Aryan theory is a lie or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
X

XipeTotek

Regular Member
Messages
115
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Ethnic group
Turkish,Albanian
in the hablogroup tree. O (Chinese,Korean,Japanese) come from K(iran) and later P hablogroup from central asia create R(All europeans, except for vikings) and Q(native americans and turks)
and hablogroup tree show us europeans and native americans come from same ancestors. (we can say native americans more close than vikings to europeans.) but their languages is different. so this aryan theory what the hell.
and i see nordics cant be related to aryans because they come from middle east or mesopotamia and they genetic I hablogroup close to semitic and anatolian peoples. I and J
its so confused for me
who is real aryans IJ hablogroup(anatolians,greeks,arabs,nordics,vikings,balkans) ?
or
PQR hablogroups
(indians,slavs,english,germans,native americans, turks)?
or this is a only genetic theory with a R hablogroups?
but if this a reality vikings cant be aryans like a native americans. so why hitler think about nordics real aryans? they come from semitics
 
View attachment 9905

K2 is believed to have been in Southeast Asia. The 1930s propaganda was a lie.

Rs ancestors were Southeast Asians.

One of the members, IIRC IronSide, has posted the word Aryan is a proto-Semitic word.
 
Phylogenetic tree of Y-DNA haplogroups as reference.
10Vac6l_d.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Y-chromosome_DNA_haplogroup
 
Messier 67 said:
View attachment 9905

K2 is believed to have been in Southeast Asia.

Rs ancestors were Southeast Asians.

One of the members, IIRC IronSide, has posted the word Aryan is a proto-Semitic word.
Click to expand...
K2 is also the old name for T.
Now I’m confuse.
 
Messier 67 said:
View attachment 9905
K2 is believed to have been in Southeast Asia.
Rs ancestors were Southeast Asians.
One of the members, IIRC IronSide, has posted the word Aryan is a proto-Semitic word.
Click to expand...
yes but firstly created in the iran and they are ancestors of all euroasian peoples. (only not vikings) K < L M N O P P< R Q < R1a(east europe) R1b(west europ) R2(indians) and Q (native americans)
Only mongoloid C(mongols) and D(tibet)not connected with iran and aryans.
also vikings come from IJ hablogroup
J = semitics, anatolians, mediterrenaid
I = nordics, vikings, balkans
IJ cant be connected with aryans or indo europeans. because they are early group than PQR and indo europeans.
who can explain to me I J hablogrop is aryan or not? if they are/ they must be real aryans and semitic peoples too. because they are earlier than indo europeans. but you can say aryans only r1a and r1b and r2 i can say anatolians, greeks hitites, rome empire and persians are not aryan because they come from J hablogroups
 
Stop with the provocative language. Nobody is lying.

Some people are completely confused, however, including most of the posters on this thread and the OP himself.
 
Angela said:
Stop with the provocative language. Nobody is lying.

Some people are completely confused, however, including most of the posters on this thread and the OP himself.
Click to expand...

i dont think i use provacatice language. i only learn to try aryan theory is true or false
 
XipeTotek said:
yes but firstly created in the iran and they are ancestors of all euroasian peoples. (only not vikings) K < L M N O P P< R Q < R1a(east europe) R1b(west europ) R2(indians) and Q (native americans)
Only mongoloid C(mongols) and D(tibet)not connected with iran and aryans.
also vikings come from IJ hablogroup
J = semitics, anatolians, mediterrenaid
I = nordics, vikings, balkans
IJ cant be connected with aryans or indo europeans. because they are early group than PQR and indo europeans.
who can explain to me I J hablogrop is aryan or not? if they are/ they must be real aryans and semitic peoples too. because they are earlier than indo europeans. but you can say aryans only r1a and r1b and r2 i can say anatolians, greeks hitites, rome empire and persians are not aryan because they come from J hablogroups
Click to expand...

