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

[Templar]

Hg. N1c1 in NorthEast Europe is native to that region. In most places there it's more than 40%. And it's not really an early proto-Indo-European marker, isn't it?

Maybe that specific subclave is "native" but it came in the form of another "N" subclave.

 

[Goga]

Maybe that specific subclave is "native" but it came in the form of another "N" subclave.

So, you do agree that N1c1 has something to do with Mongoloid folks?

Exactly, and Baltic & Slavic N1c1 is part of their main NortEast aDNA component. This only means that their main aDNA component is partly Mongoloid / East Asian. And the gact that folks in that area speak a Finno-Ugric language prooves that the core of those folks is actually Mongoloid.

 

[Templar]

Exactly, and Baltic & Slavic N1c1 is part of their main NortEast aDNA component. This only means that their main aDNA component is partly Mongoloid/ East Asia

It is an insignificant part of their overall genetic makeup. Otherwise they would have epicanthic folds.

 

[jjmuneer123]

Then how come nearly every people on the planet who live in a cold environment, have small snub noses?

Nordics don't, Dinarids don't, nor do Iranids. Have you actually seen Kurds from all parts of Kurdistan?

The Middle-East was diverse before the agricultural revolution. The few groups that first developed it, overwhelmed their hunter-gather neighbors, and this resulted in a fairly uniform one ethnic appearance.

Really so Arabs look like Kurds, Turks look like Levantines? Nope, there are big differences within the West Asia.

Highlander Kurds are usually depigmented Iranids They are depigmented due to admixture with Indo-Europeans (who are pale).

Can you prove that, can you also tell me autosmally what the indo-iranian Indo-European would of been? They are depigmented because they live in the cold climate and skin colour can change to adapt the enviroment. So even if the indo-europeans were pale, it doesn't matter considering the migrated to different regions which were much warmer.

 

[Goga]

It is an insignificant part of their overall genetic makeup. Otherwise they would have epicanthic folds.

Maybe they're just a NorthWest Eurasian subgroup/branch of Mongoloid human species. They are mixed with Europoids. But the fact that folks in that area speak a Finno-Ugric language proves for met that the core of those folks is actually Mongoloid.

So not the same as their Mongoloid cousins in NortEAST Asia, but they share the same roots!

 

[Templar]

Nordics don't, Dinarids don't

Both Nordics and Dinarics are descendants of Cro-Magnons. They have the highest rates of haplogroup I, which is the oldest European Y-haplogroup. Cro-Magnons aren't exception to the rule, because they descended (split actually) from similar people as "J" people/Iranids did. Another common trait about descendants of Cro-Magnons is tallness. The tallest people in the world are Scandinavians and Dinaric people.

 

[Templar]

So not the same as their Mongoloid cousins in NortEAST Asia, but they share the same roots!

As do Indo-Europeans. Look at the haplogroup tree of R1, it connects to the Mongoloid haplogroups. But this is too far in the past to be relevant to this discussion.

 

[jjmuneer123]

Both Nordics and Dinarics are descendants of Cro-Magnons. They have the highest rates of haplogroup I, which is the oldest European Y-haplogroup. Cro-Magnons aren't exception to the rule, because they descended (split actually) from similar people as "J" people/Iranids did. Another common trait about descendants of Cro-Magnons is tallness. The tallest people in the world are Scandinavians and Dinaric people.

(You still ignored me other two replies)

Why are you linking phenotypes and haplogroups? Kurds aren't even mostly J, nor is it a single haplogroup. I haplogroup amongst scandavians is different to that of the one in Balkaners. Plus Nordics aren't cro-magnoids. They're faces are too narrow and long, they are more refined, and actually they are probably only tall due to a better diet. 100 years ago scandavians actualyl were one of the shortest people in Europe.

 

[Goga]

As do Indo-Europeans. Look at the haplogroup tree of R1, it connects to the Mongoloid haplogroups. But this is too far in the past to be relevant to this discussion.

Who's saying that R1* is Indo-European? There's even R1b in native African folks. There's almost no R1a in Western Europe (Spain, Frace,Holland etc.) and there's a lot R1a among Turkic speakers.

 

[Templar]

Why are you linking phenotypes and haplogroups?

It is a convenient way to group people, but of course you have to be careful while doing so, which I am.

Kurds aren't even mostly J

It is their single large haplogroup.

Plus Nordics aren't cro-magnoids. They're faces are too narrow and long, they are more refined

That is true, but they could have changed since then, no? The broadness found in Cro-Magnon skulls was likely limited to that time period. But, I still think "Nordic" skull shape is still a good indication of their ancestry.

 

[jjmuneer123]

Who's saying that R1* is Indo-European? There's even R1b in native African folks. There's almost no R1a in Western Europe (Spain, Frace,Holland etc.) and there's a lot R1a among Turkic speakers.

Well R1a-z83 is proto-slavonic, whilst R1a-z93 is was carried by the proto-indo-Iranians. Evidence as North Iranians, Kurds, Turkmens and Tajikis possess it. It actually it at the highest of its frequency amongst Talysh.

 

[Templar]

here's a lot R1a among Turkic speakers.

Indo-European admixture. Turkic people live mostly in Central Asia, and that used to be a heavily Indo-European area.

There's even R1b in native African folks.

That is till a mystery to me.

There's almost no R1a in Western Europe (Spain, Frace,Holland etc.)

R1b was also Indo-European. Why do you think they spread chariot technology wherever they went?

 

[jjmuneer123]

It is a convenient way to group people, but of course you have to be careful while doing so, which I am.

