[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/his/ - History & Humanities


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




File: 1661796218346750.jpg (314 KB, 569x2521)
314 KB
314 KB JPG
Who are the Indo Europeans? Are they the yamnaya? Steppe people? Who are the indo Europeans everyone keeps going on about?
>>
>>13986233
IE was initially a linguistic term, then it was linked to the Yamnaya cultural horizon and WSH ancestry aka "steppe dna" (half EHG half CHG)

Right now there's active debate going on, things will be settled in maybe 10 years I guess
If you read "IE" only they're referring to people with >60% steppe dna
>>
File: FYcsKtQXkAAF1v5.png (21 KB, 600x390)
21 KB
21 KB PNG
>>13986257
So the Mycenean Greeks (Homeric heroes) would not count as Indo European? What would be the definition of Indo European culture?
>>
>>13986233
>Who are the Indo Europeans?
A people from the Southern Caucasus region.
>>
>>13986233
Whatever is ancestral to the last tribe riding in the pontic steppel
>>
>>13986263
>So the Mycenean Greeks (Homeric heroes) would not count as Indo European?
No, since IE is currently mostly referring to biology rather than non-biological language
>What would be the definition of Indo European culture?
Nomadic pastoralism and some cultural stuff unique to the early bronze steppe
Also IE religion, commonly found in the nordic bronze (although not all of it is IE)
>>
>>13986287
nordic bronze age*
>>
>>13986263
They would count as speakers of a language of the Indo-European family with a culture partially common with other speakers of Indo-European languages and some steppe-ancestry.
>>
>>13986268
Even in the paper they call them Indo Anatolians.
>>
>>13986263
>So the Mycenean Greeks (Homeric heroes) would not count as Indo European?
correct
>>
>>13986263
myceneans don't count as indo european, more like indo european speakers
>>
>>13986301
>with a culture partially common with other speakers of Indo-European languages
Really depends on geography tbqh, not everyone speaking IE had a culture like phrygians

>>13986356
This is the correct answer
>>
>>13986257
It was more like 70% EHG+30% CHG
>>
>>13986401
Nah, those were the pre-yamnaya steppe populations who were more to the hunter-fisher side instead of nomadic pastoralist
>>
>>13986263
nope they aren't indo europeans, and the fact that they were gay cucks is all the proof you need
>>
>>13986401
Both SS and Yamnaya had nearly identical %s of CHG and EHG
>>
>>13986422
Yes they were Indo Europeans because they spoke about Indo European language.
>>
>>13986431
Sredni stog was 50% ehg and 50% with two waves of chg migrations and the second one around 4100bce? Interesting
>>
>>13986442
they were indo european speakers and had a bit of indo european admixture like modern african americans
>>
>>13986449
Holy shit I forgot about this lol
African americans are about 25% anglo-german settler and thus 12,5% steppe
Average steppe on mycenaeans (with the new samples added) is around 8-10% kek
>>
>>13986470
yes, those greek homos had nothing to do with the warrior culture of indo europeans inherited by the northern europeans
>>
>>13986447
If the second CHG wave happened as posited by Lazaridis, then it either happened before Sredni Stog ~4200BC (and realistically by at least a few hundred years) or it was so minuscule that it barely changed their genetic profile.
Because Sredni 4200 BC already has enough ANF/PPN.
>>
>>13986287
>IE is currently mostly referring to biology rather than non-biological language