Why not Vikings? Vikings is just another name for Germanic Northern Europeans from Scandinavia. They were mostly R (R1a and R1b) and I like several other Europeans, and also I'm afraid that you're giving Y-DNA haplogroups way too much importance. Do you know it is just a marker of mutations in the paternal lineage of the Y chromosome, a tiny bit of one's entire genome? You can't tell almost nothing about the overall ancestry makeup of a people based only on Y-DNA haplogroups. European people with haplogroups R, others with haplogroup J and others with haplogroup T often have EXACTLY the same genetic makeup if you look at their autosomal DNA. It seems to me that you need to improve your understanding of genetics urgently before making too many assumptions, especially assumptions that go back to the appearance of haplogroups 30,000 or even 50,000 years ago, and obviously in such a long time the genetic and cultural/linguistic differentiation was soooo profound and pervasive that nor you nor anyone can make any conclusive comparisons about two peoples that are so distantly related.
 
Ygorcs said:
Why not Vikings? Vikings is just another name for Germanic Northern Europeans from Scandinavia. They were mostly R (R1a and R1b) and I like several other Europeans, and also I'm afraid that you're giving Y-DNA haplogroups way too much importance. Do you know it is just a marker of mutations in the paternal lineage of the Y chromosome, a tiny bit of one's entire genome? You can't tell almost nothing about the overall ancestry makeup of a people based only on Y-DNA haplogroups. European people with haplogroups R, others with haplogroup J and others with haplogroup T often have EXACTLY the same genetic makeup if you look at their autosomal DNA. It seems to me that you need to improve your understanding of genetics urgently before making too many assumptions, especially assumptions that go back to the appearance of haplogroups 30,000 or even 50,000 years ago, and obviously in such a long time the genetic and cultural/linguistic differentiation was soooo profound and pervasive that nor you nor anyone can make any conclusive comparisons about two peoples that are so distantly related.
Click to expand...

Because vikings come from semitic IJ hablogroup. if vikings are aryan, whats japanese, korean, native americans and turks? they have more connected to K (ancestors of aryans)
 
XipeTotek said:
who can explain to me I J hablogrop is aryan or not? if they are/ they must be real aryans and semitic peoples too. because they are earlier than indo europeans. but you can say aryans only r1a and r1b and r2 i can say anatolians, greeks hitites, rome empire and persians are not aryan because they come from J hablogroups
Click to expand...

Aryan is a term that refers to a particular language and culture. Aryans - I presume you mean Indo-Iranian speakers - COULD and in fact WERE, especially after they expanded a lot to other regions away from their homeland, R1b, R1a, I1, I2, J2, G2, T... Since we find I2 in the Pontic-Caspian steppe very early on, still in the Neolithic, and also later, and J was also there, it seems quite obvious to me that at least some percentage of Indo-Iranians did carry the haplogroups I and J. Peoples, even ancient tribes, unless they had a tiny and isolated population, had more than haplogroup among their males, and their haplogroups didn't necessarily an equvialent autosomal admixture.

There is no such a thing as a "Aryan haplogroup" unless you delve into the very specific subclades of those haplogroups, the precise and recent subclades, and not these over-arching generalizations that want to associate a Bronze Age culture to haplogroups that are more than 20,000 years old. Come on!
 
Ygorcs said:
Aryan is a term that refers to a particular language and culture. Aryans - I presume you mean Indo-Iranian speakers - COULD and in fact WERE, especially after they expanded a lot to other regions away from their homeland, R1b, R1a, I1, I2, J2, G2, T... Since we find I2 in the Pontic-Caspian steppe very early on, still in the Neolithic, and also later, and J was also there, it seems quite obvious to me that at least some percentage of Indo-Iranians did carry the haplogroups I and J. Peoples, even ancient tribes, unless they had a tiny and isolated population, had more than haplogroup among their males, and their haplogroups didn't necessarily an equvialent autosomal admixture.
There is no such a thing as a "Aryan haplogroup" unless you delve into the very specific subclades of those haplogroups, the precise and recent subclades, and not these over-arching generalizations that want to associate a Bronze Age culture to haplogroups that are more than 20,000 years old. Come on!
Click to expand...
so this aryan theory not connected with race or hablogroups ( i still think they are must be only R hablogroups. because in the india i cant see I or J? and you can make connected with r hablogroups between indo european language family peoples :) ) and i have a question why native americans and europeans have different languages because they come from same ancestors? all of the sons of K hablogrop speaking similar asian languages ; Q turkic, Q native american, N uralic , Q altaic , O korean,O japanese. only europeans R hablogroups speaking different indo european languages. but they all come from same ancestors whats the common and main language of the K?
aryan theory is correct only with r hablogroups if you are say IJ hablogroup and speakers is aryan too i can say this totally wrong.
this like a say all american peoples are aryan because same culture and language

so this theory only sense with R hablogroups and speakers.
 
