[Bastard Sword]

^ I don't discount the Aryan invasion theory, I just dispute how it's used by a lot of white nationalists. People like this will claim that Indian civilization is just the result of white people, and that it fell into corruption after they mixed with the local Dravidians. The roots of ancient India (or ancient Egypt, or Sumer, or Mesoamerica, or any number of ancient civilizations) have nothing to do with "white" people, let alone ancient Europeans.

It's very possible that Indo-Aryans/Indo-Europeans steadily migrated into India or even invaded parts of it over a certain period. What is less certain is what this migration actually looked like -- the earliest Hindu text (Rigveda) for example was clearly written after this migration had taken place (it references animals like elephants that wouldn't have existed outside of India or Africa) -- and exactly what effect this had on ancient Indian society. Overall, it's an incredibly murky period in history from which almost no one can draw any serious conclusions. This also means that it's not even clear if the Indo-Aryans were "white" in the conventional sense, or whether modern Europeans can really draw much of a connection to them.

All in all, associating these ancient civilizations with white people or with Nordics is immature. Yes, there are linguistic ties with the ancient Germans and Scandinavians -- but that doesn't prove that the roots of Indian civilization are Nordic. Also, the Aryans are supposed to come from Central Asia, after which they invaded India, Iran, and Europe. I'm unaware of Central Asians (Kazakhs, Uzbeks, etc) being "white". On top of that racial compositions have changed over time -- Latinos for example did not exist before 1600 C.E. It's possible that the Aryans had a phenotype that would be unrecognizable today.

[Bastard Sword]

(06-24-2018 10:36 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_histor...ncient_DNA

Quote:

In 2013, Khairat et al. conducted the first genetic study utilizing next-generation sequencing to ascertain the ancestral lineage of an Ancient Egyptian individual. The researchers extracted DNA from the heads of five Egyptian mummies that were housed at the institution. All the specimens were dated to between 806 BCE and 124 CE, a timeframe corresponding with the Late Dynastic and Ptolemaic periods. The researchers observed that one of the mummified individuals likely belonged to the mtDNA haplogroup I2, a maternal clade that is believed to have originated in Western Asia.[7]

Quote:

Both types of genomic material showed that ancient Egyptians shared little DNA with modern sub-Saharan Africans. Instead, their closest relatives were people living during the Neolithic and Bronze ages in an area known as the Levant. Strikingly, the mummies were more closely related to ancient Europeans and Anatolians than to modern Egyptians.

https://www.nature.com/news/mummy-dna-un...ry-1.22069

I think that is rather clear what is being said here even if the language is trying to obfuscate the truth as much as possible.

"Ancient Europeans" and "Anatolians" leave little doubt at all, combined with "bronze age levantines".

Bronze age anatolians and levantines mean Hittites, Minoans and Phoenicians, all clearly "white european".

Those links you provided prove very little. A "maternal clade originating in Western Asia" can mean anything. I didn't know every maternal clade from Western Asia came from white people...it's a truly enormous stretch to claim that this proves that ancient Egyptians were white.

Of course the ancient Egyptians had some genetics in common with the Hittites and Phoenicians -- they undoubtedly took many as slaves, concubines, and wives at the upper classes. This doesn't change the fact that in literally every single one of their works of art, they depicted themselves as having dark brown skin. Even if their "roots" were European-- which you can't prove -- literally every Egyptian wall painting from 1800 B.C.E onward depicts brown people. These paintings depict everyone from the lower classes to the rulers, who Nordicists would assume are white.

At the end of the day, the argument here is that only white people are intelligent enough to create civilization. All these civilizations that were almost certainly created by brown people -- they were actually built by white people, brown people are too low-IQ to create things like this. Even you have to admit that this is an incredibly narcissitic viewpoint. If whiteness = intelligence, where were Northern Europe's achievements in the ancient world? The ancient Britons, Gauls, and Germans were barbarians by most people's standards. Conversely black Kushites in Sudan were building cities and monuments, including pyramids. All in Nordicism is an autism-level historical theory, one that was rightfully debunked decades ago.

[questor70]

(06-24-2018 10:55 PM)Bastard Sword Wrote:  

it's a truly enormous stretch to claim that this proves that ancient Egyptians were white.

