldn't have been all that different from people in places further north and west, just as the Sioux in the Dakotas weren't all that far removed from some tribes far to the east in Ohio. I'm surprised more people don't look to American Indian tribes as a model for the spread of Indo-European peoples and languages, because I'm sure they could gain a lot of insight that way.

    what person today looks like a neolithic pre-IE person: please don’t say Charles Bronson.
     
    Maybe a Sardinian?
    , @greysquirrell
    In India the natives were agriculturalists while the Aryans were semi-nomadic pastoralists. They dominated linguistically because they were militarily dominant.

    The earliest recollections of the Aryans mention a warlike society that was constantly fighting amongst themselves and against others and where cattle raiding was the norm. So I find it very hard to believe that the Indo-European linguistic domination of Western Europe was peaceful.

    The Minoans were conquered by the I.E. speaking Mycenaens who in turn were conquered by the I.E. speaking Greeks. The I.E. speaking Hittites conquered the Hattians. The Aryans conquered the Indus Valley and the pre-Aryan peoples of Northern India. Only small pockets of Dravidian and Munda exist in Northern India and Pakistan. Dravidians are dominant in Southern India because Aryans never managed to conquer it. The Indo-Iranians conquered Iran and gradually extinguished Elamite, a non I.E. language. In the Iberian peninsula I.E. encroached on Basque. In northern Mesopotamia the Mitanni empire was headed by an Aryan elite but they never managed to replace Hurrian, the language of the masses.

    So there are many examples of I.E. speaking tribes dominating and imposing their language on non I.E. speaking people. In a similar but more limited fashion Semitic speaking groups imposed their language on non Semitic speaking regions. Turko-Mongols imposed Turkic languages on various people from Anatolia to central Asia.
  52. @Hapalong Cassidy
    Fascinating stuff. Also consider that some people in the Caucusus region, such as Georgians and Chechens, do not speak Indo-European languages, even though they were in extremely close proximity to the proto-Indo European homeland. That just shows the defensive advantage that the Caucusus Mountains gave them. They were able to resist being conquered by the Proto-Indo Europeans, or at least conquered to such a degree that they had the conquerors' language forced on them.

    Also, I'm of the mind that the genes for blond hair and blue eyes did not originate with the Aryans, or whatever you want to call them, but rather with that first group of hunter-gatherers. Besides, if you look at a map of the distribution of blond hair, the highest concentration seems to be around the Finland/Karelia region; an area where the Aryans didn't seem to leave as much of an imprint as elsewhere. I imagine the Aryans looked more like Conan as envisioned by Robert E. Howard, slightly swarthy with dark hair and eyes; closer to the Jason Momoa/Khal Drogo version than the Ahnold version.

    “I imagine the Aryans looked more like Conan as envisioned by Robert E. Howard, slightly swarthy with dark hair and eyes; ”

    Howard describes him as having blue eyes

    Read More
  53. @Anonymous
    Hello SPMoore8. I find your posts very insightful. Thank you. A related topic discussed several times on the blog comment section has been the question of Asiatic DNA in Europeans. You mentioned Renee Zellwegger, who has known Sami/Lapp ancestry. Other examples of Europeans with obvious Asiatic features include:

    Bjork
    Arnold Schwarzenegger
    Leonardo DiCaprio
    Zsa Zsa Gabor

    Asiatic features are not uncommon near the Arctic circle (Sami/Lapp) and where previous invasions/migrations occurred (ie. Russia, Germany/Austria, Hungary, Czech, etc) If you include Jews, then it becomes even more interesting. Of course there is the Khazar theory, but you have

    Sara Silverman
    Joseph Gordon-Levitt

    It sounds like an argument for multiculturalism... but my stance is that once a people self-identify as a specific people, then that should be respected.

    “If you include Jews, then it becomes even more interesting. Of course there is the Khazar theory, but you have”

    The aforementioned Zsa Zsa Gabor is as jewish as Sara Silverman

    Read More
  54. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @SPMoore8
    I have no idea if the takeover of Europe was peaceful or violent. I am inclined to think that the Yamnaya model was a more successful model for survival and therefore people took to it, in the same way that everyone wants to speak English today. It's the language of success, status, and survival. You can call that "elite dominance" but I don't know if we really have to be that S/M about the whole thing. Hittite/Hatti duly noted.

    At the same time, it would not have been in the interests for the Chariot drivers to destroy the agricultural model, since it ultimately has proven very useful. I expect the Yamnaya expanded, brought their crops in, and subjugated the natives, sort of the same way the Aryans in India did it. But there was obviously enough affinity between the groups that a formalized caste system never developed, unlike in India.

    That doesn't answer the question, which the article leaves in suspense, as to whether: (a) the Renfrew argument is false (i.e., agriculture came to Europe from Turkey and brought IE with it), and (b) whether the pastoral takeover of the agriculturalists was two IE groups (e.g., Kurgan hypothesis doesn't allow much time to get to Crete), (c) how Basque fits into all of this, (d) what person today looks like a neolithic pre-IE person: please don't say Charles Bronson.

    Related… Theories on the spread of rice cultivation from SE Asia into North Asia (China/Korea) It is hypothesized that farming spread because sons of farmers needed their own farms and the easiest way was to migrate to a new area. Hunter/gatherers did not generally see farmers as a threat, because they provided food/labor. As hunter/gatherers killed each other off for territory, increasing numbers of females of the hunter/gatherers would marry sons of farmers. Possibly one of many reasons why Y haplogroups are so widespread in comparison to more static mt haplogroups.

    Read More
  55. The first chariots seem to have been invented 700+ years after the Pit Grave migration into Poland and Germany. It’s best to see the Yamnaya (which means “pit” [adjective] in Russian, and is feminine singular in construction, so it’s not a good name for the bearers of the culture), that is, the Pit Grave culture as horse-pastoralists (with no chariots until c. 2100 BC). The war-chariot was invented in the 17th century BC and spread around Europe and the Near and Far East rapidly (in a matter of decades).

    Read More
  56. @SPMoore8
    I have no idea if the takeover of Europe was peaceful or violent. I am inclined to think that the Yamnaya model was a more successful model for survival and therefore people took to it, in the same way that everyone wants to speak English today. It's the language of success, status, and survival. You can call that "elite dominance" but I don't know if we really have to be that S/M about the whole thing. Hittite/Hatti duly noted.

    At the same time, it would not have been in the interests for the Chariot drivers to destroy the agricultural model, since it ultimately has proven very useful. I expect the Yamnaya expanded, brought their crops in, and subjugated the natives, sort of the same way the Aryans in India did it. But there was obviously enough affinity between the groups that a formalized caste system never developed, unlike in India.

    That doesn't answer the question, which the article leaves in suspense, as to whether: (a) the Renfrew argument is false (i.e., agriculture came to Europe from Turkey and brought IE with it), and (b) whether the pastoral takeover of the agriculturalists was two IE groups (e.g., Kurgan hypothesis doesn't allow much time to get to Crete), (c) how Basque fits into all of this, (d) what person today looks like a neolithic pre-IE person: please don't say Charles Bronson.

    At the same time, it would not have been in the interests for the Chariot drivers to destroy the agricultural model, since it ultimately has proven very useful. I expect the Yamnaya expanded, brought their crops in, and subjugated the natives, sort of the same way the Aryans in India did it. But there was obviously enough affinity between the groups that a formalized caste system never developed, unlike in India.

    India was already civilized before Yamnaya/Aryans came in. Neolithic Europe was probably more like pre-civilized mound builders in pre-Columbian Missouri. Formal caste systems can only develop in places where genealogy is practicable, i.e. literate societies.

    Another difference between Europe and India is that the Yamnaya themselves were largely comprised of tribes that were European in origin. They wouldn’t have been all that different from people in places further north and west, just as the Sioux in the Dakotas weren’t all that far removed from some tribes far to the east in Ohio. I’m surprised more people don’t look to American Indian tribes as a model for the spread of Indo-European peoples and languages, because I’m sure they could gain a lot of insight that way.

    what person today looks like a neolithic pre-IE person: please don’t say Charles Bronson.

    Maybe a Sardinian?

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    "India was already civilized before Yamnaya/Aryans came in." It certainly had supported an advanced civilisation in the NW - the Harrapan, which covered a seriously large stretch of territory in the Indus valley and further afield. Whether there was continuity of that to the time of the Aryan arrival, I don't know. I don't know whether anyone knows.
    , @Jim
    The Sioux entered the Dakotas in the late 18th century. They had formerly lived in Minnesota in association with the Assinboine. The languages of the Siouian linguistic family are spoken over an ark from the Western Dakotas/Eastern Montana&Wyoming down to the Biloxi on the Gulf Coast. The Yuchi linguistic family which is closely related to the Siouian was spoken in what are now the Carolinas.
  57. The self-styled Aryans migrated a little bit across the Caucasus (to help lead Mitanni), but mostly went East into Afghanistan and India beginning in the seventeenth century BC, when the war-chariot was invented. They most likely looked like modern Dagestanis. They were different from the original Pit-Gravers, who, while the Aryans’ ancestors, were not known to call themselves Aryans. The Germanic Corded-Warers split off from the Pit-Gravers sometime in the 3rd millennium BC.

    Read More
  58. For 50 years anthropologists stated that the Mayan were a peaceful people. Of course this turned out to be utter nonsense. They were a people in constant war with one another, a people that practiced human sacrifice. A more interesting question is why Western anthropologists have a need to project a fantasy world into the past.

    Read More
  59. You can see the East Asian-like admixture of NE Europeans here:

    http://dienekes.blogspot.com.tr/2012/08/4-population-test-and-east-eurasian.html

    Also Yamnaya weren’t blonde or blue eyed. These features were selected later.

    Read More
    • Replies: @greysquirrell
    I've noticed a tiny % of Whites have a sort of epicanthic eyefold. Chuck Hagel is an example.

    His Wiki bio does not mention Amerindian ancestry, so I wonder if White folks like him are displaying signs of an ancient admixture event in Europe.
    , @n/a
    "You can see the East Asian-like admixture of NE Europeans here:

    http://dienekes.blogspot.com.tr/2012/08/4-population-test-and-east-eurasian.html"

    Dienekes's interpretation of the evidence was wrong, as I pointed out at the time and as subsequent ancient DNA results have demonstrated.

    The results relayed by Dienekes do not indicate Northern Europeans have "East Asian-like admixture". They reflect the fact that Amerindians and Northern Europeans both partly descend from ancient Central Asians with West Eurasian affinities, and Southern Europeans and Middle Easterners descend (to a greater degree than Northern Europeans) from "Basal Eurasians" (who in turn probably mostly descend from an early back-migration to Africa).
  60. @SPMoore8
    Finns, the closely associated Estonians, and Hungarians are all part of the same group, whose homeland is usually cited in the Urals, approximately to the east of Moscow, IIRC. The family is "Finno-Ugric" and I believe there are about 14 languages in the family, most of them largely (of course at this point) wiped out (from disuse, not conquest.) The general theory is that the Finns, etc. migrated along the northern area and that the Magyars hitched a ride with the large Turkic invasions in the medieval period (I think the Magyars showed up around 900 A.D. or something like that.)

    The thing is, all of these peoples have interbred for centuries. Compare Renee Zellwegger.

    If you want to look for "aboriginal" Europeans you'd probably be better off looking at the Basques, who, as far as I know, are the closest thing to a still existing language isolate in Europe. I expect the Basques are the closest you could get to the original homo sapiens in Europe also (after the Neanderthals.)

    I think the Basques are supposed to be descended from the first farmers to come to Europe.

    Read More
  61. @Anonymous
    I think it supports the several waves theory. There are Europeans with Asiatic features with known Asiatic ancestors (Sami, Tatars) Renee Zellwegger, Charles Bronson

    And then there are Europeans with Asiatic features with no known recent Asiatic ancestors (Zsa Zsa, Arnold, Leonardo), which I attribute to older invasions and migrations.

    Also, the Arctic circle is Asiatic on every continent

    The Danish actress Birgitte Sorenson looked rather Asiatic in a Game of Thrones episode:

    http://photos.vanityfair.com/2015/06/01/556bfd82378caf0d670e5041_GOT508_111414_HS__DSC0452%5B1%5D.jpg

    Read More
  62. @SPMoore8
    Thank you. This suggests that the Celtic wave brought the agriculture and the Germanic wave brought the chariots.

    How so?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Because Renfrow thesis thinks farmers and herders were both IE.
  63. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @SPMoore8
    Unless the agriculturalists were also IE. That's the whole point of Renfrew's thesis. According to the article, the latest information doesn't settle that argument. It's not my argument.

    If the earliest agriculturalists were not IE, and spoke languages similar to Basque, OK, that's one thing. (However, they weren't Semitic, and they weren't IE, so what were they?)

    Semitic languages didn’t exist when Middle Eastern ancestors of the Early European farmers entered Europe. Their migration was early for PIE as well. It’s quite possible that they spoke Basque-like languages and/or others we know nothing about. After all, we’re discussing events before the development of written language, and small-scale languages frequently die out.

    Read More
  64. @yaph
    Sarah Silverman did an entire episode of her TV show about how russian jews were "raped by the Mongols".

    She should thank the Mongols then.

    Read More
  65. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Nathan Taylor
    This twitter conversation with Billare, Razib Khan and Alan Rogers is relevant:

    Billare: "Um, where's the evidence that the Yamnaya expansion was peaceful? AFAIK chariots & the horse fit well into machinery of warfare"

    Rogers notes: "Also the fact that the Neolithic Y chromosomes disappeared when the Corded Ware/Yamnaya arrived."

    http://twitter.com/alanrrogers/status/608783012205989888

    Not sure which study he's referring to though. But very telling if Y chromosomes are all gone.

    Middle Eastern-origin Y chromosomes aren’t all gone from Europe, but they are present at only low frequencies outside of southern Europe and the Balkans.

    Read More
  66. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @kaganovitch
    "If you include Jews, then it becomes even more interesting. Of course there is the Khazar theory, but you have"

    The aforementioned Zsa Zsa Gabor is as jewish as Sara Silverman

    Zsa Zsa Gabor is half-Jewish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    Nah, her father's family was also jewish but converted to RC, as did lot's of Austro-Hungarian Jews.
  67. @Anonymous
    Then how come Russian Jews didn't inherit a conquering mentality?

    They did. They just conquer people economically instead of militarily.

    Read More
  68. @drconatus
    It's worthwhile to keep in mind, since you're reinstating the term "Aryan" and write frequently about race, that it WASN'T the Yamnaya or any related group that brought white skin genetics to Europe. Nor was it the indigenous hunter gatherers who first sporadically settled Europe. It was the Neolithic farmers from the Middle East. And, despite the massive population turnovers caused by these Yamnaya-like groups, Aryans, Hyperboreans, Proto-IEs, or whatever else you want to call them, the bulk of Europeans' ancestry is still derived from these farmers.

    What's more is that the Yamnaya themselves appear to be a cross between far eastern hunters and a near eastern population from around the Caucuses (though of a different type of near eastern than the Neolithic farmers). The picture is far from settled science and gets increasingly more complex each time new ancient genomes are released, as in this paper. I bet more surprises are ahead.

    Yes, it *is* indeed remarkable how a few 19th and early 20th century anthropologists and linguists were able to deduce large chunks of the truth -- but it's also important to point out when they, and people who later cited their work, were completely wrong.

    the bulk of Europeans’ ancestry is still derived from these farmers

    I wouldn’t be so sure of that. Skin color is controlled by a relatively small number of genes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    That assessment isn't based solely on genes for skin color. It's based on assessment of tens to hundreds of thousands of autosomal DNA loci. Only Slavs and Balts consistenlty appear to have more than 50% Western Hunter-Gatherer (WHG) + Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) genetic components. The Early European Farmers (EEF) were also partly descended from WHG, so that might be a slight underestimate of WHG+ANE for the Slavs and Balts, but even they have significant ancient farmer ancestry. Western Europeans and especially Southern Europeans have more EEF ancestry than the Balts and Slavs.
  69. @Anonymous
    Then how come Russian Jews didn't inherit a conquering mentality?

    When they were in Russia, they had no opportunity. As soon as they hit Israel, they seemed to take to it. Israel is not Scandinavia. And what is with Scandinavia? Did all the aggressive ones go Viking and move out leaving the peaceful farmers behind?

    Read More
  70. @Joe Walker
    How so?

    Because Renfrow thesis thinks farmers and herders were both IE.

    Read More
    • Replies: @n/a
    Heggarty's protestations and the caution of some of the authors aside, Renfrew's Anatolian Neolithic model is dead. It was never taken seriously by most linguists, and whatever popularity it attained with archaeologists can mostly be attributed to ideology and fashion (anti-migrationism).
  71. @SPMoore8
    I think you misconstrued my "and": Hungarian split off a long time ago, I think it's closest cousin is on the other side of the Urals still.

    There are a lot of similarities between the Ugric (the Hungarian part) and the Finnic part still. First of all, the grammar and the characteristic agglutinative nature of speech.* Second, the long vowels, with double vowels in Finnic but with diacritics in Magyar. Third, there are certain consonant changes (think Grimm's Law for Germanic languages, v > f, t > d), I forget most of them except I know they exist.

    * e.g., kutya (dog), kutyam (my dog), kutyaim (my dogs), kutyaimmel (with my dogs), etc. Of course IE does a lot of this too with declensions, the difference is that F-U languages (sorry, that's what it is!) put basically all prepositions and declensions in strings at the end of words.

    There are a lot of similarities between the Ugric (the Hungarian part) and the Finnic part still.

    Don’t forget the freight-train-length words with the strong stress on the first syllable.

    Initial stress is also found Czech and Slovak, Hungarian’s Indo-European neighbors. Makes one wonder.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Graham
    Languages which are next to each other tend to borrow phonological and grammatical characteristics, even if they're not in the same language group. It's called a sprachbund. Check out this article: http://www.nytud.hu/nyk/100/helimski.pdf. But it's suggested that the idea of a specifically Danubian sprachbund is quite weak.
  72. @Anonymous
    Then how come Russian Jews didn't inherit a conquering mentality?

    Then how come Russian Jews didn’t inherit a conquering mentality?

    You’ve never been to Hollywood, have you? Or the US Senate?

    Read More
  73. David W. Anthony, an archaeologist at Hartwick College and a co-author on the Harvard study, said it was likely that the expansion of Yamnaya into Europe was relatively peaceful.

    The only peaceful case one people invading and taking the territory of another is what’s going on now in the West. (And i doubt they’ll ever be another.)

    It’s an outlier, because we’ve been force fed a truly bizarre and poisonous concoction of ideological b.s. … a clear sign of which, having clown “intellectuals” like this David W. Anthony.

    Read More
  74. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Steve,

    Here’s a good image to represent “the Aryans.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    They probably looked like this but lighter.

    http://www.artvalue.com/photos/auction/0/48/48242/mccann-gerald-1916-usa-plains-indians-desc-2614249.jpg
  75. @SPMoore8
    I have no idea if the takeover of Europe was peaceful or violent. I am inclined to think that the Yamnaya model was a more successful model for survival and therefore people took to it, in the same way that everyone wants to speak English today. It's the language of success, status, and survival. You can call that "elite dominance" but I don't know if we really have to be that S/M about the whole thing. Hittite/Hatti duly noted.

    At the same time, it would not have been in the interests for the Chariot drivers to destroy the agricultural model, since it ultimately has proven very useful. I expect the Yamnaya expanded, brought their crops in, and subjugated the natives, sort of the same way the Aryans in India did it. But there was obviously enough affinity between the groups that a formalized caste system never developed, unlike in India.

    That doesn't answer the question, which the article leaves in suspense, as to whether: (a) the Renfrew argument is false (i.e., agriculture came to Europe from Turkey and brought IE with it), and (b) whether the pastoral takeover of the agriculturalists was two IE groups (e.g., Kurgan hypothesis doesn't allow much time to get to Crete), (c) how Basque fits into all of this, (d) what person today looks like a neolithic pre-IE person: please don't say Charles Bronson.

    In India the natives were agriculturalists while the Aryans were semi-nomadic pastoralists. They dominated linguistically because they were militarily dominant.

    The earliest recollections of the Aryans mention a warlike society that was constantly fighting amongst themselves and against others and where cattle raiding was the norm. So I find it very hard to believe that the Indo-European linguistic domination of Western Europe was peaceful.

    The Minoans were conquered by the I.E. speaking Mycenaens who in turn were conquered by the I.E. speaking Greeks. The I.E. speaking Hittites conquered the Hattians. The Aryans conquered the Indus Valley and the pre-Aryan peoples of Northern India. Only small pockets of Dravidian and Munda exist in Northern India and Pakistan. Dravidians are dominant in Southern India because Aryans never managed to conquer it. The Indo-Iranians conquered Iran and gradually extinguished Elamite, a non I.E. language. In the Iberian peninsula I.E. encroached on Basque. In northern Mesopotamia the Mitanni empire was headed by an Aryan elite but they never managed to replace Hurrian, the language of the masses.

    So there are many examples of I.E. speaking tribes dominating and imposing their language on non I.E. speaking people. In a similar but more limited fashion Semitic speaking groups imposed their language on non Semitic speaking regions. Turko-Mongols imposed Turkic languages on various people from Anatolia to central Asia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Upfront: Thanks to you and everyone else for offering info about IE migrations. I don't think the argument is settled.

    I don't think the Kurgan theory allows enough time for Minoan Linear B (IE, early Greek) to emerge. I am also unsure about how IE, or PIE, splintered. That's why Renfrow is attractive theory.

    If Basques are ID'd with the early agriculturalists then they were probably not IE. OTOH, if they were descended from original hunter/gatherers, perhaps Renfrow is right.

    I visualize Pit Culture dominating AG Europe the same way the Aryans in India did. The point about caste system however is that I think the two cultures were already close, at any rate, closer than Dravidian and Aryan.

