Where did the Proto Indo Europeans come from?

they came from proto-indo-europe

Eastern European hunter gatherers and Caucasus hunter gatherers

there's more to it, not just these two groups

The truth is that there's been a lot of rape and conquering theoughout Europe's history so it's pretty hard to tell. The Basque language and culture managed to survive but their genetics didn't

Similarities between Indo-European and Siberian/Uralic languages would suggest that it's predecessor arrived from Siberia, but when?

After the LGM with haplogroup R1, or later with the East Asian derived pottery eneolithic?

This shit is retarded guess work with no factual basis.

Not quite. It's based on impartial statistics and makes a great deal of sense since we know that Indo-Europeans and Siberians are connected via the Mal'ta Buret culture and related phenomena.
pnas.org/content/112/41/12752.abstract

The question is simply how old is the link, not whether it's real or not.

Hmmmm...

It's fucking retarded yes there's a genetic link, but to say Indo-European and Uralic are related is a reach, none of these super linguistic families like Indo-Uralic, Nostratic or whatever have any factual basis. Malt'a Buret predates Uralic and Indo-European family tree by 10 thousand years.

Plus that's only one shitty study from 2015.

There is such a thing as areal features which can be shared across language families.
Basque and Spanish share areal features for example but in a much more obvious and newer way.

The whole concept of language families becomes utterly absurd when we go back over 8000 years but none the less, remnants of areal features can be distinguished through statistic methods.
Indo-European originates in a circle very distinct from Semitic, Caucasus, Vasconic and other languages like that and does indeed share a great deal with the indigenous languages of Siberia.

Why are you fixated on this one study I'm guaranteed you're a Finn fixated on this one study. None of these super macro-families are supported by mainstream or have any factual basis I'm repeating to you again, one study with numbers doesn't have any predisposition to deciding that it's 100% certainly true. Nostratic family or any other mumbo-jumbo family falls completely flat within comparative linguistics. Also of course there's bound to be some closeness we know from vocabulary and archaeology that PIE's were present in South Siberia, but to say with certainty that they all belonged to same language group with various Siberian groups going back that far is pure nonsense. And I can repeat to you again one study in this field proves absolutely nothing.

Just like this statistically generated tree of Indo-European family and it's diffusion couldn't be further from the truths. You won't be able to explain linguistics with statistic methods because linguistics people don't follow the same logic. Word meanings and sound changes can drastically change from different language branch to branch, just because.

science.sciencemag.org/content/337/6097/957

youtube.com/watch?v=4jHsy4xeuoQ

You simply can't explain linguistics by statistics, and going going as far as back as 10 thousand years ago or more and thinking it's factual truth is even more retarded.

Also watch from around 15min covers phylogenetics and how misleading it can be, the same shit as in this study.

It's kind of a rule of thumb in linguistics that you can't reconstruct further back than 10,000 years

Shit, 7,000 is exceedingly difficult if not impossible

Why are you so triggered?

PIE sharing areal features with other language families isn't science fiction but a consequence of life as they weren't isolated from the outside world on a remote island.

I'm not entire convinced that all of these statistical similarities are meaningful since apparently the ancestors of PIE had lived in European Russia since the LGM ended but I'm keeping an open mind about it and wouldn't be too surprised if I was wrong and they arrived later in the stone age from say, Kazakhstan.

Zero arguments yet again, okay believe what you want.

Not sure what your point is.
Do you have a reason to think pre-PIE were isolated, and from what point onwards? Out of Africa?

I don't see that as plausible.

Where did I say that PIE's were isolated? I even said in previous post it's not surprising that they share some features with Siberian languages as they were present in PIE, PIE loanwords and vice versa appear in Proto-Kartvelian, Proto-Semitic or Proto-Uralic, though in Proto-Uralic case earliest loanwords are already from Proto-Indo-Iranian stage. But as this guy said. To say with certainly that they sprung from language family going as far back as 10,000 years is pure nonsense and speculation.

>as they were present in PIE
meant to say in South Siberia.

