R-V88 Among Europeans

It's certainly not impossible, Rethel, but I would disagree that V88 is a "very Indo-European subgroup." Even if it were IE in origin, today the vast majority of bearers have very little connection to anything would could consider IE, except perhaps for a colonial language legacy.

Assuming it was IE when it came to Africa, we're looking at a Chadic version of the Basque situation...lots of uniparental input, but prior language retention.

Yes, I agree, with your statment but the point is, that R1 = IE always (you can
call it the beginnings if you want becasue it is not matter what language people
are speaking today, because in every country population is mixed) and about time
frames, which are usually to big as they where in reality, what this example (as
many others of course) shows us.

Still assuming V88 was IE, do you believe the scarcity of it in Europe is due to mere bad luck amongst earlier Eurasian V88s, or do you envision the European V88s as an extreme minority due to the mass and almost complete emigration of V88 to Africa?

V88 in Europe still exists. This is a fact.

Probably they emigrated when they still were a small in number.
And when they were in Africa they grow in number, aspecially,
if they created some state, as I suppose Sao civilisation, then
as an aristocracy, they can have much women and spread their
gen - but it is of course not necessary to larger their number.

We have not only Basque and Chadic who do not fit lingustically,
but also Altaians, Baszkirs, Udmurts, probably even Fins - but in
this case R1 almost disappear in favor of ugric N1c.

1/3 of Turkic peoples are IE R1, 1/5 Afroasistics in Africa are IE R1.
1/15 of Indian in Americas is IE R1 2,8% of east asians is R1 - but
it does not mean that they are originally chinese, korean, mongolian
or something like that - they simply were absorbed by locals.

In every such case we have data from normal history which shows
migration of Indoeuropeans (at least white) people which atfer that
were asimitating in neighbourhood. Only in the case of Tschad we do
not have any historical data, but it does not mean that they are not
from IE, and that they in some miraculosly way emerge in Africa:)

I am repeating this so many years, that I can do this next 10 in the face
of every stragne or some stupid theory. R1 that are Indoeuropeans and
only that (maybe plus R2??). Nor Q, nor I, nor J1, nor J2, nor, I1, nor E,
nor whatever is not an indoeuropean original marker and can be not.
During last 10 years all facts, ALL, were changing on the favor of my
statment, and will be still, becasue this is only logical and reasonable
explanation for corelation between languages and haplotypes.

The same rule of course is working in another
haplogroups... R1 is not only an exeption.:)
 
Have you ever wondered what King Tut's results were, taken so many years ago? With the latest technology, we could retest him, even if the results from 2007 were valid or not valid. Anyway, they still have not been officially released results as far as I know; and we are coming up into 2016:rolleyes:.

https://www.igenea.com/en/tutankhamun

Yes this is another example and confirmation, that early indoeuropean migrations had direction into Africa.
Together with Ginger (who shows much earlier migrations) it making a new problem and connection...Who
and why had build the piramids? If they were a burlial places, then together with the presence of IEpeople
in Egypt we have some kind of similarity and in this enviroment we can/should see pyramids as giant stone
kurgans of indoeuropean origin... This is a hypothesis, which can be checked by testing mummies's haplos.
 
............... This is a hypothesis, which can be checked by testing mummies's haplos.......

I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon, if ever.
 

This thread has been viewed 112492 times.

Back
Top