Meet The Proto-Indo-Europeans

I do not Believe N1 as an IE, probably a sarmatian DNA
I don't think that PIE'ans had hg. N1-something in them.

N1-something is a native North European haplogroup and it's part of a North(east) European DNA component. According to me the natives of Kurgan had some of N1 in them too, because Northern Europeans (Baltic & Slavic folks) that live not far from the Kurgan area have lots of this DNA.
 
J2 is nearly absent in northern Europe and western Europe. The distribution of J2 in much of Europe also mirrors the expansion of the Roman Empire, from which I conclude that J2 was probably restricted to the Mediterranean (Italy and southern Balkans) before the classical period. Which excludes it from being associated with the spread of Indo-European languages.



Well, if you think about it, there should be no I2*. Bear in mind that all individual subclades of Haplogroup I (or, I should say, Haplogroup I1, and all subclades of Haplogroup I2) are essentially Neolithic in age. That is, they represent individual male lineages that survived the Neolithic. For instance, Haplogroup I2-M26 is thought to be ca. 8000 years old.

I* (ancestor of I1 and I2) is far older than PIE in any case - it probably appeared around or slightly before the last glacial max.



That's also impossible, due to the same reason (the age/timeframe).

In my opinion, R1a-M417 is associated with the Kurgan culture. Asian R1a is mostly R1a-Z93, which is a subclade of R1a-M417. In contrast, European R1a is dominated by the other main subclade of R1a, R1a-Z283. Overall, I find this quite consistent with the Kurgan scenario.

Considering J2, I do not know the % of variety in Caucas, but is also strong there,
By what I know it is also a caucasian the primary land of IE
in Mediterrenean it does not reflect the Roman empire, but the expand of many,
considering even maybe the times that minor Asian moved west,
It can be Greek from Greek colonisation, and you know that Greeks are considered both balkanic and minor Asians,
considering that it can be Greek-minor Asian, pre-Greek and going-going back more it may be the Caucasian we seek,
remember that J2 is also in areas of all other IE except Baltic ones, which Herodotus names them Sauromates, non IE?
just think that in India J2b and J2a are primary even in 'castes' social classes,
Baltic maybe is the last frontier of IE expansion and not the primary.
think that there is a certain J2b that is spread from Italy to India,
 
Baltic maybe is the last frontier of IE expansion and not the primary.
Exactly my thoughts! These 'Nordics' (with high amount of hg. N1-something) got Indo-Europeanised mostly by language!

BTW, according to me the last frontier of IE expansion was India! 'Dravidians' (with high amount of hg. 'H') got also Indo-Europeanised mostly by (proto-Iranic) language.
 
Exactly my thoughts! These 'Nordics' (with high amount of hg. N1-something) got Indo-Europeanised mostly by language!

BTW, according to me the last frontier of IE expansion was India! 'Dravidians' (with high amount of hg. 'H') got also Indo-Europeanised mostly by (proto-Iranic) language.

i do not know of any nordics with haplotype N1* .

correct me if I am wrong , but nordic refers mainly to danish and norwegian people with some swedish "tribes" as well.
If Goths are swedes then they are not nordic
 
i do not know of any nordics with haplotype N1* .

correct me if I am wrong , but nordic refers mainly to danish and norwegian people with some swedish "tribes" as well.
If Goths are swedes then they are not nordic
Well Finland is a Nordic country and Finnish folks are Nordics that means natives of Northern Europe. According to me folks in the Baltic states and the (Northern) Slavic tribes were actually Finno-Ugric speakers like their ethnic relatives in Finland. Estonians speak still an Uralic language and not an Indo-European one. Finnic and Baltic folks are almost the same.

There's for about 10% of hg. N1 in Sweden according to this site. 38% of N1 in Latvia and 42% of N1 in Lithuania. I do think it's also very high in northern parts of Russia. N1 is part of North-European DNA component. Hg. N1-something is Nordic.

Northern Slavs and Baltic folks (Latvia, Lithuania but without Finland and Estonia of course ) got Indo-Europeanized from the South and Finland not because of way to cold climate there, too peripheral and thinly populated area.

Btw, it's impossible that Proto-Indo-Europeans are from North because Nordic countries have always been thinly populated place. With other words Nordic countries always had not enough human resources too influence other regions!

Population of all Nordic countries is only for about 25 million. My question is how much of them lived 5000 years ago? Enough to Indo-Europeanise Mesopotamia, Iran and India? I don't think so!
 
Well Finland is a Nordic country and Finnish folks are Nordics that means natives of Northern Europe. According to me folks in the Baltic states and the (Northern) Slavic tribes were actually Finno-Ugric speakers like their ethnic relatives in Finland. Estonians speak still an Uralic language and not an Indo-European one. Finnic and Baltic folks are almost the same.

There's for about 10% of hg. N1 in Sweden according to this site. 38% of N1 in Latvia and 42% of N1 in Lithuania. I do think it's also very high in northern parts of Russia. N1 is part of North-European DNA component. Hg. N1-something is Nordic.

