Serious queston: How come I see so many people use the word "aryan"

Good question. I want to know this too.

>>138777207
Yeah. I dunno. I'm waiting for some kind person to answer.

>>138777207
Me too.

There was a time were the Corded Ware culture horizon was though to be the home of the Indo-Europeans before their expansion, therefore "Aryan" i.e the name of those invaders in the case of India, sort of became a synonym with the Nords who were thought to be the root.

Nowadays Aryan is in disuse among academics but basically the equivalent PC term would be proto-Indo-Iranian peoples, probably of the Andronovo culture and somewhat still linked to CW culture.

File: 15P.png (1MB, 960x534px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 960x534px

>>138776301
''Arian'' in the oldest european language (Albanian) means ''the gold people''

>>138777680
But that would mean that the poles are the aryan people, look at them. They have the most R1a.

File: 781870621.jpg (494KB, 1024x732px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 1024x732px

>>138777680
>Indo-Europeans

There's not such thing. But proto-european.

>>138778167
well yeah in terms of Y-DNA Poles are very much "Aryan" since R1a was the dominant lineage of both CW culture but also all those late steppe cultures who brought IE culture and language in India and Persia, although in terms of autosomal DNA, the people most closely related to CW people would be Scandinavians or north-east Europeans

>>138778410
(You)

File: 1503116617446.jpg (73KB, 564x724px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 564x724px

>R1a
AR1an

>>138778461
>although in terms of autosomal DNA, the people most closely related to CW people would be Scandinavians or north-east Europeans
What's the difference? And what feutures is it? It is the blonde blue eyed stuff that is our "aryan" feutures

There have been some REALLY important studies on aDNA (ancient, not autosomal) in relation to the Indo-European urheimat over the past two years. Check out Eurogenes on blogspot for good summaries.

>>138779270
Y-DNA haplogroups are mutations on the Y chromosome which, by their nature, are not recombined and thus are passed from father to son
they are thus useful to determine descent on the paternal line but by construction don't take into account all of your other ancestors who contributed to your overall ancestry, both the females but also the males not directly on the paternal line

autosomal DNA is simply the rest of your DNA in your 22 pairs of non-sexual chromosomes, the recombining one that makes up the vast majority of what you are

it's just your overall "composition" so to speak, things like blondism or blue eyes are regulated by a much smaller amount of mutations

indeed, the sort of "steppe" ancestors that made the vast majority of CW people's DNA seem to have been lactose intolerant and not particularly blonde or blue eyed, while the "aboriginal" north European peoples before CW culture was a thing had blondism and blue eyes already, so that phenotype is likely a product of your mesolithic ancestors and natural selection rather than those newest invaders

>>138776301
>How come I see so many people use the word "aryan" when they talk about nordics or "pure whites" or whatever it may refer to?

Mostly, they have no idea what they are talking about. While different people can clearly be categorized, there is no such thing as a "pure genome" or a discreet, uniform, White race (or any race for that matter. Note however, that this is NOT the same as saying "race doesn't exist"). All populations are composites of earlier populations, and tend to blend into one another rather than forming clear demarcations.

As for a definition of "Aryan," that can vary. One definition refers to the proto-Indo-European people who spoke the language which eventually split into all the modern Indo-European languages today. They would have inhabited the region between the Volga and Dnieper rivers prior to about 3,000 BC, and were themselves a combination of pastoralists from the Caucasus, and two populations of hunter-gatherers: eastern Cro-Magnons, and ancient north Eurasians. Genetic studies describe them as being relatively tall, of lightly tanned complexion, and brunette haired. Incidentally they were also the first population to domesticate horses, which was instrumental in their expansion. The term "Aryan" fell out of use after WW2, and now "Yamnaya" is a more popular term.

continued...

>>138776301
>>138780438


However, just because a modern people speak an Indo-European language, does not mean that they are wholly, primarily, or even significantly descended from Yamnaya people, and just because a modern people do NOT speak an I-E language does not mean that they cannot be significantly of Yamnaya ancestry. In short, language and genetics have only a weak correlation.

Another, more specific definition, has "Aryan" referring only to an branch of Yamnaya people who migrated eastwards into Central Asia from their Pontic-Caspian Steppe homeland, and then southwards into what is now Iran and the Subcontinent. It is from these people that most of the modern languages of Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and India derive.