    Of course, one realizes that part of what motivates people in this field is a desire for bragging rights, sort of like the 19th Century Hungarian hypothesis that Elamite was early Magyar. And sort of like today's Dravidians insisting Indus Valley culture was "theirs." My interest is in tracing the dispersion of languages and the prehistory of Europe, and any traces of the earliest past. Hence my interest in identifying cultures and groups that correspond to original hunter-gatherers. I don't have any interest in where the chips fall.

    Incidentally, while mostly Celtic and Germanic, I have some East German and Bohemian ancestry as well: something like epicanthal folds is apparent here and there. I have no idea what that means, but Tatar (Turkic) expansion got beyond the Danube and to the Oder.
    , @Andrew
    Zebu:

    In northern Mesopotamia the Mitanni empire was headed by an Aryan elite but they never managed to replace Hurrian, the language of the masses.

    Aren't the Kurds the descendants of the Hurrians? They speak Indo-European
    , @anon

    The earliest recollections of the Aryans mention a warlike society that was constantly fighting amongst themselves and against others and where cattle raiding was the norm. So I find it very hard to believe that the Indo-European linguistic domination of Western Europe was peaceful.
     
    I think that's probably the key point. Pastoralists are nearly always raiders so I think the most likely option is on the border between the IE and the farmers the IE raided constantly until the farmers moved away and the IE expanded into the now empty territory.

    So not peaceful but not a big invasion either - more gradual attrition.
    , @MisterCharlie
    "Dravidians are dominant in Southern India because Aryans never managed to conquer it." - Zebu

    Ever since Carleton Coon's work The Origin of Races, we have known that Dravidians were often Rh negative, so with survival advantage in context of malaria. It was on that basis - and because Rh negative mating with Rh positive resulted in disastrous events, (prior to modern medical intervention), that Coon proposed that the Rh negative population was one of three possible subspeciation developments that he observed world-wide. Coon considered that subspeciation was the underlying reality of 'race', if any. He was tarred for merely mentioning the word 'race' - and his book went out of print never to return - although his thinking was anything but racist. His work remains valid and important, although he worked before the discovery of DNA so was limited.

    Bottom line: Dravidians are dominant in Southern India because of their carrying Rh negative, and, Aryans never conquered Southern India because they never wanted to conquer it - never wanted to live there.

    Could it be that the supposedly genetics-based warlike nature of "the conquerors" has less to do with anything than much less dramatic facts such as the mosquito and malaria? Medical anthropology concerns, among other things, the influence of diseases on the cultural and demographic evolution of humanity in particular places and specific time-periods.

    I consider that there is too much emphasis in this thread on 'war-like' versus the conquered (conquerors presumed to kill the males and rape the females, etc.) than is merited by actual evidence of pre-history. Of course, warfare of some kind or another is widespread, although (unlike conflict) hardly universal, but it remains true that 'scholars' project their own prejudices into their 'reading' of pre-history, as well as of ancient history.
  76. @Fredrik
    There are Asian peoples living in Northern Europe since forever. The Finns are the typical example but their language isn't Indo-European so not a good example for this thread.

    What's clearly disturbing to a lot of people, but for different reasons, is that it's clear that the current Europeans also can disappear. Suddenly 'we' may look completely different with only a few genetical hints of a past with blond hair. Racists don't like that thought but smarter SJW's, if there is such a thing, would also be disturbed by the fact that genes matter...

    Other people also can see that teaching your womenfolk certain lessons is a matter of life and death.

    smarter SJW’s, if there is such a thing

    Since SJWs have been winning at nearly every turn for decades, one wonders exactly how the superiority of their opponents shows itself. They control the horizontal and vertical while the other side does nothing, follows worthless entertainers like Coulter, descends into a shallow copy of theapricity dot com, and so on.

    P.S. The path of @JustineTunney is interesting. A younger version of Caitlyn who took over @OccupyWallSt and RTed things about “cisgender”, but who now appears to be a neoroyalist, with Eric Schmidt as her desired king.

    Read More
  77. @Cpluskx
    You can see the East Asian-like admixture of NE Europeans here:

    http://dienekes.blogspot.com.tr/2012/08/4-population-test-and-east-eurasian.html

    Also Yamnaya weren't blonde or blue eyed. These features were selected later.

    I’ve noticed a tiny % of Whites have a sort of epicanthic eyefold. Chuck Hagel is an example.

    His Wiki bio does not mention Amerindian ancestry, so I wonder if White folks like him are displaying signs of an ancient admixture event in Europe.

    Read More
  78. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Joe Walker
    the bulk of Europeans’ ancestry is still derived from these farmers

    I wouldn't be so sure of that. Skin color is controlled by a relatively small number of genes.

    That assessment isn’t based solely on genes for skin color. It’s based on assessment of tens to hundreds of thousands of autosomal DNA loci. Only Slavs and Balts consistenlty appear to have more than 50% Western Hunter-Gatherer (WHG) + Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) genetic components. The Early European Farmers (EEF) were also partly descended from WHG, so that might be a slight underestimate of WHG+ANE for the Slavs and Balts, but even they have significant ancient farmer ancestry. Western Europeans and especially Southern Europeans have more EEF ancestry than the Balts and Slavs.

    Read More
  79. @Cpluskx
    You can see the East Asian-like admixture of NE Europeans here:

    http://dienekes.blogspot.com.tr/2012/08/4-population-test-and-east-eurasian.html

    Also Yamnaya weren't blonde or blue eyed. These features were selected later.

    “You can see the East Asian-like admixture of NE Europeans here:

    http://dienekes.blogspot.com.tr/2012/08/4-population-test-and-east-eurasian.html”

    Dienekes’s interpretation of the evidence was wrong, as I pointed out at the time and as subsequent ancient DNA results have demonstrated.

    The results relayed by Dienekes do not indicate Northern Europeans have “East Asian-like admixture”. They reflect the fact that Amerindians and Northern Europeans both partly descend from ancient Central Asians with West Eurasian affinities, and Southern Europeans and Middle Easterners descend (to a greater degree than Northern Europeans) from “Basal Eurasians” (who in turn probably mostly descend from an early back-migration to Africa).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The notion of sub-Arctic linkages between Europeans and Northeast Asians was popular with mid-20th Century physical anthropologists like Carleton Coon. One hypothesis that seems to have been a mistake was the idea that the indigenous Ainu of Japan had ties to Europe.
  80. @greysquirrell
    Hittites conquered Anatolia ; they were not native to the region as evidenced by the Hattic substratum in Hittite.

    The Yamnaya Indo-European horsemen may or may not have violently overthrown most of Old Europe but it was a conquest nonetheless because the natives lost their identity . You don't have to kill all the males for it to be a conquest, you can infiltrate and scheme to push your language so as to subsume the natives with the intention being to make the natives leave their identity and swear allegiance to the identity of the dominating group.

    There are plenty of examples of Indo-Europeans dominating the natives and imposing their language through the elite dominance model so I hazard a guess the same happened in Western Europe.

    Now this begs the question: Most of Western Europe is Y-dna R1b and I subclades. So is R1b1b subclades found in Western Europe from Yamanaya?

    “Now this begs the question: Most of Western Europe is Y-dna R1b and I subclades. So is R1b1b subclades found in Western Europe from Yamanaya?”

    Yes.

    Read More
  81. @Hapalong Cassidy
    Fascinating stuff. Also consider that some people in the Caucusus region, such as Georgians and Chechens, do not speak Indo-European languages, even though they were in extremely close proximity to the proto-Indo European homeland. That just shows the defensive advantage that the Caucusus Mountains gave them. They were able to resist being conquered by the Proto-Indo Europeans, or at least conquered to such a degree that they had the conquerors' language forced on them.

    Also, I'm of the mind that the genes for blond hair and blue eyes did not originate with the Aryans, or whatever you want to call them, but rather with that first group of hunter-gatherers. Besides, if you look at a map of the distribution of blond hair, the highest concentration seems to be around the Finland/Karelia region; an area where the Aryans didn't seem to leave as much of an imprint as elsewhere. I imagine the Aryans looked more like Conan as envisioned by Robert E. Howard, slightly swarthy with dark hair and eyes; closer to the Jason Momoa/Khal Drogo version than the Ahnold version.

    I imagine the Aryans looked more like Conan as envisioned by Robert E. Howard, slightly swarthy with dark hair and eyes; closer to the Jason Momoa/Khal Drogo version than the Ahnold version.

    REH’s Conan has a dark complexion and black hair, but his eyes are blue.

    For a Howard hero with dark eyes, black hair, and a dark complexion, read his tales of the Pictish king Bran Mak Morn

    Read More
  82. @Steve Sailer
    Yeltsin had slightly Asian looking eyes.

    The top football player at my high school was a huge Russian guy with a Mongolian look. He figured he was descended from Genghis Khan and opposing players weren't inclined to disagree.

    V. Lenin always looked somewhat Asiatic to me as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill P
    That's because he was a quarter Kalmyk (a Mongol tribe). Lenin was sort of a Russian Obama. My God that's a depressing thought. What if we have another 70 years of this crap to go?
    , @Anonymous
    I believe Lenin was descended from a non-Slavic aboriginal Siberian ethnicity on his mother's side. The same is true for a significant number of Russians.
  83. @SPMoore8
    Because Renfrow thesis thinks farmers and herders were both IE.

    Heggarty’s protestations and the caution of some of the authors aside, Renfrew’s Anatolian Neolithic model is dead. It was never taken seriously by most linguists, and whatever popularity it attained with archaeologists can mostly be attributed to ideology and fashion (anti-migrationism).

    Read More
  84. @greysquirrell
    In India the natives were agriculturalists while the Aryans were semi-nomadic pastoralists. They dominated linguistically because they were militarily dominant.

    The earliest recollections of the Aryans mention a warlike society that was constantly fighting amongst themselves and against others and where cattle raiding was the norm. So I find it very hard to believe that the Indo-European linguistic domination of Western Europe was peaceful.

    The Minoans were conquered by the I.E. speaking Mycenaens who in turn were conquered by the I.E. speaking Greeks. The I.E. speaking Hittites conquered the Hattians. The Aryans conquered the Indus Valley and the pre-Aryan peoples of Northern India. Only small pockets of Dravidian and Munda exist in Northern India and Pakistan. Dravidians are dominant in Southern India because Aryans never managed to conquer it. The Indo-Iranians conquered Iran and gradually extinguished Elamite, a non I.E. language. In the Iberian peninsula I.E. encroached on Basque. In northern Mesopotamia the Mitanni empire was headed by an Aryan elite but they never managed to replace Hurrian, the language of the masses.

    So there are many examples of I.E. speaking tribes dominating and imposing their language on non I.E. speaking people. In a similar but more limited fashion Semitic speaking groups imposed their language on non Semitic speaking regions. Turko-Mongols imposed Turkic languages on various people from Anatolia to central Asia.

    Upfront: Thanks to you and everyone else for offering info about IE migrations. I don’t think the argument is settled.

    I don’t think the Kurgan theory allows enough time for Minoan Linear B (IE, early Greek) to emerge. I am also unsure about how IE, or PIE, splintered. That’s why Renfrow is attractive theory.

    If Basques are ID’d with the early agriculturalists then they were probably not IE. OTOH, if they were descended from original hunter/gatherers, perhaps Renfrow is right.

    I visualize Pit Culture dominating AG Europe the same way the Aryans in India did. The point about caste system however is that I think the two cultures were already close, at any rate, closer than Dravidian and Aryan.

    Of course, one realizes that part of what motivates people in this field is a desire for bragging rights, sort of like the 19th Century Hungarian hypothesis that Elamite was early Magyar. And sort of like today’s Dravidians insisting Indus Valley culture was “theirs.” My interest is in tracing the dispersion of languages and the prehistory of Europe, and any traces of the earliest past. Hence my interest in identifying cultures and groups that correspond to original hunter-gatherers. I don’t have any interest in where the chips fall.

    Incidentally, while mostly Celtic and Germanic, I have some East German and Bohemian ancestry as well: something like epicanthal folds is apparent here and there. I have no idea what that means, but Tatar (Turkic) expansion got beyond the Danube and to the Oder.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew
    SPMoore8:

    I am also unsure about how IE, or PIE, splintered.

    Isn't the most logical explanation of the rapid fracture that PIE creolized with the pre-existing languages it encountered?
    , @Numinous

    I visualize Pit Culture dominating AG Europe the same way the Aryans in India did. The point about caste system however is that I think the two cultures were already close, at any rate, closer than Dravidian and Aryan.
     
    You are making too many unwarranted assumptions. One, that the Aryans fought and dominated over the Dravidians (completely unproven and unattested), and two, that the caste system arose as a result of invasion and domination over the aboriginal populations (Dravidians or someone else.)

    Much recent scholarship has come to a tentative conclusion that the enemies of the Aryans mentioned in the early Vedas were Iranian tribes and those battles were fought on the Indo-Iranian frontier. Dravidians themselves may not be as aboriginal to the Indian subcontinent as was once thought; the Brahui in Baluchistan (Western Pakistan) seem to share the phenotypes of their Iranic neighbors. There is zero archaeological evidence for an intrusion from Central/West Asia into the subcontinent as would be consistent with the steppe theory of IE. The human and material remains from the Indus Valley area seem to indicate a remarkable continuity from ~7000 BC into the present.

    There's a lot that's yet to be discovered. But flashing out what I would refer to as the "David Duke theory of India" doesn't advance the cause of scholarship.
  85. @OilcanFloyd
    "There are Asian peoples living in Northern Europe since forever. The Finns are the typical example but their language isn’t Indo-European so not a good example for this thread."

    The Lapps are the example you are looking for. Finns are basically Swedes with 5%, or so, Lapp admixture.

    The question that has had me wondering since I first came across PC-KIMMO in 1997 is why have the Finns been so remarkably important in computational linguistics? Is there something about Finnish that accounts for it?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauri_Karttunen

    and

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimmo_Koskenniemi

    were important in a manner almost up to the level of Godel (how do I get the umlaut on top of the o?) to mathematical logic, or Von Neumann to computing or game theory. And what’s with the K? Does it have magic powers in Finnish or in Finland?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill P

    The question that has had me wondering since I first came across PC-KIMMO in 1997 is why have the Finns been so remarkably important in computational linguistics? Is there something about Finnish that accounts for it?
     
    Yeah, it's because it's so hard to translate between Finnish and its neighboring languages, which has prompted the Finns to make efforts to quantify languages and thereby create a sort of mathematical lingua franca.

    Finns are really a particular people, kind of like the Japanese.
  86. @n/a
    "You can see the East Asian-like admixture of NE Europeans here:

    http://dienekes.blogspot.com.tr/2012/08/4-population-test-and-east-eurasian.html"

    Dienekes's interpretation of the evidence was wrong, as I pointed out at the time and as subsequent ancient DNA results have demonstrated.

    The results relayed by Dienekes do not indicate Northern Europeans have "East Asian-like admixture". They reflect the fact that Amerindians and Northern Europeans both partly descend from ancient Central Asians with West Eurasian affinities, and Southern Europeans and Middle Easterners descend (to a greater degree than Northern Europeans) from "Basal Eurasians" (who in turn probably mostly descend from an early back-migration to Africa).

    The notion of sub-Arctic linkages between Europeans and Northeast Asians was popular with mid-20th Century physical anthropologists like Carleton Coon. One hypothesis that seems to have been a mistake was the idea that the indigenous Ainu of Japan had ties to Europe.

    Read More
  87. @The Snitch
    V. Lenin always looked somewhat Asiatic to me as well.

    That’s because he was a quarter Kalmyk (a Mongol tribe). Lenin was sort of a Russian Obama. My God that’s a depressing thought. What if we have another 70 years of this crap to go?

    Read More
  88. @Charles Erwin Wilson
    The question that has had me wondering since I first came across PC-KIMMO in 1997 is why have the Finns been so remarkably important in computational linguistics? Is there something about Finnish that accounts for it?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauri_Karttunen
    and
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimmo_Koskenniemi

    were important in a manner almost up to the level of Godel (how do I get the umlaut on top of the o?) to mathematical logic, or Von Neumann to computing or game theory. And what's with the K? Does it have magic powers in Finnish or in Finland?

    The question that has had me wondering since I first came across PC-KIMMO in 1997 is why have the Finns been so remarkably important in computational linguistics? Is there something about Finnish that accounts for it?

    Yeah, it’s because it’s so hard to translate between Finnish and its neighboring languages, which has prompted the Finns to make efforts to quantify languages and thereby create a sort of mathematical lingua franca.

    Finns are really a particular people, kind of like the Japanese.

    Read More
  89. @Anonymous
    What's even more peculiar is the genetic closeness of Finnish Spitz and Korean Jindo

    “What’s even more peculiar is the genetic closeness of Finnish Spitz and Korean Jindo”

    Are they really closer to one another than to any of the numerous other spitz breeds throughout northern Europe and north and east Asia?

    To me, a Jindo looks more like an oversized Shiba Inu than any European breed.

    Read More
  90. Schwarzenegger and Milius providing audio commentary on Conan the Barbarian is priceless.

    Read More
  91. The word ‘Arya’ only appears in one place and only one place: The holy books of the Aryan religion (the four Aryan Eddas). This is also known as Hinduism. The word Arya does not appear in any other religion or tribe except those in India. Yes, the Norse Eddas are very very similar (even the name of the books is the same) but ‘Arya’ doesn’t appear in them.

    “Indo” in the word Indo-European refers specifically to the country of India (the Sanskrit speaking parts). Iranians linguistically speak Indo-European but are a very minor branch. No Asian country apart from India is Indo-European in any way. And the Iranians were the polar opposite of the Aryans since the Asuras were god-like in all ancient Iranian religions but devils in the Aryan one (and Dyeus and Indra were not present at all in any Iranian religion and neither were any of the shubh/lal/swastika).

    The swastika is still the holiest (and only) religious symbol of Hinduism (and it’s offshoots, Buddhism and Jainism. There is another symbol (‘om’) but that actually represents a syllable/sound. This again is a Aryan (Indian) only thing, this word is not used in any European offshoot (the german word being hakenkreuz).

    There were 2 invasions: The Aryan tribe into India and sister (Aryan-like) tribes in Europe, with the key point that the European tribes never called themselves ‘Aryan’ in any book, in any literature, anywhere.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HA
    "The word Arya does not appear in any other religion or tribe except those in India.

    The name of Iran is the Modern Persian derivative from the Proto-Iranian term Aryānā, meaning "Land of the Aryans", first attested in Zoroastrianism's Avesta tradition.
     
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Etymology
    , @greysquirrell
    Darius the Persian king claimed Aryan descent. It was put down in writing before the Vedic Aryans put down "Arya" in writing but the Vedic Aryan's oral tradition mentions "Arya" before Darius.

    Swastika is from Sanskrit Svastika but the symbol itself is found in the Indus Valley civilization predating the Aryans. It is also found amongst the Elamites , Ancient Mesopotamians , North American Indians , the Vinca and other cultures.

    It's not settled whether the symbol originated from A culture and then diffused or whether it arose independently amongst different cultures. It's a rudimentary symbol so could easily have been created independently by different cultures.

  92. Obviously the real importance of this article is how it highlights the need for some updated PR.

    Old: “Because we live here.”

    New: Allowing non-Europeans, whose genetic make-up lacks the rich and vibrant layers of genetic history possessed by Europe’s traditional inhabitants, entry to Western countries would dishonor the critical goal of “diversity” by decreasing the total fraction of the population that can lay claim to a heritage featuring populations drawn from all three major historical population centers—Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.

    Read More
  93. @foo
    The word 'Arya' only appears in one place and only one place: The holy books of the Aryan religion (the four Aryan Eddas). This is also known as Hinduism. The word Arya does not appear in any other religion or tribe except those in India. Yes, the Norse Eddas are very very similar (even the name of the books is the same) but 'Arya' doesn't appear in them.

    "Indo" in the word Indo-European refers specifically to the country of India (the Sanskrit speaking parts). Iranians linguistically speak Indo-European but are a very minor branch. No Asian country apart from India is Indo-European in any way. And the Iranians were the polar opposite of the Aryans since the Asuras were god-like in all ancient Iranian religions but devils in the Aryan one (and Dyeus and Indra were not present at all in any Iranian religion and neither were any of the shubh/lal/swastika).

    The swastika is still the holiest (and only) religious symbol of Hinduism (and it's offshoots, Buddhism and Jainism. There is another symbol ('om') but that actually represents a syllable/sound. This again is a Aryan (Indian) only thing, this word is not used in any European offshoot (the german word being hakenkreuz).

    There were 2 invasions: The Aryan tribe into India and sister (Aryan-like) tribes in Europe, with the key point that the European tribes never called themselves 'Aryan' in any book, in any literature, anywhere.

    “The word Arya does not appear in any other religion or tribe except those in India.

    The name of Iran is the Modern Persian derivative from the Proto-Iranian term Aryānā, meaning “Land of the Aryans”, first attested in Zoroastrianism’s Avesta tradition.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Etymology

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    Some linguists have suggested that the "ire-" in "Ireland" comews from the same PIE root. But that hypothesis is disputed by other linguists.
  94. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The tale of the y chromosome male DNA haplotypes is interesting.
    The y DNA Claude that can be associated with Yamnya is ‘R’. ‘R’ is the brother haplotype to ‘Q’ – which, strangely enough, is strongly associated with Amerindians, ( incidentally, Q pops up occasionally in Europeans with absolutely no Amerindian ancestry). This is believed to be down to the fact that the population that formed the Amerindians and the population that formed Yamnya had a common origin in Siberia roughly 30 or 40 thousand years ago.
    However, the quintessentially ‘German’ or ‘Nordic’ haplotype is ‘I’ particularly I1, which appears to have a very strong relationship with the ethnogenisis of the Germanic people and the development of the German language, in the south Scandinavia, North German region roughly 3000 years ago. Apparently ‘German’ is not a very old language, its roots only go back to the time of the pyramids and recorded history, although, of course, it was never recorded at that time at all. ‘I’ is the brother Claude of ‘J’. J, to the initiated is the quintessential ‘Semitic’ haplotype, certainly being the original haplotype of the people who later became the ‘Jews’.