haha no it's both
you can't separate those common elements of world culture from the concept, it's fundamental to the very model
>>
>>13986484
>warrior culture
must be why Romans describe germonkeys as only raiding and then retreating disorderly
>>
>>13986510
Chintalapati 2022 dates it 4400-4000
Arc paper didn't mention sredni possibly because they aren't released yet. If anything they'll use them as proofs
>>
>>13986557
>haha no it's both
In online discussion yes
>you can't separate those common elements of world culture from the concept, it's fundamental to the very model
It's not me but the genetic studies. They aren't calling anyone IE
IE is used as an ethnonym only unofficially (for now), except in linguistic circles where it refers to language. Archeologists also used it as a culture regardless of language or biology
>>
>>13986571
raiding is part of warrior culture, thanks for proving my point
>>
>>13986579
Yes although DATES is useful for finding when the final admixture product appears, but less so for determining specific admixtures.
For example it can't distinguish is there was already high enough CHG well-before, and 4000-4400BC represents the introduction of ANF, from the reverse ordering.
>In the case of unequal admixture proportions from three ancestral groups, DATES inferred the timing of the recent admixture event in most cases. In some cases, however, the inferred dates were intermediate to the two pulses when the ancestry proportion of the recent event was low
>>
File: 1661813785872615.jpg (172 KB, 607x608)
172 KB
172 KB JPG
>>13986470
>the average American negro has more Steppe admixture then Mycenean Greeks
Top kek, it's over for nordcels
>>
>>13986599
>setting traps like a literal nigger and then retreating is warrior culture
More like zulu culture

>>13986616
Iirc their reasoning is that the levant/anatolia/chg mix doesn't exist in the neolithic so it had to be recent, and some eneolithic steppe samples like khvalynsk already have some chg but not an/ppn
>>
>>13986645
Their strongest point is more so that they don't think there is detectable WHG in Yamnaya using their distal modelling, so it is less likely the ANF/PPN came from EEF as opposed to the caucuses.
I think it's a fair line of inquiry but we also don't have early Tripolye samples (presumably somewhat less WHG than late CT) nor the proximate EHG source (EHG is majority WHG-like, minority ANE).
So it seems pretty easy to imagine that a small amount of WHG can be accounted for.
>>
>>13986645
>More like zulu culture
keep coping with your ancient homosexual "civilizations" (in quotations cause your average civilized greek lived worse than an congolese)
raiding is part of warrior culture, taking it up in the ass like your average ancient greek isn't
>>
>>13986683
I think they used distal as a way to double check where the anatolian comes from
Using eef in proximal models might work but anatolia neolithic/whg/chg/ehg used in wang 2019 (reference n19 in the arc paper) fails with p<1x10^-10
>>
>>13986257
>initially a linguistic term
No you retards, it IS a linguistic term. Info-European is a language family encompassing Greek, Armenian, Tocharian, Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic, Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Anatolian, and other branches that have insufficient or nonexistent documentation

Proto-Indo-European was a language spoken on the Pontic steppe five to six thousand years ago. It’s remarkable for having only two currently reconstructed vowel sounds, *e and *o, As in *hwekwos “horse”, and 4 different reconstructed *h sounds. Their word for “king” was something like *reghs, hence “rex, reich, raja”

Looking at PIE word reconstructions, as well as cultural comparisons, lead us to some tentative cultural reconstructions, such as a wolf-warrior cult and a sky god who threw down lightning bolts. Also they may have fucked horses on occasion, or practiced Sati (widow burning). They were weird dudes.

Because of IE languages’ profound influence on history, everyone wewuzzes as PIE speakers. This leads to haploautistic shitflinging that has nothing to do with historical linguistics

Sadly I know little about PIE myself
>>
>>13986766
>reich
Based
>>
>>13986766
>Looking at PIE word reconstructions, as well as cultural comparisons
For some reason I've seen people mostly focusing on the words instead of the actual use of the word.
Many of the cultural stuff are mistaken on basis of assuming that an IE speaking culture is also de facto IE culturally, so you might find a similarity between Iranians, Greeks, Romans, and then assume this was in the steppe too when it isn't found in cultures who were closer to the steppe like nordic bronze age or scythians
There are a lot of logical fallacies and confirmation bias involved, in favor of weaving a cool story. I'm not saying most things about IE are wrong although they could be, but that a lot of stuff will get rewritten over the next few decades

>Because of IE languages’ profound influence on history, everyone wewuzzes as PIE speakers
The ironic thing is that languages have little to do with the actual culture. Many see it as prestigious when it isn't kek
>>
>>13986823
>There are a lot of logical fallacies and confirmation bias involved, in favor of weaving a cool story
IEcels are the neo-globohomo vikingcels
>>
>>13986414
Yamnaya Samara is 70% EHG



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.