I asserted several times that the concept of language families becomes irrelevant at around 8k years but your defective brain seems to have disregarded that over and over because you were in an autistic frenzy.

However, linguistics isn't that simple.
Andamanese languages are structurally similar to Papuan even though they don't have anything to do with each other for tens of thousands of years.
Certain linguistic properties seem to persist over much longer periods in certain circumstances.
Linguistics just can't tell us if it's biological descent from a common ancestor or extensive creolization.

The guy's voice so fucking annoying it's embarassing

Again lots of fancy words without any factual evidence, just shitty speculations. I think you Finns certainly have some sort of inferiority complex by the mere mention of Indo-European, literally same shit in every single thread. We wuz theories and speculations with no hard evidence.

>Andamanese languages are structurally similar to Papuan even though they don't have anything to do with each other for tens of thousands of years.

they share lexical similarities, which can be explained by loaning of words or lexical substratum at some stage

A. Four Sons of Ham:
1. Mizraim (Egypt)
2. Cush (Sudan, Ethiopia)
3. Put (Lybia)
4. Canaan (Hivites, Jebusites, Arvadites, Girgashites, Amorites, Arkites, Sinites, Hittites,
Sidonians, Perizzites, Zemarites)

B. Five Sons of Shem:
1. Elam (Arabia)
2. Asshur (Assyria)
3. Lud (Lydians)
4. Aram (Aramaic, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria)
5. Arphaxad (From which Abraham descended)

C. Japheth's Descendants (14 Nations came out of Japheth):
The immediate descendants of Japheth were seven in number, and are represented by the nations designated Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Mesech, and Tiras; or, roughly, the Armenians, Lydians, Medes, Greeks, Tibarenians, and Moschians, the last, Tiras, remaining still obscure. The sons of Gomer (Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah) were all settled in the West Asian tract; while the sons of Javan (Elisah, Tarshish, Kittim and Dodanim or Rodanim) occupied the Mediterranean coast and the adjacent islands.

Seven Sons of Japheth
1. Javan (Greece, Romans, Romance -- French, Italians, Spanish, Portuguese)
2. Magog (Scythians, Slavs, Russians, Bulgarians, Bohemians, Poles, Slovaks, Croatians)
3. Madai (Indians & Iranic: Medes, Persians, Afghans, Kurds)
4. Tubal (South of Black Sea)
5. Tiras (Thracians, Teutons, Germans, Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon, Jutes)
6. Meshech (Russia)
7. Gomer (Celtic)

Europeans came from Japheth.

Do you need mental help?

Not an argument.

Fascinating thread and subject.

You've never presented an argument yourself, only autistic ranting about Finns.

I never claimed there was hard evidence that IE was related to Siberian languages but the Mal'ta Buret connection makes it realistic.
People from Siberia or Kazakhstan really did move into Europe after the ice age and this seems like the origin of the PIE of the 4th millenium BC at least genetically.

>East Asians and Amerindians don't exist.

Yes they do.

bibliotecapleyades.net/sitchin/sitchinbooks03_03a.htm

>but the Mal'ta Buret connection makes it realistic.

You shit for brains Finn, trough Mal'ta Buret we share ancestry with Native Americans, but their languages have fuck all to do with ours. Does your shit brain realize how small the population was back then? Going back that far of course you're gonna share some ancestry but to make some sort of connection trough languages going that far is NONSENSE.

>You've never presented an argument yourself,
That's because I never claimed that there's any sort super linguistic family like you were suggesting.

>only autistic ranting about Finns.

I know you're a Finn, I can recognize you're shitposting from anywhere.

FYI, I have Jewish ancestry.

But let's go back to the basics here.

People from Siberia or Kazakhstan moved into European Russia after the LGM carrying the R1 haplogroup.

Did they bring the predecessor of the PIE language with them or not? It seems like they did but not fully proven. The statistical similarities between IE and Siberian languages are expected because of that but I never claimed the classic concept of language families can be stretched back so far with the methods of modern linguistics. It's mostly just a curiosity and a sidenote that these statistical similarities exist and that they can't be used as hard evidence on their own.