    Read More
  95. @Anonymous
    Zsa Zsa Gabor is half-Jewish.

    Nah, her father’s family was also jewish but converted to RC, as did lot’s of Austro-Hungarian Jews.

    Read More
  96. As Razib Khan is fond of saying, most human populations (races) are hybrids.

    As for this:

    David W. Anthony, an archaeologist at Hartwick College and a co-author on the Harvard study, said it was likely that the expansion of Yamnaya into Europe was relatively peaceful. “It wasn’t Attila the Hun coming in and killing everybody,” he said.

    Attila the Hun didn’t “come in and kill everybody.” Anyone with a basic grasp of history should know that the Huns were an elite leadership group within a large confederation of many tribes, including Germanic ones. This kind of army-building-by-incorporation-of-the-defeated was a common steppe nomadic trait, and happened time and time again.

    Instead, Dr. Anthony thought the most likely scenario was that the Yamnaya “entered into some kind of stable opposition”

    “Stable opposition”? Maybe (temporary) stalemate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    You're right that the so-called "Hunnish hordes" were mostly Ostrogoths and assorted other East Germans. There never were enough actual Huns to make up a self-respecting "horde". Even the name "Attila" is a Gothic word - the Gothic root "atta-" meaning father combined with the Gothic diminuitive "-la".
  97. National Public Radio interview with Professor Bwana Ungawa; Honkus Screed Chair in Philology; Noam Chomsky School of Linguistics, Lord Greystoke Institute of Technology

    MERGE

    NPR: So tell us Professor Ungawa, give some understanding to lay science people and reporters like myself, what is the acronym MERGE? How were you inspired to this theory?

    Ungawa: Macaroni Enhanced Radio Gestation Etymology or MERGE, came to me in a meditative state when attempting digesting pasta.

    NPR: Ok, so that explains the ‘macaroni enhanced’ aspect but what is ‘radio gestation etymology?

    Ungawa: As Descartes noticed, we appear to be speaking freely in a way deemed appropriate to circumstances but is not caused by the circumstances. Or in lay terms, ‘Just plain BS.’ So we can produce speech over an unbounded range, constantly inventing irrelevant crap, in a way that is not determined by external stimuli and in a way that does not seem to be caused by any internal structure. And we can produce this bullshit in ways that others with similar capacities to absorb crap can comprehend and recognize as nonsense similar to their own. Well, that sort of creative aspect of comprehension is a total mystery. But that’s my language. Now questions arise for everything; bullshit visionaries in science; bullshit organization of motion or the sport of cricket particularly; bullshit audition or hearing voices in our heads, particularly our own voices that tend never to shut up; bullshit arithmetical ability mostly prone to numbers that don’t add up .. for instance Keynesian economics; bullshit comparisons to chimps fluent in sign language whose paintings are as accomplished as those by masters of modern art, any pseudo-cognitive bullshit. Bullshit happens. In language, bullshit spreads like memes. So, all of this verbiage and related crap, gestated in idle imagination, is my etymology spread via media, for instance radio.

    NPR: Ok, well said professor. But let’s followup that idea; for example we have Sesame Street consigns philosophy to an entity that lives in a garbage can…

    Ungawa: As per your example, each of us has somehow acquired the capacity for crap which, from the very first step, is largely mysterious. Take a child. Almost instantly and reflexively, he or she is able to embrace, out of the environment, all datum which is garbage related. How? A chimpanzee has roughly the same auditory & visual system but plainly it does not. And that is just the first step that is not understood. How did we acquire the infinite capacity to produce and immerse in rather endless, inane bullshit?

    NPR: They say true genius is in asking the correct questions…

    Ungawa: The most elementary combinatorial operation which finds its place somewhere in every computational process is simply an operation that takes two objects already constructed and forms a new object out of them. For instance a toilet and seat to the combined brilliance of a toilet seat. That is MERGE. This occurred to me while I had the seat up, when hurling my pasta.

    NPR: So, the regurgitation of ideas is innate?

    Ungawa: Whatever the lexical genitalia are, they have to be put together, and the easiest way for them to be put together is for some process to attract them, like estrus or ‘heat’ in layman’s terms. That’s MERGE. If you need more than that, then ok, there’s more – like cunnilingus – and anything more will be specific to language. For instance ‘blow-job.’

    NPR: So language is as old as any sex act would be a cognitive event?

    Ungawa: You got an operation that enables you to take sexual objects or concepts of similar sort, already constructed, and make highly enhanced or imaginative sexual objects out of them. That’s MERGE. As soon as you have that, you have an infinite variety of hierarchically structured expressions, such as dildos, available to you. This is why obelisks, dildos on a grand scale if you will, are expression of language through symbolism throughout civilization.

    NPR: So, it’s not a question of which came first? The symbol or the language?

    Ungawa: It looks as if – given the time involved – there was a sudden ‘great leap forward.’ Some small genetic modification somehow morphed us all into Maos and made this human capacity for dildoism possible. And with it came an entire range of lethal options that are available to humans within a theory of mind – a follows-orders theory of mind – so you know that some petty tyrant is trying to kill you because you don’t think what somebody else wants you to think.

    NPR: A sort of ‘just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not after you’ phenomenon?

    Ungawa: Well, paranoia takes place not only in a person, but also a group. We know, from physical anthropology, that this was a very small copulating group – some little group of bonobo in a corner of some playboy paradise – apparently. It was in that group, in Desmond Morris’ Tarzan, or that is to say within an authentic naked ape, some observation took place, leading to some future hominid adapted capacity of language; pointing to later phenomena like Mao’s great leap forward. Dildoism couldn’t have arisen without this critically important person.

    NPR: Professor Bwana Ungawa, thank you for your time.

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2015/04/01/merge/

    Dedicated to all ‘big-brained White people’ pondering their roots

    Read More
  98. @foo
    The word 'Arya' only appears in one place and only one place: The holy books of the Aryan religion (the four Aryan Eddas). This is also known as Hinduism. The word Arya does not appear in any other religion or tribe except those in India. Yes, the Norse Eddas are very very similar (even the name of the books is the same) but 'Arya' doesn't appear in them.

    "Indo" in the word Indo-European refers specifically to the country of India (the Sanskrit speaking parts). Iranians linguistically speak Indo-European but are a very minor branch. No Asian country apart from India is Indo-European in any way. And the Iranians were the polar opposite of the Aryans since the Asuras were god-like in all ancient Iranian religions but devils in the Aryan one (and Dyeus and Indra were not present at all in any Iranian religion and neither were any of the shubh/lal/swastika).

    The swastika is still the holiest (and only) religious symbol of Hinduism (and it's offshoots, Buddhism and Jainism. There is another symbol ('om') but that actually represents a syllable/sound. This again is a Aryan (Indian) only thing, this word is not used in any European offshoot (the german word being hakenkreuz).

    There were 2 invasions: The Aryan tribe into India and sister (Aryan-like) tribes in Europe, with the key point that the European tribes never called themselves 'Aryan' in any book, in any literature, anywhere.

    Darius the Persian king claimed Aryan descent. It was put down in writing before the Vedic Aryans put down “Arya” in writing but the Vedic Aryan’s oral tradition mentions “Arya” before Darius.

    Swastika is from Sanskrit Svastika but the symbol itself is found in the Indus Valley civilization predating the Aryans. It is also found amongst the Elamites , Ancient Mesopotamians , North American Indians , the Vinca and other cultures.

    It’s not settled whether the symbol originated from A culture and then diffused or whether it arose independently amongst different cultures. It’s a rudimentary symbol so could easily have been created independently by different cultures.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Swastika is from Sanskrit Svastika but the symbol itself is found in the Indus Valley…
     
    … and the name survives along the Blanche River in Ontario. ("Blanche"? Hmmm…)

    And they have no intention of changing it.

  99. @TGGP
    David W. Anthony wrote "The Horse, the Wheel & Language", which was heavily focused on the importance of war chariots to proto-Indo Europeans. I don't know why he's so convinced their entry into Europe was peaceful. Although checking on Wikipedia I see he thinks they expanded a lot by "recruiting" neighbors rather than through conquest. I completely forgot any of that being in the book, which had more information on the wearing down of horse teeth than I ever wanted to know.

    David W. Anthony wrote “The Horse, the Wheel & Language”, which was heavily focused on the importance of war chariots to proto-Indo Europeans.

    Wrong! He demonstrated how war chariots were important to (and probably an innovation of) Indo-Iranians, the last remaining IE branch on the steppes after the other branches (Anatolian, Tocharian, Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, roughly in that order) had dispersed from their homeland as posited by the Kurgan theory. The pre-Indo-Iranians seemed to have the horse and the wheel but not the chariot. The oldest chariot remains that have been unearthed thus far are from Sintashta (south Siberia) in the Andronovo horizon around 2000 BC. In a more recent talk I heard Anthony give, he seems to think that the Greeks also ought to be included in the “Indo-Iranian” group as the last remnant of the IE-speaking steppe populations, and perhaps the chariot was an innovation of this Greco-Indo-Iranian subgroup.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    If the Greeks may have been the "last remnant" IEs from the steppes that compels the question why all these vigorous IE people left their original homeland. Evidently they weren't pushed by others so why wasn't there another lot of fast breeding IEs or PIEs left behind? Plague? Marie Stopes and small but beautiful families?
  100. @OilcanFloyd
    "There are Asian peoples living in Northern Europe since forever. The Finns are the typical example but their language isn’t Indo-European so not a good example for this thread."

    The Lapps are the example you are looking for. Finns are basically Swedes with 5%, or so, Lapp admixture.

    Ulkomaalainen:

    “Finns are basically Swedes with 5% or so, Lapp admixture”

    That sounds like an oversimplification. Charts like this:

    http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/1015/nelis2009mds.png

    show Finns as a rather very distinct equal mix of Balts and Swedes, with Balts being a bulge off of Russians and Swedes a bulge off of North Germans.

    Read More
  101. Interesting how they use the word Yamnayan.

    Anything to avoid using the term Indo-European, or worse still, the term Aryan.

    Read More
  102. @greysquirrell
    In India the natives were agriculturalists while the Aryans were semi-nomadic pastoralists. They dominated linguistically because they were militarily dominant.

    The earliest recollections of the Aryans mention a warlike society that was constantly fighting amongst themselves and against others and where cattle raiding was the norm. So I find it very hard to believe that the Indo-European linguistic domination of Western Europe was peaceful.

    The Minoans were conquered by the I.E. speaking Mycenaens who in turn were conquered by the I.E. speaking Greeks. The I.E. speaking Hittites conquered the Hattians. The Aryans conquered the Indus Valley and the pre-Aryan peoples of Northern India. Only small pockets of Dravidian and Munda exist in Northern India and Pakistan. Dravidians are dominant in Southern India because Aryans never managed to conquer it. The Indo-Iranians conquered Iran and gradually extinguished Elamite, a non I.E. language. In the Iberian peninsula I.E. encroached on Basque. In northern Mesopotamia the Mitanni empire was headed by an Aryan elite but they never managed to replace Hurrian, the language of the masses.

    So there are many examples of I.E. speaking tribes dominating and imposing their language on non I.E. speaking people. In a similar but more limited fashion Semitic speaking groups imposed their language on non Semitic speaking regions. Turko-Mongols imposed Turkic languages on various people from Anatolia to central Asia.

    Zebu:

    In northern Mesopotamia the Mitanni empire was headed by an Aryan elite but they never managed to replace Hurrian, the language of the masses.

    Aren’t the Kurds the descendants of the Hurrians? They speak Indo-European

    Read More
    • Replies: @greysquirrell
    I don't know who the Kurds are descended from . Kurdish is Indo-Iranian but the Indo-Iranians imposed their language on lots of South Asian and SW Asian groups, like how the Arabs imposed their language on lots of diverse groups.
    R1a1a doesn't dominate amongst Kurds ; J2 clade makes up the largest portion. They are like other South West Asian groups.
  103. @Bill P

    At the same time, it would not have been in the interests for the Chariot drivers to destroy the agricultural model, since it ultimately has proven very useful. I expect the Yamnaya expanded, brought their crops in, and subjugated the natives, sort of the same way the Aryans in India did it. But there was obviously enough affinity between the groups that a formalized caste system never developed, unlike in India.
     
    India was already civilized before Yamnaya/Aryans came in. Neolithic Europe was probably more like pre-civilized mound builders in pre-Columbian Missouri. Formal caste systems can only develop in places where genealogy is practicable, i.e. literate societies.

    Another difference between Europe and India is that the Yamnaya themselves were largely comprised of tribes that were European in origin. They wouldn't have been all that different from people in places further north and west, just as the Sioux in the Dakotas weren't all that far removed from some tribes far to the east in Ohio. I'm surprised more people don't look to American Indian tribes as a model for the spread of Indo-European peoples and languages, because I'm sure they could gain a lot of insight that way.

    what person today looks like a neolithic pre-IE person: please don’t say Charles Bronson.
     
    Maybe a Sardinian?

    “India was already civilized before Yamnaya/Aryans came in.” It certainly had supported an advanced civilisation in the NW – the Harrapan, which covered a seriously large stretch of territory in the Indus valley and further afield. Whether there was continuity of that to the time of the Aryan arrival, I don’t know. I don’t know whether anyone knows.

    Read More
  104. @SPMoore8
    Upfront: Thanks to you and everyone else for offering info about IE migrations. I don't think the argument is settled.

    I don't think the Kurgan theory allows enough time for Minoan Linear B (IE, early Greek) to emerge. I am also unsure about how IE, or PIE, splintered. That's why Renfrow is attractive theory.

    If Basques are ID'd with the early agriculturalists then they were probably not IE. OTOH, if they were descended from original hunter/gatherers, perhaps Renfrow is right.

    I visualize Pit Culture dominating AG Europe the same way the Aryans in India did. The point about caste system however is that I think the two cultures were already close, at any rate, closer than Dravidian and Aryan.

    Of course, one realizes that part of what motivates people in this field is a desire for bragging rights, sort of like the 19th Century Hungarian hypothesis that Elamite was early Magyar. And sort of like today's Dravidians insisting Indus Valley culture was "theirs." My interest is in tracing the dispersion of languages and the prehistory of Europe, and any traces of the earliest past. Hence my interest in identifying cultures and groups that correspond to original hunter-gatherers. I don't have any interest in where the chips fall.

    Incidentally, while mostly Celtic and Germanic, I have some East German and Bohemian ancestry as well: something like epicanthal folds is apparent here and there. I have no idea what that means, but Tatar (Turkic) expansion got beyond the Danube and to the Oder.

    SPMoore8:

    I am also unsure about how IE, or PIE, splintered.

    Isn’t the most logical explanation of the rapid fracture that PIE creolized with the pre-existing languages it encountered?

    Read More
  105. @Luke Lea
    "Was the Prehistoric Aryan Invasion of Europe Peaceful?"

    Is that supposed to be a rhetorical question? Anyway, is there archaeological evidence reflecting conquest? Population replacement? Symbiosis? Anybody know?

    There is fair evidence it was not. Iirc, there were scattered farming communities, little evidence of cities or things like chiefs or kings. Then the communities got really big but still no chiefs or kings, as if defensively against invaders – cities don’t work for farmers since you have to walk really far to your fields since you don’t have horses. Then the big communities were destroyed.

    The big advantages were horses and the wheel.

    Read More
  106. @SPMoore8
    Upfront: Thanks to you and everyone else for offering info about IE migrations. I don't think the argument is settled.

    I don't think the Kurgan theory allows enough time for Minoan Linear B (IE, early Greek) to emerge. I am also unsure about how IE, or PIE, splintered. That's why Renfrow is attractive theory.

    If Basques are ID'd with the early agriculturalists then they were probably not IE. OTOH, if they were descended from original hunter/gatherers, perhaps Renfrow is right.

    I visualize Pit Culture dominating AG Europe the same way the Aryans in India did. The point about caste system however is that I think the two cultures were already close, at any rate, closer than Dravidian and Aryan.

    Of course, one realizes that part of what motivates people in this field is a desire for bragging rights, sort of like the 19th Century Hungarian hypothesis that Elamite was early Magyar. And sort of like today's Dravidians insisting Indus Valley culture was "theirs." My interest is in tracing the dispersion of languages and the prehistory of Europe, and any traces of the earliest past. Hence my interest in identifying cultures and groups that correspond to original hunter-gatherers. I don't have any interest in where the chips fall.

    Incidentally, while mostly Celtic and Germanic, I have some East German and Bohemian ancestry as well: something like epicanthal folds is apparent here and there. I have no idea what that means, but Tatar (Turkic) expansion got beyond the Danube and to the Oder.

    I visualize Pit Culture dominating AG Europe the same way the Aryans in India did. The point about caste system however is that I think the two cultures were already close, at any rate, closer than Dravidian and Aryan.

    You are making too many unwarranted assumptions. One, that the Aryans fought and dominated over the Dravidians (completely unproven and unattested), and two, that the caste system arose as a result of invasion and domination over the aboriginal populations (Dravidians or someone else.)

    Much recent scholarship has come to a tentative conclusion that the enemies of the Aryans mentioned in the early Vedas were Iranian tribes and those battles were fought on the Indo-Iranian frontier. Dravidians themselves may not be as aboriginal to the Indian subcontinent as was once thought; the Brahui in Baluchistan (Western Pakistan) seem to share the phenotypes of their Iranic neighbors. There is zero archaeological evidence for an intrusion from Central/West Asia into the subcontinent as would be consistent with the steppe theory of IE. The human and material remains from the Indus Valley area seem to indicate a remarkable continuity from ~7000 BC into the present.

    There’s a lot that’s yet to be discovered. But flashing out what I would refer to as the “David Duke theory of India” doesn’t advance the cause of scholarship.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    You are making too many unwarranted assumptions. One, that the Aryans fought and dominated over the Dravidians (completely unproven and unattested), and two, that the caste system arose as a result of invasion and domination over the aboriginal populations (Dravidians or someone else.)

    Okay, then it's up to you to explain to me how it was that the northern part of India was dominated by IE speaking groups, and why the caste system evolved, and what it represented. No dispute about the contrast between Hinduism and Zoroastrianism: what's your take on that?

    It's also up to you to explain what the Brahui isolate means in terms of Dravidians and what you think the origin of Indus Valley (and other things, e.g., Elamite, Sumerian, etc.) was.

    As I said in an earlier post, I am well aware that these discussion turn into petty bragging rights disputes, and I have seen them before. The fact that you even brought David Duke into the discussion indicates as much.
  107. @Reg Cæsar

    There are a lot of similarities between the Ugric (the Hungarian part) and the Finnic part still.
     
    Don't forget the freight-train-length words with the strong stress on the first syllable.

    Initial stress is also found Czech and Slovak, Hungarian's Indo-European neighbors. Makes one wonder.

    Languages which are next to each other tend to borrow phonological and grammatical characteristics, even if they’re not in the same language group. It’s called a sprachbund. Check out this article: http://www.nytud.hu/nyk/100/helimski.pdf. But it’s suggested that the idea of a specifically Danubian sprachbund is quite weak.

    Read More
  108. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @The Snitch
    V. Lenin always looked somewhat Asiatic to me as well.

    I believe Lenin was descended from a non-Slavic aboriginal Siberian ethnicity on his mother’s side. The same is true for a significant number of Russians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Shaikorth
    Lenin's mother wasn't Siberian, she was a Jewish-Swedish-German mix. His Asian roots come from his father's side (Volga Turkic and Kalmyk mongolian). Funnily enough his recent ancestry was thus more Germanic than Slavic Russian.
  109. @Fredrik
    There are Asian peoples living in Northern Europe since forever. The Finns are the typical example but their language isn't Indo-European so not a good example for this thread.

    What's clearly disturbing to a lot of people, but for different reasons, is that it's clear that the current Europeans also can disappear. Suddenly 'we' may look completely different with only a few genetical hints of a past with blond hair. Racists don't like that thought but smarter SJW's, if there is such a thing, would also be disturbed by the fact that genes matter...

    Other people also can see that teaching your womenfolk certain lessons is a matter of life and death.

    The Finnish genotype does show some Asian influence but it is relatively small. Finns are predominantly Nordic. The Finnish Lapps are genetically about 20% Asian and Russian Lapps are about 30% Asian. The Hungarian population is very little different genetically form other Eastern European people.

    Read More
  110. @Anonymous
    The Lapps are the example you are looking for. Finns are basically Swedes with 5%, or so, Lapp admixture.

    Swedes are Germans with 5% Sami admixture. Germans have 5% Hun admixture. Therefore, Finns are Mongoloids, evidenced by their love for maths, cell phones, stoicism, and low crime rates. Do you know why Germans are so obedient? It's because of their Mongoloid admixture.

    Utter nonsense.

    Read More
  111. @Twinkie
    As Razib Khan is fond of saying, most human populations (races) are hybrids.

    As for this:


    David W. Anthony, an archaeologist at Hartwick College and a co-author on the Harvard study, said it was likely that the expansion of Yamnaya into Europe was relatively peaceful. “It wasn’t Attila the Hun coming in and killing everybody,” he said.
     
    Attila the Hun didn't "come in and kill everybody." Anyone with a basic grasp of history should know that the Huns were an elite leadership group within a large confederation of many tribes, including Germanic ones. This kind of army-building-by-incorporation-of-the-defeated was a common steppe nomadic trait, and happened time and time again.

    Instead, Dr. Anthony thought the most likely scenario was that the Yamnaya “entered into some kind of stable opposition”
     
    "Stable opposition"? Maybe (temporary) stalemate.

    You’re right that the so-called “Hunnish hordes” were mostly Ostrogoths and assorted other East Germans. There never were enough actual Huns to make up a self-respecting “horde”. Even the name “Attila” is a Gothic word – the Gothic root “atta-” meaning father combined with the Gothic diminuitive “-la”.