They weren't white per se but they also weren't black the way the "we waz kangz" crowd would like to think either. The Nubians were but they were sort of a copycat culture. I don't like attempts to either whitewash OR blackwash history. History doesn't really care about people's racial agendas.

[sterling_archer]

(06-24-2018 10:26 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

You didn't need genetics of course. Any unbiased scholar would put two and two together when Sanskrit is an indo-european language:



Those first 3, depending on the transliteration into english script, is pretty much exactly old norse pronunciation.

Even today, Icelandic has these:



Either European people migrated into India and brought their language with them or Indians migrated into Europe. There was never any evidence at all of an indian migration anywhere, so it was rather obvious.

In Croatian:
2 - "dva"
3 - "tri"
4 - "četiri"

Some people use things like this to "prove" Croats (and all South Slavs) use derivative of Sanskrit language and thus come from East. Famous Iranian ancestry Croat theory is typical example.

[Bastard Sword]

(06-24-2018 11:55 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 10:55 PM)Bastard Sword Wrote:  

it's a truly enormous stretch to claim that this proves that ancient Egyptians were white.

They weren't white per se but they also weren't black the way the "we waz kangz" crowd would like to think either. The Nubians were but they were sort of a copycat culture. I don't like attempts to either whitewash OR blackwash history. History doesn't really care about people's racial agendas.

I agree to an extent -- the Egyptians were still very dark skinned Africans, even if modern-day African-Americans don't have much of a tie to them. I'm Indian, the Egyptians were probably as white or black as I am.

[nomadbrah]

(06-25-2018 12:11 AM)sterling_archer Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 10:26 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

You didn't need genetics of course. Any unbiased scholar would put two and two together when Sanskrit is an indo-european language:



Those first 3, depending on the transliteration into english script, is pretty much exactly old norse pronunciation.

Even today, Icelandic has these:



Either European people migrated into India and brought their language with them or Indians migrated into Europe. There was never any evidence at all of an indian migration anywhere, so it was rather obvious.

In Croatian:
2 - "dva"
3 - "tri"
4 - "četiri"

Some people use things like this to "prove" Croats (and all South Slavs) use derivative of Sanskrit language and thus come from East. Famous Iranian ancestry Croat theory is typical example.

Nice.

I think it's worth pointing out, also to what Bastard Sword wrote, that "Western Asia" and Central Asia for that matter all the way tol India was all "indo-european" until the mongolian and turkic invasions, which to my knowledge was later than the Scythians for example:



It's quite possibly some balkan people are descendants of scythians. I don't know enough about "the slavs" for example. They seem to just pop up as a group out of nowhere.

[sterling_archer]

Interesting article. Obviously I can confirm that Croatian words in tables are written correctly, but I cannot so regarding Sanskrit words.

SANSKRIT IN CROATIA: FROM SARASVATI TO HRVATI

[nomadbrah]

(06-25-2018 06:58 AM)sterling_archer Wrote:  

Interesting article. Obviously I can confirm that Croatian words in tables are written correctly, but I cannot so regarding Sanskrit words.

SANSKRIT IN CROATIA: FROM SARASVATI TO HRVATI

Seems credible to me and very interesting.

Didn't have time to read it all though.

[thoughtgypsy]

(06-24-2018 09:31 PM)Bastard Sword Wrote:  

The idea that either of those civilizations were "white" in the conventional sense is nonsense. Nordicist theories by and large are bull shit. Weird how those Nordic Aryan Egyptians loved depicting themselves like this:



Or like this:



Which shows a brown-skinned pharaoh fighting black Africans from Nubia. This painting accurately depicts Nubians as having extremely dark skin -- so one would imagine that the pharaoh (Ramesses the Great) would be depicted accurately as well. Unless, of course, those Nordic Aryan Egyptians just decided to depict themselves completely inaccurately.

In both paintings, members of the noble classes are depicted as well -- shutting down theories that ancient Egypt was some kind of ancient Apartheid state with enlightened white rulers using brown and black slave labor.

Most of the images you posted are from after the Hittite invasion, which is largely regarded as the beginning of the decline of Egyptian civilization. I don't disagree with your assessment of the Nordic theory, but that's kind of a bad example to use if you're trying to disprove the theory.