Still the topic of this thread is where PIE came from and that would be Europe and Siberia.
I'd like to hear a counterargument to that.

Not according to your retarded biblical narrative.

>Did they bring the predecessor of the PIE language with them or not? It seems like they did but not fully proven.

>seems like they did

Why does it seems like they did, what evidence do you have for it?

>It's mostly just a curiosity and a sidenote that these statistical similarities exist and that they can't be used as hard evidence on their own.

I've posted you why phylogenetics is flawed method as it doesn't take into account many things and linguistics, sound changes among other things why they occur don't correlate with logic.

>Did they bring the predecessor of the PIE language with them or not?

I don't understand you, do you know how to count? Do you see how much of a gap in years there's between PIE and the time of R1 was born? It's pure fiction to think that they spoke predecesor of PIE languages, as PIE's themselves are made of genetically distinct groups like EHG's/CHG's/ANE's we don't even know what they spoke. CHG were for example isolated in Mountain ranges from any other population for thousands of years if not ten thousand.

When a population replacement happens it's generally the new people's language that stays and the old one which dies.
Alternatively creolization occurs.

The original PIE were clearly EHG as the Samara-Khvalynsk-Yamna sequence shows a very gradual increase of CHG over time making it rather impossible PIE language has anything to do with CHG except for some possible Kartvelian loans. They just mixed genetics but there was no population replacement.

No, proto-Indo-European is the reconstructed last common ancestor of all IE languages, proto-Indo-Europeans were its speakers.

It was probably spoken in the late Neolithic/early Chalcolithic of grasslands north of Caucasus, based on vocabulary evidence (by this I mean for example the fact that since it contains a word for wheel, it must have been spoken after its invention and so on).

You are probably thinking of paleo-Europeans, which is a basket term for speakers of any languages (or descendants of these languages) that were spoken before IE and Uralic spread throughout Europe.

Heaven.

...

kill urself

They're shiny Pajeets.

First for Alantis

You have a legend for that?

But the hittites were white indo-euros.

It should be
Blue=WHG/EHG
Orange=Neolithic Near East
Aqua blue=CHG

>Brad Pitt has the most quintessentially European face in history
I dig it

I want to fuck a proto indo european bitch

>proto-Indo-Euros were the same people that painted the caves in France and Spain, supposedly interbred with Neanderthals

not even close

>eventually formed the first Neolithic cultures of Europe

there is some contention on this issue

All the evidence points towards eastward migration, you as usual have it backwards.

m8

both Q and R come from P1, they split from each other.

Aurignacian and Gravettian DNA from Europe has no meaningful similarity to the Mal'ta boy.
It wouldn't make sense anyway as haplogroup R is related to Q as he said.

R1 carriers related to Mal'ta boy flooded into Europe and mated with local women.

You're an imbecile
livescience.com/31983-minoans-were-genetically-european.html

What's the connection to Indo-Europeans?
Minoans were Pre-IE.

Minoans were most likely not Indoeuropean, Eterocretan was an isolate language and most likely Linear A contained either Eteocretan or anither isolated language

And? Atlantaeans could have colonized and or fled to North America as well. The legends ofthe American Indians of the area might indicate as much.

I'm really gonna need a fairly basic gestalt on these two maps. They seem to contrast each other quite well from the looks of it.

There isn't any R1b in Native Americans other than what they got from European Americans.
It's just based on old genetic studies which included mixed race natives.

>all R1 haplotypes are B

you're fucking wrong

lol some autistic kid thinks his neanderthal ancestors meant shit.

Doesn't matter. There's zero proof that these mysterious Native American R1 lines exist outside an obscure study involving mixed race people 15 years ago and which didn't test for all possible markers.

They easily could exist since R and Q are brothers anyway. They just don't seem to or else there would be at least some information about them.

>R1 carriers related to Mal'ta boy

The Mal'ta child is the only existent example of basal R, not R1. The kid existed before the R1/R2 split.