    Read More
  112. Be sure to pass this article along to your fundamentalist nutjob family members and friends. I just love that look on their faces as they try to match up this information with their bible studies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Fundamentalists don't believe in evolution, but they're quicker than most moderns to accept the results. Bob Jones U's dating policy, while intrusive, was far more "realist" than those of the "major research universities". Explain that.

    And, Epaminondas, let's not get into the things your fellow Thebans believed. Next to which Bob Jones looks like Pierre-Simon Laplace.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    You seem to derive pleasure from the prospect of inflicting psychic pain on your blood relatives. And I expect that delivering the blow would be an even “richer” experience for you.

    They must have deeply offended you. But when you advocate sadism to derive pleasure you testify to the moral deficiency of your soul. Maybe they deserve the justice you seek to mete out, but if your desire is to destroy their moorings and you succeed, just what will you have accomplished?

    Perhaps your result won’t be turning your relatives into what you see in the mirror. But even if it does you would be replicating a sadistic impulse strong enough to engender a desire to visit injury even upon your own kin.

    I recommend that you make peace with whatever emotional trauma you experienced, before it consumes you.
  113. @Bill P

    At the same time, it would not have been in the interests for the Chariot drivers to destroy the agricultural model, since it ultimately has proven very useful. I expect the Yamnaya expanded, brought their crops in, and subjugated the natives, sort of the same way the Aryans in India did it. But there was obviously enough affinity between the groups that a formalized caste system never developed, unlike in India.
     
    India was already civilized before Yamnaya/Aryans came in. Neolithic Europe was probably more like pre-civilized mound builders in pre-Columbian Missouri. Formal caste systems can only develop in places where genealogy is practicable, i.e. literate societies.

    Another difference between Europe and India is that the Yamnaya themselves were largely comprised of tribes that were European in origin. They wouldn't have been all that different from people in places further north and west, just as the Sioux in the Dakotas weren't all that far removed from some tribes far to the east in Ohio. I'm surprised more people don't look to American Indian tribes as a model for the spread of Indo-European peoples and languages, because I'm sure they could gain a lot of insight that way.

    what person today looks like a neolithic pre-IE person: please don’t say Charles Bronson.
     
    Maybe a Sardinian?

    The Sioux entered the Dakotas in the late 18th century. They had formerly lived in Minnesota in association with the Assinboine. The languages of the Siouian linguistic family are spoken over an ark from the Western Dakotas/Eastern Montana&Wyoming down to the Biloxi on the Gulf Coast. The Yuchi linguistic family which is closely related to the Siouian was spoken in what are now the Carolinas.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill P
    Yes, they were very mobile people. I bet the Yamnaya/Aryans were, too. People tend to think of tribes as having been settled back then, and only moving during catastrophes. But that was only true of civilized people, and Europeans weren't civilized at the time. I think they lived pretty much as North American Indians, with only semi-permanent settlements, extensive pasture and hunting grounds and really long trade routes stretching over hundreds if not thousands of miles.
  114. @HA
    "The word Arya does not appear in any other religion or tribe except those in India.

    The name of Iran is the Modern Persian derivative from the Proto-Iranian term Aryānā, meaning "Land of the Aryans", first attested in Zoroastrianism's Avesta tradition.
     
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Etymology

    Some linguists have suggested that the “ire-” in “Ireland” comews from the same PIE root. But that hypothesis is disputed by other linguists.

    Read More
  115. WhatEvvs [AKA "Prada Yada Yada"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @TGGP
    David W. Anthony wrote "The Horse, the Wheel & Language", which was heavily focused on the importance of war chariots to proto-Indo Europeans. I don't know why he's so convinced their entry into Europe was peaceful. Although checking on Wikipedia I see he thinks they expanded a lot by "recruiting" neighbors rather than through conquest. I completely forgot any of that being in the book, which had more information on the wearing down of horse teeth than I ever wanted to know.

    “I don’t know why he’s so convinced their entry into Europe was peaceful. ”

    Maybe it depends on what your definition of peaceful is. I don’t think lack of bloodshed per se is peaceful. It could just mean that they encountered feeble resistance, and did what they wanted. Is this peace?

    Read More
  116. WhatEvvs [AKA "Prada Yada Yada"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @SPMoore8
    I think your explanation is close to my own, but evidently the new genetic evidence doesn't settle the argument either way.

    I've often felt Renfrew's hypothesis, known as The Anatolian Hypothesis, was a little stretched but I also think that Marija Gimbutas, advocate of the alternative "Kurgan Hypothesis" was even farther out there.

    Also:

    ~ I am a little disappointed that this discussion has apparently already shown signs of turning into a turf war. To that end, I will only mention the argument that Basque comes from the Dogon language in Sub-Saharan Africa.

    ~ I am also disappointed that the discussion of the correctness of the Renfrew vs. Gimbutas hypothesis seems to have turned into a progressive, transgender accepting agriculturalist model versus a bloodthirsty Republican hyperphobic model. This is not necessary.

    No, Gimbutas got it mostly right. Guys here dismiss her theories because (a) she leaned a little too heavily on the ‘matriarchy’ word, and (b) she’s a woman, and nothing that a woman says can be taken seriously, cannit?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    No, my problem with Gimbutas was that I think she was a bit of a weirdo, which doesn't make her a bad person of course but which causes me to hedge a little on her theories.

    The idea that the IE's originally came from the steppes is like 200 years old. That fact that it would be articulated by a Lithuanian (whose language about 200 years ago was considered the most ancient of all IE languages), and a woman (who argued for a matriarchy dominated system prior) has to raise some flags.

    I think certainty in this domain is elusive; I certainly don't think it will be settled on the Internet. There are archaeological, genetic, and linguistic matters to consider and personally I am content with the idea that there are a number of competing explanations out there that highlight this or that bit of evidence. Someone who claims to have completely figured it all out says more about the person saying it than the evidence itself.

    I actually was never particularly enthralled with Renfrew's thesis, but I think it is too early to dismiss it. Again, this goes to the issue of the fracturing of the IE (and hypothetical PIE). As someone else suggested "creolization" is a ready explanation but maybe it's too "ready" and maybe there's a problem with the sequence of glottochronology. I am happy to live in suspense on these issues.
  117. @SPMoore8
    The idea that Europe was settled in waves like this is fairly well known, at least in the sequence of hunter gatherers, agriculturalists, and then pastoralists. The real question is which of the latter two were Indo Europeans as we understand the term. The agriculture explanation which tends to be associated with Colin Renfrew (IIRC) would have the point of entry via Turkey while the pastoral explanation would have the migration along the north side, rather than the south side, of the Black Sea. Part of the problem is that the part of Turkey where agriculture is supposed to have originated (the Eastern part) is supposed to have been the point of origin for the Hittites, who were also Indo Europeans.

    The main factor for the extent of the Aryan migration (don't forget they also colonized the Indian subcontintent and parts of Western China (Tocharian)) was probably the horse and chariot. That has long been suspected.

    Whether the expansion was particularly violent, I do not know, I suspect it wasn't, because the Aryans brought horsemanship and chariots while the agriculturalists (also Aryans?) had mastered crops and clearly Europe's development depended heavily on such mastery.

    The main factor for the extent of the Aryan migration (don’t forget they also colonized the Indian subcontintent and parts of Western China (Tocharian)) was probably the horse and chariot.

    I think that armies used chariots mostly to supply their best warriors, who were fighting on foot.

    The best warriors rarely were standing on the chariots while they were fighting.

    The chariots would bring weapons, armor, water and other supplies to the best warriors and would take away and redistribute the same kinds of items that were captured. Chariots were mostly a logistics asset.

    Also, chariots allowed the best warriors to save a lot of energy that otherwise would be expended on walking and running.

    The Iliad described the use of chariots in battle. Here is an excerpt from a webpage titled Chariots and Horses in the Homeric World.

    Most chariots in The Iliad are drawn by teams of either two or four horses. Each chariot carries two people: a warrior – usually one of the Greek or Trojan heroes – and a charioteer. Chariots are used to transport the heroes to, from, and on the battlefield. Once the hero spots an enemy, he normally dismounts to engage him on foot, his charioteer manoeuvring to a place of safety where he waits for his master to call on him. Rarely do the heroes fight directly from their chariots.

    http://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/pw/ancient-warfare/blog/chariots-and-horses-in-the-homeric-world/

    Also, a society that built chariots developed the mathematics, materials and crafts necessary to manufacture wheels. This important new industry employed a lot of people and stimulated technological innovation that improved the society as a whole.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dai Alanye
    @Mike Sylwester

    But what does Homer (whoever he was) know about the tactics of a previous age, particularly when he's writing fiction? Best to look to Egyptian or Hittite use of chariots.

    It's quite possible that horse-drawn wagons were the critical technological advantage of I-E conquerors, rather than horse-drawn chariots.
  118. Archaeologists cna’t even bring themselves to utter the word “European” anymore, let alone “Aryan”? So they have to make a up new term – “Yamnaya” – for a people who already had a serviceable and no-less-accurate name.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    Or they could have used the word "Kurgan" which was already available to IE scholars. Yamnaya is ulwieldy and unnecessary.
    , @Anonymous
    There are Europeans like Sardinians and other southern Europeans who have little or none of the Yamnaya and related ancestral components, which is why I think they have a different name for them.
  119. @Anonymous
    Hello SPMoore8. I find your posts very insightful. Thank you. A related topic discussed several times on the blog comment section has been the question of Asiatic DNA in Europeans. You mentioned Renee Zellwegger, who has known Sami/Lapp ancestry. Other examples of Europeans with obvious Asiatic features include:

    Bjork
    Arnold Schwarzenegger
    Leonardo DiCaprio
    Zsa Zsa Gabor

    Asiatic features are not uncommon near the Arctic circle (Sami/Lapp) and where previous invasions/migrations occurred (ie. Russia, Germany/Austria, Hungary, Czech, etc) If you include Jews, then it becomes even more interesting. Of course there is the Khazar theory, but you have

    Sara Silverman
    Joseph Gordon-Levitt

    It sounds like an argument for multiculturalism... but my stance is that once a people self-identify as a specific people, then that should be respected.

    If you include Jews, then it becomes even more interesting. Of course there is the Khazar theory,

    Gene studies don’t support the Khazar hypothesis.Ashkenazi Jews are a mixture of European (mostly Italian) and Middle Eastern:

    I’m looking at abstracts on Ashkenazi genetics from ASHG 2013 and SMBE 2014 – by the same group, with Shai Carmi as the lead author. They did 128 whole genomes, 50x deep.

    They concluded Ashkenazi Jews were about 50% Middle Eastern and 50% European. In the 2013 abstract, they were pretty specific: they estimated the European ancestry fraction at 55% , plus or minus 2%. ( In our book, we had a crude estimate of about 40% European ancestry.) They estimated the split between Europeans and Middle Easterners at about 9000 BC: which sounds about the right date for the entry of the Sardinian-like farmers. From other data (mtDNA) , and from the fact that you see almost zero WHG or ANE in Ashkenazi autosomal genes, one can conclude that the European admixture was mostly Italian, with some southern French. Very little German or Slavic – by that time serious endogamy had set in..

    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/ashkenazi-ancestry/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Different Anonymous
    When Dienekes was running STRUCTURE analyses for his Dodecad project, he found evidence of a consistent small amount (1-2%) of East Asian admixture in Ashkenazi samples. Perhaps that admixture entered due to the trading activities of the Radhanites, but a small amount of Khazar admixture also could have produced the same result if the Khazars were already heavily admixed with West Eurasians by the time they converted to Judaism.
  120. Shaikorth [AKA "Grelsson17"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous
    I believe Lenin was descended from a non-Slavic aboriginal Siberian ethnicity on his mother's side. The same is true for a significant number of Russians.

    Lenin’s mother wasn’t Siberian, she was a Jewish-Swedish-German mix. His Asian roots come from his father’s side (Volga Turkic and Kalmyk mongolian). Funnily enough his recent ancestry was thus more Germanic than Slavic Russian.

    Read More
  121. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The British imparted the use of English and other cultural practices to India without leaving a significant genetic footprint upon the population so it’s entirely feasible that one group can move in and influence those already there without it being a highly violent event. A small capability of being able to use force along with the example of a better way of doing things might be enough. It’s hard to visualize the mentality of people living thousands of years ago so there’s a tendency to project our own ways of thinking upon them.

    Read More
  122. @Numinous

    I visualize Pit Culture dominating AG Europe the same way the Aryans in India did. The point about caste system however is that I think the two cultures were already close, at any rate, closer than Dravidian and Aryan.
     
    You are making too many unwarranted assumptions. One, that the Aryans fought and dominated over the Dravidians (completely unproven and unattested), and two, that the caste system arose as a result of invasion and domination over the aboriginal populations (Dravidians or someone else.)

    Much recent scholarship has come to a tentative conclusion that the enemies of the Aryans mentioned in the early Vedas were Iranian tribes and those battles were fought on the Indo-Iranian frontier. Dravidians themselves may not be as aboriginal to the Indian subcontinent as was once thought; the Brahui in Baluchistan (Western Pakistan) seem to share the phenotypes of their Iranic neighbors. There is zero archaeological evidence for an intrusion from Central/West Asia into the subcontinent as would be consistent with the steppe theory of IE. The human and material remains from the Indus Valley area seem to indicate a remarkable continuity from ~7000 BC into the present.

    There's a lot that's yet to be discovered. But flashing out what I would refer to as the "David Duke theory of India" doesn't advance the cause of scholarship.

    You are making too many unwarranted assumptions. One, that the Aryans fought and dominated over the Dravidians (completely unproven and unattested), and two, that the caste system arose as a result of invasion and domination over the aboriginal populations (Dravidians or someone else.)

    Okay, then it’s up to you to explain to me how it was that the northern part of India was dominated by IE speaking groups, and why the caste system evolved, and what it represented. No dispute about the contrast between Hinduism and Zoroastrianism: what’s your take on that?

    It’s also up to you to explain what the Brahui isolate means in terms of Dravidians and what you think the origin of Indus Valley (and other things, e.g., Elamite, Sumerian, etc.) was.

    As I said in an earlier post, I am well aware that these discussion turn into petty bragging rights disputes, and I have seen them before. The fact that you even brought David Duke into the discussion indicates as much.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous
    Sorry, the only reason I mentioned David Duke was because he made a short trip to India and immediately became convinced of the need to maintain racial boundaries in America so it wouldn't degenerate the way India did. He was just following in the footsteps of the 19th century theorists who looked at every society through the prism of contemporary race relations, where light-skinned people from colder climates dominated darker skinned people in warmer ones, and assumed that had always been the case.

    Every civilized society in the history of mankind has had hierarchies, classes, and castes. India is not so much of an aberration in that respect. Even in practicing the abhorrent practice of untouchability, India is not alone. There are the Buraku in Japan, and some group called the Cagots in France and Spain. Uniracial societies do build their own hierarchies when left alone for a while; the existence of such differences does not automatically imply a past invasion and imposition of segregation rules, though that is one of the possible explanations. India is just unique in that it sacralized a caste hierarchy and stuck with it come hell or high water. In much of the world, the Abrahamic faiths have blurred or obliterated previously existing caste or class hierarchies.

    All your questions about the Aryans vis a vis Dravidians are valid, and I don't have answers to them, just hypotheses. In fact, the balance of evidence (and Occam's razor) seems to support the traditional theory of Aryans migrating to the subcontinent, though there is no evidence of invasion or mass murder to be unearthed from the remains. The Dravidian south has traditionally been the most staunchly Hindu part of the subcontinent, and it never occurred to people there until the early 20th century (after the Aryan invasion theory was propounded) that they could have been the victims of Aryan domination and the caste system. As for the Brahui, some people think that they migrated from the south to the NW rather than the other way round.

    And even if we were to assume that invading Aryans created the caste system by subjugating Dravidians, that raises questions of its own. What to make of the fact that the early Vedas talk lovingly about the now extinct Saraswati river, which geologists say might have run through NW India (east of the Indus) but dried out by 1900 BC? That would have to push back the Aryan presence in India by at least a millenium. And what to make of the fact that hydronyms throughout northern India have Indo-Aryan roots? One wouldn't expect that if the land had been populated by Dravidian groups? And surely you would agree, given the phenotypes of modern Indians, that if a white-skinned people had invaded the subcontinent, they couldn't have been too many in number.
  123. @WhatEvvs
    No, Gimbutas got it mostly right. Guys here dismiss her theories because (a) she leaned a little too heavily on the 'matriarchy' word, and (b) she's a woman, and nothing that a woman says can be taken seriously, cannit?

    No, my problem with Gimbutas was that I think she was a bit of a weirdo, which doesn’t make her a bad person of course but which causes me to hedge a little on her theories.

    The idea that the IE’s originally came from the steppes is like 200 years old. That fact that it would be articulated by a Lithuanian (whose language about 200 years ago was considered the most ancient of all IE languages), and a woman (who argued for a matriarchy dominated system prior) has to raise some flags.

    I think certainty in this domain is elusive; I certainly don’t think it will be settled on the Internet. There are archaeological, genetic, and linguistic matters to consider and personally I am content with the idea that there are a number of competing explanations out there that highlight this or that bit of evidence. Someone who claims to have completely figured it all out says more about the person saying it than the evidence itself.

    I actually was never particularly enthralled with Renfrew’s thesis, but I think it is too early to dismiss it. Again, this goes to the issue of the fracturing of the IE (and hypothetical PIE). As someone else suggested “creolization” is a ready explanation but maybe it’s too “ready” and maybe there’s a problem with the sequence of glottochronology. I am happy to live in suspense on these issues.

    Read More
  124. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @greysquirrell
    In India the natives were agriculturalists while the Aryans were semi-nomadic pastoralists. They dominated linguistically because they were militarily dominant.

    The earliest recollections of the Aryans mention a warlike society that was constantly fighting amongst themselves and against others and where cattle raiding was the norm. So I find it very hard to believe that the Indo-European linguistic domination of Western Europe was peaceful.

    The Minoans were conquered by the I.E. speaking Mycenaens who in turn were conquered by the I.E. speaking Greeks. The I.E. speaking Hittites conquered the Hattians. The Aryans conquered the Indus Valley and the pre-Aryan peoples of Northern India. Only small pockets of Dravidian and Munda exist in Northern India and Pakistan. Dravidians are dominant in Southern India because Aryans never managed to conquer it. The Indo-Iranians conquered Iran and gradually extinguished Elamite, a non I.E. language. In the Iberian peninsula I.E. encroached on Basque. In northern Mesopotamia the Mitanni empire was headed by an Aryan elite but they never managed to replace Hurrian, the language of the masses.

    So there are many examples of I.E. speaking tribes dominating and imposing their language on non I.E. speaking people. In a similar but more limited fashion Semitic speaking groups imposed their language on non Semitic speaking regions. Turko-Mongols imposed Turkic languages on various people from Anatolia to central Asia.

    The earliest recollections of the Aryans mention a warlike society that was constantly fighting amongst themselves and against others and where cattle raiding was the norm. So I find it very hard to believe that the Indo-European linguistic domination of Western Europe was peaceful.

    I think that’s probably the key point. Pastoralists are nearly always raiders so I think the most likely option is on the border between the IE and the farmers the IE raided constantly until the farmers moved away and the IE expanded into the now empty territory.

    So not peaceful but not a big invasion either – more gradual attrition.

    Read More
  125. @syonredux

    If you include Jews, then it becomes even more interesting. Of course there is the Khazar theory,
     
    Gene studies don't support the Khazar hypothesis.Ashkenazi Jews are a mixture of European (mostly Italian) and Middle Eastern:

    I’m looking at abstracts on Ashkenazi genetics from ASHG 2013 and SMBE 2014 – by the same group, with Shai Carmi as the lead author. They did 128 whole genomes, 50x deep.

    They concluded Ashkenazi Jews were about 50% Middle Eastern and 50% European. In the 2013 abstract, they were pretty specific: they estimated the European ancestry fraction at 55% , plus or minus 2%. ( In our book, we had a crude estimate of about 40% European ancestry.) They estimated the split between Europeans and Middle Easterners at about 9000 BC: which sounds about the right date for the entry of the Sardinian-like farmers. From other data (mtDNA) , and from the fact that you see almost zero WHG or ANE in Ashkenazi autosomal genes, one can conclude that the European admixture was mostly Italian, with some southern French. Very little German or Slavic – by that time serious endogamy had set in..
     
    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/ashkenazi-ancestry/

    When Dienekes was running STRUCTURE analyses for his Dodecad project, he found evidence of a consistent small amount (1-2%) of East Asian admixture in Ashkenazi samples. Perhaps that admixture entered due to the trading activities of the Radhanites, but a small amount of Khazar admixture also could have produced the same result if the Khazars were already heavily admixed with West Eurasians by the time they converted to Judaism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    When Dienekes was running STRUCTURE analyses for his Dodecad project, he found evidence of a consistent small amount (1-2%) of East Asian admixture in Ashkenazi samples.
     
    Anyone else found it? Anyone recently?Things move fast in this field

    Perhaps that admixture entered due to the trading activities of the Radhanites, but a small amount of Khazar admixture also could have produced the same result if the Khazars were already heavily admixed with West Eurasians by the time they converted to Judaism.
     
    A lot of supposition there....
  126. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @kaganovitch
    Nah, her father's family was also jewish but converted to RC, as did lot's of Austro-Hungarian Jews.

    Proof?

    Read More
  127. ANOTHER NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF THE OUT-OF-AFRICA THEORY.

    The fact of the matter is that white people came originally from Siberia (Russia), then to the Ponic Caspian Steppe (Russia) and thence to Europe and Iran (Aryaan) /Indus Valley, in waves. They are called Proto-Indo-Europeans (previously Aryans). They went as far west as Ireland (Arya-land) and south to Aryaan (Iran) from Russia.

