Are all Indo-European language speaking people descendant from one tribe?( a.k.a the Proto Indo-europeans). I think the most damning evidence for the is that the Greek, Sanskrit, and Roman words for a major god is virtually the same word meaning "Sky-father" despite India having no cultural links with europe.
What is known about these people and where is their homeland most likely ?
You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!
Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!
No. Proto-Indo-European was spoken by some real group of people who migrated into Europe and Asia and a lot of IE speakers are their descendants, but a great portion of modern Indo-Europeans are natives who switched their language to the one of these migrants. Cases in point: Sardinians and Iberians.
It's quite certain that all Indo-European cultures come from a root culture, it's a bit tautological to ask if the languages share a common ancestor.
As for the people, their languages and much of their ancient culture came from the Proto-Indo-Europeans, but the genetic contribution is debated. There's certainly a "Yamnaya" component to most of their genomes, but most of their ancestry comes from the neolithic inhabitants of their various regions. So for the most part, they are mostly descended from pre/non-Indo-Europeans.
Don't listen to this Líng shitter, he likes to attentionwhore in all the fun threads.
As for his assertion of a "root race," this is simply nonsense. The Yamnaya, his "Aryans," where not incredibly distinct from the populations around them, though because of genetic drift up into modern times their genome is different from that of modern people (as are the genomes of /all/ ancestral populations).
The Yamnaya culture are considered to be part of the so-called Andronovo Horizon, a broad cline of related cultures in the Eurasian steppe encompassing a very long period of time. So in fact there were social and cultural differences both between this ancestral culture and others, and within itself.
In fact, one of the leading hypotheses for the urheimat (the technical term for such a homeland) of the Proto-Indo-Europeans is that there was not one, and that they never existed as a single tribe – rather, as a linguistic and cultural continuum that changed and shifted within its own boundaries and periodically expanded and differentiated outward.
It's like trying to find someone's ancestral group – while many of them likely lived near each other, there would be exchange between different villages, different professions and family values, and there would never exist any one homogeneous set of ancestors for a given person. Branches of the family could split off and become their own entities, or feed back together after centuries.
Okay thats another likely point. but such a massive change in language must signify some sort of dominance? The Indo-Europeans must have had some cultural attributes which favored warfare and conquest. And conquest probably leads to some sort of genetic drift into the conquered population.
>lmao anon stop being weird and have some fun!!1 XD
Fuck the right off, idiot. People like you are cancer. As soon as a discussion even slightly veers into a deeper/more serious direction out come the glib morons like yourself complaining because they can't follow anymore or because they're so mentally narrow and dense that anything beyond their scope is too "weird" or "unhealthy" for them.
The right question is: What the fuck are YOU doing here in 4chan?
but in those days a common culture likely meant a common ancestor? no. If anything maybe it was something similar to the Aryans in India imposing the sanskrit language and religion whilst maintaining the brahmin caste as direct descendents of the Aryans
Also does anyone know anything about the Tocharian branch? Why did they go extinct and do they have any descendants?
That was essentially my point. There's a reason that you end up with hapologroups like R1a/b so widespread in these populations, despite lacking a major genetic contribution from a common "aryan" ancestor.
The Proto-Indo-European area and period would have roughly coincided with the domestication of the horse from wild tarpans, and the development of the spoked wheel (which enabled chariots). This was a massive development, and it's been argued that such an advantage is what lead to the sudden spread and dominance of Indo-European speakers over neighboring populations. Keep in mind, though, it would be the spread of semi-sedentary joint pastoral-agricularalist peoples from the steppe, and the people they were coming into contact with were often urban mass-agriculturalists, like with the Gumelnița–Karanovo culture in modern Bulgaria. When there was conquest, it would have been as a minority ruling caste, and based on archaeological evidence it seems that in Europe their associated material cultures spread more often by cultural diffusion rather than conquest.
It's important to keep in mind that these things did not happen all at once, nor where they consistent throughout the amorphous proto-Indo-European continuum. The earliest and most conservative branch of the family, the Anatolian languages, appear to have split off and established themselves before the proto-language settled on a singular word for the wheel, and that's caused a lot of debate about the significance of that innovation in the spread of Indo-European languages.