Quote:

That Vedic civilization argument that you referenced is tinfoil hat nonsense written in the 1890's (when theories like this were in vogue). The writer claimed that the Aryans originated in the Arctic Circle (lol) and have a ten thousand year old civilization. This isn't an argument he developed from referencing actual archaeology or historical works. It's little more than his creative interpretation of the Vedas, which themselves are little more than philosophical texts. It's like sketching out the history of Mesopotamia from a random person's interpretation of the Old Testament.

I don't think this really gives justice to the proponents of the arctic origin authors you're referencing. The authors were well aware of astronomical phenomena which were prevalent at over 20,000 year periods. I browsed through the material (did you?) and remember an acknowledgement of milankovich cycles, which was pretty advanced at the time.

You should really check out the work of Michael Rappenglueck. He's done extensive work on tracing back a tens of thousands year old religion. It is at least 30,000 years old, based on carvings uncovered in central Europe. I think Hinduism is an extension of it.

On an esoteric level, it has continued in the axis mundi traditions.
http://www.academia.edu/2561503/The_Whol...re_Meaning

Quote:

The Aryan Invasion theory in itself is highly suspect -- even if it's true, the earliest Indo-Aryans only came on the heels of the Indus Valley civilization, which was definitively not "white" in the modern sense.





The features of these sculptures honestly look very similar to modern Indians (or even the Australoid/Negroid aboriginals of India).

Nordicist theories were just part of a wholesale effort to justify colonialism, nothing more, nothing less. They're masturbatory fanfiction for the most part and have rightfully been discredited across the board.

Yea, right.



This guy is... ?

What about this chick:



Is she obviously Austroloid/Negroid, with her eye slits extending from her nose to the end of her skull, revealing 3" diameter eyes? Honestly, she looks more like a pokemon than a person. Maybe their depictions weren't perfect replicas of them as people. It would be foolish to take their replicas at their word, better to take them all with a grain of salt until some credibility has been established.

[nomadbrah]

(06-26-2018 08:08 AM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  

Well, isn't that interesting.

The horned yoga from the Indus Valley resembles the Celtic "lord of the beasts Cernunnos" found in Denmark, complete with both being shown with wild animals at their side:



Hmmm...

[sterling_archer]

Nothing to see there, move along.

[Kid Twist]

(06-24-2018 11:55 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 10:55 PM)Bastard Sword Wrote:  

it's a truly enormous stretch to claim that this proves that ancient Egyptians were white.

They weren't white per se but they also weren't black the way the "we waz kangz" crowd would like to think either. The Nubians were but they were sort of a copycat culture. I don't like attempts to either whitewash OR blackwash history. History doesn't really care about people's racial agendas.

Again, forget buzzwords, the DNA evidence clearly demonstrates that the pharaohs were European. And they were, without a doubt. Is there a lot of variation in Europe? Yes. But there's little argument about what European is in the modern sense of the word.

[Bastard Sword]

^Yes, they were so white, Aryan, and Nordic that they unilaterally depicted themselves as brown people. It obviously wasn't stylized since the black Nubians were depicted more or less accurately in this wall painting:



There was no "Hittite invasion" that marked the "decline of ancient Egypt" -- there was a war between Ramesses the Second (depicted in this wall art) and Hittites, which Ramesses won. This picture is a perfectly fine example of how the ancient Egyptians actually looked (dark brown) -- it was created at the height of Egyptian power. This is the general coloring ancient Egyptians used to depict themselves in almost every single one of their wall paintings. This implies that theories about them being white are masturbatory nonsense.

The Egyptians may well have been Caucasian, just like Indians and Iranians today, but that doesn't make them "white". What's more, it means that modern day white Americans have as much of a tie or claim to their heritage as Australian aboriginals do -- i.e none.

The real question is why people are even trying to push such a nonsensical theory. A Google search of "ancient Egyptian wall art" disproves it in two seconds. I'm sure it's satisfying for people to think that their ethnicity was behind all of civilization, but that doesn't make it true. History doesn't give a shit about your feelings.

