OFFTOPIC: Kurds as Indo-Europeans & Indo-European haplogroups

Templar

Regular Member
Messages
590
Reaction score
49
Points
0
Ethnic group
Paleolithic European
Y-DNA haplogroup
G-L42
mtDNA haplogroup
H2a1
Kurds are still hard-core Indo-Europeans

Kurds, like all other Indo-Europeans, mixed heavily with the people they conquered. Indo-Europeans who conquered Europe, mixed with the native Cro-Magnons and Neolithic migrants from the near-East in Southern Europe. In India they mixed with Dravidians. And in the Middle-East they largely mixed with various Semitic people.

Are you talking about genetics or culture?
 
Kurds, like all other Indo-Europeans, mixed heavily with the people they conquered. Indo-Europeans who conquered Europe, mixed with the native Cro-Magnons and Neolithic migrants from the near-East in Southern Europe. In India they mixed with Dravidians. And in the Middle-East they largely mixed with various Semitic people.

Are you talking about genetics or culture?

Sorry for being off topic!


There's no such thing as being genetically an Indo-European. There's no such thing as an Indo-European race. Indo-European is linguistic term and refers to a specific language family spoken between India and Europe. And Kurdistan lies in West Asia and between India and Europe.

Kurds have their own native language. Kurdic languages are very close to ancient Avestan language and other ancient Iranic languages. Kurdic languages are part of Iranic languages and Iranic languages are in turn part of Indo-European language family.

Kurdic language was naturally evolved among this ethnic group and it was never imposed from outside from the invaders. No other ethnic group in the world speaks Kurdic language. So Indo-European Kurdic language belongs to the Kurds only and it is still evolving and flourishing from inside of the Kurdish culture and many Kurdish dialects are a result of it.

Proto-Indo-European homeland was in Asia: be it around the Caucasus, be it around the Caspian Sea, so it was not far from Kurdistan.So of course there must be very close direct links between ancient Indo-Europeans and modern Indo-European Kurds.

Kurdish history is more than 6000 years old and all this time Kurds were known as Indo-Europeans. Also Kurdic language is thousands of years old. And Kurds still speak their ancient and unique language. With other words Kurds were never somebody else

Actually also culturally Kurds are Indo-European people. Kurds still have their native Indo-European legends, stories, history, art, music, tradition, folklore, dances, values and even religion.

Turks are trying for hundred of years to exterminate and destroy Kurdish language and culture. Arabs (Saddam) and Persians are trying that too. But Kurds are fighting against Arabs, Turks and Persians to preserve and protect their (Indo-European) own identity and heritage.


Kurds were, are and will always be Kurdic (Iranic) people connected to their ancient and rich history!
 
Sorry for being off topic!


There's no such thing as being genetically an Indo-European. There's no such thing as an Indo-European race. Indo-European is linguistic term and refers to a specific language family spoken between India and Europe. And Kurdistan lies in West Asia and between India and Europe.

Kurds have their own native language. Kurdic languages are very close to ancient Avestan language and other ancient Iranic languages. Kurdic languages are part of Iranic languages and Iranic languages are in turn part of Indo-European language family.

Kurdic language was naturally evolved among this ethnic group and it was never imposed from outside from the invaders. No other ethnic group in the world speaks Kurdic language. So Indo-European Kurdic language belongs to the Kurds only and it is still evolving and flourishing from inside of the Kurdish culture and many Kurdish dialects are a result of it.

Proto-Indo-European homeland was in Asia: be it around the Caucasus, be it around the Caspian Sea, so it was not far from Kurdistan.So of course there must be very close direct links between ancient Indo-Europeans and modern Indo-European Kurds.

Kurdish history is more than 6000 years old and all this time Kurds were known as Indo-Europeans. Also Kurdic language is thousands of years old. And Kurds still speak their ancient and unique language. With other words Kurds were never somebody else

Actually also culturally Kurds are Indo-European people. Kurds still have their native Indo-European legends, stories, history, art, music, tradition, folklore, dances, values and even religion.

Turks are trying for hundred of years to exterminate and destroy Kurdish language and culture. Arabs (Saddam) and Persians are trying that too. But Kurds are fighting against Arabs, Turks and Persians to preserve and protect their (Indo-European) own identity and heritage.


Kurds were, are and will always be Kurdic (Iranic) people connected to their ancient and rich history!

The Proto Indo-European marker was R1a-Z83.
 
