Who lived in Europe before the indo-europeans?
I have heard they found a skeleton of a man of Finno-Ugric heritage in Spain dated around 20,000 years ago, but I cannot find the link.
For a very short summary there were WHG(western hunter gatherers) and EEF( early european farmers). The WHG were native to europe and the indo europeans are actually half related to them. The EEF came to europe around 10000bc from anotolia although they are not exactly like modern middle easterners as they are missing two key genetic components that reached the area later.
Ask any specific question i'm well versed in this stuff.
Finno Ugric people developed right alongside indo europeans in russia. I have no idea what you mean by this 20000 year old finno ugric man as the language is less than a fourth that old.
That map is wrong as genetics put an end to the "Aryans were steppe cowboys" meme. With the PCA of ancient genomes we clearly see steppe peoples are extinct and completely irrelevant to modern European genetic variation, while a clear pattern of invasion shows up in the Balkans that encompasses all modern European variation certainly originating from Middle Eastern mountains, which made sense from the beginning because that region had the latest advancement in bronze age military technology, the oldest subclades of R1b as well as the highest STR variance, and the Anatolian subbranch had the most archaic features of all known Indoeuropean languages.
The latest Academic [Lazaridis] figures from April 2014;
EEF WHG ANE
Albanian: 78.1 / 9.2 / 12.7
Ashkenazi_Jew: 93.1 / 0 / 6.9
Basque: 59.3 / 29.3 / 11.4
Belarusian: 41.8 / 43.1 / 15.1
Bergamo: 71.5 / 17.7 / 10.8
Bulgarian: 71.2 / 14.7 / 14.1
Croatian: 56.1 / 29.3 / 14.5
Czech: 49.5 / 33.8 / 16.7
English: 49.5 / 36.4 / 14.1
Estonian: 32.2 / 49.5 / 18.3
French: 55.4 / 31.1 / 13.5
French_South: 67.5 / 19.5 / 13
Greek: 79.2 / 5.8 / 15.1
Hungarian: 55.8 / 26.4 / 17.9
Icelandic: 39.4 / 45.6 / 15
Lithuanian: 36.4 / 46.4 / 17.2
Maltese: 93.2 / 0 / 6.8
Norwegian: 41.1 / 42.8 / 16.1
Orcadian: 45.7 / 38.5 / 15.8
Sardinian: 81.7 / 17.5 / 0.8
Scottish: 39 / 42.8 / 18.2
Sicilian: 90.3 / 0 / 9.7
Spainish: 80.9 / 6.8 / 12.3
Spainish_North: 71.3 / 12.5 / 16.3
Tuscan: 74.6 / 13.6 / 11.8
Ukrainian: 46.2 / 38.7 / 15.1
The SHG (Sandinavian Hunter-gatherers) seem to be having ANE admixture as well;
Basically there are three main groups. One was native to europe the WHG. One came from the Anatolian the EEF. And the final are the indo european(yamnaya) who are mix of WHG and another unknown group from the Caucasus mt. This other group had a lot of ANE(ancestral north Eurasian dna) which is based of humans from 20000bc as compared to the other groups which were from around 5000bc. They all mixed at various levels in europe.
Is this more understandable?
Are you so dumb you can't read a PCA?
Your ADMIXTURE run with EEF WHG and Yamnaya is completely meaningless as they simply set Yamnaya as a component, you can set any European population as a component and all other European populations will come out as partially that component. For example if you set Italian as a component French will come out as 70% Italian, Germans as 50% and Finns as 30%, not because those people have Italian admixture, but because those are closely related populations to begin with.
People still doubt that the Yamnaya people were the indo europeans? I thought David Reich had essentially proved it? There aren't any mainstream scientists that doubt it anymore as for as i know
My guess is that people from the Maykop culture migrated to Europe, intermingled with the locals and developed into the Yamnaya.
I wonder why they left Russians and Finns off the list...
Essentially, indo europeans are responsible for almost all languages in modern europe like the slavic,germanic,romance,celtic, hellenic languages except the finno ugric and basque languages. It seems all the founding groups were the same and that the differences resulted in the native people they mixed with in europe and how much EEF ancestry they had.