[DChambers]

If I recall correctly there were several ages and dynasties in Egypt, some were fairer, some were darker, some were European. The old kingdom was native Egyptian, weather that was white or not I do not know. I'm sure they were lighter than the sub-Saharan Africans, they may even have been more along the line of the very Caucasian native Berber populations in the Taurus Mountains. Then there was a conquest by a people from further down the Nile, I can't remember the name of the Civilization as of right now, they were darker than the native Egyptians. After that there was a another conquest by the nomads that swept down from the Caucus Mountains all over the ancient world, they were most certainly Caucasian as they were described as having fair skin and red hair. Eventually they were overthrown and an Egyptian dynasty reinstalled. And so it went on and on.

Not sure who were the Pharaohs were at the time of Alexander's conquest, but after his time they were most certainly white. Inbreed Greek dynasty to the end.

Can't quite recall how all the dates lined up, it's been awhile since I studied Egypt and I probably won't go back and do it anyways, Rome always held more interest for me.

[Genghis Khan]

(06-16-2018 07:03 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

^ It's absolutely intriguing stuff.

Incredibly architecture.

If we're judged on what we can leave behind, what will they make of our "liberal democracy"? We can only get people to build cheap and ugly steel and glass. Forget about getting our "capitalists" and other rich people to pay someone to spend 20 years carving out stone for a statue.

These societies used slave labor of course, which was really more like indentured servants or basically, job security for life and one day off a week

In a lot of academic fields, they say there are no new discoveries. Like if you go into chemistry or medicine, you will spend your career going over minutiae of some theory.

In archeology and antrophology, I think we're due for a new golden age, when we combine our technology (dna, carbon 14, all kinds of stuff) with our "soft science" of historical record and word of mouth through the ages.

So much of actual, real history has been hidden and deliberately destroyed through 50 years of marxist studies. It's all there waiting to be rediscovered.

As for where I see the big discoveries being made.

Sumer and Indus Valley.

We got to figure out who these people were. Indus Valley was highly advanced and pre-dates the Egyptians. Likewise with Sumer.

Agreed, I'd love to know who the Indus Valley people were. There's so little known about them and their civilization.

I think one of the more neglected areas of studies is looking at religious scriptures as actual history.

OP mentioned Dwarka - what was fascinating was that the archeologist who discovered it did it out of skepticism. Dwarka was the city of Krishna, and he was wondering if those stories about Dwarka were just BS. So he went, looked around, and surprisingly found the city!

Anyway, in terms of genetics, the most interesting website I found was https://indo-european.eu/ - seems to be pretty detailed about the entire Indo-European migration stuff.

[Fortis]

Why can't Egyptians be some weird mix? Theyre located in a place that would make mixing very easy. Seems like a stretch to claim they were 100% european the entire time. Were some Pharoahs 'White,' some Black and others some mix?

[Super_Fire]

Obviously they were a weird mix, and there was more mixing down the line.

Look at this Old Kingdom scribe:

[Fortis]

Makes sense to me. The old world did not have the same racial hang ups that we do.

[Genghis Khan]

(06-26-2018 08:57 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 08:08 AM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  

Well, isn't that interesting.

The horned yoga from the Indus Valley resembles the Celtic "lord of the beasts Cernunnos" found in Denmark, complete with both being shown with wild animals at their side:



Hmmm...

Meh, could be a "coincidence" in the sense that distinct cultures with no interaction have the same archetypes. I got to look the quote from Joseph Campbell's Mythology books, but he pointed out Christian missionaries were surprised to find the virgin birth story in indigenous stories in America, believing it to be the work on the devil.

In reality, it seems archetypes (such as the Hero's Journey), which become the stuff of religions, are deeply embedded in our psyche. Stuff like this is not necessarily evidence of genetic connections, admixture or contact.

In terms of Indus Valley,

https://indo-european.eu/2018/04/rakhiga...t-al-2018/

Quote:

New article on The Caravan, Indus Valley People Did Not Have Genetic Contribution From The Steppes: Head Of Ancient DNA Lab Testing Rakhigarhi Samples, by Hartosh Singh Val.

Niraj Rai, head of the DNA Laboratory where the samples from the Harappan site of Rakhigarhi in Haryana are being analysed, has this to say:

It will show that there is no steppe contribution to the Indus Valley DNA.