There's no such thing as being genetically an Indo-European. There's no such thing as an Indo-European race. Indo-European is linguistic term and refers to a specific language family spoken between India and Europe

If you read all the articles about Indo-European on eupedia you'll find that most think that they were a distinct sub-race with a a very unique phenotype. They originally lived mostly in Central Asian and then spread to all the lands nearby (Europe, Middle East, India, China, etc).

They y-haplogroup markers were R1b and R1a. Since Kurds have other haplogroups, that suggests they aren't 100% genetically Indo-European. The phenotype of Kurds also doesn't look very Indo-European.

The Proto Indo-European marker was R1a-Z83.
It was one of them, but there are others too.
 
The Proto Indo-European marker was R1a-Z83.
Impossible that it was just 1 marker. I believe in evolution and evolution occurs by mixing. Indo-European evolved at least out of 2 markers. But it’s also possible that a different female lineage (mt-DNA haplogroup) caused birth of proto-Indo-European language.
 
If you read all the articles about Indo-European on eupedia you'll find that most think that they were a distinct sub-race with a a very unique phenotype. They originally lived mostly in Central Asian and then spread to all the lands nearby (Europe, Middle East, India, China, etc).

They y-haplogroup markers were R1b and R1a. Since Kurds have other haplogroups, that suggests they aren't 100% genetically Indo-European. The phenotype of Kurds also doesn't look very Indo-European

Huh, how do you know how proto-Indo-Europeans looked like? The fact is that they came from Asia and not from Europe. So they definitely didn't look like modern Europeans.

Btw ancient and original R1b folks didn't looked like modern Europeans either. Modern Europeans are actually descendants of Y-DNA hg. 'E', 'I' and 'N1c1' folks.
 
Huh, how doyou know how proto-Indo-Europeans looked like. The fact is that they came fromAsia and not from Europe. So they definitely didn’t look like modern Europeans.

I never said they looked like modern Europeans. But all the evidence points that they had blue eyes and blonde/red hair.

Btw ancientand original R1b folks didn’t looked like modern Europeans. Modern Euroeans are actually descedants of hg. E, I and N1c1 folks.

Read this before you reply again:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-25593.html

and note this part: "Neolithic to Bronze-Age steppe people appear to have had Proto-Europoid features (mixed European and Mongoloid features, although probably not slanted eyes), like wide, thick-boned faces and low skulls, which was quickly lost when they interbred with other Europeans. They almost certainly carried with them the genetic mutations for blue eyes, fair hair and red hair, as these can be found in all the regions of Eurasia that they colonised, including in the 4000 year-old Tarim mummies."
 
I never said they looked like modern Europeans. But all the evidence points that they had blue eyes and blonde/red hair.."
LMAO, Show me where I can find DNA of ancient proto-Indo-Euroepans! LOL :LOL:


Read this before you reply again:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-25593.html

and note this part: "Neolithic to Bronze-Age steppe people appear to have had Proto-Europoid features (mixed European and Mongoloid features, although probably not slanted eyes), like wide, thick-boned faces and low skulls, which was quickly lost when they interbred with other Europeans. They almost certainly carried with them the genetic mutations for blue eyes, fair hair and red hair, as these can be found in all the regions of Eurasia that they colonised, including in the 4000 year-old Tarim mummies."
What are you talking about? Proto-Indo-European speakers are much older than Bronze-age steppe people!

Bronze-age steppe people are actually proto-Slavic people mixed with Mongoloid people.
 
The fact is that there is no ancient DNA of original proto-Indo-European speakers. We don't even know where they are from. Nobody knows how they looked like.

The fact is that they are not from Europe, but from Asia. But where from Asia, there's many theories about it!
 
Bronze-age steppe people are actually Slavic people mixed with Mongoloid people

No, Slavs didn't exist yet at this time. Slavs are the Result of Indo-European migration into Eastern Europe and the consequent mixing with the native Europeans.

It never says that Indo-Europeans were Mongoloid, it just says that they had similar features, BECAUSE both Indo-Europeans and Mongoloids lived in a very cold environment. Wide faces, small noses, straight hair, and other similarities that they had were due to those features being very beneficial in the cold. Wide faces and bodies are good for keeping heat, short noses are good against frostbite, and straight hair covers your head faster than curly hair (i.e. it is longer).
 
The fact is that they are not from Europe, but from Asia. But where from Asia, there's many theories about it!

All the evidence (such as haplogroup diversity of R1a and R1b) points to Central Asia. They were nomads.
 
All the evidence (such as haplogroup diversity of R1a and R1b) points to Central Asia. They were nomads.
Nonsense!