    The out of Africa theory is false and goes against common sense. This is one more nail in the coffin of the out-of-Africa theory and more support for the multiregional hypothesis, which says that the 3 races evolved in 3 different places—blacks in Africa and then spread along the eastern coast to south India and SE Asia, whites in Russia and Chinese in China.

    Read More
  128. @Numinous

    David W. Anthony wrote “The Horse, the Wheel & Language”, which was heavily focused on the importance of war chariots to proto-Indo Europeans.
     
    Wrong! He demonstrated how war chariots were important to (and probably an innovation of) Indo-Iranians, the last remaining IE branch on the steppes after the other branches (Anatolian, Tocharian, Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, roughly in that order) had dispersed from their homeland as posited by the Kurgan theory. The pre-Indo-Iranians seemed to have the horse and the wheel but not the chariot. The oldest chariot remains that have been unearthed thus far are from Sintashta (south Siberia) in the Andronovo horizon around 2000 BC. In a more recent talk I heard Anthony give, he seems to think that the Greeks also ought to be included in the "Indo-Iranian" group as the last remnant of the IE-speaking steppe populations, and perhaps the chariot was an innovation of this Greco-Indo-Iranian subgroup.

    If the Greeks may have been the “last remnant” IEs from the steppes that compels the question why all these vigorous IE people left their original homeland. Evidently they weren’t pushed by others so why wasn’t there another lot of fast breeding IEs or PIEs left behind? Plague? Marie Stopes and small but beautiful families?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Difference Maker
    Overpopulation

    Greek has long been thought to be relatively closely related to the Indo-Aryan languages (perhaps ironically), compared to others in the Indo-European family

    , @Numinous
    I isn't my theory. I was only stating what the "Kurgan" theory as advocated by Gimbutas, Mallory, Anthony, and others consists of. The theory doesn't explain why people left, but that shouldn't be too hard to figure out. Why did various Western European people leave their homelands to settle in the Americas? And the IE homeland never completely emptied out as a result of these emigrations. As per the theory, the Scythians were the last IE people still living in that area during the classical Greek era, and the Scythians seemed to have been Iranian speakers (modern-day Ossetians are supposed to be their descendants). After the Scythians, Altaic speakers (Turks, Avars, Huns) took over the steppes, and from that time on, we know exactly who has been living in that area.
  129. @Svigor

    I imagine the Aryans looked more like Conan as envisioned by Robert E. Howard, slightly swarthy with dark hair and eyes; closer to the Jason Momoa/Khal Drogo version than the Ahnold version.
     
    Didn't Howard pattern the Cimmerians after the Celts?

    “Didn’t Howard pattern the Cimmerians after the Celts?”

    More or less.From REH’s essay, The Hyborian Age:

    the Cimmerians are tall and powerful, with dark hair and blue or grey eyes.[.....]

    They came into these countries as Aryans. But there were variations among these primitive Aryans, some of which are still recognized today, others which have long been forgotten. The blond Achaians, Gauls and Britons, for instance, were descendants of pure-blooded Æsir. The Nemedians of Irish legendry were the Nemedian Æsir. The Danes were descendants of pure-blooded Vanir; the Goths—ancestors of the other Scandinavian and Germanic tribes, including the Anglo-Saxons—were descendants of a mixed race whose elements contained Vanir, Æsir and Cimmerian strains. The Gaels, ancestors of the Irish and Highland Scotch, descended from pure-blooded Cimmerian clans. The Cymric tribes of Britain were a mixed Nordic-Cimmerian race which preceded the purely Nordic Britons into the isles, and thus gave rise to a legend of Gaelic priority. The Cimbri who fought Rome were of the same blood, as well as the Gimmerai of the Assyrians and Grecians, and Gomer of the Hebrews. Other clans of the Cimmerians adventured east of the drying inland sea, and a few centuries later mixed with Hyrkanian blood, returned westward as Scythians. The original ancestors of the Gaels gave their name to modern Crimea.

    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/42182/42182-h/42182-h.htm

    Read More
  130. @Mr. Anon
    Archaeologists cna't even bring themselves to utter the word "European" anymore, let alone "Aryan"? So they have to make a up new term - "Yamnaya" - for a people who already had a serviceable and no-less-accurate name.

    Or they could have used the word “Kurgan” which was already available to IE scholars. Yamnaya is ulwieldy and unnecessary.

    Read More
  131. @greysquirrell
    Darius the Persian king claimed Aryan descent. It was put down in writing before the Vedic Aryans put down "Arya" in writing but the Vedic Aryan's oral tradition mentions "Arya" before Darius.

    Swastika is from Sanskrit Svastika but the symbol itself is found in the Indus Valley civilization predating the Aryans. It is also found amongst the Elamites , Ancient Mesopotamians , North American Indians , the Vinca and other cultures.

    It's not settled whether the symbol originated from A culture and then diffused or whether it arose independently amongst different cultures. It's a rudimentary symbol so could easily have been created independently by different cultures.

    Swastika is from Sanskrit Svastika but the symbol itself is found in the Indus Valley…

    … and the name survives along the Blanche River in Ontario. (“Blanche”? Hmmm…)

    And they have no intention of changing it.

    Read More
  132. @Epaminondas
    Be sure to pass this article along to your fundamentalist nutjob family members and friends. I just love that look on their faces as they try to match up this information with their bible studies.

    Fundamentalists don’t believe in evolution, but they’re quicker than most moderns to accept the results. Bob Jones U’s dating policy, while intrusive, was far more “realist” than those of the “major research universities”. Explain that.

    And, Epaminondas, let’s not get into the things your fellow Thebans believed. Next to which Bob Jones looks like Pierre-Simon Laplace.

    Read More
  133. […] Was the Prehistoric Aryan Invasion of Europe Peaceful? Steve Sailer […]

    Read More
  134. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Mr. Anon
    Archaeologists cna't even bring themselves to utter the word "European" anymore, let alone "Aryan"? So they have to make a up new term - "Yamnaya" - for a people who already had a serviceable and no-less-accurate name.

    There are Europeans like Sardinians and other southern Europeans who have little or none of the Yamnaya and related ancestral components, which is why I think they have a different name for them.

    Read More
  135. @SPMoore8
    The idea that Europe was settled in waves like this is fairly well known, at least in the sequence of hunter gatherers, agriculturalists, and then pastoralists. The real question is which of the latter two were Indo Europeans as we understand the term. The agriculture explanation which tends to be associated with Colin Renfrew (IIRC) would have the point of entry via Turkey while the pastoral explanation would have the migration along the north side, rather than the south side, of the Black Sea. Part of the problem is that the part of Turkey where agriculture is supposed to have originated (the Eastern part) is supposed to have been the point of origin for the Hittites, who were also Indo Europeans.

    The main factor for the extent of the Aryan migration (don't forget they also colonized the Indian subcontintent and parts of Western China (Tocharian)) was probably the horse and chariot. That has long been suspected.

    Whether the expansion was particularly violent, I do not know, I suspect it wasn't, because the Aryans brought horsemanship and chariots while the agriculturalists (also Aryans?) had mastered crops and clearly Europe's development depended heavily on such mastery.

    The Hittite core is famously arid horse territory. The Hittites ruled over the natives of the land, non Indo European speakers who lived there already, predating the Hittite settlement.

    Steppe invasions have regularly routed through the Caucasus mountains since recorded history. Even violent massive sweeps don’t have to settle down, especially in difficult mountain terrain. The example of the Celts making it to Galatia, or perhaps even of the Goths leaving the Balkans, are instructive.

    Armenians and Ossetians in the Caucasus to the east of Hittite Anatolia, presumably closer to the Renfrewian urheimat and the origin point of the immigration, are surrounded by non Indo European speakers, and Ossetians we can be sure are a late arrival

    Later Indo Aryans, still quite early in history, would rule the Mitanni in Syria, further south of Hittite territory to the southeast, imposing themselves on the native population.

    Read More
  136. @Wizard of Oz
    If the Greeks may have been the "last remnant" IEs from the steppes that compels the question why all these vigorous IE people left their original homeland. Evidently they weren't pushed by others so why wasn't there another lot of fast breeding IEs or PIEs left behind? Plague? Marie Stopes and small but beautiful families?

    Overpopulation

    Greek has long been thought to be relatively closely related to the Indo-Aryan languages (perhaps ironically), compared to others in the Indo-European family

    Read More
  137. @Andrew
    Zebu:

    In northern Mesopotamia the Mitanni empire was headed by an Aryan elite but they never managed to replace Hurrian, the language of the masses.

    Aren't the Kurds the descendants of the Hurrians? They speak Indo-European

    I don’t know who the Kurds are descended from . Kurdish is Indo-Iranian but the Indo-Iranians imposed their language on lots of South Asian and SW Asian groups, like how the Arabs imposed their language on lots of diverse groups.
    R1a1a doesn’t dominate amongst Kurds ; J2 clade makes up the largest portion. They are like other South West Asian groups.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    J2 is more common among the non-Arab Southwest Asian groups and in some of the more northerly Arab populations such as the Lebanese. J1 is more common than J2 among most Arab populations.
  138. @Wizard of Oz
    If the Greeks may have been the "last remnant" IEs from the steppes that compels the question why all these vigorous IE people left their original homeland. Evidently they weren't pushed by others so why wasn't there another lot of fast breeding IEs or PIEs left behind? Plague? Marie Stopes and small but beautiful families?

    I isn’t my theory. I was only stating what the “Kurgan” theory as advocated by Gimbutas, Mallory, Anthony, and others consists of. The theory doesn’t explain why people left, but that shouldn’t be too hard to figure out. Why did various Western European people leave their homelands to settle in the Americas? And the IE homeland never completely emptied out as a result of these emigrations. As per the theory, the Scythians were the last IE people still living in that area during the classical Greek era, and the Scythians seemed to have been Iranian speakers (modern-day Ossetians are supposed to be their descendants). After the Scythians, Altaic speakers (Turks, Avars, Huns) took over the steppes, and from that time on, we know exactly who has been living in that area.

    Read More
  139. @SPMoore8
    You are making too many unwarranted assumptions. One, that the Aryans fought and dominated over the Dravidians (completely unproven and unattested), and two, that the caste system arose as a result of invasion and domination over the aboriginal populations (Dravidians or someone else.)

    Okay, then it's up to you to explain to me how it was that the northern part of India was dominated by IE speaking groups, and why the caste system evolved, and what it represented. No dispute about the contrast between Hinduism and Zoroastrianism: what's your take on that?

    It's also up to you to explain what the Brahui isolate means in terms of Dravidians and what you think the origin of Indus Valley (and other things, e.g., Elamite, Sumerian, etc.) was.

    As I said in an earlier post, I am well aware that these discussion turn into petty bragging rights disputes, and I have seen them before. The fact that you even brought David Duke into the discussion indicates as much.

    Sorry, the only reason I mentioned David Duke was because he made a short trip to India and immediately became convinced of the need to maintain racial boundaries in America so it wouldn’t degenerate the way India did. He was just following in the footsteps of the 19th century theorists who looked at every society through the prism of contemporary race relations, where light-skinned people from colder climates dominated darker skinned people in warmer ones, and assumed that had always been the case.

    Every civilized society in the history of mankind has had hierarchies, classes, and castes. India is not so much of an aberration in that respect. Even in practicing the abhorrent practice of untouchability, India is not alone. There are the Buraku in Japan, and some group called the Cagots in France and Spain. Uniracial societies do build their own hierarchies when left alone for a while; the existence of such differences does not automatically imply a past invasion and imposition of segregation rules, though that is one of the possible explanations. India is just unique in that it sacralized a caste hierarchy and stuck with it come hell or high water. In much of the world, the Abrahamic faiths have blurred or obliterated previously existing caste or class hierarchies.

    All your questions about the Aryans vis a vis Dravidians are valid, and I don’t have answers to them, just hypotheses. In fact, the balance of evidence (and Occam’s razor) seems to support the traditional theory of Aryans migrating to the subcontinent, though there is no evidence of invasion or mass murder to be unearthed from the remains. The Dravidian south has traditionally been the most staunchly Hindu part of the subcontinent, and it never occurred to people there until the early 20th century (after the Aryan invasion theory was propounded) that they could have been the victims of Aryan domination and the caste system. As for the Brahui, some people think that they migrated from the south to the NW rather than the other way round.

    And even if we were to assume that invading Aryans created the caste system by subjugating Dravidians, that raises questions of its own. What to make of the fact that the early Vedas talk lovingly about the now extinct Saraswati river, which geologists say might have run through NW India (east of the Indus) but dried out by 1900 BC? That would have to push back the Aryan presence in India by at least a millenium. And what to make of the fact that hydronyms throughout northern India have Indo-Aryan roots? One wouldn’t expect that if the land had been populated by Dravidian groups? And surely you would agree, given the phenotypes of modern Indians, that if a white-skinned people had invaded the subcontinent, they couldn’t have been too many in number.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Thanks for your gracious reply.

    I think it's quite possible that Dravidian civilization goes back tens of thousands of years and perhaps extended or migrated out of India, not only to the "Brahui" region but also the regions where Sumer and Elam are placed. I would also speculate some contact between such a civilization and the Polynesian (Austronesian) expansion (sourced to Taiwan) that we know extended all across the Pacific -- perhaps to the New World -- and definitely as far back across the Indian Ocean to Malagasy. I am always interested in narratives or evidence of this sort of thing.

    If the Indo-Aryans arrived even earlier than suspected (as you suggest) then that tends to undercut some of the origination theories for the IE group. But, if Hinduism had Dravidian roots that would go a long way to explaining the Hindu/Zoroastrian split. In other words, I could see a conflict between a pastoral/cattle worshiping religion (say, proto-Zarathustra), one wing that was assimilating other elements (e.g., modern day Hinduism) and another wing that was attempting to maintain separateness and, if you will, ideological purity.

    As to the caste system, I realize that is a subject of some controversy, and I don't claim to know. What I do think is that the Aryans migrated from the North (since basically it has always been agreed, except for Renfrew, that the IE homeland is somewhere in the general region of the Caspian) brought chariots and pastoralism with them.

    Someone somewhere else suggested that we should look to the domination of the New World for models of how the rest of the world changed. Looking at the history of that, over the past 500 years, one can see that European dominance has been extreme, but actually not all that violent in most locations. Relative size of immigrants versus natives, and efficiency of breeding were, and are, hugely important. We know that cultural contact caused devastating epidemics. We know that the cultural practices that brought the greater prosperity and larger families were the ones that won out, and that many Native American civilizations had flamed out before Columbus. We know that massacres were common in some locations, rare in others. And we know that intermarriage was common. So I think that's been pretty much the history of the world. What works, what is beneficial, is carried over and maintained. What does not work tends to be deprecated. Deprecated, not wiped out.
    , @SPMoore8
    Thanks for your gracious reply: I wrote a long response that was apparently eaten, but that's OK, I am just a guest on the host's blog. I have no objection to the argument that Dravidian culture is hugely old and has a lot of ramifications for Indian culture, or that it extended into the Fertile Crescent or elsewhere. Nor do I have a problem with Dravidian/Austronesian intersections, which I think are possible. However, I do think the IE's came from the North of the sub-continent, and had an influence as well. As for the global issue, I think most human interaction, if not pacific, is not always warlike and lethal. We wouldn't be around otherwise.
    , @syonredux
    I am often asked by people online to give an “elevator pitch” as to the genetic history of the Indian subcontinent. At this point we’ve got ~90 percent of the story I think. Modern humans arrived in the Indian subcontinent ~50,000 years ago, and pushed onward to East Asia, but over the past ~10,000 years massive changes have occurred genetically due to the intrusion of populations form the northwest and northeast, with likely total cultural turnover. What do I mean by this? First, it’s highly probable that all of the extant language families of the Indian subcontinent are rooted in lineages which were present outside of the Indian subcontinent before the Holocene. In other words, during the Ice Age the ancestral linguistic entities which gave rise to Indo-European, Dravidian, and Austro-Asiatic, were present outside of confines of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Bhutan. The only exception here are the languages of the indigenous peoples of the Andaman Islanders.*


    Older historical works on South Asia often have a preface which suggests that the Austro-Asiatic Munda languages, and those of the Dravidians, were deeply indigenous to the region, to be marginalized in the north and west of the subcontinent by Indo-Aryan dialects which arrived relatively recently. This strikes me as likely wrong in terms of broad brush impressions. I now believe that Peter Bellwood was probably correct to argue in First Farmers that the arrival of Dravidian languages to the subcontinent was mediated through the arrival of agriculturalists, and perhaps may not have predated the Indo-Aryans by very much time at all in most of the subcontinent. I am even more confident that the Munda people are descended from a group with relatively recent origins on Southeast Asia, approximately contemporaneous with, though likely marginally preceding, the arrival of Indo-Aryans. What you see in South Asia today when it comes to linguistic-cultural agglomerations is the jostling of groups whose origins are all exogenous and date to the post-Neolithic period. Though the Pleistocene genetic heritage of South Asia persists to a great extent, as culturally coherent units I doubt there is much of the Pleistocene left in the region (with the exception again of the Andaman Islands).


    Let’s talk about the Munda people first. Most of South Asian social-demographic analysis focuses on a divide between two disparate elements. Culturally, Indo-Aryan vs. Dravidian. Religiously, Hindu vs. Muslim. Genetically, Ancestral North Indian (ANI) vs. Ancestral South Indian (ASI). These dyads are useful analytically, but they elide the more richly textured diversity of the subcontinent (in the case of Muslim vs. Hindu, neither groups, especially the “Hindu” category, are very homogeneous). According to a new paper, A late Neolithic expansion of Y chromosomal haplogroup O2a1-M95 from east to west, as much as ~15% of the Y chromosomal lineages of South Asia may be attributed to these populations. This group uses quite old-fashioned methods. That is, they’re about 10-15 years old, an eon in modern genetics! Basically the focus is on fast evolving microsatellite lineages, and the patterns of variation thereof. But, the power of the paper is the massive data set, which has strong representation of many populations. By looking at thousands of individuals from some regions they were able to observe patterns with a very high degree of confidence as to their representativeness of a given group.



    The cultural-historical debate is whether the Austro-Asiatic languages are indigenous to South Asia or not. The balance of the evidence now seems to be that they are not. What likely occurred is that the Austro-Asiatic languages waxed with the rise of an agricultural Diaspora, whose locus of origin was in what is today the southern regions of China proper. More precisely, the Austro-Asiatic languages may have spread with rice farming across Southeast Asia and eastern South Asia. Likely they were the first on the scene in Southeast Asia, as Bellwood reports in First Farmers and First Migrants that archaeology and anthropometrics can detect admixture between the farmers arriving from the north and native hunter-gatherers in places like the Red river valley in northern Vietnam ~4,000 years ago. The frequency of O2a1-M95 for regions and populations is subdivided very precisely in the above paper, and it is clear that in island Southeast Asia its proportions match those in an earlier paper on autosomal inferences of Austro-Asiatic ancestry. Populations in eastern Indonesia and in the Philippines have minimal numbers of males carrying lineages of O2a1-M95, while the densely populated island land of Java has frequencies of ~50%.



    The clincher for why O2a1-M95, and therefore Austro-Asiatic populations, are likely exogenous to India genetically would be the genetic diversity of the lineages. In short, there is tentative information from the variation on the microsatellites that the coalescence of the diverse lineages in Laos are the deepest by a few thousand years. But there was another paper from a few years back which makes my confidence in these results higher, Population Genetic Structure in Indian Austroasiatic speakers: The Role of Landscape Barriers and Sex-specific Admixture, which presented autosomal data which was very persuasive to me. In particular, the derived variation of EDAR which is present in very high frequencies among Northeast Asians and Amerindian populations, is present at about ~5% frequency among Munda groups. Among Dravidian populations in South India according to the 1000 Genomes Browser the frequency is less than 1%, while it is absent among populations in Northwest India, aside from those with clear East Asian admixture.

    Next we address the issue of the Dravidian languages. A new paper in Human Genetics, West Eurasian mtDNA lineages in India: an insight into the spread of the Dravidian language and the origins of the caste system, points to an association between particular mtDNA lineages in South India and southern Iran, in particular the region which was once inhabited by the Elamites, who have been posited to have an association with the Dravidian languages. I don’t put particular stock in the philological association between Dravidian langauges today and Elamite; I can’t judge it with any degree of certainty or competency. But the genetic data is certainly suggestive. Here’s the portion which is relevant:

    The autochthonous subhaplogroups—HV14a1 and U1a1a4 uniquely found in contemporary Dravidian speakers share their ancestry primarily with the Near East-Iran populations (Derenko et al. 2013). The coalescence times of HV14a1 and U1a1a4 were estimated to be ~10.5–17.9 kya. The shared ancestry of the Dravidian of South India and Iranian of Near East populations has been shown in the HV14 and U1a1 phylogeny (Fig. 1a) and their time estimates are consistent with the proto-Elamo-Dravidian language diffusion. hypothesis which emphasized that the proto-Dravidian language evolved over 15 kya, specifically in western Asia before the beginning of agricultural development ~11 kya. This language was introduced by Neolithic pastoralists, and was thought to be associated with the spread of these west Eurasian-specific mtDNAs to peninsular India (Pagel et al. 2013). The Y-chromosome haplogroup L1a has added a further dimension to this hypothesis. The subclades of haplogroup L such as L1a, L1b, and L1c were found predominantly in Iranian populations of western Asia (Grugni et al. 2012). In India, only the L1a lineage was observed and was largely restricted to the Dravidian-speaking populations of south India (Sahoo et al. 2006; Sengupta et al. 2006). The coalescence time (~9.1 kya) (Sengupta et al. 2006) and the virtual absence in Indo-Aryan speakers in north indicate that the L1a lineage arrived from western Asia during the Neolithic period and perhaps was associated with the spread of the Dravidian language to India
     
    There has long been a presumption to assume that the Dravidian languages are primal to South Asia. But that was before modern genomics revolutionized our understanding of Indian genetic history. More or less all South Asian populations are a fusion between a deeply indigenous strain which distant affinities to the peoples of eastern Eurasia (ASI), and a group very close to the ones typically found in Western Eurasia (ANI). There are no pure indigenes. South Indian tribal populations, who are presumed to be the closest to indigenous groups are at least ~25% ANI, if not more. To presume that the Dravidian languages are indigenous to South Asia one would have to assume that this exogenous element was absorbed by the cultural substrate, something I find implausible on cross-cultural grounds (more dominant South Asian social elites, even ones of pure Dravidian extraction, such as the Reddy group, have higher fractions of ANI). Additionally, Dravidian languages themselves are not particularly variegated, as one might expect if there was deep local structure, as is the case in inland Papua and pre-Columbian America.