The Indus Valley people were indigenous, but in the sense that their DNA had contributions from near eastern Iranian farmers mixed with the Indian hunter-gatherer DNA, that is still reflected in the DNA of the people of the Andaman islands.

Unless scientists find some linguistic or genetic connection between Celts and Indus Civilization, it may be prudent to assume these similarities are representative of subconscious archetypes more so than cultural interactions.

[nomadbrah]

Great find Ghengis.

Why would they have steppe-dna (aryan), when the aryans only arrived much later to bring about their downfall?

They say they have "near eastern iranian farmer DNA".

Unfortunately, you have to be an adept code breaker, to read the politicized meaning of these descriptions:

Steppe = Aryan

Near Eastern Farmer = Anatolian Greek

Quote:

The March 2018 paper posits two migrations into South Asia—the first, by Iranian farmers less than 9,000 years ago, and the second, by the steppe pastoralists less than 5,000 years ago. The first migration mingled with the pre-existing hunter-gatherer population of South Asia and gave rise to what the authors’ term the Indus Periphery People

Understand what they're writing here.

"Iranian farmers" is a complete bullshit politicized term. Laughable. There were no Iranians until 8000 years later!

Iranian farmers = Anatolian farmers = Near Eastern farmers = Minoan Greeks

This is fact.

They are in fact saying that the Indus Valley people WERE European, but not Nordic as such.

They were similar to Minoans and early dynasty Egyptian.

As for Celts, well they are known to be more dark haired than germanics, and there have been a lot of theories postulating that the celtic urheimat was in Anatolia. We know for a fact that the Celts were in Anatolia, they were called Galatians. Maybe they picked up some of their religion from there. They ARE known to the Greeks already.

[Genghis Khan]

Quote:

Great find Ghengis.

Why would they have steppe-dna (aryan), when the aryans only arrived much later to bring about their downfall?

The article was specifically about debunking the Out-of-India theory - by showing that the Indus Valley had no R1a marker, thus demonstrating that the R1a can't have spread from India, as per:

http://www.caravanmagazine.in/vantage/in...rakhigarhi

Quote:

In other words, the preprint observes that the migration from the steppes to South Asia was the source of the Indo-European languages in the subcontinent. Commenting on this, Rai said, “any model of migration of Indo-Europeans from South Asia simply cannot fit the data that is now available.”

Anyway, my point was:

1. Cernunnos is an Aryan god (unless I'm mistaken?)
2. Indus Valley has no connection with the Aryan/Steppe Pastoralists
3. So there isn't a clear connection between Cernussos and the Indus Valley image.

Quote:

"Iranian farmers" is a complete bullshit politicized term. Laughable. There were no Iranians until 8000 years later!

Don't be dramatic - this is exactly the same type of rhetoric Israelis use about Palestians "There was never a Palestine, so there were no Palestinians either". It's arguing semantics, which in this case takes away from the point: in context of the graph, Iranian farmers clearly refers to farmers who 4000-9000 years ago lived in what's modern-day Iran.

Quote:

They are in fact saying that the Indus Valley people WERE European, but not Nordic as such

No, that's not what they're saying at all. What they are saying is they found a mix from farmers from the area that's modern-day Iran (Anatolian Greeks/Europeans as per your post) and native Indian hunter-gatherers (I presume negroid, since that's what Andaman Islanders are).

That doesn't negate a potential hypothesis that it may have been the Iranian farmers that created the Indus Valley first and then had their genes mixed with the Indian hunter-gatherers. I assume that's your hypothesis, and I'm inclined towards such a hypothesis - from the bits I know about the Andaman Islanders, I'm not confident they could've developed a high civilization, and it most likely were the farmers who created the civilization. Although even then, the Andaman Islanders may be the "Idiocracy"-like remnants of the Indus Valley civilization, and not representative of the average IQ at the time (one only has to imagine the average Westerner a hundred years from now and compare to the high of Western Civilization). And perhaps what they refer to as Indian hunter-gatherers were more accurately remnants of the Dwarka Civilization that got wrecked by a massive flood, and they may have been the primary contributors to the Indus Valley Civilization.

In about two millenia, they may do excavations in Canada, find genetic material that is a mix between what they will call Native Canadian hunter-gatherers and Punjabi farmers (considering most of the Sikhs in Canada are from a farming background), and someone may claim: "They are in fact saying North American people WERE Punjabi, but not Dravidian as such."

