>>65789 Wrong, Proto-Indo-Europeans are still Indo-Europeans. >>65773 If you mean, who came before the Indo-Europeans in Indo-European land then it varies greatly depending on where you're talking about, in Western Europe, pre-indo-Europeans are hypothesised to be similar to basques and in India, Dravidian culture reigned supreme before the coming of IE culture.
>Dravidian culture reigned supreme before the coming of IE culture. There is no evidence for Dravidian culture reigning supreme before the arrival of the Indo-Aryans. There is nothing we know about what language was spoken by the inhabitants of the Indus Valley Civilization, though pockets of the Munda languages, an Austroasiatic branch, in isolated tribal areas may point to an ancient Austroasiatic Indian culture before the Vedic age.
>>65773 Everyone who lived from 700 000 to 6 000 years ago (because proto-Indo-Europeans appeared in 4 000 BC, google up the Kurgan hypothesis). And everyone besides Europe, Middle Eat and Northern India (with the exception of relic indigenous populations like Basque, Burushaski or Minoans) up to the colonial era.
Lots of people have argued that the !Kung are probably the closest living example of what modern people would have looked and acted like. Outside of them, Australian Aborigines, Papuans. and some Indian ethnic groups are all the result of the first migration out of Africa. In Europe, Basques and the Saami are the only living non-Indo Europeans populations. If you want to push this back really far, Homo habilis is the first things classified as human by taxon.
>>68609 All living peoples have genetically drifted for the exact same 200000 years from their ancestral population 200000 years ago, suggestions that dumb and ugly living peoples better represent those ancestors are nothing but racist ramblings.
Linguistically, you had Vasconics in Iberia, southern France, and Sardinia, and Tyrsenians in mainland Italy and around Greece, and then who the fuck knows what else in the other 80% of Europe. Genetically the people in the southern 2/3 or so would be genetically most similar to present-day Sardinians, with some other populations in the north. >>68545 Lusitanian looks pretty clearly IE and within the Western/Bell-Beaker group along with Italic and Celtic. It may have actually been a Celtic language based on the records we have. You may be thinking of Turdetan/Tartessian, which are very poorly attested but seem to have some Vasconic-looking words.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.