>wild tarpans, and the development of the spoked wheel (which enabled chariots)
Horses and Chariots seem to be the Indo-Europeans big thing.
Interesting to imagine what pre-indoeuropean" people in Europe were like
AFTER THEIR DISINTEGRATION, THE TOCHARIANS MERGED WITH THE INDIGENOUS TURANIAN POPULATIONS, THUS THEIR CURRENT DESCENDANTS ARE MOSTLY NONARYANID.
THE UIGHURS ARE THE PEOPLE CLOSEST TO THE TOCHARIANS THAT THERE REMAINS, OBVIOUSLY, THIS DOES NOT NECESSARILY ENTAIL THAT UIGHURS ARE SOCIOCULTURALLY, OR RACIALLY, ARYAN THOUGH.
Current scholarship places Tocharians as being an early differentiation from the other branches, likely sometime not long after the Anatolian branch separated (they likewise appear to have not shared the common wheel etymons). Archaeology suggests they came from the Afanasevo culture of South Siberia and the Altai mountains, which is thought to have been a derivation of the (presumably proto-Indo-European) Yamnaya culture.
There's actually evidence for three different Tocharian languages, unfortunately usually referred to as Tocharian A, B, and C (hopefully something like little-used Agnean, Kuchean, and Kroranian catch on).
"Tocharian" is actually a misnomer, in truth referring to an Indo-Iranian people. The speakers of Tocharian A are believed to have called themselves the "Arsi."
They survived long enough to enter into Chinese and Persian records, even adopting Buddhism and playing an instrumental role in spreading it to China. The Uyghurs took over in the 8th century, and before long the language fell out of common use. It finally died as the ritual language of Buddhism after the Karakhanid leader Yusuf Qadir Khan conquered Khotan in 1006 and converted the rest of the region to Islam.
The Tocharians did not live around the Aral Sea you nutter. They lived around the Taklamakan desert, in the Tarim Basin and Turpan Depression. Geographically speaking, those are very different areas from the Aral Sea, not even close.
Also the Tocharians were always, at least in part, "nonaryanid," as burials of the Gushi and Afanasevo cultures indicate that the inhabitants were mixed Eurasians. Calling the invading Uyghur Khanate indigenous is also wrong. I don't think it would be entirely incorrect, though, to characterize the ancient inhabitants of the Tarim basin as more caucasian than the present inhabitants. I would however like to point out once again that the proto-Indo-Europeans were likely never racially homogenous, at least not in the modern sense.
I also forgot to point out (not that it's particularly relevant, I just feel like being pedantic) that the Aral Sea did not begin to dry up until the Soviet government diverted the Amu and Syr Darya rivers for agriculture in the 1960s. That's hardly the Bronze Age.
I would also like to point out, for future posterity, that the Hanzi this tripfag uses for a name usually translates to "zero" or "absence." Quite fitting, I'd say.
The Aral Sea would have to be so deep that it submerged the entire Eurasian plain in order to flood the Tarim Basin. Look at a map. The basin sits at a very high altitude, between the Tien Shan mountains, the Altai mountains, and the fucking Tibetan plateau.
Look at a map.
Just look at a map and you'll have objective proof of how fucking wrong you are.
Stop making shit up.
Stop making shit up.
Please stop making shit up.
You have absolutely no fucking clue what you're talking about.
"But surely your evidence is inconclusive."
The Lost World page 60, Doyle
"The organs of taste"
On the Nature of Things page 117, Lucretius
"abandoning the destruction of life, he abstains"
The Path to Liberation
"One can express"
The Logic Manual page 102, Halbach
Answer these and find X >>600964
>The Aral Sea would have to be so deep that it submerged the entire Eurasian plain in order to flood the Tarim Basin. Look at a map. The basin sits at a very high altitude, between the Tien Shan mountains, the Altai mountains, and the fucking Tibetan plateau.