XipeTotek said:
Because vikings come from semitic IJ hablogroup. if vikings are aryan, whats japanese, korean, native americans and turks? they have more connected to K (ancestors of aryans)
Click to expand...

That's not right. Vikings had a huge percentage of R1b and R1a as modern Norwegians and Swedes still do, they didn't belong just to one Y-DNA haplogroup, and again I urge you to avoid making sweeping conclusions about the genetic ancestry of people based on a tiny bit of one's entire genome which is a haplogroup in the Y chromosome. That's just sef-deceiving.

IJ is not "Semitic" because it dates from the earlier Paleolithic, and "Semitic" is just a group of languages from the Early Bronze Age, and we aren't even sure from where those languages came. It may well have been a Levantine language spoken by mainly E1b1b males and which was adopted by J1-P58 males. Even if it were not, by the time Proto-Semitic people existed the IJ haplogroup had already split into I and J more than 20,000 years earlier and even I and J were already split into several different subclades. You're oversimplifying things and relying on wildly distorted and extremely anachronistic generalizations. You can't call a haplogroup "Semitic" even if existed dozens of thousands of years before Semitic speakers.
 
Ygorcs said:
That's not right. Vikings had a huge percentage of R1b and R1a as modern Norwegians and Swedes still do, they didn't belong just to one Y-DNA haplogroup, and again I urge you to avoid making sweeping conclusions about the genetic ancestry of people based on a tiny bit of one's entire genome which is a haplogroup in the Y chromosome. That's just sef-deceiving.
IJ is not "Semitic" because it dates from the earlier Paleolithic, and "Semitic" is just a group of languages from the Early Bronze Age, and we aren't even sure from where those languages came. It may well have been a Levantine language spoken by mainly E1b1b males and which was adopted by J1-P58 males. Even if it were not, by the time Proto-Semitic people existed the IJ haplogroup had already split into I and J more than 20,000 years earlier and even I and J were already split into several different subclades. You're oversimplifying things and relying on wildly distorted and extremely anachronistic generalizations. You can't call a haplogroup "Semitic" even if existed dozens of thousands of years before Semitic speakers.
Click to expand...
so whats the Proto IJ hablogroup language family? they are early than K and PQR.

yes i know vikings have r1a today but proto vikings only have I
 
XipeTotek said:
so this aryan theory not connected with race or hablogroups ( i still think they are must be only R hablogroups. because in the india i cant see I or J? and you can make connected with r hablogroups between indo european language family peoples :) ) and i have a question why native americans and europeans have different languages because they come from same ancestors? all of the sons of K hablogrop speaking similar asian languages ; Q turkic, Q native american, N uralic , Q altaic , O korean,O japanese. only europeans R hablogroups speaking different indo european languages. but they all come from same ancestors whats the common and main language of the K?
aryan theory is correct only with r hablogroups if you are say IJ hablogroup and speakers is aryan too i can say this totally wrong.
this like a say all american peoples are aryan because same culture and language
Click to expand...

Repeating again: there was NO Indo-European, NO Turkic, NO Uralic, NO Korean when those haplogroups as a whole, still undivided into many subclades, first appeared. They are dozens of thousands of years ago. None of those language families existed, though very distant ancestors of them did exist, which we will NEVER know, and don't even for a second believe anyone who pretends to be able to know what language men of those very ancient haplogroups spoke. Besides, the languages don't come stuck into the Y-DNA of men, they not only envolve, but also change, get replaced, etc. If you look at modern Greeks, you'll see that they aren't mostly R1b or R1a, so is their language not Indo-European anymore just because of that? You're mixing things up. Y-DNA haplogroups DO NOT come with one only language attached to them, and if you want to know about the first men that carried the very general and ancient mutations that defined haplogroups like K or IJ I tell that it's totally impossible to know that, no matter how much you try. There is no scientific evidence for that, and it is impossible to reconstruct languages beyond a 15,000 years timeframe.
 
XipeTotek said:
so whats the Proto IJ hablogroup language family? they are early than K and PQR
Click to expand...