Also, Haplogroups have very little do do with actual genotypic makeup. They are a measure of ANCIENT paternal lineages, not genetic similarity.

>>138776301
It's a cool word t.b.h

>>138780288
Oh, am I understanding you correctly, you're saying the hunter gatherers in scandinavia had blue eyes blonde hair too?

>>138777680

The Corded-Ware culture is only one branch of the earlier Aryan/Yamnaya people. They were colonists, not the originators.

>>138780798
some of them already did, yes, as well as both caucasoid light skin mutations, it wasn't as widespread as today already but one can see how they were on their way towards being selected
IIRC some of the Motala ones from Sweden but maybe some other ones

>>138781003
What is the consensus on how blue eyes blonde hair developed anyway? I mean, where and when from where etc.

>>138780956
well yeah, that's why I said 'was'
but indeed as for the proto-Indo-Iranians, some have suggested that rather than being a movement from Yamnaya culture, it might have been an eastward back migration of CW people

>>138776301
If you look at how ugly some breeds are (Irish - weak, small and ugly) then you can clearly tell what that doesn't mean. It's not Inbreeding white trash.

>>138780288
West Eurasian mesolithic hunter gatherer samples like Loschbour have markers for blue eyes, but also for dark brown skin and dark hair. Corded Ware and related steppe cultures like Yamnaya have shown a propensity for dark eyes, but light skin.

>>138780798

Blue eyes existed among basically all mid-late paleolithic Cro-Magnons, who were mostly assimilated into the much larger population of neolithic farmer immigrants. Blond hair was a separate, later mutation which occurred among hunter-gatherers somewhere along the Baltic Sea. (north-eastern Cro-Magnons, basically).

>>138781333
I would say it seems quite clear now that they originated among some tight group of paleolithic Europeans who recolonized the continent after the last ice age. Oldest confirmed sample is a forager from mesolithic Italy, 14k years ago, but basically nearly all western contemporary ones had it as well.

Eastern ones on the other hand seem to have been "ahead" in terms of skin pigmentation(oldest confirmed reasonably considerable white skinned European is a forager from mesolithic Ukraine, who had brown eyes and brown hair though).

Recently they uncovered some of these foragers from the Balkans and those were a mixed bag, sort of inbetween in pigmentation.

Slavs are more white than westerners , kek
S I much for the poltard memes

R1a and I2 are pure white

>>138781744
>mid-late paleolithic
How long since do you mean? Like 30k ?

>>138782186

There is no such thing as a "Slavic Race," and haplogroups are irrelevant as far as genetic makeup is concerned.

>>138782277

Well, terms like "paleolithic" or "Bronze Age" or whatever are relative because social/technological development didn't occur evenly across the globe. There are still a few paleolithic people existing today.

But yeah, the earliest Cro-Magnon fossils date to about 50,000 BC. The neolithic expansion of people out from the Levant/Anatolia happens around 8,000 BC, but their settlement doesn't occur evenly. So like, in the southern Balkans, there were no more Cro-Magnons by about 8,000 BC, as they had all been assimilated/killed/driven out. But in some place like southern Norway, where farming is far more difficult, Cro-Mags probably held out until maybe 3,000 BC or later.

>>138783493
>Cro-Magnons
Isn't cro-magnons us?

File: Callanish-Standing-Stones.jpg (52KB, 655x350px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 655x350px

>>138776301
Here's an interesting article about British and Irish ancestry:
It's well reseached.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/mythsofbritishancestry

And another article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11483608/The-secret-history-of-Britain-is-written-in-our-genes.html

I'm half English/French (dual citizen/language). Dad was French (God rest his soul). Mum is Northern English.
My wife is from the East Highlands of Scotland. We live in Northern England. My granddad was from Ireland.

My genetics is probably a West European (North West Atlantic) mix of all sorts of peoples; Celt, Viking, Anglo, Gaul, original Briton. Who the fuck knows?

I was thinking as having one of those 23&me things that I see people post here. But it's about £150 or something. The word "aryan", to me refers to the Indo Europeans. Not some mythical 'white race'.

