Kurgan hypothesis+PIE+Yamuna+CWC=?

>>2606699
1)Not much
2)A little
3)No

Is this pseudo-science?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg79R5jopj8

File: Haplogroup_R_(Y-DNA).png (37KB, 828x426px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 828x426px

>>2606699
>How much do we know so far and what has been deprecated by newer information?
The only thing i know about PIE is that Yamnaya is seen as the PIE people and were mostly R1b-M269 with a bit of R1a

>And is it really true that N. Indians and Pakis, Punjabis, Pashtun etc. shared common roots with modern day Europeans?
Pic related

>Is that the reason facial and body structure of both are mostly similar?

Language was the first thing which led to the creation of the IE hypothesis, basically, some priest heard Sanskrit and found it to be similar to Latin which led to various compared-language studies and the creation of IE hypothesis

>>2608589
>The only thing i know about PIE is that Yamnaya is seen as the PIE people and were mostly R1b-M269 with a bit of R1a


We only have DNA from Eastern Yamnaya, not from Western Yamnaya, and Corded Ware was overwhelmingly R1a and autosomally pretty much same as Yamnaya and we know that preceding Dnieper-Donets culture also had R1a.

>>2606699
>what has been deprecated by newer information?
I would say the idea that R1* came from the near east, given the now multiple R1b and R1a from mesolithic Europe among WHGs and EHGs

>>2608833

There's an Iranian supremacist on /his/ who simply wont swallow this fact despite the fact that Latvian M269 HGs had not a single drop of Iranian DNA.

>>2606699
>How much do we know so far and what has been deprecated by newer information?

Indo-Europeans didn't enter Europe because Europe was their homeland and they were already part of a homogenized 'European' phenotype.

Proto-Aryans, a branch of the IEs, began their trek out of the Samara-bend / Ural homeland and entered the Indian sub-continent in much the same way that the Turks entered Anatolia or Arabs/Mongols entered India. They added an additional layer to the genetics and phenotype of the natives they absorbed, but were not numerous enough to change them too drastically.

>N. Indians and Pakis, Punjabis, Pashtun etc. shared common roots with modern day
no, thats an uneducated myth from blavatsky

> Is that the reason facial and body structure of both are mostly similar?
no
the Elamites were brown meds though, they just added a bit of a caucasoid look to the australoid indians. however indians are all australoid stock with varying mixture of elamite, arab, mongol etc..

its a similar story with somalians who are negroid stock with varying mixture of arabs, persians, indians

>>2608941

>were already part of a homogenized 'European' phenotype.

Eh, no. There were skeletal and pigment difference between the Yamna and the gracile Neolithic farmers. The two groups shared few common ancestors for tens of thousands of years. They were deeply unsimilar in every way.

Facts:
1. Indo-European is a valid language family, with a coalescence time circa 4000 BC.
1a. Anatolian (i.e. Hittite with its close relatives) is the most basal branch of Indo-European; there also appears to be a valid "Satem" subfamily (Balto-Slavic + Indo-Iranian) and some sort of Italo-Celto-Germanic subfamily.
2. In terms of autosomal DNA, prehistoric Europe changes a lot genetically around the 3000s BC, with ancient people suddenly looking much more related to the Yamna Kurgan and Corded Ware people at that time. Similar changes are apparent in various parts of Asia.
2a. Similar changes are found in Y-DNA, with R1b-M269 (the main Yamna grouping) becoming much more prevalent in western and southern Europe, advancing first with the Bell Beaker culture. Likewise, R1a-M17, which is predominant in the Corded Ware Culture, expands dramatically into Central Asia and adjacent areas from Iran to South Asia to East-Central Asia starting around 2000 BC.

Anyone who's willing to take the ideological blinders off can put the pieces together for themselves.

>>2608941
.
>>N. Indians and Pakis, Punjabis, Pashtun etc. shared common roots with modern day
>no, thats an uneducated myth from blavatsky

What do you say to the pic here
>>2608589

File: b412496ce87ec34a81a828071631e4de8f92018074fd2cc3ff53f292743c2a36.jpg (58KB, 845x403px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 845x403px

pic related

>>2609990
satem and centum aren't basal at all
tocharian put that unfounded hypothesis to rest

https://dx.doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2017.17

So basically, the Corded Ware practiced cuckolding of the local males and took tons of that sweet, sweet neolitisch pussy for themselves to spawn Slavo-Germanic people.

Not that Neolithic males were willing cucks, they had violent resistance to the invaders and murdered them whenever they could but it just wasn't fair since their cultures were so different.

>In the Indo-European past, the boys first moved into the category of the (armed) youths and then, as members of the warband of unmarried and landless young men, engaged in predatory wolf-like behaviour on the edges of ordinary society, living off hunting and raiding with their older trainers/models. Then about the age of twenty they entered into the tribe proper as adults (Petrosyan 2011: 345)

>>2612045
Neolithic central Europeans were literal cannibals I think

>>2612101

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herxheim_(archaeological_site)

>Whether for religious purpose or war, it is apparent from the 2009 study that the humans at the site of Herxheim were butchered and eaten.[1] Not only were cut marks found on locations of the skeleton that are made during the dismemberment and filleting process, bones were also crushed for the purposes of marrow extraction, and chewed. Besides the fresh-bone fractures present on many bones, "[processing] for marrow is also documented by the presence of scrape marks in the marrow cavity on two fragments."[1]


But to be fair, there's no proof they continued these practices until Corded Ware showed up as all of these known ritual sacrifice/cannibal sites are quite old.