I personally wouldn't.

It is their single large haplogroup.

No not really, nor is J1c3 or J1* the same, nor is J2. It's like saying R1a1a and R1b1b is pretty much the same thing. Although both have western asian origins.

That is true, but they could have changed since then, no? The broadness found in Cro-Magnon skulls was likely limited to that time period. But, I still think "Nordic" skull shape is still a good indication of their ancestry.

Broadness develops in populations that have been sedentrized. You can actualyl see it with Kurds. My tribe is still mostly dolicephalic, as they were only sedenterized during the later 19th century, whilst other Kurds have been sedenterized for a long time, and are Mesocephalic leaning more towards brachephally. Actually Kurdish cephalic index is closest to that of Northern Europeans. Cro-mangons(Alpines, Baltids, borrberies, Gorid)

 

[Templar]

I personally wouldn't.

I personally would rather Y-haplogroups, rather than out-dated and irrelevant terms like Gorid, Borrberies, etc.

Just look at the genetic data, it is simple.

Mostly Cro-Magnon: Germanic people, and people in Dinaric alps.
Mostly Indo-European/or atleast very Indo-European: Celts, Balts, and Slavs.
Mostly Near/Middle-Eastern: Southern Europeans, Middle Easterners, North Indians.

There is no need to say "Alpine, Nordic, Dinaric", most of these categories are actually various kinds of mixes. East Balts are fairly "pure" Indo-Europeans, while Alpines have some near/middle eastern ancestry from the neolithic revolution.

 

[Templar]

Broadness develops in populations that have been sedentrized.

There are MANY exceptions to that rule. The first civilizations were populated by thin rather than broad-skulled people. And there were many nomadic Native Americans (and they ofcourse had broad skulls).

The environment doesn't change your skull-shape as quickly as many people seem to think.

 

[jjmuneer123]

I personally would rather Y-haplogroups, rather than out-dated and irrelevant terms like Gorid, Borrberies, etc.

Y dna shouldn't be used as a major determining factor of someone's genetic make-up. Patenral lingeages can be changed within a generation. Autosmal dna is what counts.
You still haven't showed me any phenotypes of the Kurds or middle-easterners. Show me cro magnon Nordic Germans if you may.
Anyway south slavs look completely different from east slavs.

Here are some Kurds from my clan:
[url]http://oi49.tinypic.com/2rw9m9v.jpg
[/URL]
East baltids are pure indo-european?
I didn't know the indo-europeans were brachephlaic and leptomorphic.

East Balts are fairly "pure" Indo-Europeans, while Alpines have some near/middle eastern ancestry from the neolithic revolution.

You just stated Alpines don't exist, so now they do and they have some near easterner? Make up your mind. What was the native phenotype of the Europeans then? Because Alpine is pretty common throughout Europe.

 

[Goga]

Indo-European admixture. Turkic people live mostly in Central Asia, and that used to be a heavily Indo-European area.

That is till a mystery to me.

R1b was also Indo-European. Why do you think they spread chariot technology wherever they went?

No, it's just the reality and the fact that pretty much destroys the argument that R1* is an Indo-European marker.

But we're way of topic now and I've got the filling we will not agree with each other, since you don’t come with any proof.

With all due respect, you just believe in this nonsense because it fits in your Eurocentric way of thinking. This is very human if you ask me. And the thing isthat you're just a simple human, never forget that.

You can believe in everything what you want, but don't come with stupid claims that Kurds "WERE" Indo-Europeans. Kurds still "ARE" Indo-Europeans.

Europeans do not have a monopoly on this term. Indo-European means: speaker of an IE language between India and Europe.

 

[Goga]

Most Europeans are Europoid Indo-Europeans.
Kurds are Caucasoid (Iranic) Indo-Europeans.

Bye, and have a nice day.

 

[Templar]

Autosmal dna is what counts.

It can be flawed in many ways.

Show me cro magnon Nordic Germans if you may.

There are many, just one example is Dolph Lundgren.

Anyway south slavs look completely different from east slavs.

South Slavs aren't genetically Slavic (maybe just a bit, but it depends on the country), just culturally and linguistically.

East baltids are pure indo-european?

Purer than most, yes. Your perception of Indo-Europeans is tainted by history. European Imperialist race-science is DEEPLY flawed.

I didn't know the indo-europeans were brachephlaic and leptomorphic.

Ideal for cold climates.

You just stated Alpines don't exist, so now they do and they have some near easterner?

They don't exist as a unique sunrace, they are a mix.

What was the native phenotype of the Europeans then?

Tall, tanned, long-nosed, broad bones, hairy, and with a skull that is both broad and long.

Because Alpine is pretty common throughout Europe.

Indo-Europeans had horses, great numbers, and bronze weapons. The majority of native Europeans were still hunter-gatherers. They got completely massacred.

My views are shared by most Eupedia. Why can't you be open-minded enough to atleast consider it? Read Maciamo's threads about it. He explains it really well.

 

[Templar]

With all due respect, you just believe in this nonsense because it fits in yourEurocentric way of thinking. This is very human if you ask me. And the thing isthat you’re just a simple human, never forget that.

I am not trying to offend you or to belittle you. I apologize if I did. I don't consider myself to have much Indo-European ancestry either. I don't support Eurocentric theories that "Aryans" came from Europe and created Civilization. We all know that is completely inaccurate. But Europeans due to the low-technology of the inhabitants during the Indo-European expansion, were impacted more than the other regions Indo-Europeans conquered. Do you see what I mean?