I'm tall and skinny, black hair, green eyes, with skin that changes quickly with the Sun's rays.
Swathy in Summer, pale in Winter.

Also we have loads of pic.related in the Britain and Ireland. A higher density than in other places.
Bosnian pyramids, Scandinavian and Anglo Saxon runestones, Pictish stone carvings, Lascaux caves, and so on.

the historical Aryan was a black incest town/towns some where in today's Iran and irak,

the aryan part is "pure blood" and meaning they did not mix whit others outside clan/town whit ended up in incest..


the white "aryan" Hitler dreams about would be the fact that German,Slav,Hungarian,Bulgarian and Turk all wrote in runes some 1000 years ago. they all came more or less from the same place,land mass between black sea and caspian sea.


there had to be a "Nordic" civilization parallel to Mesopotamia and the ancient times

File: 1498930328509.jpg (17KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 400x400px

>>138776301
''purity spiral'': the thread

>>138776301
Aryan stemming from "Herjoz" Indo-European for "people". It meant Noble after words because the Indo-Europeans as a people became a Noble Class.
Aryan doesn't mean Nordic. The original Indo-Europeans were dark haired dark eyed peoples who carried the gene for blond hair. Blue eyes had already become dominant in Northern Europe and was extinct in it's evolutionary homeland (The Ukraine).
The Nordic peoples are the least Aryan because they are the least Indo-European (at least in regards to Haplogroups)
Haplogroup R is the Indo-European haplogroup with R1b being the first wave of Steppe peoples and R1a being the second wave of Steppe peoples.

>>138784553
Then what are nordics?

>>138780798
they only had blue eyes, this was the case across Europe, not just Scandinavia. Blond hair was a mutation carried by the first Indo-Europeans or proto-Indo-Europeans that manged to overtake the WHG hair phenotype.
>>138781003
Light skin was from the Caucasians.

>>138783925
>Celt, Viking, Anglo, Gaul, original Briton
These are all the same people, the only differences are phenotypical and phenotypes can change from things as simple as the weather. For instance in America someone did a study his name escapes me but basically the children of certain phenotype did not become that phenotype due to weather conditions.
>black hair
nigg
>>138784391
>there had to be a "Nordic" civilization parallel to Mesopotamia and the ancient times
WE

File: Fu_etal_samples_PCA.png (112KB, 1218x786px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1218x786px

>>138783857
cromag can have different meanings, sometimes it refers to a certain skull morphology typical of paleo Europeans, some others as a people, but in general it has to do with the Europeans who descended from the first reported colonizers of Europe from ~50k years ago(in fact, it seems Kostenski14 from about 36k years ago was the first of the modern sapiens who started to resemble Europeans)

the invasion of farmers from anatolia first and highly siberian related "aryans" later wiped out this race in its pure form(a recent paper on mesolithic Scandinavia claimed 17% of genetic variation present in scandinavian hunter gatherers has been completely lost), although the mesolithic ones left an important albeit not major input
pic should give you a sort of idea of how they completely fall outside modern European variation(Villabruna cluster)

>>138784868
it was in strictly mesolithic Ukranian foragers right about the same period as the CHGs without any of the latter's input, so it's highly unlikely, especially since the Ukranian one actually possessed both light skin mutation while Kotias/Satsurbia only carried one
in likelihood the mutation strongly predates both and was sort of around among west Eurasian foragers until it started getting selected for

>>138784735
>Then what are nordics?
Europeans. They are the same as any other native pre-invasion Europeans, suffice to say they are descended from WHG. Skeletons with that DNA are found all across Europe. But it just so happens that in regards to Haplogroups the Indo-Europeans in Scandinavia were out bred by the natives. Probably due to the region being mountainous so literal conquest by mixing more of Indo-Europeans with Nordics over time would have been difficult if not impossible.

https://youtu.be/jALT8BAFCdY

he does share a lot if opinions that /pol/ as a whole would not like, but it does answer the question pretty well.

File: eternal magyar.jpg (145KB, 595x680px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 595x680px

>>138776301
idk but Im sure as hell not one

>>138785418
>WHG
???

Maybe I'm stupid but are you saying that scandinavians aren't very much related to the indo europeans?