Regardless, the genetic evidence mentioned does not support any such hypothesis either way about Indus Valley people.

Quote:

Unfortunately, you have to be an adept code breaker, to read the politicized meaning of these descriptions:

Not really, as for Iranian Farmers being European, it does not appear anyone is hiding that they may be Anatolian:

https://indo-european.info/ie/Ancestral_...th_Indians

Quote:

ANI can be modelled as a mix of ancestry related to both western Iranian farmers and people from the Bronze Age Eurasian steppe, and is thus close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans[Lazaridis et al. 2016]. Because of that, it is possible that the ANI component was prevalent in the Mehrgarh and later Indus Valley Civilisation, expanding eastward into South India in an admixture event associated with the spread of farming, as suggested by mtDNA lineages that entered India from Anatolia, the Caucasus and Iran in the earliest Neolithic sites. The ASI component may have expanded earlier, possibly in different waves, from west and south-west Asia, with the end of the last Ice Age

Also note how a published researcher like the proprietor of the indo-european.eu/info websites is mindful of stating things as possibilities, rather than absolute certainties ("it is possible", "as suggested by", "may have expanded").

This is in strong contrast to your own style, which is heavy on the rhetoric, "laughable", This is fact.", "We know for a fact".

We should be careful making absolute statements about historical "facts" thousands of years ago. At best, we can state some things accurately such as whether certain human remains had the R1a haplogroup or not. At worst completely wrong conclusions can be drawn. Here's a great example about a hypothetical case where in the future people assume the homeland for everyone in America was in the Lowlands (Holland) instead of Britain and Spain:

https://indo-european.eu/2017/11/correla...ypothesis/

Quote:

Let me illustrate this attractive “Correlation = Causation” argument, using it to solve the problem of Future American languages.

Suppose we live in a future post-apocalyptic world ca. 3500 AD, with no surviving historical records before 3000 AD. None. Just investigation of cultures and their relationship by Archaeology, proto-languages reconstructed and language families identified by Linguistics, etc.

We have thus Future Germanic and Future Romance as the only language families spoken in Future Western Europe and in the Future Americas, in a distribution similar to the present day*, and we have certain somehow related archaeologically-defined cultures on both sides of the Atlantic, like Briton, Iberian, Norman, or Lowlandish, although their distribution remains partly undefined in time and space.

* If you are really curious about this scenario, you can read about the potential evolution of a Future North-American language.

But what languages did the ancestors of Future Americans speak, and who spread them? That question remains far from being settled by our future researchers, in spite of the solidest linguistic and migration models (talking mainly about Briton and Iberian cultures): too many authorities out there questioning them, fighting to impose their own pet theories.

Suddenly, the newly developed field of Human Ancestry comes to save the day. So let’s say we have this map of ancient samples recovered (dated from, say, the 6th to the 18th century AD), and our study is centered on the newly described “Western European” component (a precise combination of, say, WHG+steppe), which peaks in early samples from the Low Lands – hence we call it, quite daringly, “Lowlandic component“.

Our group is keen to demonstrate that the ancient Lowlandic culture described in Archaeology (marked especially by the worldwide distribution of tulips among other traits) is the origin of Western European and American languages… Now, let’s reach conclusions about migrations in the Middle Ages!



PCA shows that South-West European samples cluster closely to some North-West European samples, and that some late South American samples available cluster at some distance from North American samples – nearer to a native component represented by two individuals with 0% Lowlandic ancestry and a different cluster in PCA. And some North-American samples cluster quite closely to North-West European samples.

Based on the decrease in ‘Lowlandic component’ in the different samples and on PCA, we conclude that Lowlandic peoples (“or their close relatives”) must have migrated at the same time to North America, South America (or potentially from North America to South America?) as well as western, central, and northern Europe. Both migration events must have happened roughly at the same time, in part because both distinct language families appear in a north-south distribution, and Proto-Lowlandic must be (according to Genetics) the ancestor of both, Proto-Future-Germanic and Proto-Future-Romance.