That being said non indo european people like hungarians are indistinguishable from Croatians who are indo europeans so its important to understand that language isnt everything and we must look to genetics
No, what they showed is that Yamnaya people were related to Corded Ware culture in central Europe which replaced the previous inhabitants, but everyone expected that already, what they didn't show is that either of those cultures are related to any indoeuropean language. And as you can see here >>75533 the people of those cultures are outside modern European variation and cannot possibly explain a single southern European genetically, nearly all of which speak indoeuropean languages, while the actual indoeuropean invaders from the Balkans explain all modern European variation.
>and the Anatolian subbranch had the most archaic features of all known Indoeuropean languages.
Anatolian also lacks innovations found in all other branches. Why do you think that is? Because it branched off very early while Proto-Indo-European was still spoken in the steppe
Maykop was probably the female linage that brought ANE to the WHG group living their. The formation of them may have led to indo european but there is one problem.
A recent study shows the Armenian or Caucasian dna(closest to modern lezgins apparently) in Yamnaya predecessors in russia a few thousand years before the maykop existed. Again this makes things more confusing.
>while Proto-Indo-European was still spoken in the steppe
No, while Proto-Indo-European was still spoken in the mountains of the middle east which Anatolia is a part of, no language between Anatolia and the steppes had similar archaic features.
People from Maykop culture start migrating to Europe after the invention of the bronze sword and the chariot, they settle in what is now Ukraine, intermingle with the population already residing there, develope into the Yamnaya culture and eventually into Corded ware culture.
No offense but you dont seem to even understand that the south shift was due another unrelated population that wasnt indo european that is already well document, the EEF.
I dont see how your little map proves anything
Have you even read about the Samara culture?
It seems scientists pretty much agree they were the predecessors to the yamnaya and not the maykop
>Ask any specific question i'm well versed in this stuff.
Who were the proto-indo-europeans? Did they branch off western hunter gatherers? Or did they branch off one of the middle eastern neolithic tribes? Or are they even something else?
Eurasians Migrated South into East Africa from at least 2000BC and spread their Caucasoid features to East Africans, these same Eurasians colonized EUROPE 4000 years earlier.
The reason we see Caucasoid features in East Africans is due them retaining Eurasian features.
> Ancient Ethiopian genome reveals extensive Eurasian admixture throughout the African continent.
> Here, we present a 12.5x coverage ancient genome of an Ethiopian male ('Mota') who lived approximately 4,500 years ago. We use this genome to demonstrate that the Eurasian backflow into Africa came from a population closely related to Early Neolithic farmers, who had colonized Europe 4,000 years earlier. The extent of this backflow was much greater than previously reported, reaching all the way to Central, West and Southern Africa, affecting even populations such as Yoruba and Mbuti, previously thought to be relatively unadmixed, who harbor 6-7% Eurasian ancestry.
> Ancient west Eurasian ancestry in southern and eastern Africa.
> we also find evidence for two admixture events in the history of Kenyan, Tanzanian, and Ethiopian populations, the earlier of which involved populations related to west Eurasians and which we date to ~2,700-3,300 y ago. We reconstruct the allele frequencies of the putative west Eurasian population in eastern Africa and show that this population is a good proxy for the west Eurasian ancestry in southern Africa. The most parsimonious explanation for these findings is that west Eurasian ancestry entered southern Africa indirectly through eastern Africa.
So what do you make of this? It doesn't seem to fit into your narrative.
Also, pic related is up stream from the Western Europeans, what do you make of that?
Hmmm, I dont think anyones sure about that but it does seem that they were not the first native group to europe but thats only by looking at ydna.
My best guess would be around a few thousand years before 20000bc when ydna I appeared, the first native ydna haplogroup of europe. There were other people before this though represented by Ydna C and ydna T but the y dna lineages are very rare now in europe and we are not sure of their autosomal dna.
First of all, I would suggest not using Eupedia as a source, atleast the distribution maps.
Second of all, the people who migrated to East Africa were most likely related to EEF, so why wouldnt it fit the narrative?