>>138784735
>Then what are nordics?
A better answer might be the Finns. They are the purest of the European groups in the sense that they are now a compound rather than mix. For instance the Swedes are part WHG and part Indo-European. The Finns have been breeding those two with each other and in such high concentrations (close group breeding) that Finnish DNA is "Finnish" it can not be adequately broken down into Indo-European/Western Hunter Gatherer, at least not as easily as a Swede, German, or Spaniard.

>>138783857
>Isn't cro-magnons us?

No. Cro-Magnons are the hunter-gatherer people who existed in much of western eurasia prior to agriculture. There are no people alive today who approximate Cro-Magnons (who were themselves not a uniform population, more like a genetic spectrum or people with a common origin), although some peoples today have higher amounts of Cro-Magnon ancestry than others. Finns have the highest, at around 35-40% or so, with Balts and Scandos close behind.

Off the top of my head, I'd estimate your ancestry as a Norwegian is about:

45% Yamnaya - (themselves a 50-50 combo of Caucasian pastoralists and "Russian" taiga hunter-gatherers)

22% Mediterranean Neolithic - (first farming people from the western half of the fertile crescent)

25% Cro-Magnon

5% Caucasian (slightly different, and more recent than the component found among Yamnaya)

2% Siberian

1% Other (Arabian, South Asian, Northwest African)

Don't consider these figures as factual, it's a rough guess. Also, keep in mind that each one of these groups are themselves composites of earlier ancestries, and that they can each be subdivided into further categories.

>>138785766
No. You are very much related to them. But your DNA can still be identified between the two groups. You aren't totally WHG or totally Indo-European, though you are like most Europeans majority Indo-European. It's one of the WHG haplogroups (I1) which is numerous in Scandinavia.

>>138786047
interestingly though not a single I1 has been found yet among Scandinavian hunter gatherers, and now there's quite a lot of them
nearly all of them were I or I2

I1 was hiding somewhere

>>138785897
>>138786047
Where do you get all this info from? I want to learn about this too.

>>138785766
>WHG
>???

"WHG" means "Western-Hunter-Gatherer." Basically interchangeable with Cro-Magnon.

>>138785897
What do you think the rest of Europe is? Do you think Sweden would be similar to Norway despite the Haplogroup difference? What about England? Also say France, Germany, and Spain. Wouldn't they have higher Med Neolithic and Yamnaya while having less Cro-Magnon?

>>138786334
https://www.youtube.com/user/ThomasRowsell
This guy has a ton of videos on European origins.
>>138786199
Where did I2 and I come from specifically? Where do you think I1 came from?

>>138776301
Y dna is a very small portion of the dna. You can have an non dominant haplogroup from the oustide of europe and be almost 100% european by autosomal recombo dna.

What's the posibility of having the I1 haplogroup if your surname comes from Norse settlers to Britain?

Should I take one of those ancestry.com dna thingys? What will they tell me exactly?

File: Laténium-crâne-bichon.jpg (711KB, 2343x2362px) Image search: [Google]

711KB, 2343x2362px

>>138786515
I is the oldest and pretty much core paleoEuropean lineage, oldest confirmed one was a paleolithic sample from Italy, 35k years ago
I2 also seems to have popped up quite early, oldest one is pic related, a hunter gatherer from Switzerland, 14k years ago

then, I2 basically pops up all over Europe in general, among Scandinavian foragers, Luxembourg, Hungary, Latvia, Balkans and I think also Ukraine

I1 on the other hand is completely absent from the record until, IIRC, the neolithic of central Europe, among the typical early European farmer(LBK culture)

File: cro-magnon.jpg (217KB, 600x381px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 600x381px

>>138786334
>Where do you get all this info from? I want to learn about this too.

You can do searches for "neolithic," "bronze-age," "cro-magnon," etc.

Here's one video, I just looked it up, so I can't vouch for its quality, but maybe it's a good starting point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTY9K1Q_Sbg

also, Protip: Disregard 23&me, /pol/, or any clearly racialist or politicized sources.

>>138787085
Probably that you are Scandinavian with a small percentage of "other".
not very useful.
If you were born in Norway there's no point in taking a DNA test.
They break it down by recent groups. So approx. 2,000 years ago might be the oldest, and Scandinavians have been Scandinavians for longer than that.

