Pre-Indo-Europeans/Old Europe

What do we know about these people? Are there any left or has it been so long that they're nothing like those Old Europeans? What did they look like? What language did they speak? Is there any genetic trace of them left in the European peoples?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_W_(mtDNA)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelteminar_culture
eupedia.com/genetics/corded_ware_culture.shtml
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ötzi
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

there wasnt and isnt such thing as european


and they were all nordic but swarthy romans and greeks raped them

Aw geez...

Probably most people in europe carry a 30-50% percentage of them

What about the Basque and the Finnic people? Apparently their language, along with Hungarian and Gaelic, are the only PIE languages still around. Could they be more closely related to those PIE peoples?

>hungarians and finns
>related to PIE peoples

Are you retarded?

Well, WHG as your pic displays were light-eyed and dark-skinned and haired. All that remains are their genetics from breeding with Neolithic and Indo-European peoples. Language? Basque, maybe, but that's possibly a leftover from the neolithic languages.

Actually Finns are genetically 50% yamna aka aryan because linguistics =/= genetics

>muh genetics
They have been completely taken over linguistically and culturally by the finno-ugrics. Genetics don't mean shit.

user, PIE stands for Proto-Indo-European, not Pre-Indo-European. PIE are the ones that took over Europe and pushed the pre-Indo-Europeans into small enclaves like Basque country.

There's no linguistic leftovers from the WHG that we know over. The farmers possibly absorbed a few of them and through the gradual decline of the WHG they all went extinct.

>50% Yamnaya
>yet also barely any CHG
How does this work?

Bosnians/Herzegovinians are probably the closest to Paleolithic Europeans and Germanics follow them in admixture.
Georgians are probably the most resemblant of the pre-Indo European Bronze Age people and Neolithic farmers in appearance and language. Since they're genetics are relative and their languages are just as puzzling as the pre-Indo European ones it's difficult to accept that they just popped out of thin air and avoid make connections.

In terms of admixture, South Slavs are by no means the closest to Paleolithic Europeans. Germanics are closer, but even then other groups like Balts are closer still. As for the Neolithic farmers, Sardinians are the closest genetically and probably in appearance too. In terms of language we have no idea how many languages existed in Europe prior to the Indo-Europeans and to what language families they belonged to, but Basque is probably the best bet at least for western Europe.

Finns/Estonians and Hungarians come from Siberia, they speak the Finno-Ugric languages which is a non-IE language family, they arrived in Europe well after the Indo-Europeans though.
Basques are the only pre-Indo-Europeans left in Europe I think.

>South Slavs are by no means the closest to Paleolithic Europeans. Germanics are closer, but even then other groups like Balts are closer still.
Are you kidding me? What proof, what metric do you use for determining such things?
Basque is probably the best bet for the Paleolithic but what of Neolithic and pre-IE languages.

>Are you kidding me? What proof, what metric do you use for determining such things?
Autosomally they cluster quite far away from Paleolithic Europeans.

>Basque is probably the best bet for the Paleolithic but what of Neolithic and pre-IE languages.
No, Basque is the best bet for Neolithic languages. Also I'm not sure why you said "and pre-IE" since both Paleolithic and Neolithic languages fall under pre-IE.

Didn't want to type more than was necessary but you know what I mean, hunter gatherers vs neolithic farmers and Bronze Age Tyrsenians.
As for the clustering I hope you have something better than some dienekes stuff.

That their EHG component is most similar to Yamna and therefore probably of IE origin, the original Indo-Europeans were fully EHG so yeah.

>and Bronze Age Tyrsenians
I didn't realise that's what you were talking about, thanks for clearing that up.

Also I'm not going off Dienekes, since it's a pretty much universally accepted that South Slavs are quite distant from Paleolithic Europeans. What source did you use to conclude that they were the most related?

I understand what you're saying, but isn't the 50% figure specifically how related to Yamnaya they are, and not how "original Indo-European they are"? How can they be the most Yamnaya at 50% when they have one of the lowest amounts of CHG admixture in Europe?

What about W mtDNA? It's of Kavkaz origin and common in Finns

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_W_(mtDNA)

Finns are obviously loaded in CHG in the same way as Balts

Old European refers explicitly and exclusively to the ENF+WHG people with no CHG or EHG ancestry, they were all pussies, except for the Sardinians who developed a martial culture thanks to their huge reliance of cattle and herds that raised their test

>Finns are the most Aryan in Europe
>but at the same time the most mongoloid, even their language is from Mongolian region
If you want people closest to PIE, look at Germanics, Balts and Slavs.

Germanics are Neolithic Funnelbeakers.
Irish have more PIE on the Y.

Sharing maternal haplogroups doesn't necessarily equate to sharing admixture, though. As far as I am aware Finns have one the lowest levels of CHG in Europe. If this isn't true, I would love to be corrected.

Basques aren't some mysterious, ancient people, at least not anymore than any other European group. They just speak an older, most likely neolithic language. Genetically and craniometrically they're no different than any other population. The palaeolithic shit was debunked years ago by brace et al and lazaridis.

Basque is Pre-Indo-European.
Finnic languages came after Indo-Europeans, and so did Hungarian, which came in the middle ages.
Gaelic is Indo-European.