This study about east africans has nothing to do with the kurgan hypothesis. The Caucasian dna they are referring to is EEF dna which fits the hypothesis as we know they came from the levant, so this actually supports what im saying.
The ydna you posted here has nothing to do with indo europeans, there are R1b ydna subclades native to the middle east. Remember the haplogroups is over 20000 years old.
Refer to the link in here
The kurgan hypothesis is the mainstream
Autosomal dna points to a recent origin around 1000 ad and there autosomal dna mathes EEF groups which are much older, and yet still they have a unique indo european language.
They are a true mystery
Are you suggesting EEF existed in the copper age?
You're implying that languages contained homogeneous populations in the ancient past, I think that is laughable.
> This study about east africans has nothing to do with the kurgan hypothesis. The Caucasian dna they are referring to is EEF dna which fits the hypothesis as we know they came from the levant, so this actually supports what im saying.
Your timeline seems to be different to theirs, like 3000 years.
The EEF ancestors remained in asia minor and the levant it makes perfect sense but I am trying to answer more relevant questions of others
Go to the sight eurogenes blog. Go the post "basques arent simply..." you should have to scroll down a little and press older posts at least once. He explains it better than I can
I would link it but the sights owner doesnt allow it
I really commend all the people knowledgeable in this ancient history. I find it fascinating, but I'm too swamped from school to get into it as much as I'd like, so I'm always happy when I see threads like this.
The proto indo europeans were a mix of an eastern group of WHG sometimes called EHG and a group from the Caucasus mountain/middle east area who genetically resemble modern lezgins.
It seems the oldest representation of Indo europeans we can find is fro 5000bc in Samara russia
For sites to learn more go to Eurogenes, Deinikes blog, Eupedia(be carefull with eupedia though its y dna analysis is outdated as fuck) but the discussions by amateurs are OK
Specially the retention of laryngeals which people coming in contact with the language(outside the homeland) would have great difficulty in pronouncing.
Albanians ( native ones not the turk rape babies ) are overwhelminly related to illyrians who inhabited the area known as dalmatia. Their most noted historical acomplishments that still exist are their independent langauge development which was conpletely different from the latin/greek/phonecian languages around them, as well as the illyrian alphabet merging with slavic alphabets to create the greek alphabet which for some reason replaced the phonecian alphabet that was used in rome, carthrage and most other mediterrainian countries.
>Albanians ( native ones not the turk rape babies ) are overwhelminly related to illyrians who inhabited the area known as dalmatia.
But one time I saw one some shitty website that surprisingly Bosnians had more Illyrian dna than Albanians, this is outdated garbage, right?
>not the turk rape babies
4-6%. East Asians have slightly more actually. If that's why they score so high on IQ tests I don't know (blacks have 0%). But they do have more Neanderthal DNA.
P.S white strongmen aren't stronger because of neanderthal DNA, stormfags.
Genetically they were basically identical to today's Europeans. Their cultures were probably broadly similar to the pre-modern cultures of Europe, too.
The IE migration didn't involve population replacement.
WHG carried the blue eyes mutation, EEF brought light skin mutation as a more agrarian diet devoid of meat meant less vitamin D, blond hair most likely mutated somewhere in north east Europe. Thats why you can see all different combinations of these traits across Europe.
Atleast the one individual from Yamna I ran through an eye color prediction calculator came out green eyed, pic related.
Where is your proof those steppe people spoke any indoeuropean language? The oldest recorded indoeuropean language in the steppes are Scynthians which invaded it around 1000 BC, 2000 to 3000 years after the calculated age of PIE.
Yeah man, in the past people changed language and culture through trade festivals where they all singed and danced together sharing valuable cultural experiences.
War was something invented by capitalism, it didn't exist in the past.
So the white phenotype seems to stem from a mixture of the three separate groups, WHG, EEF and Yamnaya(being a mix of WHG and ANE among others) but there are exceptions.
For example, light skin is a trait that involves multiple genes.WHG had only one of these genes and were brown despite having blue eyes and european facial features(pic related).