Northern Slavs and Baltic folks (Latvia, Lithuania but without Finland and Estonia of course ) got Indo-Europeanized from the South and Finland not because of way to cold climate there, too peripheral and thinly populated area.

Btw, it's impossible that Proto-Indo-Europeans are from North because Nordic countries have always been thinly populated place. With other words Nordic countries always had not enough human resources too influence other regions!

Population of all Nordic countries is only for about 25 million. My question is how much of them lived 5000 years ago? Enough to Indo-Europeanise Mesopotamia, Iran and India? I don't think so!

while modern terminology say nordic incorporates Finland, the term norse did not
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norsemen
norsemen wher people from scandinavia and scandinavia does nort include Finland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavia

The only reason the swedes have some N1 is because they ruled Finland for about 400 years in the renaissance times


What is northern Slavs ......Russians ?

In my knowledge and what I have read, the Finno-ugric comprised of Finnic ( original people from around eastern finland ) and Ugric, people coming from Mongolian/siberian area. The "mongols" also brought Hunnic into europe , which is why Hungary is Ugric
The only "pure" slavs are the Rus ( russians ) the other like sythians, sarmatians and others become slavitized.

The baltic people are neither germanic, nor slavic, nor Finnic but purely Baltic, split either into western or eastern baltic tribes. The Lats, Livs, kurs, prusi, sambians, galidians, venedae etc etc are baltic people.
The Ests where finnic people.
 
I'd say it's mostly Indo-European. In Western Europe, you'll find a high percentage of Y-DNA haplogroup R1b, which is associated with Indo-Europeans. In Eastern Europe, you'll find a high percentage of the Y-DNA haplogroup R1a, which is also associated with Indo-Europeans.
 
The Anatolian hypothesis simply does not work. Common words for horse, wheel/wagon, and metals have been reconstructed for Proto-Indo-Europeans, and the first farmers that entered Europe (which are supposed to have spoken PIE according to the Anatolian hypothesis) had none of that.

For which metals exactly are there common words in IE languages? Because the first farmers casted copper and Gold
 
You're messing up facts. The oldest evidence for wheeled vehicles comes from the Bronocice pot, Poland, from circa 3500 BC.

You're wrong. The oldest evidence for wheeled vehicles comes from the Northern Kurdistan.

This toy car is 2000 years older than Bronocice pottery and is at least for about 7500 years old!

dunyanin-en-eski-oyuncagi-ile-tapu-senedi-mar-3219989_300.jpg


car-toy-2.jpg



http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2012/02/oldest-toy-car-is-from-kurdistan-c-5500.html

http://www.datelinezero.com/2012/02/14/claim-7500-year-old-stone-toy-car-found-in-eastern-turkey/
 
Also do never forget that the first Indo-European and ARYAN (Iranic) speaking EMPIRE was found in heavy hg. J2a rich area (Kurdistan) by the great, powerful, mighty and legendary Medes (proto-Kurds).

I as a Kurds am very proud of what my ancestors did!
 
For which metals exactly are there common words in IE languages? Because the first farmers casted copper and Gold

There is no easy, straight-up answer here. But that should not be taken as evidence against the existence of common words for metals in PIE, but it can be summarized in the following way: is a word attested in most or all branches of IE (or lacking that, languages in the opposite spectrum of IE), and if it is, can it's original meaning be reconstructed?

In any case, the consensus is that the Proto-Indo-Europeans certainly knew silver (more precisely "that which is glittery"), gold (more precisely "that which is shiny") and "metal" (which may have been 'copper', 'bronze', or 'both').

The last one deserves the most explanation, because the word *ajos (or *Hejos) is found only in Germanic (English "ore", German "Erz", Gothic "aiz"), Italic (Latin "aes") and Indo-Iranic (Avestan "ayah", Sanskrit "ayas" - both which may mean "iron" or "metal").
 
Also do never forget that the first Indo-European and ARYAN (Iranic) speaking EMPIRE was found in heavy hg. J2a rich area (Kurdistan) by the great, powerful, mighty and legendary Medes (proto-Kurds).

I as a Kurds am very proud of what my ancestors did!

There's no room here for your strange ethnic nationalism. You're getting an infraction now, and consider that you're running out of warnings.
 
There is no easy, straight-up answer here. But that should not be taken as evidence against the existence of common words for metals in PIE, but it can be summarized in the following way: is a word attested in most or all branches of IE (or lacking that, languages in the opposite spectrum of IE), and if it is, can it's original meaning be reconstructed?

In any case, the consensus is that the Proto-Indo-Europeans certainly knew silver (more precisely "that which is glittery"), gold (more precisely "that which is shiny") and "metal" (which may have been 'copper', 'bronze', or 'both').

The last one deserves the most explanation, because the word *ajos (or *Hejos) is found only in Germanic (English "ore", German "Erz", Gothic "aiz"), Italic (Latin "aes") and Indo-Iranic (Avestan "ayah", Sanskrit "ayas" - both which may mean "iron" or "metal").