>>138787399
I know my family go back for many many hundred years, living in Norway (because a family member is autistic about family trees, did one for me and my siblings)
Does that mean it's useless for me?

>>138787392
Thanks.

File: 3-way-chart.png (185KB, 747x1024px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 747x1024px

>>138786353

Swedes and Norwegians are almost the same. Haplogroups don't matter. Norwegians are a little closer to Brits and Dutch, Swedes more Eastern. And yep, Germans, English, French and Spaniards all have more Med. Neolithic than Scandos. (and more than each other in ascending order)

Pic related should give you an idea, though don't treat it as the whole story. Certain groups can be "hidden" in others, and this 3-component chart can be misleading by either omitting or disguising other groups.

>>138787691
>Does that mean it's useless for me?
yes.
Don't pay 100 bucks for a test that says "Surprise surprise, you're from Norway."
It's an American phenomena, it shouldn't be popular in Europe. Only Americans/Canadians really get anything out of them.
I guess you could do the 23 and me to find your Haplogroup but that's still a ton of money to find your Haplogroup which is Either R1b or I1. is it worth knowning? I1 you're native Northern European, R1b you're also native Northern European, but you have a great great.... great great grandfather who was from Northern Eurasia.
Which you probably have anyway but it would be interesting to see if you have an unbroken chain from Scandinavia or from Northern Eurasia.
Rest assured you definitely have both on your mothers side though.

>>138788317
Who are the early neolithics?

>>138776301
The word "Aryan" is a remnant of 19th century erroneous understanding of history and languages. Some Iranian peoples are the only ones who called themselves "Aryan," and the word is only known from Indo-Iranian languages where it means "noble" and from Finnic languages where it means "slave." Therefore European people calling themselves "Aryan" makes less sense than the Swedes calling themselves "Roman."

>>138788317
To be fair Sweden and Norway should be classified as middle eastern.

>>138788317
>Iceland is lower than Norway
Aren't Icelanders descended from "pure" (pre-mixed viking age) Norwegians?

File: otzi.jpg (852KB, 1533x2048px) Image search: [Google]

852KB, 1533x2048px

>>138788622
peoples who brought farming to Europe from Anatolia
due to their more affluent lifestyle, they basically nearly completely absorbed the much less numerous hunter gatherers in nearly all of Europe except the Baltics and nearby areas

>>138788622
Anatolian "steppe" read :Plateau farmers.
No, they are not related to Turks or Arabs. Maybe Turks, but actual Turks. From the Steppes, not the """"Turks"""" living in Turkey who are genetically closer to Levantines.

>>138776301
Green is aryan in that pic

>>138789145
Who are these real turks then? I mean, do they exist somewhere? What do they look like.

>>138788951
also, unlike with the aryans though, their invasion seem to have been rather peaceful, they probably included the hunter gatherers with them, which is probably the main reason why, despite them being nearly all of Y-DNA G2a, paleo European Y-DNA I2a still enjoyed quite the success to the point of actually taking the lead in many later cultures

Sardinia is an example of this, they are still very much similar to those early farmers, yet, especially in the most achaic areas of the island, I2a dominates and G2a is a minority, even less than R1b

File: 20170731_135518.jpg (2MB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1536px

>>138776301
slav=new aryan?

you just fall in to divide&conquer taktik. my friend. we are here forever. and life is good.

>>138788622

The first farming people from the western half of the fertile crescent. Modern Syria, Lebanon, Turkey. Their closest relatives are modern Sardinians.

The eastern Fertile Crescent (now Iraq, Western Iran) was populated by people who most closely resemble modern people from Eastern Iran, and western Afghanistan and Pakistan.

>>138788946

>Aren't Icelanders descended from "pure" (pre-mixed viking age) Norwegians?

No. About half the maternal ancestry of Icelanders comes from Britain and Ireland, making them about 25% British/Irish.

>>138789315

By "Real Turks," I presume anon is talking about central Asians, which isn't true regarding the Neolithic farmers under discussion.

File: Screenshot_21.png (160KB, 1892x825px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1892x825px

>>138776301
l1 reporting in

>>138791781

>muh haplogroups

File: received_1502479393145737.jpg (21KB, 628x628px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 628x628px

>>138789635
>>138789635
>>138789635