Meanwhile it seems the EEF had two light skin genes and were pretty white despite originating in the middle east. Why? Some say its because their diet didnt involve a lot of vitamin D who knows. Remember modern middle easterners have more outside dna from the arabian peninsula and ANE dna from an unknown source.
Now the Yamnaya seemed to be a mix of light and dark individuals with mostly light eyes, same with their predecessors from Samara. The old belief was that indo europeans spread these traits exclusively but it seems they just spread them the most.
An annoying outlier is SHG or Scandinavian hunter gatherers who werent indo european at the time and didnt have contact with EEF yet having light skin and hair with blue eyes. Even odder is they had some genes for traits only found in modern Asians having to do with sweat glands and hair.
Any questions lol
read this lad
>Scholars estimate that PIE may have been spoken as a single language (before divergence began) around 3500 BC, though estimates by different authorities can vary by more than a millennium. The most popular hypothesis for the origin and spread of the language is the Kurgan hypothesis, which postulates an origin in the Pontic-Caspian steppe of Eastern Europe.
>There are several competing hypotheses about when and where PIE was spoken. The Kurgan hypothesis is "the single most popular" model, wherein the bearers of the Kurgan culture of the Pontic steppe are the hypothesized speakers of the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language. Alternative theories include an Anatolian urheimat[page needed] and Armenian urheimat.
>The Samara culture was a Neolithic culture of the late 6th and early 5th millennium BC
"Eneolithic" has a similar equivocal meaning. It might be considered a western derivative of Scythians. The Samara culture is considered the eneolithic culture of the region, along with the subsequent Khvalynsk culture and the still later early Yamna culture. These are termed the early, middle (or developed), and late Eneolithic, respectively, with the substitution of period for culture; e.g., the Samara period. "Eneolithic" as a common name refers to any culture in the eneolithic stage of tool development. It does not refer to a timeframe.
>These three cultures (the Samara, and successors the Khvalynsk and early Yamna) have roughly the same range. Marija Gimbutas was the first to regard it as the Urheimat (homeland) of the Proto-Indo-European language and to hypothesize that the Eneolithic culture of the region was in fact Proto-Indo-European. If this model is true, then the Samara culture becomes overwhelmingly important for Indo-European studies.
Yeah, the Scandinavian HGs carried the EDAR mutation thats responsible for the Mongoloid dental pattern called sinodonty and the thicker hair of mongoloids.
What must be noted though is that as EDAR affects phenotype so radically its also under heavy selection, thats why its prevalent in many populations you wouldnt expect like the Somalis.
They were wars, but they weren't genocidal. Over several centuries, a wealthy class of IE speakers asserted themselves over other Europeans. It became advantageous to learn their language, and eventually the native language was lost.
The languages took a very long time to die out. Etruscan existed until the common era, and Basque currently has some of the most speakers it's ever had.
This exact transition is happening among Amerindians in Brazil and Central America - native languages are dying off because second-language speakers of Spanish or Portuguese decide to raise their children as primary Spanish or Portuguese speakers.
It's possible that this change is happening in northwest Europe as well. English proficiency is so profound that languages like Dutch may become less relevant in the future.
>Specially the retention of laryngeals which people coming in contact with the language(outside the homeland) would have great difficulty in pronouncing.
Why do you think so? They usually show up in loanwords to Uralic languages as /k/.
On the other hand Anatolian is also morphologically simple compared to other branches, which is a good sign of language contact.
Europeans are composed of 3 groups.
First came hunter gatherers with brown skin and blue eyes, they returned to Europe after the glaciers began melting.
Then came the neolithic farmers from Anatolia. They had white skin and brown hair/eyes.
Finally came the Proto-Indo-Europeans.
These 3 groups combined to make up europeans.
Southern europeans are more farmer, northwest europeans are more hunter, and northeast europeans are more horse warrior.
And IE weren't horse warriors either. The most they used horses for were wagons (not chariots, those won't be invented for another thousand years, and cavalry not for another thousand after that.)
Proto indo europeans first started domesticating horses as a means of food before transportation.
Earliest evidence of a wheeled vehicle comes from poland around 3500bc, first wheeled vehicle discovered is from slovenia a few hundred years after this