>Geography is immutable and has remained as it is now for millennia
plural noun: millennia
a period of a thousand years, especially when calculated from the traditional date of the birth of Christ.
the prophesied thousand-year reign of Christ at the end of the age (Rev. 20:1–5).
noun: the millennium
a utopian period of good government, great happiness, and prosperity.
noun: the millennium
an anniversary of a thousand years.
"the millennium of the Russian Orthodox Church"
ONE THOUSAND YEARS
>as it is now for millennia
When talking about a mountain range with 7500 meter peaks, yes, I think it's fair to say they haven't suddenly been willed into existence in by historical revisionists.
Do you think the Tian Shan mountains suddenly came into existence only in the past thousand or so years, after the Tocharians disappeared? The Altai mountains, too? Or maybe the Aral Sea mysteriously vanished and reappeared 500 miles away in the Eurasian plain, huh?
>Geography is magical and contorts extremely to fit my fantasy conception of history
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here – are you thinking of Lop Nur, and are just very confused? There used to be an endorheic salt lake that the Tarim River fed into, which shifted multiple times in history and at one point supported a Tocharian settlement.
It's hardly the Aral Sea, it in fact did not collapse Tocharian culture (even the city-state of Loulan continued to crop up in Chinese records, after the lake had shifted away from it), and it certainly was not during the bronze age, but maybe that's what you're thinking of.
I mean, you'd still be wrong, but at least you wouldn't be -that- wrong.
There were advanced cultures, almost civilisations (British Isles, Balkans), a lot of agricultural nations and a few Mesolithic remnants. Judging by what we have left from their languages, it was an ethnic clusterfuck, with loads of language families.
Wouldn't the obvious explanation be that your premise is false, and the idea that they all shared the same words is merely a result of the cross contamination occurring from the transmission of language through literature?
Back when they were purely oral languages they would have been different words.
>English in its original futhrorc alphabet.
English has been written in latin ever since it's been Anglo-Saxon.
Futhorc is derived from the Old Italic script which also fathered the Latin script.
Futhorc is highly defective and can't even depict half the phonemes of English.
Futhark comes from the Elder Futhark, a Germanic alphabet inspired by Latin. No fucking shit it doesn't work well for modern English, it was used for what English was some 1500 years ago.
Italic script turned into Latin and Elder Futhark. Elder Futhark turned into Anglo-Saxon Futhorc, and I don't see why assuming it survived in relevancy, it couldn't be written for modern English.
Due to the fact that you insist on typing your responses in all caps, I find it impossible to take you seriously. I hate this, because it seems like you just might have an argument, but I can't tell because reading your posts makes me want to retch.
Then again, I'm assuming you might have an argument because you wrote a lot, but that doesn't mean you really said anything of any merit...
No. African Americans aren't descended from PIE peoples, and indians are basically natives who adopted their conquerer's language.
White europeans very well could be more genetically similar to pre-indo european europeans.
wat. when did anyone say they were indo european
>indians are basically natives who adopted their conquerer's language
no they aren't. indians are a mix of indo europeans and the natives of the subcontinent with exact admixtures varying widely depending on where you go
>white europeans very well could be more genetically similar to pre-indo european europeans
not really. we actually have very little idea on what proto-IEs look liked but people from MENA are most likely the closest to them
wow, no, not at all.
In 2000 years, the descendents of black americans may very well still be speaking a germanic language. Would it be wise to assume, as a future anthropologist, that these future-blacks are relatives to the angles, saxons, and other north germans?
No, of course not.
In like fashion, we can't simply say something to the effect of "indians and the irish are related because they both speak indo-european languages".
>the Proto Indo-europeans
Can we just get back to calling them Aryans? I mean, that's who they were. The Aryans.
Hitler got it wrong about the Aryans and the Germanics being the same people, and he's been dead for a very long time, so can we please get back to the proper usage of the word?
But that's not true. Not only is there debate about the identity of the "Aryans" themselves (a caste, a tribe? did it imply culture, language, or descent? was the concept common to all Indo-Europeans, or only certain offshoots?), but the proto-Indo-Europeans were likely never a singular people, rather a cultural/dialectical continuum.