I don't see why common words in IE languages for golds, silver and metal should discount the Anatolian hypothesis (which I don't advocate) since neolithic europe cultures had archaic metallurgy for gold, copper and silver. What if the proto IE had borrowed those words from Neolithic cultures of the Balkans since it is known that Cucuteni Trypolje had extensions in the Steppes.
 
There's no room here for your strange ethnic nationalism. You're getting an infraction now, and consider that you're running out of warnings.
Strange!?!

Well are we discussing here the Indo-Europeans? It's a great fact and all Indo-European speakers should know that the Medes were the first that put Indo-Europeans on the map. Later came the Persians and the Roman Empire (also all very hg. J2a heavy folks) , but the Medes were the first and every Indo-European speaker from Sweden to India should know that. That's a fact, isn't it? The Medes put Indo-Europeans on the map.
 
What about the Mycenians, the Hittite etc?

Very good point and point taken, but was the Hittites homeland a small kingdom or a real empire?

According to me there's a big difference between a small kingdom and an empire. Can we call Hittites kingdom an empire by modern standards?

Then again we can also recall the Mittani (Aryan) superstate which was also located in Kurdistan. Or superstates of Indo-European Kassites, Gutians etc.

When the Medes were an empire they were the only real SUPERPOWER in the world, forget Egypt, forget Babylon etc.. It was actually the first time when Indo-Europeans were the only superpower in the world, that's why according to me the Median Empire was the first Indo-European empire by the modern standards.

The Medes modernised the meaning of an empire and the meaning of civil society, values within such an empire.
 
I don't see why common words in IE languages for golds, silver and metal should discount the Anatolian hypothesis (which I don't advocate) since neolithic europe cultures had archaic metallurgy for gold, copper and silver. What if the proto IE had borrowed those words from Neolithic cultures of the Balkans since it is known that Cucuteni Trypolje had extensions in the Steppes.

First, it's really the combination of common words for metals, horse and wheel of the PIE "package" that narrows down the scenario. Second, you have to consider what the Anatolian Hypothesis actually states: that the first farmers of Europe spread agriculture to Europe would have been speakers of PIE. In that scenario, Neolithic cultures like Linear Pottery (LBK) and Printed Cardium Pottery are supposed to have already been Indo-European. And well, LBK certainly had no horses, no wheel, and no metal-working.

In regard for borrowings, that's certainly viable (I mean, there's borrowings in absolutely every language), the critical question is: how can you borrow a word into most or all branches of a language family after it is already diversified, and it still conforms to the sound laws of the respective daughter language?
 
In regard for borrowings, that's certainly viable (I mean, there's borrowings in absolutely every language), the critical question is: how can you borrow a word into most or all branches of a language family after it is already diversified, and it still conforms to the sound laws of the respective daughter language?

The word for "Wine" was adopted in a lots of IE languages andnit was borrowed from semitic. My point is that common words for metallurgy (not for wheel) like Gold, Copper etc could have been spread by Danbian neolithic culture
 
Very good point and point taken, but was the Hittites homeland a small kingdom or a real empire?

According to me there's a big difference between a small kingdom and an empire. Can we call Hittites kingdom an empire by modern standards?

Then again we can also recall the Mittani (Aryan) superstate which was also located in Kurdistan. Or superstates of Indo-European Kassites, Gutians etc.

When the Medes were an empire they were the only real SUPERPOWER in the world, forget Egypt, forget Babylon etc.. It was actually the first time when Indo-Europeans were the only superpower in the world, that's why according to me the Median Empire was the first Indo-European empire by the modern standards.

The Medes modernised the meaning of an empire and the meaning of civil society, values within such an empire.

Who had the biggest impact on history? The Hittite or the Medes?
 
The word for "Wine" was adopted in a lots of IE languages andnit was borrowed from semitic. My point is that common words for metallurgy (not for wheel) like Gold, Copper etc could have been spread by Danbian neolithic culture

Yes, "wine" is an example of what in linguistics is called a "wanderwort" (or "wandering word").

Admittedly, if we play the devil's advocate, one surely can imagine PIE as a Neolithic language: if we say that a common word for "horse" existed, it doesn't automatically mean that horses were domesticated. If we say common words for "wheel" or "wheeled vehicle" existed, it doesn't automatically mean that they were drawn by horses (oxen can do that as well). And if we say that they knew copper, that doesn't automatically mean they knew metallurgy.

It's possible to do that, but is it really plausible? We then push the date for PIE back potentially a couple of thousand years, and this has huge consequences for the ethnolinguistic nature of dozens of archaeological cultures.

Also, with this being Eupedia, I must ask the obligatory question: what are the consequences of this on the genetics side? In that scenario we can firmly rule out both R1a and R1b as the original Haplogroups of the Indo-Europeans. Perhaps Haplogroup G2? We know that it was widespread in the Neolithic in Europe. In the case we let things slide there, we'd have to argue that the people of Treilles and Derenburg along with Ötzi were Indo-Europeans. You see where this is going...
 

This thread has been viewed 53323 times.

Back
Top