We don't know and will never know. IJ is too old for that. What we can be sure is that it is perfectly possible that I1, I2, J1 or J2 men very distantly descended from those IJ men did not necessarily speak languages that also descended from that spoken originally by IJ men. There were thousands of years of cultural, linguistic and migration changes between those two historic periods.
 
XipeTotek said:
so this aryan theory not connected with race or hablogroups ( i still think they are must be only R hablogroups. because in the india i cant see I or J? and you can make connected with r hablogroups between indo european language family peoples :) )
Click to expand...

There is I and especially J subclades in India (mostly J2), though they aren't necessarily connected with ancient Aryans. However, even if Indo-European males carried mostly (not just) R haplogroups that does not mean that all R-carrying men were Indo-Europeans. Those are two entirely distinct statements, especially because the R haplogroup as a whole appeared several thousands of years (as much as 20,000 years) before the Indo-European males were speaking their common language.
 
Ygorcs said:
Repeating again: there was NO Indo-European, NO Turkic, NO Uralic, NO Korean when those haplogroups as a whole, still undivided into many subclades, first appeared. They are dozens of thousands of years ago. None of those language families existed, though very distant ancestors of them did exist, which we will NEVER know, and don't even for a second believe anyone who pretends to be able to know what language men of those very ancient haplogroups spoke. Besides, the languages don't come stuck into the Y-DNA of men, they not only envolve, but also change, get replaced, etc. If you look at modern Greeks, you'll see that they aren't mostly R1b or R1a, so is their language not Indo-European anymore just because of that? You're mixing things up. Y-DNA haplogroups DO NOT come with one only language attached to them, and if you want to know about the first men that carried the very general and ancient mutations that defined haplogroups like K or IJ I tell that it's totally impossible to know that, no matter how much you try. There is no scientific evidence for that, and it is impossible to reconstruct languages beyond a 15,000 years timeframe.
Click to expand...
indo-european speakers come from india or ukraine steppes right? and they all have r hablogroups. if you can look at the india totally r1a and look at all indo european speakers and europe you can see r1a and r1b. so there is a connected with r hablogroups and common language. whats wrong this is. this is a reality. and i cant see a indo european speakers connection with IJ hablogroup.
i still say aryans only r hablogroups. proto IJ speaking semitic language. but all K hablogroups must be proto indo european or asiatic language (like a sumerians) maybe they are assimilited from C hablogrop mongols or D hablogroups tibets for language. because c and d earlier people of asia(east and central)
 
XipeTotek said:
indo-european speakers come from india or ukraine steppes right? and they all have r hablogroups. if you can look at the india totally r1a and look at all indo european speakers and europe you can see r1a and r1b. so there is a connected with r hablogroups and common language. whats wrong this is. this is a reality. and i cant see a indo european speakers connection with IJ hablogroup.
i still say aryans only r hablogroups. proto IJ speaking semitic language. but all K hablogroups must be proto indo european or asiatic language (like a sumerians) maybe they are assimilited from C hablogrop mongols or D hablogroups tibets for language. because c and d earlier people of asia
Click to expand...

Not totally right. There are specific subclades of I2, G2 and J2 (mostly J2b) that also look connected with the Indo-European speakers and their expansion. Also, India is definitely not "totally R1a". You're again simplifying and generalizing too much. There is a whole lot of probably non-IE H, L, O and other haplogroups in India, as well as some relevant percentages of R2, J and G.

Also, again, let me say that you're making anachronistic comparisons. You're trying to establish a lingusitic label related to a Bronze Age language (Proto-Indo-European) and put it into all descendants of the men who first had the R haplogroup, a process that happened some 25,000-30,000 years ago. There is a whole gap of 20,000-25,000 of unexplained genetic and linguistic evolution and differentiation in your hypothesis, that is not just a "small" drawback.

Well, you can say that IJ spoke a Semitic language as much as you like, but don't be surprised that people won't take you seriously on that and probably on any other issue, because that statement demonstrates a fundamental lack of knowledge about either haplogroups, chronology of genetic evolution of populations and linguistics.
 
XipeTotek, who is more semetic, an I1 male with three indo European grandparents and one semetic paternal grandfather, or a K male with three semetic grandparents and one indo European paternal grandfather?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 14554 times.

Back
Top