Genetically they are quite distinct as they have almost no CHG admxiture

Basques have less CHG as they are only 25% Yamna, Sardinians much less.

Finns are about 20% CHG and 25-30% Neolithic farmer. That's not necessarily inconsistent with being 50% Yamna but more research needs to be done on ancient Russian groups. There's already some evidence that CHG predated Corded Ware in NE Europe as a Comb Ceramic R1a male from Estonia had some minor CHG, mixed into WHG and EHG. It's very likely in my view that there existed groups genetically very close to the Yamna in the forest-steppe and forest areas of European Russia and perhaps even Urals and these could be a donor to the CHG in Uralic people, although not exclusively as Finns share IBD-segments with ancient Indo-Europeans from Ireland to Altai.

Sardinians have less CHG admixture than Basque?

Weird with all those Phoenician colonies

So you're saying it's fair to assume that at least some of that 50% Yamnaya figure for Finns derives from pre-Indo-European sources? That seems reasonable.

Also just going back to CHG again, I get that CHG admixture in Finns can fit with being 50% Yamnaya, but other groups in Europe are still more CHG than Finns. If we're comparing say, Norwegians to Finns, Norwegians have more CHG, and if you're right about CHG presence in north-east Europe prior to Corded Ware, surely Norwegians would be less exposed to this than Finns due to geography. So wouldn't this coupled with higher CHG directly imply that Norwegians and other European groups are more Yamnaya than Finns?

The CHG admixture in the Comb Ceramic man from Estonia was fairly minor, around 10%. Any admixture from his people would lower CHG not raise it for modern Northern Europeans.
Related groups further to the southeast should have had more meaningful quantities of CHG not dilluted by Baltic WHG.

Archeologists see an origin for the Comb Ceramic/Pit-Comb Ware culture in the Kelteminar of Kazakhstan which could be the source of the CHG in question.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelteminar_culture

As for Norwegians they certainly aren't much over 25% CHG so we're talking about a fairly small difference here. They've had a higher effective population size than Finns though so their haplotype variation retains the CHG component better.

Inmiddels pretty sure gealic is indo-european

>Any admixture from his people would lower CHG not raise it for modern Northern Europeans.
I meant for pre-Indo-European northern Europeans who wouldn't have had any CHG, although I guess ultimately this doesn't really change the answer.

Also thanks for the link, I was not aware of that connection between Comb-Ceramic and Central Asia.

Probably Med people like me (Spain), Because i look exactly like that, maybe more blondie but close enough.

They were Nordic, then French-looking IEs came, raped them, and forced their Centum language upon them.

Since they weren't able to speak the original IE language, they modified it and created the Satem language.

Corded Ware was Satem, honey.

The Oldest Corded Ware sample was R1b, but later Corded Ware samples were R1a, and most likely I. This show a gradual corruption of the Indo-R1bean blood with Pre-IE Nordic people (I and R1a)

eupedia.com/genetics/corded_ware_culture.shtml

God, I'm tired of your autism, you stupid french motherfucker.

Leave this site

Why are Caucasian languages and people in general not considered pre-Indo-European?
Also how did they manage to keep their language and culture considering the close proximity to the steppes and to the original PIE home?

Because IE languages originated in the Caucasus and cucked the native Russian EHG

Nice try, Piotrson

It's unlikely North Caucasians are native to their lands prior to Scythians with the sole exception of the Circassians.

You got it backwards. R1a and R1b have been proven to be EHG and occasionally WHG. No J2 arrived in the steppe with the CHG admixture.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ötzi
They were looked like Caucasian race members. No there isn't genetic trace with modern Euroafricans and Euroarabs living in Europe.

Dominican tier post

an Euroarab detected.

Everybody can learn new languages and adopt them

Lol, wrong

They almost have as much CHG as do Balts and Scandinavians.

There are several serious scholars who believe that there are linguistic traces of the pre-Indo-Europeans left in various toponyms around Europe (especially the names of rivers etc - search Old European hydronymy). It's controversial, but the general consensus is that there are *probably* a few place-names with pre-IE etymologies, although not too many.

Pre-IE languages also almost certainly influenced the early IE languages, but obviously it's hard to untangle exactly how - probably impossible when you get as far back as "Old Europe." More recently, there were quite a few potential Etruscan loanwords in Latin (and consequently lots of other languages too) - there's even a wiki page, "List of English words of Etruscan origin" or something, although they leave out my favorite maybe-Etruscan word, "normal."

ITT: conjecture and guesswork

You mistake language arriving with people arriving. Hungarians aren't genetically related to Finns or Finno-Ugrics.

I don't know but the high presence of I2 is what many go by, I1 in Germanics, and those haplogroups are associated with the Paleolithic.

It's true that they don't have much admixture but the presence of it suggests the possibility. And the it isn't exactly relative to the Neolithic farmers who are commonly associated with the spread of haplogroup G.

This thread is explicitly a discussion of genetics.
Leave.

So just like every hiss thread then

Isn't the I haplogroup an pre Indo European haplogroup?

let's be clear, that hunter-gatherer is from Leon, Spain... caveman La Braña 1
so let me WE WUZ

Nice hiss