That makes a lot of sense! A huge Lowlandic pressure for migration, you see. Push-pull mechanisms and stuff. A Lowlandic Empire probably (scattered remains are found everywhere)! And, judging by the presence of the ‘Lowlandic component’ in Future East Europe from the Elbe to the Vistula, maybe Lowlandic peoples spread Proto-Slavic, too! We can even date the common Lowlandic-Slavic proto-language this way! So many groundbreaking conclusions!

Future scholars supporting the Lowlandic homeland are on fire; they can’t get enough of publishing papers on the subject. “Two different Future American language families with cultural origins in Britain and Iberia, my ass! Because genetics.”

[nomadbrah]

Iran is a country that has only existed since the 20th century.

Those people were not "Iranian" anymore than the proto-Indo-Europeans were Ukrainian.

Andaman islanders are not officially negroid, though I personally think they are negroid and not representative of the australoids that inhabited the Indian subcontinent back then. Those I think were probably closest to Sri-Lankans today.

They were "Near Eastern Anatolian Farmers".

[nomadbrah]

Ghengis,

I'll read your post in detail and get back to you.

Sometimes you have to use strong language to get a reaction or it would just be me and Sterling_Archer posting about this stuff.

[sterling_archer]

Regarding Andaman islanders, they are one of the most fascinating cultures you can probably think of. No one, except some undiscovered Amazon tribes can come close. Why? They live de facto in stone age and have not made any real contact with civilization. They are 100% hostile and will kill you on sight. The closest people got to them was by helicopter and what happened? They shot at it with bows hahah!
Regarding bows they have absolutely unique ones. Check out this:



Bows have just one proper working limb and are very long. In any way they are pretty much low performance but Andamanese prefer them over any circular tiller bows (first bow invented).

What is also interesting? The layout of the bow is the mollegabet bow, found in the Danmark and it dates from mesolithic Europe! The difference is that both limbs here are working ones.

[Genghis Khan]

In terms of Iranian Farmers being Anatolian,

seems they might be distinct groups:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27502179

Quote:

The agricultural transition profoundly changed human societies. We sequenced and analysed the first genome (1.39x) of an early Neolithic woman from Ganj Dareh, in the Zagros Mountains of Iran, a site with early evidence for an economy based on goat herding, ca. 10,000 BP. We show that Western Iran was inhabited by a population genetically most similar to hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus, but distinct from the Neolithic Anatolian people who later brought food production into Europe.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/07/w...ly-diverse

Quote:

But the ancient Iranian DNA was dramatically different from that of the western Anatolian farmers. The two groups of farmers, who lived about 2000 kilometers and 2000 years apart, must have descended from completely different groups of hunter-gatherers who separated 46,000 to 77,000 years ago, Burger says.

A similar genetic disjunction appears in a study led by Harvard University’s David Reich and posted on bioRxiv. This study analyzed ancient DNA from 44 Middle Easterners who lived 14,000 to 3400 years ago, including Natufian hunter-gatherers in Israel, Zagros farmers, and Bronze Age pastoralists in the Eurasian steppe, and compared it with that of 2864 living and ancient people from around the world. By sequencing 1.2 million nucleotides from across each genome, the team found that early farmers of Israel and Jordan (known as the Levant) were genetically distinct from those in the Zagros Mountains, and that both populations were distinct from the western Anatolians who later spread their genes throughout Europe.

The third study, also published on bioRxiv, reported the same stark differences. That study analyzed the complete genome of a 10,000-year-old woman from Ganj Dareh, a site in the Zagros Mountains with the world’s oldest evidence of goat herding.

Burger and Reich also each used their data to peer even further back in time, to the ancestors of the Zagros Mountain farmers. They found that the Zagros people descend from a group of basal Eurasians who separated from the ancestors of all other people outside of Africa 50,000 to 60,000 years ago—before other non-Africans interbred with Neandertals. So the Zagros Mountain farmers had less Neandertal DNA than the western Anatolian farmers, whose ancestors must have branched off later.

The descendants of these early farmers went separate ways. Whereas the western Anatolians later migrated to Europe, Reich’s team proposes that the ancient farmers of the Levant migrated to East Africa, where living people carry some of their distinct DNA, and the Zagros Mountain farmers spread north into the Eurasian steppe and east into South Asia.