So really it's impossible to talk about Aryans as such, since there's really no solid definition of who they were. "Aryan" is not just a throw-all term for the original Indo-Europeans, since we now know that there were groups of ancestral Indo-European speakers who were not culturally contiguous with each other and in fact wouldn't have been Aryans in many senses of the word.
Not to mention that the word itself is less specific than "proto-Indo-European," and has many connotations from race (Vedic/Indo-Aryans, Iranians, and of course the nutty 'Nordic' Aryans), language (i.e. "Aryan language" can refer to PIE, Indo-Iranian, Indo-Aryan, Sanskrit or Old Persian), religion (Iranian, Indo-Aryan, or PIE), or culture (pick any of the above, really). When you talk about proto-Indo-Europeans, you know who you're referring to – the speakers of the earliest common IE ancestor language, along with their associated culture and religion. It's a term that refers to a clear concept, and is commonly used and understood as such. Aryan is far too vague and refers to too many contradictory things to be of any real use, and in its most basic definition doesn't actually refer to PIE speakers specifically. It was an autonym common to Indo-Iranian speakers, and that's the most concrete definition.
>In fact, one of the leading hypotheses for the urheimat (the technical term for such a homeland) of the Proto-Indo-Europeans is that there was not one, and that they never existed as a single tribe – rather, as a linguistic and cultural continuum that changed and shifted within its own boundaries and periodically expanded and differentiated outward.
According to who? I very much doubt this is a leading hypothesis since it ignores basic linguistic facts.
It did; into anglo saxon futhorc, which only lacks one or two phonemes we use in modern english.
AS Futhorc contains enough lexemes to represent every sound in english except for "hard J" (as in "Jesus", or the -dge in "Edge") and /ʒ/ (the "sion" in "fusion").
Hypothetically, you could render the hard "J" sound if you follow Anglo-saxon's writing conventions (i.e. the AS word brycġ, -cġ is pronounced "-dge" just like in modern english, and could easily be rendered in Futhorc with the runes Cen and Gyfu, which c and ġ transcribe in Latin).
>Futhorc is highly defective and can't even depict half the phonemes of English.
It's short one phoneme. Additionally, it doesn't really matter. Younger Futhark has vastly too few characters to depict old norse's vowel inventory properly, but those viking fucks did it anyway.
Medieval runes are even more difficient.
If anything, AS Futhorc matches it's parent language's sound inventory better than any of the germanic rune alphabets.
>I'd love to know know English in its original futhrorc alphabet.
It's not tremendously difficult, aside from the fact that it's actually phonetic. Trying to write in it "fluently" after using modern english orthography, you'll almost assuredly muck up distinguishing what vowel goes where...for a US native speaker, long-a/short-a distinction is pretty common as far as fuck ups go.
Indians certainly are within the indo-European family - well atleast with in varying degrees with North India more so than the dravidian south.
"Aryan" was simply a title meaning "noble" refered to be indo-Iranians. its hard to tell if it applied to European settling branches, despite Nazi propaganda
Not him but this theory was invented by Polako who runs the Eurogenes blog where he tries to promote a narrative where Poles are 80% PIE.
He's very unreliable when it comes to touchy subjects like non-Slavs having a significant amount of PIE ancestors and PIE not looking like himself.
>He's very unreliable when it comes to touchy subjects like non-Slavs having a significant amount of PIE ancestors and PIE not looking like himself.
Bullshit. He's never claimed anything of the kind. He's also far from being the originator of the idea of a steppe-Caucasus fusion.
R1b1a2 + R1a1a as far as Y-DNA goes.
No shit, this is where they originate from.
Before that, Atlantis.
>Would it be wise to assume, as a future anthropologist, that these future-blacks are relatives to the angles, saxons, and other north germans?
Well yes actually they would be, Linguistically. .
The speakers aren't necessarily 100% related since the language spread to already populated areas, but yes, there once was a single tribe which spoke a language called PIE, probably somewhere in the steppes of Ukraine.
>but the proto-Indo-Europeans were likely never a singular people, rather a cultural/dialectical continuum
Depends on how far back you go. Any dialect continuum necessitates an original, homogeneous dialect that later spreads, perhaps displacing other languages or even competing dialects or closely related languages.