Get good, Mal'ta culture is one of the only outside Europe to have Venus figurines, and their examples are predated by their European counterparts.

What does that suggest to you? To me, it suggests eastward movement.

>as he (You) said

hehehehehehehehe

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1#Americas

>Other authorities point to the greater similarity between haplogroup R1 subclades found in North America and those found in Siberia (e.g. Lell [12] and Raghavan [13]), suggesting prehistoric immigration from Asia and/or Beringia, deriving from two major Siberian migrations.

Ah a typical genetic ancestry thread:

Endless gibberish and incoherent rage

Still they were related to Mal'ta boy.

The Venus figure tradition did indeed originate in Europe but the unrelatedness of the Mal'ta people to Aurignacians and Gravettians is a proven thing.

reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/FuQ_nature17993.pdf

I'm not quite sure what these threads are about and what their purpose is.

I wish there was a little bit of organization.

...

The Ragahavan paper is about autosomal affinities between Native Americans and Mal'ta which can be explained by Q and R being related.

I don't know what the other paper by Lell from 2002 is about but seems like he was wrong since no further proof has come to light about Native American R1.

People who gets bullied out of Veeky Forums uses Veeky Forums as a safe space to spout scientific gibberish.

People with immovable opinions and beliefs gather and post very specific charts and trivial knowledge irrelevant to the overall debate, and everyone runs around in circles showing that the next person's argument has faults until they all die from exhaustion.

>the unrelatedness of the Mal'ta people to Aurignacians and Gravettians is a proven thing

well there's like 5-10,000 years separating them, so I'm wouldn't be surprised. Care to point me in the right direction with this paper? It's long.

Besides, trying to draw a straight line between Yamna (who were already a mixed bag of different ethnics lying in close proximity to Corded Ware and somehow got their shit unified) and Mal'ta will be hard, given the fact that Mal'ta is Upper Paleolithic and Yamna is Bronze Age.

t. brainlets

I have the same impression.

But you are being unfair. The threads aren't that bad.
It's just tracing how humans moved I guess.

see Or ctrl+f Mal'ta

africa where humans first evolved

Wrong. Humans first evolved in Africa.

Despite the fact they mention the cluster having two other individuals, they only really talk about the boy with basal R. Doesn't really seem like a large enough sample to rule out the possibility of influence on the Mal'ta from the outside.

>diffusion of ideas rather than movements of people

what a meme, as if ideas fly through the air.

IIRC, they got the most SNPs from him so he was the best sample.

Still, it doesn't really matter whether there was some small gene flow from Gravettian Europe into Mal'ta because it doesn't change the big picture which unfolded after, a westward expansion of Mal'ta related genetics.

You can't really dismiss it without being on the wrong side of science.

>Mal'ta are Mongols

amirite

Descendants of Japheth who went North after the ark landed on Ararat.

That's my theory anyhow.

I'm not entirely up to date on the specifics but my understanding is that they were on the western side of the genetic divide but shared somewhat more alleles with Asian populations than the Gravettians and Aurignacians did, even when disregarding Mal'ta related admixture in Asians and Neanderthal admixture in paleolithic Europeans.

chick on the left is the spitting image of someone i know

Interestingly, it seems from the Mal'ta boy's genetic profile that he was unrelated to modern East Asian groups like the Han or the Japanese. He was most similar to Native Americans and Eurasians.

I posted this article in another related thread.

bbc.com/news/science-environment-25020958

>Asian populations

there's a lot of them. Incidentally, P1 seems to have originated in SE Asia.

>mitochondrial DNA time

pure coincidence

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4105016/

>we sequence the draft genome of an approximately 24,000-year-old individual (MA-1), from Mal’ta in south-central Siberia9, to an average depth of 13. To our knowledge this is the oldest anatomically modern human genome reported to date

>Gene flow from the MA-1 lineage into Native American ancestors could explain why several crania from the First Americans have been reported as bearing morphological characteristics that do not resemble those of east Asians

you're gonna have to substantiate that

Would bang the chick on the right