D
Deleted member 45118
Equinox
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2023
- Posts
- 2,563
- Reputation
- 3,522
I never said that, quote the part where i didYou said curries didnt have aryan dna, i proved that they did lmao, and thats final.
I never said they were pure PIEsCurries are mixed lmfao you fucking retarded, of course they arent going to be genetically pure aryans, because genetically pure aryans stopped existing around 2,000-1,600 BC when the aryans started mixing with the dravidians. The same way that the genetically pure indo-europeans stoppped existing when they started mixing with Western European Hunter Gatherers to create european descended populations.
You dont even realized that modern day europeans and indians literally have the same admixture genesis lol. Europeans ARENT PURE indo-europeans either, since they have western european hunter gatherer dna in them.
Pure indo-europeans were half eastern hunter gatherer dna, and half caucasian hunter gatherer dna.
Modern Day Western Europeans: Western European Hunter Gatherer DNA + Neolithic Anatolian Farmer + Indo-European DNA
Modern Day South Asians: South Asian Hunter Gatherer DNA + Neolithic Iranian Farmer + Indo-European DNA.
Neither Europeans nor South Asians are Pure indo-europeans lol.
Your problem is that you dont know what you're talking about. Indians never mixed with PIEs. And Indo-Iranians were not pure PIEs, rather bronze age europeans with the expected farmer and WHG admix you'd see in european cultures from the time:
Do you know any non european groups with steppe + WHG + anatolian farmer?
Your map doesnt extend to central asia nigga, there are only 12 samples out of 300+ that were found right where europe ends.Europe is a modern geographical term that was created in modern times, the term was not created back in 3300 BC. If you are talking about the landmass that the indo-europeans are from you retard, than actually you are wrong.
The indo-europeans came from a region thats called the pontic caspian steppe that ranges from what is now eastern europe, all the way to CENTRAL ASIA. So im guessing by your own logic, the indo-europeans are central asian as well hmm? Because central asia existed back then "muh geographically" as well?
Sorted by longitude, these are the easternmost yamnaya individuals:
And theyre right on the border.
Regardless that's irrelevant since 99% of them were in europe and they originated in ukraine, europe, from european people mixing:
"That the Core Yamnaya are part of the Dnipro cline may suggest an origin in the Dnipro basin itself, but (a) the Dnipro cline is generated by admixture with Dnipro-Don people (UNHG/GK2-related), and (b) the Yamnaya on the Don are also part of this cline, so an alternative origin in the Don area cannot be excluded. An origin of the Core Yamnaya further east, in the Caucasus-Volga region is unlikely given that they are not part of the Volga or CLV Clines."
The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans
The Yamnaya archaeological complex appeared around 3300BCE across the steppes north of the Black and Caspian Seas, and by 3000BCE reached its maximal extent from Hungary in the west to Kazakhstan in the east. To localize the ancestral and geographical origins of the Yamnaya among the diverse...
www.biorxiv.org
No... it didnt.1.) Yes you keep ascribing a term on to a people who existed before the term even was made up, and whats funnier is that by even your own logic YOUR STILL WRONG LMFAO, since the indo-europeans homeland expanded all the way into Central Asia as well. So by your own logic Indo-Europeans are Central Asian too lmao.
No you're not, because my logic includes geographic similarity and encompasses all individuals, and its impossible to call WHGs french or german when they were in no way restrained in these areas. And germany/france are nation states, not a mere geographic region. What we call germany and france didnt exist back then(the nation states), while europe did (the geographical region)Thats not the point retard, im literally using your own logic by saying that western european hunter gatherers are "germanic" and "gaullic" just because they existed in what is now MODERN DAY Germany and France. It makes no sense.
You think i'd disagree with that? Yes i would call them part iranian, in the neolithic.Do you know that there is also something called "neolithic iranian farmers" to represent the the ancient farmer populations of the iranian plateau. Only thing is that these people existed before the term "Iran" or "Iranian" existed. You're a literal retard if you dont understand the point of calling ancient ancestral populations after the geography that they use to inhabit. Neolthic Iranian farmer ancestry is also in iraqis and levantine people as well, so i guess by your own logic iraqis and levantines are iranian then.... even though they are literally arabs
Sintashta was the earliest group to speak indo iranian, plus it doesnt matter, theyre genetically almost identical to andronovoLmao idiot why are you talking about the Sintashta when the indo-iranian peoples were created in the andronovo culture, NOT THE Sintashta culture?
Sintashta culture - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org