    Of course the title of this post has to do with males, so with that, let’s look back to a paper which was first posted on the web last year (though finally “published” this March), The phylogenetic and geographic structure of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a. Here’s the important part:

    …Using the 8 R1a lineages, with an average length of 48 SNPs accumulated since the common ancestor, we estimate the splintering of R1a-M417 to have occurred rather recently, ~5800 years ago (95% CI: 4800–6800). The slowest mutation rate estimate would inflate these time estimates by one-third, and the fastest would deflate them by 17%.

    With reference to Figure 1, all fully sequenced R1a individuals share SNPs from M420 to M417. Below branch 23 in Figure 5, we see a split between Europeans, defined by Z282 (branch 22), and Asians, defined by Z93 and M746 (branch 19; Z95, which was used in the population survey, would also map to branch 19, but it falls just outside an inclusion boundary for the sequencing data4). Star-like branching near the root of the Asian subtree suggests rapid growth and dispersal. The four subhaplogroups of Z93 (branches 9-M582, 10-M560, 12-Z2125, and 17-M780, L657) constitute a multifurcation unresolved by 10 Mb of sequencing; it is likely that no further resolution of this part of the tree will be possible with current technology. Similarly, the shared European branch has just three SNPs.
     
    The authors emphasize that the TMRCA has a wide confidence interval. I don’t think so. There’s now a fair amount of work on sequencing R1b and R1a lineages which are very common across Eurasia, and one thing is xclear: they’re star-shaped phylogenies which are likely reflecting massive population expansions relatively recently (see A recent bottleneck of Y chromosome diversity coincides with a global change in culture). Additionally, they note that the “Asian” (which includes South, Central, Southwest Asia) and the European branches of R1a1a are relatively well separated, and, the greatest diversity of R1a1a can be found in Iran.

    I doubt that R1a1a was associated with one ethno-linguistic group at the end of the last Ice Age. It is present at relatively high frequencies in low caste and tribal populations in South India, so I am skeptical of an exclusive association with Indo-Europeans, though in Europe it may actually be that it arrived only with Indo-Europeans. But, the fact that R1a1a is so common all across Eurasia points to a genetic-cultural revolution. Just as Haplogroup O2a1 is almost certainly rooted in populations outside of South Asia before the Holocene, so is the case with R1a1a. They came with groups of men who brought a new dominant lifestyle. From the west came wheat and cattle. From the east, rice.

    The latest research suggests about half the ancestry of modern South Asians dates to the Pleistocene. That is, it predates 10,000 BC. The majority of the mtDNA lineages are from this ancestral element. But culturally this group likely had minimal influence. One question which comes to mind is whether the ASI ancestry is from many groups, or, from only a few which were assimilated into an expanding group of agriculturalists. If the former, then one expects that the ASI ancestral segments which exhibit a tendency toward regional structure. I suspect thought that this is not the case, that the genetic landscape of modern India is characterized by overlapping populations which are all hybrids of different regional groups which only recently expanded. The pattern of Munda groups in South Asia, surrounded by Dravidian and Indo-European speaking groups, points one to the possibility that these groups were pioneers of some sort, but eventually lost.

    * Language isolates like Kusunda and Nihali may date to the era before the Holocene, but without relatives we can’t really make a good guess. Possible relationships of Kusunda to Andaman or Papuan languages strike me as implausible due to the time depth of separation.


    http://www.unz.com/gnxp/agriculture-came-with-men-to-the-indian-subcontinent/?highlight=dravidians
  140. Documentary about the Hittites, who were one of the IE tribes that went on migration at this time:

    They were not very peaceful. Their brethren who went to India and Europe were probably similar.

    Read More
  141. @Numinous
    Sorry, the only reason I mentioned David Duke was because he made a short trip to India and immediately became convinced of the need to maintain racial boundaries in America so it wouldn't degenerate the way India did. He was just following in the footsteps of the 19th century theorists who looked at every society through the prism of contemporary race relations, where light-skinned people from colder climates dominated darker skinned people in warmer ones, and assumed that had always been the case.

    Every civilized society in the history of mankind has had hierarchies, classes, and castes. India is not so much of an aberration in that respect. Even in practicing the abhorrent practice of untouchability, India is not alone. There are the Buraku in Japan, and some group called the Cagots in France and Spain. Uniracial societies do build their own hierarchies when left alone for a while; the existence of such differences does not automatically imply a past invasion and imposition of segregation rules, though that is one of the possible explanations. India is just unique in that it sacralized a caste hierarchy and stuck with it come hell or high water. In much of the world, the Abrahamic faiths have blurred or obliterated previously existing caste or class hierarchies.

    All your questions about the Aryans vis a vis Dravidians are valid, and I don't have answers to them, just hypotheses. In fact, the balance of evidence (and Occam's razor) seems to support the traditional theory of Aryans migrating to the subcontinent, though there is no evidence of invasion or mass murder to be unearthed from the remains. The Dravidian south has traditionally been the most staunchly Hindu part of the subcontinent, and it never occurred to people there until the early 20th century (after the Aryan invasion theory was propounded) that they could have been the victims of Aryan domination and the caste system. As for the Brahui, some people think that they migrated from the south to the NW rather than the other way round.

    And even if we were to assume that invading Aryans created the caste system by subjugating Dravidians, that raises questions of its own. What to make of the fact that the early Vedas talk lovingly about the now extinct Saraswati river, which geologists say might have run through NW India (east of the Indus) but dried out by 1900 BC? That would have to push back the Aryan presence in India by at least a millenium. And what to make of the fact that hydronyms throughout northern India have Indo-Aryan roots? One wouldn't expect that if the land had been populated by Dravidian groups? And surely you would agree, given the phenotypes of modern Indians, that if a white-skinned people had invaded the subcontinent, they couldn't have been too many in number.

    Thanks for your gracious reply.

    I think it’s quite possible that Dravidian civilization goes back tens of thousands of years and perhaps extended or migrated out of India, not only to the “Brahui” region but also the regions where Sumer and Elam are placed. I would also speculate some contact between such a civilization and the Polynesian (Austronesian) expansion (sourced to Taiwan) that we know extended all across the Pacific — perhaps to the New World — and definitely as far back across the Indian Ocean to Malagasy. I am always interested in narratives or evidence of this sort of thing.

    If the Indo-Aryans arrived even earlier than suspected (as you suggest) then that tends to undercut some of the origination theories for the IE group. But, if Hinduism had Dravidian roots that would go a long way to explaining the Hindu/Zoroastrian split. In other words, I could see a conflict between a pastoral/cattle worshiping religion (say, proto-Zarathustra), one wing that was assimilating other elements (e.g., modern day Hinduism) and another wing that was attempting to maintain separateness and, if you will, ideological purity.

    As to the caste system, I realize that is a subject of some controversy, and I don’t claim to know. What I do think is that the Aryans migrated from the North (since basically it has always been agreed, except for Renfrew, that the IE homeland is somewhere in the general region of the Caspian) brought chariots and pastoralism with them.

    Someone somewhere else suggested that we should look to the domination of the New World for models of how the rest of the world changed. Looking at the history of that, over the past 500 years, one can see that European dominance has been extreme, but actually not all that violent in most locations. Relative size of immigrants versus natives, and efficiency of breeding were, and are, hugely important. We know that cultural contact caused devastating epidemics. We know that the cultural practices that brought the greater prosperity and larger families were the ones that won out, and that many Native American civilizations had flamed out before Columbus. We know that massacres were common in some locations, rare in others. And we know that intermarriage was common. So I think that’s been pretty much the history of the world. What works, what is beneficial, is carried over and maintained. What does not work tends to be deprecated. Deprecated, not wiped out.

    Read More
  142. @Numinous
    Sorry, the only reason I mentioned David Duke was because he made a short trip to India and immediately became convinced of the need to maintain racial boundaries in America so it wouldn't degenerate the way India did. He was just following in the footsteps of the 19th century theorists who looked at every society through the prism of contemporary race relations, where light-skinned people from colder climates dominated darker skinned people in warmer ones, and assumed that had always been the case.

    Every civilized society in the history of mankind has had hierarchies, classes, and castes. India is not so much of an aberration in that respect. Even in practicing the abhorrent practice of untouchability, India is not alone. There are the Buraku in Japan, and some group called the Cagots in France and Spain. Uniracial societies do build their own hierarchies when left alone for a while; the existence of such differences does not automatically imply a past invasion and imposition of segregation rules, though that is one of the possible explanations. India is just unique in that it sacralized a caste hierarchy and stuck with it come hell or high water. In much of the world, the Abrahamic faiths have blurred or obliterated previously existing caste or class hierarchies.

    All your questions about the Aryans vis a vis Dravidians are valid, and I don't have answers to them, just hypotheses. In fact, the balance of evidence (and Occam's razor) seems to support the traditional theory of Aryans migrating to the subcontinent, though there is no evidence of invasion or mass murder to be unearthed from the remains. The Dravidian south has traditionally been the most staunchly Hindu part of the subcontinent, and it never occurred to people there until the early 20th century (after the Aryan invasion theory was propounded) that they could have been the victims of Aryan domination and the caste system. As for the Brahui, some people think that they migrated from the south to the NW rather than the other way round.

    And even if we were to assume that invading Aryans created the caste system by subjugating Dravidians, that raises questions of its own. What to make of the fact that the early Vedas talk lovingly about the now extinct Saraswati river, which geologists say might have run through NW India (east of the Indus) but dried out by 1900 BC? That would have to push back the Aryan presence in India by at least a millenium. And what to make of the fact that hydronyms throughout northern India have Indo-Aryan roots? One wouldn't expect that if the land had been populated by Dravidian groups? And surely you would agree, given the phenotypes of modern Indians, that if a white-skinned people had invaded the subcontinent, they couldn't have been too many in number.

    Thanks for your gracious reply: I wrote a long response that was apparently eaten, but that’s OK, I am just a guest on the host’s blog. I have no objection to the argument that Dravidian culture is hugely old and has a lot of ramifications for Indian culture, or that it extended into the Fertile Crescent or elsewhere. Nor do I have a problem with Dravidian/Austronesian intersections, which I think are possible. However, I do think the IE’s came from the North of the sub-continent, and had an influence as well. As for the global issue, I think most human interaction, if not pacific, is not always warlike and lethal. We wouldn’t be around otherwise.

    Read More
  143. @Jim
    The Sioux entered the Dakotas in the late 18th century. They had formerly lived in Minnesota in association with the Assinboine. The languages of the Siouian linguistic family are spoken over an ark from the Western Dakotas/Eastern Montana&Wyoming down to the Biloxi on the Gulf Coast. The Yuchi linguistic family which is closely related to the Siouian was spoken in what are now the Carolinas.

    Yes, they were very mobile people. I bet the Yamnaya/Aryans were, too. People tend to think of tribes as having been settled back then, and only moving during catastrophes. But that was only true of civilized people, and Europeans weren’t civilized at the time. I think they lived pretty much as North American Indians, with only semi-permanent settlements, extensive pasture and hunting grounds and really long trade routes stretching over hundreds if not thousands of miles.

    Read More
  144. Perhaps like the breakdown of the cultural barriers between the Roman men and the Sabine women?

    As I understand it Cochran and Harpending say all the indigenous men and virtually all the women were killed or died out. The mtDNA isn’t the same.

    Read More
  145. @Different Anonymous
    When Dienekes was running STRUCTURE analyses for his Dodecad project, he found evidence of a consistent small amount (1-2%) of East Asian admixture in Ashkenazi samples. Perhaps that admixture entered due to the trading activities of the Radhanites, but a small amount of Khazar admixture also could have produced the same result if the Khazars were already heavily admixed with West Eurasians by the time they converted to Judaism.

    When Dienekes was running STRUCTURE analyses for his Dodecad project, he found evidence of a consistent small amount (1-2%) of East Asian admixture in Ashkenazi samples.

    Anyone else found it? Anyone recently?Things move fast in this field

    Perhaps that admixture entered due to the trading activities of the Radhanites, but a small amount of Khazar admixture also could have produced the same result if the Khazars were already heavily admixed with West Eurasians by the time they converted to Judaism.

    A lot of supposition there….

    Read More
  146. @Numinous
    Sorry, the only reason I mentioned David Duke was because he made a short trip to India and immediately became convinced of the need to maintain racial boundaries in America so it wouldn't degenerate the way India did. He was just following in the footsteps of the 19th century theorists who looked at every society through the prism of contemporary race relations, where light-skinned people from colder climates dominated darker skinned people in warmer ones, and assumed that had always been the case.

    Every civilized society in the history of mankind has had hierarchies, classes, and castes. India is not so much of an aberration in that respect. Even in practicing the abhorrent practice of untouchability, India is not alone. There are the Buraku in Japan, and some group called the Cagots in France and Spain. Uniracial societies do build their own hierarchies when left alone for a while; the existence of such differences does not automatically imply a past invasion and imposition of segregation rules, though that is one of the possible explanations. India is just unique in that it sacralized a caste hierarchy and stuck with it come hell or high water. In much of the world, the Abrahamic faiths have blurred or obliterated previously existing caste or class hierarchies.

    All your questions about the Aryans vis a vis Dravidians are valid, and I don't have answers to them, just hypotheses. In fact, the balance of evidence (and Occam's razor) seems to support the traditional theory of Aryans migrating to the subcontinent, though there is no evidence of invasion or mass murder to be unearthed from the remains. The Dravidian south has traditionally been the most staunchly Hindu part of the subcontinent, and it never occurred to people there until the early 20th century (after the Aryan invasion theory was propounded) that they could have been the victims of Aryan domination and the caste system. As for the Brahui, some people think that they migrated from the south to the NW rather than the other way round.

    And even if we were to assume that invading Aryans created the caste system by subjugating Dravidians, that raises questions of its own. What to make of the fact that the early Vedas talk lovingly about the now extinct Saraswati river, which geologists say might have run through NW India (east of the Indus) but dried out by 1900 BC? That would have to push back the Aryan presence in India by at least a millenium. And what to make of the fact that hydronyms throughout northern India have Indo-Aryan roots? One wouldn't expect that if the land had been populated by Dravidian groups? And surely you would agree, given the phenotypes of modern Indians, that if a white-skinned people had invaded the subcontinent, they couldn't have been too many in number.

    I am often asked by people online to give an “elevator pitch” as to the genetic history of the Indian subcontinent. At this point we’ve got ~90 percent of the story I think. Modern humans arrived in the Indian subcontinent ~50,000 years ago, and pushed onward to East Asia, but over the past ~10,000 years massive changes have occurred genetically due to the intrusion of populations form the northwest and northeast, with likely total cultural turnover. What do I mean by this? First, it’s highly probable that all of the extant language families of the Indian subcontinent are rooted in lineages which were present outside of the Indian subcontinent before the Holocene. In other words, during the Ice Age the ancestral linguistic entities which gave rise to Indo-European, Dravidian, and Austro-Asiatic, were present outside of confines of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Bhutan. The only exception here are the languages of the indigenous peoples of the Andaman Islanders.*

    Older historical works on South Asia often have a preface which suggests that the Austro-Asiatic Munda languages, and those of the Dravidians, were deeply indigenous to the region, to be marginalized in the north and west of the subcontinent by Indo-Aryan dialects which arrived relatively recently. This strikes me as likely wrong in terms of broad brush impressions. I now believe that Peter Bellwood was probably correct to argue in First Farmers that the arrival of Dravidian languages to the subcontinent was mediated through the arrival of agriculturalists, and perhaps may not have predated the Indo-Aryans by very much time at all in most of the subcontinent. I am even more confident that the Munda people are descended from a group with relatively recent origins on Southeast Asia, approximately contemporaneous with, though likely marginally preceding, the arrival of Indo-Aryans. What you see in South Asia today when it comes to linguistic-cultural agglomerations is the jostling of groups whose origins are all exogenous and date to the post-Neolithic period. Though the Pleistocene genetic heritage of South Asia persists to a great extent, as culturally coherent units I doubt there is much of the Pleistocene left in the region (with the exception again of the Andaman Islands).

    Let’s talk about the Munda people first. Most of South Asian social-demographic analysis focuses on a divide between two disparate elements. Culturally, Indo-Aryan vs. Dravidian. Religiously, Hindu vs. Muslim. Genetically, Ancestral North Indian (ANI) vs. Ancestral South Indian (ASI). These dyads are useful analytically, but they elide the more richly textured diversity of the subcontinent (in the case of Muslim vs. Hindu, neither groups, especially the “Hindu” category, are very homogeneous). According to a new paper, A late Neolithic expansion of Y chromosomal haplogroup O2a1-M95 from east to west, as much as ~15% of the Y chromosomal lineages of South Asia may be attributed to these populations. This group uses quite old-fashioned methods. That is, they’re about 10-15 years old, an eon in modern genetics! Basically the focus is on fast evolving microsatellite lineages, and the patterns of variation thereof. But, the power of the paper is the massive data set, which has strong representation of many populations. By looking at thousands of individuals from some regions they were able to observe patterns with a very high degree of confidence as to their representativeness of a given group.

    The cultural-historical debate is whether the Austro-Asiatic languages are indigenous to South Asia or not. The balance of the evidence now seems to be that they are not. What likely occurred is that the Austro-Asiatic languages waxed with the rise of an agricultural Diaspora, whose locus of origin was in what is today the southern regions of China proper. More precisely, the Austro-Asiatic languages may have spread with rice farming across Southeast Asia and eastern South Asia. Likely they were the first on the scene in Southeast Asia, as Bellwood reports in First Farmers and First Migrants that archaeology and anthropometrics can detect admixture between the farmers arriving from the north and native hunter-gatherers in places like the Red river valley in northern Vietnam ~4,000 years ago. The frequency of O2a1-M95 for regions and populations is subdivided very precisely in the above paper, and it is clear that in island Southeast Asia its proportions match those in an earlier paper on autosomal inferences of Austro-Asiatic ancestry. Populations in eastern Indonesia and in the Philippines have minimal numbers of males carrying lineages of O2a1-M95, while the densely populated island land of Java has frequencies of ~50%.

    The clincher for why O2a1-M95, and therefore Austro-Asiatic populations, are likely exogenous to India genetically would be the genetic diversity of the lineages. In short, there is tentative information from the variation on the microsatellites that the coalescence of the diverse lineages in Laos are the deepest by a few thousand years. But there was another paper from a few years back which makes my confidence in these results higher, Population Genetic Structure in Indian Austroasiatic speakers: The Role of Landscape Barriers and Sex-specific Admixture, which presented autosomal data which was very persuasive to me. In particular, the derived variation of EDAR which is present in very high frequencies among Northeast Asians and Amerindian populations, is present at about ~5% frequency among Munda groups. Among Dravidian populations in South India according to the 1000 Genomes Browser the frequency is less than 1%, while it is absent among populations in Northwest India, aside from those with clear East Asian admixture.

    Next we address the issue of the Dravidian languages. A new paper in Human Genetics, West Eurasian mtDNA lineages in India: an insight into the spread of the Dravidian language and the origins of the caste system, points to an association between particular mtDNA lineages in South India and southern Iran, in particular the region which was once inhabited by the Elamites, who have been posited to have an association with the Dravidian languages. I don’t put particular stock in the philological association between Dravidian langauges today and Elamite; I can’t judge it with any degree of certainty or competency. But the genetic data is certainly suggestive. Here’s the portion which is relevant:

    The autochthonous subhaplogroups—HV14a1 and U1a1a4 uniquely found in contemporary Dravidian speakers share their ancestry primarily with the Near East-Iran populations (Derenko et al. 2013). The coalescence times of HV14a1 and U1a1a4 were estimated to be ~10.5–17.9 kya. The shared ancestry of the Dravidian of South India and Iranian of Near East populations has been shown in the HV14 and U1a1 phylogeny (Fig. 1a) and their time estimates are consistent with the proto-Elamo-Dravidian language diffusion. hypothesis which emphasized that the proto-Dravidian language evolved over 15 kya, specifically in western Asia before the beginning of agricultural development ~11 kya. This language was introduced by Neolithic pastoralists, and was thought to be associated with the spread of these west Eurasian-specific mtDNAs to peninsular India (Pagel et al. 2013). The Y-chromosome haplogroup L1a has added a further dimension to this hypothesis. The subclades of haplogroup L such as L1a, L1b, and L1c were found predominantly in Iranian populations of western Asia (Grugni et al. 2012). In India, only the L1a lineage was observed and was largely restricted to the Dravidian-speaking populations of south India (Sahoo et al. 2006; Sengupta et al. 2006). The coalescence time (~9.1 kya) (Sengupta et al. 2006) and the virtual absence in Indo-Aryan speakers in north indicate that the L1a lineage arrived from western Asia during the Neolithic period and perhaps was associated with the spread of the Dravidian language to India

    There has long been a presumption to assume that the Dravidian languages are primal to South Asia. But that was before modern genomics revolutionized our understanding of Indian genetic history. More or less all South Asian populations are a fusion between a deeply indigenous strain which distant affinities to the peoples of eastern Eurasia (ASI), and a group very close to the ones typically found in Western Eurasia (ANI). There are no pure indigenes. South Indian tribal populations, who are presumed to be the closest to indigenous groups are at least ~25% ANI, if not more. To presume that the Dravidian languages are indigenous to South Asia one would have to assume that this exogenous element was absorbed by the cultural substrate, something I find implausible on cross-cultural grounds (more dominant South Asian social elites, even ones of pure Dravidian extraction, such as the Reddy group, have higher fractions of ANI). Additionally, Dravidian languages themselves are not particularly variegated, as one might expect if there was deep local structure, as is the case in inland Papua and pre-Columbian America.

