I2a-Din distribution among East Slavs

Sumerian, Mesopotamian, Egypt and Indus Valley were NOT Aryan civilizations.

As for the origin of Indo-Iranians - read Keyser 2009:

http://hamagmongol.narod.ru/library/keyser_2009_e.pdf
According to the ancient Greeks the Medes were 'Aryan' people. Ancient Greek wrtiers mentioned only the Medes Aryan. Slavic cannibal ancestors (Androphagi) were NEVER called Aryans by anybody. It is written, and it's TRUE history. The Medes were children of Mitanni. Mitanni predate people who wrote Rig Veda. People from West Asia gave birth to BMAC. And from BMAC Aryans invaded India. This is also a historic FACT. It was the first time ever when the Aryans were ever mentioned. Mitanni were descendants of the Sumerians. Sumerians were the very first ancestors of the Aryans who were mentioned by the ancient Greek writers. Sumerian civilization was the FIRST real "Aryan" civilization and it is from the Northern parts of the Mesopotamia.
 
Sumerian was a... Sumerian civilization. Sumerian language was NOT Indo-European, neither was it Semitic. But Sumerians quickly integrated with Akkadians - who were Semitic. Most of civilizations that followed, were Semitic. This video nicely explains it
I don't watch bull.

First of all, Indo-Europeans don't equal Aryans. Aryans were only known as those who spoke an 'Iranic' language, like Kurdish and Persian. The only people who still can call themselves the true descendants of the 'Aryans' are Kurds, Iranians (Persians, Gilaki and Mazandarani people) maybe some minor tribes like the Ossetians and nobody else, not even East Iranic tribes in CentralSouth Asia.

The first Sumerians lived 8000 years ago, maybe earlier, and pre-date any Indo-European speakers. At the time when the first Sumerians lived there was no such thing as an Indo-European group of languages. The Sumerians came from the MOUNTAINS and not from Africa, Levant or an Arab Desert. Semites are from Levant, Africa and Arab Desert.


Sumerians (Sumerian farmers) who went to the south were assimilated by African (Semitic, Afro-Asiatic) people. Sumerians who stayed home in Northern Mesopotamia/Kurdistan became (proto-)Iranic people (Mitanni, Kassites etc.).
 
Everyone knows what Dinaric is.
Haplogrup I2a is not native in the Balkan.The nickname "Din" was used for the first time by Ken Nordtvedt for pracical reasons.

Everyone knows:

Wikipedia (it is good to remind ourselves)

Y-DNA Haplogroup I-M170 is predominantly a European haplogroup and it is considered as the only native European Haplogroup.

I (I1, I2) carriers = Old Europeans

The TMRCA (time to most recent common ancestor) for the I clade was estimated by Karafet and colleagues in 2008 as 22.2 k.a. (22,200 years ago) with a confidence interval between 15.3-30.0 ka., placing the Haplogroup I-M170 founding event approximately contemporaneous with the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) which lasted from 26.5 ka to 19 or 20 ka.

It would seem to be that different episodes of populace movement had impacted Southeast Europe, as well as the role of the Balkans as a long-standing corridor to Europe from Southwestern Asia is shown by the phylogenetic unification of Hgs I and J by the basal M429 mutation. This proof of common ancestry suggests that ancestral Hgs IJ-M429* probably would have entered Europe through the Balkan track sometime before the LGM.
...

Haplogroup I is native to the Balkans. I carriers moved by the whole Europe.

Someone can ask what happened to the older clades, maternal to I2a Din, that inhabited the Balkans and the rest of Europe?

They are gone, no one knows why.

I2a Din, and I1 of course, and fewer I2 clades, are survivors. It is blessing, fortunate for humanity.

Once, I1 and I2 carriers inhabited the whole of Europe. Everyone can reads scientific studies and research's data.

With all due respect for you as an Albanian, we can agree that nobody can deny the contribution of the carriers haplogroups I (I1 and I2) to the development of Europe.

Maciamo in Eupedia created wonderful pictures. Here is one for Europe 6000-5000 BCE:

old_neolithic_map.gif


You can see, in every European culture in this time I carriers gave contribution.
 
Everyone knows what Dinaric is.
Haplogrup I2a is not native in the Balkan.The nickname "Din" was used for the first time by Ken Nordtvedt for pracical reasons.

Give us better explanation how and when appear in the Balkan,i will be glad to hear.
 
Last edited:
According to the ancient Greeks the Medes were 'Aryan' people. Ancient Greek wrtiers mentioned only the Medes Aryan. Slavic cannibal ancestors (Androphagi) were NEVER called Aryans by anybody. It is written, and it's TRUE history. The Medes were children of Mitanni. Mitanni predate people who wrote Rig Veda. People from West Asia gave birth to BMAC. And from BMAC Aryans invaded India. This is also a historic FACT. It was the first time ever when the Aryans were ever mentioned. Mitanni were descendants of the Sumerians. Sumerians were the very first ancestors of the Aryans who were mentioned by the ancient Greek writers. Sumerian civilization was the FIRST real "Aryan" civilization and it is from the Northern parts of the Mesopotamia.

Who at the end care who Aryans was,it was name of people like any else,Hitler made big fame only out of it,i preffer the Romans over all,although im not Greco-Roman.
 
Last edited:
Who at the end care who Aryans was
I DO care! Because my direct ancestors were the Medes. I still speak their language, I do still have their culture. I do still believe in their GODS (same religion), my people and the Medes share the same Iranic GODS.

And the Medes, my ancestors, were Aryan people and called themselves Aryans and were called by others Aryans. Why do I care? Because this is the source if my HISTORY. Their history is my history, I do care about history of my father, my grandfather, my great grandfather etc. that's why I do care. I care about my history!


Everybody can change his future/destination, but you CAN'T change your history! To change your future and destination you need to know who you really are, and to know who you are, you need to know who you were! So the future and history are related to each other.
 
i preffer the Romans over all,although im not Greco-Roman.
If the Italic European Romans were my ancestors I would be very proud too. Italians (children of the ancient Romans) are GREAT Europeans!
 
Everyone knows:

Wikipedia (it is good to remind ourselves)

Y-DNA Haplogroup I-M170 is predominantly a European haplogroup and it is considered as the only native European Haplogroup.

I (I1, I2) carriers = Old Europeans

The TMRCA (time to most recent common ancestor) for the I clade was estimated by Karafet and colleagues in 2008 as 22.2 k.a. (22,200 years ago) with a confidence interval between 15.3-30.0 ka., placing the Haplogroup I-M170 founding event approximately contemporaneous with the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) which lasted from 26.5 ka to 19 or 20 ka.

It would seem to be that different episodes of populace movement had impacted Southeast Europe, as well as the role of the Balkans as a long-standing corridor to Europe from Southwestern Asia is shown by the phylogenetic unification of Hgs I and J by the basal M429 mutation. This proof of common ancestry suggests that ancestral Hgs IJ-M429* probably would have entered Europe through the Balkan track sometime before the LGM.
...

Haplogroup I is native to the Balkans. I carriers moved by the whole Europe.

Someone can ask what happened to the older clades, maternal to I2a Din, that inhabited the Balkans and the rest of Europe?

They are gone, no one knows why.

I2a Din, and I1 of course, and fewer I2 clades, are survivors. It is blessing, fortunate for humanity.

Once, I1 and I2 carriers inhabited the whole of Europe. Everyone can reads scientific studies and research's data.

With all due respect for you as an Albanian, we can agree that nobody can deny the contribution of the carriers haplogroups I (I1 and I2) to the development of Europe.

Maciamo in Eupedia created wonderful pictures. Here is one for Europe 6000-5000 BCE:

old_neolithic_map.gif


You can see, in every European culture in this time I carriers gave contribution.
Legends from 2008.I know them.Nostalgic.Do you have any paper from 1908?
Check this forum:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthr...ithic-ancient-Y-DNA-is-I*-I2-and-I2a1b*/page3
 
I-L621F3145/S22686 * S20938 * V3552/CTS9349... 60 SNPsformed 11200 ybp, TMRCA 6600 ybp
  • I-L621*
    • id:YF02856
  • I-Y3110CTS4002 * FGC12086/Y3110 * CTS10936... 6 SNPsformed 6600 ybp, TMRCA 5600 ybp
    • I-Y3110*
      • id:YF02847
      • id:YF03513
        POL [PL-SK]
        new
    • I-Y3111FGC12080/Y3105 * S12235 * CTS5996... 21 SNPsformed 5600 ybp, TMRCA 2300 ybp
      • I-Y3111*
        • id:YF01476
          POL [PL-PK]
      • I-Z17855A1221/Y12341 * Z17855formed 2300 ybp, TMRCA 1650 ybp
        • id:YF02018
          UKR [UA-05]
        • id:YF02985
      • I-Y4460Y3106 * Y4460formed 2300 ybp, TMRCA 2300 ybp
        • I-Y4460*
          • id:YF02238
          • id:YF03145
        • I-Y8942Y8942 * S8201formed 2300 ybp, TMRCA 1450 ybp
          • I-Y8942*
            • id:YF01761
          • I-Y13498Y13498formed 1450 ybp, TMRCA 1150 ybp
            • id:YF02547
              BLR [BY-HR]
            • id:YF03061
              UKR [UA-07]
        • I-Y3118Y3118formed 2300 ybp, TMRCA 2300 ybp
          • I-Y3118*
            • id:YF01465
              USA
            • id:YF01589
              POL [PL-PK]
          • I-Y5598Y5598formed 2300 ybp, TMRCA 2300 ybp
            • I-Y5598*
              • id:YF02896
            • I-CTS5779Y5597 * CTS5779formed 2300 ybp, TMRCA 2200 ybp
              • I-CTS5779*
                • id:HG00360
                  FIN
              • I-Y10622Y10624 * Y10623 * Y10622... 5 SNPsformed 2200 ybp, TMRCA 1250 ybp
                • id:YF01920
                • id:YF02675
                  UKR [UA-05]
 
Goga said:
And the Medes, my ancestors, were Aryan people and called themselves Aryans and were called by others Aryans.

The Medes were Indo-European, more precisely Indo-Iranian (a non-scientific name for them is Aryans indeed).

But the Sumerians - as I wrote before - were not, and all those Semitic civilizations like Assyria and Babilon were not.

Indo-Europeans came to the Middle East later, often conquering and dominating previous Semitic civilizations.

The Indus Valley civilization was also not Indo-European. It was most likely Dravidian. Indo-Aryans (the branch of Indo-Iranians that migrated to India) conquered remnants of that civilization (it had declined already before the Aryan invasion).

As for Dravidians - there is a theory that Dravidian language was brought to India by the Elamites (the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis).

Elamo-Dravidian is a proposed language family. But this Elamite-Dravidian connection is often disputed.

Anyway, the "most indigenous" people of India were Negrito foragers. All other groups probably came later as invaders.

Negritos were the first group of modern humans in India: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peopling_of_India#The_Negrito_migrations

After Negritos probably came Australoids. Only later various Caucasoid and other (mixed, Mongoloid, etc.) groups.
 
Indo-Europeans are relatively speaking arrived just very late into history. It's a very recent phenomenon. Especially in Europe.

But there were already Indo-Europeans speakers in West Asia even before folks from the Yamnaya Horizon culture invaded Europe.

Assyria is very recent, Assyrians were descendants of the Akkadians who came from Africa, Levant and Arab Desert. Semites were the new immigrants in the land of the Sumerians. Sumerians predate Assyrians also by thousands of years.

Like I said, the Sumerians predate Indo-European speakers by thousands of years also. Before the so called Indo-Europeans arrived in Europe there were already civilizations and other high advanced cultures in the Mesopotamia. Do you really think that before the Indo-Europeans there was no life and there were no civilizations? Maybe in Europe the real advanced history started only after native Europeans got Indo-Europized, but history in West Asia is MUCH older than history of the Indo-Europeans.

History of the Indo-European speakers in Europe started after Indo-Europeans arrived in Europe, very recently. It is very young!

But history of Iranic speakers in West Asia started with the history and high advanced cultures of the Sumerians. Proto-Iranic languages were very different from Indo-European languages spoken in Europe. Proto-Iranic language had an ergative construction, like the Sumerian language did. There are 2 possibilities. Either Sumerian and proto-Iranic shared common roots and were cousins or even brother to each other or a Sumerian dialect evolved into a pro-Iranic dialect. I believe that Sumerians were ancestral to proto-Iranic people. But Sumerians and proto-Iranic speakers were RELATED to each other.

Mitanni, Kassites, Guti were the first known proto-Iranic speakers in the Mesopotamia and the Zagros Mountains. At that time in that area already lived other Indo-European tribes, like the Hittites. But Mitanni were different from those Hittites, since Mitanni had Sumerian roots, while the Hittites did not.

Mitanni were Aryan because Mitanni had Sumerian roots. The Hittites, who also spoke an Indo-European dialect and lived west of the Mitanni were not Aryans, because they were not descendants of the Sumerians. But I'm not sure, maybe the Hittites also had Sumerian roots?


To be short, Indo-European history in Europe started only after Indo-Europeans invaded Europe,
but the Iranic civilization in West Asia was just a continuation of the Sumerian civilizations. Ancient Sumeiran and proto-Iranic language were connected to each other, think only about the ergativity. So Iranic civilization in West Asia was MUCH older than the Indo-European civilization in Europe, CentralSouth Asia and India. Iranic civilization in West Asia has no beginning. proto-Iranic = Sumerian + ?


That's why history of Iranic people predate the history of other Indo-European speakers in Europe and India!
 
I have made a simplified phylogenetic tree of R1a haplogroup to show you how (and WHEN) things were going:

http://s17.postimg.org/hsnaex6xb/R1a_tree.png

R1a_tree.png


Daco-Thracian is a hypothetical language family that was probably closely related to Balto-Slavic language family:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Classification_of_Thracian&redirect=no#Daco-Thracian

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacian_language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracian_language

Thracian is very little attested,however fit the best in Baltic and Slavic languages.
 
Last edited:
Indo-Europeans are relatively speaking arrived just very late into history. It's a very recent phenomenon. Especially in Europe.

But there were already Indo-Europeans speakers in West Asia even before folks from the Yamnaya Horizon culture invaded Europe.

Assyria is very recent, Assyrians were descendants of the Akkadians who came from Africa, Levant and Arab Desert. Semites were the new immigrants in the land of the Sumerians. Sumerians predate Assyrians also by thousands of years.

Like I said, the Sumerians predate Indo-European speakers by thousands of years also. Before the so called Indo-Europeans arrived in Europe there were already civilizations and other high advanced cultures in the Mesopotamia. Do you really think that before the Indo-Europeans there was no life and there were no civilizations? Maybe in Europe the real advanced history started only after native Europeans got Indo-Europized, but history in West Asia is MUCH older than history of the Indo-Europeans.

History of the Indo-European speakers in Europe started after Indo-Europeans arrived in Europe, very recently. It is very young!

But history of Iranic speakers in West Asia started with the history and high advanced cultures of the Sumerians. Proto-Iranic languages were very different from Indo-European languages spoken in Europe. Proto-Iranic language had an ergative construction, like the Sumerian language did. There are 2 possibilities. Either Sumerian and proto-Iranic shared common roots and were cousins or even brother to each other or a Sumerian dialect evolved into a pro-Iranic dialect. I believe that Sumerians were ancestral to proto-Iranic people. But Sumerians and proto-Iranic speakers were RELATED to each other.

Mitanni, Kassites, Guti were the first known proto-Iranic speakers in the Mesopotamia and the Zagros Mountains. At that time in that area already lived other Indo-European tribes, like the Hittites. But Mitanni were different from those Hittites, since Mitanni had Sumerian roots, while the Hittites did not.

Mitanni were Aryan because Mitanni had Sumerian roots. The Hittites, who also spoke an Indo-European dialect and lived west of the Mitanni were not Aryans, because they were not descendants of the Sumerians. But I'm not sure, maybe the Hittites also had Sumerian roots?


To be short, Indo-European history in Europe started only after Indo-Europeans invaded Europe,
but the Iranic civilization in West Asia was just a continuation of the Sumerian civilizations. Ancient Sumeiran and proto-Iranic language were connected to each other, think only about the ergativity. So Iranic civilization in West Asia was MUCH older than the Indo-European civilization in Europe, CentralSouth Asia and India. Iranic civilization in West Asia has no beginning. proto-Iranic = Sumerian + ?


That's why history of Iranic people predate the history of other Indo-European speakers in Europe and India!

+ Proto-Iranic people shared the same SKY Gods as the Sumerians. So there was not only a linguistic connection (ergativity), but also a theological and cultural one.


Sumerians -> Mitanni/Kassites -> Medes -> Ezdi/non-Muslim Kurds.



" Sumerian and Hindu Gods and Goddesses "

http://www.bhagavadgitausa.com/SUMERIAN AND HINDU GODS.htm


" Similarities between Sumerian Anki and Vedic Agni by Jean-Yves Lung "

https://auromere.wordpress.com/2010...merian-anki-and-vedic-agni-by-jean-yves-lung/
 
but the Iranic civilization in West Asia was just a continuation of the Sumerian civilizations

Civilizations tend to borrow heritage from each other. When Germanic tribes invaded the Roman Empire, they borrowed much of its heritage and there was a continuation (contrary to the myth of "Dark Ages" - there was a crisis, but it started already in the 300s AD).

But from the Sumerians to the Iranians there was a loooong route.

And between those two, there were Semitic civilizations, who absorbed the Sumerians (the Akkadians did it first).

There is simply no way you can skip those new immigrations to the region and claim some sort of unbroken continuity.

Mitanni were Aryan because Mitanni had Sumerian roots

Mitanni did not have Sumerian roots. Mitanni had Indo-European roots, like other Iranic peoples.

And you cannot draw a straight connection from Sumerians to Indo-Europeans.

No more than to other people at least. The Sumerians are separated from the Mitanni by a few thousands of years.

Also check Eupedia's map of the spread of R1a and you will see that it shows also the Mitanni expansion.
 
And between those two, there were Semitic civilizations.
No, there was NEVER a Semitic civilization in Kurdistan/Zagros Mountains and the Iranian Plateau in the ancient times. Akkadians/Assyrians NEVER ruled Kurdish mountains, NorthWest Iran(ian Planteau) and Southern parts of the Caspian Sea. What are you talking about? Sumerians, proto-Iranians have alwasy been living in those parts of the world without new migrations in that area. Semites hate mountains and love desert...
 
Like I said, the Sumerians predate Indo-European speakers by thousands of years also. Before the so called Indo-Europeans arrived in Europe there were already civilizations and other high advanced cultures in the Mesopotamia.

And who is claiming otherwise? It is mostly you who is claiming some sort of superiority and also unbroken continuity since Sumeri. There were also high advanced cultures in Europe - such as the Cucuteni-Trypillian or the the Vinca culture - which were Non-Indo-European. If you read Marija Gimbutas then she actually claimed that Neolithic cultures in Europe were in many ways more advanced than Indo-Europeans. But they were less patriarchal and less militaristic, which is why Indo-European cultures managed to conquer them.
 
Mitanni did not have Sumerian roots. Mitanni had Indo-European roots, like other Iranic peoples.
No. Mitanni spoke a proto-Iranic language and unlike other Indo-Eruopean languages in Europe it had ergativity. Mitanni/Kassites lived in the same area and land as the ancient Sumerians before them. Mitanni/Kassites (proto-Iranians) had even the same Gods. Mitanni civilization was a continuation of the Sumerians. And the Medes were a continuation of Mitanni.

Indo-European speakers are only connected to each other through some linguage/grammar, but not everybody shares the same roots! proto-Slavonic people, proto-Hellenic people, or even Hittites who lived close to the Mitanni/Kassites (proto-Iranic) people were already different people with different roots.
 

This thread has been viewed 126368 times.

Back
Top