Show me this so called evidence, show me DNA results of proto-Indo-Euroepean speakers.

R1b entered Europe from Anatolia (West Asia) and not from Central Asia. FACT!
Anatolians don't look like Europeans. FACT!


And there is even no proof that original proto-Indo-Euroepan speakers were R1b* folks or even R1a* folks. Maybe R1b folks got their Indo-European language from J2a folks when they came in contact with them in West Asia (Anatolia/Caucasus).

Maybe hg. J2a folks migrated into Northern Caucasus or the Balkans and via there they spread Indo-European language.
 
Nonsense!
You are just biased because you are Kurdish. You are letting your emotions lead the discussion. Just because Indo-Europeans don't look like modern-day Kurds.

R1b entered Europe from Anatolia (West Asia) and not from Central Asia. FACT
Anatolians don't look like Europeans. FACT

Europe was less densely populated during the time of Indo-European migrations (compared to all other areas that Indo-Europeans conquered). Because of this, the Indo-European genes are more pronounced there than anywhere else in the world.
 
You are just biased because you are Kurdish. You are letting your emotions lead the discussion. Just because Indo-Europeans don't look like modern-day Kurds.


Europe was less densely populated during the time of Indo-European migrations (compared to all other areas that Indo-Europeans conquered). Because of this, the Indo-European genes are more pronounced there than anywhere else in the world.
No emotion here. I think logical and I'm using my brains.

I just can see difference between nonsense written by little uneducated nationalistic European kids and facts.


Once again, how do you know how real ancient proto-Indo-Europeans looked like? Show me their DNA, bones etc.

Ancient Persians, Hittites, Mittani were also Indo-European speakers and they didn't look like Europeans at all.

Modern-day Europeans look like their Y-DNA hg. 'E', N1c1, and 'I' ancestors…
 
Modern-day Europeanslook like their Y-DNA hg. ‘E’, N1c1, and ‘I ‘folks…

European look like a mix of the main three waves of people that settled it: Cro-Magnons, farmers from the near-east, and Indo-European steppe people.
 
With all due respect, you must be really stupid if you deny that Kurds are Indo-European people. This is not even a theory, but a solid fact recognized, approved, accepted and confirmed by all scientists, linguistics, anthropologists all over the world. Well, maybe not by Turks since they believe that the whole world is Turkic, and Kurdish language doesn't exit, lol.
 
AncientPersians, Hittites, Mittani were also Indo-European and they didn’t look like Europeans.
They mixed with advanced agicultural societies in the Middle-East and so were as a result mostly absorbed by them

Once again, howdo you know how real ancient proto-Indo-Europeans looked like?

All places that were heavily settled by Indo-Europeans, have atleast some people who have blue eyes, blonde hair, and other light features.

But there is lots of other evidence as well. I don't have the time to list it at all, I suggest you read all the threads about Indo-Europeans on eupedia, maybe then you will see the truth.
 
With all due respect, you must be really stupid if you deny that Kurds are not Indo-European people. This is not even a theory, but a solid factRecognized approved and accepted by all scientists, linguistics , anthropologist.

I never said that, those are your words. I only said they aren't mostly GENETICALLY Indo-European.
 
You are just biased because you are Kurdish. You are letting your emotions lead the discussion. Just because Indo-Europeans don't look like modern-day Kurds.


Europe was less densely populated during the time of Indo-European migrations (compared to all other areas that Indo-Europeans conquered). Because of this, the Indo-European genes are more pronounced there than anywhere else in the world.
No I just can see difference between nonsense written by little nationalistic European kids and facts.

Once again, how do you know how Ancient Indo-Europeans looked like.

Ancient Persians, Hettites, Mitanni etc. were also Indo-European speakers and they never looked like modern day Europeans.

Moderday European look like their ancestors Y-DNA hg. 'E', 'I' and N1C1..
 
Moderday European look like their ancestors Y-DNA hg. 'E', 'I' and N1C1..

You can't just label phenotypes by their halogroup. If you are referring to a pattern by which they go (as in what their most likely appearance is). Then you should say so.

"I" people were tall, dark, and big-boned.
"E" looked pretty much exactly like "J" people.
"N1C1" were Mongoloid.

None of these describe how most Europeans look. Because most Europeans have light eyes/hair. R1b/R1a people brought these light features.

"
No I just can see difference between nonsense written by little nationalistic European kids and facts." Wow, name-calling?
 

This thread has been viewed 46973 times.

Back
Top