    Of course the title of this post has to do with males, so with that, let’s look back to a paper which was first posted on the web last year (though finally “published” this March), The phylogenetic and geographic structure of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a. Here’s the important part:

    …Using the 8 R1a lineages, with an average length of 48 SNPs accumulated since the common ancestor, we estimate the splintering of R1a-M417 to have occurred rather recently, ~5800 years ago (95% CI: 4800–6800). The slowest mutation rate estimate would inflate these time estimates by one-third, and the fastest would deflate them by 17%.

    With reference to Figure 1, all fully sequenced R1a individuals share SNPs from M420 to M417. Below branch 23 in Figure 5, we see a split between Europeans, defined by Z282 (branch 22), and Asians, defined by Z93 and M746 (branch 19; Z95, which was used in the population survey, would also map to branch 19, but it falls just outside an inclusion boundary for the sequencing data4). Star-like branching near the root of the Asian subtree suggests rapid growth and dispersal. The four subhaplogroups of Z93 (branches 9-M582, 10-M560, 12-Z2125, and 17-M780, L657) constitute a multifurcation unresolved by 10 Mb of sequencing; it is likely that no further resolution of this part of the tree will be possible with current technology. Similarly, the shared European branch has just three SNPs.

    The authors emphasize that the TMRCA has a wide confidence interval. I don’t think so. There’s now a fair amount of work on sequencing R1b and R1a lineages which are very common across Eurasia, and one thing is xclear: they’re star-shaped phylogenies which are likely reflecting massive population expansions relatively recently (see A recent bottleneck of Y chromosome diversity coincides with a global change in culture). Additionally, they note that the “Asian” (which includes South, Central, Southwest Asia) and the European branches of R1a1a are relatively well separated, and, the greatest diversity of R1a1a can be found in Iran.

    I doubt that R1a1a was associated with one ethno-linguistic group at the end of the last Ice Age. It is present at relatively high frequencies in low caste and tribal populations in South India, so I am skeptical of an exclusive association with Indo-Europeans, though in Europe it may actually be that it arrived only with Indo-Europeans. But, the fact that R1a1a is so common all across Eurasia points to a genetic-cultural revolution. Just as Haplogroup O2a1 is almost certainly rooted in populations outside of South Asia before the Holocene, so is the case with R1a1a. They came with groups of men who brought a new dominant lifestyle. From the west came wheat and cattle. From the east, rice.

    The latest research suggests about half the ancestry of modern South Asians dates to the Pleistocene. That is, it predates 10,000 BC. The majority of the mtDNA lineages are from this ancestral element. But culturally this group likely had minimal influence. One question which comes to mind is whether the ASI ancestry is from many groups, or, from only a few which were assimilated into an expanding group of agriculturalists. If the former, then one expects that the ASI ancestral segments which exhibit a tendency toward regional structure. I suspect thought that this is not the case, that the genetic landscape of modern India is characterized by overlapping populations which are all hybrids of different regional groups which only recently expanded. The pattern of Munda groups in South Asia, surrounded by Dravidian and Indo-European speaking groups, points one to the possibility that these groups were pioneers of some sort, but eventually lost.

    * Language isolates like Kusunda and Nihali may date to the era before the Holocene, but without relatives we can’t really make a good guess. Possible relationships of Kusunda to Andaman or Papuan languages strike me as implausible due to the time depth of separation.

    http://www.unz.com/gnxp/agriculture-came-with-men-to-the-indian-subcontinent/?highlight=dravidians

    Read More
  147. @PA
    If the encounter was peaceful, then the original population's contribution to the modern European DNA will have come equally from males and females.

    If it was an invasion, then the original population's contribution to the modern European DNA will have mostly come from the females.

    i dont think so except in very recent western societies 90% of women bred with 15% of the men HBD chicks up on this. however my very vague genetic knowledge seems to think what can be done is tell which males bred with which females and vice versa so if i understand you theory to test it you could see if the tide went in both directions or only one way

    Read More
  148. Two other historic examples of an extensive turnover in language families are the expansion of the Niger-Congo speakers in Africa and the Spanish Conquest of the Americas. Through the past three millennia, the cattle herding, Niger-Congo speakers (Bantus) have ‘displaced’ peoples that anthropology once assigned to a “Capoid” race, and while race no longer exists, this remains a distinct ethnic grouping from Black African. The San (Bushmen) of Southern Africa, with their uniquely structured “click” language, are the only extant members of this once widespread ethnic group, whose membership was once nearly synonymous with our species, but the continuing expansion of Bantu speakers should soon finish displacing them and the Afrikaans language as well. In the Americas, the pre-Columbian languages only survive in isolated regions, such as the Andean highlands, and there among populations that have little European ancestry. We know that this language displacement resulted from the near extermination of the indigenous American populations by epidemic disease and genocidal conquest, but its pertinence to the historic distribution of Indo-European languages (from the desert borderlands of China to the Atlantic, from Scandinavia into Iran and India) is purely speculative.

    Read More
  149. Dr. Anthony was surprised by the possibility that Yamnaya pushed out over a range of about 4,000 miles. “I myself have a hard time wrapping my head around explanations for that,” he said.

    But I have an explanation.

    It is actually not quite surprising if you consider that they used chariots. A chariot can travel at about 10 miles per hour, even with horses walking at a leisurely pace. (Horses can gallop at 30 mph or even more, but for shorter periods). In a 6 hour day, it is 60 miles per day. You can therefore go 400 miles in one week and find entirely new land for your animals or for farming. If each generation did that, moved a week’s distance by chariot to the west looking for new land, just once in their lifetime, the Yamnaya would have reached Ireland in 10 generations, or only 200 years (assuming 20 years per generation). The fact that this happened over thousands of years shows that this was a slow westward diffusion of the Indo-Europeans in search of warmer climates and better grazing land over 100’s of generations.

    Quite easy if you use chariots, which was the greatest invention of the Indo-Europeans. The Indo-Europeans (whites) continue to show their love for chariots to this day, given the way they polish their cars, buy the latest sports cars, wax and shine them and watch the Indy-500. It is the same chariot love.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Given how chariots actually functioned, as transport mechanisms, maybe we should say that the most significant discovery of the IE's was the wagon as such. Of course, that presupposes the wheel, presupposes mastery of horses, and some other things. But I agree, the ability to transport goods meant that the IE's could diffuse rapidly.

    Also, re: DNA -- so far today I have read that James Watson was a soul brother, that Larry David was an American Indian, and that DNA research done fifteen years ago is hopelessly out of date. This suggests to me that anything I am reading about DNA is hardly settled science. It might be right: but a little caution would be prudent.
    , @E. Harding
    As I pointed out, the Pit Grave cultural expansion occurred hundreds of years before the invention of chariots.
    , @HA
    "It is actually not quite surprising if you consider that they used chariots...You can therefore go 400 miles in one week."

    Assuming they didn't run into rivers, swamps/marshes/bogs, forests, mountain ranges, snowdrifts, etc. The fact that chariots worked well back home on the steppes doesn't mean they would have been suitable for Europe.

    Had that been the case, the Romans would have made more use of them in their own incursions into Europe. Instead, they first had to expend great effort to build roads. I'm not sure how long that typically required, but I suspect that laying down 400 miles of highway took a good deal longer than a week.
  150. @PA
    If the encounter was peaceful, then the original population's contribution to the modern European DNA will have come equally from males and females.

    If it was an invasion, then the original population's contribution to the modern European DNA will have mostly come from the females.

    I cannot cite the study, but I am sure that this has shown up in the Bantu expansion. Where the ydna/mtdna ratios for Bantu/hunter gathers were different. The simplest answer was the “kill the men. Breed the women war cry” As we have seen recently in Darfur and Bosnia. And IIRC is common behavior in other primates.

    Read More
  151. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Steve, it probably wasn’t “peaceful” by any stretch, but I doubt the Yamnaya / Corded Ware where exactly like these super warriors who destroyed all before them or anything.

    Re: these lurid “Robert E Howard really was a bedroom dweller, wasn’t he?” ideas of steppe men “taking” agricultural European women.

    Yamnaya offshoots were aristocratic and advantaged in war enough that their male lineages had a bit more dominance, and clearly good enough to make an impact, but…

    The English are about 50% Yamnaya, 50% pre-Yamnaya.

    And English Y Chromosomes are about 65% Yamnaya / steppe (R1b/R1a).

    So the male contribution isn’t actually *that* much more expected.

    The Frogs are around 40% Yamnaya, and have 50% steppe Y Chromosomes. Etc.

    There are weird instances like the Irish and Basques, where the steppe Y chromosomes really are much higher than would be expected (particularly the Basques, who have relatively little overall genetic impact from Yamnaya).

    But that’s some weird founder effect going on and things like Niall of the Nine Hostages. Not so much to do with the Yamnaya.

    Read More
  152. @Tom_R

    Dr. Anthony was surprised by the possibility that Yamnaya pushed out over a range of about 4,000 miles. “I myself have a hard time wrapping my head around explanations for that,” he said.
     
    But I have an explanation.

    It is actually not quite surprising if you consider that they used chariots. A chariot can travel at about 10 miles per hour, even with horses walking at a leisurely pace. (Horses can gallop at 30 mph or even more, but for shorter periods). In a 6 hour day, it is 60 miles per day. You can therefore go 400 miles in one week and find entirely new land for your animals or for farming. If each generation did that, moved a week’s distance by chariot to the west looking for new land, just once in their lifetime, the Yamnaya would have reached Ireland in 10 generations, or only 200 years (assuming 20 years per generation). The fact that this happened over thousands of years shows that this was a slow westward diffusion of the Indo-Europeans in search of warmer climates and better grazing land over 100’s of generations.

    Quite easy if you use chariots, which was the greatest invention of the Indo-Europeans. The Indo-Europeans (whites) continue to show their love for chariots to this day, given the way they polish their cars, buy the latest sports cars, wax and shine them and watch the Indy-500. It is the same chariot love.

    Given how chariots actually functioned, as transport mechanisms, maybe we should say that the most significant discovery of the IE’s was the wagon as such. Of course, that presupposes the wheel, presupposes mastery of horses, and some other things. But I agree, the ability to transport goods meant that the IE’s could diffuse rapidly.

    Also, re: DNA — so far today I have read that James Watson was a soul brother, that Larry David was an American Indian, and that DNA research done fifteen years ago is hopelessly out of date. This suggests to me that anything I am reading about DNA is hardly settled science. It might be right: but a little caution would be prudent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Suffice to say that the cutting edge ancient DNA research being performed today is head and shoulders above the commercially available genetic ancestry tests of fifteen years ago. Few things in science are permanently set in stone.
  153. @Tom_R

    Dr. Anthony was surprised by the possibility that Yamnaya pushed out over a range of about 4,000 miles. “I myself have a hard time wrapping my head around explanations for that,” he said.
     
    But I have an explanation.

    It is actually not quite surprising if you consider that they used chariots. A chariot can travel at about 10 miles per hour, even with horses walking at a leisurely pace. (Horses can gallop at 30 mph or even more, but for shorter periods). In a 6 hour day, it is 60 miles per day. You can therefore go 400 miles in one week and find entirely new land for your animals or for farming. If each generation did that, moved a week’s distance by chariot to the west looking for new land, just once in their lifetime, the Yamnaya would have reached Ireland in 10 generations, or only 200 years (assuming 20 years per generation). The fact that this happened over thousands of years shows that this was a slow westward diffusion of the Indo-Europeans in search of warmer climates and better grazing land over 100’s of generations.

    Quite easy if you use chariots, which was the greatest invention of the Indo-Europeans. The Indo-Europeans (whites) continue to show their love for chariots to this day, given the way they polish their cars, buy the latest sports cars, wax and shine them and watch the Indy-500. It is the same chariot love.

    As I pointed out, the Pit Grave cultural expansion occurred hundreds of years before the invention of chariots.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tom_R

    As I pointed out, the Pit Grave cultural expansion occurred hundreds of years before the invention of chariots.
     
    Not so.

    The Indo-Europeans were the original inventors of the chariots and they were a part of Yamnaya (Pit Grave) culture. See:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamna_culture

    In fact, it seems that is why they made pit graves--for horse burial and chariot burials.
  154. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @SPMoore8
    Given how chariots actually functioned, as transport mechanisms, maybe we should say that the most significant discovery of the IE's was the wagon as such. Of course, that presupposes the wheel, presupposes mastery of horses, and some other things. But I agree, the ability to transport goods meant that the IE's could diffuse rapidly.

    Also, re: DNA -- so far today I have read that James Watson was a soul brother, that Larry David was an American Indian, and that DNA research done fifteen years ago is hopelessly out of date. This suggests to me that anything I am reading about DNA is hardly settled science. It might be right: but a little caution would be prudent.

    Suffice to say that the cutting edge ancient DNA research being performed today is head and shoulders above the commercially available genetic ancestry tests of fifteen years ago. Few things in science are permanently set in stone.

    Read More
  155. @Mike Sylwester

    The main factor for the extent of the Aryan migration (don’t forget they also colonized the Indian subcontintent and parts of Western China (Tocharian)) was probably the horse and chariot.
     
    I think that armies used chariots mostly to supply their best warriors, who were fighting on foot.

    The best warriors rarely were standing on the chariots while they were fighting.

    The chariots would bring weapons, armor, water and other supplies to the best warriors and would take away and redistribute the same kinds of items that were captured. Chariots were mostly a logistics asset.

    Also, chariots allowed the best warriors to save a lot of energy that otherwise would be expended on walking and running.

    The Iliad described the use of chariots in battle. Here is an excerpt from a webpage titled Chariots and Horses in the Homeric World.


    Most chariots in The Iliad are drawn by teams of either two or four horses. Each chariot carries two people: a warrior – usually one of the Greek or Trojan heroes – and a charioteer. Chariots are used to transport the heroes to, from, and on the battlefield. Once the hero spots an enemy, he normally dismounts to engage him on foot, his charioteer manoeuvring to a place of safety where he waits for his master to call on him. Rarely do the heroes fight directly from their chariots.
     
    http://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/pw/ancient-warfare/blog/chariots-and-horses-in-the-homeric-world/

    Also, a society that built chariots developed the mathematics, materials and crafts necessary to manufacture wheels. This important new industry employed a lot of people and stimulated technological innovation that improved the society as a whole.

    But what does Homer (whoever he was) know about the tactics of a previous age, particularly when he’s writing fiction? Best to look to Egyptian or Hittite use of chariots.

    It’s quite possible that horse-drawn wagons were the critical technological advantage of I-E conquerors, rather than horse-drawn chariots.

    Read More
  156. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @greysquirrell
    I don't know who the Kurds are descended from . Kurdish is Indo-Iranian but the Indo-Iranians imposed their language on lots of South Asian and SW Asian groups, like how the Arabs imposed their language on lots of diverse groups.
    R1a1a doesn't dominate amongst Kurds ; J2 clade makes up the largest portion. They are like other South West Asian groups.

    J2 is more common among the non-Arab Southwest Asian groups and in some of the more northerly Arab populations such as the Lebanese. J1 is more common than J2 among most Arab populations.

    Read More
  157. @Epaminondas
    Be sure to pass this article along to your fundamentalist nutjob family members and friends. I just love that look on their faces as they try to match up this information with their bible studies.

    You seem to derive pleasure from the prospect of inflicting psychic pain on your blood relatives. And I expect that delivering the blow would be an even “richer” experience for you.

    They must have deeply offended you. But when you advocate sadism to derive pleasure you testify to the moral deficiency of your soul. Maybe they deserve the justice you seek to mete out, but if your desire is to destroy their moorings and you succeed, just what will you have accomplished?

    Perhaps your result won’t be turning your relatives into what you see in the mirror. But even if it does you would be replicating a sadistic impulse strong enough to engender a desire to visit injury even upon your own kin.

    I recommend that you make peace with whatever emotional trauma you experienced, before it consumes you.

    Read More
  158. @E. Harding
    As I pointed out, the Pit Grave cultural expansion occurred hundreds of years before the invention of chariots.

    As I pointed out, the Pit Grave cultural expansion occurred hundreds of years before the invention of chariots.

    Not so.

    The Indo-Europeans were the original inventors of the chariots and they were a part of Yamnaya (Pit Grave) culture. See:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamna_culture

    In fact, it seems that is why they made pit graves–for horse burial and chariot burials.

    Read More
  159. http://images.mid-day.com/2012/dec/Sandeepa-Dhar.jpg

    http://www.trickspk.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Gowri-pandit-photos-21.jpg

    both are Kashmiri Pandit brahmins and bollywood stars and Indo-Aryan eye candy

    Kashmiri Pandits are about 75% ANI

    Read More
    • Replies: @dravid
    75% ??? Talk about coincidence. It keeps popping up. Vedic coincidence.

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121792/those-mythological-men-and-their-sacred-supersonic-flying-temples

    Have you heard abt the Vimana? Apparently this South Indian brahmin wrote a rather interesting fantasy novel that many are taking rather too seriously.

    A incredibly bright 120 IQ brahmin friend of mine tells me of Sacred Hindu Indoaryan Technology wherein the aircraft were powered by OD Engines using a mysterious ancient fuel that consisted of about 75% water and hydrodgen sulfide and methyl sulfides. A single brahmin in the right relaxed position can provide 100g of the fuel every day. The ANI %s must vary with the water content.

    This is why the brahmins haven't bothered changing Indian hygiene practises... you never know when these aircraft need to be powered. Just as the American highway system was built with aircraft takeoff in mind the open defecation per square km in India was encouraged with providing Vimana fuel in mind.
  160. We should look also at “THE PALEOLITHIC CONTINUITY PARADIGM FOR THE ORIGINS OF INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES”, theory proposed by Mario Alinei, former Professor at the University of Utrecht and President of Atlas Linguarum Europae at UNESCO.

    In his and his disciples views there is an uninterrupted continuity from Paleolithic for IE people and languages. He authored an exceptional book “Origini delle lingue d’Europa, vol. I – La teoria della continuità. Vol. II: Continuità dal Mesolitico all’età del Ferro nelle principali aree etnolinguistiche”. 2 voll., Bologna, Il Mulino. The immense value of it is illustrated by the acrimony and contempt with which it was received by the proponents of “traditional” theories of the origins of IE.

    The ongoing research in this domain can be followed at:
    “The Paleolithic Continuity Paradigm for the Origins of Indo-European Languages
    International PCP Workgroup Website” (@http://www.continuitas.org/index.html).

    The main points of the PCP on the origins of the Indo-Europeans, as well as on language origin and evolution are the following:

    1. Continuity as the basic working hypothesis on the origins of IE languages
    2. Antiquity and stability of language and languages, in general
    3. Antiquity and periodization of the lexicon of natural languages
    4. Archaeological frontiers coincide with linguistic frontiers

    In respect to the problem of IE “invasions” his conclusions are:
    “On the steppes of Eastern Europe, a conspicuous and well-known Neolithic-Chalcolithic frontier separates the farming cultures of Bug-Dnestr, Tripolye AI, Tripolye AII, Gorodsk-Usatovo, Corded Ware and Globular Amphora in Ukraine, from the pastoral, horse-raising and horse-riding cultures of Sursk-Dnepr, Dnepr-Donec, Seredny Stog/Chvalynsk, Yamna (kurgan!) and Catacombs, in the Pontic steppes: this is the frontier that moved Marija Gimbutas to envisage the epochal clash between the peaceful autochthonous non-IE farmers of the “Old Europe”, and the warlike intrusive IE who submerged them. In the light of the PCP and of the available linguistic evidence, instead, this frontier corresponds to an earlier linguistic phylum frontier between an already separated and flourishing eastern Slavic population of farmers to the West, and warlike Turkic pastoral nomadic groups to the East, which would be responsible, among other things, of the two innovations of horse raising and horse-riding.
    Linguistically, the new interpretation has the advantage of explaining (A) the antiquity and the quantity of Turkic loanwords precisely for horse terminology in both branches of Samoyed, in the Ugric languages, as well as in Slavic languages, and (B), more generally, the quantity of Turkic agro-pastoral terms in South-Eastern European languages, including Hungarian, which would have been brought into its present area precisely by the kurgan culture (Alinei 2003a).
    Interestingly, the uninterrupted continuity of Altaic steppe cultures, from Chalcolithic to the Middle Ages, can be symbolized precisely by the kurgan themselves: for on the one hand, the custom of raising kurgans on burial sites has always been one of the most characteristic features of Altaic steppe nomadic populations, from their first historical appearance to the late Middle Ages. On the other, the Russian word kurgan itself is not of Russian, or Slavic, or IE, origin, but a Turkic loanword, with a very wide diffusion area in Southern Europe, which closely corresponds to the spread of the kurgan culture (Alinei 2000a, 2003).”
    Notice that this phylum frontier between IE (Slavic) and Turkic in the course of history has been pushed to the East, leaving however Turkic minorities, as well as innumerable Turkic place names and other linguistic traces behind.”

    The proponents of the “heroic Aryan invasion” theory might be disappointed, but the PCP it is much more in keeping with all scientific data.
    PCP offers a better explanation for key moments of European History, notwithstanding the “consensus of scientists” for the “traditional” theories. E.g. the origin of Romance languages, of the Etruscans, of the Celtic migrations.

    Read More
  161. @rec1man
    http://images.mid-day.com/2012/dec/Sandeepa-Dhar.jpg

    http://www.trickspk.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Gowri-pandit-photos-21.jpg

    both are Kashmiri Pandit brahmins and bollywood stars and Indo-Aryan eye candy

    Kashmiri Pandits are about 75% ANI

    75% ??? Talk about coincidence. It keeps popping up. Vedic coincidence.

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121792/those-mythological-men-and-their-sacred-supersonic-flying-temples

    Have you heard abt the Vimana? Apparently this South Indian brahmin wrote a rather interesting fantasy novel that many are taking rather too seriously.

    A incredibly bright 120 IQ brahmin friend of mine tells me of Sacred Hindu Indoaryan Technology wherein the aircraft were powered by OD Engines using a mysterious ancient fuel that consisted of about 75% water and hydrodgen sulfide and methyl sulfides. A single brahmin in the right relaxed position can provide 100g of the fuel every day. The ANI %s must vary with the water content.

    This is why the brahmins haven’t bothered changing Indian hygiene practises… you never know when these aircraft need to be powered. Just as the American highway system was built with aircraft takeoff in mind the open defecation per square km in India was encouraged with providing Vimana fuel in mind.

    Read More
  162. @Tom_R

    Dr. Anthony was surprised by the possibility that Yamnaya pushed out over a range of about 4,000 miles. “I myself have a hard time wrapping my head around explanations for that,” he said.
     
    But I have an explanation.

    It is actually not quite surprising if you consider that they used chariots. A chariot can travel at about 10 miles per hour, even with horses walking at a leisurely pace. (Horses can gallop at 30 mph or even more, but for shorter periods). In a 6 hour day, it is 60 miles per day. You can therefore go 400 miles in one week and find entirely new land for your animals or for farming. If each generation did that, moved a week’s distance by chariot to the west looking for new land, just once in their lifetime, the Yamnaya would have reached Ireland in 10 generations, or only 200 years (assuming 20 years per generation). The fact that this happened over thousands of years shows that this was a slow westward diffusion of the Indo-Europeans in search of warmer climates and better grazing land over 100’s of generations.

    Quite easy if you use chariots, which was the greatest invention of the Indo-Europeans. The Indo-Europeans (whites) continue to show their love for chariots to this day, given the way they polish their cars, buy the latest sports cars, wax and shine them and watch the Indy-500. It is the same chariot love.

    “It is actually not quite surprising if you consider that they used chariots…You can therefore go 400 miles in one week.”

    Assuming they didn’t run into rivers, swamps/marshes/bogs, forests, mountain ranges, snowdrifts, etc. The fact that chariots worked well back home on the steppes doesn’t mean they would have been suitable for Europe.

    Had that been the case, the Romans would have made more use of them in their own incursions into Europe. Instead, they first had to expend great effort to build roads. I’m not sure how long that typically required, but I suspect that laying down 400 miles of highway took a good deal longer than a week.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tom_R
    SOME INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT THE INDO-EUROPEAN CHARIOTS.

    You make an interesting point that it would be hard to travel 400 miles in one week over mountains, etc. But with slow migrations over generations, this is possible. Even with 100 miles per generation, it would take 40 generations or 800 years.

    The Rig-veda is the oldest text in the world, dates to about 2000 BC and it is a book of hymns of the Indo-Europeans priests chanted in the steppe and talks about their migration south. It survives in India to this day and is an excellent written record of the lives of the Indo-Europeans and their migrations. The chariot in the Rig-veda are called a ratha. The chariot did go over mountains and ravines as evinced by this poem in the Rig Veda:

    May the most glorious Fathers aid us, and the two Goddesses, Mothers of the Gods, who strengthen Law.
    Even as a chariot from a difficult ravine, bountiful Vasus, rescue us from all distress.

    Full poem at: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv01106.htm

    Also see the article: “Chariot Racers of the Steppes”:

    http://discovermagazine.com/1995/apr/chariotracersoft500
  163. @HA
    "It is actually not quite surprising if you consider that they used chariots...You can therefore go 400 miles in one week."

    Assuming they didn't run into rivers, swamps/marshes/bogs, forests, mountain ranges, snowdrifts, etc. The fact that chariots worked well back home on the steppes doesn't mean they would have been suitable for Europe.

    Had that been the case, the Romans would have made more use of them in their own incursions into Europe. Instead, they first had to expend great effort to build roads. I'm not sure how long that typically required, but I suspect that laying down 400 miles of highway took a good deal longer than a week.

    SOME INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT THE INDO-EUROPEAN CHARIOTS.

    You make an interesting point that it would be hard to travel 400 miles in one week over mountains, etc. But with slow migrations over generations, this is possible. Even with 100 miles per generation, it would take 40 generations or 800 years.

    The Rig-veda is the oldest text in the world, dates to about 2000 BC and it is a book of hymns of the Indo-Europeans priests chanted in the steppe and talks about their migration south. It survives in India to this day and is an excellent written record of the lives of the Indo-Europeans and their migrations. The chariot in the Rig-veda are called a ratha. The chariot did go over mountains and ravines as evinced by this poem in the Rig Veda:

    May the most glorious Fathers aid us, and the two Goddesses, Mothers of the Gods, who strengthen Law.
    Even as a chariot from a difficult ravine, bountiful Vasus, rescue us from all distress.

    Full poem at: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv01106.htm

    Also see the article: “Chariot Racers of the Steppes”:

    http://discovermagazine.com/1995/apr/chariotracersoft500

    Read More
    • Replies: @HA
    Again, if traversing Europe by chariots were possible, why wouldn't the Romans, whose fondness of chariots was well-known, have used that approach? Soldiers everywhere love their toys, and if they had had a chance to use them, they would have done so. Chariots might have proved useful along the Pannonian plain, and a few other swathes of territory, but that leaves a lot of Europe uncovered. And if steppe raiders had found chariots to be useful, why didn't this innovation become a thing throughout Europe in the way that other equestrian skills caught on?

    "The chariot did go over mountains and ravines..."

    The prayer you cite pleads for help in a difficult predicament, with the chosen metaphor being a chariot in a ravine. If anything, that's an argument against taking chariots outside of level terrain.

  164. “The Yamnaya used horses to manage huge herds of sheep, and followed their livestock across the steppes with wagons full of food and water.”

    So the Aryans arrived in Europe on Folk-Wagons? Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

    My impression is that wagons preceded chariots by a centuries. Ancient horses were small, pony sized. Some archeologists maintain that Onagers were domesticated before horses and were the first animals to pull wagons. The Onagers were a form of ass rather than horse. Depictions of the first chariots I’ve seen look like an half zebra looking ass drawing a kind of low four wheeled cart. Ben Hur came a lot later. I’m not familiar with when horses were bred sufficiently to allow grown men to ride them long distance. I’d be surprised to learn that it wasn’t later than the earliest Indo-European invasions. Indian sources referring to the Aryans and Egyptian sources for the Boat People emphasize the use of wagons and traveling livestock.

    Sheepherding can be practiced on mountainous terrain and farming is carried out on more level terrain. Therefore there is no reason why the two ways of life cannot coexist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    It may come as a surprise, but according to Mario Alinei, the spoke-wheeled chariot was invented by the Celts, for warfare, hunting, prestige and display. It was possible only after the domestication of the horse and sufficient development of Bronze metallurgy (for the mass production of weaponry). Only in a society in which horse-riding, warfare, hunting, prestige and display could the new technology develop. Or, this society existed, called the Rhone Culture diffused in the Swiss Valais, in the French Jura, Bourgogne and Midi regions. This culture has revealed remains of large cult, ritual or processional chariots, with spoked bronze-sheathed wheels characterized by Stuart Piggott as an “exceptionally accomplished technology". In its turn the Rhone culture sprung from the Bell Beaker Culture of the IIId Millenium BC, characterized by an aggressive ideology in which the mentioned components (horse-riding...) formed its very essence. The very Bell Beaker which gave the name to the culture were used for drinking (beer or hydromel) certainly at the great drinking and boasting contests dear to warring peoples. The Bell Beaker carriers were Celts and they did not come from the East at a latter date, but derive from the Megalithic Culture of the Atlantic fringe (Celts also). But they shared many traits (including drinking!) with the (older) Battle Axe and Corded Ware peoples (Baltic, proto-Germanic).
    , @MisterCharlie
    Celts and ancient Greek (before Alexander) were into oxen-drawn wagons (or chariots) much more than horse-drawn. The Celtic Ox was a small and relatively agile and fast-moving creature. Celts were all about cows. So were ancient (before Alexander) Greeks. Remember the story told by Herodotus to the Persian or Median king (I forget exactly), about the two boys whose mother was going to be late to the Olympic Games one year, because the oxen had not come in from the field, so they (the boys) hitched themselves to their mom's chariot and ran fast enough pulling it with their mom, to be on time. When they arrived, the people all understood that the boys were great heroes ... and then the boys died (of heart-attacks, one gathers) ... being, according to Herodotus, among the most happy humans ever to have lived.

    Anyway, it's clear that in the days of Herodotus, it was still all about animals like the Celtic Ox and not at all about the Horse. Cavalry were a long-way off into the future, no?
  165. @Tom_R
    SOME INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT THE INDO-EUROPEAN CHARIOTS.

    You make an interesting point that it would be hard to travel 400 miles in one week over mountains, etc. But with slow migrations over generations, this is possible. Even with 100 miles per generation, it would take 40 generations or 800 years.

    The Rig-veda is the oldest text in the world, dates to about 2000 BC and it is a book of hymns of the Indo-Europeans priests chanted in the steppe and talks about their migration south. It survives in India to this day and is an excellent written record of the lives of the Indo-Europeans and their migrations. The chariot in the Rig-veda are called a ratha. The chariot did go over mountains and ravines as evinced by this poem in the Rig Veda:

    May the most glorious Fathers aid us, and the two Goddesses, Mothers of the Gods, who strengthen Law.
    Even as a chariot from a difficult ravine, bountiful Vasus, rescue us from all distress.

    Full poem at: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv01106.htm

    Also see the article: “Chariot Racers of the Steppes”:

    http://discovermagazine.com/1995/apr/chariotracersoft500

    Again, if traversing Europe by chariots were possible, why wouldn’t the Romans, whose fondness of chariots was well-known, have used that approach? Soldiers everywhere love their toys, and if they had had a chance to use them, they would have done so. Chariots might have proved useful along the Pannonian plain, and a few other swathes of territory, but that leaves a lot of Europe uncovered. And if steppe raiders had found chariots to be useful, why didn’t this innovation become a thing throughout Europe in the way that other equestrian skills caught on?

    “The chariot did go over mountains and ravines…”

    The prayer you cite pleads for help in a difficult predicament, with the chosen metaphor being a chariot in a ravine. If anything, that’s an argument against taking chariots outside of level terrain.

    Read More
  166. @Thomas O. Meehan
    "The Yamnaya used horses to manage huge herds of sheep, and followed their livestock across the steppes with wagons full of food and water."

    So the Aryans arrived in Europe on Folk-Wagons? Sorry, I couldn't resist.

    My impression is that wagons preceded chariots by a centuries. Ancient horses were small, pony sized. Some archeologists maintain that Onagers were domesticated before horses and were the first animals to pull wagons. The Onagers were a form of ass rather than horse. Depictions of the first chariots I've seen look like an half zebra looking ass drawing a kind of low four wheeled cart. Ben Hur came a lot later. I'm not familiar with when horses were bred sufficiently to allow grown men to ride them long distance. I'd be surprised to learn that it wasn't later than the earliest Indo-European invasions. Indian sources referring to the Aryans and Egyptian sources for the Boat People emphasize the use of wagons and traveling livestock.

    Sheepherding can be practiced on mountainous terrain and farming is carried out on more level terrain. Therefore there is no reason why the two ways of life cannot coexist.

    It may come as a surprise, but according to Mario Alinei, the spoke-wheeled chariot was invented by the Celts, for warfare, hunting, prestige and display. It was possible only after the domestication of the horse and sufficient development of Bronze metallurgy (for the mass production of weaponry). Only in a society in which horse-riding, warfare, hunting, prestige and display could the new technology develop. Or, this society existed, called the Rhone Culture diffused in the Swiss Valais, in the French Jura, Bourgogne and Midi regions. This culture has revealed remains of large cult, ritual or processional chariots, with spoked bronze-sheathed wheels characterized by Stuart Piggott as an “exceptionally accomplished technology”. In its turn the Rhone culture sprung from the Bell Beaker Culture of the IIId Millenium BC, characterized by an aggressive ideology in which the mentioned components (horse-riding…) formed its very essence. The very Bell Beaker which gave the name to the culture were used for drinking (beer or hydromel) certainly at the great drinking and boasting contests dear to warring peoples. The Bell Beaker carriers were Celts and they did not come from the East at a latter date, but derive from the Megalithic Culture of the Atlantic fringe (Celts also). But they shared many traits (including drinking!) with the (older) Battle Axe and Corded Ware peoples (Baltic, proto-Germanic).

    Read More
  167. @Svigor
    Mideast’s worst case: A ‘big war’ pitting Shia Muslims against Sunni

    U.S. and foreign experts say the U.S still has not developed a strategy for dealing with the Sunni extremists who now hold more territory Iraq and Syria than one year ago.
     
    Because "the U.S." is in charge of US foreign policy. Not, say, Barack Hussein Obama.

    President Barack Obama on Monday acknowledged that the U.S. strategy in Iraq was a work in progress. “We don’t have, yet, a complete strategy, because it requires commitments on the part of Iraqis as well,” Obama said at the close of the G-7 summit in Germany. “The details are not worked out.”

    The experts criticize America’s detachment from the four wars now under way in the region. And they say the Obama administration is banking on Iran to stabilize the region, a very dubious course.
     

    Because "America" is in charge of American foreign policy. Not, say, Barack Hussein Obama. "America" is detached, because "America" is responsible for American foreign policy. Not, say, Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama is very, very attached. Totally not detached. It's all America's fault, not Barack Hussein Obama's.

    “We really don’t have a strategy at all. We’re basically playing this day by day,” Robert Gates, a former secretary of defense, told MSNBC last month.
     
    "We" are to blame. "We" really have no strategy at all. And that's our fault. "We" should have come up with a strategy by now. It's definitely not Barack Hussein Obama's job to make sure "we" have a strategy, and aren't just "playing this day by day."

    The one conflict where the U.S. has poured money, weapons and military advisers is Iraq, but the outlook after the Sunni city of Ramadi fell to the Sunni extremists is for a long, drawn-out conflict.
     
    The U.S., as mentioned above, is really screwing the pooch. They should take their cues from Barack Hussein Obama; he never does dumb shit like pour money, weapons, and military advisors into Iraq, with nothing to show for it.

    Why can't "we," the "U.S.," "America," why can't we be more like Barack Hussein Obama?


    What worries scholars and expert observers the most is the seeming U.S. detachment from the region’s wars – in Syria and Iraq, from Yemen, where Saudi forces are bombing pro-Iranian insurgents, and from Libya, where Egypt has mounted airstrikes against Islamic State -linked insurgents.
     
    There's that pesky "U.S. detachment" again. You know, I'm getting pretty tired of their attitude. Hey, I know; maybe we should put Barack Hussein Obama in charge of U.S. foreign policy. If the U.S. doesn't want to lift a finger to help in the region, then let's give Barack Hussein Obama the job. He'll get things done. He isn't "detached." He's very not-detached.

    “I don’t want to call the leaders today sleepwalkers, but maybe they have entered into a situation that nobody intended or wanted,” he said.
     
    Those damned "leaders." If Jagland won't call them "sleepwalkers," then I will. Shiftless, lazy, stupid, worthless "leaders." If only Barack Hussein Obama were in charge. If Barack Hussein Obama were the Leader of the Free World, things would be different. He wouldn't sleepwalk. He'd get results.

    On a serious note, I say to hell with the lot of them. The journalists who are too cowardly to call Barack Hussein Obama a spade, and the cowards they quote, who dance around the truth and refuse to put the blame where it belongs: on Barack Hussein Obama. They can't even say his name and admit he's who they're talking about, but we're supposed to...what? Fight a war on their behalf?

    Misplaced comment by Svigor. This thread is about immigration into Europe thousands of years ago.

    Read More
  168. @greysquirrell
    In India the natives were agriculturalists while the Aryans were semi-nomadic pastoralists. They dominated linguistically because they were militarily dominant.

    The earliest recollections of the Aryans mention a warlike society that was constantly fighting amongst themselves and against others and where cattle raiding was the norm. So I find it very hard to believe that the Indo-European linguistic domination of Western Europe was peaceful.

    The Minoans were conquered by the I.E. speaking Mycenaens who in turn were conquered by the I.E. speaking Greeks. The I.E. speaking Hittites conquered the Hattians. The Aryans conquered the Indus Valley and the pre-Aryan peoples of Northern India. Only small pockets of Dravidian and Munda exist in Northern India and Pakistan. Dravidians are dominant in Southern India because Aryans never managed to conquer it. The Indo-Iranians conquered Iran and gradually extinguished Elamite, a non I.E. language. In the Iberian peninsula I.E. encroached on Basque. In northern Mesopotamia the Mitanni empire was headed by an Aryan elite but they never managed to replace Hurrian, the language of the masses.

    So there are many examples of I.E. speaking tribes dominating and imposing their language on non I.E. speaking people. In a similar but more limited fashion Semitic speaking groups imposed their language on non Semitic speaking regions. Turko-Mongols imposed Turkic languages on various people from Anatolia to central Asia.

    “Dravidians are dominant in Southern India because Aryans never managed to conquer it.” – Zebu

    Ever since Carleton Coon’s work The Origin of Races, we have known that Dravidians were often Rh negative, so with survival advantage in context of malaria. It was on that basis – and because Rh negative mating with Rh positive resulted in disastrous events, (prior to modern medical intervention), that Coon proposed that the Rh negative population was one of three possible subspeciation developments that he observed world-wide. Coon considered that subspeciation was the underlying reality of ‘race’, if any. He was tarred for merely mentioning the word ‘race’ – and his book went out of print never to return – although his thinking was anything but racist. His work remains valid and important, although he worked before the discovery of DNA so was limited.

    Bottom line: Dravidians are dominant in Southern India because of their carrying Rh negative, and, Aryans never conquered Southern India because they never wanted to conquer it – never wanted to live there.

    Could it be that the supposedly genetics-based warlike nature of “the conquerors” has less to do with anything than much less dramatic facts such as the mosquito and malaria? Medical anthropology concerns, among other things, the influence of diseases on the cultural and demographic evolution of humanity in particular places and specific time-periods.

    I consider that there is too much emphasis in this thread on ‘war-like’ versus the conquered (conquerors presumed to kill the males and rape the females, etc.) than is merited by actual evidence of pre-history. Of course, warfare of some kind or another is widespread, although (unlike conflict) hardly universal, but it remains true that ‘scholars’ project their own prejudices into their ‘reading’ of pre-history, as well as of ancient history.

    Read More
  169. @Thomas O. Meehan
    "The Yamnaya used horses to manage huge herds of sheep, and followed their livestock across the steppes with wagons full of food and water."

    So the Aryans arrived in Europe on Folk-Wagons? Sorry, I couldn't resist.

    My impression is that wagons preceded chariots by a centuries. Ancient horses were small, pony sized. Some archeologists maintain that Onagers were domesticated before horses and were the first animals to pull wagons. The Onagers were a form of ass rather than horse. Depictions of the first chariots I've seen look like an half zebra looking ass drawing a kind of low four wheeled cart. Ben Hur came a lot later. I'm not familiar with when horses were bred sufficiently to allow grown men to ride them long distance. I'd be surprised to learn that it wasn't later than the earliest Indo-European invasions. Indian sources referring to the Aryans and Egyptian sources for the Boat People emphasize the use of wagons and traveling livestock.

    Sheepherding can be practiced on mountainous terrain and farming is carried out on more level terrain. Therefore there is no reason why the two ways of life cannot coexist.

    Celts and ancient Greek (before Alexander) were into oxen-drawn wagons (or chariots) much more than horse-drawn. The Celtic Ox was a small and relatively agile and fast-moving creature. Celts were all about cows. So were ancient (before Alexander) Greeks. Remember the story told by Herodotus to the Persian or Median king (I forget exactly), about the two boys whose mother was going to be late to the Olympic Games one year, because the oxen had not come in from the field, so they (the boys) hitched themselves to their mom’s chariot and ran fast enough pulling it with their mom, to be on time. When they arrived, the people all understood that the boys were great heroes … and then the boys died (of heart-attacks, one gathers) … being, according to Herodotus, among the most happy humans ever to have lived.

    Anyway, it’s clear that in the days of Herodotus, it was still all about animals like the Celtic Ox and not at all about the Horse. Cavalry were a long-way off into the future, no?

    Read More
  170. @Steve Sailer
    Yeltsin had slightly Asian looking eyes.

    The top football player at my high school was a huge Russian guy with a Mongolian look. He figured he was descended from Genghis Khan and opposing players weren't inclined to disagree.

    Putin anyone?

    Read More
  171. It’s easy to see how peaceful and gentle the Indo-Europeans were if you look at the great ancient literature we have from the various IE groups. The Illiad, for example, is all about peaceful Greek traders trying to negotiate a good bargain at the market in Troy. In the Bhagavad Gita, recall how Arjuna’s doubts about the moral rightness of slaying his own kin are affirmed and encouraged by Rama. In the Táin Bó Cúailnge, Queen Medb goes to a cattle fair and trades with famed Cuchulainn, the hero who, in his youth, deliberately chose a long and peaceful life with death in his bed over a short and violent life with death in battle. Almost all the characters in the Völsung saga die peacefully.

    I recall once having gone through the Annals of the Four Masters looking for references to a particular surname. I found over 50, almost all of which involved some kind of violent death. My favorite was the one that mentioned a particular chieftain dying peacefully in his bed- the chronicler stopped to explain why the chieftain had such a strange death, because apparently this had never happened before in the history of the clan!

    Read More

Comments are closed.

PastClassics
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution